A DAY OF REMEMBRANCE - YOM HA SHOA

For many, probably most Jewish families alive today, there are branches in the family tree that end suddenly in the late 1930's - early 1940's. My family is no exception. Here are two images from the family tree my Uncle Louie did many years ago (it is not up to date).

The red arrow points to the Tevyansky family; all 5 were killed by the Nazis in about 1942. Chaike Fishman, the mother of this family of 5, was my grandfather Isadore's sister. 

I'm in this snapshot of the family tree. I never had a chance to meet these relatives; they were murdered before I was born. Find my name in the second image. I know almost everyone in the column that has my name, and I knew everyone in the column to the left, my parent's generation - everyone except my father's cousins: Zloty, Sorreh and Masheh Tevyansky. 

Also notice that above my father's name, Morris Fishman, are the names of 6 siblings who all died in about 1942 (ABT1942). These were also my father's cousins: Raisel, Yossel, Yentl, Schloime, Osher and Herschel Pollack. 

They were all victims of the Holocaust. 

We Jews remember these victims today because we should never forget them. 


Everyone should take time today - and every day - to remember all victims of genocide. We should remember them as a way of honoring their lives, and their deaths. We should remember them because this evil was carried out by human beings, and we are all human beings. This dark side of our biology has to be controlled and eventually eradicated if we have any hope of peace and justice for the humans on this tiny planet. 

Thanks for reading this.

WHAT'S IN A BIRTHDAY-

"What's on your mind?" 

facebook

Well, as many people are reminding me, thanks to facebook, it is my 23rd (X3) birthday. And I want to thank facebook for helping all of my fb friends remember this historic day. 

So what does a birthday mean, anyway? 

Well, I'm still wearing the same suit I was wearing when I was born; although next time I think I'll request permanent press. 

I have a lot on my mind, except for hair, which seems to have abandoned ship (and it must think that my ears and nose are lifeboats). 

It has become more difficult to spring out of bed at 6 AM.

I now have at least 5 doctors with whom I spend wonderful times talking about various biological systems that are getting close to warranty (and, yes, maybe the extended warranties would have been a good investment). 

But - on the other hand - 

I still live with my best friend and love going on 48 years.

We know two amazing middle-age men who also happen to be our loving sons.

We have two beautiful young women whom we call daughters.

Grandkids - what happened? Tall Boy is in San Diego right now checking out one of the universities that accepted his application for this fall. One of the 14-year-olds has been asleep in our guest room since we picked him up at a dance last night. He and the other 14-year old dude will be high school students in the fall (and how did they get to be my height already?). And then there is a certain 12-year old going on 17 young woman who continually boggles my mind with her wit, smarts and looks. 

What happened to all of our babies??? 

I'm still retiring every year, which means that I'm still in the game and getting to exercise what's left of my brain. 

My repaired shoulder is at the point where I'll be back in the kayak very soon. And I'm hoping the other shoulder makes it.

The Zap 3-wheel, 6 battery UEV is still on the road.

I have so many wonderful friends and relatives, whose names I actually still remember!

And so, on this very rainy April 6th, as I sip my coffee and tap on the computer keyboard, I can say that I very much enjoy this day of birth celebration. 

And finally, I want to thank my mom and dad, Florence and Morrie, without whom none of this would have happened. 

Getting old is a grey area. 

Man of the Fish

PROPOSED GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION IN OREGON

I attended a rally today in Salem, Oregon, on the front steps of the state Capitol. My guess is that there were 150 or more people there to support gun control legislation, and maybe another dozen or so demonstrating against gun control. The Oregon Senate will hold hearings, starting tomorrow, on proposed new legislation of guns. The proposed laws would:

• Ban guns in primary and secondary schools, eliminating a law that allows people with concealed-handgun licenses to carry weapons in schools. Local school boards would be able to opt out and continue the existing policy.
• Prohibit openly carrying a weapon in public buildings, including the state Capitol. Gun owners with concealed-handgun licenses could continue to carry firearms if they're hidden from view.
• Require background checks on gun sales and transfers, except between family members. Oregon already requires background checks on private sales at gun shows.
• Require a shooting test to obtain a concealed-handgun license.

In my opinion, these proposals are common sense and a beginning, not an end. Other proposed legislation that would have banned assault-type weapons and large-capacity ammunition clips were too contentious and has been dropped. 

Several Oregon legislators spoke at the rally (above). These Senators and Representatives are firm supporters of gun control, and have been on the front line of the often acrimonial public discourse about this issue. They have received nasty and often threatening emails for their efforts. 

My sense is that the majority of Oregonians, including gun owners, will support these proposed regulations of firearms. I think people are tired of the killings, and not just the widely publicized mass shootings like Newtown and Aurora. Most of us see gun control as a set of common sense rules that will not take away people's right to own a gun, but address serious public health issues - death and injury by gun. 

The opponents of gun control who were at the rally are afraid that government will take away their guns and then do bad things to us. The above placard likens Oregon Senator Ginny Burdick, one of our most outspoken and persistent elected officials, as well as national leaders,  to Adolf Hitler. Really? And I did mention to this particular man that tyrants love armed militias - that work for them. 

It was good to see many more supporters of gun control today than opponents. I firmly believe that reasonable people can come to agreement about the basic issues here, and get behind common-sense rules about guns and gun ownership. What is truly needed in this country is a cultural shift away from fear of government towards protecting the public. This is possibly; it will take a lot of hard work and time. 

THE PROBLEM WITH "INTELLIGENT DESIGN"

I had an aha moment this evening. I was having a glass of wine and some happy hour food at our favorite neighborhood spot, 3 Doors Down, and was reading the online NY Times (eating alone at a restaurant strategy - bring something to read). A fascinating article was about the NASA Mars Rover that has recently drilled into a Mars rock and completed a chemical analysis of the rock dust. The findings were a number of chemicals that are able to support life, and NASA scientists conclude that the Mars environment several billion years ago could have supported simple life forms. This is not the same as saying that life existed on Mars, but it is still a very important finding.

The thought then struck me: belief in "intelligent design" is a cop-out; it is a bypass around intellectual curiosity and discovery. If one believes that the entire universe was designed and created by some superior force, e.g. god, then exploration, curiosity, research and discovery are all a waste of time. I cannot, and will not accept this!

The Mars missions are explorations of the unknown, and every tiny bit of knowledge gained about Mars is a valuable step in the human quest for knowledge. If we forsake these intellectual journeys, well, then we are no different from simple microbes, and we might as well spend our lives stupidly whirling about in some primordial soup.

Part of what makes humans human is our curiosity and, more than that, our thirst for knowledge and truth. How marvelous is it that humans can manufacture a machine, shoot it into space, land it on another planet, remotely drive it around, drill into a rock, and analyze the drilling dust in an on-board chemical laboratory? I mean - fantastic! How boring life must be for those who simply say "god made everything - end of discussion!"

We cannot give up on intellectualism, a characteristic we all have. WE are the intelligence in our world, and it's time we accepted it and used it to whatever lengths we can take it. It is time for we humans to stop acting like mindless animals and evolve (yes, evolve) into the thoughtful, compassionate, intellectually curious beings that we have the equipment (the human brain) to be.

Go NASA; drill baby drill!

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/news/msl20130312.html

THE SECOND AMENDMENT DOES NOT PROTECT CARRYING A CONCEALED WEAPON

The United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled last week that: "the carrying of concealed firearms is not protected by the Second Amendment" and that "In Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897), the Supreme Court stated in dicta that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.” This, to me, is an important ruling.

The case was brought by a man named Gray Peterson who lives in Washington State. He applied for a concealed handgun license (CHL) from the sheriff in Denver, CO and was denied because Colorado law states that CHLs may only be issued to residents of Colorado. Mr. Peterson sued the Denver sheriff and Colorado’s executive director of the Department of Public Safety, claiming that denial of the license violated the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. (Here is the link to the court opinion, if you are interested in reading it.)

An interesting side note is the list of Intervenors in this case:


NRA CIVIL RIGHTS DEFENSE FUND;  SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC.; BUCKEYE FIREARMS FOUNDATION; CITIZENS RIGHTS ACTION LEAGUE; COMMONWEALTH SECOND AMENDMENT; CONNECTICUT CITIZENS DEFENSE  LEAGUE; CALGUNS FOUNDATION, INC.; GUN OWNERS CIVIL RIGHTS ALLIANCE; HAWAII DEFENSE FOUNDATION; ILLINOIS CARRY; ILLINOIS STATE RIFLE  ASSOCIATION; MAINE OPEN CARRY ASSOCIATION; MARYLAND SHALL ISSUE;  OREGON FIREARMS EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION; WISCONSIN CARRY INC.; SCOPE  INC.; STILLWATER FIREARMS ASSOCIATION; VIRGINIA CITIZENS DEFENSE LEAGUE,  INC.; WEST VIRGINIA CITIZENS DEFENSE LEAGUE INC.; BRADY CENTER TO  PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE.

Who are all of these groups? Well, you now me, I always want to dig a little. How about the Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation, right here in my home state?

The OFEF logo: nice assault rifle!

Their mission: Welcome to The Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation, a non profit 501(c3) organization created to provide gun owners with valuable resources in a hostile political environment.

Just as the Oregon Firearms Federation has proven itself to be Oregon’s only no compromise lobbying group, OFEF takes the same tough stands and serves as a vehicle for educating gun owners, promoting their rights and when necessary, fighting the freedom haters in court.

"Hostile political environment," "freedom haters." Love it! 

On their website, the OFEF mentions the Oregon Firearms Federation. Who is that? Their logo:

Look familiar? And the mission of the OFF:

Oregon’s Only No Compromise Gun Lobby

Gun ownership in the age of Obama is a risky undertaking. We hope this website will provide you with information you need to stay informed and safe while the most anti-gun administration in US history is in power. 

So the OFEF and the OFF are/is the same people/person. The address is the same for both organizations (a PO Box in Canby, Oregon). The OFEF is the legal arm of the OFF. 

I assume that the rest of the intervenors listed, with the exception of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, are all similar organizations. And I would guess that many, if not most of them, get funding from some larger sugar daddy like the NRA. 

These folks are organized; most gun-control supporters are not. Why not? 

IT ISN'T EASY BEING GREEN

We're green here in Portland, Oregon. We're green here in the Fish House. I'm green. So why is it sometimes so confusing to be green?

Let's look at the containers we get for take-out food or restaurant left overs. We have been to a few restaurants lately, and have come home with a variety of containers holding the left-overs. We emptied three of them the other day, and I was left puzzling over what to do with the boxes. This is what we had, and what I did:

BioPlus Earth#1 - this is a brown paperboard box with a shiny (plastic?) lining. Printed on the bottom is the name of the product, the chasing-arrows recycling symbol, and the following text:

• Made from 100% recycled paper (average 35% post-consumer content)
• Made in the U.S.A.
• For recycling information visit www........[web address]

Sustainable Packaging Done Right - Reduce, Re-use, Recycle

So, do I throw it in the recycling bin, the compost bucket, or the garbage? How would I know? It looks like plastic-lined paper. I certainly wasn't going to go get my computer and get online. I threw it in the garbage.

Plain brown paperboard clamshell box. This one had no printed labeling on it; however, upon very close inspection, there seemed to be some words embossed on the inside of the bottom (where the food goes). I rinsed off the food residue and then held it under a strong light, but couldn't read it. So I got a pencil and ran the lead back and forth over the embossing until I could make out the word "compostable." OK, easy! The funny thing is that the restaurant lined the box with a square of aluminum foil - I guess these containers leak through. So I put the foil in the recycling and the box in the compost bucket. This left me wondering what the true environmental footprint of this choice is, if you consider the cradle-to-grave of the paper box and the aluminum foil.

BioPak #1. Black paper box with plastic lining. This box, made by the same company as the first one, has the same messaging printed on the bottom, telling me that it is made from 100% recycled paper, made in the USA, and to go to their web site for recycling information.  Again, I have no frickin' idea what to do with this box, so again, into the trash it goes.

So, what is the correct, GREEN thing to do with these boxes? Did I make the correct choices? To find out, I went to the web site listed on the BioPak boxes; the company is FoldPak (a RockTenn company). They have a page about recycling, pasted here:

which basically tells me that, yes, their products can be recycled if my local recycler will accept it. Um, OK, that isn't very helpful. 

Next stop, my local recycler. I went to the Metro (Metropolitan Service District) website for recycling information. Aha! After clicking around a bit, I found the following info for Portland curbside recycling:

PLEASE DO NOT INCLUDE THESE IN YOUR RECYCLING CONTAINER
	Freezer boxes, butter boxes, ice cream containers, take-out containers (These are impregnated or lined with a plastic moisture barrier to keep them from disintegrating. They are also contaminated with food.)

So, I made the correct decisions after all. Two out of three takeout boxes were trash. So much for recycling. 

(A quick note: while having a beer with an environmental consultant friend last night, he told us about his recent tour of the composting facility contracted by the City of Portland for our curbside compost service. He was told that a very small percentage of the stuff delivered to the facility was actually compostable. One factor is that people toss a lot of inappropriate stuff into the compost bin. Another factor is that some items labeled "compostable" take too long to break down and don't compost in this facilities' process. Hmmm...)

Many years ago I decided that there are certain myths about recycling. One of these is that just because something is labeled "recyclable" doesn't mean that it is. Many items that are labeled as recyclable are only that IF you can find someplace to take them that will actually recycle them. 

Recycling is an important component of getting to sustainability; but we need to be smart about it, and not just go with what feels good or seems to be correct. Is paper better than plastic for food containers? I think most people would say that paper is better; however, the data tell us otherwise. If you are interested, here is a case study by folks at University of Michigan, published in 1995, about paper vs. plastic clamshell boxes used by McDonalds. After studying the aspects of plastic-lined paper vs. polystyrene containers, McDonald's chose plastic. The public didn't like the decision because they felt that plastic = bad, paper = good. However, independent research, detailed in the paper cited above, tell a different story. The facts will very likely surprise you; plastic has a lower environmental footprint than coated paper sandwich boxes. 

Years ago, the City of Portland banned styrofoam food containers used by restaurants. So restaurant owners scrambled to find alternatives. The most common container following the ban was the clear plastic clamshell. These containers were not easily recycled (I found a place about a 1 hour drive from our house), and to this day cannot be put into the curbside recycling bins. So what was gained by the ban? I'm not sure if anything was gained. It was not, in my opinion, a smart decision, it was a "feel good" decision (we are sooo green). 

I'm not trying to be cantankerous in this post; I'm trying to present information that can help us all think more clearly about recycling and sustainability. As Kermit sings, it isn't easy being green!  

THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE U. S. CONSTITUTION: REPEAL OR AMEND IT

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. 

And there it is, one of the most poorly constructed popular sentences in the English language. There are two major camps in the interpretation of this amendment: 1) those who think that it gives every person in the United States a constitutional right to own and keep firearms (usually without any limitations); and 2) those who think that the Amendment means that people have a right to own weapons if they are part of a "well regulated militia."

I personally think that the Second Amendment should be repealed; this would make our national discussion of guns a lot more objective and reasonable. But I don't really think the amendment will ever be repealed, so I offer the following rewrite, to be done as an amendment to the Amendment.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall be maintained by the federal government. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, under a well-regulated set of laws and rules to protect the health and welfare of the people, shall not be infringed.

Can anyone seriously argue with that? My amendment to the Amendment allows the federal government to establish and maintain our armed forces (armed). My amendment to the Amendment also gives people in the United States the right to keep and bear guns, but within a well-regulated system that is structured to protect people (including the gun owners).

Why is this so important? Simple answer: the staunch anti-regulation folks (the NRA, other gun organizations, self-proclaimed gun rights patriots, and etc.) use the Second Amendment as a crutch for their argument against gun regulation. Read any and every statement by the NRA and anti-regulation folks and you hear the words "second amendment," "constitutional rights," "free society" and similar. One example in the newspaper today is a statement by Kevin Starrett, executive director of the Oregon Firearms Association, commenting about a recent poll on gun regulation: "What isn't important to me is how many people have decided to give up their rights." In other words, he dismisses the results that show what percentage of people favor more strict regulation of guns, based on his "fact" that we all have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

If we pull the Second Amendment rug out from under these gun death deniers, they will be forced to talk about real issues, and will have a much more difficult time dodging the reality of gun murder and mayhem in this country.

My next task is to look at the best way to start a national petition drive in support of my amendment to the Amendment.

"WHY POLICE LIE UNDER OATH"

The title of this post is the headline of an article in the Sunday February 3, 2013 New York Times. The article, written by Michelle Alexander, examines the issue of police not telling the truth, in their reports and in court.  Ms. Alexander cites real cases and public statements by current and former police about this phenomenon. She begins the article with a question for jurors: who would you believe, a prisoner in an orange jumpsuit, or a well-groomed police officer in a snappy uniform?

I was in just this situation last year as a member of a jury. The criminal case involved a very pathetic family, and an accusation that the older brother had threatened and beaten the younger brother with a pellet gun. The younger brother was a 21-year old who had been a heroin addict since the age of 17. The older brother had an admitted problem with alcohol and drugs. The mom spent her days in her greenhouse, growing "medicinal herbs" (marijuana). The step dad had recently been laid off from his job. Each member of the family testified, and each testimony contradicted that of the other family members. A police officer also testified; he had responded to the 911 call made by the younger brother following the alleged incident.

The instructions given to us, the jurors, by the judge were very explicit. We needed to base our decision on the evidence presented at the trial, and the only evidence presented was the testimony of each person who was called to the stand. In other words, who did we believe most?

At the beginning of our deliberations, all of us agreed that we believed the police officer. We also all agreed that every member of the family was lying, and our job was to decide who was lying the least. We concluded that the accused brother was guilty of all but one count.

Something about this jury experience nagged at me. First, it was obvious from the outset in the jury room that many of my fellow jurors felt that they had more important things to do and wanted to get to a decision quickly so they could leave. I was bothered by this because, after all, we were talking about a person and whether or not he would do jail time. I felt strongly that all the witnesses, with the exception of the police officer, were lying about something - it was really that obvious. I was uncomfortable with the thought that we had to choose who we thought was lying the least.

I did not, at the time, give a second thought to the testimony of the police officer. I did, however, wonder why the officer had not taken the pellet gun as evidence and have it examined for finger prints and the younger brother's DNA, for example (have I seen too many TV cop and lawyer shows?).  This did seem very odd at the time. There were other things that I thought the police might have, or should have done that could have provided some physical evidence for the trial, but I shrugged off those thoughts and focused on the lying game (not including the officer).

Were we jurors guilty of what Michelle Alexander calls out in her article? I think we were; we automatically assumed that a police officer would be telling the truth. This is not to say that in this case the officer was not telling the truth. This is a deeper issue, who should we trust, and should we always trust someone only because that person is in a position of authority? I think the answer is that we should basically, as the old cynical saying goes, trust no one.

THE NRA RED HERRING STRATEGY

If you listen to or read the statements of the NRA, you will understand their strategy to kill (oops) any meaningful gun control legislation. The NRA has two major "solutions" to the problem of gun deaths in this country: 1) put armed guards at every school in the country, and 2) swiftly prosecute and punish criminals. This is a red herring, and I will explain why.

1. Put armed guards at every school.  The death toll at Sandyhook School in Newtown was 20 children and 8 adults. This was a tragic event, and a national trauma. But these were not the only people, or children, killed by guns in the USA. In the 1 1/2 months since the killings in Newtown on December 14, 2012, at least 1,440 people have been killed by guns, including at least 23 children and 81 teenagers. This killing by gun will continue day after day, week after week, month after month until somewhere around 15,000 to 30,000 people are dead within 1 year of the Newtown killings. Putting armed guards at schools will not save any of these people; the only possibility that they would be saved under this NRA plan is if every person in the United States has an armed bodyguard with them at all times.

Putting armed guards at every school might possibly and partially address a very specific type of incident, but this "solution" ignores the larger problem of the gun death epidemic.

2. Prosecute and punish criminals.  The NRA would have us believe that only criminals are responsible for deaths by gun. Well, in most cases, this is correct - BUT only in the sense that once someone has pulled the trigger and killed another person, they are then a criminal. The vast majority of gun deaths in the USA are not committed by criminals; these deaths are the result of an argument, a fight, a domestic dispute, a suicide, or "just playing around." Yes, there are many gun deaths perpetrated by criminals, but if you study the available data, these are not the majority.

Most gun deaths are caused by the NRA's "law abiding gun owner." The problem is that human emotion and guns don't mix well. Neither do alcohol and guns, nor depression and guns. Most gun deaths are a result of a gun being conveniently located when something goes wrong, not the deliberate acts of criminals.

There is at least one other fish on the NRA plate of red herrings; mental illness. The NRA would also have us believe that if we did something with all the mentally ill people, gun deaths wouldn't happen. One problem with this is the fact that the NRA also is fighting to keep people's medical and mental health records out of the hands of the authorities. Yes, we need to do a much better job serving the needs of the mentally ill, but that is not the problem behind the gun death epidemic.

So let's not be fooled by the Red Herring Strategy of the National Rifle Association. They want us all to ignore the real problem in this country - there are already way too many guns in the hands of civilians. This includes all kinds of guns. And the data clearly show us that handguns are the leading weapon of gun death in the USA, not assault rifles.

THE LIFE OF A CONVICTED FELON: CAN WE GET TO A LESS MISERABLE WORLD?

[Spoiler alert: I reveal some of the plot.]

This post is about a movie based on a novel based on some historic happenings. But it is also about life today.

We recently saw the movie Les Miserables. Once I got past the fact that people are singing instead of always talking, I settled in and enjoyed the film. The story line, acting, production and costumes were excellent. The story of conditions in France in the early 1800's evoked a lot of empathy for the poor, downtroden underclass of the time. The hero, Jean Valjean, was imprisoned for a minor crime - stealing a loaf of bread for his sister's hungry children - and served many years at hard labor in a prison camp. After 19 years as a prisoner (5 for the crime of stealing bread, 14 for an escape attempt) he was releaased with nothing in his pocket and a prison record. As a released convict, Jean Valjean had no rights, lived on the streets in abject poverty, and was required to report frequently to the authorities. He is caught after stealing silver objects from a bishop who takes him in and feeds him; however, the bishop tells the police that he gave the silver to Jean. In an act of defience, he tears up his prison papers and starts a secret life, using the stolen silver to start a new life as a business man. He becomes a wealthy factory owner, but has a social conscience and treats his employees with kindness and respect, always looking out for their welfare. His true identity is finally discovered by the bad-ass policeman who had tormented him in the prison camp. However, in a few twists of plot, Jean Valjean helps the cop escape from the revolutionaries who had captured him, and then declines to kill the cop when Jean is once again captured. The cop, his mind blown by this extreme act of kindness, takes his own life.

Ultimately for Jean Valjean and his family there is a happy ending.

In the United States of America today, the early 21st century, there are millions of people who live in a situation analogous to that of the ex-convict Jean Valjean. Convicted felons in this country often have fewer civil rights than the general population; this varies by state. Voter disenfranchisement is one result of a felony conviction. Approximately 5.85 million eligible voters were barred from voting in the 2012 election because of a felony conviction. In four states, people with a felony conviction are barred from voting for the rest of their lives. In the remaining 46 states the laws vary, some states allow released felons on parole or probation to vote; some states allow felons to vote once they have completed their sentence. Only 2 states allow felons to vote while in prison.

Persons with a felony conviction face numerous other challenges in the USA. Many cannot get public housing. Most have difficulty getting employment because they have to indicate on employment applications if they have ever been convicted of a felony, and many employers will not hire them. In some states persons with a felony conviction cannot get food stamps. And in some states, released felons have to pay back the cost of their imprisonment, a difficult task if one cannot find employment. As a result, large numbers of people are forced to live  in a Catch-22 world, as if they are playing the role of the ex-con Jean Valjean when he is released from prison. These people, released from prison once they complete their sentence, are still imprisoned economically and socially by cruel laws.

Unfortunately for the people trapped in this prison with virtual bars, the establishment does not kill itself and allow a happy ending. Instead millions of people, many with families, who think they have paid their debt to society, are actually burdened with a debt they can never repay unless the laws of the land are reformed.

Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. - The Other America

I am sitting on a cold, sunny, blue sky morning in America. Today is a day of celebration of two great African Americans: the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the inauguration of President Barak Hussein Obama for a second term of office. America has made tremendous strides in civil rights since it's founding, and in particular over the past 50 years.

On this day of celebration of the birthday of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., many people will read or listen to Rev. King's "I Have a Dream" speech. That was a brilliant and inspiring speech given on August 28, 1963 during the March on Washington.

Last week I attended a lecture by Michelle Alexander, the author of the book "The New Jim Crow." I'll post about that topic soon. In her excellent presentation, Ms. Alexander talked often about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Some of these references prodded me to learn more about Dr. King during the years between 1963 and his death in 1968, a period in which his views changed in very specific ways.

Between 1963 and his murder in 1968, a number of major changes took place in the United States, and Dr. King's views and public statements also changed direction. He spoke out against the US war in Viet Nam, a stance that resulted in many people in the civil rights movement criticizing and moving away from him. He also spoke out about worsening unemployment and poverty in the Black communities across the country, and the riots that broke out in desperate communities.

On April 14, 1967, Dr. King gave a lecture at Stanford titled "The Other America" in which he addressed these issues. There is a video of that speech here. However, while researching for this post I found a version of the same speech given almost a year later, on March 14, 1968, less than 3 weeks before his assassination.  Dr. King was invited to speak by the Grosse Pointe Human Rights Committee of Grosse Pointe, Michigan. Dr. King spoke at Grosse Pointe High School while about 200 people belonging to a right wing group picketed outside. Dr. King was interrupted a few times by hecklers, but he pushed on, at one point even inviting a young man to the podium to have his say.

I find the transcript of this speech more compelling than the earlier, shorter speech at Stanford. I think it is very important to read the transcript of this speech, and consider it within the context of the turbulent late 1960's. We also need to contemplate the issues highlighted in the speech in the context of the present. I have copied a few excerpts from the speech and pasted them below (in italics), with some of my comments. But I really encourage you, dear reader, to go to the transcript and read the entire speech. It is well worth your time, and it will provoke a lot of thought.

"The Other America" 

Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. - Grosse Pointe High School - March 14, 1968 

http://www.gphistorical.org/mlk/mlkspeech/mlk-gp-speech.pdf

Dr. King wanted to talk about racism, and his views on how to eliminate it in the US.


I want to discuss the race problem tonight and I want to discuss it very honestly.  I still believe that freedom is the bonus you receive for telling the truth.

Early in the speech, Dr. King presented the foundation of the basic issue he saw as the unequal divisions in our society, the "two Americas" that existed, one white, one black.


I want to use as a title for my lecture tonight, "The Other America."  And I use this title because there are literally two Americas.  Every city in our country has this kind of dualism, this schizophrenia, split at so many parts, and so every city ends up being two cities rather than one. 

All too often when there is mass unemployment in the black community, it's referred to as a social problem and when there is mass unemployment in the white community, it's referred to as a depression. 



The first thing I would like to mention is that there must be a recognition on the part of everybody in this nation that America is still a racist country. Now however unpleasant that sounds, it is the truth.  And we will never solve the problem of racism until there is a recognition of the fact that racism still stands at the center of so 
much of our nation and we must see racism for what it is. 

Dr. King talked at some length about three myths often repeated by well-meaning people, that obviously bothered him, and with which he did not agree. The first was the myth of time; ending racism and solving such major social problems would take time, many generations, and we should be patient. The second myth was that these problems could not be solved by legislation, they had to be solved by changes in human behavior. And third, the myth that Negroes had to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, just like every other immigrant to America did. It is worth reading the speech to understand his replies to these myths.

And then Dr. King launched into his views against the war in Viet Nam.


I want to say that if we're to move ahead and solve this problem we must re-order our national priorities.  Today we're spending almost thirty-five billion dollars a year to fight what I consider an unjust, ill-considered, evil, costly, unwinable war at Viet Nam. I wish I had time to go into the dimensions of this. But I must say that the war in Viet Nam is playing havoc with our Domestic destinies. That war has torn up the Geneva accord, it has strengthened, it has substituted.. .(at this point Dr. King was interrupted by an outburst from a young Viet Nam war veteran in the audience).

In explaining his stand against the war, Dr. King refused to draw a line through his moral convictions for political or financial reasons.


The other thing is, that I have been working too long and too hard now against segregated public accommodations to end up at this stage of my life segregating my moral concern. I must make it clear. For me justice is indivisible.  Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.  

And finally, Dr. King talked about the ties between black and white America, and the necessity for people to work together to improve life for everyone.


Now let me finally say something in the realm of the spirit and then I'm going to take my seat. Let me say finally, that in the midst of the hollering and in the midst of the discourtesy tonight, we got to come to see that however much we dislike it, the destinies of white and black America are tied together. Now the races don't 
understand this apparently. But our destinies are tied together. And somehow, we must all learn to live together as brothers in this country or we're all going to perish together as fools. 


Somehow we must come to see that in this pluralistic, interrelated society we are all tied together in a single garment of destiny, caught in an inescapable network of mutuality.


So however difficult it is during this period, however difficult it is to continue to live with the agony and the continued existence of racism, however difficult it is to live amidst the constant hurt, the constant insult and the constant disrespect, I can still sing we shall overcome. We shall overcome because the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice.
...

It is January 21, 2013, and President Obama has just given his inaugural speech. The topics of our President's speech not only echo many of the topics in Dr. King's speech 45 years ago, but remind us that our work is not complete. Our President spoke about slavery, unity, economic freedom and liberation from hardship, poverty and equality, the promise of our nation that "rewards every single American," that freedom is not reserved for the lucky. He spoke about human dignity and justice, repeatedly using the phrases "We, the People," and  "all of us are created equal." He reminded us that our journey is not complete, speaking about the struggles of women and gays, the on-going issues concerning voting rights, the hopes of immigrants, and that all of our children should know that they are cared for, cherished and kept safe from harm. These are, in his words, our generation's tasks, just as they were the tasks of Dr. King's generation.

We have come a long way in America towards the dreams of equality and justice. Today we witnessed the inauguration of an African-American President, the Vice-President's oath of office administered by the first Latino Supreme Court Justice, the Inaugural poem written and recited by the first Latino and LGBT poet. The diversity of the inauguration and of the crowd of thousands gathered to bear witness is inspiring, and we should be proud of the distance we've traveled as a society. 

We are not at the end of the journey to freedom and justice. There are many issues remaining that need our attention - the attention of all of us, not just the victims of injustice. Working together, as a community of Americans, we can continue to make important strides on this road, and progress towards the true promise of America. 

   

WHO ARE THE VICTIMS OF GUN DEATHS?

Every day now, when I check the Slate.com database of gun deaths in the USA since the December 14, 2012 Newtown killings, I am both amazed and saddened by the growing number (today it is more than 800). Shortly after looking at these statistics, I began to wonder who the victims were. We are used to seeing news stories and numbers that are not very personal; in other words, we know little to nothing about the people being killed.

I decided to dig into the data a little bit, and I chose New Years Day 2013, January 1, as my focus. I will say up front that the New Years Day data are skewed because people are out celebrating the new year, which means a lot of alcohol is being consumed. Sure enough, the total number of gun deaths for that day was 45; most days have somewhere between 20 and 30 gun deaths.

I downloaded the Slate.com web data base the other day; it's a spreadsheet file. For each victim there is information for the city, state, gender and age. On the Slate.com interactive database, there is a web link for each victim that goes to a news story about the death. I went to every link for the January 1, 2013 deaths and added information to the spreadsheet in a Comments column.

Below is the resulting spreadsheet. Take a few minutes to look through it, then continue reading below it.

If we stick to the numbers, we see that these deaths were in 19 states across the country (CA, CO, FL, GA, IL, LA, MI, NE, NJ, NM, NY, NC, OH, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, WI). The graph below shows the victims by age group. The largest age group (the most deaths) is from 15 to 30 years old; in fact, it's mostly 15 to 24 year olds if you parse the data a bit more (most shooters are also in this age range). If you read my previous post, this matches the federal DOJ statistics.

Some of the deaths had known causes: suicide (3); killed by police (4, at least 1 of which was "suicide by police"), domestic violence (3), drug-related (2), drive-by (1), robbery (1), and "just playing around" (1). The majority of the deaths were related to arguments or fights, many at clubs or bars. Some were the result of criminal activity, like robbery or drug deals. Of the 45 deaths, 41 were men, 4 were women.

But this is still just numbers - statistics. Who were these people?

Unfortunately, the links in the Slate.com database are mostly the first news reports following each killing, and many of them have very little information because the details of the killings were not yet known. I could dig more, using an internet search engine, but that would take all of my time for many, many days. And so I am left with only a few hints, brief glimpses into lives ended by bullets.

Elzina Brown was a 59 year old school crossing guard, mother and grandmother. She came home for lunch to find her daughter, Diamond Dunn, and the daughter's boyfriend arguing about their 4-year old daughter. When the boyfriend pulled out a gun, Elzina got between him and her daughter and was shot in the chest; she died at the scene. Before running from the home, the boyfriend shot Diamond in the face; she is expected to survive, but a friend said that her face "is basically gone." Two shots from a handgun ended the life of one woman, and permanently changed the life of a family.

Aaron "ZEGOR" Zigorski was an 18-year old high school senior who took his own life using a handgun. Aaron was a star athlete, very well liked in the community, and had a bright future ahead of him. His death was a shock and surprise to family, friends and the entire community.

Belinda Espinoza, 29, shot and killed her partner, 24-year old Ana Flores, and then killed herself following a domestic argument. Based on their Facebook pages, the women were in love and engaged. Just before the argument, Belinda posted a photo of the couple kissing.




Benjamin Sky McDaniel, 19-years old, was shot and killed during an apparent drug deal. He was an avid basketball fan, was going to junior college, and wanted to be a basketball coach. A friend was also wounded at the scene.

I just checked the Slate.com site; as of January 12, 2013, 833 people have died from gunshots since December 14, 2012 (these are deaths reported in the news media). That's 833 lives ended in less than one month. Each of these people had families, dreams, ambitions, and their own story. Many of them had a Facebook page. I didn't know any of them, but their families, friends and communities did.

The argument about gun control in this country is meaningless until we come to grips with a single fact: most of the 15,000+ deaths per year by gun would not happen if guns were not so easily available. From the data compiled above, it is very apparent that most of the people shot to death are victims of anger, drunkeness or depression combined with the possession of a handgun. There are just too many guns, and it is too easy to get one.

Our national debate right now is focused on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines because of the 28 deaths related to the Newtown school shootings. But 2 days later, the same number of people were killed in America by guns, including a 3-year old who found a loaded gun and accidentally shot himself in the head. The day after that another 28 people were killed by guns in America. And so on and so on and so on.........

When will the madness end?

BASEBALL BATS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE

I need to clarify something that is part of the continuing discussion about gun violence in the USA. I have heard some of the anti-regulation folks say that more people are killed with baseball bats in the USA than with guns. This is just not correct!

The following chart is from the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the US Department of Justice. They accumulate data from all the police departments in the country concerning homicides. Baseball bats would fall into the "blunt objects" category.

(Source:http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/weapons.cfm)

There is an even more important fact in this chart: handguns are a much greater problem than assault rifles (included in "Other guns"). Our national discussion at the moment is focused on assault rifles, but we really need to deal with handguns. Based on the above chart, total homicides by all guns combined ranges from about 10,000+ to almost 20,000 per year for the period of record (1975 - 2005).

And yes, people use knives, other weapons and blunt objects to kill, and these weapons combined have been as much as half the number of deaths by gun. But a gun allows someone to kill without having to be within arms length of the victim (I doubt that there are very many deaths caused by someone throwing a dagger).

As long as we're at it, let's look at 2 more graphs from the BJS.

The graph below shows homicides by the age of the killer ("offender") and the weapon used. As usual, guns are on top. What is also noticeable is the increase in gun deaths by 18 to 24 year olds starting in the late 1980's. The numbers decreased between the early '90's to the early '20's, but has since increased again (you can see the beginning of the increase in 2005).

Ready for one more? OK then; the graph below shows that teenagers are the largest group of gun killing victims. Combine this fact with info from the graphs above, and we know that teenagers with handguns are killing teenagers. Why do teenagers have guns? Where and how do they get them?

And by the way, don't assume that all of these teen-on-teen killings are gang related. As I go through gun death statistics (look for a post in the next couple of days), a significant number of teens killed by gun seem to be suicides, boyfriend-girlfriend breakup related, and accidents ("just playing around").

There is one clear fact here: guns are too accessible in our society, and handguns are by far the biggest problem. So as the government struggles with how to regulate assault rifles, we need to also pressure our government to regulate handguns even more.

And please, don't give me any of that Second Amendment crap!

GUNS IN AMERICA: WE REALLY, REALLY NEED TO HAVE A TALK

The above graphic was very recently posted on Facebook by a Facebook friend of mine. I knew this person in high school, and I don't think I've seen her since (well, maybe at the 40th reunion?). From her Facebook posts, I know that she is a very proud grandmother. I also know that she has a handgun and has had some training on it's use. I assume that she is very careful with her handgun, and probably keeps it locked up. However, I am not one bit amused by the above sign; in fact, I find it very objectionable.

I said as much in a FB comment to her post. I had a debate with myself about commenting; should I ignore it, should I unfriend her, should I confront her? In the end, I decided to post my comment, based on my decision that what we really need in this country is a heart-to-heart conversation about guns, and not just between people of the same opinion.

Guns are a very major problem in this country (USA). We are by far Number One in gun ownership per capita with 90 guns per 100 people. "On a per-capita basis, Yemen had the second most heavily armed citizenry behind the United States, with 61 guns per 100 people, followed by Finland with 56, Switzerland with 46, Iraq with 39 and Serbia with 38. France, Canada, Sweden, Austria and Germany were next, each with about 30 guns per 100 people, while many poorer countries often associated with violence ranked much lower. Nigeria, for instance, had just one gun per 100 people." (1)

The USA is also Number One in deaths by guns compared to other affluent nations. Here is a graph (2) showing gun deaths for the 34 developed countries in the OECD:

The line above all the others is the United States; it is good to see that the trend is downward since about 1980 (although another source states that the trend is again upward since 2000). There are about 312,000,000 (312 million) people in the USA, so at 6 deaths per 100,000 people, the total is just under 19,000 gun deaths per year nationwide. However, different sources have different numbers, some in the 30,000 to 40,000 range (gun deaths per year). A Bloomberg article last month predicted that gun deaths nationwide will exceed traffic fatalities by the year 2015 (3).

 I have been posting on Facebook the tally of reported gun deaths in this country since the mass killings of children and staff at the school in Newtown. As I write this on January 4, there have been 427 gun deaths in the USA in the 19 days since the Newtown killings (4). 427 gun deaths in 19 days; an average of 22.5 deaths per day. Some of these were children. Many of these were teens. All of these were people who are no longer here.

I want to talk about two important topics here: 1) the need, or lack of need, for the Second Amendment, and 2) the politics of gun ownership.

Do we need the Second Amendment? In my opinion, we do not. 

One of the basic arguments of the gun lobby and many gun owners in this country is the Second Amendment, which gives us the right to bear arms. This amendment needs to be repealed.The original intent of the amendment has always been a topic for debate because of the way the text was structured by the authors of the Constitution. It is very common, however, for gun lobbyists and die-hard gun owners to cite the amendment and quickly proclaim that we have the right to bear arms in order to protect ourselves from our government. Seriously? When in our nation's history have citizens had to protect themselves from our government?

Guns are consumer goods. They are sold at a variety of retail stores. What other consumer good has it's own amendment to the Constitution, even dangerous consumer goods? We know that many deaths are related to automobile, tobacco, alcohol and kitchen stove use (to name but a few); however, none of these has a constitutional amendment giving citizens the right to have them (to be fair, an amendment was passed repealing an amendment that prohibited alcohol - but that's a different story). Every potentially dangerous consumer item is regulated by the government, as it should be. Regulations cover the manufacture, sale and often the use of potentially dangerous consumer items. Why are guns treated differently? If we repeal the Second Amendment, people will still have the "right to bear arms," just as we all have the right to "bear" automobiles, tobacco, alcohol, stoves and other potentially dangerous items - if we comply with the appropriate regulations (showing proof of age to buy tobacco, for example; not driving if our blood alcohol level is above a certain standard, and etc.). The only major difference I can think of between guns and other consumer goods is that certain types of guns sold in this country were specifically designed to kill people; they are military weapons, and in my opinion, these should be banned from public ownership.

Why is gun ownership so political? 

The National Rifle Association (NRA) and other gun organizations have an inordinate amount of political power in this country. The NRA is feared by many elected representatives because the organization can, and has, organize it's members and sympathizers to not re-elect representatives who have crossed them. Gun control is a discussion typically avoided in the halls of Congress for this reason. Attention is paid to gun control only when there is a tragic event, like the murder of school children in Newtown, that results in a public cry for something to be done. Typically, this topic fades away at some point after a mass shooting, and it is again "business as usual," i.e. we don't talk about gun control.

It is way, way past time to confront this topic head-on. The anger and despair once again brought to the surface by the massacre in Newtown must not settle down. We need to keep in mind that the 26 deaths by gun at the school in Newtown is not an unusual daily tally for the United States - it is the fact that these were small children in a school that makes the crime so heart breaking. What about the 3-year old who died a few days later when he shot himself in the head with a gun he found in his uncle's house? What about the 4-year old who died a few days later from a bullet to the head from a drive-by shooting as the child sat in his car seat in a driveway? We need to be outraged by every one of these deaths by gun because they can be prevented.

No other affluent nation on this planet has the kind of gun violence we have in the United States on a per capita basis. Gun regulations in many other developed countries are very strict, and the results are obvious. Studies have shown that more firearms result in more homicides, and that strict regulation prevents such deaths (5). In Israel for example, a country where terrorism is a very real danger, gun ownership is severely limited and considered a privilege, not a right. "Gun owners in Israel are limited to owning one pistol, and must undergo extensive mental and physical tests before they can receive a weapon, and gun owners are limited to 50 rounds of ammunition per year." (6).

In conclusion, I hope that the Newtown killings have struck a chord in the United States, a chord that will continue to reverberate until our elected officials make much needed and very meaningful changes to the laws of the United States. These changes should be in the form of very strict controls of gun ownership. If we do this correctly, if we have an honest and open conversation between people with different opinions, surely we can get to a better, more rational place.

Do everyone a favor; read up on this stuff (I've provided some good links below as a starting place). Talk to people, especially those who have an opinion about guns that is different from yours. Stay calm, use facts, talk about our children and grandchildren. Call or write to your elected representatives. We can do this if we really try - but it will not be easy - guaranteed.

Links:
(1)http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/28/us-world-firearms-idUSL2834893820070828 
(2)http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/
(3)http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html
(4)http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html
(5)http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/opinion/the-gun-challenge-strict-laws-work.html?_r=0
(6)http://www.jta.org/news/article/2012/07/24/3101546/despite-militarized-society-israels-strict-gun-laws-keep-civilian-violence-down

THE PALESTINIAN-ISRAELI DEATH SPIRAL

Bombs are once again flying across the Israel-Gaza border in both directions, leaving death, injury and destruction on both sides. This same kind of action happened almost exactly 4 years ago, and I wrote about it then.

It's easy to play the blame game in this situation, and I'm not going there. As far as I'm concerned there is enough blame to go around, and playing that game is a key element of the death spiral. In my opinion, this death spiral has no end.

No end, that is, until peace-loving people in the region decide to try something very, very different. The primary players in this "something different" have to be individuals, not organizations. And it can't just be the people in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza; others in the region need to be involved. Remember, I said peace-loving people, not haters or terrorists or militants on any side. And I specifically said people, not organizations, because for the past 64 years these organizations have failed to find a resolution to the conflict.

What is needed is a Peace Spring movement, in some ways similar, and directly related to the on-going Arab Spring. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict affects everyone in the Middle East (and beyond), and so everyone in the region needs to be part of the resolution. Imagine hundreds of thousands or millions of people in the streets of Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and beyond demonstrating for peace. And not just peace in general, but a lasting peace based on specific principles (see The People's Voice and the Geneva Accord for examples).  Democratic rule means that governments listen to citizens.

People power is needed to resolve this conflict because organizations such as the State of Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Fatah, the United States, the United Nations, religious sects and others are too entrenched in their own ideologies to participate in something different. People power is messy business, and the key will be for leaders to emerge who can provide coordinated focus and direction, find bridges between conflicting ideas and opinions, and move the process forward.

If this sounds far out, it is. But business as usual is not acceptable. The people in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank are locked in a death spiral, and every flare up is more dangerous because each time the weapons are larger, more sophisticated, and more deadly.

Imagine, if you can, a new Middle East, where everyone is a partner in a movement that benefits everyone. Where the rising tide lifts all boats. The people in the region, and their descendants, deserve no less.

---

WE NEED A BOLD FEDERAL ACTION FOR DISASTER RELIEF: AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA

Dear President Obama:

I learned from a news report last night that at least 10,000 families are homeless in the aftermath of the storm Sandy; their homes are either not inhabitable or gone. Winter weather is closing in on the east coast, in fact, a Noreaster storm is expected to hit in the next couple of days, bringing cold, rain and possibly snow. How will these storm victims be housed?

The devastation caused by "Superstorm" Hurricane Sandy, like that from Hurricane Katrina, can bring out the best in people, as evidenced by the outpouring of donations and volunteerism. Because of adequate advanced warning and forecasting about Sandy, local, state and federal agencies were able to plan for the storm and it's aftermath, although we know that nothing is perfect. As recovery efforts move forward, it is painfully obvious that very many people are desperate and suffering, and their futures look bleak. I think we need a different response.

It is time for you, Mr. President, to make a bold move that not only will help these storm victims, but will put into place a new system of disaster recovery; I'll call this the Disaster Recovery Administration. Let me explain with a couple of examples.

1. Above is a photo of a street curb in my Portland, Oregon neighborhood. One response of President Franklin Roosevelt to the Great Depression was the creation of the Work Projects Administration. This federal program put many thousands of people to work building public infrastructure throughout America. The program provided jobs for unemployed people, and built up needed public infrastructure.

2. When the United States entered World War 2, the federal government let contracts to shipyards around the country for war ships and liberty ships, like the one pictured above. Thousands of people were employed to build these ships, and some shipyards completed a new ship every 1 or 2 weeks. This massive effort helped win the war.

The Disaster Recovery Administration would be a federally-funded and administered program that would employ thousands of Americans to rebuild areas destroyed by a natural disaster (we're sitting in Portland waiting for the monster earthquake the experts say is due). Certainly the United States is capable of quickly building quality housing for 10,000 needy families in New York, New Jersey and other areas destroyed by Sandy, as well as re-building public infrastructure like roads, bridges, and utilities. Planners, engineers, architects and other professionals need to be brought in to design "hardened" infrastructure and buildings that have a chance of withstanding the next big storm, and the effects of climate change. And designs for buildings and infrastructure can be based on more sustainable designs and materials than previously.

This work would be contracted to private businesses, with care taken to include a large number of small businesses. Incentives should be given to businesses that hire veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars who have skills in logistics, organization, crisis management and nation building projects.  I see this as a win-win for America.

Mr. President, I believe that you have the authority to create this program. I've heard  that the damage from Sandy is estimated at $50 billion. This is a large sum, but we know that $trillions have been spent on 2 wars without a blink by Congress. Certainly you can push legislation through to enact this new program.

The time to act is now. This disaster calls for real leadership and good government, not partisan politics. It is up to you, Mr. President, to put a program like this in place, and to put it in place immediately.

Thank you.