So, I went to visit my mom at the nursing home this afternoon, and, in order to escape the crowded little closet they call a room for two, I wheeled her across the hall to the lounge. As near as I can tell, the only thing worse than being in a nursing home is having to visit one on a regular basis. Actually, my boredom while visiting brings on a heightened sense of awareness of the goings on around me. I'm getting quite friendly with some of the inmates, although I have to renew their friendship each time I come by. Just today, I met a man wheeling his guitar down the hall in his wheelchair. I asked if I could play it, and when I strummed a chord, I realized that not only was it out of tune, it was missing one string, and the other strings were not in the right order. I told him I would bring him some new strings the next time I visit, and I'm looking forward to finally playing in front of people who can appreciate my talent.
I expect that the home will provide a lot of fodder for my sick sense of humor, so I will keep you, my dear reader, posted as anecdotes present themselves. Back to the lounge. There are only two distractions in the lounge. One is that it is the direct pathway from the hall to the interior courtyard where the inmates go to wheeze and smoke. Often they will stop in front of the fake fireplace under the TV to warm themselves after their latest disappointing attempt at suicide by cigarette. I'm pretty sure the fireplace does not put out any actual heat, but it looks warm. The other distraction is the TV itself, which is a nice big flat screen with a remote that both does not have batteries, and is not a TV remote. I figured this out almost right away. Since 95% of the inmates are wheel chair bound, and the TV is mounted on the wall, it tends to be tuned to the same station almost all of the time. I'll give you two guesses as to the station, and a hint. It is not tuned to MSNBC.
Now, to paraphrase the "most interesting man in the world" I don't always watch TV, but when I do, it is not Fox News. But, when in Rome.... First up is Sheppard Smith, a man surrounded by the latest high tech video equipment who I suspect is not smart enough to dial out on a land line. But enough about him. I'm not sure who the next host was, although it might have been Neil Cavuto, at least according to the program guide I've consulted in researching this piece of petty journalism.
Once again, I have rambled around to the point I am trying to make, and I hope that my smarter readers will catch the ironic Segue from nursing home to Fox News. Neil is outraged about the poor treatment by the liberal media of Governor Christie concerning his involvement in a mere traffic jamb, while that same media have given a pass to Hilary Clinton on the Benghazi attack. One has about as much to do with the other as landing men on the moon is related to Obama care.
Benghazi was a tragedy that might have been avoided if our attention had been focused there, much like the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut might have been avoided during the presidency of Republican God Ronald Reagan, the bombing of Pearl harbor on Roosevelt's watch, or the 9/11 attack under George Bush. In each case, the most that can be said was that the parties involved were guilty of a crime of omission.
Here's the difference though. If it turns out to be true that Governor Christie ordered or suggested to someone that the bridge be closed in retribution for some perceived slight by the mayor of Fort Lee, or he had it closed for any of the other theories going around., he is guilty of plotting to close the bridge. This closing may have resulted in only a traffic jamb, or it may have actually cost lives and or money, but if he ordered or suggested it be done, he is guilty of a crime of commission.
I don't think that most people really appreciate the difference. If a worker throws a wrench into the gears of a machine to sabotage it, he is guilty of a sin of commission. If that same worker accidentally drops a wrench into a machine, and the machine is damaged, regardless of the extent of damage, he is only guilty of a sin of omission. He may have been careless or clumsy, but he did not intend to be so. In the case of commission, the worker should at least be fired if not prosecuted, but in the case of omission, the worker may or may not be fired, depending on his work record, his value to the company, and his likelihood to continue to drop wrenches into the machinery. Even most of the inmates should be able to understand this.
Friday, January 24, 2014
Sunday, January 19, 2014
Intellectual Apartheid Part Two
In 2010 I wrote a blog post titled "Intellectual Apartheid" in which I lamented the devaluation off the less mentally endowed workers of America. I think it was a good post and is worth a read, especially in conjunction with this post. The original post can be found in my blog Archive's.
So, at the coffee shop on Friday, (Yes, we still meet for coffee every day) I mentioned that I had been reading about the bell curve for intelligence. The spread of intelligence works out like this: About 50% of the population has an IQ of between 90 and 110, 25 percent has an IQ of less than 90, and 25% has an IQ of above 110. If you use a population figure of about three hundred million souls in America, that means that seventy five million of us have a below average IQ, and of this population, fifteen million have an IQ of less than 70.
I've tried to imagine what it would be like to have an IQ of less than 90. I estimate that it would, for me, be about the equivalent of walking around all day with a four beer buzz. I would still be functional, but would be prone to making bad decisions and my math skills would be diminished. I figure it would be around a two beer buzz for the rest of my coffee klatch.
The big question is, what is to become of these people, what should we expect of them and what should they expect of us. I grew up and lived most of my life in a time where anyone could get a job in a factory or in some other low skill profession, work forty hours a week, and earn a living wage. Today, there are not enough low skill jobs to go around, and the existing low skill jobs are low pay and often part time. Welfare has been converted to workfare, unemployment benefits are running out, and food stamps are under assault.
The drum beat from the right is constant and consistent. Cut the bums off, they are gaming the system, they are the takers, not makers, they need to retrain and find high tech jobs, health care is not a right, we need less government, we can't afford to support these people. We can't euthanize these somewhat challenged people, although someone I know made a vague hint to the contrary. They will always be with us, they are our brothers, sisters, cousins, they deserve better.
What to do? The first and most logical step is to raise the minimum wage to a living wage. A living wage for all may reduce the profits of corporations, businesses and stockholders, but it will put billions of dollars back into the economy to further fuel growth and provide more jobs. Second, we have to figure out how to bring back jobs to America that have been outsourced to other countries. We don't need to produce everything for ourselves, we don't have the manpower to do it, but we need to pick and choose some industries to focus on. Practically every country in the world practices some form of government managed economy, and so should we. The practical solution is to apply tariffs to specific products to give America a level playing field on these items. Third, we should enforce and reinforce existing labor laws that would prevent illegal aliens from finding employment in this country. If this happens, employers will be forced to use American workers, and as the unemployment rate falls, wages will increase. This last item is disturbing to me and I'm sure, worrisome to some of you, but we cannot afford to address the rest of the world problems if we cannot address our own.
Granted, these measures are somewhat inflationary, but it would not be the end of the world if the cheap consumer products and services we take for granted cost a bit more. I'm not advocating a handout, I'm calling for a hand up.
So, at the coffee shop on Friday, (Yes, we still meet for coffee every day) I mentioned that I had been reading about the bell curve for intelligence. The spread of intelligence works out like this: About 50% of the population has an IQ of between 90 and 110, 25 percent has an IQ of less than 90, and 25% has an IQ of above 110. If you use a population figure of about three hundred million souls in America, that means that seventy five million of us have a below average IQ, and of this population, fifteen million have an IQ of less than 70.
I've tried to imagine what it would be like to have an IQ of less than 90. I estimate that it would, for me, be about the equivalent of walking around all day with a four beer buzz. I would still be functional, but would be prone to making bad decisions and my math skills would be diminished. I figure it would be around a two beer buzz for the rest of my coffee klatch.
The big question is, what is to become of these people, what should we expect of them and what should they expect of us. I grew up and lived most of my life in a time where anyone could get a job in a factory or in some other low skill profession, work forty hours a week, and earn a living wage. Today, there are not enough low skill jobs to go around, and the existing low skill jobs are low pay and often part time. Welfare has been converted to workfare, unemployment benefits are running out, and food stamps are under assault.
The drum beat from the right is constant and consistent. Cut the bums off, they are gaming the system, they are the takers, not makers, they need to retrain and find high tech jobs, health care is not a right, we need less government, we can't afford to support these people. We can't euthanize these somewhat challenged people, although someone I know made a vague hint to the contrary. They will always be with us, they are our brothers, sisters, cousins, they deserve better.
What to do? The first and most logical step is to raise the minimum wage to a living wage. A living wage for all may reduce the profits of corporations, businesses and stockholders, but it will put billions of dollars back into the economy to further fuel growth and provide more jobs. Second, we have to figure out how to bring back jobs to America that have been outsourced to other countries. We don't need to produce everything for ourselves, we don't have the manpower to do it, but we need to pick and choose some industries to focus on. Practically every country in the world practices some form of government managed economy, and so should we. The practical solution is to apply tariffs to specific products to give America a level playing field on these items. Third, we should enforce and reinforce existing labor laws that would prevent illegal aliens from finding employment in this country. If this happens, employers will be forced to use American workers, and as the unemployment rate falls, wages will increase. This last item is disturbing to me and I'm sure, worrisome to some of you, but we cannot afford to address the rest of the world problems if we cannot address our own.
Granted, these measures are somewhat inflationary, but it would not be the end of the world if the cheap consumer products and services we take for granted cost a bit more. I'm not advocating a handout, I'm calling for a hand up.
Thursday, January 9, 2014
"Corporations are people my friend."
In August of 2011 Mitt Romney, on the first leg of his march to ultimate defeat, blurted out the title quote above, as his unfortunate (at least for him) rebuttal to hecklers at the Iowa state fair. He got tons of bad press over this and it probably cost him some votes. Sadly, he is correct, although not in the context he intended.
How many permutations of the following scenario have each us heard in our lives. Mr X is caught Diddling Mrs. Y and one or both of them proceeds to deny and lie until their position becomes completely untenable. Of course the story doesn't always have to be about sex, it can be about drugs, stealing, drinking, beating the dog, child abuse, cheating, the list goes on. It seems to be a innate part of the human condition, that the first response to any adversity is to protect ones own self interest by denying any wrong doing, even to the point of self denial.
In April of 1994, Congressman Henry Waxman held a hearing on the regulation of tobacco products use, where the seven major tobacco company CE Os were asked , under oath, if nicotine is addictive. Each executive stood up before the congressional committee and denied that nicotine was additive. The tobacco companies were simply behaving like people, protecting their self-interest regardless of the cost or effects on others.
The greatest and worst example of corporations being people, centers around global warming. It seems that every company in the country that might lose the least bit of profit by acknowledging the writing on the wall about climate change is hell bent on denying the phenomenon. Of Course, the oil and gas companies, coal companies, and utilities are the biggest deniers, but they are not the only culprits.
It's really difficult to understand how a potential long term global disaster of this magnitude can be denied in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I suspect that it is as if a ship were sinking without enough life boats for everyone, but the captain has offered seats to the highest bidders, the wealthy simply think they can buy their way out of the rising oceans, and sweltering sky. They may actually be able to survive for a while as we perish, but ultimately, there is no ark.
How many permutations of the following scenario have each us heard in our lives. Mr X is caught Diddling Mrs. Y and one or both of them proceeds to deny and lie until their position becomes completely untenable. Of course the story doesn't always have to be about sex, it can be about drugs, stealing, drinking, beating the dog, child abuse, cheating, the list goes on. It seems to be a innate part of the human condition, that the first response to any adversity is to protect ones own self interest by denying any wrong doing, even to the point of self denial.
In April of 1994, Congressman Henry Waxman held a hearing on the regulation of tobacco products use, where the seven major tobacco company CE Os were asked , under oath, if nicotine is addictive. Each executive stood up before the congressional committee and denied that nicotine was additive. The tobacco companies were simply behaving like people, protecting their self-interest regardless of the cost or effects on others.
The greatest and worst example of corporations being people, centers around global warming. It seems that every company in the country that might lose the least bit of profit by acknowledging the writing on the wall about climate change is hell bent on denying the phenomenon. Of Course, the oil and gas companies, coal companies, and utilities are the biggest deniers, but they are not the only culprits.
It's really difficult to understand how a potential long term global disaster of this magnitude can be denied in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I suspect that it is as if a ship were sinking without enough life boats for everyone, but the captain has offered seats to the highest bidders, the wealthy simply think they can buy their way out of the rising oceans, and sweltering sky. They may actually be able to survive for a while as we perish, but ultimately, there is no ark.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
