Four years ago, then candidate Barack Obama went to Europe to let people see a potential American President.
Thousands filled the streets to hear him speak and get a look at him. There was talk of an American leader, at last, with a world view and understanding that America, while great, was not the center of the universe.
Obama came home, inspired Americans as much as he inspired Europeans, got elected, and ran into the brick wall of resistance from the Right. He was criticized for trying to make America like Europe. He was dismissed as a leader because he could not bring the radical Left and the Radical Right together to deal with an economy that had begun to fail before he became President.
Last week, candidate Mitt Romney went to London, also presumably to let people see that he was competent in world politics. He ticked off the British in the middle of their golden moment, hosts of the world Olympics. Then he visited Israel and threatened Iran, and met with rich campaign donors, shutting out the press and the rest of the world.
If he didn't come home with money, he should have stayed home.
Actually, they could have mailed him a check and America would have been better served.
Monday, July 30, 2012
Monday, July 23, 2012
Absolutism about gun ownership is irresponsible
As a responsible gun owner and sportsman who has enjoyed target shooting for many years, I am offended by those who assume that I must be some kind of throwback to prehistory.
If you don't like guns and don't want to be around them, fine. That's your right. If you are afraid of guns, good for you; a healthy respect begins with a little fear of that which can be abused.
But I encourage people who fear guns to learn more about the art and history of firearms, so they can deal with their apprehensions in constructive ways.
I do not believe that everyone should own a gun. I do not believe that anyone who does is dangerous. We live in a free choice society, and everyone is entitled to their legal pursuits.
But there is something amiss with a culture that will not even discuss restrictions on general availability of certain weapons and ordnance -- ammunition. Especially when those who do broach the subject are immediately attacked by the most ardent supporters of gun ownership.
You know you have a problem when an organization like the National Rifle Association figuratively puts a target on any elected official who suggests that assault weapons should be less accessible than more conventional guns used in target shooting, hunting, and competition shooting.
You know you have a problem when any attempt to limit certain kinds of ammunition sets of disinformation campaigns about how the government is attacking the private gun owner by making ammo hard to get.
That argument was proven false with the revelation that the Aurora, Colorado assassin had 6,000 rounds of ammo shipped to him from on-line orders.
In all my years of shooting shotguns, pistols and rifles, I have not set off 6,000 rounds.
With that much ammo, I could enjoy a day a week at the range for more than three years. This whacko got that much in a matter of weeks.
Automatic weapons and high-velocity bullets should be harder to get and controlled by government. Period. Arguments that we the people arm ourselves to protect us from a government gone rogue are as out of date as the revolutionary war tri-corner hat.
Most shooters I have known deserve the right to own exotic arms. They should be allowed to enjoy shooting new ammo, so long as it does not wind up in the hands of people who would use them against the police officers in protective vests.
To enjoy the right to shoot, shooters should be willing to participate in a system that ensures that only qualified and responsible sportsmen have access to certain technology.
If not, why not let anyone stockpile nuclear bombs or chemical weapons, so long as they have not yet opened up in a mall or movie theater full of innocent people?
If I want respect as a shooter, I need to be willing to at least discuss a better way than what we have not.
If you don't like guns and don't want to be around them, fine. That's your right. If you are afraid of guns, good for you; a healthy respect begins with a little fear of that which can be abused.
But I encourage people who fear guns to learn more about the art and history of firearms, so they can deal with their apprehensions in constructive ways.
I do not believe that everyone should own a gun. I do not believe that anyone who does is dangerous. We live in a free choice society, and everyone is entitled to their legal pursuits.
But there is something amiss with a culture that will not even discuss restrictions on general availability of certain weapons and ordnance -- ammunition. Especially when those who do broach the subject are immediately attacked by the most ardent supporters of gun ownership.
You know you have a problem when an organization like the National Rifle Association figuratively puts a target on any elected official who suggests that assault weapons should be less accessible than more conventional guns used in target shooting, hunting, and competition shooting.
You know you have a problem when any attempt to limit certain kinds of ammunition sets of disinformation campaigns about how the government is attacking the private gun owner by making ammo hard to get.
That argument was proven false with the revelation that the Aurora, Colorado assassin had 6,000 rounds of ammo shipped to him from on-line orders.
In all my years of shooting shotguns, pistols and rifles, I have not set off 6,000 rounds.
With that much ammo, I could enjoy a day a week at the range for more than three years. This whacko got that much in a matter of weeks.
Automatic weapons and high-velocity bullets should be harder to get and controlled by government. Period. Arguments that we the people arm ourselves to protect us from a government gone rogue are as out of date as the revolutionary war tri-corner hat.
Most shooters I have known deserve the right to own exotic arms. They should be allowed to enjoy shooting new ammo, so long as it does not wind up in the hands of people who would use them against the police officers in protective vests.
To enjoy the right to shoot, shooters should be willing to participate in a system that ensures that only qualified and responsible sportsmen have access to certain technology.
If not, why not let anyone stockpile nuclear bombs or chemical weapons, so long as they have not yet opened up in a mall or movie theater full of innocent people?
If I want respect as a shooter, I need to be willing to at least discuss a better way than what we have not.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
No splash, just treading water
When know-nothing candidates seek political office with nothing but a misguided agenda to undo previous works, you wind up with a do-nothing board of commissioners.
I have to give this board credit for learning on the job.
So far, they've learned that not having a master plan is not an option. They've learned that idealistic slogans and good intentions don't make trash go away, and there is a limit to the virtues of recycling.
They're learning that when you spend government money and time and effort to take an airport plan to a certain level, you can't just quit and pretend you still have a viable runway and a plan for the future. Nor can you make the debt disappear just because you don't like it.
They are learning, or will learn, that land bought for future use because others had a vision of future needs might appear to the unitiated to be a waste of money and resources, but you won't be able to buy it or build it at today's value later, when you will, inevitably, need it.
Ah, there's that word. Vision. I forget that this bunch is focused on the rear view mirror, or the funhouse perspectives of their more ardent supporters, few bud noisy and well-funded.
Some poor souls, down the road, are going to have to raise a lot of revenue to catch up after the short-sighted actions of this so-called group of conservatives.
They were going to make a splash, but they're just treading water. Hope the citizens don't drown in their wake.
I have to give this board credit for learning on the job.
So far, they've learned that not having a master plan is not an option. They've learned that idealistic slogans and good intentions don't make trash go away, and there is a limit to the virtues of recycling.
They're learning that when you spend government money and time and effort to take an airport plan to a certain level, you can't just quit and pretend you still have a viable runway and a plan for the future. Nor can you make the debt disappear just because you don't like it.
They are learning, or will learn, that land bought for future use because others had a vision of future needs might appear to the unitiated to be a waste of money and resources, but you won't be able to buy it or build it at today's value later, when you will, inevitably, need it.
Ah, there's that word. Vision. I forget that this bunch is focused on the rear view mirror, or the funhouse perspectives of their more ardent supporters, few bud noisy and well-funded.
Some poor souls, down the road, are going to have to raise a lot of revenue to catch up after the short-sighted actions of this so-called group of conservatives.
They were going to make a splash, but they're just treading water. Hope the citizens don't drown in their wake.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Uncle Sam, listen to your doctors
An American health care plan is going to happen, even if it continues to change form, so let's set the table for a few immediate improvements.
Close to the top of the list of criticisms of a public health plan is that it will put government between the doctor and the patient. Well, I am an experienced and veteran consumer of health care, so I can testify that we have had insurance companies getting between the doctor and the patient for a long time, so maybe we can make some improvements.
And government is already meddling, even to the point of telling doctors they can't complain about unreasonable regulations and requirements in creating a paperless records system, for fear of being charged will collusion.
Bringing primary and specialist care providers to the table on records keeping, or any other interaction with patients, is not collusion. It's good medicine.
I've had several doctors complain to me that the use of computers to eliminate paper records turns them into clerks, and the thing they hate most about it is, they have to turn their backs to the patient to face the keyboard of their laptops.
I know one doctor who carries his laptop around the office, in and out of exam rooms, in the crook of one arm, while his fingers tap the keys with the other. He might have experience playing the fiddle. But that's a bit much to expect of those who are just barely computer literate.
Did anyone ask doctors about the rules for the paperless plan? No. Some geek in the IT department of a federal office came up with it and say that's the way it's going to be. Anyone who works for a large firm with an IT department guru making dictates like some Wizard of Oz knows what I'm talking about.
If it's health and medicine we're trying to fix, let's listen to doctors, their office clerks, and patients, then require the geeks to program a system that serves that objective.
While you're at it, Uncle Sam, toss out that ridiculously constrictive HIPPA thing that allows drug companies, insurance companies, and the government to know all about my medical records, but won't let a lab send results to any doctor other than the one who requests the results.
Common sense, please, Uncle, or let the Republicans have their way and turn it back to big business marketing policies favoring the insurance and drug companies over doctors and patients.
Close to the top of the list of criticisms of a public health plan is that it will put government between the doctor and the patient. Well, I am an experienced and veteran consumer of health care, so I can testify that we have had insurance companies getting between the doctor and the patient for a long time, so maybe we can make some improvements.
And government is already meddling, even to the point of telling doctors they can't complain about unreasonable regulations and requirements in creating a paperless records system, for fear of being charged will collusion.
Bringing primary and specialist care providers to the table on records keeping, or any other interaction with patients, is not collusion. It's good medicine.
I've had several doctors complain to me that the use of computers to eliminate paper records turns them into clerks, and the thing they hate most about it is, they have to turn their backs to the patient to face the keyboard of their laptops.
I know one doctor who carries his laptop around the office, in and out of exam rooms, in the crook of one arm, while his fingers tap the keys with the other. He might have experience playing the fiddle. But that's a bit much to expect of those who are just barely computer literate.
Did anyone ask doctors about the rules for the paperless plan? No. Some geek in the IT department of a federal office came up with it and say that's the way it's going to be. Anyone who works for a large firm with an IT department guru making dictates like some Wizard of Oz knows what I'm talking about.
If it's health and medicine we're trying to fix, let's listen to doctors, their office clerks, and patients, then require the geeks to program a system that serves that objective.
While you're at it, Uncle Sam, toss out that ridiculously constrictive HIPPA thing that allows drug companies, insurance companies, and the government to know all about my medical records, but won't let a lab send results to any doctor other than the one who requests the results.
Common sense, please, Uncle, or let the Republicans have their way and turn it back to big business marketing policies favoring the insurance and drug companies over doctors and patients.
Friday, July 6, 2012
Conflicted about reality shows, including the news
I learned to cook by watching the cooking channel.
When I discovered the channel, it was all about how-to, techniques and recipes, with tips and step by step instructions.
A guy named David Rosengarten was the primary featured cook and critic. He worked from a bare-bones set, white background, stainless steel shelving, uncluttered table or cooktop. Cooked with gas, too. I liked that.
Anyway, I got hooked. Then I started recording cooking shows off MPT -- the Frugal Gourmet, Julia Child, Jacques Pepin, and America's Test Kitchen -- a lot of cooking shows.
Then some marketing nitwit decided that to keep things fresh, you had to combine cooking with arm wrestling or something. We had smackdowns, showdowns, challenges -- it started with a Japanese import called the Iron Chef.
They even had competition for the Next Food Network Star, and ruined the channel.
Everything was about the conflict, and it became so artificial and phony that I probably watch less than half what I used to.
Fake conflict is everywhere. Of course, the first thing you learn in creative writing is that your protagonist must encounter a conflict: Man against man, man against nature, etc.
Love stories always go Boy Meets Girl, gets rejection, then boy gets girl, then boy loses -- or almost loses girl. Happy endings are they lived happily ever after. Love Story broke the mold and earned a gazillion dollars because girl dies.
In news, it's not a story if dog bites man, but if man bites dog. If congressman bites congressman, it's good for four days of coverage and follos, and Face the Nation on Sunday TV.
I cannot bear to watch all 14 Survivor episodes; too predictably staged. Nor do I like the talent competitions, which have become screaming contests or all about the potshots that the judges make to the competitors and each other.
But I liked the end the evening with a nice House Hunters show; it was easy to stay awake for one more half hour, and there was a glimpse of various geographic locations as well as the fun of relating to a couple buying a nice new home.
Increasingly, though, it was about conflict; the clash between spouses, or with the real estate agent, whatever.
And then comes the revelation that House Hunters, too, is fake. They even have the couples wandering around houses that are not really for sale, so they can push the conflict angle.
I can always read a book. Or go to bed early.
When I discovered the channel, it was all about how-to, techniques and recipes, with tips and step by step instructions.
A guy named David Rosengarten was the primary featured cook and critic. He worked from a bare-bones set, white background, stainless steel shelving, uncluttered table or cooktop. Cooked with gas, too. I liked that.
Anyway, I got hooked. Then I started recording cooking shows off MPT -- the Frugal Gourmet, Julia Child, Jacques Pepin, and America's Test Kitchen -- a lot of cooking shows.
Then some marketing nitwit decided that to keep things fresh, you had to combine cooking with arm wrestling or something. We had smackdowns, showdowns, challenges -- it started with a Japanese import called the Iron Chef.
They even had competition for the Next Food Network Star, and ruined the channel.
Everything was about the conflict, and it became so artificial and phony that I probably watch less than half what I used to.
Fake conflict is everywhere. Of course, the first thing you learn in creative writing is that your protagonist must encounter a conflict: Man against man, man against nature, etc.
Love stories always go Boy Meets Girl, gets rejection, then boy gets girl, then boy loses -- or almost loses girl. Happy endings are they lived happily ever after. Love Story broke the mold and earned a gazillion dollars because girl dies.
In news, it's not a story if dog bites man, but if man bites dog. If congressman bites congressman, it's good for four days of coverage and follos, and Face the Nation on Sunday TV.
I cannot bear to watch all 14 Survivor episodes; too predictably staged. Nor do I like the talent competitions, which have become screaming contests or all about the potshots that the judges make to the competitors and each other.
But I liked the end the evening with a nice House Hunters show; it was easy to stay awake for one more half hour, and there was a glimpse of various geographic locations as well as the fun of relating to a couple buying a nice new home.
Increasingly, though, it was about conflict; the clash between spouses, or with the real estate agent, whatever.
And then comes the revelation that House Hunters, too, is fake. They even have the couples wandering around houses that are not really for sale, so they can push the conflict angle.
I can always read a book. Or go to bed early.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)