The shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown leaves many questions that need to be answered and many issues that need to be addressed. With all the hysteria over such a horrific tragedy, people often make judgments and draw conclusions based on emotions. Instead, we need to focus on finding real solutions. But in order to find these real solutions, the right questions must be asked.
As a teacher, my students and I inevitably spent some time discussing the events at Newtown. This was important, as it is principally the students’ safety which we are entrusted with, not just their education. Therefore, I wanted to get their valuable feedback.
What would make students feel safer?
Surprisingly, despite the outcry for gun control all over the cable news shows, the thing most students said would make them feel safer would be to actually have more guns! Specifically, they thought they would feel safer with at the very least one armed security guard or police officer on campus. We discussed how this person should not be allowed to make direct contact with students unless there was imminent danger, in order to avoid any accidents. In other words, most everyday incidents would still be handled by unarmed security and administrative personnel.
Students also bounced around the idea of having armed teachers. While this may sound far-fetched upon first consideration, I did point out that because teachers are in such close proximity to students, it would be essential to implement some very important safeguards. One of these would be to officially designate and authorize particular teachers, such as former members of the military, law enforcement, or who otherwise have received the proper training, to store a firearm inconspicuously in a safe inside the classroom. Only the administration, school district officials, and law enforcement agencies would know of the weapon’s presence.
Why did this person commit such a terrible crime? How can we help keep something like this from happening in the future?
Again, the students’ responses had very little to do with what the talking heads are blathering about all over TV. There was no mention of gun control, assault weapons bans or otherwise. Students understood that, while the specific details and circumstances may never be known, the man who committed this horrible act obviously suffered from severe mental illness. They compared what happened in Newtown to similar events elsewhere, such as the shootings in Aurora, Arizona, and Virginia Tech. They agreed that in order to avoid similar future occurrences, we need to focus on improving the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness. I pointed out that mental illness is poorly understood and even more poorly treated in this country, not to mention the stigma that’s attached to it in our society. As a result, addressing this complex issue is difficult. My students, in their youthful wisdom, pointed out that none of that is an excuse to not do something. Children do not deserve to die just because the solution is complicated, they said. Amen to that!
What about gun control? What about banning certain types of weapons?
The response to these questions is perhaps the most interesting of all. It involves a story I'd like to share about an avid gun owner named Miguel. He is a loving, devoted, and responsible husband and father who has raised two girls and hosted countless family gatherings and parties with dozens of guests over the years, all while keeping a large cache of weapons in his home. There has never been anything approaching an incident involving guns at Miguel’s house, because he keeps his weapons locked in a safe at all times. Miguel is a healthy and well-adjusted adult. He would never go anywhere and shoot up a crowd. There are thousands, if not millions, of people just like Miguel all across the United States. Any kind of ban on specific weapons is only going to affect people like Miguel and other responsible gun owners without doing much to prevent a mentally ill person from going out and committing mass murder. After all, a mentally ill person who is determined to carry out an act of wanton destruction will simply find whatever means is most convenient, whether it be shooting a gun at school children, driving a car into a crowd of people, or tossing an explosive into a busy restaurant.
Besides, why does the government need to do what the free market is already doing? Major retailers, such as Walmart and Dick’s Sporting Goods, have voluntarily stopped selling weapons similar to the one used in Newtown.
Yes, there is a place for government regulations and restrictions, some already in place, others not yet implemented. Prospective gun buyers should surpass the strictest standards in order to determine whether they are fit to own a firearm. Things such as longer waiting periods, mandatory gun safety courses, and even psychological evaluations for any and all prospective gun buyers could be considered. Gun owners could even be required to own a licensed and registered safe, further ensuring that guns are stored out of harm’s way. Tax increases on the purchase and sale of firearms to help pay for gun safety programs are another possibility. Perhaps even advanced tracking and tracing technology can be used to minimize the proliferation of illicit firearms. All these, and other ideas, could go a long way toward making sure guns are kept in the right hands and out of the wrong hands, without having to ban specific guns.
But the inevitable questions persist. Would any of this have helped prevent what happened in Newtown? The answer is at best a vague “No one knows.” If we’re really honest with ourselves, we might realize that sadly the answer is more likely “Probably not.” Because as long as we go for the easy and emotionally satisfying “fix” (gun control) instead of properly and decisively addressing the real issue (mental health), we leave ourselves open to yet another unfortunate tragedy like the one in Newtown. God help us!
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
A Not-So-True Christmas Story
I attended an Early Release Day workshop recently at the school where I work. Among the activities, we had to write about a holiday experience. So, I made one up. I volunteered to read it out loud, and everybody seemed to get a kick out of it, so I decided to post it here. Merry Christmas to all!
A Not-So-True Christmas Story
Grandma got run over by a reindeer. No, really, she did! It all happened on a cold, snowy winter’s night in Miami. My family and I were sloshing through the sidewalk of our neighborhood, going from house to house singing off-key renditions of classic Christmas carols like “You Put WHAT in the Eggnog?” and “The Pig Fell on the Ground Last Noche Buena.” Needless to say, we were a big hit.
As we were turning to leave a particularly well-decorated house, Grandma tripped over an extension cord that had been obscured by the relentless snowfall. As the cord went taut, it caught a nearby plastic Rudolph statue complete with bulbous red nose that blinked to the rhythm of “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer.” The red-nosed ruminant came flying across the lawn and tackled poor Grandma, pinning down her frail shoulders with its shiny plastic hoofs. She was okay, however, her unfortunate fall cushioned by the soft white blanket underneath. We helped Grandma up and continued on our merry way, stopping by La Carreta for some churros and hot chocolate before heading home to open our Christmas presents.
A Not-So-True Christmas Story
Grandma got run over by a reindeer. No, really, she did! It all happened on a cold, snowy winter’s night in Miami. My family and I were sloshing through the sidewalk of our neighborhood, going from house to house singing off-key renditions of classic Christmas carols like “You Put WHAT in the Eggnog?” and “The Pig Fell on the Ground Last Noche Buena.” Needless to say, we were a big hit.
As we were turning to leave a particularly well-decorated house, Grandma tripped over an extension cord that had been obscured by the relentless snowfall. As the cord went taut, it caught a nearby plastic Rudolph statue complete with bulbous red nose that blinked to the rhythm of “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer.” The red-nosed ruminant came flying across the lawn and tackled poor Grandma, pinning down her frail shoulders with its shiny plastic hoofs. She was okay, however, her unfortunate fall cushioned by the soft white blanket underneath. We helped Grandma up and continued on our merry way, stopping by La Carreta for some churros and hot chocolate before heading home to open our Christmas presents.
Friday, December 7, 2012
Getting Our Fiscal House in Order
We the People. Those three words launch the blueprint of our democracy. Abraham Lincoln said we have a “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” That means our government serves us. Our government reflects us. Our government is us! That’s why our government must behave and act responsibly on our behalf. We should expect our government to face its fiscal challenges the same way any responsible citizen would.
A responsible citizen who spends more than he makes must adjust in order to balance his budget. He can cut his spending, increase his income, or do a combination of both. Just like the citizen with an unbalanced budget, our government spends much more than it takes in. And our government faces the same choices when it comes to spending and income.
The responsible citizen can find an extra job, or a higher paying job. But that takes time. He must update his resume, look for job openings, go on job interviews, etc. None of these things are guaranteed to work, and even if he is eventually successful, it takes some time. In the meantime, he can bring his budget immediately under control by focusing on the spending side of his balance sheet. He can trim his excess spending and begin to balance his budget even while still earning the same income.
Likewise, our government should do the same thing to balance its budget and steadily diminish the national debt: cut excess spending first, then raise the revenue necessary to complete the budget balancing process. In other words, our government needs to slash wasteful spending, find more efficient ways to run its programs, and eliminate unnecessary expenditures before it goes raising taxes on anyone, wealthy or otherwise. Once our government is running in the most reasonably efficient and cost-effective way possible, then and only then does it earn the right to increase any citizen’s taxes. As long as our government wastes, misspends, or otherwise throws away our tax dollars, it does not possess the moral right to ask any of us to pay more.
President Obama insists that raising tax rates on the wealthiest Americans is a necessary first step toward getting our fiscal house in order. But our government should make sure it is spending our tax dollars fairly first before it asks anyone to “pay their fair share.”
A responsible citizen who spends more than he makes must adjust in order to balance his budget. He can cut his spending, increase his income, or do a combination of both. Just like the citizen with an unbalanced budget, our government spends much more than it takes in. And our government faces the same choices when it comes to spending and income.
The responsible citizen can find an extra job, or a higher paying job. But that takes time. He must update his resume, look for job openings, go on job interviews, etc. None of these things are guaranteed to work, and even if he is eventually successful, it takes some time. In the meantime, he can bring his budget immediately under control by focusing on the spending side of his balance sheet. He can trim his excess spending and begin to balance his budget even while still earning the same income.
Likewise, our government should do the same thing to balance its budget and steadily diminish the national debt: cut excess spending first, then raise the revenue necessary to complete the budget balancing process. In other words, our government needs to slash wasteful spending, find more efficient ways to run its programs, and eliminate unnecessary expenditures before it goes raising taxes on anyone, wealthy or otherwise. Once our government is running in the most reasonably efficient and cost-effective way possible, then and only then does it earn the right to increase any citizen’s taxes. As long as our government wastes, misspends, or otherwise throws away our tax dollars, it does not possess the moral right to ask any of us to pay more.
President Obama insists that raising tax rates on the wealthiest Americans is a necessary first step toward getting our fiscal house in order. But our government should make sure it is spending our tax dollars fairly first before it asks anyone to “pay their fair share.”
Monday, November 19, 2012
Miami Marlins Boycott
Most of my sports watching involves cheering on my hometown teams: Miami Heat, Miami Dolphins, Florida Panthers, FIU, and UM (except, of course, if UM is playing FIU). Of all the sports I enjoy watching, my favorite by far is baseball. So naturally, the Marlins have been my main sports focus for many years.
I’ve endured the ups and downs of the Marlins franchise, from the thrill of the World Series victories in 1997 and 2003, to the struggles of just about every other season except those two, attending an average of about a dozen games or so every season. Last season, I took an extra step in support of my hometown MLB team, spending hundreds of my hard-earned and scarce teacher salary dollars on a ticket plan for the inaugural season at the new ballpark.
The Marlins began the 2012 season with a new home, new manager, new star players, and high hopes. These hopes were unceremoniously crushed when, after a lackluster performance, the manager was fired and most of the high salary players were traded.
The Marlins front office may well have thought, “Well, we brought in all these stars, and we still had the lowest attendance ever for a new ballpark, so screw ‘em. If they won’t come to the games, we won’t spend money.” The Marlins ownership and management team is certainly entitled to make whatever decisions they feel are best for business. If they wish to alienate the fans, that is entirely their prerogative.
On the other hand, my prerogative is to choose where and how to spend my hard-earned and scarce teacher salary dollars. Therefore, I have chosen to officially boycott the Miami Marlins for as long as the ownership and management team includes Jeffrey Loria and David Samson. Any Marlins games I attend will be exclusively via a ticket that is a gift or purchased from a third party. I will, under no circumstances, buy a new ticket from the Marlins box office, website, or other avenue that would generate new revenue for the team. Any transportation to and from games will not involve parking in the stadium lots or garages. I will not patronize stadium concessions. I will not purchase any additional team apparel. I will also avoid giving my business to the various sponsors of the Miami Marlins to the greatest extent possible.
This boycott will be in effect regardless of whether anyone else joins it or not. However, there is power in numbers. Therefore, I urge any and all true fans of the Miami Marlins to join me in this boycott. Because if we truly care for our hometown MLB team, we must recognize that the current ownership and management team headed by Jeffrey Loria and David Samson puts the long-term health and vitality of the Miami Marlins in danger.
I’ve endured the ups and downs of the Marlins franchise, from the thrill of the World Series victories in 1997 and 2003, to the struggles of just about every other season except those two, attending an average of about a dozen games or so every season. Last season, I took an extra step in support of my hometown MLB team, spending hundreds of my hard-earned and scarce teacher salary dollars on a ticket plan for the inaugural season at the new ballpark.
The Marlins began the 2012 season with a new home, new manager, new star players, and high hopes. These hopes were unceremoniously crushed when, after a lackluster performance, the manager was fired and most of the high salary players were traded.
The Marlins front office may well have thought, “Well, we brought in all these stars, and we still had the lowest attendance ever for a new ballpark, so screw ‘em. If they won’t come to the games, we won’t spend money.” The Marlins ownership and management team is certainly entitled to make whatever decisions they feel are best for business. If they wish to alienate the fans, that is entirely their prerogative.
On the other hand, my prerogative is to choose where and how to spend my hard-earned and scarce teacher salary dollars. Therefore, I have chosen to officially boycott the Miami Marlins for as long as the ownership and management team includes Jeffrey Loria and David Samson. Any Marlins games I attend will be exclusively via a ticket that is a gift or purchased from a third party. I will, under no circumstances, buy a new ticket from the Marlins box office, website, or other avenue that would generate new revenue for the team. Any transportation to and from games will not involve parking in the stadium lots or garages. I will not patronize stadium concessions. I will not purchase any additional team apparel. I will also avoid giving my business to the various sponsors of the Miami Marlins to the greatest extent possible.
This boycott will be in effect regardless of whether anyone else joins it or not. However, there is power in numbers. Therefore, I urge any and all true fans of the Miami Marlins to join me in this boycott. Because if we truly care for our hometown MLB team, we must recognize that the current ownership and management team headed by Jeffrey Loria and David Samson puts the long-term health and vitality of the Miami Marlins in danger.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Has Obama Really Been Bad for Business?
If you’re to believe the Republican Party this election season (believe anything the political parties say at your own peril!), you’d think President Barack Obama has been bad for business, economic growth, and job creation. It’s true that we have not yet fully recovered from the effects of the greatest financial crisis in nearly a hundred years. Obviously, any reasonable person would expect it to take more than four years to dig our way out of such a deep hole.
Nevertheless, what is obvious and reasonable to you and me is a political opportunity for the Republicans. So, inevitably, they have seized upon our current economic state to justify their allegations against Obama. Of course, when it comes to politics, the most important thing, and often the most elusive, is the truth, as revealed by the facts. So... let’s look at the facts.
Let’s start by looking at it from the perspective of investors and business people. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is up by more than half since Obama took office. If you had invested in an S&P 500 Index Fund the week Obama was sworn in, your investment would be up nearly 70% as of today. And the Nasdaq has almost doubled in the time Obama has been president! So much for the claims that Obama has created an unfavorable business environment! I’ll take the investment returns of the past four years over the returns of just about any other four-year period!
Now let’s look at jobs. The Republican presidential candidate has reminded voters over and over how President Obama promised unemployment would be down to 5.3% by the end of his first term. Unfortunately, the unemployment rate is around 7.8%. However, I remember when the president stood before Congress and proposed the American Jobs Act. Did the Republican-controlled Congress pass this bill? No! Of course, Obama is not going to pass the buck, but there really wasn’t much he could do if the Republicans were holding just about everything he proposed hostage in the hopes of putting one of their own in the Oval Office on January 20, 2013. Would the American Jobs Act have brought unemployment down to 5.3%? Who knows? I guess the Republicans thought potentially keeping millions of people out of work was a small price to pay for the sake of gaining political power.
Finally, let’s look at the overall approach of the Obama administration when it came to handling the Great Recession. That approach can be summed up in one word: stimulus. While economists can and will argue for years, if not decades, about how best to have handled this crisis, it’s been fairly evident that the stimulus approach adopted by the U.S. has helped us recover faster than the austerity measures taken by our European Union counterparts.
All in all, whether you’re an investor, a job seeker, or an economist, the past four years coming out of the worst financial crisis in almost a century have been much better than they could have been, especially considering how bad things really were. So, it appears that, despite how desperately the Republicans might want you to believe otherwise, President Barack Obama has actually been pretty good for business!
Remember to vote on November 6!
Nevertheless, what is obvious and reasonable to you and me is a political opportunity for the Republicans. So, inevitably, they have seized upon our current economic state to justify their allegations against Obama. Of course, when it comes to politics, the most important thing, and often the most elusive, is the truth, as revealed by the facts. So... let’s look at the facts.
Let’s start by looking at it from the perspective of investors and business people. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is up by more than half since Obama took office. If you had invested in an S&P 500 Index Fund the week Obama was sworn in, your investment would be up nearly 70% as of today. And the Nasdaq has almost doubled in the time Obama has been president! So much for the claims that Obama has created an unfavorable business environment! I’ll take the investment returns of the past four years over the returns of just about any other four-year period!
Now let’s look at jobs. The Republican presidential candidate has reminded voters over and over how President Obama promised unemployment would be down to 5.3% by the end of his first term. Unfortunately, the unemployment rate is around 7.8%. However, I remember when the president stood before Congress and proposed the American Jobs Act. Did the Republican-controlled Congress pass this bill? No! Of course, Obama is not going to pass the buck, but there really wasn’t much he could do if the Republicans were holding just about everything he proposed hostage in the hopes of putting one of their own in the Oval Office on January 20, 2013. Would the American Jobs Act have brought unemployment down to 5.3%? Who knows? I guess the Republicans thought potentially keeping millions of people out of work was a small price to pay for the sake of gaining political power.
Finally, let’s look at the overall approach of the Obama administration when it came to handling the Great Recession. That approach can be summed up in one word: stimulus. While economists can and will argue for years, if not decades, about how best to have handled this crisis, it’s been fairly evident that the stimulus approach adopted by the U.S. has helped us recover faster than the austerity measures taken by our European Union counterparts.
All in all, whether you’re an investor, a job seeker, or an economist, the past four years coming out of the worst financial crisis in almost a century have been much better than they could have been, especially considering how bad things really were. So, it appears that, despite how desperately the Republicans might want you to believe otherwise, President Barack Obama has actually been pretty good for business!
Remember to vote on November 6!
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
A Halloween Song
Halloween is one of my favorite holidays. I grew up going to a Christian church and a Christian school that both condemned Halloween’s pagan roots (I wonder why, on the other hand, most Christians choose to conveniently ignore the Christmas holiday’s pagan roots; what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, after all). To me, though, Halloween was mostly just about the costumes and the candy, as I’m sure it still is for most American kids. It was also about the change in the weather, especially in Miami. Halloween is always a marker for the beginning of the time when the oppressive heat and humidity gives way to significantly milder, more comfortable weather.
As far as Halloween music goes, there are some classics. “The Monster Mash” and John Carpenter’s “Halloween Theme” immediately come to mind. There are others. But the last October night’s holiday song list is not as extensive as its late December counterpart. So, how else can a songwriter like myself remedy the situation? Of course, write A Halloween Song! So, that’s what I did.
I wrote A Halloween Song way back in 1997, and I remember it coming together pretty smoothly, as most good songs should. The best songs are the ones that start with a simple idea. Then, they take you along for a ride. All the songwriter really does is document the ride itself, with all its twists and turns, so that others may enjoy it as well.
Ever since I wrote A Halloween Song, I’ve played it in public only once (at a hipster spot years ago where people were too cool to pay any attention to the performance). I remember performing it while wearing a mask I made myself with a built-in mini-bullhorn for a mouthpiece. I’ve also played it over the years for a number of kids in my family, and they always seem to get a kick out of it, especially when they get to the part where they can howl like a wolf along with the song.
So, this official worldwide release is both long overdue and right on time. As we get closer to the last October night of 2012, I present to you... A Halloween Song!
As far as Halloween music goes, there are some classics. “The Monster Mash” and John Carpenter’s “Halloween Theme” immediately come to mind. There are others. But the last October night’s holiday song list is not as extensive as its late December counterpart. So, how else can a songwriter like myself remedy the situation? Of course, write A Halloween Song! So, that’s what I did.
I wrote A Halloween Song way back in 1997, and I remember it coming together pretty smoothly, as most good songs should. The best songs are the ones that start with a simple idea. Then, they take you along for a ride. All the songwriter really does is document the ride itself, with all its twists and turns, so that others may enjoy it as well.
Ever since I wrote A Halloween Song, I’ve played it in public only once (at a hipster spot years ago where people were too cool to pay any attention to the performance). I remember performing it while wearing a mask I made myself with a built-in mini-bullhorn for a mouthpiece. I’ve also played it over the years for a number of kids in my family, and they always seem to get a kick out of it, especially when they get to the part where they can howl like a wolf along with the song.
So, this official worldwide release is both long overdue and right on time. As we get closer to the last October night of 2012, I present to you... A Halloween Song!
A Halloween Song
(Words & Music by Ramon Veunes)
© 1997-2012. All Rights Reserved.
(Words & Music by Ramon Veunes)
© 1997-2012. All Rights Reserved.
A Direction for our Democracy
With the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election just days away, we are at a crossroads that will determine our nation’s ultimate fate. While our president will figure somewhat in the direction we take, our current debt crisis requires making very difficult decisions that frankly, I’m not sure either one of the two major candidates is ready, willing, or able to make.
The same goes for our elected members of Congress. The problem is, our representative system of democracy is one where long-term achievements are sacrificed in favor of short-term goals. Decisions are made based on how they will impact the next election rather than the next generation, and as a result we accelerate ever quicker towards our national day of reckoning.
This is not some nutty Doomsday scenario. The fact is, if our government continues to borrow money in such vast amounts, eventually that debt will have to be paid, one way or another. In order to help mitigate the problem, bold steps must be taken. A combination of significantly higher taxes and severe spending cuts is probably the only way we will ever dig our way out of this hole. But neither of the two major candidates will suggest that overtly because it would be political suicide. And Congress will not pass the necessary legislation for very much the same reason.
So, what to do? Simply put, in order to survive this crisis and help us to better confront future challenges, we must change our entire democratic system. We need to abandon our representative democracy and form a direct democracy. We must take the legislative power away from Congress and put it directly in the hands of the people.
Sure, there will still be a place for Congress. They would be responsible for crafting the legislation that the public would then vote on. As a matter of fact, most of everything in our Constitution would remain fully intact. The only difference is that We The People would determine the direction our democracy takes, rather than a small group of individuals whose sole interest is perpetuating and expanding their own power at our expense.
How would it work? Well, in order to keep the extreme wings of ideology from controlling the political agenda, much like they do now with our two-party system, Election Day would be a national holiday. Most everyone would take the day off (early voting or absentee exceptions could be made for emergency personnel and others who are not able to take off from work) to vote. Voting would be a duty and required of all citizens, much like paying taxes. This would ensure that the results of the laws we pass accurately reflect the true sentiments of the citizenry, since voter turnout would be nearly 100%.
Congress and the two major political parties will not easily give up their power. But that power they have ultimately belongs to us anyway. And since they have repeatedly failed in their responsibilities to the citizens of the United States, we must take that power back. That is the only way we will save our great nation: by establishing a direct democracy.
The same goes for our elected members of Congress. The problem is, our representative system of democracy is one where long-term achievements are sacrificed in favor of short-term goals. Decisions are made based on how they will impact the next election rather than the next generation, and as a result we accelerate ever quicker towards our national day of reckoning.
This is not some nutty Doomsday scenario. The fact is, if our government continues to borrow money in such vast amounts, eventually that debt will have to be paid, one way or another. In order to help mitigate the problem, bold steps must be taken. A combination of significantly higher taxes and severe spending cuts is probably the only way we will ever dig our way out of this hole. But neither of the two major candidates will suggest that overtly because it would be political suicide. And Congress will not pass the necessary legislation for very much the same reason.
So, what to do? Simply put, in order to survive this crisis and help us to better confront future challenges, we must change our entire democratic system. We need to abandon our representative democracy and form a direct democracy. We must take the legislative power away from Congress and put it directly in the hands of the people.
Sure, there will still be a place for Congress. They would be responsible for crafting the legislation that the public would then vote on. As a matter of fact, most of everything in our Constitution would remain fully intact. The only difference is that We The People would determine the direction our democracy takes, rather than a small group of individuals whose sole interest is perpetuating and expanding their own power at our expense.
How would it work? Well, in order to keep the extreme wings of ideology from controlling the political agenda, much like they do now with our two-party system, Election Day would be a national holiday. Most everyone would take the day off (early voting or absentee exceptions could be made for emergency personnel and others who are not able to take off from work) to vote. Voting would be a duty and required of all citizens, much like paying taxes. This would ensure that the results of the laws we pass accurately reflect the true sentiments of the citizenry, since voter turnout would be nearly 100%.
Congress and the two major political parties will not easily give up their power. But that power they have ultimately belongs to us anyway. And since they have repeatedly failed in their responsibilities to the citizens of the United States, we must take that power back. That is the only way we will save our great nation: by establishing a direct democracy.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
A Solution to the NFL Referee Dilemma
The hysteria in the sports world surrounding the NFL replacement referees leaves little room for reason. After all, nothing sells advertising quite like the seemingly endless parade of coaches, players, fans, and “experts” blathering about how terrible the replacement refs are, how The Integrity Of The Game is being compromised, and on and on... So, why let something as inconvenient as, you know, THE FACTS, get in the way of such good ratings?
This whole matter can be put into its proper context and perspective if only somebody, perhaps the NFL itself or a media outlet, would hire an independent panel of NFL rules experts to review the first three weeks of the past 10 NFL seasons, including the current one with the replacement refs. They would collect and classify data on all blown calls. Then, they would compare the blown call data of regular refs in the past NFL seasons with the blown call data of the replacement refs in the current season.
They may well find that despite all the hoopla surrounding the mistakes the replacement refs have made in the early part of the season, the replacements may well be within a range comparable to that of the regular refs when it comes to blown calls. Of course, this may not be the case at all, and the outrage might well be perfectly justified. But it could not hurt the NFL’s case if they came out with evidence showing that the proportion of blown calls by the replacement refs is, say, within 15% of the average for the past 10 seasons. Likewise, if the blown call discrepancy between the replacement refs and the regular refs is found to be significant, then that would provide the windbags with a factual foundation from which to make their argument in favor of bringing back the regular refs as soon as possible... not that they need something as inconvenient as, you know, THE FACTS, to back up any of their arguments!
UPDATE: It appears things in the NFL will get back to normal now that the regular officials are back on the job. Still, the blown call review outlined above would be a good way to get a real idea of the kind of job the replacement refs did backed up by actual data and not obscured by all the hysteria of the first three weeks of the season.
This whole matter can be put into its proper context and perspective if only somebody, perhaps the NFL itself or a media outlet, would hire an independent panel of NFL rules experts to review the first three weeks of the past 10 NFL seasons, including the current one with the replacement refs. They would collect and classify data on all blown calls. Then, they would compare the blown call data of regular refs in the past NFL seasons with the blown call data of the replacement refs in the current season.
They may well find that despite all the hoopla surrounding the mistakes the replacement refs have made in the early part of the season, the replacements may well be within a range comparable to that of the regular refs when it comes to blown calls. Of course, this may not be the case at all, and the outrage might well be perfectly justified. But it could not hurt the NFL’s case if they came out with evidence showing that the proportion of blown calls by the replacement refs is, say, within 15% of the average for the past 10 seasons. Likewise, if the blown call discrepancy between the replacement refs and the regular refs is found to be significant, then that would provide the windbags with a factual foundation from which to make their argument in favor of bringing back the regular refs as soon as possible... not that they need something as inconvenient as, you know, THE FACTS, to back up any of their arguments!
UPDATE: It appears things in the NFL will get back to normal now that the regular officials are back on the job. Still, the blown call review outlined above would be a good way to get a real idea of the kind of job the replacement refs did backed up by actual data and not obscured by all the hysteria of the first three weeks of the season.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Yet Another Facebook Privacy Issue!
Facebook is involved in yet another alleged violation of users' privacy. ValueWalk's Aman Jain (http://www.valuewalk.com/2012/09/facebook-inc-fb-denies-that-private-messages-were-displayed-publicly/) describes how ever since Facebook force-fed the Timeline Page down everybody's throats, old wall posts that were believed to be private are now displayed publicly.
Is anybody really surprised at this? Facebook has demonstrated repeatedly how respecting users' privacy has been, at the very least, a challenge for them. Yet, while the company's stock (NASDAQ: FB) has taken a beating since its IPO earlier this year, people and businesses seem to be using the social network more than ever.
So, what's the end result? Pretty much the same as in the NFL with the replacement referees: people can complain all they want, but as long as they keep using the product... well, you know the rest.
Here's a novel idea: anyone who is truly concerned about maintaining the privacy of their communication with friends should try meeting with them face to face every once in a while. They'll find it's a much more enjoyable experience than Facebook!
Is anybody really surprised at this? Facebook has demonstrated repeatedly how respecting users' privacy has been, at the very least, a challenge for them. Yet, while the company's stock (NASDAQ: FB) has taken a beating since its IPO earlier this year, people and businesses seem to be using the social network more than ever.
So, what's the end result? Pretty much the same as in the NFL with the replacement referees: people can complain all they want, but as long as they keep using the product... well, you know the rest.
Here's a novel idea: anyone who is truly concerned about maintaining the privacy of their communication with friends should try meeting with them face to face every once in a while. They'll find it's a much more enjoyable experience than Facebook!
On Pets and Animals
I truly think animals are wonderful creatures. My sister has a dog, Bear, that I care for dearly. I am not in favor of animal cruelty, although being a meat eater and occasional leather wearer, I realize that animals had to die for me to enjoy those things, and I have no qualms about that.
On to my thoughts about keeping pets. My feelings for Bear notwithstanding, I feel that unless you are a strict vegan, your ownership of pets is tinged with hypocrisy and a double standard. After all, what's the difference between the animal that you decide to feed and the animal that you decide to eat? The distinction is completely arbitrary.
Also, what about all the ignorant and misinformed people who own exotic pets? Thanks to them, the Everglades now has a serious python problem, and the native mammal population within the park has diminished in large part due to the introduction of these exotic predators.
What about the "companionship" argument? You consider an animal that you can't really even communicate with as your companion? The only type of "communication" pets learn with their owners is which behaviors lead to getting food and which behaviors don't. You want companionship? Try a fellow human being. There are plenty of people in nursing homes and hospitals who don't even get visited by family members. They could sure use some companionship. And most of them will talk back to you even if you don't feed them!
Overall, my opinion is that animals do not need human help to survive. To believe otherwise is the height of arrogance. As a matter of fact, animals were doing quite well until we started destroying and polluting their habitats. So, if you truly love animals, don't demonstrate it by owning a pet. Rather, demonstrate it by supporting efforts to preserve all animals' natural environments as much as possible and promote a harmonious co-existence with the entire animal kingdom!
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Commentary on Chicago Teachers Strike
The Chicago teachers strike is not just a local issue. It's an issue about the future of education and even the future of our society. Teachers should be paid for doing their job, which is to provide instruction, to the best of their ability. Why should teachers be penalized based on factors which they cannot control?
Do doctors get penalized if their obese patients refuse to eat healthy and exercise? Do police officers get penalized if the criminals they arrest go out and commit more crimes? Why should teachers get penalized when they have no control over whether their students study? Why should teachers pay the price for so many parents who let their children play with video games and smartphones rather than do their homework?
I see teachers doing an excellent job all the time. I see them constantly striving to engage and motivate students. I am one of those teachers. Regardless of how hard we try, some students simply respond and some do not. That is because each student's academic success is based mainly on factors that are not in the teacher's hands. It is based on each student's natural ability. It is also based on the student's home environment and how conducive it is to the child's education.
Some patients listen to their doctor's advice and make healthier choices. Some do not. Some criminals reform after an arrest and leave their life of crime behind. Some do not. Still, doctors and police officers get paid for doing their job to the best of their ability. So should teachers.
Do doctors get penalized if their obese patients refuse to eat healthy and exercise? Do police officers get penalized if the criminals they arrest go out and commit more crimes? Why should teachers get penalized when they have no control over whether their students study? Why should teachers pay the price for so many parents who let their children play with video games and smartphones rather than do their homework?
I see teachers doing an excellent job all the time. I see them constantly striving to engage and motivate students. I am one of those teachers. Regardless of how hard we try, some students simply respond and some do not. That is because each student's academic success is based mainly on factors that are not in the teacher's hands. It is based on each student's natural ability. It is also based on the student's home environment and how conducive it is to the child's education.
Some patients listen to their doctor's advice and make healthier choices. Some do not. Some criminals reform after an arrest and leave their life of crime behind. Some do not. Still, doctors and police officers get paid for doing their job to the best of their ability. So should teachers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)