"Packing in Fry's Market"

I was at a gun violence prevention meeting today, discussing a posting of “No Firearms in Premises” when a member of the group raised the question, "Should I approach a person packing a gun in a supermarket and ask them why they have it with them?"  This is my written answer to her question:  It obviously would create an awkward moment and they may well respond that it is none of your business.  No matter how tactfully you ask the question, they may feel that you are not entitled to a response.  Most who wear an exposed, holstered gun are not aggressive, but there are exceptions.  As you know, there are dogs that you don't want to walk up to and pet, especially if you don't know them.  I like dogs and have only had two try to bite me, out of hundreds petted.

When I was a Harley-Davidson dealer, I had contact with many gun carrying customers.  They were a large percentage of my patrons.  It was generally very easy for me to ask your question and I did ask it, because it interested me, just as it does you.  A Harley rider is in church when in a Harley store and I was the minister there.  The question was easy for me to lead up to.  We first discussed the motorcycle that they were looking at, and then I would make a knowledgeable comment about the handgun that they were carrying.  As I have mentioned, in the “One Shot” post, collecting guns and target shooting are hobbies of mine.  The most common gun being carried by a Harley owner is a Colt Military .45, semi-automatic.  This is a classic military handgun used by the U.S. forces in the First and Second World Wars.  Out of the many times that I discussed the motives behind packing with my customers, only once in ten years did it lead to a mild confrontation and the guy didn't shoot me.  We did step outside and I would admit equal responsibility for the confrontation.  It was mild. No profanity used.

Most of the customers implied that they carried a gun because of fear.  They didn't come right out and say that, but their reasons given fell into that category.  The gun is also part of a uniform for the hard core biker.  He puts it on just as he puts on his black Harley T-shirt, his leather jacket, his knife, and his wallet and chain.  A quality handgun and holster, is a status symbol, just as his motorcycle is.  To understand this you would have to compare it to a large diamond on a woman's hand or a man driving a Porsche.  We are talking about different and unique social circles here, but they are very real icons to each group.  You or I may not care to drive around in an old beat up car.  But any car will get you there.  Women wearing Berkas, on a hot day in Southern Arizona, seem crazy to me, but I don't need to ask them why they wear it.  The guns aren't as simple.  There are many reasons possible for wearing one, but don’t ask.

A six foot, six inch tall customer, weighing well over 300 pounds came into the store with a little .22 caliber pistol on his hip.  I asked him why a big man, like himself, carried such a small weapon.  He was as much of a force, without the gun.  His answer was, "It draws heat."  I didn't understand the answer, so he further explained that he enjoyed being stopped by the police and being hassled.  He liked to banter with them.  Some folks are lonesome.

The funniest response I ever got to the question of why carry, was, "You would be surprised how many violent people there are out there."  The man was wearing a large gun and a long knife.  His answer, while funny, was actually a short form of the most popular reason.  They are afraid to walk this Earth without a sidearm.  In my decade at the Harley store, only one of my customers murdered someone.  It happened at a drug and booze party.  In the Harley store he was always sober and a very pleasant person.  Perhaps Fry's Market shouldn't sell liquor.  Wait a minute!  Haven’t we tried that?

Comments are welcome, Old Buz

Curmudgeons Anonymous

There is a bright new movement, being born in Arizona (of all places), called “Curmudgeons Anonymous”.  You will start to notice the members, around the world, wearing their member T-shirts, reading, “A proud member of Curmudgeons Anonymous.”  A curmudgeon is normally defined as a white, elderly male, unhappy with his world and the direction that he sees it going, but not prone to do anything constructive about it.  We are second only to the United States Congress, as a group of elderly white males, sworn to accomplish nothing.

The T-shirts will be available in red, for conservative members.  Blue, for the liberals.  Green, for the tree huggers and gray to identify associate members.  The gray T-shirted, non-voting, associates are either politically undecided, or men of color.  As you can see, we don’t exclude any male, over 65 and retired who spends a good percentage of their waking hours complaining.  We will also allow associate membership to someone who is employed, if along with their application they will include a letter from their employer, stating that they are an elderly disgruntled employee.  Any member of the group is allowed to take individual action, politically or otherwise, against anything, but doing so with your Curmudgeons Anonymous T-shirt on, or in unison with any other member or members, is strictly forbidden.  Elderly men of religion (the gullible) are offered full membership, with voting rights.  How is that for being open-minded?  Voting rights are not all that important, as the group takes no action.

You will be seeing Curmudgeons Anonymous discussion groups whining around the world, in coffee shops or bars and library meeting rooms.  We will be complaining about anything and everything, including our individual health and the doctors that we are forced to endure.

The membership fee is $10 for full members and $12 for associate members.  The fee is required as often as you feel that you need a new T-shirt.  The membership does include a new Beefy Tee shirt, with the group logo on the front and nothing on the back.  Please don’t send cash, stamps, a check, a credit card authorization, until the T-shirts are ready.  I’ll let you know when they are and where to send the payment.  For you young men who would like to join the organization, sorry, but at least you now have something to look forward to as you grow older and less effective.

Cheers, Old Buz, Founder and Chairman of Curmudgeons Anonymous  

"Uber-Capitalism"

The United States of America has entered into the era of Uber-Capitalism.  What does this mean?  It means that large dollar interests control the nation.  And we, the gullible, like it that way.  The most obvious sign of Uber-Capitalism taking control is capitalism moving from being controlled by the government to being in control of the government.  This is simply accomplished by allowing unlimited, corporate, unidentified funds to be “donated” to political campaigns to aid them in covering the skyrocketing costs of advertising required to be competitive in an election.  These giant funds may be unidentified to you the voter, but the candidate is well aware of the sources and their influence is absolute.  So….what do you care?  Well, it affects your quality of life, your cost of living, your health and your rate of taxation.  Otherwise, you are little affected. 

Let’s start with quality of life.  When corporations release pollutants into the air you breathe or the water you drink, the limit of pollutants is set by government agencies.  These agencies are controlled by your elected representatives and these representatives are controlled by large corporate dollars.  It is more cost effective in the short run to pollute rather than clean their waste.  If there is a cleanup down the road, it is done with taxpayers’ dollars.    No corporation ever gave a dime to a politician out of the goodness of its heart.  It wouldn’t be fair to their stockholders.  No, they expect returns from those “donations”.  They are seen as a wise investment and surely they are that.  What about energy production?  We don’t have to use coal and natural gas to degrade air quality.  We could use clean renewables like solar, wind and waves.  Someday we will.  But, we could develop these power grids very quickly with the funds we give to munition manufacturers to supply our endless wars of choice.  To switch to clean renewable energy is an attack on the corporations supplying our coal and natural gas.  Are you in one of the states where users of solar roof panels are taxed for trying to clean their air and the air of their neighbors?

A simple example of your cost of living being affected by large dollars can be seen in large sudden increases in the cost of gasoline at the pumps.  Most often these jumps in price are not brought about by the cost of crude oil, but by a gambling institution called the oil futures market.  Recently these very wealthy gamblers cost you over a dollar a gallon, at the pumps.  You working folks bought their yachts.  Each time you fill your tank, you are making a political donation.   Are you good with that?

How about healthcare cost?  We just experienced legislation that gives us “Affordable” Health Care.  The large health insurance companies, through their large political donations, pretty much wrote the law.  Don’t blame Obama.  All politicians are on the corporate teat.  The first clear sign of this you saw was the disappearance of “The Government Option” for health insurance.  It would have competed with corporate healthcare, if it were not controlled by corporate healthcare.  The second thing you might have noticed is that single payer AmeriCare was never considered.  Most of the other nations of the world with universal healthcare, have some form of single payer (government sponsored) healthcare.  Your healthcare is given for profit, not for your health.

“Taxation without representation” is the way of Uber-Capitalism.  The examples are endless, but the cause is that large dollar influence on tax law is much more powerful than your influence on tax law.  You can’t blame them; they are only trying to protect and grow their estates.  A simple example of money influence on taxation is “Capital Gains Treatment of Income”.  This treatment of income allows the taxation of the sale of property, sale of stocks, dividend income to be taxed at a much lower rate than income earned from fighting fires or loading trucks.  A friend of mine, who once worked for Price-Waterhouse, as a CPA, told me that, “Only those who work pay taxes.”  Does that mean that those who work pay more than their fair share?  Ever wonder why renters get no tax break, while homeowners get a deduction for the interest paid on their mortgage loan (usually most of the payment), as does the landlord of the rented residence they occupy?  It is all the same game, but it was made official by the recent Citizens United decision of your Supreme Court.  You belong to The United States of Uber-Capitalism.  We don’t need any new anthems.  The old ones will suffice.

Does any of this need fixing?  Superman is dead.  He fell off of a horse, was paralyzed and later died.  The job of saving the World is now yours.  “There is only time to iron your cape…..then, back to the sky.”

Comments are welcome, Old Buz

Faith Is The Mother of Error

This is not to say that faith is the cause of error.  Error is created by random possibilities.  But when human error is not corrected, look to faith for the cause of sustaining the error.  A simple example of this would be that the Sun and stars rotate around the Earth.  Simple observation would lead to this error of observation.  Through science and technology, it has been proven that this is not the case.  The theory of the universe rotating around the Earth was loved by both humans and the religions that they created, because it placed humans at the center of it all.  But long after there was proof that this was not the case, Faith held the concept to be true.  Early scientists were even jailed and put to death for contending that the Earth was not the center of the Universe.  Martin Luther, a founder of protestant Christianity once said, “Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has …”   If you leave out the “whore” part, his statement is true.

Faith is born from a belief in any source that one would see as absolutely reliable, such as your church, your country, your parents, your teachers, your work place, your doctor, your friends or your political party.  An excellent filter to use on the “facts” from any of these sources would be my son’s line from a song he wrote.  “See what is plain to see.  Doubt what is not.”  Doubt here, to me, means research and apply knowledge and reason.    Another example of a faith inspired error can come from the above mentioned, “your political party.”  A man that I often have coffee with, in the morning, believes a Republican inspired piece of mythology (error), that President Obama is a Muslim.  Now, I don’t believe that The President’s religion is relevant to his job effectiveness, but my Republican friend knows that President Obama has said that he is a Christian, that the President doesn’t pray to Mecca the required five times a day, and that during the campaign the Republican party claimed that President Obama was a member of retired senior pastor, Jeremiah Wright’s, Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.  Obama did affirm this membership.  To be a Republican who believes that Barak Obama is a Muslim requires suspending your memory and your reason.   This is a true test of Faith, that is, “To believe the unbelievable.”

As Americans, we have faith in science.  We spend billions of dollars to reach the Moon and beyond.  We spend billions of dollars to research “The God Particle” (Higgs boson).  The question is, “If you were going to donate $100 to scientific knowledge of the universe or to save several starving children, which cause would you donate to?”  Of course, you are never asked that question.  The decision is made for you in our democracy.  How long has Ebola been a problem, or is it not a problem until it reaches our shores?

Comments are welcome, Old Buz (a man of little faith)

An Independent Voter

I'm an independent voter, in the State of Arizona.  I recently voted early in the primary election.  I choose to be an independent because I am not a soldier for either party.  In the Arizona primary election, a registered independent must vote either on a Democratic or a Republican ballot.  This seems counter intuitive, but it is the law.  Since I generally, but not predictably, take a liberal stance, I was limited to accepting a Democratic primary ballot.  This was not a good experience.  The ballot was a page full of government offices to be voted on.  There was only one candidate listed for each office, with the exception of positions with two seats available and since you were allowed to vote for two candidates there were two listed.   There were no alternatives on the entire ballot.  Was that actually a vote I placed?

The largest voting bloc in the State of Arizona is the independents.  We outnumber both the Republicans and the Democrats.  We don't vote as a bloc, we vote as individuals.  Some are ultra-conservative.  Some are ultra-liberal.  Some are moderates.  It is kind of the way a democracy should be.  Independent voters are generally tired of partisan politics and would like to see problems solved rather than opposing party positions taken.  The parties of today are more responsive to large corporate dollars than they are to the needs of the voters.  Political parties are the legal conduit for corporate bribery and dollar influence.  Their delegates go to conventions every few years and wear funny little hats.  They like balloons.

So, how does Arizona welcome an independent, non-partisan candidate?  Well, first off, it requires three times as many signatures for an independent candidate to be placed on the ballot as it does if one is running as a Democrat or a Republican candidate.  To put the icing on the cake, by state law, independents must be listed last on the ballot.  How would you guess that the party wonks justify this treatment of independent candidates and voters?  They justify it by the concept that power begets power.  It works for them.

How would you run an election properly?  The primary ballot would list all candidates for a given office, alphabetically, with party affiliation being listed, as an option.  The general election would offer the top two vote getters from the primary, regardless of party affiliation.  That would be simple and fair.

When I was a young voter, half a century ago, I was disappointed when I saw only one choice available for an office.  Every so often, you would see one position on a ballot like that.  But, an entire ballot that way… never.  The problem with Arizona’s Democratic primary is that the party powerful made the choice of who would be the candidate for each office, not the people.  God Bless Our Democracy.  It was great while it lasted.

Comments are welcome, Old Buz

"Thinking about Buddhism"

I'm reading a book by Steve Hagen, bestselling author and renowned Zen teacher, titled, “Buddhism Is Not What You Think”.  The basic theme, which I have seen before in Buddhist writings, is that the raw data you receive through your primary senses is “Truth”.  After you apply thought to the data, you have corrupted the Truth with your thoughts and previous life experiences and you no longer have Truth.  That is true, but if pure perception were how you observed the world and went no further, you would not be able to draw any meaningful information from your perceptions.  A simple example of this would be the page you are now reading.  The raw data, without thought applied, is black spots on a white background.  You have learned to interpret these symbols as letters, words, sentences and thoughts.  You deal with them in the English language.  The same thoughts would obviously appear differently if written in French.  So, the new data that you take in is affected by the previous truths (not a capital “T”) that you have received in your lifetime.  When I say the word “dog”, you may envision a Toy Poodle, while my mind’s image may be of a German Shorthair Retriever.  The individual’s interpretation of any word is based on their personal, previous life experiences.  It can't be any other way.  Oh, I suppose you could learn to sit still and attempt to only take in raw data and do nothing with that data.  I would rather water ski.  You don't accomplish more by water skiing, but I think it is a lot more fun.

The famous author and philosopher, J.R. Pirtle once said, “Life is what you think.”  This is a far more useful and realistic way to view your real world.  Life, to you, can be no more or no less than what you think.  Even if you were a fundamentalist Buddhist (in other words, catatonic) and only saw raw, unaltered data, that would be what you think.  A friend of mine, a professor at our state university, in reaction to Pirtle’s, “Life is what you think,” responded, “Sometimes I think that life is not what I think.”  My response was, “Well, then it isn’t.”

 

I apologize to you Buddhists for this blog post.  I should have written it sooner.  I have already made it a point to insult the fundamentalist Jews and Christians.  Fundamentalist Muslims do not require ridicule.  They do it to themselves.  But, I have held off on Buddhists and that is probably because they claim not to be a religion and they compose only about one percent of our nation’s population.  However, their eyes do glass over, just like fundamentalist Christians and Jews, when they state one of the gullible beliefs of their religion.  The Buddha knew and stated that he could not pass down his wisdom.  The Tao is an individual’s journey, not a group’s.  His followers often tinkle their little bells and try to shy away from the undeniable awareness of the concept, “self”.  Buddhists had better hold their nuttiness down or they will be classified as a religion.  I certainly can't blame them for trying to avoid that.

Comments are welcome, Old Buz (an agnostic who accepts any belief, as long as it agrees with his own)

Did We Win In Iraq?

Did we win in Iraq?  To answer this question, you must first determine what “we” stands for.  If you look at that decade long war from the perspective of the CEO’s of our arms manufacturers, our logistics team (Halliburton) or our private army (Blackwater) it was a clear and decisive win.  Perhaps somewhere in America, in a very nice country club or aboard a two hundred foot yacht, there should be a celebration held by the wealthy war profiteers.  Off of the Cayman Islands would be appropriate.  I would guess that it has already been held, but somehow wasn’t covered by our news media.

For the rest of us, who hold our commemoration on the ship of fools, it is not so joyous, nor can it be considered a win.  We attacked an innocent people, who had nothing to do with our 9/11 event.  We murdered well over one hundred thousand human beings.  Remember, the dozen and a half nuts on the 9/11 planes were Saudis.  Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and we knew this before we started the bombing.  “United We Stand” was the war cry of the gullible who mindlessly followed the war drums of the Bush Administration.  As for “Freedom”, who the hell got freedom?  What we did was rekindle the flames between the Shiites and the Sunnis and Baathists.  Do you believe that the butchering of Muslims by the US helped relations between Israel and its neighbors?  And do you believe that this recent Crusade helped the relationship between Christians and Muslims?  Lt Calley, of Mia Lia fame, best summed your involvement in this war up by saying, “We of the military are a spear.  We are thrown by the American People.”  So, you no longer need to worry about going to Heaven.

Now for a glimpse into the future:  there are roughly 5,000 embassy personnel remaining in Iraq, with a little over 100 U.S. Marines providing security.  The U.S. Embassy there coordinates U.S. foreign military sales to Iraq and the rest of the Middle East.  Those arms will ultimately be used against us, if history repeats itself.

How many embassy folks were killed in Benghazi?  Was it five?  Well, that is but a drop in the bucket compared to what will probably happen in Iraq to our embassy there.  We are operating our largest embassy in the world in a country where we have no friends, but the vultures.   Americans are no more loved in Iraq than in Benghazi.  If you were a life insurance company, how would you feel about insuring those 5,100 lives and will the Democrats or the Republicans be blamed for this coming event?  I would guess that they will blame each other.

Will the religious wars ever end in the Middle East?  If you are a person of Faith, you know that Jesus will come down from the Heavens and sweep up His little darlings who chose to flame the fire.  There will be some suffering, then silence in our world.

    

Comments are welcome, Old Buz

Try a Great Game

Here is the game.  You pick the President of The United States for 2016 and beyond.  There is no game board, no video and you won’t even need your frickin cell phone.  Yes, I know, your left hand and your brain will not work properly without the cell there, but try the strange old world of no cell phone, if only for a few minutes.

Here is a sample:  “If I could choose any living American to become President, in the next election, it would be Bill Gates.”  Next, you have to support your choice with 5 or more reasons.

1.     1. The man is well respected and known, the world over.  His voice and his ideas will be listened to and respected by the voters and their representatives.  He would rule the independent vote and earn many votes from both Democrats and Republicans.  He has massive name recognition, without campaign spending and the name recognition is positive.

2.     2. He has no allegiance to either political party and will not be dictated to by them.  I don’t believe that either party can afford to buy him.  I believe that he will weigh each proposal before him on its own merits.  That would be a major change in our political system.  Our elected legislators may like observing this phenomenon so much that they may step back from the system and outlaw political parties.  This act would free these alpha dogs from the short choke chains that their party has them on.

3.    3.  Bill is smart.  His SATs were in the high 1500s and he attended Harvard, where he dropped out as soon as he realized that his time could be spent more effectively in industry than in studying industry.  It could not hurt our nation to have a smart person hold the office of President.  I believe that a Bill Gates would not lead this nation into an unnecessary war, like the one we are presently removing ourselves from.  He would have more respect for the intelligence of the people of Our Nation.

4.     4. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a place where the Gates family presently puts its money and its mind.  It is a force for advancing health and education, the World over.  The old cliché that “A rising tide raises all boats” could not be truer and Bill Gates and his wife Melinda are leaders of this concept on our planet.

 

5.     5.  Bill Gates is recognized among industrial giants as a giant among them.  When he speaks in front of TED.com, usually on the subject of future education or carbon’s effects on our environment, the “scarecrows” (those who are out standing in their fields) listen with respect.

The only problem I can see in getting Bill to take this step and run for office, is that he would have to give up the good life that he has now and move into a non-functioning neighborhood.  Perhaps he would enjoy the challenge.

Comments are welcome, Old Buz

"Killing in First Person"

If you have ever watched a video gamer play a “first person” killing game, what you will see is multiple murders, through the eyes of the killer, on HDTV.  First person is a term used in literature, as the view of the person narrating the book and generally the main character.  It will often use the term, “I”.  So the view on the screen of the killing game will be as the shooter would see it, down the sights of their weapon.  In the good old days the view on the screen was a view of your good guy killers, or one of them, fighting the bad guys that the computer controlled.  It wasn’t so up close and personal.  You watched the action rather than living it.  In my opinion, anyone who sits for hours, playing first person combat games is in training for mass murder.  I am not contending that they actually will commit a mass murder, in real time, but if I were going to set up a profile for predicting the act, it would be #1 on my list.  In the recent killings in Tucson and Sandy Hook, I remember reading that the murderers both were game boys.

This raises an interesting problem.  Would you “track” all purchasers of first person video killing games?  In the future a study will surely be done that confirms that all mass murderers have a hobby of playing these particular games, but that only a small percentage of these game players commit mass murder.  So we "Monday morning quarterback" the lunatics that do the killing and place blame on the police or health professionals who have dealt with the killer before the slaughter takes place.  Some of the methods of profiling are: killing game player, male loner, bullied, dark wardrobe, gun and ammunition collector, long hair, an aggressive Facebook page … etc.

   

I just finished reading a novel by C.J. Box, “Stone Cold”, in which a suspected campus shooter is taken out before a mass student shooting can take place from the roof of his dorm.  The guy is a black clothed, long haired, a loner, who loves guns and killing video games.  He is guilty … right? Alert students are on the watch and inform the campus police that our shooter is heading for the dorm roof with an assault rifle in his hands.  Turns out that the assault rifle is a pellet gun that looks like an assault rifle and that he is on the roof shooting pigeons.  This doesn’t deter a swat team from going up on the roof and shooting the suspect to pieces.  Oops!  Swat teams are imaginary heroes.  A real “swat team” would be a sharpshooter with a telescopic sighted rifle and an assistant to wipe the sweat from his brow, not a dozen or so GI Joe impersonators.

So, do the game manufacturers who produce first person kill games share in the blame for mass murders?  Yes, they certainly do.  Their CEOs, in front of the Senate, claim that there is no connection between the game world and the real world.  Not so, in the mind of the player.  No Senator ever asks why they don’t produce “first person rape games.”  Would the answer be, “Rape is not socially acceptable (except while in the military or college).”  Could one logically conclude, “Killing is socially acceptable.”?  Please help me with this.

Comments are welcome, Old Buz

"What was the selling price of our nation?"

If you are a right-wing conservative, then your “Holy Grail” is the free market system.  Any interference with, or regulation of, or taxation of the industrial complex and its banking and investment system will damage its God given efficiency.  “What is good for General Bullmoose, is good for the nation.” – Al Capp.  Even the dumbest wealthy person knows that this isn’t true.  But, the folks who make the rules have been bought.  A good example of “free market rule” is in today’s paper.  AT&T is in the process of buying DirectTV for $48.5 billion dollars.  Can you comprehend this sum of money?  I can’t.  If a billion dollars is one thousand million and a million is one thousand thousands, then what does forty-eight and a half of them look like?  I know what the basic thousand looks like, but my experience does not include the reality of a million, let alone a billion.  The problem here is not the price of purchase; it is what it says about the efficiency of the free market.  Competition is the theoretical driving force behind the free market.  Competition gives us product improvement, while striving for an advantage in price to the consumer.  Large corporations know that it is far more cost efficient to buy your competition, rather than compete against them.  Profit, not product or labor is its main consideration and it matters little where the product is produced.  So the merger generally raises your, the consumer’s, cost of goods and lowers your standard of living.

We are entering the final stages of the free market system.  The early stages were great.  Competition was a benefit to almost everyone.  It built our nation.  The wealthy gray haired men still have wonderful memories of it.  They have purchased a tax structure that is very favorable to them, chosen wars to stimulate the economy, set up a healthcare system that cares for health insurance companies over the patient and a graduate level of education that is only affordable by the wealthy.  The small business man has largely been replaced by the Walmart and Costco big boxes.  These stores have basically won the retail competition, with few staggering competitors like JC Penny’s, Sears and Target.  Walmart (with lower income shoppers) and Costco (with upper income shoppers) will probably prevail, but there is a new kid, Amazon and its ilk, that are about to make a run and will either be bought by the big guys, or buy them.  The challenge is to find an American made product, made by American labor, in any of these giant retailers.  If you do find an American made product, like Rubber Maid, the manufacturer has been contractually squeezed so tight by the retail behemoth that to keep their head above water, while paying the CEO an exorbitant wage, it requires punishing their labor force.

I want to clarify something in a recent blog.  The term “Koch-Suckers”, was not meant to imply that the brothers themselves are in any way suckers.  The millions of campaign dollars that they expend in elections around the nation are not spent foolishly.  They buy legislators with these dollars and the returns to investment, in the form of friendly legislation, pay them back many fold.  The investment in campaigns is out of love … love of money.  No, the “Koch-Suckers” term was meant for you folks that take their suggestions.

Comments are welcome, Old Buz

"Pissing With the Wind"

I am having a hard time getting this week’s blog post written.  I would call it writer’s block, but I don’t honestly think that a blogger is qualified to be referred to as a “writer”.  I only started blogging this year and find it akin to pissing with the wind.  Pissing against the wind creates blow-back.  In my experience, there is no blow-back from blogging.  There are no comments on the blog, intelligent or otherwise.  I do my best to make the subjects relevant, controversial and humorous, in order to not have you doze off while reading them.  I expect comments and thoughtful criticism.  Nothing!  Oh well, friends, relatives, loved ones will give the occasional “you are doing a good job, atta boy Buz”, but a comment on content or an opposing position is not taken.

Pissing in and of itself relieves pressure and that is a good thing.  So, I suspect I will continue with the blog, but I also suspect it produces no more than a good game of computer solitaire.   My daughter actively participates in Facebook.  Her entries to her Facebook program are short and informative or beautiful photos or art work.  She does receive responses to her entries and some come in the form of a complete sentence, but very few.  The responses normally have no more content to them than “Wow” or “Yeah”.  Her communication group is composed of artists, directors, actors in a large metropolitan area.  We have easy, fast high tech communication today, but I question if it is making us better communicators.  The cell phone carries us out in space, away from the vehicle we are operating, away from the family member we are with, or to a position of extreme rudeness to the friend we are sharing a meal with.  John, I know that you are presently patting yourself on the back for saying in your comment, “Congratulations!  You are now officially a curmudgeon.”  But ask yourself if there isn’t  just a little truth in what is said here?  Was the curmudgeon of yore a lunatic howling at the moon or a bellwether of the present and the future?

To be fair to you blog readers out there, Google at blogspot.com, the master of my blog site, has you reach the area for your comments by clicking on “No Comments”.  These words, to me, mean: don’t make a comment or no comments accepted.  The word “No” needs to be omitted.  It is counter intuitive.  When you try to contact Google to ask them to change this design, you find that they would really like to see you imaginary people communicate with each other, but they do not communicate with you.  Google talks to you, but never with you.

So, what is the purpose of this blog post?  Why are we here?  Would the World be a better place without political parties?   What is your awareness?  Does God exist?  Why do folks stand in the sand and shoot at each other?  Are we but lemmings with a cell phone in our hand?  Are Honey Nuts really as healthy as the package side would indicate?

Comments are welcome, Old Buz

"Political Correctness"

I was inspired to write this post by an editorial in The Arizona Daily Star, by Tucson trauma surgeon and a Democratic candidate for The Arizona State House of Representatives, Randall Friese.  It was about Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona moving our government closer to the political center through the use of her veto power.  The elected majority of representatives are still right-wing radicals who send her reactionary legislation on guns, religion and Hispanics.  Governor Brewer is presently swatting these laws down with her pen.  She has lost her way.

Jan, in her Republican glory days, signed a bill into law which allowed a patron to carry a concealed weapon into a bar.  In my youth, I spent no small amount of time in bars.  Long enough to know that there is such a thing as an angry drunk.  Start with a concealed weapon carrier (paranoid, psychopath of the “Stand Your Ground” variety) and get them drunk and you are mixing a dangerous cocktail.  Do you personally know anyone, other than a police officer, who carries a concealed weapon?  If you do, remember, “you are judged by the friends you choose.”  Why are we suddenly pushing laws to increase the rights of concealed weapon carriers?  Are they part of a well-regulated militia?  Who are these people?

The Governor was at the height of her political correctness when she was waving her finger in the face of the Democratic President of The United States, Barak Obama.  She was correctly representing the politics of the party that she led and those who elected her.  She was in perfect synchronization with the majority of her State House of Representatives.  But, Jan Brewer is starting to use her mind, her conscience and her allegiance to the people of Arizona.  Why on earth would she do that?  Well, for one thing, she will not be up for re-election, due to term limits.  So she doesn’t have to take her marching orders from her party or the simple majority who placed her in office.  She is free to govern well.  The political fog is lifting.  A sensible person is emerging.  I could vote for Jan Brewer if she were an independent, especially if she were running against a political soldier for either of the parties.

Our representatives soon fall into line with their political party.  The party largely controls their campaign funds and their committee appointments.  This is no small influence.  The sad thing is that it is large corporate dollars that control both parties.  The driving force for large corporate dollars is short term profits, not long term solutions.  So, Dr. Randall Friese, I wish you all of the success in the world and I enjoyed your article, but as a curmudgeon, I would advise you to keep your funny little green outfit, stay clear of politics and be careful what you wish for.

Comments are welcome, Old Buz

"Affirmative Action"

Nobody is perfect.  We all have our faults.  But, in my case, they are a fricking avalanche.   If you have read this blog, you have come to expect that I am a Liberal.  Your expectation is correct, but don’t count on it as a predictor of opinion.  I occasionally step out of the parade.  Such is the case with the recent Supreme Court decision on Affirmative Action for the colleges of the state of Michigan.  The Roberts’ Court will generally side 5:4 for the ultra-right.  These decisions are normally not good law or good policy.  But, even with their weighted scales of justice, they will occasionally get a decision right.  Can't seem to avoid it. Affirmative Action or positive discrimination is a temporary solution to a hopefully temporary problem.  I would like to see a day in American when skin color is no more important than hair color, but obviously we are not there yet.

By a wide margin in 2006, the voters of Michigan approved an amendment to the state constitution that says, “Michigan’s public universities shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin.”  The Supreme Court of the United States decided not to strike that down as unconstitutional, thus opening the door for the State of Michigan to strike down Affirmative Action and showing other states how to do the same.  This Michigan constitutional amendment is not only fair, but it should have been in all states’ constitutions two hundred years ago.  It is long overdue.

To me, the big plus for Affirmative Action was placing a black faculty in front of a black student body in an elementary school.  The students need to see that authority and success does not only come in white.  Having a black president, of course, goes a long way in this direction.  There are probably states in our country where Affirmative Action is no longer needed.  But certainly there are areas where it is.  The concept that our higher educational system has for generations discriminated against black students is well established, but to make that right, the discrimination must be stopped, not turned into an advantage.  The best example of reverse discrimination is Indian Gaming Casinos which are a bad idea both for the Indians and for those they prey on.

Good law should be good for today and hopefully good for the next century, as well.  It would mean writing fewer laws, but spending more time thinking about what is written.

Comments are welcome, Old Buz

"Easter & Passover"

Easter is very big in our little town.  The Roman Club sponsors their annual Crucifixion reenactment parade.  We are a senior community and I suspect that I am the only thin, elderly Jewish male in town, so they always want me to play the lead role and drag the cross to our hilltop, where they want to nail me up on it.  I can’t, in good faith, celebrate this event.  I always decline the offer, but they keep on asking.  Of the many immoral acts that God supposedly orchestrated in The Bible, this one of sacrificing his innocent, only child, was not the most wrongful piece of mythology.  God was at his worst in the Passover story.  I know most of you haven’t read The Bible, but if you read anything in the book, you need to read the “Passover” story.  It starts at Chapter 7 of Exodus.  If you do, it will remove any guilt that you may feel for not reading the rest of it.  If you don’t have one in your house, they might have a Bible in your library and if they don’t, spend a night in a cheap motel and you will find one in the top drawer of the night stand.  Check the sheets for bed bugs.  I am obviously not suggesting that you go out and buy the damn book.

This is the story of “Passover”.  If any of you find it inaccurate, there is room for comment at the end of this blog post.  The transaction starts with an agreement with their Lord, of the Nation of Israel accepting a few centuries of slavery in Egypt, in exchange for ownership of “The Land of Milk and Honey" (Canaan).  Well, when the agreed period of slavery is over, Israel’s Lord tells Moses and his older brother Aaron to go inform the Pharaoh of Egypt of this agreement and that it has come to a close, so Pharaoh must let the Lord’s people go.  Pharaoh wasn’t even born when the agreement was made, if in fact it was made, and who the hell is this Moses and his brother anyway?  Moses reaffirms that he represents the Lord of Israel and that it will not go well for the people of Egypt, if he does not comply.  Now mind you, the people of Egypt do not have radios, newspapers or TV sets.  They have no knowledge of the conversation between Moses and Pharaoh.  They are truly innocents and ignorant.  Before any of the negotiations take place, God hardens Pharaoh’s heart.  Meaning, Pharaoh couldn’t let the Israelite slaves go if he wanted to.  So much for the free will.

After about a week of dirty tricks and plagues, like turning the water in Egypt to blood, locusts, killing cattle and so forth, God gives the Pharaoh his coup de grace, God kills the first born son of every Egyptian family and the first born of their cattle.  Can you believe that?  God killed the first born of innocents, who were themselves innocent.  And, what on earth were the cattle guilty of?  The Jewish slaves knew that this shit storm of God’s was coming and were told to spread the blood of a lamb over their entryways so that the killing angels of God would not mistakenly kill their firstborn.  We can safely assume here that God didn’t know an Israelite from an Egyptian, without some clue.  The murdering angels passed over the slave dwellings and that is where the name “Passover” came from.  If you are a Jewish scholar, please tell me what the moral is to be learned from this act?  Is it that it is OK to bomb or nuke the innocent civilians of a nation if you don’t believe that the leader is a good guy?

This story isn’t over.  After the first born of Pharaoh is killed by God, as is the first born of every Egyptian family, God softens Pharaoh’s heart and Pharaoh gives the order to let the Israelites go.  God creates a channel in the sea for the slaves to leave through.  When they have walked through the sea with a wall of water on either side, God hardens Pharaoh’s  heart again and Pharaoh sends his soldiers and chariots through the dry gap in the sea to chase the freed slaves.  The gap closes and Pharaoh’s army is drowned. These soldiers lost are fighting for their god, their country and probably their country’s freedom.  They are the same as any soldiers.  They are simply obeying orders.  What is the Bible’s lesson here?

There are many moral lessons in the Bible.  Good ones and bad ones.  Is it literal history?  Obviously not.  How do you separate the good lessons from the bad?  Damned if I know.  Perhaps you would use your own moral rudder.

Comments are welcome, Old Buz

Baseball

I am pretty much an expert on watching baseball.  My wife loves watching the Arizona Diamondbacks and I love my wife.  Baseball is a little boring.  It isn’t the most boring sport on TV.  Doesn’t even give golf or bass fishing any real competition for that title.  Just a couple of improvements would make it possible to stay awake through an entire nine innings.

For starters there are too damn many games played in a week.  It feels like it is on every evening of the season and it very nearly is.  It is wearing out the players and it is wearing out my recliner.  If a game were played once or at the most twice a week, it would become a normal sport, like football.  I could look forward to game night.  There would be fewer Tommy John surgeries.  This surgery is becoming as common to the pitching staffs across the nation as face lifts are to aging women.  The poor guys wear out their elbow tendons by pitching too often.

The outcome of the game rests squarely on the pitcher’s shoulders and his elbow.  We will play a team one night and beat them 9 to 1.  The next night, they beat us 12 to 2.  Same batters on both nights.  Same fielders and catcher too.  So, what has changed?  Well, obviously, the pitcher has.  He pretty much controls how much hitting the other team does and so goes the game.  When a pitcher does pitch a no-hitter, watching the game does rival golf and bass fishing for a boring experience.  The excitement of the sport is the hitting, running of bases and fielding.  If you really wanted to make the game fun to watch you would move the pitcher’s mound about twelve feet back.  The batter would have more time to realize what was coming at him.  The ball would have slowed down a bit and you would see more hits and more fielding.  The pitcher would have a better chance to defend against a line drive to his head and would be more able to field ground balls that normally find the gap between the short-stop and the second baseman.  It would be a better game to watch and the players, other than the pitcher, could have a greater impact on the game’s outcome.

Another rule that needs fixing is how they go about intentionally walking a batter.  The catcher moves out of the batter’s swing range and the pitcher throws four intentional balls to him.  A good friend of mine mentioned this as one of the things he would like to see changed.  If a pitcher would like to intentionally walk a batter, just wave him to first base.  There is no need for the silly game of catch.  The Baseball Commissioner is paid something like seventeen million dollars a year.  Ask yourself what he does to earn this money.  How about improving the game?

Baseball players are crotch grabbers.  I mean their own crotches.  I don’t know when or how this started.  Perhaps it isn’t a really manly sport, like football or hockey, therefore they spit and play with themselves to look macho.  The rock stars also grab their crotches and it really isn’t that attractive when they do it.  When I was about nine years old, I went through a four week period of spitting, like a baseball player.  I think my folks curtailed my habit.  When I played basketball in college, I never found it necessary to spit and neither did any other player I ever saw.  I don’t see football players spitting or crotch grabbing themselves.  Baseball players need to have a little more pride.  I know pride is a sin, but who wants to sit in a dugout full of spit.

Often you will see a ballplayer hit an infield ground ball and just jog up the first base line.  These men are being paid five or six million dollars a year and that ought to be enough to inspire them to run every hit.  When the hitter runs hard, it rushes the catch and the throw of the infielder.  It also puts a little more pressure on the first baseman.  This obviously increases the chances of an error.  Why does the manager not bench a player when little effort is made to get to first base?  I would guess that this is why they are called a manager, rather than a coach.  Some things they just don’t bother coaching.

 

If I told you that a home run is a different distance at different parks, would you believe me?  What if I told you that a home run is a different distance from the plate depending on which side of the field you hit it to?  What if a basketball hoop were ten feet high, give or take a foot at either end of the court and that a football field is one hundred yards long, give or take fifteen yards.  Well that is the great game of baseball.  Batter Up!

Comments are welcome, Old Buz

"The Koch-Sucker Nation"

If you believe that you live in a democracy, you have been suckered into the belief.  For a very long time this has been a country ruled by large dollar interests.  Recently the Roberts’ Supreme Court made the “Gold Rules” system of government official with two decisions.  One, the “Citizens United” (It’s for you, sucker!) decision, which gave corporations the right to give unlimited, anonymous dollars to a Political Action Committee (PAC).   Two, the recent McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, invalidated limits on the overall amount of annual donations an individual can give to federal candidates and committees.  The existing limit of $123,200, already too high, was increased to over three and a half million dollars.  So, the Koch brothers can contribute over seven millions dollars personally, and unlimited political donations through the multitudes of corporations that they control.  You still get one vote.

   

The Roberts’ Court, which consists of Roberts himself and four puppets, constituting a simple majority, believe that large money in some way resembles freedom of speech.  A ten dollar donation to a person’s favorite candidate may resemble freedom of speech (although it isn’t), but millions of dollars into a campaign from a single source controls the candidate, a control that you as a citizen and your well-being do not even begin to compete with.  When your interests are involved in a Supreme Court decision, you are at an away game.  Large corporations are on their home court.  The corporations, which were designed as a legal tool to carry out business, are now seen as citizens with constitutional and civil rights.  You, the actual citizen, are not even equal to a smudge on a corporate wall.

A couple of obvious examples of corporate government influence would be the war in Iraq and the recent “Affordable Healthcare Act”.  Our nation knew before entering a conflict with Iraq, that Iraq was not involved in 9/11.  We also knew before starting the war that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.  Bush pulled out the UN inspectors, on a 90 day inspection, in 60 days, and bombed, with no weapons found and it was well known before we attacked that the terrorists involved in 9/11, were Saudi.  The war was to aid munition sales and the Haliburton war logistic systems.  Suckers believe that the war had something to do with their freedom.  I can’t draw the logical connection.   Your universal healthcare act was written with the aid of health insurance lobbyists, for corporate benefit.  If it were not, it would have been a single payer system called Americare.  Other countries, not under the corporate thumb, offer systems of healthcare at lower cost, with better results and they offer care to all of their citizens.

I have been a lobbyist to the Arizona Legislature and I have witnessed large corporations, copper and cattle, not the citizens of the state, rule!  We are no longer a country, “Of The People, By The People and For The People”, that is if we ever were.  Someone is calling your name and I hope that it isn't the Koch brothers and their ilk.

Comments are welcome, Old Buz

Freedom in Arizona

If you think that you are free, in any state other than Arizona, you need to think again.  Road-rage shootings, which seem to have gone out of style in California, are being revived here in Arizona.  I’m sure that after you read this uniquely American story, you will conclude that since it is being posted on April 1^st it must be an “April Fool’s” joke, but what seems like a joke in other states, is no joke in Arizona. 

The headline on page A2 of the Arizona Daily Star of March 28^th was, “Man acquitted in road-rage shooting death in Oro Valley.”  The account of the incident is short and sweet.  On February 13, 2013, David Arnold Mota, 22, “accidentally” cut off Joshua Stephen Switalski, also 22, who then pulled up along Mota’s car, where a verbal argument ensued.  Switalski pulled ahead and Mota used the semi-automatic handgun he had in his car to shoot Switalski, also in his car, in the back, penetrating his lung and heart, ending his life.

Mota then drove to a side street and removed the mirror from his vehicle, which he had accidently shot a hole in.  The conclusion could reasonably be drawn that he was fleeing from the scene of a crime and trying to remove some of the criminal evidence.  He never called 911 to report the incident.  Mota must have believed that he had committed a crime, but the jury decided differently and acquitted him of all charges.  The charges included first-degree murder, drive-by-shooting and aggravated assault.  I don’t see that any of those charges are an overstatement.  The man may be out in his car legally, with his loaded gun, today.

I’m pretty sure that even in Arizona you can’t legally shoot a deer from a moving vehicle, but you obviously can legally shoot a man from a moving vehicle.  In a sane state you are not allowed to have a loaded gun in a vehicle.  In Arizona, a law is pending, allowing you to carry a concealed weapon into a public building.  It has passed the legislature and is waiting for our governor to sign into law.  We already can legally carry a concealed weapon into a bar.  All of the successful legislation in Arizona, since the recent mass murders here and around the nation, has been designed to take the teeth out of gun safety legislation.  In our state, you are in more trouble if you overstay your welcome at a parking meter, than if you shoot someone from your car.  Welcome to the state where freedom rings.  God Bless America and God Bless Arizona.  Screw sanity.

Comments are welcome, Old Buz

The Open Door

This post is not science fiction.  It is about the natural progression of mind communication with computers.  We have opened this door and we like it.  You can watch a YouTube segment today about a non-invasive set of receivers, placed on your head that will tell a toy RC helicopter to fly up or down, right or left, back and forth by your mental command.  Thus, the language of your mind can be read by a computer and translated into a control command.  The first and most obvious useful adaptation of this technology would be the motorized wheelchair of a quadriplegic.  A more sophisticated application would be mind control of word processing.  Yet another wonderful application would be a two way communication between the computer and a blind and deaf person.  Virtual images and audio to this person would open their world.  Since the simple communication of the mind and the RC helicopter is now possible, so will be the above.

Now, since this is America, let’s take a look at some military application of mind control of a computer.  This area is where vast sums of funds will be available for development.  A sample of this application would be a small tank/robot that could be built to patrol the streets of Iraq.  It would be about the size of a lawn tractor, or smaller.  Its eyes would be a binocular camera 3D system with depth finding crosshairs.  This would be coordinated with either a high powered rifle or a laser beam.  The effective range would be four to five hundred yards.  A fleet of these little guys traveling the main corridors of a city could fairly well keep an area clear of IED placement.  The soldier/operator of the unit would be in an air conditioned bunker, far from the fight.  This basic concept is presently being applied to our drone force, which saves courtroom expenses by not having to prove a suspect’s guilt.  The soldier being virtually removed from the battle scene may well cut back on guilt driven suicides.

As this system of communication between the mind and the computer becomes more and more sophisticated, the uses of this alliance will naturally multiply, in quantum leaps.  You think that the cost of a college education is too high?  Sit down for twenty minutes and let a computer download a knowledge base to your brain’s memory bank equal to a degree in Physics.  If I can think the toy helicopter into the sky, it will be able to tell me what the world looks like where it is.  As our sensory devices create our real world now, so will virtual reality from a computer create much of our reality of the future.  You will be virtually doing a gold metal dive in The Paris Summer Olympics or having sex with the man or woman of your dreams, while a few of the “chosen”, with a larger brain, better health and better athletic bodies are having sex to reproduce.  This system will improve the breed and cut back on overpopulation.  The only consolation that you will have in this situation is that you are having more fun than they are.

We are gently preparing ourselves for this wonderful future with our smart phones.  Observe the young coupe at a romantic dinner, each playing a game on their own hand held.  See a young mother, with her iPad resting on her baby’s bottle as the new born is fed.  Read about the Long Beach rapid transit engineer, texting while passing a half dozen warning lights and crashing into another train, killing 22 of his passengers.  Yes, these pioneers are ready for virtual reality.  As my wise philosopher brother-in-law once said, “Life is what you think.”

Comments are welcome, Old Buz

American Caste System

Today we are creating a caste system in America, without the help of the Hindu religion.  We are doing it with our system of advanced education.  A college degree has become so expensive that it is only afforded by great athletes and the children of the wealthy.  The truly great athletes only finish a year or two, before going on to the pros. The children of the middle class and those with low income parents either don’t attend college or they graduate with a degree and a crippling college loan debt.  A shovel, a hammer or a rifle may be a better alternative than the college debt.  Does a hundred thousand dollars in college debt sound like an efficient means of separating the common folks from the wealthy? 

Presently there are caring college professors offering random online courses, at little or no cost, with no degree or acceptable college credits, at their conclusion.  There are also very expensive, private colleges’, online degrees being offered, without much prestige to the diploma.  The system is market driven or random at best.  The proper solution will involve long range planning (a rarity) to benefit our nation.  Presently, our government decisions are made by our large corporations and the range of their planning is their next quarterly income statement.  Below, is a letter written to our president, before “Affordable Healthcare”, to which I received a boiler-plate, “Thank You…”  The letter was obviously never seen by our president.  President Obama commented in a State of The Union speech that he would still be paying on his college loans, if he hadn’t  gotten a couple of successful books published.  Not all of us will hit the lottery in our lifetime.  Below is the letter I sent to the President, outlining a realistic method of turning back the clock to a day when a deserving student could become a college graduate:  

Dear Mr. President:

As you well know, the cost of higher education is shooting up like the cost of healthcare.  The difference in the two problems is that there is a simple solution to the escalating cost of college and post graduate work.  Today, the middle income, or below, parent can no longer afford a college education for their son or daughter.   Colleges are increasing tuition while offering less class selection.  The answer to the problem is currently seen as: student federal service time, more tax dollars to universities, government sponsored student loans, Pell grants and tax reductions to students and parents.  These all equal additional tax costs.  But none of the present solutions deal with the root of the problem.  The cost of higher education is too high and getting higher.  The solution to the problem lies in a well designed federal online university.    

If we could lower the cost of higher education, while increasing its quality, rather than sponsoring the ever increasing cost with student and taxpayer dollars, wouldn’t that be a good thing?  We can.  The technology is here now.    Take a look at the broad selection of degrees offered through the internet at The University of Illinois Online and at many other internet colleges across the nation. But, as you know, the virtual university costs are nearly as high as actually attending a campus.  Online college competition raises each of their costs by lowering enrollment.

The development of a federally sponsored online university would solve the cost penalty to a bachelor or graduate degree.  It would require initial support from the federal government.  A realistic target for the cost to a student would be under one thousand dollars per year (30 units) of education.  And this amount would ultimately self support the university.  If every online student of Accounting 101 across the nation is taking the course from the same professor and is using the same online textbook wouldn’t the cost of those 3 units be very reasonable for that student?  And could you not hire the best Accounting 101 professor at a top level salary to teach this course?  The professor could teach from his home or his university.  Many professors would get more satisfaction from teaching a group of twenty-five thousand students than from teaching twenty-five.    A faculty composed of the best in the nation would offer a highly respected diploma from a prestigious university.  Exams would be given just as the SATs are, in libraries, junior colleges and other locally monitored community facilities.  TA’s would be available for online questions.

An online low cost university would be open to all qualified students.  It would allow the student the opportunity to see a given lecture two or three times if they weren’t confident of their understanding the first time.  This would allow a student to master each subject.  As college exists today you can receive a D in a subject and balance it with an A in another subject.  This college could require mastery and therefore represent a better education and better qualifications to prospective employers.  Today, in classes, time is the constant.  The grade is the variable.  With this system, mastery is the constant and time is the variable.  Students would move at their own rate.  If a bachelor’s degree takes one person two years and another six, so be it.  They have mastered the curriculum in either case.  Some will be able to proceed full time and others, who might be supporting themselves or a family, will not.    

An online university has its shortcomings.  There is no socialization or establishing contacts in your chosen field.  Today, some students can’t afford this luxury or have no time for it or will not need it.  As an example, if you are a law student, one of your three graduate years might be spent in a courtroom environment or an internship.  The other two years could be accomplished online.  You have just knocked two thirds off of the cost of a law degree.  Study for the state bar can be done completely online.  Any given bachelor’s degree may require one semester or a full year on campus.  I believe that a good percentage of universities would gladly co-operate with such a program, offering the on-campus requirements.

 This is a shift in paradigms whose time has come.  It is time to make our citizens the best educated population in the world.  Ability and effort will become the determining factors for a great education.  A high school counselor will be able to tell an incoming freshman in a low income neighborhood, “Your education is no longer determined by your parents’ wealth.  You decide if you are working for a college degree.”  The student will be able to pass the message down to their younger siblings.  A new hope for the future will be born.

I enjoyed my four years in college in the sixties.  It provided me with a better future and a better life for my family.  I had no college loans.  College was reasonable in the 60s, so I was able to work and pay as I went.  This lack of debt also enabled me to start a small, successful business within two years of graduation.   With the present cost of tuition, room, board and books you couldn’t possibly do this.  The choice for a good student, today, having parents of average income, is to graduate with a diploma and a giant debt, or to not be able to go to college at all.   

I think that the federal, state and local governments, working together, could provide an excellent alternative route to a university degree.  State sponsored universities would need to cooperate with the online program in order to furnish the on-campus time that some majors require, such as labs, hands on study and discussion groups.  Turn back the clock fifty years for the cost of higher education.  Let all worthy students go to college.  Make The Federal Online University a reality.  And, set this online university on track to become one of the best rated universities in the nation.

This could be a university with the best professors in the nation, demanding mastery of their students and offering a prestigious degree.   The described federal online university would offer an equal opportunity to all students, at a cost that both they and their government can afford.  The student, who should get a college education, will get a college education and our nation will be better for it.  Is this a non-partisan issue or would you face a Republican filibuster?  Wouldn’t our corporations get behind this in order to supply themselves with a better educated work force and be more competitive in the world marketplace?  You will take some flak from the present universities, but this idea will come to be.  I would love to see it implemented properly during your administration and be a part of your legacy.

Comments are welcome, Old Buz

(Sorry for this blog post being so long, but I thought you might enjoy reading something that the POTUS was not allowed to.)

"You Tomorrow"

A couple of posts ago, in this blog, a kindly reader named John, commented, “You are now officially a curmudgeon!  Congratulations!”  If you take a look at Webster’s New World Dictionary, the definition of curmudgeon is: a surly, ill-mannered, bad-tempered person; cantankerous fellow.  Most other sources add the word elderly.   Now if the definition were simply, a cantankerous, elderly fellow, it would be pretty close.  Surly, ill-mannered and bad tempered really don’t apply.  (But, if a pessimist living in his seventh decade is all that is required, congratulations were in order.)  The comment was made after the post titled, “HR 20….” And, HR 20 is in fact a stupid piece of legislation, co-sponsored by most of the Democrats in The House.  You need only to read it and see who co-sponsored it, in order to see that my criticisms of it are valid.  It would have been nice if the Democrats who co-signed the bill had read it first.  They simply cannot be dumb enough to think that HR 20 is a good piece of legislation for campaign reform.  It is a major increase in campaign spending.  You see, “they simply cannot be dumb enough” is a compliment and would certainly not be said by a curmudgeon.

 

In a logic class, while at Loyola University, I learned that appealing to one’s prejudices rather than to reason, as by attacking one’s opponent rather than debating the issue, is the fallacy of ad hominem.  Ad hominem is constantly seen on our TV editorials (cable news programs), talk radio and in far right and far left emails.  A good example, that is way overused, is comparing anyone to Hitler.  I don’t know that John read enough of my blog posts to know my age before his comment, so for all he knew, I may have been simply a pessimist (realist).  John, please read H.R. 20 and see if you can find any error in my analysis.  I would love to hear it.

You may ask why, “You Tomorrow” as a title?  It’s a warning.   My life trajectory has been: good student, to non-believer, to activist, to lobbyist, to realist, to pessimist, to John’s curmudgeon.  I would guess that the simple majority tend to see an elderly male pessimist as a curmudgeon.  I kind of like the title, see it as a badge of courage and awareness, but if you don’t, and are a middle aged pessimist, you had best mend your ways.  You women reading this don’t need to worry; because the term is normally applied to males.

Comments are welcome, Old Buz