The great social debate of the day is focused on the right of the people to keep and bear firearms. Some of the people believe that the Second Amendment gives them unfettered right to own rifles, shotguns, pistols and just about any other weapon they desire and to enjoy any and all of the shooting sports. There are also other members of our society that think any kind of "weapon" including a pointed finger should be banned and the user punished.
Obviously the truth of the debate lies somewhere between those two extreme positions. I tend to believe that with few exceptions all qualified citizens have a right to posses and enjoy firearms and I cannot understand the thinking of those who would take away what I believe to be a right. I also believe that if we want to debate the issue all parties need to have a clear understanding of what the word "rights" mean.
To my mind rights can be identified as have either positive or negative positions. If you ask the average person to define the American Bill of Rights they will always identify them as negative rights that are reserved for the people to enjoy and the government is forbidden (and incapable) of taking away from the people.
The people who presently oppose the Second Amendment to the Constitution will loudly identify what they see rights to be. To them a right is a positive obligation of society to all its citizens. The right to an education, food, a job and an income are some of the rights they hold dear. I can't fault their desires, I just find it counter-productive to believe that things that can be achieved by personal effort should be given us by the state. It is society's job to present opportunity to the individual, not give him a handout.
If those rights are so important I believe the reason the writers of the Constitution did not enumerate them is that they saw those rights as a positive value, and one that could only lead to a centralized and controlling government. They had just fought a war and created a new nation over that issue and certainly did not want to create our own monster.
I believe the society and members of those who created our country were far wiser than many of today's society give them credit for. So if you don't mind, I'll stick with the negative values of the Bill of Rights and refuse to "improve" them as some of our politicians want us to do.
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Saturday, January 12, 2013
Lessons Learned
I've been on deployment with FEMA to the New York area helping people impacted by Super Storm Sandy. The last time I spent more than a day or two in New York was when I was growing up here...and I left the city behind me back in the 50's when I graduated from high school.
Old New York is not the same as when I was growing up and to my jaded eyes all the changes that have occurred are not all for the good. What was once a crowded and congested city is now a grossly crowded and congested assembly of people who seem to have lost all social skills. Manhattan used to be a walkers paradise and people on the street had a an almost ballerina skill in walking crowded streets without colliding. Today when I try to walk the streets it's almost impossible to avoid being run down by pedestrians who bull down the street, focused on their latest electronic toy and seeing neither people, cars or walk lights in their hurry to get elsewhere. The shear number of people concentrated in a small area has destroyed the concept of "personal space" and the traditional in your face attitude is reflected by personal space becoming a contact sport.
Once out of the city and in my car I get a daily lesson in attitude from my fellow drivers. Speed limits and traffic control devices are there for tourists and I'm sure the horn industry sells lots of replacement horns every day. There are signs on all the highways that tell drivers it's a state law that turn signals must be used when changing lanes. HAH! they only use of turn signal I see is when traffic is jammed up (a common occurrence) and the guy next to you wants to get in the space your car is occupying...and he will do that come what may. About 20 percent of the drivers I see insist on driving with their high beams on and there is nothing that can persuade them to do otherwise. I guess they feel that if they don't blind you, you won't see them trying to occupy your space.
I made a decision many years ago that "elsewhere" was better than New York City and I'm glad I did. I got a wonderful lady, great family and an interesting career after I moved away. I've never looked back, but I also have to say that the xenophobic people who inhabit the region are also up front, outspoken and assertively some of the nicest people you can meet. Once they say hello to your good morning welcome they prove to be social and (almost) polite.
In my dealings with those who were impacted by the storm I've seen a resiliency and a willingness to work towards regaining their fractured lives that I find impressive. I'm still glad I live where I do, but I am impressed by the applicants I work with.
Old New York is not the same as when I was growing up and to my jaded eyes all the changes that have occurred are not all for the good. What was once a crowded and congested city is now a grossly crowded and congested assembly of people who seem to have lost all social skills. Manhattan used to be a walkers paradise and people on the street had a an almost ballerina skill in walking crowded streets without colliding. Today when I try to walk the streets it's almost impossible to avoid being run down by pedestrians who bull down the street, focused on their latest electronic toy and seeing neither people, cars or walk lights in their hurry to get elsewhere. The shear number of people concentrated in a small area has destroyed the concept of "personal space" and the traditional in your face attitude is reflected by personal space becoming a contact sport.
Once out of the city and in my car I get a daily lesson in attitude from my fellow drivers. Speed limits and traffic control devices are there for tourists and I'm sure the horn industry sells lots of replacement horns every day. There are signs on all the highways that tell drivers it's a state law that turn signals must be used when changing lanes. HAH! they only use of turn signal I see is when traffic is jammed up (a common occurrence) and the guy next to you wants to get in the space your car is occupying...and he will do that come what may. About 20 percent of the drivers I see insist on driving with their high beams on and there is nothing that can persuade them to do otherwise. I guess they feel that if they don't blind you, you won't see them trying to occupy your space.
I made a decision many years ago that "elsewhere" was better than New York City and I'm glad I did. I got a wonderful lady, great family and an interesting career after I moved away. I've never looked back, but I also have to say that the xenophobic people who inhabit the region are also up front, outspoken and assertively some of the nicest people you can meet. Once they say hello to your good morning welcome they prove to be social and (almost) polite.
In my dealings with those who were impacted by the storm I've seen a resiliency and a willingness to work towards regaining their fractured lives that I find impressive. I'm still glad I live where I do, but I am impressed by the applicants I work with.
Saturday, January 5, 2013
I have to disagree
I occasionally publish my thoughts and could be considered a blogger. That's a term with about as much credence as "assault rifle" and "dumb blond" but I enjoy speaking my mind and letting the few readers I have know what I'm thinking. As most bloggers do I also read the product of other bloggers both to get ideas and to tune my own writing skills in comparison with people whose writing ability I admire and hope to emulate.
I ran across a post from a blogger who believes that governmental disaster response is both too expensive and muddleheaded. Writing about "Sandy" the recent east coast disaster he made it clear that if you build on a barrier island you deserve having your house washed away. If you decided not to have flood insurance he sees no benefit in the government helping you recover from the result of your stupid decision. In short he thinks that money spent on disaster recovery is a bad social investment, with no good return on investment in his eyes. Interestingly enough I can see the merit (but not the logic) of his commentary.
I am a reservist with FEMA (as are the majority of FEMA people, which means we have a life outside the periodic call to help others) and at the moment I'm stationed on one of those east coast barrier islands that was devastated by the storm. I'm seeing first hand the impact poor decisions made years ago can have on people. And often those decisions were made by other people who didn't have a clue that what they decided would hurt future generations.
I see people who have lived in their seaside cottage for over half a century. A cottage that was built long before there was an understanding of the dynamics of barrier beaches and long before the concept of building codes. Logically society should not have built infrastructure on barrier islands but reality is that society established itself on the island and we have to live with the consequences of decisions made by those long dead people so many years ago.
The older couple I mentioned just a moment ago probably bought their seaside cottage in the 1950's or 60's and after decades of occupancy they finally paid the mortgage off. What they failed to realize is that the mortgage company, when they finalized the mortgage also terminated the National Flood Insurance coverage the couple had paid for over the years. And as often happens the elderly pair didn't realize they had no insurance or made the (bad) decision that the premiums were higher than they could afford.
What do I, as a representative of a government that prides itself on caring tell these octogenarians when they approach me for help. Their cottage has been knocked off its foundations and the contents of their home (and the visible memories of their lives) have been washed into the ocean or are ruined by mold. I have to tell them that when their insurance lapsed they forfeited their best opportunity to recover their declining years and that the most their government can do for them is fund them to a ceiling of $31,900 which barely gives them opportunity to turn their back on their lives and their history and find a safer place to live.
So while I agree with my fellow blogger that we should not reward bad decisions I have to ask if individuals should today bear the burden of past generations making those poor decisions. There is a need for society to make some serious changes and we need to discuss what they should be and what the implications of those decisions will be.
I look forward to that conversation.
I ran across a post from a blogger who believes that governmental disaster response is both too expensive and muddleheaded. Writing about "Sandy" the recent east coast disaster he made it clear that if you build on a barrier island you deserve having your house washed away. If you decided not to have flood insurance he sees no benefit in the government helping you recover from the result of your stupid decision. In short he thinks that money spent on disaster recovery is a bad social investment, with no good return on investment in his eyes. Interestingly enough I can see the merit (but not the logic) of his commentary.
I am a reservist with FEMA (as are the majority of FEMA people, which means we have a life outside the periodic call to help others) and at the moment I'm stationed on one of those east coast barrier islands that was devastated by the storm. I'm seeing first hand the impact poor decisions made years ago can have on people. And often those decisions were made by other people who didn't have a clue that what they decided would hurt future generations.
I see people who have lived in their seaside cottage for over half a century. A cottage that was built long before there was an understanding of the dynamics of barrier beaches and long before the concept of building codes. Logically society should not have built infrastructure on barrier islands but reality is that society established itself on the island and we have to live with the consequences of decisions made by those long dead people so many years ago.
The older couple I mentioned just a moment ago probably bought their seaside cottage in the 1950's or 60's and after decades of occupancy they finally paid the mortgage off. What they failed to realize is that the mortgage company, when they finalized the mortgage also terminated the National Flood Insurance coverage the couple had paid for over the years. And as often happens the elderly pair didn't realize they had no insurance or made the (bad) decision that the premiums were higher than they could afford.
What do I, as a representative of a government that prides itself on caring tell these octogenarians when they approach me for help. Their cottage has been knocked off its foundations and the contents of their home (and the visible memories of their lives) have been washed into the ocean or are ruined by mold. I have to tell them that when their insurance lapsed they forfeited their best opportunity to recover their declining years and that the most their government can do for them is fund them to a ceiling of $31,900 which barely gives them opportunity to turn their back on their lives and their history and find a safer place to live.
So while I agree with my fellow blogger that we should not reward bad decisions I have to ask if individuals should today bear the burden of past generations making those poor decisions. There is a need for society to make some serious changes and we need to discuss what they should be and what the implications of those decisions will be.
I look forward to that conversation.
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
The Blame Game
Every morning I try to watch at least a few minutes of news while I'm getting dressed for work, it puts me in a cynical mood but I try to ignore that to I can deal with clients in a more positive frame of mind. The past weeks the talking heads that read the news de jour have been over extending themselves in spreading the word that the evil and/or sick people who have cause undue pain and suffering are the result of other peoples actions. So if out of the thousands of people who have seen a violent movie there is one sick individual who acts out his emotional fantasy and rage it's all the fault of the entertainment industry.
I grew up in the 40's and watched my kids growing up in the 60's and 70's and there was always some depiction of violence and bad behavior on the silver screen or the TV. While we have always had asocial people who are willing to do bad things there was no casting of blame when those people did wrong. Society dealt with the problem and the perpetrator and depended on the parents of the millions of kids growing up to teach them social morality and proper behavior. It was not then, and it should not be now a reason to blame others for the failure of an infinitesimal few to abide to the social norms that define us as a society.
While we are right to blame the individual and right to determine suitable punishment for their transgressions we should look to the parents who failed in their job of guiding the growing child down the proper path rather than blaming the media and the entertainment industry. I don't like the extravagant violence that is glorified today but it still remains the jo of the parent to see that their child knows right from wrong, understands the social contract and is willing to take responsibility for their actions.
I grew up in the 40's and watched my kids growing up in the 60's and 70's and there was always some depiction of violence and bad behavior on the silver screen or the TV. While we have always had asocial people who are willing to do bad things there was no casting of blame when those people did wrong. Society dealt with the problem and the perpetrator and depended on the parents of the millions of kids growing up to teach them social morality and proper behavior. It was not then, and it should not be now a reason to blame others for the failure of an infinitesimal few to abide to the social norms that define us as a society.
While we are right to blame the individual and right to determine suitable punishment for their transgressions we should look to the parents who failed in their job of guiding the growing child down the proper path rather than blaming the media and the entertainment industry. I don't like the extravagant violence that is glorified today but it still remains the jo of the parent to see that their child knows right from wrong, understands the social contract and is willing to take responsibility for their actions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)