Single or Double?

I often ignore good advice. A few days ago, someone suggested that I start using one space after a period instead of two; I needed to get with the times. Google will prove me correct. The first thing that popped up; “Nothing says over-40 like two spaces after a period.” 

Set in my ways? Irrespective of daily reminders, and evidence to the contrary, I deny it. Some things are sacred: two spaces after a period and the Oxford comma, for example. My high school Typing and English teachers told me so. The second thing on Google was an exhortation: “For all that is good and holy in this world, don’t . . . ! I felt God was calling on me to experiment with change, against my better judgment. I don’t like paragraphs that look like run-on sentences.

The computer is now set to allow only one space after a period. This should take care of the issue, but it doesn’t. It seems muscle memory is stronger than brain memory. Each time I type a period, my thumb automatically hits the space bar twice, producing a green line that tells me I goofed. Each sentence needs re-spacing. Why call it a space bar if they don’t want you to create spaces? Why is it so long if not to make it easy to hit it twice from either side of the keyboard?

Old fashion typesetting allocated the same space to each letter, regardless of width. Typewriters did the same thing. It makes perfect sense. Electric typewriters started squeezing smaller letters together, and computers followed. Printing became proportional. Today, almost every popular font produces proportional spacing between letters. A computer has been on my desk since 1982, and until recently, no one complained about two spaces after a period; it was encouraged. Technology wins out again.

It may no longer be necessary to double space after a period, to separate one sentence visually from another, but I still don’t like it. I checked my AP style guide – single space. I checked the NYT style guide – single space. I checked the University Of Chicago Manual Of Style – single space. They are all lemmings. These style books may be correct, technically, but it that doesn’t make them right!

There is good news, however.  The courier fonts allocate the same space to all letters.  For good measure, they require two spaces between sentences.  This makes life easier for those who have good muscle memory or those who want to stay with the tried and true. 

We can talk about the Oxford comma another time.

"May you live in interesting times."

It is hard to ignore the upheaval in American society, the division of blue and red states, the disdain by politicians for those of the opposite party, or the day-in-day-out scandals at the top of our leadership pyramid. We do live under the spell of the “Chinese Curse.”[i] These are interesting times! 

Most of us have a flaw or two; binge watching The West Wing is one of mine. It quells daily anxiety and helps delineate political fantasy from reality.  Actually, the TV show seems more like reality and the current state of affairs more like fantasy. (It is on Netflix, all seven seasons. You can watch it all in a few days, no commercials). It will give you a good dose of the what-could-be.

                                                                                                                               

We rather hoped our presidents would be paragons of righteousness; you know: upstanding, of strong moral character, above the fray, or someone who illustrates goodness in everyday life. Role models perhaps. We perpetuated that myth for years, even with evidence to the contrary. It started early on. A future president, who owned slaves, wrote, “All men are created equal.”  

President Roosevelt took us through most of WWII, but died while entertaining his mistress in Warm Springs, Georgia. The press did not report on that for some time. It didn’t report that he had braces on his legs and used a wheel chair either. Pictures of him were taken after he was seated or behind the podium. Out of respect.

Eisenhower had a girl friend, his driver, while he fought WWII in Europe, but left her when he returned to the States.  Kennedy had Marilyn, and Nixon had Watergate. Carter caused a national scandal when he said that he had lusted in his heart.  (Those were different times.)  Clinton had Lewinsky, depending on your definition of “is.”  The Bush's and Obama got through their terms without personal scandal   Mr. Trump …?

Not all presidents comported themselves as we would expect.  But, it wasn’t the daily drip of scandal and intrigue we experience today.  The last 13 presidents had their flaws, some more serious than others.  However, it is hard to imagine or recall any that behaved in ways as egregious as to put the country in jeopardy, simply for being a crass megalomaniac. While claiming to be an educated man, our president seems ignorant of history, ignores facts, and under appreciates process and the sometimes limited power of his office, much less how to manage an organization.

I remember times when we could go an hour, a day, or maybe a week without worrying about the future of our country or those governing it.  Today it’s hard to go ten minutes without working yourself into a lather.  We could blame it on instant communications.  Everyone with a cell phone is a “journalist” capable of sending “news” around the world in seconds.  “Real” news takes time to check out, to corroborate, and to edit.  Who has that much time?

MSNBC and Fox News make CNN look like middle of the road journalism.  PBS is, well, too moderate and deep thinking.  Let’s give the news sites their due.  They report what is happening to whom for what reason in Washington and elsewhere.  It can be all a tad nasty, a bit off kilter or just outright embarrassing.  I don’t agree with many of President Trump’s policy initiatives or all those of the Republican or Democratic Parties.  That’s not the issue.  Personal behavior is the issue.  I go to bed each evening wondering how things could get worse, and every morning they are.

A large dose of Pollyanna lingers in my mind about the presidency.  I bought into Reagan’s “city upon the hill” ideal for America.[ii]  I saw the White House as a symbol for high levels of integrity in government.  The Capitol showed bright as a beacon to the world for the ideals of a democratic society.  Presidents set the moral and political standard for society and the world. 

President Trump has nearly 50 million followers on Twitter and he uses the platform to great advantage.  He bypasses the intermediaries in the news cycle by going directly to the people.  His standing in the polls, while not outstanding, has never been higher.  So, what’s the problem? 

It’s not the tweeting.  It’s the tweets! I can’t remember a leader so self-centered or so impolite in his public communications. Great leaders don’t denigrate other members of the government with salacious comments on a daily basis. He publically humiliates his own staff in tweets rather than talk to them in private. He does not deny his trysts with porn stars. He threatens law enforcement when subjected to criminal scrutiny. His consigliere is investigated for crimes that include paying hush money to cover up misdoings. This is not what we expect of a president. 

What’s next?  A constitutional crisis of grand proportions?  A president  indicted for high crimes and misdemeanors?  The the end of our democracy? The loss of faith in government acting for the common good? All of the above? None of the above?

Season two, Episode 15. Finally, reality in the West Wing! Fast forward, I know how this one turns out!

---

[i]Actual origin of the phrase is disputed, but generally referred to as the Chinese Curse

[ii]John Winthrop – Massachusetts Bay Colony – Matthew 5:14 

Idleness

I ran across a blog the other day titled “Essays in Idleness.”  I thought it might be interesting so I read it, it wasn’t.  The idea intrigued me, though, so I did what any red-blooded person would do: I Googled it!  My version of Word doesn’t include “Google.”  Time to upgrade.  

Back to idleness.

It seems Yoshida Kendo, 1284-1350, wrote a book entitled Essays in Idleness.  Contemplating idleness isn’t a new concept.  Life must have been busy back then too.  Kendo couldn’t understand anyone being depressed about being idle, with nothing to distract him.  Henry David Thoreau, 1817-1862, suggested, “Many men go fishing all of their lives without knowing that it is not fish they are after.”  

Kendo further suggested that time spent away from the ways of the world, and even people, can be good for the soul.

If you follow the ways of the world, your heart will be drawn to its sensual defilements and easily led astray; if you go among people, your words will be guided by others’ responses rather than come from your heart. There is nothing firm or stable in a life spent between larking about together and quarreling exuberant one moment, aggrieved and resentful the next.  You are forever pondering pros and cons, endlessly absorbed in questions of gain and loss.  And on top of delusion comes drunkenness, and in that drunkenness you dream.”

Kendo wrote at a time when dynasties were rising and falling across Japan, but also during a period when Zen Buddhism was gaining popularity.  Perhaps the people were ready to listen to someone who called for a bit of idleness.  They were disruptive times.

America experienced disruption in Thoreau’s time as well, leading to a war between the states.  He suggested that we frittered away our lives with details and called on us to simplify.  He had the advantage of living on a quiet pond without cell phones.

The political and social upheavals of the past must have been very much less contentious than today’s machinations.  How could they compare?  Alternatively, do I have too much time on my hands, spending most of it on the high-speed political raceway?  Really, though, didn’t it use to seem more quiet, our political lives?

Kendo was correct, time spent quarreling exuberant can be exhausting.   I need some idle time.  I need a week without MSNBC or Fox News or CNN or even the 5:30 evening local news.  Besides, I need to catch up on a few good movies.  I’ll check the calendar to find a week when I’m free or there isn’t any important announcements expected out of Washington.

I’m not sure I know why, but this may be the year I take up fly-fishing! 

The Blue Line

“POP, POP, POP, POP, POP, POP, POP, POP!” 

There are too many unnecessary police killings!

An unarmed black man – shot by the police - eight times, - in the back - in his Grandmother’s back yard.  Twelve other bullets missed their target.  Police thought Clark had a gun.  They didn’t ask him to drop it.  It was his cell phone.  It took less than 17 seconds from the time the police entered the yard to end a life.

I read the stories and I see the videos.  I see the anguished look of local citizens protesting in the streets, demanding change, demanding justice.  The perception of police changed dramatically in the last twenty years.  Something went wrong in our society.  We need to stop the killings.

I’m not a police officer, so I can’t imagine the fear and caution they must experience, even for routine situations, because they don’t know who might have a gun.  Police in Europe, many of whom are unarmed, don’t have to worry about the prevalence of guns.  In Canada, handguns are almost nonexistent.  The police there don’t have to be as afraid. 

Are police shootings that prevalent?  Whom do the police shoot?  How does the US compare to other countries, what changed, and what do we do about it?

So far, in 2018, police shot and killed 284 people in the US.  In 2017, police fatally shot 987 to 1110 people depending on your data source.[i]  Compare that to England and Wales where police shot only six people in 2016-2017 periods.     

Whites in the US represent 80% of the population but only 42% of police killings.  Blacks make up about 13% of the population but represent 20% of police killings according the US Census Bureau.[ii]  Think about that.  Senator Harris, last week, stated that we had to put an end to the “implicit bias” in society and police departments.  Implicit bias is the new, polite, term for racism.[iii]  Jeffrey Robinson, director of the Trone Center for Justice and Equality says, “It’s a very difficult thing to admit that race makes a difference in the criminal justice system, because if we admit that’s true, it says some pretty ugly things about ourselves as a nation.[iv]

Another term entered our lexicon a couple of years ago: “white privilege."  I don’t get up in the morning wondering if the police will shoot me or if I will get home at night.  I’m comfortable wearing a sweatshirt with a hood.  When I’m pulled over for speeding, I don’t expect the police to approach my car with guns at the ready.  Why not?  Because I’m white.  If I were brown, would I feel the same way?  Brown and black friends tell me they don’t feel safe in their own community, because of the police.

My experience, when a man high on drugs pointed his 22-caliber pistol three feet from my head, was total fear because I was staring at a barrel that seemed at least a foot and a half in diameter.  Imagine living with that fear every day when you leave your house for work or send your kids off to school.  The town in which I live is a solid middle class bedroom community.  Its 170,000 citizens are highly diverse, and well educated.  Average household income is $85,000[v] and homes average $421,000.[vi] Yet, even in this type of community, some people of color tell me how much they fear the police because of the way they’ve been treated in the past.  This shouldn’t be, but the fear is real; California, police officers killed someone, on average, about once every three days in the last decade.[vii]   

To be fair, when a police officer leaves for work, her or his family doesn’t know if they will return alive.  Too many officers live in fear of being shot and too many are shot.  They fear the proliferation of guns in our society.

Too many of us who lived during the time of Martin Luther King and afterwards, believed that much of the animus towards minorities had subsided.  It’s possible, however, that feelings have smoldered for decades and are just now coming out again.

Police force recruitment practices need a good scrubbing.  An effective affirmative action program would result in a police force that represents the community it serves.  If 20% of the community is Asian, 20% of the police force should be Asian.  If 40% of the population is white, then whites should represent no more than 40% of the police force.  Right?

Police departments like to hire veterans.  They are well trained, understand discipline, and want to serve their communities.  They give vets extra points in the hiring process.  The process comes with some risks.

Only six percent of the population has served in the military, but 20% of police are veterans.  The transition from warrior to guardian is hard enough, but when you consider that nearly 12% of veterans suffer from PTSD, it raises a red flag.[viii]  Most police forces don’t spend enough time and effort on psychological evaluations prior to and after hiring.   

Because so many warriors are now police, the training and general ambiance of police departments has changed over the last fifteen years.  You can see it in the SWAT teams that arrive in armored vehicles, wearing battle uniforms and carrying weapons of war.  They quickly revert to warrior status, a shoot-first-ask-questions-later approach to situations.  We must find new ways to train our police, whom we expect to protect us, to be our guardians, and not warriors who use deadly force as the first option.

Police departments must come to grips with this truth: they cannot investigate themselves and convince the population that they are transparent.  Non-partisan civilian boards that represent the makeup of their community must oversee police, in every jurisdiction.  Only then, will there be some semblance of fairness.

---

[i]The Washington Post, April 2, 2018, 10:50 a.m.

[ii]Statista.com 2018

[iii]Sacrament Bee – Forum Section – April 9, 2018

[iv]Ray Sanchez – CNN- March 30, 2018

[v]City of Elk Grove CA web site – demographics - 2018

[vi]Zillow Home Value Index – February, 2018 – Zillow.com

[vii]Phillip Reese- Preese@SACBEE.com –July 14, 2016

[viii]Simone Weichselbaum and Beth Schwartzaplet - The Marshal Project – March 30, 2017

Teach Your Parents Well …

“And you, of tender years …teach your parents well…and feed them on your dreams….”,[i]  A hit song of another generation was right on in the 70s and hits the mark today with equal force.

This past weekend saw children teach the parents.  We saw the power of an idea take hold.  We saw people of all ages unite in a call to end violence across the land, the boil that has festered for years. Young people proclaimed; “enough is enough!”

The nation’s youth rose up once before and changed the direction of the country and the world.  They were college aged and susceptible to a draft that would take them to a war they did not support.   

Today’s students, traumatized by a despicably violent event at their Florida high school raised millions of dollars on gofundme.  They  appealed to people of influence to support them with the know-how needed to mobilize a nation.  They too want to change the country and the world.  They exceeded expectations. 

Eight-hundred thousand people marched to the nation’s capital while members of Congress fled town and the president flew to Florida to play golf.  People shouted for change in eight-hundred cities across our land, and thousands more marched in cities around the world.  Millions let their voices be heard.   The message was strong and it was aimed directly at the Congress as a whole and members individually.

Nearly 300 thousand high school students will vote this year and another 300 thousand will be able to vote next year.  They are coming after those who don’t support an end to violence.  They will ignore the special interest group that mocked them in video ads and called them dupes of the rich and famous, out to destroy America.[ii]  They will march again in April to commemorate similar violence at Columbine High School. 

The kids achieved their goal right under the nose of most adults.  They know how to wage resistance and rebellion through the technology of social media.  They have power most of us don’t understand.  They are smart and they are articulate.  I predict they will be successful in their efforts and we will experience a sea change in American culture.

The youth will, once again, teach the parents and we will be the better for it.

---

[i]Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztVaqZajq-I

[ii]Cleve Wootson – The Washington Post – March 24, 2018

... For What I Have Left Undone

The lucky ones awake in the morning go through the day without fear for their lives, and go to sleep at night.  What we do during the day is what matters.  In some religious traditions, people ask forgiveness for what they have done and what they have left undone.  People of other faiths, and those with none, often ask the same question.  What have I left undone?

The recent brutal killing of schoolchildren in Parkland Florida, the scores of mass shootings in the last few years, and those since, give pause, but nothing changes.  Have we left too much undone?  

The teenagers from Parkland Florida are coming after their representatives in Congress and in state legislatures who will have to answer for what we have left undone.  We who elected them and those who bought them off will answer for what is left undone.  The good news is that the nation is getting closer and closer to the cultural tipping point.  Some of our leaders, however, put their efforts into more gun control when that isn’t the root cause of the problem.  We know the root cause but don’t want to talk about it or act on it.  

Do we have too many guns?  Yes!  There are 300 million guns in the US, the most highly armed nation in the world.  We really don’t need that many guns, but gun ownership is in our DNA.   

If we had more gun control laws, would they reduce mass killings, suicides, and homicides?  The experience in Chicago and other highly regulated cities and states says the answer is no.  Should we limit the types of guns available on the market and regulate how people sell them?  Of course, but ….

Whenever we have a mass shooting, or single incidents, which seem like the new normal, we ask why the shooter is allowed to buy guns, own guns, use guns, or be around people with guns.  We ask all the right questions, and then propose unrelated solutions.  Why?

Let’s consider who should have easy access to guns.  I proffer the idea that guns should be available to people who are not a danger to themselves or others, who know how to use guns properly, who want them for hunting or sport, or the few who need them for protection of property.  Gun ownership is the issue, not guns. 

Other nations, as free as ours, address gun ownership in rational ways, without taking away “second amendment” rights.  Our neighbor to the north is a good example.  Canada requires a person to have a license to purchase and carry a gun.  The application process requires character references, attendance at a gun safety course, the approval of a conjugal partner or ex partner if any, and a background check.  The process only takes about 90 days.  How easy is that?  The process isn’t foolproof, but it reduces the number of “wrong” people who own guns.  Other free nations use similar processes; they control who can own guns.   

 A second issue to consider is that guns, for many, are now the metaphor for the wide division that saps the nation.   The notion of the common good has vanished.  People are sent to govern, but not to compromise.  Our national and state leaders don’t even talk to each other.  That doesn’t work and it tears the country apart.

We gather in tribal gangs to take on a perceived enemy within:  educated costal elites vs. the heartland, high tech vs. low skill jobs, big box stores vs. main street,  or urban and suburban vs. rural.  The likes of MSNBC and Fox News foment division.  Flip between the two channels some evening and you witness two different nations.  Talk radio, left and right wing blogs like Red State and Alternet add fuel to the fire.  One group pines for the past, the other for what could be.  Neither wants anything to do with those they oppose.  

Joy-Ann Reid, a syndicated writer and commentator writes: “It seems axiomatic that the past and the future cannot exist at the same time.  Thanks to the space-time continuum, people from different centuries cannot live simultaneously.  The same goes for a nation, which cannot survive pulling toward the future and toward the past at once.”[i]  We can learn from the past, consider it, but not cling to it.  Our outlook about gun ownership cannot be stuck in the 1700s. 

What have we left undone?  We haven’t moved to unite the country as we should.  Our politics is corrupted by a my-way-or-the-highway mentality, vast amounts of money, and moral standing ascribed to each major party that pronounces the other evil.  We let the guns speak for our fear, our dissatisfaction, and our separateness.  The models that were effective in the past will not serve the future.  Nearly 90% of US citizens agree that we need to keep guns out of the hands of the “wrong” people.  So let’s do that.  Let’s not leave it undone.   

While we work to change the rules governing who can own a gun, we need to change the laws that restrict healthcare workers and school officials, for example, from reporting people with mental issues, violent people, and known criminals.  The national background check process in place today is minimally effective because it lacks all the needed data.  Too many gun shows, where nearly half of the gun purchases are made without background checks, would help reduce “wrong” ownership and usage.

Children should not be afraid to go to school, parents should not be afraid to send their children to school, wondering if they will come home alive.  Teachers should not be afraid of being gunned down in their classrooms.  People should not be afraid to walk the streets of our towns and cities wondering if they will make it home from the movies, the theater, or the dance club.  People should be able to go to an outdoor concert without fear of being gunned down.  Fear should not be a normal requirement of life.  Fear should not be the price we pay for living in a gun-filled nation.   

---

[i] Joy-Ann Reid - https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-right-cant-fight-the-future?ref=home – March 3, 2018 

Are you suppressed?

It’s 1788 and you just read about a new vision for your government.  It starts with “We the People.”  In a world ruled by kings, queens, emperors, popes, sultans, tsars, and dictators, a group of colonies decided they could rule themselves.  That’s heady stuff.  That grand experiment’s survival is in jeopardy; too much power in the hands of too few. 

Fareed Zakaria recently wrote about the decline of democracy around the world.[i]    He observed that most Americans don’t believe it can happen here.  We are not Poland or Hungary after all where democracy wanes.  Yet, we do see signs of it deteriorating here at home. 

History demonstrates that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.[ii]  Cliché aside, corruption festers when those in power are emboldened to take away the rights of the minority.  How does this happen?

Let’s look at three of many causes: too much money in the system, too many levels of government ruled by one party and too much suppression of voting rights.  One follows the other.  Each deserves in-depth analysis at some point.  

Money has always been the mother’s milk of politics, but the Supreme Court opened the spigot to a full gush in its ruling in Citizens United.  Now, a few unnamed individuals and corporations can create Super-PACs to buy off candidates for Congress, state legislatures and local governments without revealing who they are.  Vast amounts of money target candidates who, when elected, will do the bidding of the donor.  When you consider that the moneyed oligarchs own 90% of the nation’s wealth, you know who controls the government: it’s not the majority, but the few. 

Thirty-five state governors are Republicans.  Their party controls 32 state legislatures with veto-proof majorities in 17 of them.  The people elected these majorities.  It says that the Democratic Party wasn’t in tune with the people of those states.  Super majorities aren’t healthy for the nation, no matter which party is in the lead.  When either party has too much power, we know corruption is on the doorstep. 

Once a group gets control of the system, it wants to keep control.  The party in power can pass laws that make it difficult to register to vote, and difficult to actually cast a ballot.  We saw this, particularly in the South, when laws prohibited African-Americans from voting, when Poll Taxes were imposed to keep the poor and opposition from voting.  Suppression continues today in many states with laws and regulations that discourage people from registering, and voting.  Gerrymandering, the process of designing congressional and state legislative districts to favor one party over another is a favorite voter suppression technique.  It is so commonplace and so egregious that two State Supreme Courts have overturned the laws recently, requiring new voting districts that are balanced.  Why does it matter?

Zakaria reminded us of Emerson’s notion that “Institutions are collections of rules and norms agreed upon by human beings.  If leaders attack, denigrate, and abuse them, they will be weakened, and this, in turn, will weaken the character and quality of democracy.”[iii]  When political leaders attack and abuse our right to vote they weaken democracy at its core.  When we lose the right to vote we blur the vision of our Founding Fathers. 

Any citizen over the age of 18 should be able to register to vote, and to vote with no constraints other than showing that they live in a state and local town or district.  My state, California, for example, has automatic registration.  If you are a citizen, the state automatically adds you to the rolls when you apply for a driver’s license or state issued identification card.  If you are too young to vote, they add your name to the rolls when you turn 18.  When you change an address or other information on your license or ID, it edits the election rolls.  You can decline voter registration if you wish.  This year our county is experimenting with vote-by-mail.  At the next election, in June, every registered voter will receive a ballot in the mail; they can fill out the ballot at home, put it in a sealed envelope and mail it back to the county election office or take it to a drop-off ballot box.  How easy is that?  Three states already do this.[iv]

It’s easy for states to suppress voter participation: no automatic registration, no same-day registration, no pre-registration if under 18, no online registration, no early voting, and no vote by mail, no absentee voting, and restrictive documentation for registration and restrictive identification requirements to actually vote.  Go to www.rockthevote.org to see how your state stacks up.   

The right-to-vote is not an exciting topic for discussion, unless you lose it.  Too many states thwart the right of people to vote.  Imagine election districts drawn to give both parties 50% of the electorate, 50% of ethnic or racial groups, or held closely to city or county boundaries.  Imagine what it would be like if “We the People” all had an equal voice in government.  It would be easy to register to vote and it would be easy to vote in every state.

The amount of money that controls campaigns and the candidates is an abuse of democracy and that democracy will wither.  Legislatures that gerrymander election districts blur the vision of our Founding Fathers and we become just another country, but without character.  We become just another people wondering what happened, another people wondering who let the dream die.  We will wonder how it could happen here.

 

---

[i]Fareed Zakaria – Washington Post column – February 23, 2018

[ii]John Dalberg-Acton - Letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, April 5, 1887 - published in Historical Essays and Studies, edited by J. N. Figgis and R. V. Laurence (London: Macmillan, 1907

[iii]Ralph Waldo Emerson – Essays – Self Reliance - 1841

[iv]Oregon, Washington and Colorado

Chuck Woods

February 26, 2018