Jon Stewart and the VA

Yesterday, Jon, in his program The Daily Show, had as a guest the former Chief Technology officer of the United States.  Those who watch The Daily Show will know that Jon has been deeply concerned about the handling of veterans' medical issues by the VA.

I share that concern and I heard Mr. Chopra put forward some useful ideas.  It seems reasonable that having the various uniformed branches generate patient medical information in some standard format that the VA's systems could then read would go a long way toward streamlining the process of moving responsibility for the care of injured vets from military to civilian responsibility.

I think the problem goes even deeper, though.  The real problems lie in the definitions of things.  For example, everyone believes we (the US) share a common language with Great Britain.  In fact we do communicate pretty well and there are very few words that don't cross the boundary.  Sometimes though a word seems to be understood and it isn't until later that we realize there has been a breakdown.

"Let's have a look under the bonnet" (or in "the boot") for example, often cause confusion.  The need to climb a flight of stairs to get to a "flat" on the first floor might or might not be important.  These examples illustrate the flighty nature of words.  Sometimes they mean one thing and then they mean something else.

In health care, even within the civilian area in the US, the goal is always precision.  When one doctor reads a clinical note about a patient written by another physician, any confusion at all causes delay which can be life-threatening.  At a minimum, confusion causes additional expense when diagnostic work needs to be re-done.

You'll have to trust me when I say that I could start an argument in any group practice by asking for a definition of "patient."  When a physician is presented with a gaping wound or a missing limb there is no doubt who the patient is.  Farther downstream in the process, though, once insurers, administrators, lawyers, legislators, and "family" have become involved, there can be a lot of doubt as to who the patient is.

The VA is simply the one left standing when the music stops.  They haven't created the problem and they will not be able to solve the problem.  I doubt there is anyone in Congress willing or able to envision and create a solution.  After all, there aren't enough veterans to dictate the outcome of that many elections--are there?

Hidden Glory

You may already know that the glorious colors we see in the fall are really there all the time.  If you don't know that--it's true and you can look it up.  So why do we see them for such a brief time in October?

Well, here's the deal.  The trees and other plants are busy staying alive from the moment the leaves first emerge in the spring until the shortened days after the autumnal equinox (fall) warn them at the cell level to start preparing for winter.  The flow of sap slows down and the green cells (chlorophyll) can no longer reproduce.  The green retreats closer and closer to the veins and finally disappears completely, leaving the other colors behind.

In short, staying alive makes all leaves look alike (green) while dying allows the underlying beauty to have the spotlight.  The metaphor is obvious.

People struggling through the day-to-day of staying alive often blend together in ways that mask the things that make them unique.  It's only when we're dying (or think we are) that our true colors are revealed.

No one knows the true beauty of another human being until that moment when it is revealed in struggle.  Those who are blessed never forget what they have seen and may begin to believe that the beauty, though unseen, is there now.  The truly blessed will begin to let that belief direct their actions.

Governor, You're Misguided

Before I begin, I do understand the complexity of balancing government services with minimizing the tax burden on citizens.  This balancing act is performed at every level of government including school districts.

I have lived and paid taxes in Iowa, Minnesota and Ohio both as an individual and as a business owner.  These things I know:

1. Ohio has far and away the most byzantine und unnecessarily complicated tax reporting structure I have ever encountered.
2. No business owner or entrepreneur makes decisions on where to locate based on tax rates alone.
3. As a partner in an Ohio business, I was required to make monthly and/or quarterly reports (and payments) to no fewer than five separate taxing bodies within the state of Ohio.
4. Each of these taxing bodies was interested in the same information with only a few minor differences.

Ohio's government is currently directed by self-described fiscal conservatives who advocate for smaller and more efficient government AND reduced tax rates.  The situation described above (1-4) cries out for simplification and streamlining.  One would think that this would be a natural focus for these [fiscal] conservatives.  Instead, we get promises of reduced rates with no reduction in complexity.  There seems to be an assumption that everyone has an accountant or a lawyer (or both) retained to handle the tax relationships with the State of Ohio.  If we really want to encourage entrepreneurism, we need to re-examine the entire Ohio tax situation.

One suggestion, Governor, is to give new business startups a three-year running start with no business taxes of any kind during that time.  From my own experience, starting a new business usually means doing everything yourself.  Tax reporting in Ohio diverts an amazing amount of attention and effort away from where it really needs to be.

Maybe in three years I'll be able to afford to hire an accountant and/or lawyer but until then I have to do it myself.  A side effect of DIY tax accounting is mistakes and the fallout from those mistakes.  It's really no wonder that so many new business starts last less than three years.  How much I pay is important but manageable.  How I pay is even more important and is unmanageable.  Most new business starts do not go to investment bankers, they are forced to use sweat equity wherein the owner's time is the most important component and the only resource with a hard limit.

Governor, saving those with incomes > $350,000 an additional $10,000 MIGHT help you get reelected but it isn't going to win you very many friends.

Flag Frustration

We just returned from a walk here in central Ohio.  During the course of this 20 minute walk we passed several businesses as well as a Post Office.  What I noticed this morning was the flag poles, each of which displayed the US flag and some of which displayed the Ohio state pennant as well as (in one case) an ISO flag.

Some but not all displayed the US flag at half-staff.

I spent several years as a Cub Scout/Boy Scout/Explorer and many more as an adult leader.  I spent 5+ years on active duty with the Air Force at bases and Army posts in Texas, California, Alaska and Berlin (which was not part of Germany at that time).  I guess I have soaked up something about the proper display of the flag.

1. ALL US flags are flown at half-staff or NONE are.  This is not individual choice.
2. No one is forced to display the flag so if we choose to do so, we owe it to the community to do it properly.
3. Half-staff is accomplished by raising the flag to the top of the mast or staff and then lowering it to a point (at least) one-third of the way down.  This half-staff position is designed to keep large flags from touching the ground or interfering with pedestrian or other traffic.  This may be especially important when multiple flags are flown from the same halyard (rope).
4. The flag should be in good condition and not visibly dirty or frayed.
5. Unless the flag is lit, it should be retired at dusk and during inclement weather. 

These come from the manual from which NCOs are tested to qualify for promotion.

If you search the internet for flag etiquette you will find many interpretations, some of which refer to laws governing flags and their display.  US law is summarized at http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30243.pdf

The President or the Governor of a state or possession may order flags in their jurisdiction to be flown at half staff.  There is no authority for anyone else to do so.

Why display a flag?  Some sites are prescribed in the law.  All others are optional.  Typically the flag is displayed in the interest of patriotism.  While feelings of patriotism are desirable, display of the flag for this purpose is optional.  A patriot will become informed about the laws and traditions in order to display the flag intentionally to reflect on himself and his country. 

I'm going to try to put this aside now so that I can enjoy my walks again.

PRISM and Me

Nothing that calls itself "news" is complete today without offering something about the NSA's project (called PRISM) to gather information about telephone and internet traffic.  My ears perked up when I heard the term "metadata".  Call me a geek or a wonk, but data has been where I lived for the past thirty years. 

Getting anyone at all to pay attention to something called metadata has been harder than making the average person care about mathematics or history.  Now that it's out there in the public vocabulary, its use brings up several other issues.

1. The use of the term seems calculated to disarm suspicion.  It's just metadata about your communications and not the communications themselves so don't get your underwear in a knot.
2. The term is used in a way that is inappropriate to the issue.  It wouldn't matter to the issue of government intrusion if it was the actual communications that were being monitored.
3. I heard a man on a call-in show the other day talking about "my information" as though he were the owner of the information merely because it concerned something that he did.
4. There has been much discussion of exchanging privacy for security.  That discussion is moot when the privacy being discussed extends only to data.  If there is anything at all to be learned from cyber-bullying or phishing scams or on-line impersonations it is that the information itself has no value.  It is only the use to which the information is applied that has any ethical or moral value.  I realize that this is the same argument advanced by gun control opponents but on this, at least, they have a valid point.  THERE IS NO PRIVACY.  THERE IS NO SECURITY.  There is only more (or less) private and more (or less) secure.
5. Finally (for this post) the term metadata is defined in these reports as data about data.  This is semantic sleight of hand.  What is data and what is data about that data shifts as we go from person to person or perspective to perspective.  ATT and Verizon do not record calls (we hope) so the information being gathered by the NSA is data and NOT metadata.  The information is what the communications companies use for billing purposes.  Yes, from the perspective of the caller or the callee, this could be thought of as metadata if they thought of it at all prior to PRISM but here is a case in which a new piece of knowledge (or data) causes the world to recognize something that never existed before--namely metadata about their communications.

Is the government (in the person of an agency, NSA, tasked with National Security through application of electronic rather than human resources) acting legally?  Given that the government defines "legal", the answer has to be "Hah!"  This is what the NSA does on a worldwide basis though not usually by coercing companies into handing over information.  Would the answer be any different if the NSA hacked the corporate servers that store all of this communication-related data?

Bottom line: if situations like this one are the only time we pay attention, we deserve whatever happens.

Jon Stewart Don't Know Squat About Data

This past Wednesday (Mar 27, 2013), the Daily Show included a segment on the backlogs within the VA and found the cause to be

• The reliance on paper to transfer medical records between the DoD and the VA

So far, so good. Good investigative reporting. If they had only left it at that and allowed viewers to form their own conclusions...

Instead, John Stewart made a joke about validating his preconceived ideas concerning Republican responsibility. He played a clip of a Republican member of the Defense Appropriations committe comparing AHLTA (the DoD healthcare information system) and VistA (the VA's Healthcare Information umbrella) to Play Station and X-Box which, though both can use the same TV, cannot talk to one another. AND THEN Mr.Stewart suggested that the parent of the household, if he/she wanted to minimize contention and confusion, could impose a single solution on the household. A photo of President Obama was displayed during this, clearly indicating that all the blame could be laid at the President's feet.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The VA has been assembling the components of VistA since 1987 and it was fully formed by the late 1990s. AHLTA was introduced amidst much fanfare at the beginning of 2004. The birthing process for AHLTA overlapped the adolescence and maturation of VistA, indicating a conscious decision (pre-2004) by the DoD to ignore the VA's efforts.

This entire mess is too complex in its origins and effects to discuss in a single blog entry so I'll content myself with one last piece of exculpatory evidence on behalf of anyone who has assumed elected office since 2004. The only way to move information from AHLTA to VistA is

1. Generate paper from AHLTA
2. Send the paper to the VA
3. Enter the information from the paper into VistA

This is also the reason why the DoD can't simply replace AHLTA with VistA.

There is a lot more to be said on this subject but, among other things, it seems clear that this is but one (albeit very painful) example of the inability of our health care "system" to adopt anything approaching a standardized view of the enterprise. Interoperability is something to be wished for but which cannot exist in an environment in which healthcare systems vendors are the X-Box, the Play Station, and Wii.

Violence and Firearms

A statistic led me to this point.  In reporting on the NRA's response to the Newtown tragedy, the networks reported that the organization has 4 million members.  I was struck by the small number and how disproportionate was their influence.

In a nation of 300 million people, how does 1.3% of that population get to control the debate on the regulation of firearms manufacture, sales and ownership?

Some background on my perspective: I have owned several firearms--as many as three shotguns, two rifles, two handguns and an air rifle at one time.  I enjoy hunting, target shooting and taking care of the weapons.  I do not own or possess any firearms currently.  In the interests of full disclosure, I should also say that I have been a member of the NRA.

Now that those cards are on the table, my opinion of the NRA is that it is an extremist organization.  When I was a member, I was sent messages and asked to pass them along to my elected representatives and/or network media figures.  The language in these messages was, to my mind, extreme and I could not, in good conscience, do as requested by Wayne Lapierre or Charlton Heston.

So how does the NRA wield so much influence?  It's mainly because their voice is the well-orchestrated one.  A voice for something always drowns out the voice against.  They have consistently made the issue about the Constitution and for a right cited in the Second Amendment.  The opposition, such as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, is portrayed as being against the "right" cited in the Second Amendment.

This much is obvious, right?  It's also obvious that the voice that is heard is easily interpreted as the majority.  The NRA is very good at whipping up a frenzy of fearful indignation amongst the membership.  They can generate 4 million (I don't imagine there were too many others like me) emails, letters and phone calls, frequently to multiple targets.  The Brady Campaign can't do this nearly as well.

As we saw in Mr. Lapierre's most recent statements, it is easy to sow seeds of confusion and generate several tangential debates while all the while adamantly holding the flag of the Second Amendment high and calling on loyal Americans to rally to its defense.

In fact, there is no justification for high-capacity magazines and high rate-of-fire except as a thrill for certain kinds of enthusiasts.  (There must be another term for an enthusiastic extremist--or maybe enthusiastic is redundant.)  You can get quite a thrill from cocaine or meth, too, but those thrills are illegal.  I have been in the woods during deer season and heard a single weapon discharge 10,15,or more rounds in the space of a few seconds.  It made me profoundly uneasy as I sat there with my single-shot rifle.  Thrills for a few are not sufficient justification for the level of danger presented.

The Second Amendment could be satisfied with a muzzle loading black powder weapon.  Let's shrug off the "right to keep and bear arms" as the central issue and stay focused on issues more central to the public welfare.

Grace

Grace is the slender but unbreakable thread upon which we are all suspended.  If you happen to be a Christian (as I am) you should know this already.  Other faiths may share this dependence in some way.  Buddhists, for example practice to become at one with life, accepting everything as part of the journey, believing that it is possible to transcend the journey.

I'm sure that Buddhists would express this differently and I won't even attempt a similar expression for Islam or the other religions.

In my mind the most elegant expression of grace is the story (in John chapter 8) of the woman who was apprehended in adultery and brought to Jesus as a test.  Jesus had given the religious Jews the idea that he might not support the ancient Law.  They asked Jesus to condemn the woman according to the Law.  As you will recall, he agreed that she had violated the Law and suggested that whoever among them had not violated the Law should be the one to throw the first stone.

One by one they were shamed by this until none were left.  At this point Jesus asked the woman who was condemning her.  When she answered that there was no one, he said, "Neither do I condemn you."

That's grace.  He then sent her on her way, suggesting that she give up her life of sin.  It would be startling to find out that she had been stoned the very next week after being caught in adultery again.  I put myself in the shoes of this woman and think that if I had been required to confess in order to escape punishment, I would certainly have done so.  Then I would have begun resenting that coercion immediately.  That resentment would certainly have led me back to the sinful life.

It is critical to the concept of Grace that Jesus never asked the woman for anything.  No seed of resentment was planted.  I could walk away completely free and begin at that moment a new kind of life. 

If you believe that confession is a prerequisite to forgiveness, you're probably not a parent.  As a parent, I know that I can demand a confession and apology and I will probably get them.  I also know that an assurance of love and forgiveness will elicit truly sincere remorse including repentance.  Repentance in avoidance of punishment is cheap and unreliable.  Repentance in response to forgiveness (grace) can last the rest of one's life.

You are loved and your are forgiven.  Let your life be a response to that.

The Origin of Species (When is a theory not a theory?)

There are just a couple of things that continue to bother me when discussion turns to evolution. 

First, we're told that this theory explains how higher organisms (like us) gradually developed from much simpler organisms.  This is based on observations of certain small birds which are identical to other small birds except that their beaks are longer (or shaped differently).  We're told that the difference happened by accident (a mutation) and that this accident allowed the mutant bird to survive in a changing environment.  We're told that the mutation was passed on to offspring and that, over time, the birds showed a mating preference for others with the same beak so that after many generations, all descendants of the original mutant possessed the new beak.

This part is believable, though improbable.  The likelihood of a stable mutation that can be genetically transmitted to offspring is small.  The likelihood of the original mutant surviving to produce offspring is small.  The likelihood of the mutant successfully mating, given that differences are generally not accepted by prospective mates, is quite small.  The likelihood of sufficient mutants reaching adulthood and mating with one another to produce a stable breeding population is very small.  Entire breeding populations (known as flocks or herds or packs...are often wiped out completely by sickness, fire, storm, famine or any of a host of devices that nature keeps for such purposes.

As you may know, the probability of a series of things happening together is the product of their individual probabilities.  For example, let's say that the probability of a successful/useful mutation is one in a hundred (1%).  For many species in the wild, the probability of surviving to breeding age is one in three (33%).  Let's imagine that the probability of attracting a mate given that you are visibly different is one in five (20%).  Let's further assume that the probability of any specific individual becoming the basis of a stable breeding population is one in 100 (1%).  The actual probabilities may be much lower but these will do for this illustration.  There are many other conditions, each with it's own probability that might also come onto play but with only these few variables we calculate the probability of success at .01 x .33 x .20 x .01 = .0000066 or less than one in one hundred thousand.

By the way, at this point we have only succeeded in producing a new sub-species because we have assumed that the mutants have bred with non-mutants within the species.  One of the defining characteristics of a species is that interbreeding with another species is not possible or at least highly improbable.

Evolutionists deal with improbability through the use of time.  If enough time goes by, they say, virtually anything is likely to happen, regardless of its probability.   That's hard to argue with.  Hard to argue isn't quite the same as persuasive, though.

The point that is most difficult to accept is the mutation that produced sexual reproduction.  We go from a time in which all reproduction (in single-cell organisms) is via mitosis.  The cells simply split and become two identical cells.  Suddenly, everything changes.  We now need another individual in order to procreate.  This is not a mutation.  The difference can't be explained by evolutionary (meaning incrementally small changes over a long period of time) change.  It seems we are left with only a handful of choices.

• We need more complexity in the origins.  At least we need both sexual and asexual reproduction to be represented in the universe.
• If we insist on a single original lifeform, we need to change the basic building block of evolution from mutation to something else.
• We have to relegate evolution to a much smaller role.

Of course there are many other theories out there to explain the breadth and depth of the diversity of lifeforms on our planet.  They aren't getting enough attention because only one theory, evolution, has been granted the "scientific" seal.

It's not important to me to explain how we became what we are because the the real value comes in understanding how we will become what we should be.  It just raises my hackles when someone says that they have an explanation for Homo sapiens and it is evolution.

A Little Deeper

Let's take that last post a little deeper.  Here are some statements from candidates for leadership office that should automatically disqualify them.

• I'll create jobs
• On Day One I'll [anything]
• I'll ensure the security
• I'll deliver an ultimatum
• I'll undo everything the last guy did (except the parts I agree with)
• What's good for the economy is good for America
• What's good for business is good for the economy (therefore--the logic goes--what's good for business is good for America)

Statements like these are made for one purpose only and that purpose IS NOT accountability.  When the buck is being passed, this guy will ALWAYS make sure someone else is holding it.

Friends, what is good for the people of the nation (as a whole) is good for the nation.  Good for business or good for Undecided Voter have such a small probability of being good for the nation that, to the extent that the candidate is successful in doing these things, they actually do harm to the nation by diverting energy and resources from those efforts that really would be good for the nation.

We simply can't afford to have a leader who has his mind made up before anything happens.  Does anyone believe the world is a simple, easy to understand place?  Does anyone believe that our role in the world is static (that the world moves around us)?

Less taxes and smaller government are standards not morality.  We should have the smallest government and the lowest level of taxation consistent with our place in the world.  Less for the sake of less is not different than more for the sake of more.  Both are evidence of mental imbalance and faulty reasoning.  One is named greed; the other has no name (though it is the opposite of patriotic).

Why do we have government?  According to the Preamble to the Constitution, We, the People, have created the government defined in the Consitution for the purpose of:   form[ing] a more perfect Union, establish[ing] Justice, insur[ing] domestic Tranquility, provid[ing] for the common defence, promot[ing] the general Welfare, and secur[ing] the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.  THAT is the why and it impossible to justify Cut Taxes and Balance The Budget [someday] as the how.

What's Good For The Economy...

I confess, I am REALLY losing heart when the candidate says (again) that experience in business is the best qualification for leading a nation.  The justification is the Economy.  We need to capitalize it to make it seem like something real.  The Economy IS real but not in the same way that Philadelphia is real.  Well, maybe there are similarities, but my point is that you can't put your arms around the Economy, you can't see the limits, there are no signs that say "now entering The Economy."

First of all, let me say that our nation, The United States of America, even though it does have boundaries, is every bit as subjective a thing as The Economy.

Would we continue to be The United States of America even if The Economy changed?  Of course we would--and we have.  The United States of America is whatever We, The People, are willing to stand up for.

Changes in The Economy have forced many of We, The People, to change the way we think of ourselves and our roles as individuals, citizens, providers, dependents, students, family members, soldiers, sailors, marines, teachers, mayors...  Initially change is hard.  It's like Letting Go of the pool gutter when learning to swim.  Finally though, we understand that we need to Get To The Other Side.  It's only then that we learn to swim.  The Letting Go is only part of the change.  This is the kind of change that we have to focus on because it's the only kind that positions us for the next one.

It is so SMALL and LIMITING and, yes, disheartening to think that business holds the answers for The United States of America.  We, The People, are this nation and let there be no doubt about it.  Not The Economy, not National Defense, not Business, not Education, not anything except each other.  When we stop doing the things that make each other healthier, more knowledgeable, safer, more secure in our hopes for the future and instead focus our efforts on making corporations safer and more secure, we are no longer part of The United States of America.  We have become something else, a virus that manifests as Us versus Them, They Shouldn't Be Able To, What About Me, This Is Mine, There Isn't Enough For You and a host of other symptoms.  None of the symptoms alone can destroy The United States of America, but untreated they spread until they gain control and We, The People, disappear.  When that happens The United States of America disappears except as a multicolored area on a map or globe.

The Middle Class

We have all been hearing a lot about the "middle class" lately and, honestly, I'm beginning to feel insulted by the references.  Much of this feeling probably stems from Barbara Tuchman's book, A Distant Mirror, which I am currently reading.

To try to provide a bit of perspective, I have read Atlas Shrugged (Ayn Rand) and I confess to a sense of horror and revulsion while reading the first quarter or so of the book.  I get it that Congressman Ryan felt the same things.  By the time I reached the end of the book, though, I was experiencing feelings that were the same but directed at the conclusions reached by Ms Rand.  From this I am willing to entertain the possibility that Congressman Ryan quite possibly never finished the book.  If he did then I'm forced to feel horror and revulsion at his conclusions.

A Distant Mirror is a history of the 14th Century in Europe.  The period from 1300 AD to 1400 AD certainly suggests itself as a distant mirror of our own times.  There was schism in what at that time was THE Christian church prompted by political concerns on the part of Church leaders.  Two Popes in two different capitals was the result.  Nobility was a constant theme.  "What is the noble choice?" the question most frequently asked by those in charge (who were, of course, those of noble genetic line).

The "companies," marauding bands of soldiers led by knights (who were nobles) without property, terrorized the countrysides of Europe and were ignored by the King and the landed nobles.

The Black Death made several appearances, killing nearly two-thirds of the population.  This was a serious drain on the economy but, of course, "the ecomony" was an unrecognized concept.  The King and The Church still had need of revenues to fund the lifestyles in which they had grown accustomed and the only source of those revenues was the Middle Class which was taxed unmercifully.

Education was not a concept that entered into any planning by the nobles and they paid bitterly during uprisings by the peasants and middle class when there was indiscriminate killing and destruction.  Fine distinctions as to who or what was responsible for suffering were beyond the abilities of people whose sources of information were gossip and the King's crier.

The most overwhelming indictment of the Nobles was quite simply that neither had knowledge of nor consideration for the lives lived by anyone else.  Glory and wealth (both obtained through constant warfare) were the reason (and reason enough) for whatever actions they chose to take.

The source of my discontent is the apparent notion (in our classless nation) held by a "leader class" that there are in fact lower classes which they may use for whatever ends suit them.  I'm quite sure that this is the source for much of the dissatisfaction we are seeing around the world as well.  The U.S. (leaders) sees itself as the upper class among nations with the duty to pillage and occasionally protect the lower class nations.

"Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it."

Vindicated and Vindictive

Do you ever come across a word that seems to be carrying a lot more meaning than what appears on the surface?  Well, I do and a statement I heard yesterday about someone being (or feeling) vindicated led me along a bit of an indirect path to arrive at some new (for me) insight.  Because I’m always alert for new insight, I thought I would just document this process and because insight is more valuable when shared, I am making it available to the rest of the world here.

Vindicate seems like a positive, right?  “Finally, I was vindicated in my opposition to their policy.”

It seems that we all have a desire to be vindicated.  We say, “I won’t say ‘I told you so’…” and somehow feel that we haven’t said it or that we have softened the blow.  Even that statement contains the need for vindication.  It’s never enough to be right (either factually, ethically or morally).  No, we need that one additional step of maintaining our “rightness” and, even better, the satisfaction of hearing another person say that we were right.

There is another word, vindictive, that is almost always used in a negative sense.  We say that someone is vindictive and bitter for example.  This is not intended as a compliment.

As you might guess from looking at both words, they are related and come from the same Latin root.

Latin vindicare (claim, vindicate, punish)  [http://www.myetymology.com/english]

While we may have some misgivings about a definition (vindcare) that uses the concept we are trying to define, the association of claim and punish in one word is very interesting.  If you’re still reading it means you find it interesting, too.

We of western (European) descent and culture marvel at the need for vengeance that drives (to our eyes) much of the politics and culture of the Mid-East.  We hear that a killing (murder?) was justified by the perpetrator on the basis of avenging a wrong that was committed many generations previously.  In fact, Albanians everywhere seem intent on avenging such a wrong which they see as having been committed on each of them as members of a specific sub-culture by another sub-culture.

The Basques in Spain and even, to a degree, the Quebecoise of Canada are given to a similar cultural perception.  In the U.S. there is a movement by the descendant of Africans brought to this country as slaves to demand vindication in the form of reparations from the descendants of those who did the enslaving.  More recently, the US cried out with a single voice for revenge following the World Trade Center attack.  The few voices for restraint were completely ignored because  they came from outside the cultural norm.  I note that in each of these cases the original transgression has been attributed to “them.”  “They” did this.  They is a nation or an organization even though the perpetrators were individuals.

The point is that humans seem to feel comfortable with an expectation of (claim for) punishment for a wrong.  Those who “are vindicated” are no less guilty than those who “are vindictive.”  The beneficiaries of vengeance (morally appropriate punishment) bathe in the same blood as the vindicators.

For those interested in the wisdom of the Book, Micah Chapter 6 verse 8 tells us

And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God

Over and over we are told that mercy trumps justice and, in fact, this is one of the central tenets of Christianity.  It is certainly a tenet of Buddhism and, for all I know, of Islam. 

Vindicate and Vindictive tell us much about the human condition and the very long path we must negotiate to achieve our potential.

Words, Meaning and Communication

As I was preparing a speech this week I experienced a flash of revelation--an epiphany.  The context goes back deep into my youth.  I have been convinved for much of my life that a mastery of words, grammar, sentence structure and composition combined with an artful delivery would ensure communication.  I held on to this belief in the face of all sorts of evidence to the contrary.

When I failed to accomplish the communication I was trying for, I first held the receiver accountable; after all, I had taken far greater care than most in crafting my message.  Then (with more maturity) I assumed increasing levels of accountability.  I tried expressing my thought in multiple ways hoping to strike the target with one of them.  I tried using metaphor and stories.  As I became more experienced with the ways of people and life in general, I used stories and experiences from different cultural perspectives.  I tried to hit the point where humanity lived--the common denominator of experience as a human being without regard to culture, education or even intelligence.

Before I continue, let me say that I can successfully communicate even very abstract concepts when I am face to face with the receiver.  Careful observation of a person's eyes, expressions, body language and what they say or the questions the ask--all of these help me to communicate even within a group.  The written word is something else again.

My epiphany was this: words have little value in themselves.  Even when we link them together with art and experience the best that we should hope for is to separate the little bit of meaning that we're trying to communicate from all of the other meaing that's out there.  We should think of language as fencing materials--posts, boards, nails, wire, staples, etc.  Our goal (as a sender) should be to place the posts strategically to close off meanings that we do not intend.  Then we should use the rest of our materials to hold and direct the receiver's thoughts within the meaning we intend.  I will say that some words are more suitable fenceposts than others and, like any fence, the materials must suit the purpose.

As the receiver, we must cease getting caught up in the construction of the fence and instead give our full attention to what's inside the fence.  Inside the fence is where the real meaning lies.  We must read between and beneath the language with the idea that there is something there that we will be better for having understood.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the two political conventions we have just witnessed.  Clearly Republicans and Democrats have different ideas about communication.  The fences they build are very different in nature.  Of course the nature of national politics yields big ideas and the meaning that must be conveyed seems like the pioneers' perception of the Platte River--a mile wide and an inch deep.  Those who are involved in the parties and the political processes can perceive much more depth than the casual listener.  This is the weakness of the process, that understanding the communcations requires insider knowledge that most of us don't possess.

For this reason, the fences being built by the language of the speeches, advertisements, platfom documents... don't always seem well-constructed.  They may not appear to atually enclose anything and we begin to hear the words in contexts of our own making.  We become alarmed when we hear something we recognize as untruthful ("inaccurate" is the euphemism most often applied) and we focus on that single fence post to the exclusion of not only the rest of the fence but whatever the fence was enclosing.  My advice: hear the words but rely on observations of behavior to provide the meaning. 

No politician will knowingly fence himself in and this is wise.  National and international policy are a seething cauldron of competing forces and it's dangerous to try to reach in to isolate one ingredient.  It isn't reasonable to expect a government leader (or would-be leader) to limit his or her options for dealing with an issue that, when it arises, will be absolutely unlike anything that we have ever dealt with before.

When we do (unreasonably) demand that the candidate tie himself firmly to a future course of action it can never end well either for us or for the candidate/politician.  BUT, we can look carefully, not only at individual past behaviors, but past group behaviors to get some idea what to look forward to. 

Taxes Simplified

Talk of a federal sales tax recently had me thinking.  As a replacement for the income tax, this has some traction.  To make it work, there are just a couple of things that will need to be resolved.

1. We would need a law effective in every state to the effect that a price attached to an item is inclusive of all taxes.  A big tax bite added at the register just won't be acceptable but if the taxes are part of the price sticker, then they will quickly blend into the background.  A breakdown of the price could be printed on the sales receipt.
2. All of the attorneys and accountants who currently earn their living by guiding you and me through the maze of tax law would have to be re-tasked.  This is almost certainly the bigger problem and one that has prevented US tax law from being reformed since the income tax became law in 1861 via the 16th Ammendment.  Note that this was a Republican government (under Abraham Lincoln) actually trying to pay for the war they were getting into.

If the millions (OK thousands--all right the meager few) readers of this blog will begin to come up with ways of redeploying the army of lawyers and accountants, we could really simplify our lives.  Think of it--no more April 15th tax filing.  In fact no more tax filing at all.  If I should only live so long!.

What Should I Do?

A few weeks ago I was driving on a two-lane state highway and listening to the radio.  I was listening to a "news" station and found my blood pressure rising as I listened to report after report concerning the political campaigns.  If you've read previous posts here, you might empathize a bit. 

Each report delivered essentially verbatim the latest sound bite from one of the candidates.  There was no real attempt at critical analysis (who has time for that) and "big lies" were coming one after the other.  Fortunately for me, I recognized my condition (rising blood pressure) and took action in the only two ways that ever work.  One: a series of deep, cleansing breaths and two: prayer.

Wherever you may find yourself on the God spectrum, you'll find that these two approaches can work wonders.  There is a wisdom out there that will take every trouble that you hand to it and give back something that is for you.

I asked, "What should I do in the face of such lies, fear and anger?"  An old testament injunction came to mind immediately.  "...what does the Lord require of you?  To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." Micah 6:8

"Yeah!" I thought, "that's what they should be doing!"  The answer to my prayer wasn't complete yet, though.  The rest of the story came then, "No, you."  I was busted (again). 

When we attempt to control the lives of others by limiting what they may (legally) do or think or discuss or write, we fail in our obedience to this simple advice.  We fail in mercy or justice or humility or all three at once.  I can do it.  You can do it.

The Big Lies do not come from God (in spite of what their speakers may try to imply) and, in fact, do not come out of any kind of relationship with God by whatever name.  Government that can't effect mercy or justice or humility is no government at all.

"Job Creators"

If I hear one more Republican official tell me that a tax on citizens with incomes over $1 million is a disincentive for the "job creators" in our society...  If you happen to be in the car next to me at the traffic light you may be entertained by a man beating up his car.  You may even be able to hear me (though it is winter and the windows are up) as I scream my frustration.

The people that our GOP friends are talking about are the same people who have systematically exported jobs for the past 20 years.  Oh, maybe the jobs they're talking about are the au pair, housekeeper, driver, personal assistant, trainer, lawn care positions they've advertised recently.  Probably not though because those are usually filled through the undocumented pipeline.

What really drives me crazy is that apparently We, the People, are simple-minded enough to buy this. There is no other way that they could have received enough votes.

Friends, when someone is telling you that you should be afraid of "illegals" taking your job and that the investment bankers, financiers and CEOs of multinational corporations have your back, you should turn and run.  Give your support and your vote to the other guy.

Now

We don't value now. We talk about it all the time. We use it for emphasis. We mostly use it to separate the past from the future.

Often when we talk about now we have only the fuzziest of notions, the flimsiest of definitions in mind. "Now is the time for men and women of conscience..." The concept of now in this instance could mean anything from a generation to a session of Congress to a particular crisis. Sometimes we use now to mean very soon or as soon as humanly possible (the future) as in, "I need it now!" Occasionally we use it to bound some time in the past as in, "Now in those days..."

Now has power that, for most people, is unrealized because it is unrecognized. For our purposes now is the moment of decision. If we are able to grasp that moment, that now, and use it, we can change our own life and the lives of those around us. We can use now to create a new future.

In the gap between stimulus and response there is a piece of eternity--now--in which we can decide what the future will look like and decide on the response that will launch that future. Please be aware of now and use it as it is intended to be used.

When we are present in our life we are conscious of each now and we use them to create a future that matches our vision. What is your vision, your ideal? What will you use to direct the decisions you make in each of your nows?

Whose Candidate?

The Ames Straw Poll, conducted last week produced a surprising result for many (including me). Since I lived in Minnesota for nearly twenty years, I am familiar with two of the candidates. I have never voted for either of them and have often wondered who did and what their motivations were.

As it happened, one of the candidates (Gov. Tim Pawlenty) made such a poor showing that he withdrew his candidacy immediately after the count was announced. The other, Rep. Michele Bachmann, emerged with the most votes and was immediately included (by various of the talking heads--mostly from FOX) in the "top tier" of candidates.

Yesterday, it was reported that the long lines waiting to get into the Bachmann tent prior to the vote were caused in part by the fact that her campaign had purchased 6000 ballots @ $30 ea and was handing them out.

From this several lessons can be learned:
1. The Ames Straw Poll is, in fact, a fundraiser.
2. The results should be treated much the same as the "best homeroom" contest at the local school. The only part the Iowa GOP missed was the opportunity to cast negative votes. They'll probably include that option next time.
3. I'm sure Tim Pawlenty is kicking himself for allowing Bachmann to jump past him in this way.
4. Someone on the Bachmann campaign is capable of thinking outside the box.
5. Politicians and their campaign staffs think in terms of elections and votes and the reporters seem to follow suit. Bachmann taught everyone a lesson--that votes can be bought. I wonder if it will work again?
6. Fund raisers, straw polls and popularity contests aren't the same as elections (are they?)

She better be able to ride this a long way because she won't have this opportunity again. At the very least other candidates will use the same tactics and cancel each other out. I also have to wonder about the economic smarts of burning your capital to create funds for replacing your capital. There is some kind of natural law that governs these situations. It's the same as cranking a generator to power a light so that you can see your surroundings. Of course you can't leave the generator or the light goes out. At least while the light was on everyone was able to see Rep Bachmann. I hope they got a good look.

Mandatory Health Insurance

The State of Ohio has just certified a petition to put a constitutional amendment on the November ballot in Ohio. The amendment would attempt to make Ohio residents exempt from the requirement to have health insurance coverage. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which was signed into law last year has language in it that requires those who are not exempted to have healthcare insurance coverage in effect.

Conservatives have become incensed for reasons that seem impossible to explain. This has become another of those issues where no compromise is possible and in fact civil (meaning with our indoor voices) discussion is impossible. Both sides quickly get to name calling and motive slander. I have heard no one raise the central issue--the elephant in the room so to speak.

There is an expectation in this country that when we are sick or injured we are entitled to medical care. I personally think that the law should have mandated an opt-out for health care rather than healthcare. That is, no one should be forced to buy insurance but the choice would be one of responsibility. I understand that I and not the government (whether Federal, State or Local) am responsible for paying for health (medical) care that may be needed by me or my family.

That is the choice that must be made. The alternative is to agree that we (definition TBD) are entitled to medical care because we are human beings living in the wealthiest nation on the planet. I would have no personal difficulty with that national choice either but the argument would be completely different then.

I've been told that ethics is the study of resource allocation within moral boundaries. The ethical decision in the one case is whether or not to provide medical care to someone who has made a conscious decision not to carry insurance and who will pay for that care. In the other case the ethical choice is about how we as a nation will pay for that care. I think this constitutional amendment is ridiculous because it sweeps the real issues under the rug.