Notes of Concern…
…Jackson Blair
LIARS
When I was in grade school I heard the story we probably all have heard, the one about George Washington and his cherry tree.
The fact that I heard this story from my first grade teacher makes it all the more disappointing. She recounted to the impressionable children in her care that George’s father had a wonderful and cherished cherry tree. One day, ax in hand, young George decided to cut that cherry tree down.
When his father happened upon him and asked, rhetorically, “who cut down the cherry tree?” young George, displaying what was clearly early evidence of a bright political future, is reported to have responded, “I cannot tell a lie. I cut down the cherry tree.”
The moral of this story was one should never tell a lie. If one wants to be President one should not lie.
I guess since George Washington’s picture, all solemn and formal, hung in every grade school classroom, it was a “given” that the elementary school teachers would talk about him. So all the young minds were told that George did not lie.
It was a “short trip” to get us to realize that George did not lie, he became President, his picture was looking down at us every day, therefore we should not lie, we might then get to be President, and one day it might be our picture up there looking down on everyone.
Keep in mind that we did not have Harry Potter. We didn’t even have the really exciting Super Heroes available to kids today. We had George Washington. This was a pretty big deal.
My mother was one of many children in her family. Her brothers and sisters loved to tease her about the day she was alone in the parlor of their home in the country. She was sitting on the floor writing with an ink pen drawing pictures. Beside her on the carpet was a large wet puddle of ink.
When her mother entered the room and looked horrified at the ink that had been spilled on the “good rug” my mother did not give her mother a chance to react. My mother, looking at her mother, is reported to have asked: “who spilled the ink?”
In that one moment my mother set herself apart from George Washington. She was not destined to become President. Her picture is not hanging in any school classrooms in the United States.
That said, my mother did exhibit at that young age every bit as much potential to be a politician. She dissembled. She tried to confuse the situation. She made an attempt to insert into the discussion the possibility that someone else had committed the crime for which she was about to be accused. She had a story and she was sticking to it.
After a lifetime of watching Presidents, Senators, Congressmen and a plethora of other public servants I have a few “eternal verities” that I cling to. May I share a few of them with you?
1. Never assume any President is telling you the whole truth.
2. Never believe anything you hear from the CIA.
3. Never believe anything you hear from the Defense Department.
4. When dealing with government at any level always assume there is more to the story than you are hearing and probably more than you will ever know.
I am willing to believe that when we are lied to by elected or appointed officials many of them believe it is in our best interests.
At the same time I am certain whatever the lie is they are telling is definitely in their best interest.
Are their exceptions to the Blair Rule?
Probably, but the exceptions are too few to be statistically important.
Do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
If so, you are probably not now, and will not in the future, be working for the government.
For further information: jacksonblair@gmail.com
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Monday, July 25, 2011
GUILTY
Notes of Concern…
…Jackson Blair
GUILTY
I am thinking today of so many “oaters” (westerns made on the cheap for movie theaters) that I went to see as a child. Often there was some innocent hero in jail and an angry mob outside wanting to lynch him. Some brave sheriff would stand up to them and often the fellow with the rope would get shot.
Our behavior as a nation with reference to the O.J. Simpson verdict and now the Casey Anthony verdict is a little bit like the old movies.
In the two cases I mention the miracle of television permits us to watch the trial and draw conclusions about guilt or innocence. And we have Nancy Grace and other commentators to help us reach our conclusions. We become “experts” as we watch the accused, the judge and the spectators. We have a “gut” feel about the guilt of the accused.
But twelve of our fellow citizens have a more important and far-reaching job. They have to hear all the testimony, view all the evidence, listen to all the arguments and then a judge tells them what they can legally consider when they deliberate. They do not just get to turn the TV on when they have a few free minutes nor do they get to turn it off when they get bored.
Lots of innocent folk probably got strung up in those “oater movies” and in some cases a hero got there in time to save them. That isn’t real life today. We have laws. We place a burden of proof on the prosecutor. We promise the accused that we will consider them innocent until that burden of proof can convince twelve of their “peers” that guilty is indeed the right verdict.
If the prosecution fails to meet the burden then the accused is adjudged to be innocent and freed to continue life.
When someone who seems to be guilty is found to be “not guilty” because the burden of proof has not been met it means our system has worked. What it does not mean is that the accused is actually, truly or provably innocent. You see, our system does not require that the accused meet a burden of “innocent.” The accused doesn’t have to prove anything. The accused is a defendant, simply defending against what the prosecution might say.
Our system is heavily skewed toward the accused. It is intentionally made harder on the state. The premise is that occasionally a guilty person might be freed is more reasonable in our thinking than that a not guilty person might be put to death.
If you believe in public opinion polls then the people believed that O.J. Simpson was guilty of two heinous, brutal and sickening murders. In the courtroom that fact was not proven beyond a shadow of doubt to the twelve jurors.
In the case of Casey Anthony the people, according to public opinion polls, believe she killed her young daughter, or participated in some way in the death of her daughter, in a heinous, brutal and sickening way. Again, in the courtroom the prosecution failed to meet the burden set by our laws and the twelve jurors set Ms. Anthony free.
But our written laws, with all the nooks and crannies, ins and outs, and burdens placed there provide instruction to judges and juries, to the official court of law.
There are no such restraints placed on the “court of public opinion.” Mr. Simpson and Ms. Anthony were set free through our system of juris prudence and released by the court.
But in the court of public opinion they were judged to be guilty and they are spending, and will continue to spend the rest of their natural lives, every waking moment, walking among people who see them as murderers.
Proceedings in the Court of Public Opinion
Judge: will the Clerk please read the verdict.
Clerk: we the people find the defendant guilty on all counts.
Judge: having been found guilty on all counts I sentence the
defendant to a life of imprisonment amongst the people.
So say we all ?
…Jackson Blair
GUILTY
I am thinking today of so many “oaters” (westerns made on the cheap for movie theaters) that I went to see as a child. Often there was some innocent hero in jail and an angry mob outside wanting to lynch him. Some brave sheriff would stand up to them and often the fellow with the rope would get shot.
Our behavior as a nation with reference to the O.J. Simpson verdict and now the Casey Anthony verdict is a little bit like the old movies.
In the two cases I mention the miracle of television permits us to watch the trial and draw conclusions about guilt or innocence. And we have Nancy Grace and other commentators to help us reach our conclusions. We become “experts” as we watch the accused, the judge and the spectators. We have a “gut” feel about the guilt of the accused.
But twelve of our fellow citizens have a more important and far-reaching job. They have to hear all the testimony, view all the evidence, listen to all the arguments and then a judge tells them what they can legally consider when they deliberate. They do not just get to turn the TV on when they have a few free minutes nor do they get to turn it off when they get bored.
Lots of innocent folk probably got strung up in those “oater movies” and in some cases a hero got there in time to save them. That isn’t real life today. We have laws. We place a burden of proof on the prosecutor. We promise the accused that we will consider them innocent until that burden of proof can convince twelve of their “peers” that guilty is indeed the right verdict.
If the prosecution fails to meet the burden then the accused is adjudged to be innocent and freed to continue life.
When someone who seems to be guilty is found to be “not guilty” because the burden of proof has not been met it means our system has worked. What it does not mean is that the accused is actually, truly or provably innocent. You see, our system does not require that the accused meet a burden of “innocent.” The accused doesn’t have to prove anything. The accused is a defendant, simply defending against what the prosecution might say.
Our system is heavily skewed toward the accused. It is intentionally made harder on the state. The premise is that occasionally a guilty person might be freed is more reasonable in our thinking than that a not guilty person might be put to death.
If you believe in public opinion polls then the people believed that O.J. Simpson was guilty of two heinous, brutal and sickening murders. In the courtroom that fact was not proven beyond a shadow of doubt to the twelve jurors.
In the case of Casey Anthony the people, according to public opinion polls, believe she killed her young daughter, or participated in some way in the death of her daughter, in a heinous, brutal and sickening way. Again, in the courtroom the prosecution failed to meet the burden set by our laws and the twelve jurors set Ms. Anthony free.
But our written laws, with all the nooks and crannies, ins and outs, and burdens placed there provide instruction to judges and juries, to the official court of law.
There are no such restraints placed on the “court of public opinion.” Mr. Simpson and Ms. Anthony were set free through our system of juris prudence and released by the court.
But in the court of public opinion they were judged to be guilty and they are spending, and will continue to spend the rest of their natural lives, every waking moment, walking among people who see them as murderers.
Proceedings in the Court of Public Opinion
Judge: will the Clerk please read the verdict.
Clerk: we the people find the defendant guilty on all counts.
Judge: having been found guilty on all counts I sentence the
defendant to a life of imprisonment amongst the people.
So say we all ?
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Statesmen: NOT !
Notes of Concern…
…Jackson Blair
STATESMEN: NOT !
Watching the childish, maybe churlish, behavior of our leaders recently I wondered where all the “statesmen” of the past have gone. Here I refer to people with high ideals, pragmatic suggestions, a devotion to our democracy and our way of life, an appreciation for the needs of the people, and an understanding of the dangers in the world.
I am thinking of statesmen like Leverett Saltonstall, Henry Cabot Lodge, Hugh Scott, Henry “Scoop” Jackson, Robert Byrd, Gale McGee, Barbara Jordan, George Mitchell, Margaret Chase Smith, Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey… and so many others each of us could name.
There was a period not long ago when many men and women of great depth chose to leave their positions in Congress. These were people who were not old enough to consider retirement but had tired of the lack of civility in public life.
Then there were those statesmen who lost at the polls when running against unscrupulous opponents who unleashed smear campaigns and worked their dirty tricks against incumbents who would not stoop to that level.
In listening to Cokie Roberts eulogize Betty Ford, clearly they both remembered a time of cordiality between competing political philosophies. When Betty Ford asked that this time be remembered, I believe she did so because she, like so many of us, found nothing admirable in the current atmosphere in our capitol.
Ike and Lyndon Johnson and Sam Rayburn competed politically over legislation but still enjoyed one another’s company over bourbon and branch water or a game of cards. And they certainly admired each other and did not question that they all wanted what was best for America.
Richard Nixon saw talent in Democrat John Connally and appointed him to high office and considered him for the vice presidency. He was looking at talent and patriotism not political philosophy.
Eleanor Roosevelt befriended and helped people from all political persuasions and was admired by so many. She tried to see the best in people.
Robert Byrd, a powerful Democrat from West Virginia, never put his politics above his patriotism and zealously guarded the democracy while he lived.
Gerald Ford was possibly the only Republican that the Democrats would confirm as vice president when Spiro Agnew resigned. It was because of their great respect for him as a legislative leader.
Harry Truman never confused “the President” and “the presidency.” The day he left office he made certain there were the same number of pencils in his desk drawer as the day he had arrived.
As I write, the nation stands on the brink of an unprecedented financial crisis. Unprecedented in the fact that our ability to pay our debtors may be called into question. Not just our ability but our intentions.
The Founding Fathers would be mortified. Many of us are mortified.
And yet our problem is so very simple.
We spend more than we take in.
In order to continue to do this we either have to borrow more money (to continue spending) or raise taxes (to continue spending).
Why are our leaders so enamored of continuing to spend, to the point that they would like permission to borrow more or permission to raise taxes.
Why are they so disinterested in cutting spending, which is the course any family would have to take facing similar situations.
The answer, of course, is that the cutting they would choose to do would relate to programs for the poor and the elderly.
Would it be presumptuous of me to suggest they leave those programs alone and look at cutting foreign aid, cutting the outrageous pension and health plans they have voted themselves, cutting the cost of running unpopular and unnecessary wars and incursions into the lives of other nations, cutting back the salaries of people doing public work (and I am not referring here to just the support staffs), cutting back on the legions of people and materiel we send with the president and vice president and cabinet members every time they travel, how about vending machines instead of tony dining rooms in The White House, the Congress and in executive branch departments, perhaps fewer chauffeur driven limousines, fewer specially equipped and decorated private planes operating as luxury suites for people who travel on our behalf, maybe less parties and celebrations…in other words, lets start by tightening our belts everywhere that a normal household would in similar circumstances.
Who are these people who lead us? Have they lost all sense of propriety and proportion?
The Republic will survive if we never have another state dinner.
We will find friends in the world through our honesty and integrity and we need not try to buy friendships with foreign aid.
We can help other nations without traveling there, with a cast of thousands, to “talk”. Lets use teleconferencing more and international travel less.
I am aware that I run the risk of seeming unsophisticated and naive with these suggestions.
I welcome that risk if it encourages people to think of ways to save money without cutting social security on the elderly or not paying soldiers or asking the most needy to bear the burden of this debt.
We need some game changing moves in the District of Columbia and we are not going to get them without changing the cast of characters who have lost touch with their constituencies: the voters they pretend to represent.
…Jackson Blair
STATESMEN: NOT !
Watching the childish, maybe churlish, behavior of our leaders recently I wondered where all the “statesmen” of the past have gone. Here I refer to people with high ideals, pragmatic suggestions, a devotion to our democracy and our way of life, an appreciation for the needs of the people, and an understanding of the dangers in the world.
I am thinking of statesmen like Leverett Saltonstall, Henry Cabot Lodge, Hugh Scott, Henry “Scoop” Jackson, Robert Byrd, Gale McGee, Barbara Jordan, George Mitchell, Margaret Chase Smith, Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey… and so many others each of us could name.
There was a period not long ago when many men and women of great depth chose to leave their positions in Congress. These were people who were not old enough to consider retirement but had tired of the lack of civility in public life.
Then there were those statesmen who lost at the polls when running against unscrupulous opponents who unleashed smear campaigns and worked their dirty tricks against incumbents who would not stoop to that level.
In listening to Cokie Roberts eulogize Betty Ford, clearly they both remembered a time of cordiality between competing political philosophies. When Betty Ford asked that this time be remembered, I believe she did so because she, like so many of us, found nothing admirable in the current atmosphere in our capitol.
Ike and Lyndon Johnson and Sam Rayburn competed politically over legislation but still enjoyed one another’s company over bourbon and branch water or a game of cards. And they certainly admired each other and did not question that they all wanted what was best for America.
Richard Nixon saw talent in Democrat John Connally and appointed him to high office and considered him for the vice presidency. He was looking at talent and patriotism not political philosophy.
Eleanor Roosevelt befriended and helped people from all political persuasions and was admired by so many. She tried to see the best in people.
Robert Byrd, a powerful Democrat from West Virginia, never put his politics above his patriotism and zealously guarded the democracy while he lived.
Gerald Ford was possibly the only Republican that the Democrats would confirm as vice president when Spiro Agnew resigned. It was because of their great respect for him as a legislative leader.
Harry Truman never confused “the President” and “the presidency.” The day he left office he made certain there were the same number of pencils in his desk drawer as the day he had arrived.
As I write, the nation stands on the brink of an unprecedented financial crisis. Unprecedented in the fact that our ability to pay our debtors may be called into question. Not just our ability but our intentions.
The Founding Fathers would be mortified. Many of us are mortified.
And yet our problem is so very simple.
We spend more than we take in.
In order to continue to do this we either have to borrow more money (to continue spending) or raise taxes (to continue spending).
Why are our leaders so enamored of continuing to spend, to the point that they would like permission to borrow more or permission to raise taxes.
Why are they so disinterested in cutting spending, which is the course any family would have to take facing similar situations.
The answer, of course, is that the cutting they would choose to do would relate to programs for the poor and the elderly.
Would it be presumptuous of me to suggest they leave those programs alone and look at cutting foreign aid, cutting the outrageous pension and health plans they have voted themselves, cutting the cost of running unpopular and unnecessary wars and incursions into the lives of other nations, cutting back the salaries of people doing public work (and I am not referring here to just the support staffs), cutting back on the legions of people and materiel we send with the president and vice president and cabinet members every time they travel, how about vending machines instead of tony dining rooms in The White House, the Congress and in executive branch departments, perhaps fewer chauffeur driven limousines, fewer specially equipped and decorated private planes operating as luxury suites for people who travel on our behalf, maybe less parties and celebrations…in other words, lets start by tightening our belts everywhere that a normal household would in similar circumstances.
Who are these people who lead us? Have they lost all sense of propriety and proportion?
The Republic will survive if we never have another state dinner.
We will find friends in the world through our honesty and integrity and we need not try to buy friendships with foreign aid.
We can help other nations without traveling there, with a cast of thousands, to “talk”. Lets use teleconferencing more and international travel less.
I am aware that I run the risk of seeming unsophisticated and naive with these suggestions.
I welcome that risk if it encourages people to think of ways to save money without cutting social security on the elderly or not paying soldiers or asking the most needy to bear the burden of this debt.
We need some game changing moves in the District of Columbia and we are not going to get them without changing the cast of characters who have lost touch with their constituencies: the voters they pretend to represent.
Saturday, July 9, 2011
BETTY FORD
Notes of Concern…
…Jackson Blair
BETTY FORD
A great deal has been written about First Lady Betty Ford since her passing at age 93. She was one of the bravest and most forthright women to serve as First Lady of the United States.
In this column I want to share with you a way Betty Ford touched my life, a person unknown to her and a person who never met her. The story, I think, not only reflects on the many ways she was able to use her popularity and her position to do good, but how she often did so in a quiet and unheralded way.
I was the dinner partner one evening of Marvella Bayh. Marvella was not only the wife of Indiana United States Senator Birch Bayh and the mother of former Governor and United States Senator Evan Bayh, but she was a spokesman for the American Cancer Society.
Mrs. Bayh had breast cancer and as part of her dealing with her disease she had learned as much as she could about the disease and she helped the American Cancer association raise money to continue research into a cure.
During our dinner conversation we discussed breast cancer and I mentioned to her I had a wonderful aunt back in Pennsylvania who had been diagnosed and was currently in the hospital after a mastectomy. She asked me a great many questions I could not answer. She wanted to know how many “nodes” were involved, when the cancer was detected, what specific treatments had been recommended. I realized she wanted to use her knowledge to determine how serious my aunt’s case might be.
We went on to other discussions and enjoyed a wonderful evening. The occasion was the birthday party of a mutual friend and it was held in Tuxedo Park, NY. I lived in Southport, CT and Mrs. Bayh in Washington, DC and Indiana. I did not expect to see her again or hear from her.
The following week I had a call from my family in Pennsylvania. My hospitalized aunt had received a telephone call from Marvella Bayh. She had talked with her for some time, offering encouragement and suggestions. My aunt, who happened to be married to a local Democrat office holder, certainly had heard of the Bayhs (Senator Bayh had been a candidate for president)and was flabbergasted to receive the call.
My wife and I were so pleased Marvella took the time to reach out and encourage my aunt at such a difficult time.
A few days later, we received another call from family. My hospitalized aunt had received a call from the First Lady of the United States, Betty Ford, another breast cancer victim and friend of Marvella Bayh.
One can only imagine the encouragement such a call would provide. My aunt certainly came to understand that this horrible disease knew no rank in life, attacked women at all levels, and that women who experienced the disease belonged to an unofficial club and in an unofficial way banded together to fight back.
My aunt and Mrs. Ford went on to live long and happy lives. Mrs. Bayh’s breast cancer claimed her life a few short years later.
There are two messages for my readers in this column.
Cancer insinuates itself into the lives of people famous and common, those with access to the most expensive treatment available and those who are left to rely on small hospitals in small towns.
The second message is that the First Lady of the United States, the fantastic Betty Ford, moved quietly throughout America touching the lives of people at all levels of society.
I cannot imagine how many people in small towns and cities in America heard from Betty Ford with a message of encouragement and hope. But I would bet there were many.
While America was very fortunate to have Gerry Ford in our time of crisis during the Watergate scandal, we were equally lucky that he brought with him Betty Bloomer Ford when he moved into The White House.
…Jackson Blair
BETTY FORD
A great deal has been written about First Lady Betty Ford since her passing at age 93. She was one of the bravest and most forthright women to serve as First Lady of the United States.
In this column I want to share with you a way Betty Ford touched my life, a person unknown to her and a person who never met her. The story, I think, not only reflects on the many ways she was able to use her popularity and her position to do good, but how she often did so in a quiet and unheralded way.
I was the dinner partner one evening of Marvella Bayh. Marvella was not only the wife of Indiana United States Senator Birch Bayh and the mother of former Governor and United States Senator Evan Bayh, but she was a spokesman for the American Cancer Society.
Mrs. Bayh had breast cancer and as part of her dealing with her disease she had learned as much as she could about the disease and she helped the American Cancer association raise money to continue research into a cure.
During our dinner conversation we discussed breast cancer and I mentioned to her I had a wonderful aunt back in Pennsylvania who had been diagnosed and was currently in the hospital after a mastectomy. She asked me a great many questions I could not answer. She wanted to know how many “nodes” were involved, when the cancer was detected, what specific treatments had been recommended. I realized she wanted to use her knowledge to determine how serious my aunt’s case might be.
We went on to other discussions and enjoyed a wonderful evening. The occasion was the birthday party of a mutual friend and it was held in Tuxedo Park, NY. I lived in Southport, CT and Mrs. Bayh in Washington, DC and Indiana. I did not expect to see her again or hear from her.
The following week I had a call from my family in Pennsylvania. My hospitalized aunt had received a telephone call from Marvella Bayh. She had talked with her for some time, offering encouragement and suggestions. My aunt, who happened to be married to a local Democrat office holder, certainly had heard of the Bayhs (Senator Bayh had been a candidate for president)and was flabbergasted to receive the call.
My wife and I were so pleased Marvella took the time to reach out and encourage my aunt at such a difficult time.
A few days later, we received another call from family. My hospitalized aunt had received a call from the First Lady of the United States, Betty Ford, another breast cancer victim and friend of Marvella Bayh.
One can only imagine the encouragement such a call would provide. My aunt certainly came to understand that this horrible disease knew no rank in life, attacked women at all levels, and that women who experienced the disease belonged to an unofficial club and in an unofficial way banded together to fight back.
My aunt and Mrs. Ford went on to live long and happy lives. Mrs. Bayh’s breast cancer claimed her life a few short years later.
There are two messages for my readers in this column.
Cancer insinuates itself into the lives of people famous and common, those with access to the most expensive treatment available and those who are left to rely on small hospitals in small towns.
The second message is that the First Lady of the United States, the fantastic Betty Ford, moved quietly throughout America touching the lives of people at all levels of society.
I cannot imagine how many people in small towns and cities in America heard from Betty Ford with a message of encouragement and hope. But I would bet there were many.
While America was very fortunate to have Gerry Ford in our time of crisis during the Watergate scandal, we were equally lucky that he brought with him Betty Bloomer Ford when he moved into The White House.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
GRAND THEFT? Social Security
Notes of Concern…
…Jack Blair
GRAND THEFT
SOCIAL SECURITY was envisioned to make you feel secure in your old age.
SOCIAL SECURITY was envisioned to be a government run program on which you could depend.
The program was simple. People currently working would put money into the program and that money would be paid out to people who were retiring, providing them with security in their golden years.
WHAT WENT WRONG?
The answer is very simple.
The government took the money that was being deposited and used it to meet short-term needs. They did so in the expectation that workers would simply continue to put in large amounts annually and those future deposits would be sufficient to meet the needs of retirees.
So we get two choices, my friends:
Either our government borrowed the Social Security funds without our expressed consent, or
The government stole the Social Security funds.
In either instance, the government paying back the loan or paying back the theft can quickly solve the current crisis.
There has been a lot written about how we have fewer children, and that has decreased the number of people paying into Social Security to the extent that not enough is coming in to meet the demands of retirees.
This is true.
But if the huge balances provided by earlier generations had been held in trust, they would have carried us through the current crisis.
Excuse my bluntness: but I find much of what the government has been telling us about the failure in the Social Security Program is, simply put, “BS.”
The government miscalculated. What they anticipated would happen did not happen.
The same government would now like us to work until much later in life, say 68-69 or 70.
They would like us to delay asking for the benefits they previously promised
They would like us to consider cutting back on the benefits for future generations.
The answer my friends is for the government to pay back the money they took, money that would have sufficiently funded the benefits they promised.
There is no need for us to provide for them an “easy out.”
They collected the money.
They used the money for projects outside the social security fund promised to eventual retirees.
They made a bad judgment.
The remedy is for them to make it right.
The remedy is not for us to suffer any decrease in benefits or any dilution of the program in order to save them from making the hard, and honorable decision.
…Jack Blair
GRAND THEFT
SOCIAL SECURITY was envisioned to make you feel secure in your old age.
SOCIAL SECURITY was envisioned to be a government run program on which you could depend.
The program was simple. People currently working would put money into the program and that money would be paid out to people who were retiring, providing them with security in their golden years.
WHAT WENT WRONG?
The answer is very simple.
The government took the money that was being deposited and used it to meet short-term needs. They did so in the expectation that workers would simply continue to put in large amounts annually and those future deposits would be sufficient to meet the needs of retirees.
So we get two choices, my friends:
Either our government borrowed the Social Security funds without our expressed consent, or
The government stole the Social Security funds.
In either instance, the government paying back the loan or paying back the theft can quickly solve the current crisis.
There has been a lot written about how we have fewer children, and that has decreased the number of people paying into Social Security to the extent that not enough is coming in to meet the demands of retirees.
This is true.
But if the huge balances provided by earlier generations had been held in trust, they would have carried us through the current crisis.
Excuse my bluntness: but I find much of what the government has been telling us about the failure in the Social Security Program is, simply put, “BS.”
The government miscalculated. What they anticipated would happen did not happen.
The same government would now like us to work until much later in life, say 68-69 or 70.
They would like us to delay asking for the benefits they previously promised
They would like us to consider cutting back on the benefits for future generations.
The answer my friends is for the government to pay back the money they took, money that would have sufficiently funded the benefits they promised.
There is no need for us to provide for them an “easy out.”
They collected the money.
They used the money for projects outside the social security fund promised to eventual retirees.
They made a bad judgment.
The remedy is for them to make it right.
The remedy is not for us to suffer any decrease in benefits or any dilution of the program in order to save them from making the hard, and honorable decision.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
A GRIM REMINDER
Notes of Concern…
…Jackson Blair
A GRIM REMINDER
Like many of my readers, I am enjoying the summer.
One of the traditions I have established over the years is the daily reading of morning newspapers. Since I am out of the country, that often takes on new meaning as I search papers for news related to my interests in the United States.
Yesterday as I sipped my morning coffee I found an insert in a Canadian paper. The insert was titled Senior Citizens.
On the cover of the insert was a picture of a handsome elderly couple standing on a beach with a beautiful blue water view behind them. The section looked like it would be interesting.
As I enjoyed my eggs and toast I began to browse the insert. Of course, there were many articles written by senior citizens about their activities and their interests. My decision to read the insert began to look like a good one.
As I paged through, however, instead of focusing on the interesting articles, taking in the suggestions of experienced “Q-tips” like myself, or soaking in the beautiful pictures, I was astonished at how many advertisements there were for funeral homes. I focused on this and realized that there was an “ad” on almost every page.
Hmmm.
These “ads” did not appear in other sections of the paper. This was target advertising. Some focus group, or just a profit-oriented undertaker, deemed this insert was the place to spend the advertising dollars for this year.
You do not have to be a rocket scientist to quickly realize you are in the “target audience” if you are reading this insert. I always tease my wife that we are now in the “zone.” This angers her but she more often than not accepts that we have reached the place in life where our friends, people in our generation, people our age are dying.
Friends, this is not happy reading while on summer holiday. Heck, it wouldn’t be happy reading anytime.
The “ads” remind me that I should focus on relieving my heirs of any costs associated with my death.
I am not buying that.
I have been laying out cash for my kids for decades, so they can just pony up whatever it takes to send me happily (?) to my “eternal rest.”
I am told that I should organize my affairs, get together a list of where everything might be located, and take the fun out of the scavenger hunt that usually accompanies a timely, or untimely, death.
No way.
I have spent my life organizing things. Once I am dead, cold, and gone, I suspect I won’t give a “hoo-haw” about whether things are organized.
You are probably thinking that I am selfish or insensitive while I just see it as straight out, unmitigated “revenge”, “karma”, “what goes around comes around” kind of thinking!
Then the funeral directors, undertakers, macabre proponents, remind me that I should plan my memorial service.
Now why would I want to do that?
The memorial service won’t be for me, it will be for whichever small group of people comes together for the free meal. I won’t be eating the food, listening to the speeches, or enjoying the music. So it seems to me that the folks who will be there, my family, ought to select what they would like to eat and listen to. Now this decision on my part means that there may well be music played that I would never have listened to during my life. The kids like all that stuff. But as a family we tend to like the same foods so friends will be on pretty safe ground there.
Enough of this morbid stuff.
I threw the insert into a waste basket and went back to the comics page and read about the U.S. Government while finishing my breakfast.
…Jackson Blair
A GRIM REMINDER
Like many of my readers, I am enjoying the summer.
One of the traditions I have established over the years is the daily reading of morning newspapers. Since I am out of the country, that often takes on new meaning as I search papers for news related to my interests in the United States.
Yesterday as I sipped my morning coffee I found an insert in a Canadian paper. The insert was titled Senior Citizens.
On the cover of the insert was a picture of a handsome elderly couple standing on a beach with a beautiful blue water view behind them. The section looked like it would be interesting.
As I enjoyed my eggs and toast I began to browse the insert. Of course, there were many articles written by senior citizens about their activities and their interests. My decision to read the insert began to look like a good one.
As I paged through, however, instead of focusing on the interesting articles, taking in the suggestions of experienced “Q-tips” like myself, or soaking in the beautiful pictures, I was astonished at how many advertisements there were for funeral homes. I focused on this and realized that there was an “ad” on almost every page.
Hmmm.
These “ads” did not appear in other sections of the paper. This was target advertising. Some focus group, or just a profit-oriented undertaker, deemed this insert was the place to spend the advertising dollars for this year.
You do not have to be a rocket scientist to quickly realize you are in the “target audience” if you are reading this insert. I always tease my wife that we are now in the “zone.” This angers her but she more often than not accepts that we have reached the place in life where our friends, people in our generation, people our age are dying.
Friends, this is not happy reading while on summer holiday. Heck, it wouldn’t be happy reading anytime.
The “ads” remind me that I should focus on relieving my heirs of any costs associated with my death.
I am not buying that.
I have been laying out cash for my kids for decades, so they can just pony up whatever it takes to send me happily (?) to my “eternal rest.”
I am told that I should organize my affairs, get together a list of where everything might be located, and take the fun out of the scavenger hunt that usually accompanies a timely, or untimely, death.
No way.
I have spent my life organizing things. Once I am dead, cold, and gone, I suspect I won’t give a “hoo-haw” about whether things are organized.
You are probably thinking that I am selfish or insensitive while I just see it as straight out, unmitigated “revenge”, “karma”, “what goes around comes around” kind of thinking!
Then the funeral directors, undertakers, macabre proponents, remind me that I should plan my memorial service.
Now why would I want to do that?
The memorial service won’t be for me, it will be for whichever small group of people comes together for the free meal. I won’t be eating the food, listening to the speeches, or enjoying the music. So it seems to me that the folks who will be there, my family, ought to select what they would like to eat and listen to. Now this decision on my part means that there may well be music played that I would never have listened to during my life. The kids like all that stuff. But as a family we tend to like the same foods so friends will be on pretty safe ground there.
Enough of this morbid stuff.
I threw the insert into a waste basket and went back to the comics page and read about the U.S. Government while finishing my breakfast.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)