What Matters?

I suppose this will not make me popular but I ambivalent about the Black Lives Matter group. I am not ambivalent about prejudice and inequitable treatment of minorities. That is a sad situation that we have failed to address. However, when Dr. King gave his speech, he hit every right note. Referring to the problems, he clearly and unambiguously cast a bright light on the plight and challenges of black people. However, if you read carefully, in every remedy or hope for the future his words were inclusive. What I know of Martin Luther King suggests these words were not casually assembled. He was by all accounts a deliberative man with a long-considered message. So, when speaking about the "Dream" for which all of us should strive, it was always "we" and "us". He clearly did not feel this inclusive language diluted the horrors of the oppressed nor the hopes for the future, for the Dream.

We are on the horns of a dilemma in this country. It is beyond contention that we have some real disparity in the way minorities are treated by various arms of government including the police force. If that were not sufficient, we are painting ourselves into a corner trying to have a conversation about the issues. There are some obvious culprits. First is the lack of trust/rapport between the groups. This has us all circling about warily and shouting at each other suspiciously or finger pointing. How will we get to a point where we can put something on the table for discussion when mistrust and suspicion color everything? At the moment there seems to be no meat on the table, only bones of contention.

More on Beliefs

It is a simple concept and so many seem to unable to wrap their minds around it. Human beings deserve a certain basic level of dignity and respect. Beliefs have no feelings and, in the public marketplace of ideas, they are not automatically entitled to respect. Ideas/beliefs may accrue respect as evidence mounts showing them to be good ideas. However, at all times, ideas and beliefs are, and rightly should be, subject to criticism and questioning. I would argue it is more than a point, it is the point.

It is not even that subtle of an argument. In most situations, when encountering a human being, assume they are deserving of basic kindness. If their are ideas are hateful or stupid, feel free to ignore those ideas or challenge them as conditions permit. While challenging ideas, make every reasonable effort to maintain the previously mentioned human dignity. If your efforts fall upon deaf ears remove yourself from that person's company. This should take care of 99.9% of the situations one usually encounters.

Wash, Rinse, repeat.

Check this article:
Sour puss curmudgeon wants to say something relevant...

My response:
Frankly my take on Mr. Giuliani is, he and his antiquated arguments are all but irrelevant at this point. That said, some of his points though crude or insensitive are not entirely without merit. His problem is, largely because he's an ideologue, he comes from an angry moralist position and he does not advance thoughtful solutions. He wants to make it very simple so we can all put it in a box and go on our way.

Here is another consideration that may be more informative. What if he and his ideas are not the biggest problem?

I largely align with Progressives. However, the sad truth is, many of the very people I consider to be "on my team" are engaged in the same kind of bumperstickerization of the issues. (Yup, I made up that word and I really like it.) They are, to a sobering degree, like Giuliani and his ilk. I know what you are thinking. He cant mean that. Oh, but I do, I really do. Far too many Progressives want to make it all so simple. On one hand we rightly want to deconstruct the rhetoric of the Conservatives but do not especially want to question the prepackaged answers of other liberals. Because when one is on the side of tolerance and puppies and rainbows, everything that comes out of ones mouth must smell like roses. Well, news flash. Being liberal does not exempt us from thinking and questioning. It is way too simple to say the other guys are wrong. Progressives seem to have the idea that the problem with Conservatives is: they are hateful, they are racist, they are intolerant, they are wrong-headed. While it is true that some of these things apply to some conservatives, they are not the really bad bits. Huh? Sure those are not endearing positions. However, even the fraction of Conservatives who are racist, hateful, intolerant, or wrong-headed can change. They can become better versions of themselves.

It turns out, the worst thing about the Conservative arguments is exactly the same as the worst thing about the Progressive arguments. And what is that, pray tell? The idea that the arguments should not be questioned. Go ahead, dwell on that a moment. It's worth your time. The pathway that leads people (on either side) to become better versions of themselves always starts with questioning. And what does it end with? If you do it right, it does not end. Questions lead to answers which, in turn, lead to more questions and so on. Wash, rinse, repeat. Questions, answers, more questions.

So, yes. People like Mr. Giuliani do not necessarily bring out our best nature but it does not mean they are automatically wrong about everything. And, it is our job to put forth our best nature. This would include, but not be limited to, keeping an open mind when listening to those with whom we disagree and continuing to question. Everything. Question everything. Really, everything.

Enough is enough.

No more hand-wringing, prayers, platitudes without action.

A brief history lesson. The assault weapons ban had been signed into law in 1994. Former Presidents Ford, Carter, and Reagan had written personal letters to the U.S. House of Representatives (where it faced the stiffest resistance) urging lawmakers to pass the ban. It had been challenged in court on constitutional grounds and every challenge failed. The problem was, the ban had been weakened during negotiations and contained a sunset provision causing the ban to expire after ten years. When bill expired many tried to reinstate the ban but those efforts were defeated. I suggest the lawmakers who defeated the bill to reinstate the assault weapons ban deserve to hear from their constituents specifically and American citizens in general. I am given to understand these folks love to hear from Americans in regard to their job performance. 

It might pay to keep in mind, in poll after poll, we are in the majority. Those who want thoughtful gun control are in the majority.


Below is a list of representatives who voted against the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban: 

Member

Party

State

Lamar Alexander

R

TN

Kelly Ayotte

R

NH

John Barrasso

R

WY

Max Baucus

D

MT

Mark Begich

D

AK

Michael Bennet

D

CO

Roy Blunt

R

MO

John Boozman

R

AR

Richard M. Burr

R

NC

Saxby Chambliss

R

GA

Daniel Coats

R

IN

Tom Coburn

R

OK

Thad Cochran

R

MS

Susan Collins

R

ME

Bob Corker

R

TN

John Cornyn

R

TX

Michael D. Crapo

R

ID

Ted Cruz

R

TX

Joe Donnelly

D

IN

Michael B. Enzi

R

WY

Deb Fischer

R

NE

Jeff Flake

R

AZ

Lindsey Graham

R

SC

Charles E. Grassley

R

IA

Kay Hagan

D

NC

Orrin G. Hatch

R

UT

Martin Heinrich

D

NM

Heidi Heitkamp

D

ND

Dean Heller

R

NV

John Hoeven

R

ND

James M. Inhofe

R

OK

Johnny Isakson

R

GA

Mike Johanns

R

NE

Tim Johnson

D

SD

Ron Johnson

R

WI

Angus King

I

ME

Mary L. Landrieu

D

LA

Mike Lee

R

UT

Joe Manchin III

D

WV

John McCain

R

AZ

Mitch McConnell

R

KY

Jerry Moran

R

KS

Lisa Murkowski

R

AK

Rand Paul

R

KY

Rob Portman

R

OH

Mark Pryor

D

AR

Jim Risch

R

ID

Pat Roberts

R

KS

Marco Rubio

R

FL

Tim Scott

R

SC

Jeff Sessions

R

AL

Richard C. Shelby

R

AL

Jon Tester

D

MT

John Thune

R

SD

Patrick J. Toomey

R

PA

Mark Udall

D

CO

Tom Udall

D

NM

David Vitter

R

LA

Mark Warner

D

VA

Roger Wicker

R

MS

Prejudice, Race, and Science

I thought if might be helpful to provide a link for those who have not had occasion to read as much about the so-called "race" issue (or as I prefer, the prejudice issue). According to the scholar Duana Fullwilley and most others in the field of genetics research, "There is no genetic basis for race.”

To put it another way, the ideas we hold about race are human inventions. We made this up to explain things as best we could with scant knowledge. This can be a bit tricky to wrap ones head around as most of us have grown up in a society that has programmed us to believe the exact opposite.

To be clear, nobody in their right mind is denying the existence of prejudice or bad behavior based on the color of a person's skin. Also, no scientist denies cultural differences. What the scientists are telling us is, there are groups of people whose ancestors came primarily from certain areas but this does not make them a distinct group on a genetic level. Our differences merely reflect the fact that people adapted to places with differing conditions, such as levels of solar radiation. Obviously the people whose ancestors came from very sunny places near the equator needed more melanin to protect their skin from an over abundance of sunlight. Also, people in the far north would begin to lack vitamin D if they failed to adapt to the lower light conditions in their region.

For those who are new to this line of thinking, all this may sound like a mere technicality. Nothing could be further from the truth. The evidence now clearly shows there is no foundation to  automatically attribute either positive or negative social traits to groups of people (we once called races of people). Therefore differences in skin color, hair texture, etc. have no deeper meaning. The old expression people's color is only skin deep, turns out to be exactly right.

The implications of this information are huge and will not be absorbed by the general public for some time. However, I feel it is incumbent upon those who do understand, to plant the seeds of this knowledge in a compassionate way. One thing that will help move the change forward is to leave the old language behind. In short, one can’t easily “play the race card” (for good or ill) when people understand there is no race card. I understand this will not be easy. Everywhere we look the old ideas and the old language persist. Often even educated people who really should know better are mired in old habits. My assertion is, we should derive hope from the fact that in my lifetime social convention has changed dramatically. In my youth it was common for many Americans to  openly use slurs against various groups with impunity. We have not made those words disappear but now there is often a social cost to such language. Also, whether it was a result of, or coincidental with, the advancement of civil rights may be debatable but the change is undeniable. 

For myself, I will talk about the struggle. I will talk about tolerance. I will talk about justice. But when I do, I will use terms like prejudice and tolerance, equality and inequality. For me it is not merely semantics. It is not about being a liberal or progressive. These terms are based upon a clearer view of the world made possible by the scholarship of our best and brightest. Furthermore, using these terms will make it more difficult to think of the world in terms of us and them. In the end, there is only us.  The evidence points clearly in one direction. There is only the human race and its members. Each one of those humans is capable of being more or less tolerant, more or less kind, more or less inclusive.

Supreme Court Nomination and Hearings

My brain has been reeling at the profound arrogance and willful truculence of the Republican U.S. Senators in their obstruction of the Supreme Court Nomination and Confirmation process.

I recently received an email from AFSCME (public employees trade union). They are calling for demonstrations at the offices of our local obstructionist Senator Toomey. While I could not agree more with the intent, I was disappointed in the same old paradigm. We strongly disagree with the actions of our representatives and then we go chanting in the street. Sure, these demonstrations have occasionally had some positive effect throughout history. More often, it seems to me that they were largely a feel good exercise for the protestors. While any protest/demonstration will be noticed by a Senator (or the staff at the local office), protests are ephemeral. They persist for a few hours and fade into memory- often taking any uncomfortable feeling with them.

On the other hand, if a Senator’s office had a line of people outside the door each and every morning waiting patiently to address the staff members with their concerns, this would be a persistent “challenge”. What if, every local office of every obstructionist Senator had a line of people from the time they opened until the time they closed, each one calmly determined to state their desire for that Senator to do his or her job?

Given that the nomination of a U.S. Supreme Court justice is one of the most important and significant events in our Democratic Republic, I suggest easily rivaling the election of a President, could something like this be organized? Should it be? Is there a better idea?

Parental Controls Mac

Parental Controls

Disclaimer. This is advice that is intended to be helpful. You may find it helpful. If not, remember it was free. Kudos are solicited. Complaints are not.

The first thing to note is- there is no perfect system. We are basically talking about security here and I can assure you that the smartest people at the highest levels have not achieved perfect security. Make no mistake, in the high level security circles as well as personal information security, it is a classic example of an arms race. At the top level, whatever the security people do to batten down the hatches, the bad guys are testing that system and looking for ways around it. Now, I am a parent and a grandparent and I love them all. However, if you imagine that children/teenagers are not testing the systems and trying to find ways around them, you are probably not a parent. If you doubt my assertion, I invite you to open Youtube and perform a search for how to bypass parental controls. I guarantee you will be presented with any number of instructive video choices. Kids make these for other kids. Welcome to a future where, unless you were a computer science major, you very likely know less than your children.

This leads my to my first security measure. It has two parts. One, talk frankly with your child about online dangers and things you do and do not approve of them viewing. Part two, as the parent of a minor child and  the provider of things like computers, cell phones etc., parents have a right to access those devices and view what the child has been doing. Children need to understand that the parent is responsible for their behavior and safety and they will enjoy only a limited privacy. Children should provide passwords for all their devices, including smart phones and tablets, to parents. Each parent will approach things as they see fit. I told mine that I had no interest in reading every tweet, text, etc. but I would perform a general scan from time to time. Meaning I would scroll through and look for key words, inappropriate images etc. Often the understanding that a parent can at any time access the device is sufficient.

This is one of the most important pieces of the puzzle. The parent should have the only administrator account on the computer. The child should have a restricted account. Now, here is the key. When the parent is not using the computer he/she needs to log out of their administrator account and the password for that account should never be known to the child!!!! Most of us simply walk away when we are done. Get in the habit of logging off. At minimum, you can set your computer to sleep after a couple of minutes and require your password to wake up. If a child gains access to an administrator account, the child can easily bypass all your efforts. Whatever you think the child knows about computers, you are probably wrong. It is very likely that the child not only knows more than you, but knows more than you think he/she knows!

Regarding a Mac desktop or laptop to which your child has access. First look at this link: https://support.apple.com/kb/PH18571?locale=en_US

This will provide the basics. There are software products you can buy for Mac and PC. NetNanny seems to hold the lead as far as price and features.

If a parent has serious concerns that the child may be doing something dangerous or illegal, you may consider a keystroke logger program. I won’t get into the whole thing here. Basically it allows the administrator to know what someone has been up to even if they erase files. My suggestion is, this is a last resort.

If you have further concerns or need Mac help, I can be reached at: johnforest@icloud.com