Child Abuse

So I'm in public and some kid is "acting up" and the parents just look like, "Oh, gosh, this is so embarrassing, but what can we do, kids are just monsters sometimes."

I want to slap the parents and say, "Kids don't get the way they do on accident. If you took care of this at home you wouldn't have to take care of it in public. If you're 'paddling their canoe' in private at home they take the lesson with them in public."

I was seldom spanked in public (seldom needed to be in public). Public spankings seem to me to be more shameful (to the child) than a private one. If kids are spanked (NOT "beaten") at home, they know that what happens has consequences ... and even if the parent (for whatever reason, their own embarrassment or the desire not to shame the kid) doesn't whack them in public, they DAMN sure will in private, so the kid, smarter than most people give kids credit for, will know that delayed spanking is no easier than immediate spanking ... so they avoid spankable offense in public as well.

Big factor: kids should never, EVER be spanked because the parent is angry, or the kid made an "honest mistake." If a kid spills something without meaning to, spanking is stupid. If the kid was TOLD to move the glass away from the edge of the table, but didn't do it, and THEN there was a spill ... SWAT! Disobedience, and lying ... only justifications for spanking. Errors ... hey, we all make them.

Because most parents use spanking as (A) a last resort after negotiations have failed, and (B) a means to make themselves feel better because they're pissed, spankings become beatings and either terrify the kid into adult problems, or piss the kid off into adult problems. If spanking (not beating) only as a sort of "vitamin" or even a "bandage" (that's the attitude ... help the kid learn from "muscle memory" that what they did is a problem they don't want to carry into adulthood with them ... that they should listen to, heed, and learn from parental direction), then the child knows damn good and well they "deserve" it, and will really think about things ahead and try to avoid it in the future.

And when the idea is to "train" the child, not avenge yourself on them, then the child is not traumatized ... or BEATEN by a parent (or "adult care giver"). Invest a little controlled, intentional, thoughtful spanking early, and spankings (or psy-ops) are not needed much as they get older. Case in point: my niece. My sister "invested" early in spankings, and as my niece got older she stopped NEEDING the spankings. At an early point all my sister (or I) had to do was give the "Do you really WANT a spanking?" look and she would reconsider her attitude and actions ... and straighten up.

Anarchy: The Most Modern Form of Government?

"Anarchy" was explained to me as meaning "no king" or "no ruler." It does not mean "no law" or "no order."

Imagine. Locals elect representatives to go pass laws. The people follow these laws, or contest them and a high Court decides if the laws conform to the Constitution or not.

The jungle-mammalian need for a primary, "alpha" leader is what, exactly, in a post-modern society?

Imagine towns without mayors. States without governors. The United States without a president.

Balance of powers? The balance of power is impeachment of really outrageous legislators, and the election of hopefully-better legislators to replace the inept ones. These representatives pass, or decline, laws, and the rest of us obey these laws, or get fined, or go to jail.

Where is the President, or the Governor, or the Mayor, when I am driving on my own lane down the road and you are driving in your own lane? Where are the dominant personalities when we are lining up at the Postal office? Who is my leader when I am shopping at Barnes & Noble?

Do we need chiefs any more? What purpose do they serve today? Do they simply give initiative-challenged numb-skulls someone to obey, or to fear?

I submit that Americans have outgrown a genuine need for a central Leader. The Rule of Law, adjusted by elected representatives of the People and enforced by professional police, should be sufficient in a moderately well-informed society.

If the People tell their representatives that they want to send the military after some nation or group ... it's war. If not, it's not. More taxes? Higher federal salaries? A military conscription?

I say, do away with central, primal leaders. Let genuine individual accountability and liberty work itself out in legislatures and courts. When the overall "average" of all the fringes and the mainstreams are taken into consideration, things that really matter to a majority of people are acted upon, and issues of less importance die from lack of attention.

Name-Calling: The Anti-Debate

Gov. Schwartzy made a speech and quoted the old SNL parodies of him by calling Democratic 'wimp' legislators "girlie men." He never originated the phrase, but decided it was a funny way to make his point and poke fun at his own image.

According to the news, a lot of people whipped out the "homophobe" card and played it. Most were females, and I say they are "butchy chicks."

It is a sad statement about the state of our society's literacy and education that no one calls the most liberal whiners for their use of a ridiculous term. "Homophobia" means fear of things that are the same, or fear of BEING the same. "Wait! Stop! Those two chairs are ... oh my Gosh! They're exactly the same! Run! Get away! Save yourself! Aaaaagh!"

There are a lot of insecure people who are genuinely creeped out by homosexuality. They are wimps, raised to be wimps by insecure people. There are also a lot of people who believe that homosexuality is "wrong" (usually on religious grounds) but aren't necessarily frightened by it in a personal way. They may be concerned that too much "acceptance" of it causing their children to "become" homosexual, but in their world view that's no different than not wanting their kids to hang out with other people with "undesirable" behavior ... one very rough example being drug users.

Me, I find homosexuality to be a statistically "minority" behavior, and not particularly beneficial, but it is no more frightening or "wrong" than being a Republican, a gun-owner, a Britney Spears fan, or French.

I managed a convenience store many years ago. An elderly black man came to the store one day and was drunk enough to be staggering around outside in front of the fuel pumps and caused some traffic troubles. He was also asking people at the pumps for money. Rather than risk him getting hurt I called the police. There was a middle-aged black couple at the counter and a single black female behind them. When I called, the single woman said, loudly, "I can't believe you called the police! I won't shop here no more `cause that man is a RACIST!" and she left. I was hurt (although later I realized she was a little bit right, but not about THAT incident) and I looked at the couple in front of me, ready to explain myself, when the man shrugged and said, "You were just doing your job."

Interestingly, Mr. Schwarzenegger's (I really CAN spell it) remark was also name-calling, but the intention was to poke "light fun" at his opponents, and at himself. People who took him too seriouslyu need to lighten up.

Pussies.

Bill Cosby

In 1980 when I first entered the world of the mainstream media, working at a television station, I blurted out that I did not support Black Rights, Women's Rights or Gay Rights. That stopped conversation for a solid moment. I explained into the silence that I supported HUMAN Rights, and until someone could prove to me that blacks, women, gays (and unborn children) were not humans, Human Rights covered everyone equally.

I have been applauding Mr. Cosby since I listened to his LP's owned by my aunt and my parents, and even more today as I see him consistently working to shore up the conscience and common sense of "his people." It is ironic that white people aren't supposed to say things similar to what Mr. Cosby said, but the important thing is that he said it to and about "his own kind," and if ANYONE has a right to say such things it is the talented and accomplished Mr. Cosby.

Public Smoking

Assault (or is it battery?) has been described for laymen as being "an unwanted touching." If someone only threatens to "touch" someone else against their will, such as making a fist and raising it, that's battery (or is it assault?). This legal issue extends to spitting on someone, just for example.

So, does exhaling cigarette smoke into my hair and clothes (and eyes and lungs) constitute assault, or battery? It would be a fun case!

Back in the seventies there were small devices that looked like two-part ball-point pens with a clip for carrying in a pocket. Pulling the ends apart revealed a small pump-nozzle, like for a breath spray, but the spray was a cologne. Neat idea.

I wanted to develop a similar device that contained a mixture of onion oil and garlic, and other unpleasant odors. Then I could walk over to someone who was smoking, legally or not, and spritz their clothing with it. When they protested, I would explain that I was sharing their freedom to bother the senses and pollute the clothing of someone else, and while my action was not crucial to my health, it would provide me with some satisfaction. This is what public smoking does ... it imposes someone else's choice of how things should taste and smell on others, dirties their clothing and hair, and does nothing at all to promote the health of the smoker, except in giving them some psycho-somatic pleasure. (I have no opinion about the alleged health risks of second-hand smoking. For me the issue is one of aesthetics and comfort, and the rights of people to be secure in their persons from unreasonable intrusions.)

I have not invested in my silly scheme because I thought I might be charged with assault or battery ... and I might actually be assaulted or battered!

The Death of Innocents [sic]

There's a school of thought that says chasing bad guys fleeing in cars endangers the public, so law enforcement should not pursue drivers at high speed. Sounds reasonable.

It also says that the best defense of any offense in which a car is involved is to drive like hell and get away. (Doesn't work as well in L.A. where choppers hit the air and make ground pursuit less necessary, but in the REST of the country, just gas it and go, Baby!) And it says that law enforcement doing their job (enforcing laws) are responsible for the irresponsible actions of fleeing people in vehicles.

Brain seizure. (B.S.)

The bad guys are responsible for their own actions, including trying to out-drive law enforcement, and law enforcement is responsible for enforcing the laws. What part of "D'uh!" don't some people understand?

This applies, believe it or not, in Iraq.

Innocents die in war. 'But some politician started it for political reasons!' D'uh! Militaries don't start wars. Militaries (when left alone to do the job) FINISH wars. And politicians are about politics. None of this is rocket surgery.

Rain falls. Snow is cold. War is hell. Life is precious. Innocents are to be defended. Schtuff happens.

Kerry will do similarly immoral things as Bush. Almost anyone who wants the job of President badly enough to sell out and suck up as much as Mssrs. Bush and Kerry (and Clinton, and Reagan) will do whatever foolish thing they conceive in order to further their political goals.

The status quo is bemoaned, but the remedy for it is always to form a new party, or get a "fresh face" into the race.

Sadly, the only real salvation from a polluted, corrupted system is to re-install the system ... or install a new one. And a reboot will not be pretty, or occur without bloodshed. I didn't say it first. Some old dude talked about the blood of patriots and tyrants, as I recall.

I do not advocate violence to promote any agenda (other than the "agenda" of self-preservation against violence). The Founders, wiser than most people really, really grasp, made commitments (lives, fortunes and sacred honors) and then proclaimed those commitments in writing for the world. If King George had decided to dodge the bullet, the American Revolution would not have required a war. But the polite (if resolute) words of gentle men were disregarded, and bloodshed was called for. I am a firm believer in peace, but not at "any" price, especially freedom.

It is time to turn the clock back by re-installing a Constitutional government without the libraries of suffocating regulations and by-laws, or to try something altogether different.

So, for decades now, I have signed much of my correspondence...

"Looking for a Tea Party,"
Cliff

How Informed is Your Opinion?

I first went to work in television in 1980. I have worked in radio, television and even newsprint one-and-off since then.

During the late eighties I was made aware of foreign news coverage of Bishop Desmond Tutu "spitting cotton" and pounding an outdoor pulpit when an African National Congress freedom fighter was killed by the evil of South African apartheid. It was a huge funeral/photo op attended by masses of Xhosa tribespersons, many toting automatic rifles. I saw two of the Big Three networks and two national news magazines (such as Newsweek and TIme, but I don't recall which ones, specifically) cover this event. It was a sunny day and Tutu was shown screeching his spiel in front of some billowing red fabric in the background that set off his complexion and clothing to good effect for the cameras. Big deal? In the foreign video coverage I saw, the producer asked for and received a slightly different angle and the red banner was revealed to have a golden hammer and sickle in the upper left-hand corner. You may recall what an old Soviet flag looked like?

I was stunned. I suddenly realized that I lived in a nation that boasted of a free press, but the freedom of that press was primarily to "withhold evidence," as it were.

And then along comes "Wag the Dog." In my latest media incarnation I was the de facto editor of a small, weekly newspaper in middle America. Part of my job was to take pictures from virtually any source, good bad and ugly, and run them in the paper, even as our dominant, above-the-fold lead shot. I became very conversant with Adobe Photoshop and self-taught our de facto editor how to remove and add reality to pictures, covering this awkward thing and filling in that missed element. The paper was a "community" medium telling feel-good stories of local people and businesses ... in order to angle for new or continuing advertising from those same people and businesses. (Weekly papers cannot report "news" anyway, when you think about it.) My alterations were to refine bad focus, improve amateurish lighting so a face could be seen, etc. I even adjusted larger people so that they appeared only as heavy as they might to the naked eye rather than the broadening effects of the monocular camera lens (which is a real issue, and not an urban legend).

Still, even with the better intentions, a self-taught "graphic artist" was able to bend reality without very much effort. "Wag the Dog" demonstrated how a war could be initiated, justified and fought without any shots being fired, and a nation swayed because of it. (Also see "Capricorn One" which shows a NASA mission to the Moon ... or was it Mars? ... that never happened.)

All of this foundational background is to say that I am deeply troubled by the fact that I cannot find reliable sources of actual information. Every avenue of reporting is tainted with the potential for misdirection, and too much of it is actually so perverted. That is particularly true with the Internet. And so I am left with no legitimate way to find out what is "really" going on around me beyond my ability to go and see for myself. Therefore, how can I accurately and legitimately make decisions on issues more far-flung than my capacity for travel and investigation?

This does not seem like a weighty concern, until one realizes that we make our decisions on who we vote for (or against), what wars we resist or support, based on "news." If I were a "war correspondent" I could only learn of the one conflict I am covering and still be ignorant of other wars and political turmoil at home. And it's a hell of a world when everyone has to be a globe-trotting journalist in order to learn what is actually happening in their state, nation and planet.

During ad hoc debates over the supremacy of PC or Macintosh platforms, I used to question my opponents on whether they had ever owned both platforms. Ever made a living selling both? Ever performed their job on both? Not at the same time, most likely, but ever? The advocates of the other platform would grow very quiet when, after admitting that they had limited or no experience on my platform, I asked them how "informed" their opinion could be.

I put this question to you, the reader, here.

How do you KNOW that Bush and Cheney are at war in Afghanistan and Iraq over oil and juicy contracts to Halliburton? How do you KNOW John Kerry is (or is not) an alien from Mars? How do you KNOW that global warming is about to cause major special effects across the world?

And if you don't know, how informed is your opinion, and are your decisions?

The only "answer" I have found is to ingest as much news as I can manage from a divergent group of sources, and to sort it all out and hope I can distill some sort of amalgam that will indicate the truth. But I have no way of verifying the product of my analysis ... except to join the hand-wringing after electing someone who makes matters worse, or failing to defeat someone who makes things worse.

Sadly, I have no ideas for a remedy. Crushing and monumental litigation against news sources that dissemble? Laws requiring all news organs perform similarly to C-SPAN without editorial intrusion? Government funded journalism that is "immune" from bribery?

If it were possible to investigate a news outlet (or a given reporter, editor, etc.) and amass enough evidence to convict them of fraudulent coverage, and then levy similarly outrageous fines and punitive damages as Big Tobacco and Big Fast Food have tripped over, perhaps news organizations would become terrified of committing their transgressions. Perhaps. Since tort reform seems to be only a fantasy, perhaps it is possible to turn "litigation lotto" to the Good Side and bring those multi-million dollar guns against deceitful journalism?

"This MAY not be true, but let's USE it as a fact!"

I get the impression you guys are believing more of what you discover in the press than I am.

I once said of tabloids like Weekly World News, "About 30% of this crap is for real and the rest is made up ... but the hell of it is that some of what you THINK is real isn't and some of what you know CAN'T be IS." That proverb of mine now applies to just about ALL news media, and certainly the Internet. Even in an age of vast "communication" I am finding a serious lack of credible INFORMATION.

So the news you are outraged over may very well be actual-factual ... but how do you know, and how can any of us find out?

And that's a scary thought, to me.

[When I was a kid my parents had a record album of the antics of a comedian calling himself "Professor Irwin Corey." His shtick was academic mumbo-jumbo. The title of this post is a quote from the album I enjoyed as a kid.]

The Decline of the Importance of Reading

Looking back, I realize how important my family considered reading. We were taught, growing up:

1. It is rude to read at the table (during a meal, anyway) if others were there. (Reading was so consuming that one would not interact with the other person ... or the non-reading person would commit the next-listed reading "sin.")

2. It is rude to interrupt someone who is reading (except for emergencies, of course).

Reading really isn't as high a priority today as it once was. That's not to say that reading doesn't happen. There are more "readers" (people who buy books, magazines and newspapers) everyday. Statistics show that "new" readers are coming on line faster than old readers are dying off. The demand for writing is on the increase ... but not as fast as sound-bite apathy.

So libraries and bookstores are no longer safe havens for people who respect words. Shoppers there allow children to run crazy and scream, and the adults hold loud conversations.

The Greatest Anti-Terror Principle in the World

I read a book in the late 80's or early 90's called "The Greatest Management Principle in the World" by (I believe) Geoff LeBeouf. The principle: What gets rewarded gets done.

In American business, Departments A and B get $100 per month budgets, each, for a coffee machine, cups, coffee, creamers, etc. Dept. A spends $110 and Dept. B spends $90. Management decides that Dept. A drinks more coffee and increases their budget, and decreases the budget of B because they don't "need" as much. The result? NO ONE COMES IN UNDER BUDGET. Going over budget is rewarded, so it gets done.

In politics taxation is rewarded by more money for politicians to throw at their popularity in assorted regions and industries, angling for re-election. Result: politicians are allergic to reducing taxes.

In the Middle East ... I have no idea what the reward is for violence. Israel has a theological mandate to occupy their land, and they have done a shockingly good job of it in the face of astounding odds against their survival. And I suppose a promise of virgins in Paradise is sufficient reward for relatively ignorant people to send their sons and daughters to their deaths wearing detonating apparel.

But religious fanatics don't think such things up on their own. Leaders infest fertile (read: otherwise unoccupied) minds with these ideas, and few preachers practice what they publish. So what do the leaders of violence gain? Discover this, and then work against the reward, and the behavior will change.