New Year Resolutions

I hope and pray that Maj. Jim and all of his charges come home in one piece; I hope that Dawn is able to quit smoking; and I hope that all of you achieve your personal resolutions.

Here now, the dreams I have for the world:

Politics - I hope that 2007 is the year that those who govern us from Washington (and the state houses) realize that we elect them to make choices that are in our best interests. I hope that they understand that we are not interested in partisanship, reelection bids, or any of the other nonsense that occupies their time.

I hope that 2007 is the year that those running for office realize that we are interested in knowing why we should vote for them and not why we shouldn't vote for the other one. Let us get back to intelligent debate of the issues and not mud-slinging crap that reduces our political system to a popularity contest worthy of any junior high school class election.

Taxes - I hope that 2007 is the year that those who govern us study history to find that every time any government (from Ancient Rome on) lowers taxes on its citizenry, government revenues increase and the society prospers. I also hope that my party (the Democrats) realize that I don't really care about how much Ted Kennedy or Warren Buffett get back on their taxes as long as I get some. I would much prefer to get $2 a week back in my paycheck and let them get whatever it is than get $0 back to keep them from "unfairly profitting" from a tax cut.

Religion - I hope that 2007 is the year that all persons involved in organized religion realize that we are basically talking about the same God from a cultural perspective that we can understand. Jesus, Buddha, Abraham, and Mohammed teach the same lesson in a way that is understandable to their disciples. Get over the details and focus on the big message. Mostly, quit using it as an excuse to fight.

International Affairs - I hope that 2007 is the year that we deal a decisive blow to terrorism as an effective tool for change. I hope that we learn that we do need to use force at times, but we also need to step in and fill the void that is being filled by the extremists. Hamas and Hezbollah build schools, hospitals, and housing for the disenfranchised and that's how they maintain their popular support. Our lack of involvement in these activities makes us the enemy. This is a lesson that we never seem to learn and it can't be MORE important.

Racial relations - I hope that 2007 is the year that people (especially the DNC) stop giving creedence to racists like Al Sharpton (I won't use his title because I don't think he's worthy of it) just because he's black. He does more harm to the cause of racial equality than anyone else on the national stage today. There are many more intelligent and insightful persons (i.e. Colin Powell and Condi Rice) worthy of that position (who would of thought that Bill Cosby would be in this realm?)

Civility - I hope that 2007 is the year that we realize that we MUST begin at home to treat each other with a little more courtesy and patience. I hope that we realize that every time we are kind to one person, that kindness travels out like a pebble in a pond.

Environment - I hope that 2007 is the year that car manufacturers make the commitment to switch all vehicles to hybrids which are cleaner and more fuel conservative. I hope that 2007 is the year that solar panels become standard on all new construction. I hope that 2007 is the year that we find out definitively what causes global warming and how to stop it in a way that is realistic and economically viable. I hope 2007 is the year that we all realize that we have a responsibility to this planet which starts by something as simple as not throwing your cigarette butts on the ground or McDonalds wrappers out the car window.

I'm sure that there are many other things that I wish for the world, but I have only so much time. If you have some, please post a comment (or two). Mostly, I hope that 2007 is the year that you all find the most in God's blessings for you and yours.

Tampering with the free market economy

In an article posted by those "balanced" guys at FOX News entitled, "GM Exec Rips Into Proposed Change in U.S. Fuel Economy Rules", they report that Bob Lutz, GM's Vice-Chairman is complaining about proposals to change the CAFE (Corporate Avergae Fuel Economy) standards to require increased fuel economy in upcoming model years. I am one who firmly believes that, given a level playing field (government's job), the market will determine what is the best product or service available. Competition will indeed produce a better product as time goes on and government's role in the whole thing is to ensure the consumer's safety and ability to make an informed decision, not to decide for us.

That being said, is this guy an idiot? He is quoted in the article as saying such informed things as, "For one thing, it puts us, the domestic manufacturers, at odds with the desires of most of our customers, namely larger vehicles." Really, then why is the SUV market as a whole dying on the vine? Why are the Japanese carmakers adding market share every year? Why are the Big Three laying off tens of thousands of people while Toyota celebrates its new plant's opening in Tennessee this year? Why do I have to pay MSRP plus on a Prius but I can get a rebate on any Big Three SUV?

In my humble opinion, just like the late 70's-early 80's, an increase in the CAFE requirements would be the saving of the Big Three. They are apparently too dimwitted and too hidebound to be able to change with the market on their own. They are living in the late 90's where men had to compensate for 'you know what' by buying their wives the big trucks to tool around in. Never mind that safety studies showed they had a greater risk of rolling over or destroying the people and property they came in contact with. Never mind that their wives had difficulty maneuvering the things. Never mind they had to take out a second mortgage to fuel the things. This was what we wanted and Detroit complied......and are still complying.

Now that gas prices have gone above $2 and look to stay that way (if not higher). The move is to smaller and smarter......except in Detroit. The Japanese are responding with more hybrids and economical vehicles. Detroit responds with bigger rebates on their SUVs. What's wrong with this picture? Ideally, we would let the Big Three go the way of the dodo (as befits their foresight), but they are an integral part of our economy, not to mention national pride. Therefore, an increase in CAFE seems to be the only way to get them to stay alive.

Peace on Earth?

Whether you believe in the Christmas story or not, there is no denying the feeling that comes across the US at this time of year, especially Christmas Eve. I've received an e-mail that links to a wonderful short entitled , "Silent Night Movie". It is worth a viewing no matter what your religious persuasion. Let me add my wishes for the best of the season to you and yours.

As we approach the New Year, what is it that you would like to see as resolutions for the world? Like the Wheel of Fortune, we're going to give you the basics, lose weight, more time with family, peace to all, good health, and good fortune. Now......what would you like to add as resolutions?

Post 'em if you've got 'em......

What are they thinking?

So my friends at FOX News, gleefully I'm sure, report the results of their latest poll which shows that Hillary Clinton beats Barack Obama in polling, but both of them lose to either John McCain or Rudy Giuliani, the supposed Republican front-runners. This should be a surprise to absolutely nobody.

The question I would like to ask Howard Dean and the other wackjobs at the DNC is, what are you thinking? Are Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Edwards, and John Kerry the best you have to offer us? Do we have to look for all of our candidates in the land of misfit liberals? I don't even have to ask Howard if he's lost his mind, his rantings and screaming speak eloquently to that fact.

There is a reason that the Republicans have held office for quite some time. They have mastered the art of being "of the people." On another blog, one poster spoke of the fact that Bush won in 2000 because he was someone people could "have a beer with." They were derisive in their tone and I believe he completely missed the point! That is exactly what the voter wants!! We want someone who believes what we believe, who feels what we feel, and who thinks what we think (although hopefully a little smarter). We want someone who we would feel comfortable having a beer with and working through the problems of the world.

We voted for Bill Clinton because he had that quality. He was a good ol' boy from Arkansas. If you saw Primary Colors, one of the most endearing scenes showed the "Clinton character" at a Krispy Kreme in the middle of the night talking politics with those in the store. That is the type of person that we want. We elected the peanut farmer from Georgia, the straight-talking gentlemen from California and Texas all for the same reason.

If you study the platforms of the parties, they are remarkably similar because the parties know that most of America is in the center. It thus comes down to the personalities. In the case of our potential candidates, only Obama seems to have one. Hillary is a chameleon who changes with the latest poll. She, like her husband, stands for whatever will keep her approval ratings up. Al Gore is an egghead. His appearances on SNL not withstanding, he comes across as a one-note environmental geek. John Edwards and John Kerry are just uninspiring losers (not to mention fabricators of the highest order).

On the other hand, the Republicans give us the Vietnam Vet who is known for his independent thought and straight-shooting rhetoric. The other is known as "America's mayor" for his brilliant ability to keep things together on 9-11 (and being a NJ first responder that day, it's scary how close it all came to falling apart). Both of these men would be someone that you could see sitting in the local diner (Dennys for those not in the Northeast) and talking about the problems of the day.

In order to spread their popularity outside the liberal blue states (Northeast and California), the Dems need to search the country for someone better. Someone like us. I am sure that there are plenty of Democrats throughout the country who can speak well and forthrightly. Who don't carry far left baggage, and who will actually follow their conscience instead of the most recent poll. They must have the ability to set the course and then step aside and let the professionals make it happen (a Reagan forte and Carter failure).

Please, Howie, do us Democrats a favor...........keep looking.

Where did all the civility go?

I would like to bring forward some very thought-provoking comments posted in response to one of my other posts.

"Sadly, random acts of kindness seem to be a thing of the past as we witness a generation of inconsiderate, lazy, young adults. Have we created a generation that lacks the basic communication skills because they are so reliant on email and text messaging? There isn’t a day that goes by that I don’t notice a “thank you” unspoken or a door slammed in my face, or a simple wave as I let a car ahead of me in traffic. I’m sure at some point or another we are all guilty of missing a thank you or rushing through traffic, but when did this become the norm? Thoughtfulness for others or sympathetic regard is a thing of the past. Acts of kindness are now considered extraordinary when really shouldn’t rude behavior be the unexpected?"

To see the full text of the comments, click on the comment link under "Curing poverty?". There were two points made here that interested me. The first is that the writer credits only young adults with being rude. While I thank her for giving my generation (and those ahead of me) with still being polite, I must disagree.

Today, I was carrying a box and two bags full of items for "Operation You've Got Mail" and it was a young woman of about 15-16 years old that walked from the curb to the post office door to open and hold it for me, while continuing her cell phone conversation. She then walked back to the curb. On the other hand, it was an older man of 60-70 years for whom I held the door on my way out as he carried a box in, that didn't even bother to acknowledge my assistance. The point is, civility seems to be a dying thing.

The second thing that I would pose to my readers is, when DID this become the norm? More importantly, how do we change it? After 9-11, here in the NY metro area, some of that civility came back. We began to realize that we do depend upon each other and that any one of us walking down the street at 9 am, may not survive to 10 am and therefore we should enjoy the time and contacts that we are given. Slowly, that has diminished and here we are 5 years later as rude and callous as we were before. Why? What can you and I do to reverse the trend? Let's hear it!

BTW, tis the season to enjoy my favorite movie, "It's A Wonderful Life". If you haven't seen it, DO. If you have seen it, WATCH IT AGAIN with someone who hasn't. It is a wonderful reminder of why you need to get out of bed every morning.

Curing poverty?

In reading my news sources on the web tonight, I saw once a brief statement about the 2006 Winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. The story highlighted the fact that he was the first person from Bangladesh to win the prize and noted that there may have been some political motivation to that award. Aside from the fact that such a comment is rude and inappropriate, after doing a little further reading on the subject, I couldn't disagree with it more.

The gentleman's name is Muhammad Yunus and his concept is remarkably simple. He has developed a bank which offers what is called microcredit. It is the loaning of a ridiculously small amount of money to someone who is impoverished in order to help them begin to develop a way to support themselves. The loan is given to groups of 5 people who are interested in establishing a trade. (In the original case, Dr. Yunus loaned $27 to 42 women in Bangladesh to make stools to sell.) The first of the funds are given directly to 2 members of the group and once they begin to make regular payments, the other 3 are given their portions. This is to develop a sense of community and support among the 5.

This amazes me!! For less than the price of an X-box game, we might be able to help someone begin to do something that will lift them out of poverty, bolster their sense of self-worth, and help them fulfill their potential as a human being. This is not to say that we should go out and give $35 to the next 5 homeless people or beggars that we see, but consider that we might find someone who is putting food on the table by collecting cans and bottles. Thirty-five dollars and some friendly instruction might be enough to give them some decent clothing and let them establish a relationship with a couple of local businesses to collect cans and bottles from their lunchrooms and cafeterias (I know our retail store throws away bags of them a week) instead of pushing abandoned shopping carts through dirty back alleys. It would be enough to buy a decent shoeshine kit to start working at a shoe repair shop. I'm sure it would be enough to help fulfill other dreams as well.

Think of all that we could do by deciding that we can spare $35 to "loan" to someone else. Dr. Yunus' Grammen Bank is now worth hundreds of millions! Not bad for an entitity involved in trying to help the least creditworthy.

Hopefully we'll all be able to find someone with a little ambition and desire to better themselves that would be able to turn $35 into something that will support them. Even better, I hope we'll recognize that person when we run into them.

Two other related thoughts. One, for a movie that carries a powerful message about a simple idea to improve the lives of others, please see Pay It Forward. Second, a post by my friends at the right-wing FOX News worth reading (not just because it's about one of my favorite TV shows) is GRRR! Touching Message in Time of Trash TV. The particular episode it talks about was deeply moving and the last paragraph says it all.

A Quick Procedural Announcement

Being new to blogging, I did not realize how difficult it was to post comments on this blog. I have reduced the settings so as not to require you to develop your own blog in order to comment. Please feel free to join in the conversation at any point now.

Thanks.

I understand Rush Limbaugh and Howard Stern

For those of you familiar with Howard Stern in his current Sirrus incarnation, it would be quite informative to see his movie Private Parts to see how he got that way. He didn't start out being the disgusting, foul-mouthed pervert that he is today (in my humble 1st Amendment opinion - not stated as fact). In fact, he is portrayed as a rather humble, decent baby DJ who couldn't catch a cold, never mind an audience, until he became outrageous.

In my endeavors to try and stimulate a little discussion and debate over topical issues, I find that a moderate, thoughtful view, while possibly thought-provoking (or so I've been told) is not enticing enough to get you to comment. This makes me sad.

Are we so busy that we can't take a few minutes to perhaps indulge the mind in a bit of sparring, even if it's just for argument's sake (a pasttime many know that I enjoy)? Is it possible that we have become numb to the idea of discussion and sharing ideas unless we are involved in either the giving or receiving of a Limbaugh style rant? Do we have to be incensed or offended in order to offer our opinion?

It is my feeling that the "silent majority" consists of the everyday folk who are moderate in their views, kind to their friends and family, and are steadfast in their values. They are the ones who led the flag-waving after 9-11, because they do it instinctively on a regular basis. They believe what they are saying. I also feel that they (we) have let themselves be out-shouted so often that they don't offer an opinion on anything unless they have reached the boiling point. They seem to feel that anything less than that is not important enough.

I am arguing that is not true!! I feel that discussion for the sake of discussion is important for your mind. It is the way to build bonds and to solidify your ideas. It is a way to see new points of view and sometimes, it's just good for the soul to get those thoughts out there. This is (I'm beginning to learn) my point in writing the Common Man Digest. Thank you to those who have posted comments, and to those who haven't, please take a moment and share yourself. Write a thought....anything....even if it's "Your blog is boring. I read it before I go to bed so I get a good night's sleep." At least that's a thought and you've offered it to the world. Go ahead, throw your pebble in the pond.

He did it again

Once again, I must highly recommend my friend Jim's current post entitled, "What Causes War?" at http://letters-from-the-desert.blogspot.com. It is a quick but thought-provoking answer to the age-0ld question and a defense of the common misconception that religion is the cause of most wars. Please give it a read and then come back here.

Welcome back, to give it a little further thought on my part, I would add the examples of the Sunni-Shiite conflict in Iraq, the Protestant-Catholic conflict in Ireland, and even the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is important to note that all of these peoples have had history of living side by side throughout the years until some political conflict took place. In Iraq, the majority Shiite are looking for their "pound of flesh" from the Sunni after being the underdog during the Hussein years. In Ireland, the British annexation of Northern Ireland fueled "the troubles". In Israel, it is important to note that the roles were reversed until the UN mandate establishing Israel in 1947. Until that time, it was militant Jews who were the "displaced" and were actively trying to foment an "uprising" against the majority Palestinians.

As Jim states, the religious aspect is added by astute politicos who are able to quickly galvanize the masses against their political opponents by using religious labels (again, look at Hitler). It is an easily understandable and quickly identifiable way to excite your power base.

It is important for us to understand that as we move through our day to day lives. Today we hear about a disturbed young man in Chicago who was casing a shopping mall with the intention of throwing grenades into the crowds on December 23rd. The press has highlighted the point that he was a Muslim convert and at the end of the story quietly mention that he has no ties to any terrorist organization. I would venture to guess that this particular young man converted to Islam in order to justify his desire to carry out destruction and not that he is desiring to carry out destruction because he converted to Islam. Yet, that will be the point that the press wants us to take away......oh, there you go, another crazy Muslim bent on Jihad against us.

Crazy people come in all shapes, sizes, colors, and religions. There are extremists in all religions (White Supremacists anyone? They claim they are the "true" Christians). We must remember that almost all the world's religions teach the same thing, love of God and love of each other. This over-arching message does not lend itself to terrorism or war in any fashion except to those who wish to pervert the message for their own selfish gain.

Please, as we read the news, watch CNN, and most importantly, deal with each other every day, look for the real reason. Think for yourself, understand the motivation, don't just fall for the easy answer. It's too easy to get sucked in and buy what being sold, that's how terrorists are made. They have anger that someone has wisely focussed into religion as an answer and they don't stop to think for themselves.

Cell Phone Stigma and the Media Bias

As many of you know, I was involved in the wireless phone industry for 10 years so this issue is one I've followed for some time. The AP is reporting the results of a study in Denmark which tracked cell phone useage by 420 THOUSAND cell phone users, 52 THOUSAND of whom have been using cell phones for 10 years or more and guess what they found? In a comparison to the Danish Cancer Registry which lists all cases of cancer in Denmark, they found that those who use cell phones are no more or less likely to develop cancer of any type.

It's funny that I had to go searching for this information on the net and its not being covered as a segment of consumer news on any of the evening broadcasts in the area. On the other hand, when the ONE study (which has never been successfully replicated, by the way) showed a possible link between cell phone use and brain cancer, there wasn't a broadcast or newspaper that didn't prominently cover the story.

One of these TV "journalists" here in the NY area even "covered" the story by interviewing a sales clerk in a cell phone store about what phones offered the most "protection". The clerk, knowing that the Motorola Startac was the hottest phone at the time, offering the highest commission at the time, promptly demonstrated how the flip opened and "blocked" the rays because it was between the ear and the antenna. Asa took this as fact and reported it as such.

A review of the FCC website, where all manufacturers are required to submit their radiation testing results showed that of all phones sold in the US at the time, the Motorola Startac had the HIGHEST radiation although still within FCC acceptable levels. This was information that was easily gathered (as was the fact that the World Health Organization funded cell phone radiation research and was unable to produce any other study showing a positive link between cell phones and cancer) on the Internet. Any good reporter would have accessed this information to balance out the report.

To date, none of this has been reported in the popular press. I note this for two reasons. First, it's an area that I am knowledgeable in and can easily dispute the public misconceptions with factual research readily available. Secondly, and more importantly, it shows that the press is not unbiased and is most certainly writing with an agenda.

Given their bias in that, what else is so wildly slanted? "Information" on the effectiveness of tax cuts in raising government revenues? Global warming? "Total failure" in Iraq? You be the judge.

Quran or Not?

There is much ado about Keith Ellison's decision to take his oath of office (actually the photo-op after the oath - NOT the actual oath) with his hand on the Quran instead of the Bible. Much is being said about whether or not this is appropriate and my colleagues on the more conservative blogs are positively incensed. I would urge us to take a moment and step back.

To begin with, why did our founding fathers use the Bible to take an oath? One would presume that it was because they were all Christian and this being the holiest book of the Christian faith, it would thereby give the oath the utmost legitimacy. At no point did they mandate the use of the Bible (although they would have probably all agreed on its use) because it wouldn't have occurred to them that anyone would use anything else.

As the demographic of our country changes, the commonality of the Bible as the holiest book in one's religion is becoming less and less widespread. I would think the fact that Keith Ellison wants to take his oath on the holiest book of his religion would be something that we could all get behind (although his history suggests that his motives are more toward activism and rabble-rousing than legitimate concern over the value of his oath).

To ask Mr. Ellison to take the oath with his hand on the Bible, while calming to the Christian majority, and being in keeping with the precedent set, would give his oath the same weight as if it were taken with his hand on Tolkien's The Hobbit. It would be a book that he may respect, he may understand that many people hold in it high esteem, and it may even be a book he enjoys reading, but it wouldn't be the holiest book (in his eyes) that he could use.

I would think it admirable (and refreshingly honest) for any politician, be it Muslim, Jew, or even Druid, to honor the oath of office of any elected position enough to want to take it with their hand on the most sacred item they can find, be it the Bible, Torah, Quran, or even just a copy of the US Constitution (for our atheist friends). It signifies their willingness to devote everything they hold dear to the proper execution of the position. Anything less is to forsake true belief in anything of value and cave in to popular opinion for the sake of re-election (are you listening Hilary?)

Now whether that is Keith Ellison's true motivation is a completely different question that is certainly open for much debate and study.