The Gulf oil spill is enough to make us all sick to heart (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37338000/ns/business-oil_and_energy/) Indeed, the history of BP illustrates that as a corporate entity, BP and its executives are villains who seem to care little about the environment or the well-being of their employees. Their conduct over the past five years has resulted in the deaths of 26 workers, eleven on Deep Water Horizon and 15 killed in a Texas oil refinery explosion and fire in 2005, with at least 180 injured. BP has a long history of arrogance and contempt for sanctions against it for safety and environmental violations. The federal government also has a long history of being too close to the energy industry to effectively police violations (see above article on msnbc.com).
I think it is significant to call attention to the fact that according to the International Association of Drilling Contractors, that since 2001 there have been 69 deaths, 1,349 injuries, and 858 fires or explosions on oil rigs operating in the Gulf alone. I understand that drilling for oil can be a dangerous business and the men and women who work on oil rigs know that as well, but when we compare the probability of death or injury to workers in US waters to the probability of death or injury to oil rig workers in European waters the contempt the federal government has for safety comes into focus. American oil rig workers have a 4% greater probability of death due to accident and a 23% greater probability of injury working in American waters than their counterparts working in European waters. These statistics should make everyone think.
According to NOAA there are 3,858 oil and gas platforms in the Gulf of Mexico and a great many, if not the majority, are owned or operated by BP. The history of BP clearly reveals a corporate attitude that, considering how many rigs they own or operate puts all of the Gulf Coast in danger, from Key West to the Yucatan Peninsula. If we let the executives of BP off the hook this time how deaths and injuries will it take to finally get the EPA and MMS attention? How much coast line must be destroyed before government and the public finally gets fed up and demands positive action?
Over time not much has happened in regard to regulating the safety and operating procedures of the energy industry. Clearly the energy industry has a too cozy relationship with its regulators. Many people just take a cynical view and shrug their shoulders and ask, “What can I do by myself?” I believe there are some things we can do. Just one of us or just a few will have little impact, but many can get the attention of politicians and perhaps some legislative action will be taken. In this regard, I take a few pages from Jeffry Reiman’s text, The Rich get Richer and the Poor get Prison, 7th ed., I have reformulated his Pyrrhic Defeat Theory and I renamed it the Oil Dilemma. The theory is based on the idea that oil is indispensible to the survival of modern society to the exclusion of alternatives such as wind, sun and anything else one can think of. There are at least three parts to the Theory; each one can be expanded on its own merits.
1. The federal government fails to protect workers and citizens at large from the safety and environmental crimes we all fear by refusing to encourage and fund research on alternative fuels.
2. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Minerals Management Service (MMS) fail to protect people from the most serious dangers by failing to define the dangerous acts of energy companies and by failing to adequately inform the media of crimes that cause injury, death or environmental damage. These agencies also shield those responsible by failing to enforce the law vigorously against the corporations and executives when they commit acts that are defined as crimes.
3. As a result of these and other failures, the federal government succeeds in creating the image that danger is an inherent part of working in the energy industry and we and the workers must learn to live with that danger; an image that serves the interests of the powerful executives that run the energy industry.
I have a solution, at least in regard to the oil industry. First, I need to point out something that those of us who have work in the public sector are fully aware of, particularly prisons and jails. Any prison warden or jail administrator who does not have a policy and procedure manual for all facets of the institutional operations fails to abide by professional standards established by the American Correctional Association. These standards cover all areas from administration to catastrophic events such as a tornado or riot. So, you ask, what the devil does this have to do with operating an oil rig? Good question.
The oil industry operates in a gray area between public service and private enterprise. I say that because if dangerously operated, a fire, explosion, or environmental damage affects the public at large. Therefore, government is perfectly within the scope of its responsibilities to require any corporation operating an oil rig to develop policy and procedures to deal with catastrophic events such as fire, explosion, or potential environmental damage. In addition, as is the case with Deepwater Horizon and other deep wells, if the rig is operating within the continental limits of the United States, they must present procedures to deal with problems, such as we have seen with Deep Water Horizon, before drilling begins. When those procedures are acceptable, then operations may commence.
This is not unnecessary governmental interference with business, even though it would be the hue and cry of those in the industry. It does not interfere with the operation of prisons or jails; on the contrary, it makes them safer. I argue that working on an oil rig would be much safer if potential problems and solutions were identified ahead of time instead of hoping nothing goes wrong. The problems arise when employees do not follow procedures. This brings me to a final point. Well developed policies and procedures serve three purposes: 1). They keep all employees on the same operation page without affecting discretion, 2). Policies and procedures serve as a guide to training, and 3). They serve as a buffer to law suits.
I am not hopeful my suggestions will be accepted by anyone in the energy industry, the EPA, or the MMS. However, I have no doubt that if policies and procedures were developed, the industry and the public would be the winners.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Is Tea Party Ideology a Creeping Disease of Divisiveness
For some time I have been concerned about certain movements coming from the political far right. I am not arguing with anyone’s right to disagree with our political leaders or their right to protest, but I am concerned that ideas harmful to the existence of the Republic are moving out from the fringe to the United States Congress and the state legislatures. There is a long tradition in the United States of resentment of taxation. We all have heard of the Stamp Act passed by Parliament in 1765 followed by the Tea Act in 1774 that in some ways set the stage for the Rebellion. During the Presidency of George Washington the Whiskey Rebellion was a major crisis and he solved it by sending “Light Horse Harry” Lee, Robert E. Lee’s father, to put down the insurrection with 13,000 soldiers.
There have been other protests over taxes since the 1790s, but none have generated the same level of hostility and inflammatory rhetoric since the Civil War, which by the way, was not about taxes, but the related issue of state rights to pull out of the Union. This brings me to the current Tea Party, as it is called. The Tea Party is not really a political party, but rather a movement fueled by animosity towards the federal government. We can trace the Tea Party and its agenda to President Ronald Reagan’s first inaugural address in which he stated that “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” In the abstract this is accurate and is a guide to American values of individualism and entrepreneurialism. However, in my opinion, the statement has been perverted to meet the agenda of conservative politicians and Far Right loonies. My problem isn’t with conservatives, rather it is with those who have suffered personal loss or financial hardship and must find something to blame; be it President Obama and the health care legislation or an “over-reaching” federal government.
What is the real root cause of the animosity towards the federal government? I read some statements by citizens that indicate they have only a rudimentary understanding of how government works. For example, signs being carried by elderly people stating (presumably to the federal government), “Keep your hands off my health care,” and “Obamacare is socialism.” I suppose they do not have Medicare and have no understanding of what socialism is. Frankly, I am embarrassed by such ignorance, call me an elitist if you want, but I at least learned the definition of socialism in high school and I understood that Medicare is a federal program as it was being debated. I have been under the assumption that the Tea Party movement was a reaction to taxes, not a generalized dislike, or even hatred of the federal government.
I would be able to just ignore such ignorance, if it weren’t beginning to creep into the mainstream. The Governors of Utah, Idaho, and Virginia have signed legislation allowing their states to opt out of the recent healthcare reform act. Other legislatures are considering such legislation. I am no Constitutional scholar, but one thing concerns me, that is the “tenthers” as they are called seem to be the tip of the spear. Now, the Oklahoma legislature is considering authorizing a new militia to be ready to….what? Go to war with the federal government if Congress passes legislation or a regulation that they deem unauthorized? I was under the impression that this issue was settled in 1861-1865.
One function of our government is to level the playing field so that no faction is able to exploit others for their own gain, to assure a quality of life so that we are free from harm from criminals, foreign enemies, or rapacious corporations that spew pollution without concern for the general welfare. However, it seems that many people are not all that concerned with the common good. David C. Williams*asserts that there is “…a paradox that mocks human efforts at self-government: republics can never successfully survive unless their citizens act in a virtuous manner, eschewing private interests for the sake of the public good, but citizens will not act virtuously except in a republic that fosters such virtuous conduct. “ Hence, a republic is in effect a logical contradiction, a paradox in its very nature. Creating or maintaining a republic against the constant risk of corruption by particularistic interests is therefore the most difficult of tasks.
An so it goes, can we continue to govern ourselves or are we doomed to splinter into a number of separatist geographic areas, each as its own governance unit. I don’t really thing we will splinter apart. Other than the separatist movement that resulted in the Civil War, our national fabric has been tested many times. We are on the downward slope of anti-unionism at present, but sooner or later events, or an event, will again unite us for a time and then we will get back to squabbling again. We are too diverse a people to always be singing from the same sheet of music, but the music we do make is a cacophony that is a sweeter sound than found anywhere else on the planet.
David C. Williams. (1991) “Civic Republicanism and the Citizen Militia: The Terrifying Second Amendment.” Yale Law Journal. 551-615
There have been other protests over taxes since the 1790s, but none have generated the same level of hostility and inflammatory rhetoric since the Civil War, which by the way, was not about taxes, but the related issue of state rights to pull out of the Union. This brings me to the current Tea Party, as it is called. The Tea Party is not really a political party, but rather a movement fueled by animosity towards the federal government. We can trace the Tea Party and its agenda to President Ronald Reagan’s first inaugural address in which he stated that “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” In the abstract this is accurate and is a guide to American values of individualism and entrepreneurialism. However, in my opinion, the statement has been perverted to meet the agenda of conservative politicians and Far Right loonies. My problem isn’t with conservatives, rather it is with those who have suffered personal loss or financial hardship and must find something to blame; be it President Obama and the health care legislation or an “over-reaching” federal government.
What is the real root cause of the animosity towards the federal government? I read some statements by citizens that indicate they have only a rudimentary understanding of how government works. For example, signs being carried by elderly people stating (presumably to the federal government), “Keep your hands off my health care,” and “Obamacare is socialism.” I suppose they do not have Medicare and have no understanding of what socialism is. Frankly, I am embarrassed by such ignorance, call me an elitist if you want, but I at least learned the definition of socialism in high school and I understood that Medicare is a federal program as it was being debated. I have been under the assumption that the Tea Party movement was a reaction to taxes, not a generalized dislike, or even hatred of the federal government.
I would be able to just ignore such ignorance, if it weren’t beginning to creep into the mainstream. The Governors of Utah, Idaho, and Virginia have signed legislation allowing their states to opt out of the recent healthcare reform act. Other legislatures are considering such legislation. I am no Constitutional scholar, but one thing concerns me, that is the “tenthers” as they are called seem to be the tip of the spear. Now, the Oklahoma legislature is considering authorizing a new militia to be ready to….what? Go to war with the federal government if Congress passes legislation or a regulation that they deem unauthorized? I was under the impression that this issue was settled in 1861-1865.
One function of our government is to level the playing field so that no faction is able to exploit others for their own gain, to assure a quality of life so that we are free from harm from criminals, foreign enemies, or rapacious corporations that spew pollution without concern for the general welfare. However, it seems that many people are not all that concerned with the common good. David C. Williams*asserts that there is “…a paradox that mocks human efforts at self-government: republics can never successfully survive unless their citizens act in a virtuous manner, eschewing private interests for the sake of the public good, but citizens will not act virtuously except in a republic that fosters such virtuous conduct. “ Hence, a republic is in effect a logical contradiction, a paradox in its very nature. Creating or maintaining a republic against the constant risk of corruption by particularistic interests is therefore the most difficult of tasks.
An so it goes, can we continue to govern ourselves or are we doomed to splinter into a number of separatist geographic areas, each as its own governance unit. I don’t really thing we will splinter apart. Other than the separatist movement that resulted in the Civil War, our national fabric has been tested many times. We are on the downward slope of anti-unionism at present, but sooner or later events, or an event, will again unite us for a time and then we will get back to squabbling again. We are too diverse a people to always be singing from the same sheet of music, but the music we do make is a cacophony that is a sweeter sound than found anywhere else on the planet.
David C. Williams. (1991) “Civic Republicanism and the Citizen Militia: The Terrifying Second Amendment.” Yale Law Journal. 551-615
Friday, February 26, 2010
The Cost of too Much Justice
From what I read in the media, it appears that many states that rushed to incarcerate criminals are beginning to have second thoughts. Small wonder. In many states the budget for the Department of Corrections is larger than that spent on K-12 education. In the 1980s, politicians had to cast about for a new boogey man with the demise of the Soviet Union. They settled on criminals and the poor as both groups have no real champions and no one wants to be seen as soft on crime and criminals and it is difficult to find someone who will agree that being poor is often not the fault of the poor themselves. The result was a burgeoning prison population and satisfied politicians.
However, as we entered the new century it began to be apparent that large corrections budgets were not sustainable. Few people had the courage to speak out and so we continued on our way building more prisons and filling them up. Today we have 1.7 million men and women in prison and on any given day approximately 785,000 in local jails. In all there are more than 7 million people under some form of correctional supervision. I am not saying that these men and women do not deserve to be under some form of supervision, but we do not need to have 1.7 million people in prison and jail. But incarceration is the most expensive sanction that can be given to an offender and we should give greater consideration to mid-range sanctions such as boot camp or intensive supervision.
Consider California, the state is expecting a $41 billion deficit this fiscal year, much of that is due to the tremendous cost of keeping more than 160,000 men and women in prison. That is an incredible amount of money, but California is not alone. The total amount spent on federal, state and local corrections in 2006 amounted to $68 billion. A total of $214 billion was spent on all aspects of criminal justice. The return on spending so much money on criminal justice is questionable, but it may make us feel safer; on the other hand, there are fewer dollars to spend on education, medical research, and infrastructure. How are we to maintain our position as a world leader in education and basic research, to say nothing of our standard of living, if we spend so much on crime?
Let me make a suggestion. One way to fight crime is to help families by assuring that there are family supporting jobs for everyone. By “family supporting jobs,” I mean jobs that allow one parent to stay home and watch the home and kids. When one parent is home things seem to run much more smoothly; there are fewer problems at home and less hassle. There is less stress, the children are supervised and everyone in general seems more pleasant. This is difficult to quantify, but certainly youth need supervision and limits enforced. That in turn leads to greater success in school, less delinquency, and an increase in civility.
The issue of assuring jobs is tricky. I am not a financial expert nor am I a political scientist. But, it seems to me that business cannot be relied on to assure the presence of jobs. After all, who is responsible for the loss of jobs overseas and the prior willingness of business and their lobbyists to skew the playing field in favor of business by tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas? How many factories were vacant even before the recent financial meltdown because the company could write off a loss by vacating a factory and moving elsewhere, often after the city or county gave away the store to keep them around? So, one solution is to rewrite the tax code to eliminate tax breaks for closing a factory and relocating the home office to Dubai, Lichtenstein or the Caymans. If the corporation is incorporated in the United States, they should pay the full tax bill.
Education is often blamed for the failure of the U.S. to perform well in the world of business. Perhaps, but we also must realize that as Fareed Zakaria has pointed out, the rest of the world is catching up. That presents a lot of opportunities for the U.S. and if the above tax problems are satisfied, then we can begin to catch up ourselves. However, there is the lingering bad taste left by the successful efforts of conservatives to blame the institution of education for our shortcomings. It is really too bad that the greedy CEO’s lives were so ruined by a lazy third grade teacher or by not taking four years of algebra. In my mind, most of the current crop of big time CEOs reached their present position not by intelligence or education, but by graduating from the right college and having the family contacts that boosted them along. In measuring the success of our educational system we often make the mistake to comparing American test scores with foreign test scores. This presents a skewed picture because most nations such as Japan, the UK, Germany and France have a tiered system in which not all students attend the same level of secondary schools. On the other hand, our high schools are required to take everyone and to keep them until they turn at least sixteen years of age. The scores of underachievers are lumped with other students thereby depressing the average.
Families must carry some of the blame as well. Here’s why. Up until the time about half of the interstate highway system was completed we had a full blown manufacturing capability. Families were largely intact and father would go off to work in the morning and mom would stay home and look after the kids. In the larger cities the unanticipated result of the interstate highway system was that the family could drive out of the city a convenient distance, buy or build a larger house and dad could commute to work. So instead of living over the store or behind the office in the inner city as citizens who were invested in the tranquility and success of the neighborhood, they left for more space. That coincided with the departure of jobs to the sunbelt or overseas. Southern and/or rural migrants also moved in and proved to be stable, contributing citizens…for a while. But eventually enough jobs left that those families began to leave for better pastures and those left behind began to disintegrate and their children began to model their behavior after other dysfunctional youth. Hence a downward spiral towards urban decay and hopelessness. Closely behind came failure in school, delinquency and rising crime rates.
All of this is to point out that there is no easy fix to the situation we are in. We have spent huge sums of money on the symptoms rather than the ailment. When we wake up and begin to pay attention to families, stop paying so much attention to test scores and designing an educational system that requires teaches to teach to a test and make use of community programs for offenders we will be well on the way to repairing the damage we have already wrought to our national fabric. We simply cannot afford to mete out so much justice. The sooner we get started, the further along we will be.
However, as we entered the new century it began to be apparent that large corrections budgets were not sustainable. Few people had the courage to speak out and so we continued on our way building more prisons and filling them up. Today we have 1.7 million men and women in prison and on any given day approximately 785,000 in local jails. In all there are more than 7 million people under some form of correctional supervision. I am not saying that these men and women do not deserve to be under some form of supervision, but we do not need to have 1.7 million people in prison and jail. But incarceration is the most expensive sanction that can be given to an offender and we should give greater consideration to mid-range sanctions such as boot camp or intensive supervision.
Consider California, the state is expecting a $41 billion deficit this fiscal year, much of that is due to the tremendous cost of keeping more than 160,000 men and women in prison. That is an incredible amount of money, but California is not alone. The total amount spent on federal, state and local corrections in 2006 amounted to $68 billion. A total of $214 billion was spent on all aspects of criminal justice. The return on spending so much money on criminal justice is questionable, but it may make us feel safer; on the other hand, there are fewer dollars to spend on education, medical research, and infrastructure. How are we to maintain our position as a world leader in education and basic research, to say nothing of our standard of living, if we spend so much on crime?
Let me make a suggestion. One way to fight crime is to help families by assuring that there are family supporting jobs for everyone. By “family supporting jobs,” I mean jobs that allow one parent to stay home and watch the home and kids. When one parent is home things seem to run much more smoothly; there are fewer problems at home and less hassle. There is less stress, the children are supervised and everyone in general seems more pleasant. This is difficult to quantify, but certainly youth need supervision and limits enforced. That in turn leads to greater success in school, less delinquency, and an increase in civility.
The issue of assuring jobs is tricky. I am not a financial expert nor am I a political scientist. But, it seems to me that business cannot be relied on to assure the presence of jobs. After all, who is responsible for the loss of jobs overseas and the prior willingness of business and their lobbyists to skew the playing field in favor of business by tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas? How many factories were vacant even before the recent financial meltdown because the company could write off a loss by vacating a factory and moving elsewhere, often after the city or county gave away the store to keep them around? So, one solution is to rewrite the tax code to eliminate tax breaks for closing a factory and relocating the home office to Dubai, Lichtenstein or the Caymans. If the corporation is incorporated in the United States, they should pay the full tax bill.
Education is often blamed for the failure of the U.S. to perform well in the world of business. Perhaps, but we also must realize that as Fareed Zakaria has pointed out, the rest of the world is catching up. That presents a lot of opportunities for the U.S. and if the above tax problems are satisfied, then we can begin to catch up ourselves. However, there is the lingering bad taste left by the successful efforts of conservatives to blame the institution of education for our shortcomings. It is really too bad that the greedy CEO’s lives were so ruined by a lazy third grade teacher or by not taking four years of algebra. In my mind, most of the current crop of big time CEOs reached their present position not by intelligence or education, but by graduating from the right college and having the family contacts that boosted them along. In measuring the success of our educational system we often make the mistake to comparing American test scores with foreign test scores. This presents a skewed picture because most nations such as Japan, the UK, Germany and France have a tiered system in which not all students attend the same level of secondary schools. On the other hand, our high schools are required to take everyone and to keep them until they turn at least sixteen years of age. The scores of underachievers are lumped with other students thereby depressing the average.
Families must carry some of the blame as well. Here’s why. Up until the time about half of the interstate highway system was completed we had a full blown manufacturing capability. Families were largely intact and father would go off to work in the morning and mom would stay home and look after the kids. In the larger cities the unanticipated result of the interstate highway system was that the family could drive out of the city a convenient distance, buy or build a larger house and dad could commute to work. So instead of living over the store or behind the office in the inner city as citizens who were invested in the tranquility and success of the neighborhood, they left for more space. That coincided with the departure of jobs to the sunbelt or overseas. Southern and/or rural migrants also moved in and proved to be stable, contributing citizens…for a while. But eventually enough jobs left that those families began to leave for better pastures and those left behind began to disintegrate and their children began to model their behavior after other dysfunctional youth. Hence a downward spiral towards urban decay and hopelessness. Closely behind came failure in school, delinquency and rising crime rates.
All of this is to point out that there is no easy fix to the situation we are in. We have spent huge sums of money on the symptoms rather than the ailment. When we wake up and begin to pay attention to families, stop paying so much attention to test scores and designing an educational system that requires teaches to teach to a test and make use of community programs for offenders we will be well on the way to repairing the damage we have already wrought to our national fabric. We simply cannot afford to mete out so much justice. The sooner we get started, the further along we will be.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Avatar is Just Good Entertainment
I enjoy going to the movies much more than watching them at home on the DVD player. I do watch movies at home and I confess that I like bad movies almost as much as good ones. The bad ones often give me a chuckle and they are a yardstick against which to measure other films and I can then label them as good, better and best. Let’s just call it Dr. Houston’s science project.
I guess I like theaters because they provide a shared entertainment experience and I can laugh or cry along with others in the theater. I can also gauge what others think about a film by how quickly they leave when the film is over and by comments I hear as I am leaving. After Christmas I took my grandson to see Avatar. I had been looking forward to seeing it since I first heard about it. I was anxious to see the graphics and how the actors did when they were acting in front of a green screen rather than on a stage. Besides, I like action movies. I thought it was a great movie. It rocks. The computerization and graphics are fantastic. Ok, so the story is so so. Boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy and girl get together again. Old hat and a formula that was repackaged in new technology as a sort of inter-species love story.
Now I read that Avatar is racist, it is anti-American, and that it is anti-capitalist. I have to tell you, I was taken aback when I read these criticisms. I guess I’m too shallow to see the hidden messages in a film. I just go along for the ride and try to enjoy myself. I take the same attitude towards books too. Even if a book or a film supposedly has a hidden agenda that has never kept me from enjoying a book or film even if I don’t agree with the underlying message, if I know there is one. For example, I enjoyed reading George Orwell’s Animal Farm and then my literature professor informed the class that some critics thought he was delivering a diatribe against fascism, which he denied. You could have knocked me over with a feather. I thought it was a fantasy. I enjoyed reading William Luther Pierce’s Turner Diaries even though I knew before-hand that it was written by a racist, militia sort of man who advocated the violent over throw of the United States government and that the book has been adopted as a sort of bible, or how-to manual, for extremists, but I was caught up in the adventure of it and not some hidden message. I, of all people, know full well that there are some very bad people in the world and that sometimes they win, in spite of the good guys. (I guess I should at this point explain that I am not a racist nor do I advocate the over throw of the government).
What I do advocate is the appreciation of art for its own sake. Film-making is an art form that takes considerable talent (not to say also a lot of money in most cases) in order to bring a film to life. I don’t think I have seen many films that have a hidden agenda. The other films mentioned as having a hidden “white savior” agenda such as Dances With Wolves and The Last Samurai were enjoyable for me because they were action flicks that appealed to my Walter Mitty side. Besides, they were made in the United States and the main character was an American. I don’t think films made in Japan show heroes other than Japanese, or German films showing American or Russian heroes, etc. Kiriya Kazuaki’s film Casshern features a Japanese scientist who saves the planet in a post apocalyptic world and the Germans recently released a film about the Red Baron (starring a German actor), the famous WWI pilot who shot down 80 Allied planes. In the US, Will Smith saved the planet and Denzel Washington saves humanity in the soon to be released The Book of Eli.
Every culture sees life through the lens of its own experiences and when it comes to film I imagine those who get the choice roles are those who have established themselves as good draws at the box office. I can’t imagine a producer being interested in promoting a political agenda over profit. I just don’t think it is a part of their capitalist makeup. In the past decade or more, minority actors such as Smith, Washington, and Morgan Freeman have stepped into roles that cast them as “saviors” so to speak, all of whom are very popular at the box office. So, I think it is a stretch to state that Avatar is a racist film.
As far as the film being anti-capitalist or anti-American, c’mon give me a break. Like multi-national corporations have never taken advantage of anyone for their resources. As far as anti-capitalism, maybe the capitalists need a little bit of an attitude tune-up. The past decade has revealed the exploitive nature of pure capitalism. So, let’s all just go to the movies and enjoy a bag of popcorn, lean back and enjoy ourselves. After all, a matinee is one hell of a bargain.
I guess I like theaters because they provide a shared entertainment experience and I can laugh or cry along with others in the theater. I can also gauge what others think about a film by how quickly they leave when the film is over and by comments I hear as I am leaving. After Christmas I took my grandson to see Avatar. I had been looking forward to seeing it since I first heard about it. I was anxious to see the graphics and how the actors did when they were acting in front of a green screen rather than on a stage. Besides, I like action movies. I thought it was a great movie. It rocks. The computerization and graphics are fantastic. Ok, so the story is so so. Boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy and girl get together again. Old hat and a formula that was repackaged in new technology as a sort of inter-species love story.
Now I read that Avatar is racist, it is anti-American, and that it is anti-capitalist. I have to tell you, I was taken aback when I read these criticisms. I guess I’m too shallow to see the hidden messages in a film. I just go along for the ride and try to enjoy myself. I take the same attitude towards books too. Even if a book or a film supposedly has a hidden agenda that has never kept me from enjoying a book or film even if I don’t agree with the underlying message, if I know there is one. For example, I enjoyed reading George Orwell’s Animal Farm and then my literature professor informed the class that some critics thought he was delivering a diatribe against fascism, which he denied. You could have knocked me over with a feather. I thought it was a fantasy. I enjoyed reading William Luther Pierce’s Turner Diaries even though I knew before-hand that it was written by a racist, militia sort of man who advocated the violent over throw of the United States government and that the book has been adopted as a sort of bible, or how-to manual, for extremists, but I was caught up in the adventure of it and not some hidden message. I, of all people, know full well that there are some very bad people in the world and that sometimes they win, in spite of the good guys. (I guess I should at this point explain that I am not a racist nor do I advocate the over throw of the government).
What I do advocate is the appreciation of art for its own sake. Film-making is an art form that takes considerable talent (not to say also a lot of money in most cases) in order to bring a film to life. I don’t think I have seen many films that have a hidden agenda. The other films mentioned as having a hidden “white savior” agenda such as Dances With Wolves and The Last Samurai were enjoyable for me because they were action flicks that appealed to my Walter Mitty side. Besides, they were made in the United States and the main character was an American. I don’t think films made in Japan show heroes other than Japanese, or German films showing American or Russian heroes, etc. Kiriya Kazuaki’s film Casshern features a Japanese scientist who saves the planet in a post apocalyptic world and the Germans recently released a film about the Red Baron (starring a German actor), the famous WWI pilot who shot down 80 Allied planes. In the US, Will Smith saved the planet and Denzel Washington saves humanity in the soon to be released The Book of Eli.
Every culture sees life through the lens of its own experiences and when it comes to film I imagine those who get the choice roles are those who have established themselves as good draws at the box office. I can’t imagine a producer being interested in promoting a political agenda over profit. I just don’t think it is a part of their capitalist makeup. In the past decade or more, minority actors such as Smith, Washington, and Morgan Freeman have stepped into roles that cast them as “saviors” so to speak, all of whom are very popular at the box office. So, I think it is a stretch to state that Avatar is a racist film.
As far as the film being anti-capitalist or anti-American, c’mon give me a break. Like multi-national corporations have never taken advantage of anyone for their resources. As far as anti-capitalism, maybe the capitalists need a little bit of an attitude tune-up. The past decade has revealed the exploitive nature of pure capitalism. So, let’s all just go to the movies and enjoy a bag of popcorn, lean back and enjoy ourselves. After all, a matinee is one hell of a bargain.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Year End Ruminations
It has been six weeks since my last post on November 22, 2009. The press of final examinations and getting grades out on time consumed most of my time up until the middle of December. Then the busy holidays and a trip to Wyoming over Christmas kept me distracted and allowed me to de-stress. The time to myself (and about 25 other people, including family members) allowed me to think about the important events of 2009. The past year was not a good one for a lot of people. One high note, for me at least, was as a result of the ongoing recession and financial melt-down many of the wealthy elite lost some of their wealth. Some of the hedge fund managers who had a hand in the melt-down had their BMW’s repossessed and maybe they had to move from their multi-million dollar New York condos. On the other hand, many of the elderly lost their retirement and their futures were put in doubt as they had to return to work. I don’t feel so bad for those still in their 50s, as compared to those over 70. What are they to do? All in all, I don’t think it was a good year.
January marked the inauguration of President Barak Obama. He inherited a bucket full of problems: two wars, a financial system ready to go south, issues with Iran, the potential destabilization of Pakistan, high unemployment, continued de-industrialization of the U.S., the highest federal deficit in history, and the rise of China and India to challenge American world leadership. There are many other problems, but these alone are enough to cause serious heart-burn. I think the importance of Obama’s stepping into the White House is not so much his promise as a Progressive with ideas on how to turn the nation around, but rather the fact that maybe the United States has finally turned the corner on its history of racism and discrimination. Perhaps we have now reached the point that we can truly look at the character and competence of the man or woman without considering the color of their skin. We won’t know, of course, how Mr. Obama is doing (or did) for another three years. But, his agenda is one that serves all Americans, not just the elite.
The crash of Continental Flight 3407 at Buffalo, New York on February 12 near Buffalo, N.Y. Killed 50 people. I think this was an important event because the NTSB determined that the crash was the result of errors by the crew. That may be the direct cause, but in my opinion the real cause lies with Continental. Just like all airlines, they had cut back training and pay to the extent that flight crews do not get the necessary training to assure the safety of the plane and its occupants. In their determination to assure high salaries to executives and some kind of return to investors, they have cut pay and training for the crews. This is a slippery slope indeed, because if crews do not get adequate simulator time or other necessary training, ultimately there may not be an airline to manage.
A.I.G received another $30 billion from the U.S. government after posting a loss of more than $99 billion for 2008. Then they announced bonuses of $165 million for company executives. Bummer! Is there no end to the entitlement and arrogance of executives of the multi-national companies? I guess not.
Sallie Mae, the government owned corporation responsible for student loans, “proudly” announced that it was pulling 2,000 jobs back to the U.S. from overseas call centers. Holy Cow! This is illustrative of the attitude American workers have faced for more than 30 years. Shift jobs overseas in order to save money. In the meantime, Americans have had to go looking for work after they lost their jobs to someone in the Philippines, India, or where ever. Has someone finally awakened to the predicament of American workers?
General Motors was allowed to restructure, saving the company from folding altogether. I am of two minds in regard to saving GM. On the one hand, we claim to be a capitalist nation where economic Darwinism holds sway. But, on the other hand, hard-shell capitalists who play risky games with the corporation’s money come to the government with their hands out. Anyone with half a brain has known for years that GM has been managed by a group of inbred, morons who clearly lack vision, leadership, and creativity. Having said that, it seems to me that GM should be allowed to sink. However, that would leave several thousands of employees out of work and with the government picking up the tab for unemployment benefits and probably pension funds that have been spent. This case clearly illustrates the predicament in which we have been placed by greedy, arrogant executives.
The skeleton of the oldest human ancestor was discovered. Nicknamed "Ardi," the skeleton is estimated to be 4.4 million years old, making it older than Lucy, estimated at 3.2 million years old. Ardi, an adult female, was four-feet tall, 120 pounds, and walked upright on two legs. Fragments of the specimen were first discovered in 1992, but scientists were waiting for more pieces of the skeleton before conducting the additional research and publishing their findings.
Finally, and perhaps most important for me, is the birth of Sierra Anne Houston. Born to Andrew and Emily Houston of Jackson, Wyoming and Granddaughter of James and Margaret Houston (me) (us).
Will they never learn?
Tiger Woods. Too cocky and self assured. If you live in a glass house, be sure to keep your clothes on.
Governor Mark Sanford (SC). Really nutty for a Governor. Did he really think no one would miss him?
John Edwards. What was he thinking? Wealthy, privileged, with a sick wife. I don’t think anyone is willing to forgive him.
Sen. John Ensign (NV). Ménage a’ Trois in the Capitol?
Greed.
Joseph Cassano, A.I.G. President who drove the company into the ditch.
Bernard Madoff. He made off with a wagon load of other people’s money.
Raj Rajaratnam. Indicted. $20 million insider trading scam.
Allan Stanford. Indicted. $8 billion scam.
January marked the inauguration of President Barak Obama. He inherited a bucket full of problems: two wars, a financial system ready to go south, issues with Iran, the potential destabilization of Pakistan, high unemployment, continued de-industrialization of the U.S., the highest federal deficit in history, and the rise of China and India to challenge American world leadership. There are many other problems, but these alone are enough to cause serious heart-burn. I think the importance of Obama’s stepping into the White House is not so much his promise as a Progressive with ideas on how to turn the nation around, but rather the fact that maybe the United States has finally turned the corner on its history of racism and discrimination. Perhaps we have now reached the point that we can truly look at the character and competence of the man or woman without considering the color of their skin. We won’t know, of course, how Mr. Obama is doing (or did) for another three years. But, his agenda is one that serves all Americans, not just the elite.
The crash of Continental Flight 3407 at Buffalo, New York on February 12 near Buffalo, N.Y. Killed 50 people. I think this was an important event because the NTSB determined that the crash was the result of errors by the crew. That may be the direct cause, but in my opinion the real cause lies with Continental. Just like all airlines, they had cut back training and pay to the extent that flight crews do not get the necessary training to assure the safety of the plane and its occupants. In their determination to assure high salaries to executives and some kind of return to investors, they have cut pay and training for the crews. This is a slippery slope indeed, because if crews do not get adequate simulator time or other necessary training, ultimately there may not be an airline to manage.
A.I.G received another $30 billion from the U.S. government after posting a loss of more than $99 billion for 2008. Then they announced bonuses of $165 million for company executives. Bummer! Is there no end to the entitlement and arrogance of executives of the multi-national companies? I guess not.
Sallie Mae, the government owned corporation responsible for student loans, “proudly” announced that it was pulling 2,000 jobs back to the U.S. from overseas call centers. Holy Cow! This is illustrative of the attitude American workers have faced for more than 30 years. Shift jobs overseas in order to save money. In the meantime, Americans have had to go looking for work after they lost their jobs to someone in the Philippines, India, or where ever. Has someone finally awakened to the predicament of American workers?
General Motors was allowed to restructure, saving the company from folding altogether. I am of two minds in regard to saving GM. On the one hand, we claim to be a capitalist nation where economic Darwinism holds sway. But, on the other hand, hard-shell capitalists who play risky games with the corporation’s money come to the government with their hands out. Anyone with half a brain has known for years that GM has been managed by a group of inbred, morons who clearly lack vision, leadership, and creativity. Having said that, it seems to me that GM should be allowed to sink. However, that would leave several thousands of employees out of work and with the government picking up the tab for unemployment benefits and probably pension funds that have been spent. This case clearly illustrates the predicament in which we have been placed by greedy, arrogant executives.
The skeleton of the oldest human ancestor was discovered. Nicknamed "Ardi," the skeleton is estimated to be 4.4 million years old, making it older than Lucy, estimated at 3.2 million years old. Ardi, an adult female, was four-feet tall, 120 pounds, and walked upright on two legs. Fragments of the specimen were first discovered in 1992, but scientists were waiting for more pieces of the skeleton before conducting the additional research and publishing their findings.
Finally, and perhaps most important for me, is the birth of Sierra Anne Houston. Born to Andrew and Emily Houston of Jackson, Wyoming and Granddaughter of James and Margaret Houston (me) (us).
Will they never learn?
Tiger Woods. Too cocky and self assured. If you live in a glass house, be sure to keep your clothes on.
Governor Mark Sanford (SC). Really nutty for a Governor. Did he really think no one would miss him?
John Edwards. What was he thinking? Wealthy, privileged, with a sick wife. I don’t think anyone is willing to forgive him.
Sen. John Ensign (NV). Ménage a’ Trois in the Capitol?
Greed.
Joseph Cassano, A.I.G. President who drove the company into the ditch.
Bernard Madoff. He made off with a wagon load of other people’s money.
Raj Rajaratnam. Indicted. $20 million insider trading scam.
Allan Stanford. Indicted. $8 billion scam.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Have we Lost our "Can do Optimism?"
An AP article asking the above question appeared in my local Sunday paper (Liz Sidoti, November 15, 2009). I found it interesting as it cited an Associated Press-GfK poll that illustrates a decline in American optimism. The poll revealed that President Obama’s approval rating stands at 54% and that 56% of those polled say that the US is headed in the wrong direction. I think the article incorrectly draws conclusions by comparing November data with October data. I’m not even sure that it captures a trend. But, Ms. Sidoti is correct in pointing out that President Obama’s approval rating is down to 54% from 74% in January, 2009. I believe that it also reveals a sense of frustration with the economy and the constant bombardment by the media of the political infighting in Washington, DC over health care reform.
This has been a tough year for us all. Unemployment continues to increase, the war in Afghanistan has heated up, and then to add to a sense of pessimism, Major Nidal Hasan went on his killing spree at Fort Hood. No wonder Americans have a sense of pessimism. It’s a wonder that we have any faith at all that things will improve. But in the end we always believe things will be better. Our national psyche is imbued with optimism passed down to us by the early settlers who endured a dangerous eight week passage on crowded, uncomfortable ships to the astronauts who went to the moon. Inherently we have always been a nation of optimists.
I wonder if that is going to change. Fareed Zakaria’s book, The Post American World, is an insightful and captivating explanation of how the world has changed. After WWII the rest of the industrialized world was in ashes. England, Europe, Japan and Russia were nothing but rubble. The United States possessed the only industrial capacity and became the strongest economy and military power the world has ever known. China, India and South America were only after thoughts and no one paid them much attention when it came to a discussion of economic power. However, as Zakaria states, their rise to economic prominence is one of America’s greatest accomplishments. They have succeeded at doing what we have preached for a hundred years. It isn’t that America is falling behind, rather, the rest have caught up with us.
What are the consequences of this? For one thing, it means that millions of people are going to be lifted out of poverty. It means that the population boom in developing nations will subside as they become more affluent. Finally, it means that the possibility of future wars will decline as prosperous nations rarely have anything to gain from war and everything to lose. This is the good news. But, I’m afraid there is a down side.
Before I get to the downside, I need to call the reader’s attention to the November 29th issue of Newsweek (yes the one with Sarah Palin’s photo on the cover) and an essay by Fareed Zakaria. He speaks to the issue of innovation and that the United States appears to be losing its edge in creativity and innovation. There are two main areas where we are falling behind the others: education and government policy.
We are not producing the kind of workers needed for the knowledge based economy. We are doing well, Zakaria points out, but the glow is fading. Prior to WWII, technological innovation came primarily from Europe, usually from Germany. The War changed all that and we benefited immensely from the exodus of German scientists to our shores and they came to our universities, research centers and companies with a large R&D budget. Later after 1965 we became home to bright Indians and Chinese who also made great contributions to our economy and scientific accomplishments. We were able to coast along on the shirt tales of immigrants for more than fifty years. Now, however, with declining funds for research and development the pool of bright, capable of immigrants is drying up; they are finding more opportunity in their ome countries. At the same time, we are not producing nearly enough home grown talent who graduate from college as engineers, chemists, biologists and so on. I think the end result is self evident. This gets to the downside I spoke of above. That is, rather than immigrating to the United States because of greater opportunity for research, Europeans, Indians, and Chinese are staying home because there is greater opportunity there than in the United States.
Getting back to a decline in innovation in the U.S., the second area where we are losing our edge is the area of government policy, which is probably more important even than education. Beginning around WWII the federal government began to rain money on research and development. The universities were the primary beneficiaries of this largesse and many companies such as TRW, Hughes Aircraft, Lockheed, Boeing and many others as well all benefited. Zakaria points out that by the 1950s; three percent of American GDP was spent on R&D. The benefits have been immense: space exploration, DNA sequencing, microchips, Teflon and even lowly Velcro all were products of this spurt of technological investment. By 2008 2.8% of American GDP was devoted to R&D, putting us seventh in the world. Again, it isn’t that we are falling behind in amount of money devoted to R&D; rather others are spending more, upwards of 5% and 7%. China intends to devote 10% of GDP to R&D in the near future. In addition, of all funds appropriated for R&D in the United States in 2006, only 18% was devoted to basic research. This is frightening and discouraging. How can we expect to keep up when we devote so little to basic research compared to other nations such as China and India?
I don’t know when we will begin to pull out of our current economic downturn. Soon, I hope, but when we do we need to invest in our future. We invest in the future by encouraging young people to enter into the disciplines of engineering, astrophysics,biology, mathmatics and so on. We can do this by upgrading our schools and encouraging students to play around in laboratories and just explore under the supervision of teachers who don’t follow a lesson plan, but let the student follow their sense of curiosity. We must also drop the idea of mandatory testing and let teachers educate rather than teach to a test.
We must get back to funding our great universities and attract brilliant people who can devote time to basic research and not teach. That requires educating legislators with the purpose of universities,that is to create and disseminate knowledge. We have forgotten that creating knowledge leads to other discoveries and that the opportunity to create knowledge attracts other brilliant, motivated scientists, who in turn attract still others. We foster basic research by providing the facilities and budgets necessary for the research, which in turn attracts other scientists and brilliant students.
Who can forget the sense of optimism we felt during the years leading up to the moon landing. There seemed to be a new discovery every week. Our Universities were cranking out scientists and engineers on a steady basis; in the meantime the Vietnam War was in full-swing by 1969 and we began to lose our sense of optimism. In my view, since then our sense of optimism has been on a slow, but steady decline. We began to lose our sense of purpose and, with a few exceptions, we only heard about failures and disappointments, no doubt spurred on by the twenty-four hour news cycle inaugurated by CNN in 1980. Since the 1980s it seems as if we have only been interested in personal advancement as measured by dollars in our bank account and we bellyache about paying taxes. Little thought is given to the greater good and that either directly or indirectly, taxes pay for technological advancement.
I have no doubt that we will regain our sense of optimism, but it will take an event or person to begin the upswing in national mood. We thought that the election of President Obama was the catalyst, and perhaps he will be, but events seem to be overtaking him. We must wait and see and I can only hope that it happens sooner rather than later.
This has been a tough year for us all. Unemployment continues to increase, the war in Afghanistan has heated up, and then to add to a sense of pessimism, Major Nidal Hasan went on his killing spree at Fort Hood. No wonder Americans have a sense of pessimism. It’s a wonder that we have any faith at all that things will improve. But in the end we always believe things will be better. Our national psyche is imbued with optimism passed down to us by the early settlers who endured a dangerous eight week passage on crowded, uncomfortable ships to the astronauts who went to the moon. Inherently we have always been a nation of optimists.
I wonder if that is going to change. Fareed Zakaria’s book, The Post American World, is an insightful and captivating explanation of how the world has changed. After WWII the rest of the industrialized world was in ashes. England, Europe, Japan and Russia were nothing but rubble. The United States possessed the only industrial capacity and became the strongest economy and military power the world has ever known. China, India and South America were only after thoughts and no one paid them much attention when it came to a discussion of economic power. However, as Zakaria states, their rise to economic prominence is one of America’s greatest accomplishments. They have succeeded at doing what we have preached for a hundred years. It isn’t that America is falling behind, rather, the rest have caught up with us.
What are the consequences of this? For one thing, it means that millions of people are going to be lifted out of poverty. It means that the population boom in developing nations will subside as they become more affluent. Finally, it means that the possibility of future wars will decline as prosperous nations rarely have anything to gain from war and everything to lose. This is the good news. But, I’m afraid there is a down side.
Before I get to the downside, I need to call the reader’s attention to the November 29th issue of Newsweek (yes the one with Sarah Palin’s photo on the cover) and an essay by Fareed Zakaria. He speaks to the issue of innovation and that the United States appears to be losing its edge in creativity and innovation. There are two main areas where we are falling behind the others: education and government policy.
We are not producing the kind of workers needed for the knowledge based economy. We are doing well, Zakaria points out, but the glow is fading. Prior to WWII, technological innovation came primarily from Europe, usually from Germany. The War changed all that and we benefited immensely from the exodus of German scientists to our shores and they came to our universities, research centers and companies with a large R&D budget. Later after 1965 we became home to bright Indians and Chinese who also made great contributions to our economy and scientific accomplishments. We were able to coast along on the shirt tales of immigrants for more than fifty years. Now, however, with declining funds for research and development the pool of bright, capable of immigrants is drying up; they are finding more opportunity in their ome countries. At the same time, we are not producing nearly enough home grown talent who graduate from college as engineers, chemists, biologists and so on. I think the end result is self evident. This gets to the downside I spoke of above. That is, rather than immigrating to the United States because of greater opportunity for research, Europeans, Indians, and Chinese are staying home because there is greater opportunity there than in the United States.
Getting back to a decline in innovation in the U.S., the second area where we are losing our edge is the area of government policy, which is probably more important even than education. Beginning around WWII the federal government began to rain money on research and development. The universities were the primary beneficiaries of this largesse and many companies such as TRW, Hughes Aircraft, Lockheed, Boeing and many others as well all benefited. Zakaria points out that by the 1950s; three percent of American GDP was spent on R&D. The benefits have been immense: space exploration, DNA sequencing, microchips, Teflon and even lowly Velcro all were products of this spurt of technological investment. By 2008 2.8% of American GDP was devoted to R&D, putting us seventh in the world. Again, it isn’t that we are falling behind in amount of money devoted to R&D; rather others are spending more, upwards of 5% and 7%. China intends to devote 10% of GDP to R&D in the near future. In addition, of all funds appropriated for R&D in the United States in 2006, only 18% was devoted to basic research. This is frightening and discouraging. How can we expect to keep up when we devote so little to basic research compared to other nations such as China and India?
I don’t know when we will begin to pull out of our current economic downturn. Soon, I hope, but when we do we need to invest in our future. We invest in the future by encouraging young people to enter into the disciplines of engineering, astrophysics,biology, mathmatics and so on. We can do this by upgrading our schools and encouraging students to play around in laboratories and just explore under the supervision of teachers who don’t follow a lesson plan, but let the student follow their sense of curiosity. We must also drop the idea of mandatory testing and let teachers educate rather than teach to a test.
We must get back to funding our great universities and attract brilliant people who can devote time to basic research and not teach. That requires educating legislators with the purpose of universities,that is to create and disseminate knowledge. We have forgotten that creating knowledge leads to other discoveries and that the opportunity to create knowledge attracts other brilliant, motivated scientists, who in turn attract still others. We foster basic research by providing the facilities and budgets necessary for the research, which in turn attracts other scientists and brilliant students.
Who can forget the sense of optimism we felt during the years leading up to the moon landing. There seemed to be a new discovery every week. Our Universities were cranking out scientists and engineers on a steady basis; in the meantime the Vietnam War was in full-swing by 1969 and we began to lose our sense of optimism. In my view, since then our sense of optimism has been on a slow, but steady decline. We began to lose our sense of purpose and, with a few exceptions, we only heard about failures and disappointments, no doubt spurred on by the twenty-four hour news cycle inaugurated by CNN in 1980. Since the 1980s it seems as if we have only been interested in personal advancement as measured by dollars in our bank account and we bellyache about paying taxes. Little thought is given to the greater good and that either directly or indirectly, taxes pay for technological advancement.
I have no doubt that we will regain our sense of optimism, but it will take an event or person to begin the upswing in national mood. We thought that the election of President Obama was the catalyst, and perhaps he will be, but events seem to be overtaking him. We must wait and see and I can only hope that it happens sooner rather than later.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Life or Death for Serious Juvenile Offenders
The United States Supreme Court will decide a case by the end of summer that is important for America. The question before the Court is whether or not a life sentence for juveniles is cruel and unusual punishment. This is subsequent to 2002 D.C. sniper John Lee Malvo being sentenced to life without parole in December 2003 and the execution of his co-defendant John Allen Muhammad in November 2009. The decision is important because our attitude toward punishment of offenders in general is too harsh, but with juveniles in particular it is much too harsh. Compared to other industrialized nations, we lead the pack in total number of years juveniles are sentenced to serve and the number of those sentenced to life in prison (111) as well as those tried in adult courts (9,400 in 2004 according the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention). Juveniles are not small (in some cases) adults, but rather are immature, emotionally unformed human beings who require adult guidance and love.
I am not in favor of letting juveniles go unpunished for horrendous crimes such as murder or rape. What I am saying is that any kind of serious deviance on the part of juveniles is the result of their victimization by the adults in their lives. Too many adults have children who shouldn’t. Too often children are raised in a dysfunctional family with too little supervision, too few limitations and too little discipline. Research has clearly shown that parents who abuse drugs or alcohol or who serve a prison sentence usually have children who abuse drugs or go to prison. On the other hand, to deny anyone the right to procreate is a serious intrusion on their 14th Amendment rights. Besides, the social sciences have not advanced to the point that we are able to predict with any degree of certainty what child will be criminal and which one will grow up to be a productive citizen. So we just have to take pot-luck and wait and see what happens and be reactive to deviant behavior. Or do we?
I don’t believe that we have to take a wait and see attitude towards juveniles who have the potential to participate in ever more serious delinquent behavior. Granted, there may be some legal issues at play here, but if the Juvenile Court has made the juvenile a ward of the Court, the hook is set and entre is given the Court to begin work with the family as a whole. The child is a product of the family and if an intervention can be made that corrects issues with child rearing in the family, then the intervention should be ordered by the Court. There was a program on Long Island, New York that was implemented in 1939 that had a great deal of promise. Several families with delinquent children were assigned a social worker who supervised and worked with the family as a unit. Mother, father, siblings were all considered a part of the equation (and they are) and were the recipient of a number of services, including counseling, job placement for the father if necessary, self-improvement programs, medical services, etc. The program appeared to be heading for remarkable success, but the beginning of WWII cut the program short due to shortage of funds and social workers volunteering for the military and other war services. It was never evaluated.
To give up on rehabilitation programs for children is short cited and foolish. An example from my past; Chucky, a thirteen year old boy I supervised as a young juvenile probation officer years ago, was a child in peril. He had all the marks against him. Single parent home, uneducated mother, toxic neighborhood, relegated to special education classes, and a behavior problem in the home and school. He was placed on probation for burglary and while on probation was referred again for setting a cat on fire with lighter fluid. In my opinion I had a budding sociopath on my hands. I started by getting a full psychological battery on him by two professors at a nearby university. I was right, a budding sociopath. But, he was of high intelligence and the psychologists thought that he was motivated to do something with his life. To make a long story short, a few months in a private residential program, paid for by the county, followed by intensive probation supervised by myself, a lot of attention, and tutors rounded up at the university, he seemed to be headed for a life without jail. I moved on at that point, but he volunteered to help me load up a U-Haul with our few belongings and went with me to our new apartment across the state. I paid him $20.00 (a good sum in 1970) and paid for a bus ticket home. He thanked me for my attention and seemed genuinely sorry to not see me again. I never did see him again, but I sometimes wonder if he did live a satisfactory and crime free life. I think that he did as he had acquired a desire to do well that one could see in his eyes. He no longer had a defeated slump to his shoulders.
I only bring up the story of Chucky as an example of how youth can change. This is multiplied many times, hundreds if not thousands of times each year. An adult takes time with a young person, or they experience an epiphany while in counseling or in class and they are off to glory. But, the important thing is that an adult has to show the way. Without a responsible adult who has credence with the youth and who shows unconditional love and concern without which not much positive will ever happen.
The sorry part of this story is that we as Americans seem to have lost the desire to help. John Schwartz, a well known criminologist, points out that our juvenile justice system, particularly the juvenile court is a shining jewel in America’s crown. In spite of what many politicians have said, it is a success and any failures it experiences are the direct result of a parsimonious citizenry. It seems we would rather spend billions on prisons for men who are almost beyond redemption than spend money on a population that has a chance to be rehabilitated.
When will we see the light and begin to sink money into juvenile programs and take the time to work with dysfunctional families? I don’t really know. I’m not hopeful for an immediate turn around. Far too many youth are waived to adult court for crimes that are serious. Far too many youth are waived to adult court when they could have been pointed in another direction just a few years earlier, if only the resources existed. Until we understand that the least of these young people is worth just as much as any other young person, we will continue to earn our reputation as a nation that does not value it’s youth and who would rather punish than to reward.
I am not in favor of letting juveniles go unpunished for horrendous crimes such as murder or rape. What I am saying is that any kind of serious deviance on the part of juveniles is the result of their victimization by the adults in their lives. Too many adults have children who shouldn’t. Too often children are raised in a dysfunctional family with too little supervision, too few limitations and too little discipline. Research has clearly shown that parents who abuse drugs or alcohol or who serve a prison sentence usually have children who abuse drugs or go to prison. On the other hand, to deny anyone the right to procreate is a serious intrusion on their 14th Amendment rights. Besides, the social sciences have not advanced to the point that we are able to predict with any degree of certainty what child will be criminal and which one will grow up to be a productive citizen. So we just have to take pot-luck and wait and see what happens and be reactive to deviant behavior. Or do we?
I don’t believe that we have to take a wait and see attitude towards juveniles who have the potential to participate in ever more serious delinquent behavior. Granted, there may be some legal issues at play here, but if the Juvenile Court has made the juvenile a ward of the Court, the hook is set and entre is given the Court to begin work with the family as a whole. The child is a product of the family and if an intervention can be made that corrects issues with child rearing in the family, then the intervention should be ordered by the Court. There was a program on Long Island, New York that was implemented in 1939 that had a great deal of promise. Several families with delinquent children were assigned a social worker who supervised and worked with the family as a unit. Mother, father, siblings were all considered a part of the equation (and they are) and were the recipient of a number of services, including counseling, job placement for the father if necessary, self-improvement programs, medical services, etc. The program appeared to be heading for remarkable success, but the beginning of WWII cut the program short due to shortage of funds and social workers volunteering for the military and other war services. It was never evaluated.
To give up on rehabilitation programs for children is short cited and foolish. An example from my past; Chucky, a thirteen year old boy I supervised as a young juvenile probation officer years ago, was a child in peril. He had all the marks against him. Single parent home, uneducated mother, toxic neighborhood, relegated to special education classes, and a behavior problem in the home and school. He was placed on probation for burglary and while on probation was referred again for setting a cat on fire with lighter fluid. In my opinion I had a budding sociopath on my hands. I started by getting a full psychological battery on him by two professors at a nearby university. I was right, a budding sociopath. But, he was of high intelligence and the psychologists thought that he was motivated to do something with his life. To make a long story short, a few months in a private residential program, paid for by the county, followed by intensive probation supervised by myself, a lot of attention, and tutors rounded up at the university, he seemed to be headed for a life without jail. I moved on at that point, but he volunteered to help me load up a U-Haul with our few belongings and went with me to our new apartment across the state. I paid him $20.00 (a good sum in 1970) and paid for a bus ticket home. He thanked me for my attention and seemed genuinely sorry to not see me again. I never did see him again, but I sometimes wonder if he did live a satisfactory and crime free life. I think that he did as he had acquired a desire to do well that one could see in his eyes. He no longer had a defeated slump to his shoulders.
I only bring up the story of Chucky as an example of how youth can change. This is multiplied many times, hundreds if not thousands of times each year. An adult takes time with a young person, or they experience an epiphany while in counseling or in class and they are off to glory. But, the important thing is that an adult has to show the way. Without a responsible adult who has credence with the youth and who shows unconditional love and concern without which not much positive will ever happen.
The sorry part of this story is that we as Americans seem to have lost the desire to help. John Schwartz, a well known criminologist, points out that our juvenile justice system, particularly the juvenile court is a shining jewel in America’s crown. In spite of what many politicians have said, it is a success and any failures it experiences are the direct result of a parsimonious citizenry. It seems we would rather spend billions on prisons for men who are almost beyond redemption than spend money on a population that has a chance to be rehabilitated.
When will we see the light and begin to sink money into juvenile programs and take the time to work with dysfunctional families? I don’t really know. I’m not hopeful for an immediate turn around. Far too many youth are waived to adult court for crimes that are serious. Far too many youth are waived to adult court when they could have been pointed in another direction just a few years earlier, if only the resources existed. Until we understand that the least of these young people is worth just as much as any other young person, we will continue to earn our reputation as a nation that does not value it’s youth and who would rather punish than to reward.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)