Occupy the Schools

I found the Occupy Wall Street movement the most interesting thing about 2011, even though it disappointed me.  It disappointed me because I thought that they would make people aware of the criminal activity in our financial system and the inequality of opportunity that now pervades our society.  Instead, the people who occupied Wall Street and the financial centers of other cities did little more than display a sense of entitlement.

By focusing on the one percent of Americans who have more wealth than the 99 percent of the rest of us, members of the Occupy Wall Street movement failed to convince the rest of us that we need to make profound changes in our financial system and our government in order to restore the equality of opportunity that the authors of the United States Constitution had in mind.  Inequality of income is just a symptom of inequality of opportunity.  Many of us do not have an issue with others having enormous wealth, unless they acquired that wealth by cheating the rest of us.  Occupy Wall Street has said little or nothing about lax enforcement of insider trading laws, and they have said little or nothing about the financial geniuses who rigged the system so that it is harder to tell the difference between investment and speculation.

I thought the Occupy Wall Street movement would try to put pressure on the government to prosecute those who were responsible for the banks having to be bailed out by the government, or at least try to get them fired.  One of my Facebook friends claims that the banks failed because they were forced by the government to give home loans to people who could not pay back the loans.  Neither Occupy Wall Street nor the mass media has addressed this issue.  No one has addressed how the public educational system no longer provides access to opportunity as it once did.  A person who graduates from high school in a wealthy school district has many more college and career opportunities than a person who graduates from high school in a poor school district.  It should not matter whether a person graduates from a rich school or a poor school, but it does.

Occupy Wall Street was correct in protesting on Wall Street instead of protesting at the United States Capitol, because the real power is on Wall Street.  However, it is futile to tell Wall Street that they have too much money and that they should share it with the rest of us.  To bring about change, they need to do much more than complain about how some people have more money than others.  They need to remember that if all of the wealth in America were to be fairly distributed around the world, all Americans would have much less than we do now.  They need to come up with an idea to restructure the tax code so that all schools are equally funded.  If we all receive the same educational opportunities, economic inequalities will be less severe.

Happy Holidays vs. Merry Christmas

I had a short discussion with a co-worker last week about saying “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas.” The conversation got interrupted because we were making phone calls, and had to get on with our work. Some of my friends on Facebook have posted comments along the lines of, “It’s Merry Christmas, not Happy Holidays.”

I have not heard anyone complain about anybody saying Merry Christmas for several years. I even forgot myself for a minute, and wished a Jewish person Merry Christmas yesterday. I understand why the controversy arose. Christmas is the most important day on the calendar for most Christians. People who are not Christians may feel as though Christians are trying to force their beliefs on them by saying Merry Christmas. Since Thanksgiving, Hanukkah and New Years Day all arrive close to Christmas, it makes sense to cover them all and not offend anybody by saying Happy Holidays.

“Happy Holidays” sounds so watered down. It just sounds like a person wants to wish others a Merry Christmas in a Politically Correct way. Christians may feel that they are not giving testimony to their faith if they say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas. Jesus told us not to judge others, but he also said “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the father but through me.” (John 14:6) He was trying to tell us that we can’t wander into salvation through any old religion. We need a focus, and Jesus came into the world to be that focus. Without a focus, it is easy for us to be led into darkness through false religion.

Those who object to hearing Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas may need to ask themselves if they announce their faith at times of year other than Christmas. We celebrate that Jesus came into the world at Christmastime. His birth was an expression of God’s love. We need to remember Good Friday and Easter. Jesus died on the cross on Good Friday so that we could have our sins forgiven by believing that he endured the crucifixion for us. His resurrection on Easter Day was his greatest miracle. The Crucifixion and the Resurrection were the reasons for Christ’s birth.

So, if you want to insist on Merry Christmas instead of Happy Holidays, ask yourself if you are witnessing and evangelizing the rest of the year.

Worldwide Income Inequality

I admire the people involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement for bringing attention to some serious flaws in our financial system.  One of those flaws is the fact that many people responsible for our current financial problems have not had to face consequences for rigging the system so that they could bet on its failure.  Our system of investment has moved further away from realistic assessments of the productivity or profitability of an enterprise.

One of my Facebook friends works in banking.  He claims that the housing crisis and the financial collapse that followed were caused by legislation that forced lenders to make loans available to people who could not pay the loans back.  Although they have not used the exact words, he and other Facebook friends have made comments that lead me to believe that they think the people occupying Wall Street are operating under a sense of entitlement.

Income inequality is an important issue to address, but I get the impression from some things I read that some members of the Occupy Wall Street movement need to be reminded that no one owes anyone else a job.  Businesses hire people to do jobs because they think they can make a profit from the work that gets done.  If a worker is paid more than the revenue brought to the business as a result of the work done, that worker will not have a job for very long.  Those who protest income inequality in the United States need to consider income inequality worldwide.  Those who claim to be among the 99% in the United States may be among the 1% worldwide.

For many decades, the citizens of the United States have made up a small fraction of the world’s population, but have consumed the majority of the world’s resources.  We take many things for granted while people around the world do without food, housing and medical care.  Improved communication technology is changing that.  Employers can now find workers around the world who are more skillful and reliable than domestic workers, and will work for much lower wages.  This means more profit for businesses that send office work overseas.  As the Chinese economy grows, more people in China can now afford to buy things that they could not afford in the past, such as beef.  A greater worldwide demand for beef will result in higher prices for beef at supermarkets and restaurants in the United States.

Even if those who occupy Wall Street are successful in reducing income inequality in the United States, addressing income inequality and consumption inequality worldwide will mean that we in America will have much less than we do now.  The Arab Spring may result in even higher gas prices.  We forget that dictators in the Middle East made it convenient for us to extract oil from their countries at low prices.  Democratically elected governments in Egypt and Libya may want their fair share of oil revenues.  Overall, we can expect to become poorer as people in other parts of the world become less poor, especially if we continue to think that someone owes us a job.  We have to have skills or products that we can sell in a global marketplace if we want to maintain our current standard of living.  Advances in communication technology will give us the chance to do that, but will also give a chance to everyone else in the world.

Invest, Don't Protest

The Occupy Wall Street movement is as historical as the movements that led to the fall of the Berlin Wall or the protests at Tiananmen Square, because instead of taking their protests to the United States Capitol, citizens are taking their complaints to the place where decisions about money are made.  They know that our government is unable to help them.  They acknowledge that our elected representatives are puppets of Wall Street.

I ask the people occupying Wall Street to look deeper.  Wall Street is a puppet, too.  Wall Street is merely one component in the Military Industrial Complex that President Eisenhower warned us about.  President Kennedy also warned us about a monolithic conspiracy.  Taylor Caldwell wrote a novel about an international cabal that controls our lives.  I am now starting to wonder if this vast complex devised a powerful system to control trading and banking that is now out of control. 

If Occupy Wall Street wants to correct the abuses of our financial system, I suggest that they use their organizational skills to get people to pool their money to invest.  Wall Street will not listen to protests in the park.  They will listen to how shareholders vote for board members.  If we want our media to give us real news instead of celebrity gossip, we need to elect enough directors to the boards of media corporations to make that happen.   If we want to make sure that pharmaceutical companies are not sitting on patents for lifesaving drugs, we need to organize with each other to put enough money together to buy enough shares of pharmaceutical companies to elect directors to the board.  If we don’t want a manufacturer to ship jobs overseas, we need to own enough of that company to make them keep the jobs here.

If corporations are our government, getting involved in public life means owning a piece of Corporate America and getting our neighbors to do the same.  We also need to organize boycotts of privately-traded firms if they do harm to the social good.  The boycott of one bus company helped end racial segregation on public transportation throughout the United States.  We can influence policy with how we decide to use the few dollars we have.  Getting more directly involved in the financial world may be the only effective way to uncover and correct the shadowy forces that control our government and our financial system.

"If it weren't for the unions, you'd be working for peanuts!"

I am grateful that I do not have to work on Labor Day, but will get paid for it anyway.  I had to work the Saturday and Sunday before Labor Day this year, but I am grateful for that.  I hear about so many people being out of work lately, that I am grateful to have work.  I am also grateful to have the day off because I predict that by the end of the decade, Labor Day will no longer be a legal holiday.  Labor Day reminds me of other things that I should be grateful for.  In some parts of the world, Labor Day is called Eight Hour Day.  Think of that.  We take for granted so many things that the labor unions negotiated for us, such as not being expected to work more than eight hours a day or 40 hours a week without being paid time and a half or compensatory time off.

I remember witnessing an argument between my grandfather and one of his friends when I was a kid.  My grandfather's friend had said something about unions being useless or that they had outlived their usefulness.  My grandfather said "If it weren't for the unions, you'd be working for peanuts!"  I remember that when I hear about union-busting legislation in Ohio and Wisconsin.  The unions are almost dead.  Much of it is their own fault.  They allowed themselves to be corrupted, and they did not share a global vision of business with employers.  In many cases, they priced themselves out of markets.  Corporations determined that they could get higher quality work for less money in foreign countries.  Ohio and Wisconsin are probably just the first two cash-strapped state governments to refuse to continue to pay for unaffordable salaries and benefits.

As the unions die, we can all expect to see the benefits they negotiated for their members fade away.  Many of these benefits apply to all of us, not just union members.  The laws of supply and demand will give employers greater negotiating power as unemployment remains high.  We will all be competing with each other for fewer jobs, so employers will hire those of us who will settle for lower pay and fewer benefits.  We can expect to see less paid time off, less coverage for health care insurance and longer workdays and workweeks.  We can expect working conditions to deteriorate.  Laws governing these things will either not be enforced or will be weakened or repealed.

I hope my predictions are wrong.  I would like to have Labor Day as a paid holiday until I retire, and would like my son to be able to take a long weekend when he joins the workforce.  I hope we can remember the power  of collective bargaining, and learn to use it wisely.

Jesus, The Performance Artist

Two different Facebook friends have posted declarations of faith in the last few days, requesting that all of their friends copy and paste the declaration to their Status.  Both of the declarations contained reminders that if we deny Christ in front of men, He will deny us to The Father at The Judgment.  I needed to ask myself why I hesitated to comply with their requests.  It is because I have become leery of reposting anything on Facebook, and I do not want to be responsible for turning anyone away from Christ. 

Many requests to repost information on Facebook turn out to be rumors or hoaxes.  That was not true in this case, as both of my friends accurately paraphrased what Jesus said.  I am concerned about turning anyone away from Christ because I have seen it happen.  Jesus told us not to judge anyone, but my impression has been that many people who call themselves Christians are some of the most judgmental and mean-spirited people around.  I think that many other people share this impression.  People I have known who have been some of the best examples of loving thy neighbor, who were most like the Good Samaritan, have been people who did not even think of themselves as Christians.  Reminding people that they face damnation unless they declare themselves as Christians will probably not motivate people to learn about Jesus Christ.  Jesus said that he came not to condemn the world, but to save it from condemnation.

If we are going to use Facebook and other social media to share the Good News, we must share the good news with those who have not heard it.  They can learn about not hiding their light under a bushel after they get interested and start reading a Bible.  Jesus preached a message of love and hope and the power of faith.  One important thing I learned from reading the Bible is that we do ourselves a larger favor by forgiving others than any favor we do for anyone else when we forgive them.  I learned that we can overcome fear by faith.

Jesus was the ultimate performance artist.  Historians regard the Gospels as historical documents.  The Crucifixion was an historical event, not just a religious event.  Even if we leave aside some of the dogma, such as whether Jesus was born of a virgin, He really did go to the cross to send a message.  He had enough love and enough faith in him to undergo torture and die an extremely painful death so that the rest of us can have a focal point for our faith.  He died so that we can have life more abundantly and so that we can face the afterlife without fear.

Taxation Without Representation

An important principle for us to keep in mind on Independence Day is the idea of taxation without representation.  It was an important reason for the American Revolution.  It is the reason the franchise was expanded to include more than male property owners

Many citizens of the United States today are taxed without representation, but that is at least partly their own fault.  Less than half of the eligible voters in Ohio showed up at the polls to narrowly elect the now unpopular governor, John Kasich.  The government of Minnesota is now shut down because the governor and the legislature cannot agree on a budget.  The Democratic governor wants to raise taxes on state residents with the highest two percent of income, and the Republicans in the legislature refuse to agree to this.  It looks as though the same thing may happen to our national government.

The people who represent us in our state and national governments do not represent all of us.  They certainly represent the wealthiest among us, because the wealthiest among us vote.  They also have the means to fund election campaigns to influence how the rest of us vote.  If the wealthiest among us have a disproportionate share of power, it is because we gave it to them through our apathy. 

This problem goes back many generations.  Many people are apathetic about voting because they do not understand the importance of voting.  They did not adequately learn about civics in school because their parents did not vote for adequate funding for the public schools.  Those parents did not vote for money for the schools because they did not understand that their children must have an adequate education to participate in government effectively.  As a result, we have a population that believes that their votes do not count.  Many of those who do vote are manipulated by politicians who tell them what they want to hear.

If you are a poor working stiff, your incompetent brother-in-law sleeps on your couch.  If you are well-to-do, your incompetent brother-in-law works in your tax shelter business.  If you are wealthy and powerful, your incompetent brother-in-law holds public office so that you can get government contracts and subsidies and so that the tax structure favors your business interests.

We can reverse this situation simply by voting.  This means all of us.  If we simply bothered to learn about the issues and vote for candidates who truly represent our interests, we might be able to choose from more than two parties, and we might be able to field candidates who know something about the United States Constitution and the law.  We might not have to put up with campaign ads that insult our intelligence.  We might be able to keep our government in operation.

I'm Still Here

Even though Harold Camping seems to have not read the verses in the Bible in which Jesus Christ said that not even the angels in heaven know when he will return, (Matthew 24:36) I would be reluctant to laugh or jeer at him.  Mr. Camping predicted that the Rapture would occur on May 21, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. EDT.

There is a reason that we have a concept of a Last Day and a Rapture.  It is there to remind us to check ourselves to see if we are free of guilt and anger.  Whether you call these emotions sin, or bad kharma or negative spiritual energy, they hinder us from living life to its fullest in this world and prevent us from achieving Nirvana or entering the Kingdom of Heaven.  To be free of guilt and anger, we must seek forgiveness from those we have wronged, and forgive those who have wronged us.  This can be hard work.  The idea of the Rapture is there to remind us not to put off that hard work until it is convenient.  Jesus could come back at any time.  Even if he does not come back soon, any of us could get hit by a bus at any time.  We don't want a heart full of guilt and anger whenever something happens.

Basic Economics

WBNS 10TV, a television station in Columbus, Ohio, recently posed a question on its Facebook page. They asked followers who or what they think is responsible for the price of gasoline. The most popular answer among the people who post comments is that high gas prices are caused by the greed of the oil companies. President Barack Obama addressed similar concerns when he announced that the U.S. Justice Department will investigate whether the price of gas has been artificially increased by speculation among commodity traders.

Saying that an increase in the price of gasoline is caused by greedy oil companies is overly simplistic. They are in business to make a profit, but they have to compete against each other. If one oil company raises their prices significantly more than the other oil companies, they will not sell any oil or gas. I would be surprised if speculation is responsible for the price of gas increasing by more than a few cents a gallon.

What many of us seem to forget is the law of supply and demand. The price of gas is going up because we are running out of crude oil, from which gasoline is refined. The law of supply and demand determines the price of anything. If the supply of something increases or if the demand for something decreases, prices will go down. We can see this with the price of pork. More people now believe that the amount of fat in pork is not good for them and are buying less of it. The supply has not decreased in proportion, so those who still enjoy pork chops can find deals at the supermarket. Deals are not available on honey. A mysterious disease has killed off many honeybees, so honey is in short supply. The demand for honey has stayed the same, but there is less of it available. It is like we are all at an auction. Fewer people are bidding on the same amount of pork chops, and the same amount of people are bidding on less honey.

The situation with gasoline is similar to the situation with honey. There is less gasoline available than there used to be, but the same number of us are bidding on it. There is less oil available because we have used it up. We have been using it up for more than 100 years. Allowing oil drilling in places where we do not now allow it might keep the price of gas from going up for a little while, but it will go up again once we use that up. We have used it up through our pride, impatience, snobbery and laziness. We love to be seen in big, fancy cars, and we love to drive them fast. We think public transportation is for losers. We would rather spend the money to own a car than to walk a few blocks to catch a train or a bus. People who would rather take a bus or train to get to work are often out of luck because public transportation systems have not been built. We have put our money into roads and streets to accommodate automobiles. Those who want to ride bicycles risk death or injury at the hands of impatient and inattentive drivers. Obesity is epidemic, but we do not want to walk a few blocks to the store. We would rather use chainsaws, snowblowers and power mowers than do any kind of labor.

We have designed a transportaton system that uses fuel as inefficiently as possible. CSX claims that its trains can move a ton of freight nearly 500 miles on one gallon of fuel. This seems vastly more efficient than moving freight by truck. It makes me wonder why more freight is not moved by trains. If freight has to be moved hundreds of miles, it seems that it would be much more efficient to move it by train, and then put it on a truck to move it from a train depot to the final destination. This may add to the time it takes to deliver products to market, but I would think it would help decrease the final cost of the products.

We have used up all of our oil by using it inefficiently. If we want to stop paying outrageous prices for gas, we will have to avoid driving. We will have to take the bus, walk, or ride a bicycle. We may have to wait an extra day for products to arrive at the store.

Fighting Words

The United States Supreme Court ruled earlier this week that picketing funerals is free speech, protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.  Samuel Alito was the only justice to dissent from the ruling.  He opined that carrying a sign at a funeral that reads "GOD HATES FAGS" amounts to fighting words, which are not protected by the First Amendment.  Members of the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas picketed the funeral of a soldier who was killed in Iraq.  They claim that God is punishing the United States because we have homosexuals enlisted in our armed forces.  The father of the dead Marine sued for damages, claiming that the picketers at his son's funeral inflicted emotional damage. 

It concerns me that only one justice out of nine on the highest court in our nation recognizes the word "fag" as a fighting word.  People who are openly gay and people who are anti-homosexual know that if you call someone a fag, you should be prepared to fight.  The fact that most of the justices on the Supreme Court do not know this makes me believe that they are out of touch with the rest of us.  We want our judges to be objective, but they should also know about fighting words.

Even if members of the Westboro Baptist Church did not have signs that included the word "fag," the very act of picketing a funeral amounts to fighting words.  If you do not think so, try this thought experiment:  Would the members of the Westboro Baptist Church picket the funeral of a gang member in Los Angeles who died in a shoot-out with another gang?  If they want to protest against immoral practices in our society, why not protest against selling dangerous and illegal drugs?  Picketing a funeral is abusive to the people who mourn the deceased.  They dropped plans to picket the funeral of a nine-year-old girl in exchange for radio air time.  I understand that they planned the protest against abuse of children by Roman Catholic clergy.

If you disagree with my idea that picketing funerals is abusive, consider that the practice is reverse evangelism.  What I mean by that is that it will have the opposite effect of the intended effect.  The people who picket funerals want us to see that homosexuality and the Roman Catholic Church are against the will of God.  They want us to turn away from sin and accept the will of God.  If they really want to convince us of this, they need to find another medium for their message.  I can imagine that a person who does not like gay people would think that anybody who dies for their country is entitled to not have their funeral disturbed, even if they were gay.  Such a person would be more likely to support the right of gay people to serve in the armed forces.  The sexual abuse of children by priests is an important issue, but thought about it goes out the window when I hear about the outrageousness of someone picketing at the funeral of a child.  Those who picket funerals are more likely to turn people away from Christianity than they are to win converts.  Judgment belongs to God.  Those who would evangelize must bear that in mind.

My Old Idea

The Columbus Dispatch published my opinion about prohibiting public employees from going on strike 25 years ago.  The bus drivers were on strike here in Columbus then.  I had recently purchased a car and considered myself fortunate to have one.  I would not have been able to get to work during a transit strike.

I still believe that public employees should not be able to go on strike.  I believe in collective bargaining, but disrupting public services is different than refusing to help a business make a profit.  People could lose their lives, jobs or property if public workers go on strike.

A question sometimes comes up during discussions of education reform; Why does a basketball player make more money than a teacher?  This question is often used to illustrate our misplaced priorities.  The people who do the most important work get paid the least, and the people who do the least important work get paid the most.  The people who harvest our fruits and vegetables are de facto slaves, while the people who rigged our financial system so that they could bet on a failing housing market receive multi-million dollar bonuses.

A teacher should make more money than a basketball player.  The children of undocumented migrant workers should have U.S. citizenship and a free education and free health care.  That is the least we can do for them.  A police officer should make enough money for a comfortable living and so that he or she is unlikely to accept bribes.

If we prohibit public workers from going on strike, we should compensate them adequately.  Rather than balance the state budget by trimming their pay and benefits, we should soak the rich.  No one needs to be a billionaire.  We cannot argue that heavy taxes on the rich will stifle free enterprise.  We gave up on free enterprise when we bailed out the banks and the automobile manufacturers.  It is scandalous that teachers in Ohio face diminished retirement benefits while a basketball player from Akron sits on $90 million that he received for endorsing a brand of shoes.

Please vote!

     If we can learn anything from Governor John Kasich's failure to appoint members of minority groups to his cabinet, it is the importance of voting if one is able to do so.  (Black Ohio lawmakers demand that Kasich name minorities to cabinet, by Ann Sanner, Associated Press, January 27, 2011)  According to information posted on the Ohio Secretary of State's website, less than half of registered voters cast votes on November 2nd, 2010.  This does not take into account those who are eligible to vote, but are not registered.
     If Governor Kasich's claim that two members of minority groups were not interested in serving in his cabinet is true, he is not guilty of discrimination.  We do not know if any potential white designates declined the Governor's offer to serve in his cabinet.
     Apathy is responsible for the fact that we have an all-white cabinet in Ohio for the first time since 1962.  If more people bothered to vote, we might have more candidates running for office.  We might not be forced to choose between a Republican and an incumbent governor who received an endorsement from the NRA.

Let's Amend the Second Amendment

     If we want a balance between protection from random gun violence and our right to bear arms, we need to amend the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. We should not repeal the Second Amendment. It is part of the Bill of Rights for good reasons. It has caused foreign enemies to have second thoughts about invading our country, and is part of the checks and balances of our system of government. An armed citizenry helps prevent a government from becoming too powerful.
     The problem with the Second Amendment is that it is worded so vaguely that it prevents us from enacting gun control laws that actually protect us from random shootings: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Our courts have traditionally focused mostly on our right to keep and bear arms, and focused much less on the "well regulated Militia" part of the amendment. Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, copyright 1993, gives three senses of the word "Militia:"

1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers, as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.

     The first two senses describe our National Guard units, Civil Air Patrols and armed forces reserve units. These organizations are well regulated. The militia described in Webster's third sense is not regulated. Our unregulated militia is comprised of drug dealers with pistols in their waistbands and disturbed men who use firearms to settle grudges with authority figures. These people do nothing to serve the purpose of the Second Amendment, which is to provide for "the security of a free State."
     If our courts continue to rule that it is unconstitutional to regulate our militias, we must replace the Second Amendment with one that is more clear and specific. A workable system might be similar to what is used in Switzerland. All Swiss males of military age are required to keep a rifle and be ready to report for duty in an emergency. The Nazis invaded every country in Western Europe except Switzerland.
     We would not have to require anybody to have a firearm, but we could require anyone who wants to own a gun to be a member of a well regulated militia. This would mean serving in a National Guard unit, sheriff's posse or a police auxiliary. If a person is not eligible to serve in one of these organizations, or not interested in doing so, he would not be eligible to own a gun. An individual would be able to use his gun for hunting when not on duty. This would provide the security that the authors of the Bill of Rights intended. To keep a check on the federal government, a new amendment should specify that these militias could not be federalized. Membership in a militia would not exempt an individual from the draft, but the government could not call National Guard units for duty overseas.
     I propose something like this:

Whereas a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, any person enrolled in a well regulated militia shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and the federal government shall not call any militia of the people to duty outside of the borders of the United States.

Censorship doesn't change attitudes

     The New York Times and the Associated Press have reported that NewSouth Press in Alabama plans to publish 7,500 copies of a combined edition of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, by Mark Twain.  The combined edition of these two novels will not contain the word "nigger."  Please excuse me for using this offensive word.  That will be the only time I will use it in this post.  I included it in case anyone who reads this post does not know what "the N-word" means.  The new edition will use the word "slave" instead of the N-word.
     I disagree with those who call this revision by NewSouth Press a desecration.  The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is important American literature, but it is not Holy Scripture.  The reason that the novel is important American literature is that it clearly describes racism and race relations in the United States.  Substituting "slave" for the N-word may change or dilute Twain's message, and may even confuse readers.
     Not all African-Americans who lived in the South before the Civil War were slaves.  In one passage, Huck's father, a lowlife drunk and thief, describes how he once forced a free black man to remove his hat and step off of the sidewalk into the muddy street.  It did not matter to Pap that the man was a college professor, and "knowed everything," in Pap's words.  Pap believed he was superior to the person simply because of race.  Pap is racist, but knows the difference between a slave and a free college professor.  Having him say "slave" instead of the N-word could detract from Twain's comment on the arrogance and irrationality of racism in America.
     The N-word is offensive because it reminds us of offensive racist attitudes.  Taking the N-word out of an important work of American literature will not erase such attitudes.  Those attitudes have not completely disappeared.

Let's just get rid of health insurance

     Obamacare is under seige.  A court in Virginia ruled a few weeks ago that the newly passed health care bill cannot be implemented because it forces us to purchase something.  Even if it is necessary for everyone to have health insurance coverage, the federal government exceeds its authority by requiring us to purchase it.  Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives are working at repealing Obamacare.  Attorneys general in most states have joined a lawsuit to have it overturned.
     The United States Supreme Court may rule that it is unconstitutional to require citizens to purchase health insurance.  The problem is that no one has a better idea.  We almost all agree that the present system needs revision.  As a society, we have taken on the responsibility to provide for those who are unable to provide for themselves.  We believe that everyone should have adequate medical care, regardless of ability to pay.
     The question becomes how to best do this.  We are terrified of having a system like we see in Canada or Britain, where everyone receives health care at government expense.  We believe such a system would bankrupt our government and stretch health care resources to the point that no one would receive adequate care.  A free market approach also has its disadvantages.  The best example is pre-existing conditions.  If a person with diabetes starts a new job, the new health insurance plan at the new job may not pay for insulin treatments because the condition of diabetes existed before the worker bought the health insurance policy.  This makes the insurance company more profitable, but does not help the diabetic to get the treatment he or she needs.
     We might save significant amounts of money if we do away with health insurance altogether, and pay for medical care through local taxes.  The money we would save by not purchasing health insurance would enable us to pay these taxes.  Insurance companies probably would not mind this.  Some of them have decided to stop selling health insurance policies.  Under such a plan, doctors and nurses would be county or city employees like police officers and firefighters.  Doctors and nurses would not have to face pay cuts.  Much of the money we spend for health care goes to administrative costs.  We spend billions of dollars to have health insurance claims processed and reviewed.  Dr. Thomas Willett of Green Lake, Wisconsin believes that he can reduce the cost of providing treatment significantly by not dealing with insurance companies.
     Making the provision of medical care a local public service would keep the federal government out of the health care business.  Even when it has the best of intentions, the federal government cannot devise a system for providing medical care for everyone without running into legal obstacles.  Even if the federal government were to come up with a system to provide universal health care, it would probably be even more inefficient than the system provided by the insurance companies.  Paying for medical care with local taxes may not be an ideal solution, but it would give citizens more of a say in how their money is spent than the current system.  It would also lessen the amount of control the federal government has over our personal lives.

Someone else beat me to it

College football players should draw a salary

Thanks to Thad Woodham of Westerville, Ohio for his letter to the editor.

Changes to the Animal Contract - A short story (Fiction)

I should have gotten a clue about people and their attitudes toward animals last spring when I was out for a drive in the country with my wife and three-year-old son on a Sunday afternoon.  It was a beautiful spring day.  I saw a groundhog on my left run across the road.  I tapped on the brakes so I wouldn't hit the groundhog, but I didn't want to brake too fast because the car behind us was close.  The groundhog made it across the road.  I noticed that the car behind us slowed way down.

We drove on, and pretty soon I noticed that the car behind us was closer than before I hit the brakes for the groundhog.  I could see a woman behind the wheel in my rear view mirror.  She stayed on my tail.  I saw a little patch of a shoulder when I stopped for a stop sign.  I pulled over to let her pass.  Instead of passing, she pulled up next to us and asked me if I had happened to notice the groundhog back there.  "Yes," I told her.
"Well," she said.  "Did you give any thought to braking for him?"

She didn't wait for an answer.  She powered up her window and drove off.  I yelled, "I did!" but she didn't hear me.  I hit the heel of my hand on the steering wheel and cursed.  I was mad because this person had almost forced me to make a choice between running over a groundhog and getting rear ended, but she wanted to be self-righteous about sticking up for defenseless animals.

I have to give her some credit.  She proved me wrong about one thing;  Every few years when we have the controversey about culling the deer herd in the park, I always say that people wouldn't care as much if the park officials said we had too many groundhogs in the park.  That woman didn't just care about the adorable deer.  She cared about all animals.

I was surprised to find myself confronted about animal cruelty.  I think of myself as softhearted when it comes to animals.  I can still remember years ago, helping my Uncle Jim on his dairy farm.  He told me I should be a monk when he saw how upset I got when he twisted a cow's tail to get her into her stall for milking when she didn't want to go.

A few weeks later, Rose and Michael and I were out for a walk on Easter Day.  We saw a dog in a front yard.  We decided to cross the street.  The dog was on a leash, but I could see that the stake that the leash was tied to was pulled out of the ground.  Rose and I did not even have to say anything to each other.  We both just started to cross the street.  Michael had another idea.  He said "Dog!" very loudly.  The dog heard him, and began to growl.  The growling did not frighten Michael.  He just kept yelling "Dog!" and laughing.  This got the dog growling louder and running around his yard.  Michael laughed louder when the dog got more excited.  The dog started barking.

Rose tried to get Michael to be quiet.  When the dog heard her yell, "Stop it, Michael!" she lunged for Michael.  The dog was a pit bull terrier.  I was not fast enough to get between Michael and the dog, but I was fast enough to grab her chain before she got to Michael.  Yanking the chain made the dog angrier.  The dog turned her attention to me.  She jumped at me with her jaws open and went for my neck.

I put my arm up to deflect the dog, and she clamped onto my forearm with her teeth.  I fell back from the impact.  We rolled around and tussled for a few minutes.  It took several tries, but I finally managed to get ahold of the chain again, crossed it under the arm that was in the dog's mouth, and wrapped the chain around the dog's neck.  I got my knee on the dog's chest and pulled on the chain with my free hand.  Once I had a good grip on the chain, I just had to hold it and keep the dog from getting out from under me.  I had to press down hard with my arm and my knee to do this.  I kept my grip on the chain and kept on pulling after the dog stopped moving.  It seemed like it took ten minutes to cut off the dog's air.  I didn't let go until I heard an old guy yelling at me to leave his dog alone.

I looked up and saw the old guy coming at me with a knife.  When the man got close to me, I kicked his legs out from under him.  I was out of breath from fighting with the dog.  The old guy was stunned from the fall for a second, then started yelling about how much his back hurt.  When I caught my breath, I got up and pried the knife from the old guy's hand.

Just as I got the knife away from the old man, the police rolled up.  They saw me holding the knife.  They got out of their car, drew their weapons, pointed them at me, and told me to drop the knife.  I dropped it right away.  Rose tried to explain to the police about the old guy coming at me with the knife, but they told her to stay back.  Another police car rolled up just as the police ordered me to get on the ground with my hands behind my head.  Michael thought all of this was great.  He laughed and hollered "Police man!" and "Police car!"

The old guy got up and kicked me in the ribs While I was on the ground.  Michael stopped laughing, and shouted "No!"  Rose ran for the old man and tackled him.  The police pulled them apart.  They put handcuffs on all of us.  Rose put up a fight.  She did not want Michael to wander off.  The police took the cuffs off of Rose once they got her calmed down.  They placed the old guy and me under arrest for assault, and told us that we could talk to a judge.

The cops who booked me told me that the judge was taking Easter Monday off, so I might not see her until Tuesday.  Rose and I had both maxed out our credit cards, so I couldn't make bail.

The guys in my tank at the jailhouse saw the bandage on my arm.  They figured out right away that I was the guy on the news who killed the dog.  The TV news story had an interview with my victim.  The old guy who owned the dog, Walter Anderson, got on TV and cried about losing his only friend in the world who never hurt a living soul.  The guys in my tank had many questions about the incident, including "Why did you have to kill the old brother's dog, man?"  And, "Why did you have to kick that old man?"  One guy asked this question in such a way as to let me know that I better come up with a satisfactory answer.  It took many tries before they understood that I wasn't out to kill anybody's dog, I just wanted to protect my kid from getting his throat ripped out.  They finally understood that I had to do something when old Walter pulled a knife on me.  I also got a little respect and admiration for winning a fight with a pit bull terrier.

Rose told me when I got home from jail that when she called my office to tell them that I wouldn't be in, my boss decided to go my bail.  Rose told me how she remembered the incident.  She said that while I was fighting the dog, Walter came out of the house and saw us.  She heared him yell, "Leave her alone!  Leave her alone!"  He then went back into the house and got his knife.  She apologized for not doing anything about it.  She said she was busy restraining Michael from getting involved in my fight with the dog.

Rose told me that Michael started asking questions while she was driving him home.  He wanted to know where Dad was, and why they put the handcuffs on behind my back, and when was Dad coming home.
Rose also told me about the visit from Britney Klein of Childrens Services while I was in jail.  Britney had to check on us because Michael was in police custody while they had the handcuffs on both of us.  Rose convinced Britney that she was a responsible parent, and that she panicked for a second when she thought her child was in danger.

Rose told me that the odd part of the conversation with Britney came when Britney asked about me and whether Rose wanted me back in the house.  Rose said that she and Britney went around in circles about this.  Britney seemed to think of me as a threat to Rose and Michael because of my violent behavior.  Rose did not understand this until Britney explained that violence against animals is often an indicator of potential abuse against family members.  Rose explained to Britney that I don't hit my wife or child and that I'm not the kind of guy who keeps a dog around so he can kick it.  She told Britney that I protected my family against an attack by a vicious dog, and that I did what she expected me to do.  Rose said Britney seemed to have a hard time understanding this.  She thought that killing the dog was extreme, that I could have protected my family without resorting to murder.  Britney told Rose that we should have let Animal Control officers handle the problem.

I thought I was sunk when my attorney asked me why I didn't have Rose call Animal Control and wait until they got there when the dog attacked Michael.  Robin Jones asked me this at my first meeting with her.  She told me she had a deal worked out with the prosecutor that Walter would drop the assault charges against me if I would drop the assault charges against him, but he still wanted me prosecuted for killing his dog.
Robin talked to me about my case.
 
     As your attorney, it is my responsibility to make you aware of what you are up against, Mr. Wilkins.  You seem to think this problem will go away when everyone realizes that you were just doing your job as a parent when you protected your young son from a vicious dog.  You probably think that people will think of you as heroic.  Some people might think of you as heroic, but the prosecution will try to paint you as an animal abuser.

I started to say something, but she held up her hand for me to be quiet.

     People love animals, Mr. Wilkins.  It has gotten all out of proportion.  Now, you describe yourself as a person who learned respect and reverence for life from your parents.  You don't want to abuse any animals, and you don't keep animals because you don't need to.  You think if you keep a dog for hunting or to protect your home, you should treat the dog decently.  You think if you keep a cat to control rodents around the house, that it is not fair to pull the cat's tail just for fun.  You think if you don't need an animal around for any of these purposes, it is extravagant and unfair to keep an animal as a pet.  You think that if people don't want puppy mills, they shouldn't buy dogs to keep as pets.

     I see your point, but it's not good enough anymore.  We have to show that you love animals.  It won't help that the prosecution will be able to put your neighbors on the stand to testify that they saw you throwing rocks at squirrels to discourage them from getting in your trash bin.  It won't help that they will be able to produce a story that you posted on the internet about how you gave up betting on horse races.  Animal lovers don't like people who bet on horses.  They don't like people who list bullriding as one of their interests on Facebook.

     Frankly, Mr. Wilkins, I don't understand people and their love for animals.  I think it's an easy way out.  It's pathetic.  People keep animals for companionship because they don't want to deal with all of the conflicts and problems that come with having people as companions.  When I see people driving around with a dog on their lap, and see the lick marks on the car window, it just makes me ill.  I saw a bumper sticker on a car the other day that told the world that the owner of the car loves their granddog.  We need to present our case in such a way that a judge will see that you did not have the option of restraining that dog until help arrived.  I said judge because I don't think we have any hope with a jury.  No one will admit to not liking animals.

I agreed to present my case to a judge instead of a jury.  I told Robin about Rose's conversation with Britney Klein from Childrens Services.  I told her about the woman who confronted me about not braking for the groundhog.  Robin and I agreed that a jury would be likely to have people who think it is murder to kill a dog.  Robin told me that she was disappointed that it has to be that way.  She wants to make a case to the public that they have gotten crazy with their love for animals.  She told me that she has been waiting for a case like mine since she was in law school, and read a story in the news about a guy in Kansas.  The people in the town where he lived wanted him prosecuted because he killed his dog and ate it.

"We're not going to win the case if I get on a soapbox, though.  Why is it okay to raise a chicken or a hog on your property for food, but not a dog?"  Robin asked me.

She went on to tell me about how the laws regarding self defense have changed.  You pretty much have to have someone with a stranglehold on you or a knife in your ribs before you can use deadly force to stop the attack.  I asked her if having a dog's jaws clamped on your arm qualifies.

"That is the legal point we will argue, Mr. Wilkins.  The burden of proof is on the prosecution to show that you willfully killed the dog.  If we claim self defense, we will have to show that you had no other option than to kill the dog.  They will argue that you could have waited for the police to arrive, and let them remove the dog from your arm."

I found out at another meeting with Robin that Walter Anderson didn't just want me prosecuted for killing his dog, but he filed a civil suit for loss of companionship.

Robin Jones told me that the self defense argument isn't as strong in a civil suit.  She said that the burden of proof to show injury was lighter for the plaintiff, and that it's expensive to defend against.  She suggested filing a countersuit.  I wanted to go through my whole life without suing anyone, but I didn't see any other way.
Robin was still mad at me for talking about the incident with the guys in jail.  She told me to keep quiet about the civil suit until it was settled.

I got an acquittal on the criminal charge of killing the dog.  The judge had to tell Walter to be quiet.  Walter got upset and started yelling when he didn't see a jury in the courtroom.  The district attorney told him that it's the defendant's choice to have a jury or not.  I think Walter's outburst helped my case.  He got on the stand and told how he heard a commotion out in his yard.  He went outside to see me strangling his dog.  He started to talk about how I kicked his legs out from under him, but the prosecutor cut him off.  Robin whispered to me and explained that the prosecutor didn't want Walter to talk about that because the charges had been dropped and it would give Robin a chance to ask him about how he pulled a knife on me.  Robin did not ask Walter any questions.

Rose and the first police officer to arrive at the scene gave their testimony.  My attorney decided to not put me on the stand.  Instead, she called an expert witness.  Walter's civil suit mentioned that the dog I killed had a pedigree, and that he lost income he would have had from breeding her.  Robin subpeonaed the dog's pedigree.  The expert witness testified that even if I had waited for the police to extract the dog from my arm, they probably would have to kill her, anyway.  He said that pit bull terriers have a difficult time letting go once they clamp down.  Their muscles seize up, or something.

Robin wanted to win the criminal case for killing the dog before we filed the countersuit in the civil case.  The civil suit had me puzzled a little.  How can a dog be both property and a companion?  We will probably sue Walter for letting the dog pull her stake out of the ground, resulting in an injury to my arm and psychological trauma to Michael.  Robin told me that she wished we had had a dog with us when the dog attacked.  Robin thinks that it will be more difficult to negotiate a settlement with Walter's attorney because Michael was not injured.  She thinks we will be lucky if we can negotiate to compensate Walter for the money he lost by not being able to breed the dog I killed.  This made me think of a story my dad used to tell about his buddy in the Army who killed a guy while he was on guard duty and the court martial punished him by fining him the cost of the bullet he used to shoot the guy.

I would like to have a trophy of some kind when this is over.  I guess I should be content with the scar on my arm and the fact that I managed to avoid killing a groundhog while not damaging my car.  I had to kill a dog, but my son got through the incident without a scratch.  I want Robin to get me the dog's chain in the settlement.