Each year in the U.S. there are over 6 million auto accidents that kill about 45,000 people and injure almost 3 million. The financial cost of these accidents exceeds $230,000,000,000.
For the purpose of reducing these horrific numbers, here is my list of Shouldn'ts?:
1. Shouldn't all cars be equipped with a horn that beeps auto- matically when the car is in reverse?
2. Shouldn't cars have a rear view camera to give the driver a clear view when he or she is backing up?
3. Shouldn't smoking be prohibited in moving cars, since smoke impedes a driver's vision whether windows are open or closed?
4. Shouldn't drivers be retested at specified ages (say, 50 and 70) to be certain that vision and reflexes are in satisfactory condition. Age naturally affects those two factors adversely. Haven't you seen elderly people who can barely walk and with impaired vision sitting scarily behind the wheel of a car?
5. Shouldn't a car that was used in a DUI incident be removed from the road for an appropriate period of time? (See my post, THE DUI CHARADE)
6. Shouldn't cars be made out of a less damaging and injuring material than metal (e.g., hardened rubber)?
7. Shouldn't the front lights of a car turn on automatically every time the windshield wiper is on?
8. Shouldn't a supplementar side view mirror be required on each side of a car to eliminate its blind spots?
9. Shouldn't it be required that animals be in the back of the car, comfortably harnessed?
10. Shouldn't wheel chains be required in snowy conditions?
11. Shouldn't cars have the capacity to blow warm air beneath the car's floor to melt snow and ice on the road?
12. Shouldn't bright headlights be made to automatically dim when they sense oncoming headlights?
13. Shouln't a warning on the dashboard show if any tire is dangerously over- or under-inflated?
14. Shouldn't a driver be prohibited from eating while driving? Or reading? Or writing?
Shouldn't we all welcome these changes?
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Saturday, August 8, 2009
PLANS GONE AWRY
Society demands
Plans
Plan every detail of your life
At what age to buy a house, take a wife
How to push your budding career
Where and when to vacation next year
How much money you need to retire
How many children you wish to sire
What time you'll go to sleep tonight
What you'll wear tomorrow, black or white
What to eat for dinner next week
What you'll say when you get up to speak
Knowing ahead what will make you nervous
Who will be invited to your funeral service
If Mom had known what I would be
She might've never have had me
When spur of the moment spontaneity dies
So does the wonder of a child's surprise
Life is rife with tomorrow's unknowns
It is there that all our dreams are sown
So there's one good planning I would guess
That's planning planning to plan less
Plans
Plan every detail of your life
At what age to buy a house, take a wife
How to push your budding career
Where and when to vacation next year
How much money you need to retire
How many children you wish to sire
What time you'll go to sleep tonight
What you'll wear tomorrow, black or white
What to eat for dinner next week
What you'll say when you get up to speak
Knowing ahead what will make you nervous
Who will be invited to your funeral service
If Mom had known what I would be
She might've never have had me
When spur of the moment spontaneity dies
So does the wonder of a child's surprise
Life is rife with tomorrow's unknowns
It is there that all our dreams are sown
So there's one good planning I would guess
That's planning planning to plan less
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
A FORM OF MADNESS
I need you to fill out this form in triplicare, answer all the questions in Parts A, B, D and E, and F, if you are pregnant, or may become pregnant intentionally or otherwise.
I'm not pregnant. I'm a man.
Have you had a birth control test within the past 30 days?
No, of course not.
Then you must state that fact in Part F, question 2(c) and then in question 3(b) state that you believe you are not pregnant.
Believe? I'm a man!
We only have your word for that.
Want to see?
What?
Want to see that I'm a man?
This is not a small matter.
No, it's not a small matter.
And we need 3 pieces of identification, 2 with your picture on it...a passport?
I don't have a passport.
A birth certificate?
I don't have one and the hospital where I was born shut down before they filed a copy with the county office.
A marriage certificate?
I'm not married.
A driver's license?
I have no license. I have palsy and am not allowed to drive.
A high school diploma?
I dropped out in my junior year.
Mr. Whatever your name is, then as far as we're concerned you don't exist.
You're talking to someone who doesn't exist?
Legally, you don't exist.
Do I exist actually?
I don't know.
You don't know?
No. So I can't count you as living for purpose of the census.
I was counted last time.
You must have died.
And gone to Hell.
I'm not pregnant. I'm a man.
Have you had a birth control test within the past 30 days?
No, of course not.
Then you must state that fact in Part F, question 2(c) and then in question 3(b) state that you believe you are not pregnant.
Believe? I'm a man!
We only have your word for that.
Want to see?
What?
Want to see that I'm a man?
This is not a small matter.
No, it's not a small matter.
And we need 3 pieces of identification, 2 with your picture on it...a passport?
I don't have a passport.
A birth certificate?
I don't have one and the hospital where I was born shut down before they filed a copy with the county office.
A marriage certificate?
I'm not married.
A driver's license?
I have no license. I have palsy and am not allowed to drive.
A high school diploma?
I dropped out in my junior year.
Mr. Whatever your name is, then as far as we're concerned you don't exist.
You're talking to someone who doesn't exist?
Legally, you don't exist.
Do I exist actually?
I don't know.
You don't know?
No. So I can't count you as living for purpose of the census.
I was counted last time.
You must have died.
And gone to Hell.
WITH JUSTICE FOR ALL
There is no question but that money plays a significant role in our justice system. Differences in the amount of funds available to the parties in a judicial proceeding -- for the hiring of more and more qualified attorneys, for research and the discovery of evidence, and for the ability to survive an extended lawsuit -- can and has tilted the scales of justice one way or another. Examples are legendary, whether it be wealthy celebrities defending against criminal charges, or low and middle income individuals against major corporations in civil matters.
There is an argument to be made that in a society built on the freedom of each of its members to accumulate as much wealth as he or she can, differences in affordable goods and services are an inherent "part of the system." Some would say a valuable part, since it promotes incentives for greater production and a potentially higher standard of living for all.
Nevertheless, a well functioning judicial system is critical to a healthy society, and we ought take all steps to maximize the likelihood that our judicial system will produce just results. Here are three suggestions:
1. Judges should take a more active role in the trial...questioning witnesses, raising objections, helping the jury in its work and lessening to the extent possible the adversarial aspect of a trial. In fact, perhaps we should stop referring to a case as "Jones versus Smith" and refer to it instead as "Jones and Smith"--two parties presenting their version of the facts and understanding of the law for the purpose of achieving justice. Contrary to what Robert Frost may have said, a jury does not consist of twelve persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer. They are chosen to shine a light on truth.
2. Juries should be encouraged to more actively participate in the trial by asking questions of witnesses as the trial unfolds for the purpose of clearing up any confusions, uncertainties and curiousity they have about witness testimony and the facts in the case. Juries ought be free to go down paths of inquiry that the attorneys have avoided, if in the judgment of the court it is deemed propitious to do so.
3. More courtrooms ought be built, more judges and court personnel hired, and the most advanced technologies employed, to lessen the time it takes to get to trial and to enhance the quality of justice in our society.
A perfect system of justice may never be obtained, but a better one can be.
There is an argument to be made that in a society built on the freedom of each of its members to accumulate as much wealth as he or she can, differences in affordable goods and services are an inherent "part of the system." Some would say a valuable part, since it promotes incentives for greater production and a potentially higher standard of living for all.
Nevertheless, a well functioning judicial system is critical to a healthy society, and we ought take all steps to maximize the likelihood that our judicial system will produce just results. Here are three suggestions:
1. Judges should take a more active role in the trial...questioning witnesses, raising objections, helping the jury in its work and lessening to the extent possible the adversarial aspect of a trial. In fact, perhaps we should stop referring to a case as "Jones versus Smith" and refer to it instead as "Jones and Smith"--two parties presenting their version of the facts and understanding of the law for the purpose of achieving justice. Contrary to what Robert Frost may have said, a jury does not consist of twelve persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer. They are chosen to shine a light on truth.
2. Juries should be encouraged to more actively participate in the trial by asking questions of witnesses as the trial unfolds for the purpose of clearing up any confusions, uncertainties and curiousity they have about witness testimony and the facts in the case. Juries ought be free to go down paths of inquiry that the attorneys have avoided, if in the judgment of the court it is deemed propitious to do so.
3. More courtrooms ought be built, more judges and court personnel hired, and the most advanced technologies employed, to lessen the time it takes to get to trial and to enhance the quality of justice in our society.
A perfect system of justice may never be obtained, but a better one can be.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
HAIL THE CREATORS
I wrote recently about Robert Kearns, inventor of the intermittent windshield wiper and his 13-year lawsuit against Ford Motor Company for infringement of his patent. Early on in the lawsuit he was offered a settlement by Ford of one million dollars, but Kearns turned it down because it did not include a public acknowledge- ment by Ford that he was the inventor.
The ability to invent, to create, new things is a unique attribute of the human mind. As a child, I thought that the ancients' belief that man was created in the image of God referred to the fact that man, too, was a creator. In school, the names Edison, Bell, Marconi and Whitney were familiar to me and my classmates. They were honored for their inventions, which had added so much to the quality of human life.
As I thought about the Kearns case, I wondered whether there were other unacknowledged inventors. I turned on my computer to listen to a performance by a world-renowned singer. Song after beautiful song she sang...without once, I suddenly realized, mentioning the name of a composer. Why not, I wondered. Would we publicly read a passage from a book without mentioning the author? Were creators of works of art not entitled to recognition and adulation?
Here is my short short list of recognition:
Who wrote the Pledge of Allegiance? Francis Bellamy
Who designed the White House? Benjamin Latrobe
Who sculpted the Lincoln Memorial? Daniel French
Who designed the Golden Gate Bridge? Joseph Strauss and Irving Marrow
Who designed and sculpted Christ the Redeemer in Rio de Janeiro? Heitor da Silva Costa and Paul Landowski
Who wrote the song, Mr. Bojangles? Jerry Jeff Walker
Who invented television? John Baird, Paul Nipkow and Philo Farnsworth
Who invented the zipper? Gideon Sundbeck
Who invented toilet paper? Joseph Gayetty
Who invented the game of Monopoly? Charles Darrow
Let us bestow on them great honor for the beautiful creations they bestowed on us.
The ability to invent, to create, new things is a unique attribute of the human mind. As a child, I thought that the ancients' belief that man was created in the image of God referred to the fact that man, too, was a creator. In school, the names Edison, Bell, Marconi and Whitney were familiar to me and my classmates. They were honored for their inventions, which had added so much to the quality of human life.
As I thought about the Kearns case, I wondered whether there were other unacknowledged inventors. I turned on my computer to listen to a performance by a world-renowned singer. Song after beautiful song she sang...without once, I suddenly realized, mentioning the name of a composer. Why not, I wondered. Would we publicly read a passage from a book without mentioning the author? Were creators of works of art not entitled to recognition and adulation?
Here is my short short list of recognition:
Who wrote the Pledge of Allegiance? Francis Bellamy
Who designed the White House? Benjamin Latrobe
Who sculpted the Lincoln Memorial? Daniel French
Who designed the Golden Gate Bridge? Joseph Strauss and Irving Marrow
Who designed and sculpted Christ the Redeemer in Rio de Janeiro? Heitor da Silva Costa and Paul Landowski
Who wrote the song, Mr. Bojangles? Jerry Jeff Walker
Who invented television? John Baird, Paul Nipkow and Philo Farnsworth
Who invented the zipper? Gideon Sundbeck
Who invented toilet paper? Joseph Gayetty
Who invented the game of Monopoly? Charles Darrow
Let us bestow on them great honor for the beautiful creations they bestowed on us.
Monday, August 3, 2009
THE POLITICAL FULCRUM
When you get right down to it, there is really only one question that determines your political views:
DO YOU SEE EACH OF US AS AN INDIVIDUAL OR AS A LINK IN A SOCIAL CHAIN?
The argument that we are individuals is based on the following evidence:
The argument that we are links in a social chain centers on the following:
If you see man as an independent individual, you are a strong advocate for freedom, you want limited, if any, government (group) control over your life, you wish to retain the decision as to how you spend your money, and for whose benefit you spend it, you see man as the sovereign power, the master of his fate.
If you see man as a link in a social chain, you welcome greater government control over our personal lives, you believe we are each responsible to some extent for the support of others, particularly the haves for the have nots, you support social benefit and entitlement programs, you see society as the sovereign power.
Variations on each side can be found, of course, but the themes remain the same. Both Democrats and Republicans are advocates of the social link side, the only differences being in what areas and to what extent the chain ought control the links. Advocates of the sovereign individual side are often pejoratively misnomered as extremists, when in fact that is complimentary since one ought to be extreme about the principles one lives by. Religionists are social link supporters, believing we are all part of one family of God, with God as the ultimate decider of all our actions and the supreme sovereign power.
I sometimes hear politicians say, "I am for government controls on business, but I am for freedom on social issues." Or, vice versa. But those positions are contradictory. If you believe man is an independent individual, then he ought be treated as such with regard to all issues, at all times, or he is being mistreated. And the same holds true for links in a chain. Give a link independence at any time and the chain is broken.
As originally envisioned, America was an independent individual country, hence unalienable rights. recognized for individuals. The government ruled with consent of the governed, and then only with the specific owers granted to it. Over the past 80 years, those who support the group ideology have made significant inroads. Today, under President Obama, the country is at the edge of repealing its philosophic origins and turning into a gigantic link chain.
We know how far the independent individual idea took America ...to unprecedented heights of productivity, standard of living and strength. We are yet to know how strong, or how fragile, America's new chain will be.
DO YOU SEE EACH OF US AS AN INDIVIDUAL OR AS A LINK IN A SOCIAL CHAIN?
The argument that we are individuals is based on the following evidence:
we are born and we die as separate entities;
we each have a brain whose function it is to make decisions;
each of our brains is fully capable of working on its own;
we each have the natural power to choose the course of our own lives;
we have separate tastes, priorities, preferences and pleasures.
we each have a brain whose function it is to make decisions;
each of our brains is fully capable of working on its own;
we each have the natural power to choose the course of our own lives;
we have separate tastes, priorities, preferences and pleasures.
The argument that we are links in a social chain centers on the following:
we are members of one species;
we tend to live in groups;
we develop feelings for other group members;
we generally find comfort in not being alone;
we benefit from being interdependent..
we tend to live in groups;
we develop feelings for other group members;
we generally find comfort in not being alone;
we benefit from being interdependent..
If you see man as an independent individual, you are a strong advocate for freedom, you want limited, if any, government (group) control over your life, you wish to retain the decision as to how you spend your money, and for whose benefit you spend it, you see man as the sovereign power, the master of his fate.
If you see man as a link in a social chain, you welcome greater government control over our personal lives, you believe we are each responsible to some extent for the support of others, particularly the haves for the have nots, you support social benefit and entitlement programs, you see society as the sovereign power.
Variations on each side can be found, of course, but the themes remain the same. Both Democrats and Republicans are advocates of the social link side, the only differences being in what areas and to what extent the chain ought control the links. Advocates of the sovereign individual side are often pejoratively misnomered as extremists, when in fact that is complimentary since one ought to be extreme about the principles one lives by. Religionists are social link supporters, believing we are all part of one family of God, with God as the ultimate decider of all our actions and the supreme sovereign power.
I sometimes hear politicians say, "I am for government controls on business, but I am for freedom on social issues." Or, vice versa. But those positions are contradictory. If you believe man is an independent individual, then he ought be treated as such with regard to all issues, at all times, or he is being mistreated. And the same holds true for links in a chain. Give a link independence at any time and the chain is broken.
As originally envisioned, America was an independent individual country, hence unalienable rights. recognized for individuals. The government ruled with consent of the governed, and then only with the specific owers granted to it. Over the past 80 years, those who support the group ideology have made significant inroads. Today, under President Obama, the country is at the edge of repealing its philosophic origins and turning into a gigantic link chain.
We know how far the independent individual idea took America ...to unprecedented heights of productivity, standard of living and strength. We are yet to know how strong, or how fragile, America's new chain will be.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
THE DECISION MAKER
In the movie Flash of Genius, Robert Kearns, the inventor of the intermittent windshield wiper, singlehandedly takes on Ford Motor Company, claiming it has stolen his invention. Despite urging by family and friends, Kearns rejects several settlement offers from the auto company because it will not acknowledge the wiper was his invention. The legal battle lasts thirteen tortuous years, during which Kearns loses his marriage, alienates his six children (they ultimately reconcile) and endures a nervous breakdown . Representing himself at trial, Kearns wins the lawsuit, is acknowledged as the inventor of the wiper by the jury (Ford does not make that acknowledgement) and is awarded $10 million.
Triumph or Tragedy? Victory or Defeat? Good Fortune or Disaster?
Or all of them?
Viewers of the movie will debate whether Kearns won or lost...did he make the right decision to fight his fight. Most, I think, would say that the millions and millions of dollars he ultimately received did not compensate for the 13-year ravaging ordeal and all its consequences to him and his family. Especially since he was early on offered a substantial sum of one million dollars by Ford to drop his lawsuit. Kearns' rejection of that offer because it did not include a public statement by Ford that recognized him as the inventor, would likely seem to many to be an act of stubborness, even stupidity.
Or did Kearns win? His motives were pure. He wanted truth to prevail and his achievement to be confirmed. He wanted justice. He had integrity. He was willing to live, and die, by the principles he believed in. He refused to compromise them for the sake of convenience or for other values (his family, his marriage, his friendships). Those were the virtues he had taught his children.
Too high a price to pay for winning? The answer to that question for Kearns lay within his spirit, as my answer is found within my spirit and your answer within yours. For it is within our private spiritual realm that there is a confluence of our total being--our values and virtues, our sense of life, our hopes and dreams and wishes and fears, our likes and dislikes, prejudices and priorities, and more. It is there that the core of me, the heart of me, the soul of me, can be found. exists. Decisions that are true to and in harmony with my inner soul and keep it pristiine in serenity and beauty are the right oness for me to make.
In his poem "If," Rudyard Kipling wrote:
Why imposters? What I think Kipling meant was that earthly triumphs and disasters are not the measure of a man (or woman) nor the determinants, as society projects them to be, of the quality of your life, or your happiness, or your sense of self worth. Those rewards must be sought and are to be found elsewhere.
Kearns won in his spiritual realm. Would his decision have won in yours?
Triumph or Tragedy? Victory or Defeat? Good Fortune or Disaster?
Or all of them?
Viewers of the movie will debate whether Kearns won or lost...did he make the right decision to fight his fight. Most, I think, would say that the millions and millions of dollars he ultimately received did not compensate for the 13-year ravaging ordeal and all its consequences to him and his family. Especially since he was early on offered a substantial sum of one million dollars by Ford to drop his lawsuit. Kearns' rejection of that offer because it did not include a public statement by Ford that recognized him as the inventor, would likely seem to many to be an act of stubborness, even stupidity.
Or did Kearns win? His motives were pure. He wanted truth to prevail and his achievement to be confirmed. He wanted justice. He had integrity. He was willing to live, and die, by the principles he believed in. He refused to compromise them for the sake of convenience or for other values (his family, his marriage, his friendships). Those were the virtues he had taught his children.
Too high a price to pay for winning? The answer to that question for Kearns lay within his spirit, as my answer is found within my spirit and your answer within yours. For it is within our private spiritual realm that there is a confluence of our total being--our values and virtues, our sense of life, our hopes and dreams and wishes and fears, our likes and dislikes, prejudices and priorities, and more. It is there that the core of me, the heart of me, the soul of me, can be found. exists. Decisions that are true to and in harmony with my inner soul and keep it pristiine in serenity and beauty are the right oness for me to make.
In his poem "If," Rudyard Kipling wrote:
"If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
And treat those two impostors just the same;
,,,you'll be a man, my son.
Why imposters? What I think Kipling meant was that earthly triumphs and disasters are not the measure of a man (or woman) nor the determinants, as society projects them to be, of the quality of your life, or your happiness, or your sense of self worth. Those rewards must be sought and are to be found elsewhere.
Kearns won in his spiritual realm. Would his decision have won in yours?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)