TrumpWorld

Headlines scream: “Trump Wall Built: Total Success.” “Muslims Have Been Rounded Up.” “Dissenting Journalists Disappear.” And one of my favorites: “All the World Marvels at American Greatness.”

It’s day 200 of Trump’s first term. The talking heads said look at the first 100 days.  But that went by in a streak of TV, cable news channels, and news articles covering nothing but Trump doings. Trump appointed Donald Trump, Jr. to the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy while Congress was in recess. Trump banned overweight women from appearing in public without full body coverings.

Trump started his own reality and news TV channel. The ratings are out the roof. Citizens competed to be on the show to win a lifetime pardon for any crime they might commit. The first winner was Trump’s son-in-law. Chris Christie, now Secretary of State, also competed but didn’t win. Just goes to show you the program isn’t rigged.

Trump awarded himself a lifetime exemption from paying any taxes and also 20% of all revenues derived from federally owned properties. Crowds wearing caps that say: “Ain’t America Great!” cheered.

And then came the loyalty oaths. Anyone who wanted to work for or stay employed by the federal government, work as a government contractor, or receive any government entitlement, such as Social Security, Veterans benefits, or government pension had to sign.

Soon all large employers and most state and local governments were following suit and also were requiring their employees and retirees to sign the oath. The State of West Virginia and the City of Austin had refused to require a loyalty oath of their employees and contractors. All their federal funds were shut off. Soon they were back in line. It’s good to know everyone is loyal, isn’t it?

There were rumors some left-wing Hollywood types had tried to put up a fuss about signing. They claimed it was a Joe McCarthy-type communist witch hunt. But most of them signed. There was talk of independents who were holding out. That in some secret locations there was renegade news, films or shows with actors or writers who hadn’t signed the loyalty oath.

But very few average citizens were brave enough to try to see such showings. Rumor had it the renegade news and films showings were just to ferret out the un-Trumps. Armed crowds of Trump supporters somehow always found those secret locations and clubbed, shot, or pepper sprayed anyone not wearing the “Keep America Great Caps” who happened to be in the area.

All the while Team Trump turned a nice profit on the caps bearing the different “Great America” logos, as they are known. Everyone bought at least one. It isn’t safe to go out without a Great America cap. You have to hand it to Trump—he’s a great businessman.

Some professional athletes thought they could avoid signing the oath. But if they didn’t sign, they didn’t play. And that was the last anyone heard of them. In fact, most people claimed all professional athletes signed the pledge and there had never been any disloyal players. I thought I remembered a football player, some player whose name ended in “nick”, hadn’t signed.

Don’t you like the way everybody is ok now if you identify people by their race, religion or nationality? But anyway, my friends tell me this half Polock, half Black football player exists only in my mind. And that I’ve got short term memory loss. If everybody says it, it must be so.

U. S and Russia have never been better friends. Putin praised all Americans for finally electing a great leader. Kim Jong-un even jumped on the Trump bandwagon. It’s a good thing we have alliances with those good friends. Because some disloyal countries considered attacking us. Emperor Trump (oh, did I mention, that’s his new title?) quickly forced them to back down. He’s so tough!

The news channels all reported our success in immediately defeating our enemies. But sometimes I wonder why the mandatory draft of all citizens between the ages of 18 and 35 is needed. Of course, men and women are segregated. For the protection of the women. Trump really looks out for the soft womenfolk. But sometimes I wonder where have all the young people gone? And why?

I’ve tried to stop all this wondering. Trump TV tells me it’s better to enjoy the show than it is to ask a lot of questions. Questions just lead to unhealthy thinking. And Trump is the healthiest thinker our country, even our world, has ever known.

There was a time, back just in 2016, when I thought we weren’t the greatest nation. I wasn’t sure about Trump as President. And I thought a woman President wouldn’t be all that strong. Women tend to get whiny or shrill. I was tired of seeing Hillary in pantsuits and I was so tired of hearing about her emails.

I knew Trump could do better. I wasn’t sure I understood his positions on everything or how he would make his promises come true. But I really thought he would make our country great again. And he believed in what I believed in. Sometimes I wasn’t sure just what that was but I’ve always been sure he would fix everything.

And he has. Now I have a job. I work in the coal mine again. I don’t make much money. But I don’t need much. And I don’t have any time to spend money anyway since I work a 60-hour week. But Trump works three times as hard and as long as most people, a 180-hour week. The news reported that. So I really can’t complain.

Rumor has it the coal we mine is dipped in gold and then shipped to Florida for the latest Trump mansion. It looks amazing on TV. It’s an honor to have a part in building such a mansion for our leader.

I sort of wish I had health care again. I also wish I could afford to pay for public school for my kids. But as Trump says, “We all have to tighten our belts and make sacrifices if we are going to stay the greatest nation.”

And Trump says some kids can do better without going to school. My little Johnny will have the honor of starting work in the mines next year. Child labor laws have been abolished. Since we stopped immigrants from coming to this country we really have been able to put all Americans to work. 

Muhammad Ali, The Greatest

This past weekend mourners came from across the globe as thousands from his hometown of Louisville Kentucky lined the streets of his funeral procession. All paying tribute to Muhammad Ali.

Ali universally is recognized with the appellation, “The Greatest”. Years ago, while travelling in London a Pakistani waiter, in difficult-to-understand English, inquired where in America we were from. Upon telling him we lived in Louisville, the waiter immediately replied, “Ah …Muhammad Ali, the Greatest Boxer.”

Muhammad Ali won Olympic Gold in 1960 as the light heavyweight and won the world heavyweight championship in 1964, 1974 and 1978. He was a hero to many and went on to far surpass the realms of boxing.

He also was a poet, recognized for his spoken word albums with two Grammy Award nominations, a humanitarian and a man of religious convictions. Numerous LGBT athletes praised Ali for his authenticity and activism.  http://www.newnownext.com/lgbt-athletes-remember-boxing-champ-muhammad-ali/06/2016/. 

In Louisville, Ali also was a person you might run into on the street or at an ordinary restaurant.

In the commemorations of Ali’s life as we mourn his passing at age 74, there are a couple of significant aspects that are glossed over in all of the hoopla of this celebration of a life cut short too soon.

The first elephant in the room we seem to be unable to see is how and why Ali went from heroic, to vilified, to now sanctified.

There’s no dispute about the facts. Ali was a complicated, multi-faceted man and his life was not without controversy. In 1964 Ali changed his name to Muhammad Ali from Cassius Clay, what he referred to as his “slave name”. That and his membership in the Nation of Islam or Black Muslims, as it was sometimes called, and his outspokenness in the Civil Rights movement resulted in a host of very negative reactions.

He later converted to mainstream Sunni Islam. Ali, of course, also attracted wide-spread attention when he sought conscientious objector status. He eventually received that designation but not until after he was arrested and fought his conviction all the way to the U.S Supreme Court for his refusal to be drafted to fight in the Vietnam War.  Although Ali remained free, he was stripped of his title and his boxing license suspended. As the comedian George Carlin intoned, the government had decided that if Ali was unwilling to kill people in war they weren’t going to let him fight people in the boxing ring.

When Ali boxed, he was celebrated by white and black folks alike. But when he spoke, his words elicited hatred, derision and denial from wide segments of America.

During this time, while the media readily referred to actors such as Rock Hudson and Doris Day by the names they had chosen, most of the mainstream media for many years did not show Ali the simple respect to recognize his name change to Muhammad Ali.  

I am old enough to vividly remember the hatred and slurs, the only one I will repeat here, “draft dodger”, that were directed at Ali because of his stance on the Vietnam War and his embrace of minority rights and a religion many didn’t understand.  

Interestingly, the embrace of Ali by mainstream America seems to have coincided with the time, early in his career, when he was just boxing and not yet fully vocalizing his beliefs. And then again in his later years when Parkinson’s for the most part had silenced him. In the early 1990’s one could encounter a mostly silent, shuffling Ali in Louisville, a sad shadow of the proud, strong, outspoken young man he had been.

Today we again are hearing and seeing the same hatred of foreigners, those of another religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnic group. We are left to wonder what Ali thought about the resurrection of the same ugly hatred that had been hurled at him during his days of speaking his truth to power.

Ironically, the presumptive Republican Presidential nominee Trump, the mouthpiece of much of today’s hatred, chimed in to mourn the passing of this boxing legend, barely pausing for breath as he spews forth hatred of everything Ali stood for.  

Another elephant in the room that everyone tiptoes around is the likely cause of Ali’s Parkinson, the disease that robbed him of speech and easy movement for more than the last two decades and that caused his early death.

I recently have heard and read medical experts interviewed about the type of Parkinson’s Ali had. They say they are trying to find ways to help those with Parkinson’s. As one expert put it, scientists are nowhere close to a cure. Instead they are poking at the edges, trying to find drugs that might lessen the impact of dopamine which treats some of Parkinson symptoms but causes difficult side effects all its own.

But where are the experts or opinion leaders calling out for changes in our sports, our culture, our humanity so that young men can become “The Greatest” without engaging in sports resulting in head blows which in turn result in brain damage? Damage that diminishes the quality of and shortens their lives. Boxing, like some other sports with high risk of head trauma, long has been a ticket out of the ghetto for men of color.

Shouldn’t we recognize they have become gladiators who pound each other for our amusement and entertainment? And shouldn’t we do something about that?

Ali was one of the greatest boxers. Maybe the best ever. But he was much more than that. Ask yourself--would we ever have known him if he had not first made his name as a boxer? We all know the likely answer to that question. And when will we live in a sufficiently  evolved society  where we can appreciate the worth of people without having them first engage in activities, for our viewing pleasure, which shorten their lives and rob them of even a middle age with an intact  body and brain.

We will be a truly great nation when we create paths for all of our citizens to achieve their full potential and greatness without destroying themselves or others to please the crowds.

Love and Hate in America

Just this past weekend I started out writing about how amazing it was to see celebrities and average people come to Louisville, thousands lining the streets, to mourn the passing and celebrate the life of Muhammad Ali. Ali, an African-American man and a Muslim. And a man of peace.

But then real life and tragedy intervened before I posted that essay. Now we are dealing with the aftermath of the largest mass shooting in American history.

It’s probably too early to know what motivated the shooter. He was Muslim and proclaimed he was a supporter of ISIS. He had been on the terror watch list. He also was a domestic abuser with anger issues. And he had easy and legal access to military-style weapons.

So the hate-monger who goes by the name of Donald Trump, who ironically also claims to have been a friend and supporter of Ali, has renewed his call for banning all immigrants who are Muslim. As Trump spews forth his gleeful hatred—tweeting that thousands have congratulated him for “being right” (another lie—fact checkers found only a handful of such tweets) Trump uses this tragedy to sow fear since he believes fear “helps his numbers”.  Trump’s behavior and rhetoric are so eerily reminiscent of nationalistic fascism that it should be making our heads reel.

But no, Trump is not done with his fear mongering and pandering to the worst demons amongst us. He also says he plans to meet with the NRA to find ways to keep Americans safe. There can be no doubt what the NRA’s answer is—more guns in the hands of anyone with the money to buy them.

Appealing to Americans’ fear of those who are different and fear of having their guns taken away, Trump hopes to pull in more votes and more NRA money.

Of course, he ignores the fact that more guns will not keep us safer. But we should not ignore the facts. The myths the NRA relies upon to reap blood money for the sale of weapons are completely rebutted by facts.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/4-pro-gun-arguments-were-sick-of-hearing-20151001

1)   The NRA and its ilk like to say, “People not guns kill people.” But in fact, guns, particularly assault and automatic weapons, are extremely effective at killing lots of people. A person with a knife, a baseball bat or a brick can perhaps kill one or two before someone can stop them. A crazy person with an assault weapon can kill dozens or more in the same time.

2)   The NRA is looking to put more guns in the hands of “good guys” who can stop mass shootings. In the real world, an untrained “good guy with a gun” is totally ineffective at stopping a mass shooter.

" No mass shootings in the past 30 years have been stopped by an armed civilian; in 1982, an armed civilian successfully killed a shooter, but it was only after he committed his crime.”
 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/4-pro-gun-arguments-were-sick-of-hearing-20151001#ixzz4BYyebVd0 

3) We need to use mental health resources to identify crazy shooters in advance. Sure, many of the mass shooters are crazy. But we have no reliable way to identify who is both crazy and likely to become a killer. So, while efforts to provide mental health services are a great idea there’s no indication that’s likely to prevent the next mass shooting.

4) “The Second Amendment prevents any restrictions on guns in America.” Baloney. Without a long legal dissertation, it should be recognized that the Second Amendment, like all of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights, is subject to reasonable restrictions. For example, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently recognized, there “is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.”

The last thing we need are more guns. There already are as many guns in the U.S. as people. Americans die by guns at an unparalleled rate compared to any other rich, western country.  All those guns have not made Americans safer.

“In the United States, the death rate from gun homicides is about 31 per million people — the equivalent of 27 people shot dead every day of the year. The homicides include losses from mass shootings, like Sunday’s Orlando attack, or the San Bernardino, Calif., shooting last December.” 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/upshot/compare-these-gun-death-rates-the-us-is-in-a-different-world.html?

No other equivalent country comes anywhere close to the U.S. in the loss of life from guns.

In the aftermath of the Orlando tragedy we need to hear all the voices for peace and love rather than this hate-mongering fascism. We particularly miss the voice of Muhammad Ali, a Muslim and man of peace to rebut the hate-filled fear mongering that is alive and prospering amongst us.

What Are Clean Water and Safe School Buses Worth to You?

Do you ever wonder how we set our priorities? How we decide how much we should pay in taxes? And where we should spend those same tax dollars?  We hear the politicians say they will cut our taxes and still provide all the government services we need and want. Do you ever wonder about that?

No doubt you’ve heard about very high levels of lead in the drinking water in Flint, Michigan. Children suffering brain damage and drinkers—of water that is—facing a variety of health issues. Now it turns out other American cities have the same problem.

Just the other night on the national news a school bus carrying a high school basketball team on its way to a tournament overturned. Luckily, no one died. But many were injured and many more were lucky they were not more seriously injured or killed.

The photos of the overturned bus and the young people scrambling or being pulled from the wreckage were awful. And this type of accident is not unusual. It seems almost every other day there’s a story about a school bus accident.

The news channel ran a brief illustration of how the kids in that bus were bounced around--as compared to what would have happened if they had been wearing seat belts.

Those images have been bouncing in my brain the last few days. I wondered why our school children have to depend on luck rather than seat belts to keep them from serious injuries in the event of an accident.

My brain tends to digress into seemingly unrelated matters. So as I turned off the TV, I wondered how many TVs, cell phones and other latest “must have’s” we all own. USA Today reports the average home now has more TVs than people. According to the Pew Research Center, 90% of American adults own a cell phone; 64% have a smartphone. You know I could go on with these statistics. But you get the drift.

Then a little phone survey caused me to do some more thinking.

The first question was, “Do you think you pay too much or too little in taxes?”

I answered “Too little.” In my head I was wondering how much higher the taxes would have to be to require seat belts in all school buses. If we paid a little more in taxes and bought fewer TVs could we buy some of those seat belts?

Back to the survey. A brief intake of breath revealed the surveyor was startled but, to his credit, he stuck to his script. He said “OK. Thank you.” Those same words were used to respond to all of my answers.

His next question was: “Do you think we have too much or too little government regulation?

I answered. “Too little.” Those kids bouncing around the school bus was still bouncing in my head.

Again, the surveyor stuck to his script, though I thought I could detect a note of panic. Maybe he had encountered a Bernie Sanders supporter—or even a communist—in his midst or at least on the phone line.

There were a few other questions. Like going through a box of old school papers you get the drift and don’t need to read every word on every page.

The surveyor was true to his word, the survey was short—or else he gave up on ever getting the answers he expected.

So much for the enthusiasm of the young. No doubt I killed this young man’s hope of making a difference in politics, at least if he supported the obvious political agenda of the survey perpetrators.

Or, maybe he was just a young person doing a job and getting paid. And he’d never before encountered someone who answered the questions in a way other than agreeing all federal taxes and regulations should be decreased to the point that the federal government would be small enough to be drowned in bathtub—the self-proclaimed goal of small government Tea Party activists.

For the record, if you are keeping score—I am not a Bernie Sanders Socialist—even though I think he has a lot of good ideas and has helped at least the Democratic Party talk about issues we might not otherwise be discussing.

I am not any kind of socialist, let alone a communist. I’m just a mother and grandmother who believes our country has a number of serious problems, to name just a few--climate change, consumer safety, clean water, even school bus safety—that are big enough and complex enough the federal government needs to be involved if we have a hope of doing a better job protecting the American people.

Who would have thought five or six survey questions could have caused me to do all this wondering? And probably not the kind of thought process the survey creator intended.

What I also started to wonder is why children in one of the richest nations of the world suffer permanent health issues and brain damage from high levels of lead in their drinking water.

Just another wondering thought: have more Americans been injured in school bus accidents, or through environmental issues, like contaminated drinking water, than in terrorist attacks. I haven’t looked up the answer but maybe you or I should.

The TV announcer said only six states require seat belts for school buses. That means in 44 states the State governments did not have the money, political will or whatever to require seat belts on school buses. The announcer also said the NTSB once again is looking at whether the federal government should require seat belts for school buses. The only problem is it costs a lot of money.

Of course it costs a lot of money. And I, like most people, would rather spend my money on my needs and wants rather than pay higher taxes. Lord knows my bills are going up all the time. It seems there always is something else that is broken, needs fixing or replacing. And also, I have to admit--that new iPhone-mini I just saw online looks awfully interesting.

There’s a saying--the Good Lord helps those who help themselves. But I don’t think that means I should refuse to pay higher taxes and not consider the health and well being of everyone else.

I hope you, like me, are willing to ask yourself, “What is more important for us to invest in than the safety of our children?” That is not a rhetorical question. If you ask yourself that question and can answer there really is something more important to spend your money on than making sure our children have safe drinking water, clean air, and safe school buses then maybe we don’t need more government regulation. And then maybe we also don’t need higher taxes.

On the other hand, if you agree that kids growing up in this country ought to have a chance to reach their full potential with safe water, safe air, safe school buses, then you should also consider before you pull that lever when you vote, how the Presidential candidates and other officials you elect will answer those questions.

Some of Us Like to Call Ourselves a Christian Nation

I’ve read several messages and postings about how Christians should put their religion first and politics second. That Christians don’t count anymore and are in danger in the United States. This also is then translated into an attack on Democrats, especially President Obama, with claims he really is a Muslim who is attacking our Christian nation.

 The Christian upbringing and religious instruction I had growing up, as well as my civics and legal education are contrary to this message.

First, for anyone who says they are a Christian I cannot see how they reconcile this hateful message with the teachings of Christ. I understand Christ to have embraced and urged his followers to love everyone, help those in need, and love one’s neighbor as one’s self. In the Sermon on the Mount He said blessed were those who fed the hungry, clothed the naked and were peacemakers. He offered no religious test for showing love to others.

Second the facts do not support the things said in these messages. Our Constitution does not establish a Christian nation. Christians are the majority in this country but our government does not support any religion over another. Here is a link to a brief explanation of the facts.

 https://www.au.org/resources/publications/is-america-a-christian-nation

On the contrary our fundamental document, the U.S. Constitution, assures freedom of religion and also expressly forbids any religious test for office. Based on the Constitution and U. S Supreme Court decisions, no religion is taught in our public schools. Everyone is entitled to learn and practice the religion, or no religion, as they choose.

It’s worth noting that the mistaken belief the U.S was established as a Christian nation comes from the era of our grandfathers rather than our founding fathers. Not surprisingly, this idea was generated by rich capitalists who opposed Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal to help average people in serious need.

But the big companies and extremely wealthy did not want what they saw as “give-aways” and tried to defeat FDR’s help to suffering Americans through the use of religious slogans. They also enlisted preachers to try to convince people that Christ supported greed, something that clearly is contrary to Christ’s teachings as stated in the Bible.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/opinion/sunday/a-christian-nation-since-when.html?smid=nytcore-ipad-share&smprod=nytcore-ipad

AMERICA may be a nation of believers, but when it comes to this country's identity as a “Christian nation,” our beliefs are all over the map.

Some claim Muslims now are favored and Christians threatened by President Obama’s policies. That is just not supported by the facts. Nor are there any reliable facts showing our President is anything other than the Christian he professes to be. Christians are not persecuted in this country. Rather, some elements, most notably Republican extremists, again to favor the rich, claim to be Christians and use this smoke screen of a “Christian nation under threat” to serve their own interests. However, they neither practice nor preach the teachings of Christ. They are concerned primarily with their own success and getting richer as they use religion and fear to hide their own self-interest.

I read and see a lot of news articles that try to stir up fear and hatred for those perceived as different. President Obama, much like President George W. Bush did after September 11, has tried to bring people together and help us all see it’s not a particular religion that causes terror.

We’ve had a lot of media hype of Islamic terrorists. And ISIS is a threat in some parts of the world. There are differences of opinions about how to best deal with this radical group. But that does not mean everyone who is a Muslim is a terrorist or that ISIS is a big threat to our country.

Here in this country a lot more people are killed in gang violence, or by home-grown extremists who claim any number of religious faiths, Christian as well as others.

Donald Trump is just one of the many who are either very rich or catering to the very rich. He claims to be acting as a Christian but is anything but. Here is a link to an article that details just how un-Christian Donald Trump is.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/26/opinion/frank-bruni-trump-ward-christian-soldiers.html

In today’s politics a lot of so-called religious conservatives again try to exploit our religious beliefs to their own political and financial ends. Religion can be a factor for good. But we should strongly object to its use to spread fear and hatred of people who are of other beliefs.

A Once in a Generation Achievement

Some things you only see once in a generation or once in a lifetime if you are lucky enough to see them at all. When a great achievement happens, as it did for American Pharoah, who took the Belmont virtually wire to wire, we should celebrate. In horse racing, it has been more than a generation—37 years to be precise--since we’d had a Triple Crown winner.

A few years ago, when it seemed we’d never see a Triple Crown Winner again, horse-racing pundits were saying we’d never see another Triple Crown Winner if we didn’t change the length of the race, the timing between races, or other requirements. But they were wrong.

Great Achievers come along in many fields, often separated by generations. We should not change our expectations when we go through a dry spell. But we should wholeheartedly cheer and appreciate just how lucky we are to see a Triple Crown Winner in any field in our lifetime.

- How many Babe Ruth’s and Lou Brock’s have there been in baseball?

- How many years passed between Beethoven and Mozart?

- How many generations produced a Rembrandt or Picasso?

- How many years separated Einstein and Edison?

You can add to the list. American Pharoah not only is a Triple Crown winner, but the second fastest Triple Crown winner at the Belmont since Secretariat. This year we saw a Great Horse, a Great Achiever.

Whenever we see a Great Achiever we should celebrate the achievement and also celebrate that we are alive to see it. We don’t know when, or even if, we will see this achievement again.

 

Before You Assume the Risk—Think—What If I Did This Instead?

Assumption of the risk is one of those legal concepts you don’t hear much about these days. But it could be a useful tool in analyzing some recent events and behaviors that led to disastrous results for the person assuming the risk and sometimes others.  News stories of late seem to ignore or gloss over the risky actions that set the disasters into motion. A few recent news stories illustrate this concept.

Last week, a jury found Eddie Ray Routh, the shooter of Chris Kyle (the former Navy SEAL of “American Sniper”—of the movie and book--fame) and Chad Littlefield, Kyle’s buddy, guilty of murder. Not surprising. Routh admitted the shooting. And proving a defense of not guilty by reason of insanity is a high standard under Texas law.

But have you ever wondered what might have happened if Kyle and Littlefield, when they realized Routh was delusional or “straight up nuts,” as Kyle described Routh in a text to Littlefield as they were driving to the shooting range where their shootings occurred, had decided to take Routh for a burger and bowling or even to play paint ball instead.

I also wonder about Kayla Mueller, the young aid worker who was taken hostage by ISIS terrorists after she had gone to help refugees in the Middle East and then crossed over to Syria with her Syrian boyfriend. What if she had decided to come home instead and teach in the inner city or help at an American orphanage? She still could have been killed or injured in trying to help those less fortunate. But at least her parents wouldn’t be on national television wondering aloud why the United States hadn’t sent a Special Forces team sooner to try to rescue her.

In a recent article in the Louisville Courier Journal, the front-page story told of a teenager who shot and killed his adoptive parents and sister. Then he loaded his Mom’s SUV with a backpack of firearms (four .38 caliber revolvers, a 9mm pistol and a double-barreled shotgun) and headed to Baltimore, only to die when he opened fire on police. The mayhem he had left in his adoptive home was discovered after the shootout with police.

The article made the point the adoptive parents were good, caring people, the mother a social worker who helped troubled children. The adopted son was not considered one of those troubled kids. By all accounts he had been a quiet, respectful, church-going youngster. He had had a little disagreement with his foster parents during whom they had taken away his computer and cell phone. But everyone who was interviewed for the story was astonished that he had done such a terrible thing.

I, as one reader, was astonished the article never mentioned where the youngster had gotten all the guns. But wait, I shouldn’t be. This is Kentucky. I guess most families have a small cache of guns so their teenagers can practice with real weapons whenever they feel like it.

In all of these cases, the concept of “assumption of the risk” comes to mind. Just because you take your kids or foster kids or the whole family to church does not inoculate them from having a moment of bloodthirsty thoughts. Or from becoming homicidal if they have that tendency. And even trained experts can’t predict which of those sweet kids might have a moment of insanity or a breaking point.

I was a good, responsible kid, a polite, church-going teenager. I never considered shooting anyone. My Dad had guns and he taught me to use them.

But I, too had at least a moment or two when I considered suicide. I’m happy to say those moments did not occur when my Dad’s guns were close at hand. But how many other young people have such thoughts? If they have an easy way to act on a fleeting notion the consequences can be deadly. Leaving those weapons where someone has access is assuming the risk they will act on a crazy notion and kill themselves or others.

Using assumption of the risk to analyze a victim’s behavior might appear to be a way to blame the victim. And I guess it is in a way. In no sense does it mitigate the criminal responsibility of wrongdoers. And it’s no excuse for terrorists. But it is a concept that we who want to avoid becoming victims should think about. And also, maybe we should consider the risks we are unnecessarily assuming on behalf of good Samaritans, law enforcement or military personnel when we as civilians head off to war zones, give weapons to people we identify as “nuts” or keep guns that are not under lock and key. When bad things happen in such circumstances we’ve assumed the risk for ourselves and others.

Background Note

Assumption of the risk is a concept that originates in civil law and was a subset or type of contributory negligence. It’s pretty self-explanatory. If you walk onto the railroad tracks, ignore the train whistle, and then are run over by the train you have assumed the risk of being hit by that train. At one time, assuming the risk under some state laws was a complete bar to collecting any damages in a civil suit. But juries, and even judges on occasion, tended to not want to let a guilty defendant off. In some cases a person assumed a risk but the other party’s negligence was so great that the jury would find for the plaintiff even thought the plaintiff also was guilty of some negligence. As in the case of a driver who knows his car brakes are almost shot but he drives anyway. He can’t stop in time when another driver runs a red light. A jury is going to want to let that first driver collect from the driver who ran the red light.

As a result of juries trying to come to some sense of rough justice even if contributory negligence didn’t allow for it, the courts or the legislatures created a new doctrine: comparative negligence. This new principle provided that relative negligence could be parceled out to each according to their percentage of risk.

Your Time--Part 2

I did finally get off the phone with Direct TV. Here’s the final part of what I wrote while on hold or talking to them.  And they did solve the problems to my satisfaction. But it sure took a long time--It felt like I had enough time to write "War and Peace" instead of just two blog posts.

But don’t think this is just Direct TV. Many large companies seem to engage in this kind of practice: find ways to rip off their customers. They just call it revenue-generating strategies.

In the course of a month of bill-paying, I inevitably find one or more inappropriate, or what I call “rip-off” charges, in bank statements and/or bills. For example, our bank recently charged us a fee because the bank failed to recognize our checking account as "associated” with our saving account.

First, I don’t understand why any bank should charge us for holding our money and paying virtually no interest—unless you count .03% interest as real money these days. After a long phone call, the bank admitted its mistake and agreed to take off the charge. 

My health savings bank recently charged me $15 after I paid online a doctor’s bill who had happened to double-bill me.  The doctor was good enough to send the overpayment back to my health saving bank before I even realized I had overpaid. But that bank charged me $15 to essentially tear up their check. Another long phone call and the charge was removed as a “one-time courtesy”.

By the way, as I write this, I’m still on the phone with Direct TV. At least I found something to do--write--while waiting. Two service reps in different departments have now agreed with me that there is no logical explanation for the additional charges on my Direct TV bill. I'm at 1 hour and 5 minutes and still trying to get the bill corrected.

Customers are no longer right. Instead we are suspect. And if we hope to be treated fairly we need to spend hours explaining and repeating the explanation in the effort to get merchants, banks and other companies to fix their mistakes. If I catch the "mistakes", that always are in the favor of the biller, I eventually get the amounts credited back.

But I have to wonder how many customers do not catch the mistakes? And how many people don’t have time to spend hours on the phone with all the companies that add these kinds of extra charges? Those customers who can't or don’t spend the time checking their bills and making the phone calls to get them corrected are the ones who are ripped off. And the businesses are unjustly profiting from those rip-offs.

I could compile a long list of large corporations that treat their customers this way. Most of the billing mistakes or rips-offs are $50 or less, not worth suing them or reporting them to the Better Business Bureau or some consumer advocate.

If you are willing to spend the time you usually can get the company to correct the problem. The companies may have calculated most people won’t spend their time the way I have this morning. 

I'm now at 1 hour, 12 minutes. The service rep agrees this is an error but her system does not allow her to change it. I suggested she just give me a credit for the overcharge. And she says OK.

Let’s see--I’ll get my $11 back after spending 72 minutes of my time. Of course, the $11 was mine to begin with. So I will wrap up this phone call--and wonder why I did not become a class action lawyer. I guess it has to do with most of these companies have added arbitration clauses to their adhesion contracts with customers. That means you and I can’t sue them because of the "boilerplate" legal terms they put in the so-called agreements with their customers.

For the rest of the day I hope to spend my time on something more productive and fun.  And I wish you the same. But don’t forget to check your bills before paying them

Your Time--What's It Worth?

Lawyers bill their time at hundreds of dollars an hour. Plumbers and auto mechanics get about $85 an hour in Louisville.

McDonald’s employees and many similar workers who earn federal minimum wage get $7.25 an hour. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/business/six-faces-of-the-minimum-wage.html

CEO’s of top companies, considering their annual pay with stock options and perks, can get more for an hour of their time than you or I earn in a year.

If you as a consumer are paying your bills and trying to find answers for why that top company has charged you for services or items you don’t want-- your time is worth what you can save by catching their mistakes—or “add-ons”. But then that was your money to start with. So I suppose you could say your time is worth less than zero to those large companies.

This morning so far I've been on the phone for 56 minutes and 56 seconds with Direct TV. I'm trying to get an explanation for why my bill jumped up $11 even though the only change I had made was to add a free three-month trial for an additional channel. I guess it’s good thing my time isn't worth anything.

An explanation is necessary to understand this Direct TV free offer. A few months ago I signed up for a free trial offer that included a $50 cash back in the form of a debit card. When my $50 gift card did not come in the mail I called Direct TV.

On that occasion I spent more than an hour trying to figure out how to get the free gift card I'd been promised. The Direct TV service rep at that time helped me find the obscure web site necessary to print the mail-in rebate form.

As the form directed, I made copies of three months of my bills to prove I had taken the offer. Of course, Direct TV can look at its own billing records and see I had complied with all the terms of the offer. So I’m not sure why this rebate form and copies of bills were necessary--unless Direct TV just wanted to add obstacles to its customers getting the free gift card.

Nevertheless, I mailed all of that info: the rebate form and the three months of receipts.  However, instead of a $50 gift card I received a post card saying no $50 card would be sent to me because I had not sent the right receipts.

You have to ask yourself: is someone sitting in a sweat shop somewhere who has the job of mailing out post cards saying “forget about the free gift card”? Or do you think they have a computerized system to automatically send out these denial post cards? I’m guessing it’s an automated operation.


Note to my readers: this call went on so long that I broke what I wrote during the call into two posts. I’ll post the second half soon.

End the Madness

The death toll from the United States’ love affair with weapons just keeps mounting. The latest carnage is twenty small children and the six teachers and staff who futilely tried to save them from a lone, crazed gunman, heavily armed with automatic weapons legally purchased by the gunman’s mother. Oh, and also the gunman’s mother, a gun lover, who was her son’s first victim.

The Second Amendment and recent Supreme Court opinions, District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), are used to buttress the claim that every Tom, Dick and Harriet has the Constitutional right to buy and carry guns.

In 1791 when the Second Amendment was adopted guns were made by a gunsmith as single-shot weapons, loaded through the muzzle, fired by a flintlock, with rudimentary rifling. Now gun lovers, like the latest shooter’s mother, can easily buy all sorts of guns, including automatic weapons. Along with lots of ammunition for quickly re-arming those weapons.

We are seeing how well the rigid and some would say poorly thought-out application of this particular Constitutional provision is working out.

Meanwhile, journalists engage in speculation about why the gunman would shoot children. Who cares why? What about crazy do we not understand? And if we knew the gunman’s reasons would it make any difference? I don’t think so.

What would have made a difference is if the gunman had not had easy access to automatic weapons meant for killing lots of people quickly.

 

In a dissent in the Supreme Court’s Heller case, Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer, engaged in legal analysis that sensibly construed the Second Amendment:

The Amendment’s text does justify a different limitation: the “right to keep and bear arms” protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia. Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase “bear arms” to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as “for the defense of themselves”.

Those who favor gun control urge immediate action to try to avoid future tragedies like the one in Connecticut, and the many other places whose names now are identified with this horror.

 Those who uphold unlimited “gun rights” send their condolences to the families and urge prayer.

God helps those who help themselves. I’m asking my legislators and President to put an end to unlimited rights for those who would use guns for domestic terrorism or senseless violence.

Safer in Cuba, Israel, or anywhere else than in the U.S.?

Yesterday I was worrying about my adult son who is leaving for a trip to Cuba and my daughter-in-law who after Christmas is leaving for a trip to Israel. Both places I considered less than “safe”. Silly me.

My son and daughter-in-law, with our two beautiful grandchildren, live less than fifty miles from the place where a young man, well armed with legally purchased weapons, walked into a grade school and randomly killed twenty children the same ages as my grandchildren. And also killed their teachers and staff.

Lots of articles have been written, many in the last day, about all the random shootings we have suffered through in this nation in the last few years. Some, President Obama included, also mentioned the inner city gun violence that is claiming lives of so many cut down in the prime of their lives.

That kind of gun violence is not confined to the street corners of Chicago. Nearly every day in Louisville KY, gun violence claims the lives of men, women and children. Some no doubt are involved in drugs or crimes. And some are innocent children caught in the crossfire of gun violence.

I feel largely safe from the shootings. Since I stay out of those neighborhoods.

Not so back when my oldest son was a baby and toddler. Back then I felt safe to take my toddler every day to an outstanding pre-school on 22^nd street in west Louisville. He was one of two little white boys in a crowd of African American children, all of whom benefited from the outstanding caregivers at St. Benedict’s.

Now gun violence is a daily occurrence in the west end of Louisville, as it is in many large cities and even in the grade schools of bucolic Connecticut small towns.

 

All of this killing has one common denominator: guns. Enough with the “guns don’t kill people”. Or “this is not the time”.

It is the time. Guns do kill people. And far too many. No one other than trained military and law enforcement have any legitimate reason to have handguns, automatic weapons, protective gear, or anything else associated with killing people.

With all due deference to the U. S Supreme Count, they are wrong about what the Second Amendment means. It was never meant to allow gangs or lone crazies or anyone else to take innocent lives with weapons of war. Such weapons did not exist at the time the Second Amendment was adopted.

Just like the “Citizens United” decision with its topsy-turvy interpretation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it’s clearly a travesty of legal thinking. But until the Supreme Court rethinks its interpretation their opinion is the law of the land.

So, as intelligent people we must come together and call on our elected representatives to change the law. If that takes amendments to the US Constitution so be it. In the meantime, we also must call on the President to take all actions he can take by Executive Order to put an end to the madness.