I was reading about immigration law. Contrary to what I normally say about now in these screeds, I do recommend we all do that. Just type in "US Immigration Law" and prepare to be ashamed. It's OK. We're Americans and in fact, we have a lot less to be ashamed of than most. Now that you figure I'm a Commie Bastard, can we talk? It's not like I watch soccer.
Let's get that Commie thing out of the way. There is absolutely nothing in the truly transcendent history of the United States that justifies any type of immigration exclusion. The type of human aggression that fuels immigration fuels capitalism and if there's a better idea than capitalism I haven't seen it. If our imperfect employment of capitalism doesn't prove that, well, I'm at a loss. So, screw the Commies. No offense.
As for my native American friends in relation to that "aggression" thing. Sorry. Unlike a lot of humanity in its expansion, you guys didn't run into opposition until the Europeans came along. You did manage to generate some inter-tribal warfare. To be honest, you just weren't very good at it. That may be to your credit and I truly believe it is but it kinda sucks to be you in an incredibly aggressive environment. I digress.
We seem to have a "problem" that people can't find a good answer to. It doesn't occur to these geniuses there is no answer because it's not a problem but there you have it.
This can't be intelligently discussed without acknowledging the number one consideration is fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of the "other". There's a fancy word for that we have obviously, not spent enough time teaching: Xenophobia.
This is the primary expression of this fear. People are afraid the minority, interlopers will become the majority and having done that will behave as badly in the majority as the current majority has. They are afraid people will do to them what they do every day to others. The fear is so entrenched, if you point it out you're somehow naive or unmanly or subject to a range of other, belittling insults; unpatriotic.
In the meantime, there are real problems. Some people bring disease, some bring a criminal background that escapes recognition or regulation. Well, that's not good but the primary problem is, without proper documentation they have a myriad of problems engaging with and participating in society. This leads to a number of subversive, survival strategies some of which are actually low-level crimes and can lead to real harm. Unintentional or not, it's still harm. We're right to be concerned. We are not right to refuse to employ obvious solutions because unrealistic fear blocks our judgment.
How many different ways can that be said? We can not allow unrealistic fear to block our judgment. It's a recipe to create real problems. It's time to dismiss those fears and employ realistic solutions to actual problems. We have a model for that we employed to beneficial effect for decades. For some reason, we seem to get the idea our forebearers didn't think clearly. That's not right and our successful model is Ellis Island.
40% of the American public can trace at least one ancestor to Ellis Island. This is how that process worked. For the most part, people were screened for criminality in their home countries before they embarked. That resulted in a minor 2% being rejected at Ellis. People were screened for obvious disease and quarantined and treated. Then they documented them. Ya, see that? They addressed, in a realistic way, the obvious problems. For the most part, the process took a couple hours. We didn't have a wall, we had a gate. We don't need a wall, we need a gate.
Yes, I am advocating open borders on the Ellis Island model. That really only raises one question: Won't we be flooded with immigrants? Reasonable estimates say we have 13 million illegal immigrants. We can honestly observe; anyone who wants to be here is here. Even the famous 2018 caravan of illegal invaders petered out to a pathetic 1200+. There are 334 million Americans. I think we can take it. I ain't scarit.
Monday, May 28, 2018
Tuesday, May 22, 2018
Proof of Insurance Please.
It is important to know that every right implies and actually thrusts upon us a responsibility. Imagine we're driving down the road in 1950. The insurance industry is about to start a decades long campaign to make our trip infinitely safer. Through incentives and insistence they are going to change the cars we drive and the roads we travel. They are going to forge a public/private partnership that serves us well to this day. In the process, they are going to save thousands of lives and become very profitable. When you think about it, it's very doubtful, given the types of vehicles and the condition of the highways at that time, if those liability companies would have been in favor of universally mandated insurance. Just too damned dangerous and not much profit left. So progress was slow.
The first thing I remember them mandating was safety glass. Shatterproof glass. Can you even imagine driving a car without shatterproof glass? Can you imagine the injuries? They were commonplace. I can think of three movie actors who were badly disfigured but gruesome trivia is not the subject today.
The next thing I remember was the mandatory inclusion of flashing turn signals and believe it or not, brake lights. They had public service announcements showing you how to make hand signals for turns and stops. I'm sure the hand signals we are all familiar with now were common then as well. There's only so much you can communicate with flashing lights. But, they decided to try a bit. Eventually, they got to the point, if you had a vehicle without turn signals it had to be retrofitted. That was probably the first collaboration of insurance company insistence and government mandate. I was too young to notice if people complained but I'm sure some did.
Next underwriters became influential in the design of roads, proper lighting in some places, roadside gradings, breakaway light standards, guide rails instead of guardrails and on and on.
Then seat belts, much larger brake lights, emergency flashers, running/side lights. Uniform bumper heights and on and on. It's getting to the point where it's kinda hard to get killed in a car and because of that insurance profits are through the roof. Just look at the ubiquitousness of the advertising. That costs excess cash. They have it.
They have that excess cash because that public/private partnership is a good model and it works. By giving industries a tangible financial stake in the safety of their products there has been a substantial improvement in safety, usefulness and profit. In case you missed it, that's capitalism in action. The benefits have flowed to the public and the insurance industry and the manufacturers.
This is not an isolated example and when you think about it, why should it be? Commercial and residential buildings, workplace safety, fire codes, electrical and plumbing codes. By the way. Plumbing codes are not enforced by some office of the zoning or building commission. Plumbing codes are developed and enforced by the Health Department.
Isn't that nice? I bet you didn't know or at least, never thought of that stuff. Well, now you have.
Let's go back to the original example. Automobiles are useful, ubiquitous and can be dangerous. They are prone to misuse. They can fall into the wrong, unauthorized hands and do great damage. We insist that potential damage be indemnified.
Firearms are useful, ubiquitous and can be dangerous. They are prone to misuse. They can fall into the wrong, unauthorized hands and do great damage. There really doesn't seem to be much difference because there isn't. The long-term solution to the problems we face seems to be a public/private partnership that indemnifies those negative outcomes.
We need every gun, every gun existing or newly made to have a liability policy. The evolving solutions to our problems will be gradually and effectively addressed by simple capitalism outside the hurly-burly of political faction and well inside the 2nd Amendment. The problem is not our rights. The problem is our responsibilities. We know how to address the responsibilities our rights burden us with. Let's do it!
The first thing I remember them mandating was safety glass. Shatterproof glass. Can you even imagine driving a car without shatterproof glass? Can you imagine the injuries? They were commonplace. I can think of three movie actors who were badly disfigured but gruesome trivia is not the subject today.
The next thing I remember was the mandatory inclusion of flashing turn signals and believe it or not, brake lights. They had public service announcements showing you how to make hand signals for turns and stops. I'm sure the hand signals we are all familiar with now were common then as well. There's only so much you can communicate with flashing lights. But, they decided to try a bit. Eventually, they got to the point, if you had a vehicle without turn signals it had to be retrofitted. That was probably the first collaboration of insurance company insistence and government mandate. I was too young to notice if people complained but I'm sure some did.
Next underwriters became influential in the design of roads, proper lighting in some places, roadside gradings, breakaway light standards, guide rails instead of guardrails and on and on.
Then seat belts, much larger brake lights, emergency flashers, running/side lights. Uniform bumper heights and on and on. It's getting to the point where it's kinda hard to get killed in a car and because of that insurance profits are through the roof. Just look at the ubiquitousness of the advertising. That costs excess cash. They have it.
They have that excess cash because that public/private partnership is a good model and it works. By giving industries a tangible financial stake in the safety of their products there has been a substantial improvement in safety, usefulness and profit. In case you missed it, that's capitalism in action. The benefits have flowed to the public and the insurance industry and the manufacturers.
This is not an isolated example and when you think about it, why should it be? Commercial and residential buildings, workplace safety, fire codes, electrical and plumbing codes. By the way. Plumbing codes are not enforced by some office of the zoning or building commission. Plumbing codes are developed and enforced by the Health Department.
Isn't that nice? I bet you didn't know or at least, never thought of that stuff. Well, now you have.
Let's go back to the original example. Automobiles are useful, ubiquitous and can be dangerous. They are prone to misuse. They can fall into the wrong, unauthorized hands and do great damage. We insist that potential damage be indemnified.
Firearms are useful, ubiquitous and can be dangerous. They are prone to misuse. They can fall into the wrong, unauthorized hands and do great damage. There really doesn't seem to be much difference because there isn't. The long-term solution to the problems we face seems to be a public/private partnership that indemnifies those negative outcomes.
We need every gun, every gun existing or newly made to have a liability policy. The evolving solutions to our problems will be gradually and effectively addressed by simple capitalism outside the hurly-burly of political faction and well inside the 2nd Amendment. The problem is not our rights. The problem is our responsibilities. We know how to address the responsibilities our rights burden us with. Let's do it!
Saturday, May 19, 2018
The Sane Society
In the early 1970's, I read a book by Erich Fromm, titled "The Sane Society". It's available for free download as a pdf. I'm not sure I recommend it. I certainly don't recommend the 30 to 40 pages of introduction. Those people talk too much.
I've read several reviews of the book. It seems to me the various reviewers and the people who wrote the introduction hadn't really understood the book.
Now, the book was published in 1955. Somehow philosophical works of that era devolved into an excessive navel examination apparently frightened by Freud. The fact of that devolution seems to support his thesis.
His thesis is: There is no observable evidence that our society isn't based on and isn't resulting in insanity. There is no reason to claim, collectively we are sane or have been sane for quite some time.
I think proof of this is, in 1970, when I first read it, his assertions made sense and now some 63 years after publication in the fifties, they continue to be true. He nailed it.
I think there are levels to this. I honestly believe the reason we universally think our relatives are crazy is simply that we know them better than we know others and they know us every bit as well. Believe me, your Aunt Mary and your cousin Johnny think your nuts. Be honest. Don't you really think they're nuts too? All my aunts and cousins are. Have you met them? Banana Whackies.
Look at our entertainments. This is totally out of hand. It has devolved into a cross between head wound theater and the Danse Macabre. I understand that often violence is a necessary component of drama but how does a rational person explain the popularity of "The Walking Dead" and other such things? There simply is no rational explanation. It seems like, over time, we have descended from the theatrical violence of Shakespear thru Poe to Dirty Harry to a societal Zombie Apocalypse.
On a lighter note: I can see the idea behind the dance of Shalome and the idea of the striptease of Sally Rand but how does that explain burlesque as a nationwide phenomenon? How do you explain the continuing nationwide phenomenon of "gentlemen's clubs"? If they don't have any clothes on they are not trying to appeal to gentlemen and if you are there you're not a gentleman. If you're not gonna let me put it in my mouth don't show it to me. Geez!
Fromm goes on and on about war but he can be summed up in his quote of another historian who pointed out that from 1500 BC to 1860 there had been no less than 8,000 peace treaties lasting an average of 2 years. You can call that tragic, bleak, disappointing, whatever but you can't call it sane.
Politics: His discussion of that portrays his fixed location smack dab in the middle of the Cold War. None of it can be described as rational. Beyond basic values, I try not to discuss current politics because I too am stuck in the passions of the moment and my own views which even I think tend to the extreme. However, it is useful to note that we currently seem to have a cross between P T Barnum and Scrooge McDuck as president motivated only by the will to power with no discernable, coherent philosophy. Does that seem reasonable to you?
So, Fromm asserts there is no reason to think we are in a sane society other than we claim it's sane. It seems we are forced to agree. What do we do about that? Well, we can try.
I've read several reviews of the book. It seems to me the various reviewers and the people who wrote the introduction hadn't really understood the book.
Now, the book was published in 1955. Somehow philosophical works of that era devolved into an excessive navel examination apparently frightened by Freud. The fact of that devolution seems to support his thesis.
His thesis is: There is no observable evidence that our society isn't based on and isn't resulting in insanity. There is no reason to claim, collectively we are sane or have been sane for quite some time.
I think proof of this is, in 1970, when I first read it, his assertions made sense and now some 63 years after publication in the fifties, they continue to be true. He nailed it.
I think there are levels to this. I honestly believe the reason we universally think our relatives are crazy is simply that we know them better than we know others and they know us every bit as well. Believe me, your Aunt Mary and your cousin Johnny think your nuts. Be honest. Don't you really think they're nuts too? All my aunts and cousins are. Have you met them? Banana Whackies.
Look at our entertainments. This is totally out of hand. It has devolved into a cross between head wound theater and the Danse Macabre. I understand that often violence is a necessary component of drama but how does a rational person explain the popularity of "The Walking Dead" and other such things? There simply is no rational explanation. It seems like, over time, we have descended from the theatrical violence of Shakespear thru Poe to Dirty Harry to a societal Zombie Apocalypse.
On a lighter note: I can see the idea behind the dance of Shalome and the idea of the striptease of Sally Rand but how does that explain burlesque as a nationwide phenomenon? How do you explain the continuing nationwide phenomenon of "gentlemen's clubs"? If they don't have any clothes on they are not trying to appeal to gentlemen and if you are there you're not a gentleman. If you're not gonna let me put it in my mouth don't show it to me. Geez!
Fromm goes on and on about war but he can be summed up in his quote of another historian who pointed out that from 1500 BC to 1860 there had been no less than 8,000 peace treaties lasting an average of 2 years. You can call that tragic, bleak, disappointing, whatever but you can't call it sane.
Politics: His discussion of that portrays his fixed location smack dab in the middle of the Cold War. None of it can be described as rational. Beyond basic values, I try not to discuss current politics because I too am stuck in the passions of the moment and my own views which even I think tend to the extreme. However, it is useful to note that we currently seem to have a cross between P T Barnum and Scrooge McDuck as president motivated only by the will to power with no discernable, coherent philosophy. Does that seem reasonable to you?
So, Fromm asserts there is no reason to think we are in a sane society other than we claim it's sane. It seems we are forced to agree. What do we do about that? Well, we can try.
Saturday, May 12, 2018
Two a Days
For the most part, I resist phone calls with people I can simply write to. Don't get me wrong. I love conversation, with its misapprehensions and sometimes hilarious mistakes and I like the opportunity to ad-lib but I grew up in a different time when people wrote letters.
In a time before that if you lived in a major city there were two a day mail deliveries. This was before telephones became ubiquitous. People could exchange notes in the course of the day. In case you missed it; people could text back and forth with the aid of the Postal Service. Technology changes. People, not so much.
I found a shoe box filled with these little notes and postcards exchanged between my maternal great-grandfather and his son and my grandmother in about 1917. He had been born in 1846 and was a Union veteran of the Civil War. They were just playful little notes just like you would expect from texts today. He always wrote as though he had a smile on his face. I never met him but I've always liked him for that. It's kind of interesting to note he would have been in his early 70's and my grandfather would have been about 25, my grandmother, about 18. You wouldn't know that from the tone or content of the notes. Just an easy exchange between friends. I only mention that because it pleases me more than a century later. It's a goal in a family devoutly to be wished.
Then, for a long time, people wrote letters back and forth. A lot of people had little stationary kits. I never did but I always had a favorite pen, envelopes, an address book and a roll of stamps. I maintained a wide correspondence as it was known then.
Somewhere in the late '80s that seemed to stop. I guess long distance rates went down and people just talked on the phone. Of course, now there is no such thing as a long distance call. When you think about the billing and convenience, cell phones really have produced a revolution. We take it for granted now but if you think back it's kinda odd. Everywhere you go people have a phone stuck to their ear. Twenty years ago, Garrison Keillor said he'd never have a cell phone because if God had wanted him to walk down the street having loud, one-way conversations, He would have made him insane. I'd be willing to bet Keillor has a cell phone now.
In the last several years I've noticed I have, again, a wide correspondence thru email and it's almost on that kinda two a day basis.
So, I guess this all comes under the heading: The more things change the more they remain the same. And of course, by writing this, I'm putting off writing the three emails I'm behind.
In a time before that if you lived in a major city there were two a day mail deliveries. This was before telephones became ubiquitous. People could exchange notes in the course of the day. In case you missed it; people could text back and forth with the aid of the Postal Service. Technology changes. People, not so much.
I found a shoe box filled with these little notes and postcards exchanged between my maternal great-grandfather and his son and my grandmother in about 1917. He had been born in 1846 and was a Union veteran of the Civil War. They were just playful little notes just like you would expect from texts today. He always wrote as though he had a smile on his face. I never met him but I've always liked him for that. It's kind of interesting to note he would have been in his early 70's and my grandfather would have been about 25, my grandmother, about 18. You wouldn't know that from the tone or content of the notes. Just an easy exchange between friends. I only mention that because it pleases me more than a century later. It's a goal in a family devoutly to be wished.
Then, for a long time, people wrote letters back and forth. A lot of people had little stationary kits. I never did but I always had a favorite pen, envelopes, an address book and a roll of stamps. I maintained a wide correspondence as it was known then.
Somewhere in the late '80s that seemed to stop. I guess long distance rates went down and people just talked on the phone. Of course, now there is no such thing as a long distance call. When you think about the billing and convenience, cell phones really have produced a revolution. We take it for granted now but if you think back it's kinda odd. Everywhere you go people have a phone stuck to their ear. Twenty years ago, Garrison Keillor said he'd never have a cell phone because if God had wanted him to walk down the street having loud, one-way conversations, He would have made him insane. I'd be willing to bet Keillor has a cell phone now.
In the last several years I've noticed I have, again, a wide correspondence thru email and it's almost on that kinda two a day basis.
So, I guess this all comes under the heading: The more things change the more they remain the same. And of course, by writing this, I'm putting off writing the three emails I'm behind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)