Wednesday, April 25, 2007
The Real Maltese Falcon (by Dashiell Hammett)
You might notice that I must have seen the movie made from the book recently. True enough. And it is a good movie, too. A really good movie, I'd even say. However, the original book, also called The Maltese Falcon, blows that movie right out of the water in terms of quality and sophistication and, I tremble to confess, better writing than that of which I'll ever be capable, probably. Here is a paragraph from page 165, which is also quoted in the establishment mentioned in Hammett's text, to show you what I mean:
He went to John's Grill, asked the waiter to hurry his order of chops, baked potato, and sliced tomatoes, ate hurriedly, and was smoking a cigarette with his coffee when a thick-set youngish man with a plaid cap set askew above pale eyes and a tough cheery face came into the Grill and to his table.
That is one paragraph. It is also one sentence. It violates several rules of clear writing, and yet it is as clear a portrait of the detective and the man who's come to take him on what proves to be a wild goose chase as you could ever hope to read. That's the mark of a really great writer: that the writer obviously knows all of the rules of good writing, and can violate them to wonderful effect when the occasion demands it. There's more information packed into that one sentence than you'll find in an entire chapter of some books I've read.
Here is the last line, from page 217. It won't spoil anything, I promise.
"Yes," he said, and shivered. "Well, send her in."
Send who? Well, read the book and you'll know. What's going to happen? You're going to imagine that on your own. That's another mark of a really good writer, which I'm not by the way though I'm trying: you let the reader write parts of the story for himself or herself. (That's what's wrong with movies from Peter Jackson, by the way. He loved the images he saw in his mind when he was a boy watching the movies, and now he makes the mistake of reproducing them on screen. Better not to know what it all looks like, and that's the truth.)
I was surprised to find out how good The Maltese Falcon is as literature. Hammett wrote a lot of books, as it turns out, and now I have a reading list for the next however long it takes to read a lot of Hammett's work. Honestly, if you liked the movie, you'll do back flips over the book. Sam Spade isn't a lovable character (Bogart captured him exactly, by the way) but he is a strong and sympathetic character. If you've seen the movie but not read the book, then you may be interested in learning more about the relationships between Spade and each of the Archers, which are both explored more fully in the book. Almost all of the dialogue in the movie is verbatim from the novel. I could see the scenes in the film as I read the corresponding passage in the book. The casting was excellent, which may be why so many people like the movie. Maybe only people who like to read will like the book. If you like to read, by all means give it a try. You won't be sorry.
He went to John's Grill, asked the waiter to hurry his order of chops, baked potato, and sliced tomatoes, ate hurriedly, and was smoking a cigarette with his coffee when a thick-set youngish man with a plaid cap set askew above pale eyes and a tough cheery face came into the Grill and to his table.
That is one paragraph. It is also one sentence. It violates several rules of clear writing, and yet it is as clear a portrait of the detective and the man who's come to take him on what proves to be a wild goose chase as you could ever hope to read. That's the mark of a really great writer: that the writer obviously knows all of the rules of good writing, and can violate them to wonderful effect when the occasion demands it. There's more information packed into that one sentence than you'll find in an entire chapter of some books I've read.
Here is the last line, from page 217. It won't spoil anything, I promise.
"Yes," he said, and shivered. "Well, send her in."
Send who? Well, read the book and you'll know. What's going to happen? You're going to imagine that on your own. That's another mark of a really good writer, which I'm not by the way though I'm trying: you let the reader write parts of the story for himself or herself. (That's what's wrong with movies from Peter Jackson, by the way. He loved the images he saw in his mind when he was a boy watching the movies, and now he makes the mistake of reproducing them on screen. Better not to know what it all looks like, and that's the truth.)
I was surprised to find out how good The Maltese Falcon is as literature. Hammett wrote a lot of books, as it turns out, and now I have a reading list for the next however long it takes to read a lot of Hammett's work. Honestly, if you liked the movie, you'll do back flips over the book. Sam Spade isn't a lovable character (Bogart captured him exactly, by the way) but he is a strong and sympathetic character. If you've seen the movie but not read the book, then you may be interested in learning more about the relationships between Spade and each of the Archers, which are both explored more fully in the book. Almost all of the dialogue in the movie is verbatim from the novel. I could see the scenes in the film as I read the corresponding passage in the book. The casting was excellent, which may be why so many people like the movie. Maybe only people who like to read will like the book. If you like to read, by all means give it a try. You won't be sorry.
My Review of The Maltese Falcon (Bogart et al.)
The Maltese Falcon is a good movie, especially for film noir fans.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Justice Roberts and the Law
My wife has a blog designed to promote her legal appeals business. Today she posted something about how John Roberts didn't know his common law. He said, in response to some question during his confirmation hearing, that he didn't make the law, but as a judge he just enforced it. He was talking to his audience, not to the truth. At least he can quit being political now, and that's why they're appointed for life. However, for the record, here's a quick and dirty and lacking in detail version of how and why judges do very much make law in America. (Actually in any former English colony.)
Common law is just that: common. It goes back in English tradition as far as anyone can trace it. It is opposed to codified law, such as what the Romans used, and such as is still used in most countries today. For State business in Louisiana, they used codified laws, based upon the Napoleonic Code. That means that if you want to know what the law is you can go read it in a book in the library and there it is. Not so with common law.
We have written laws, to be sure, but as I just learned today, if a statute is supposed to change common law, it must say so. Otherwise, no court will recognize it as valid if common law contradicts it. And what, I hear you asking, is common law? Well, it's just the laws as they exist and are enforced, and it isn't written down anywhere. It's illegal to trespass, for example, and the trespass laws we have are designed to enforce that law, not to create a law against trespass. Same with murder and other crimes. But, there's a big problem with the system. That is, how do you interpret exactly what trespass is? When is a murder justified? (And sometimes they are, you know.) Is it ever okay not to pay taxes? Our Federal Constitution is a nice, short document. Only a few thousand words. Not even a good short-story worth of text, really. So, it's pretty vague about how to interpret common law, other than when it sets up an independent judiciary.
What common law boils down to in practice is written opinions of various courts. When the Supreme Court writes an opinion, only the Supreme Court can overturn it later. Other courts are hierarchical, with District Courts under the Supreme, and with local branches of those courts. States and other political divisions all set up similar court systems, some of which have elected judges, which is a stupid way to get judges, but they do it anyway. But, elected or appointed for life, the judges and justices render, eventually, written opinions on the cases brought before them. Those written opinions are what gives common law its teeth. So, yes, judges most certainly do make law, every single day. That's their job, because we use common law and not a strict code. In countries with strict codes, there is no case law, as we call it. In any country that used to be a part of England, case law rules. Case law is common law, as interpreted by the courts. There are decisions by Crown Justices from five hundred years ago that still hold sway in the United States of America. That's the power of common law, and that's why I know that Justice Roberts was just blowing smoke for his audience.
What I think is that an activist judge is one who makes law I disagree with. I can't think of any other definition that fits the facts of common law. Damn those activist judges, huh? What I do wish is that politicians, who do mostly know better, would quit appealing to people's ignorance and maybe explain, once in a while, how things really work. Common law isn't such a bad thing once you know how it operates. It just isn't what most people think of as the law of the land.
By the way, common law holds that governments have the right to set rules for public highways. You know, like speed limits and red lights? Sorry, Charlie!
Common law is just that: common. It goes back in English tradition as far as anyone can trace it. It is opposed to codified law, such as what the Romans used, and such as is still used in most countries today. For State business in Louisiana, they used codified laws, based upon the Napoleonic Code. That means that if you want to know what the law is you can go read it in a book in the library and there it is. Not so with common law.
We have written laws, to be sure, but as I just learned today, if a statute is supposed to change common law, it must say so. Otherwise, no court will recognize it as valid if common law contradicts it. And what, I hear you asking, is common law? Well, it's just the laws as they exist and are enforced, and it isn't written down anywhere. It's illegal to trespass, for example, and the trespass laws we have are designed to enforce that law, not to create a law against trespass. Same with murder and other crimes. But, there's a big problem with the system. That is, how do you interpret exactly what trespass is? When is a murder justified? (And sometimes they are, you know.) Is it ever okay not to pay taxes? Our Federal Constitution is a nice, short document. Only a few thousand words. Not even a good short-story worth of text, really. So, it's pretty vague about how to interpret common law, other than when it sets up an independent judiciary.
What common law boils down to in practice is written opinions of various courts. When the Supreme Court writes an opinion, only the Supreme Court can overturn it later. Other courts are hierarchical, with District Courts under the Supreme, and with local branches of those courts. States and other political divisions all set up similar court systems, some of which have elected judges, which is a stupid way to get judges, but they do it anyway. But, elected or appointed for life, the judges and justices render, eventually, written opinions on the cases brought before them. Those written opinions are what gives common law its teeth. So, yes, judges most certainly do make law, every single day. That's their job, because we use common law and not a strict code. In countries with strict codes, there is no case law, as we call it. In any country that used to be a part of England, case law rules. Case law is common law, as interpreted by the courts. There are decisions by Crown Justices from five hundred years ago that still hold sway in the United States of America. That's the power of common law, and that's why I know that Justice Roberts was just blowing smoke for his audience.
What I think is that an activist judge is one who makes law I disagree with. I can't think of any other definition that fits the facts of common law. Damn those activist judges, huh? What I do wish is that politicians, who do mostly know better, would quit appealing to people's ignorance and maybe explain, once in a while, how things really work. Common law isn't such a bad thing once you know how it operates. It just isn't what most people think of as the law of the land.
By the way, common law holds that governments have the right to set rules for public highways. You know, like speed limits and red lights? Sorry, Charlie!
Labels: Politics, Social Commentary
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Writing?
See the list of links to the left? See the one that says "My First Published Novel?" Do you write? If you answered 'yes' to these questions, or if you just want to see a different sort of blog from me. One that's organized, I mean, click that link. That's where the 'writing' part of this blog is setting up shop. There's no link to come back here, though, so once you click, you commit!
Labels: Writing
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Two Cents?
I waited to write this because I didn't know what to say. Usually when I'm confronted with something really, really bad I just get all wise-ass. For instance, and this is true, once I had to attend the funeral of a suicide. I did not say this, I swear I was very proper, but what went through my mind was "at least he was a good shot!" Now, that's terrible, and I didn't want to accidentally post something equally terrible. So I wrote nothing at all about the shootings at Virginia Tech until now, so that I can, I hope, refrain from adding insult to a terrible situation.
And a shooting like this really is a terrible situation. I'm sure there will be all sorts of punditry unleashed to explain the events, with calls for 1) gun control, and 2) more arms for students, and 3) an administration held accountable, and of course 4) individual accountability, and more that I haven't thought of yet. That's okay, I guess. It always seems like you have to do something, even if you don't, or even if there's not a thing to be done, anyway. I've tried to think of something worse than losing a child, and I never have. The parents of the deceased must be devastated beyond belief. And some of the victims were heroic, or so I see on the TV news. Good for them, I guess. Good for their memory, may it ever stay fresh. But, having said all that, I'll also note that, like everyone, I have an opinion. So, what the heck, here it is below.
Some foreign newscasts are describing the United States as a Dangerous Country, and you can hear those capital letters when they say it. Well, I suppose anything worth having is a bit dangerous, so maybe there's something to it. The fact that this place is dangerous (and I'm assuming that it is for the sake of argument, I don't really think myself that it is) gives rise to a call for, as I said above, more gun control, and ironically at the same time a call for more arms amongst students and faculty. Whew, huh? I saw Michael Moore's film about 9/11, the one where from he's been accused of anti-gun movie making. I didn't see that, although he was damned unfair to Charlton Heston, who was too far gone to know what was going on, so far as I could tell from the movie. But in the segment about guns in Canada, which is the part that gets him in the worst trouble, he didn't say we shouldn't have guns. What he said was that guns and ammo were just as available in Canada, but that Canadians were essentially nonviolent and safe people, whereas we tend to shoot each other a lot. If anything, that seems to me to point out that guns aren't the problem, but that people are. But I'm not boosting the NRA here, either.
The NRA likes to quote statistics that may or may not be made up for all you can tell from the press releases. Some of those statistics indicate that areas with gun control have higher rates of violent crime. As I said, that may or may not be coming out of someones ear, but it sounds right. But, the thing is, being statistics, those figures are easily made to sound like pretty much anything. And that is true because there is not any real information in that information. Maybe the gun control raised crime rates, like the NRA would like everyone to think. Or, maybe the area being a high crime area caused the citizenry to insist on gun control. Or maybe the two things aren't even related. Yes, everything is connected to everything else on some level, but unless someone does a study of crime rates in jurisdictions with and without gun control, and if possible, before and after gun control was enacted in a group (the larger the group the better) of jurisdictions, and furthermore does the study right, with controls and proper statistical analysis that they're not afraid to submit to a peer-reviewed journal for, well, peer-review by other researchers, we don't know anything about the thesis that gun control causes higher crime rates. That's not emotionally satisfying like either of the positions I heard being advocated on the news today, but it's the plain truth.
Maybe we are a violent society. Maybe this country is dangerous. I don't really know. But, it would make sense, since people who like safety probably aren't prone to pack up and move thousands of miles to a place where nobody speaks their language and the customs seem barbaric and violent. That's what our ancestors did, though, and that's what people continue doing to this day. So, okay, maybe we are violent and dangerous. You wanna make something of it?
I didn't think so.
And a shooting like this really is a terrible situation. I'm sure there will be all sorts of punditry unleashed to explain the events, with calls for 1) gun control, and 2) more arms for students, and 3) an administration held accountable, and of course 4) individual accountability, and more that I haven't thought of yet. That's okay, I guess. It always seems like you have to do something, even if you don't, or even if there's not a thing to be done, anyway. I've tried to think of something worse than losing a child, and I never have. The parents of the deceased must be devastated beyond belief. And some of the victims were heroic, or so I see on the TV news. Good for them, I guess. Good for their memory, may it ever stay fresh. But, having said all that, I'll also note that, like everyone, I have an opinion. So, what the heck, here it is below.
Some foreign newscasts are describing the United States as a Dangerous Country, and you can hear those capital letters when they say it. Well, I suppose anything worth having is a bit dangerous, so maybe there's something to it. The fact that this place is dangerous (and I'm assuming that it is for the sake of argument, I don't really think myself that it is) gives rise to a call for, as I said above, more gun control, and ironically at the same time a call for more arms amongst students and faculty. Whew, huh? I saw Michael Moore's film about 9/11, the one where from he's been accused of anti-gun movie making. I didn't see that, although he was damned unfair to Charlton Heston, who was too far gone to know what was going on, so far as I could tell from the movie. But in the segment about guns in Canada, which is the part that gets him in the worst trouble, he didn't say we shouldn't have guns. What he said was that guns and ammo were just as available in Canada, but that Canadians were essentially nonviolent and safe people, whereas we tend to shoot each other a lot. If anything, that seems to me to point out that guns aren't the problem, but that people are. But I'm not boosting the NRA here, either.
The NRA likes to quote statistics that may or may not be made up for all you can tell from the press releases. Some of those statistics indicate that areas with gun control have higher rates of violent crime. As I said, that may or may not be coming out of someones ear, but it sounds right. But, the thing is, being statistics, those figures are easily made to sound like pretty much anything. And that is true because there is not any real information in that information. Maybe the gun control raised crime rates, like the NRA would like everyone to think. Or, maybe the area being a high crime area caused the citizenry to insist on gun control. Or maybe the two things aren't even related. Yes, everything is connected to everything else on some level, but unless someone does a study of crime rates in jurisdictions with and without gun control, and if possible, before and after gun control was enacted in a group (the larger the group the better) of jurisdictions, and furthermore does the study right, with controls and proper statistical analysis that they're not afraid to submit to a peer-reviewed journal for, well, peer-review by other researchers, we don't know anything about the thesis that gun control causes higher crime rates. That's not emotionally satisfying like either of the positions I heard being advocated on the news today, but it's the plain truth.
Maybe we are a violent society. Maybe this country is dangerous. I don't really know. But, it would make sense, since people who like safety probably aren't prone to pack up and move thousands of miles to a place where nobody speaks their language and the customs seem barbaric and violent. That's what our ancestors did, though, and that's what people continue doing to this day. So, okay, maybe we are violent and dangerous. You wanna make something of it?
I didn't think so.
Labels: Politics, Social Commentary
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
One Toll Road's Story (very much in brief)
I grew up in the Great State of Ohio, which is a State I'm always happy to be from. When I was quite small Ohio built a turnpike, the nation's second modern one I think, connected to the famous Pennsylvania Turnpike on the East. Eventually it connected to the Indiana Toll Road on the West. It was a toll road, and it still is, although the original authorization was for a limited life at which time it was to become a freeway. That damned Ohio government saw the chance to make a buck and screw the citizens and kept it a toll road, right?
Well, no. Actually the people of Ohio voted to keep it a toll road. They did that because the road wasn't up to Interstate standards (it was authorized at the same time but built a lot sooner.) Also the maintenance on the thing is astronomical. It is close to Interstate standards now, may even be fully meeting them for all I know, but it remains a toll road. It is also the nicest road in the State in terms of surface conditions, traffic flow, and ease of use. It even lacks the damnable dual speed limits which Ohio and some other States impose, thus guaranteeing that motorists will be darting in and out to pass slow moving trucks. As an autonomous highway the Turnpike is safe from the whims of the Ohio Legislature, or even Congress for that matter. They make the speed limit whatever they want. There is a toll road in Denver that had a higher speed limit than the Federal limit at one time for that same reason. Another advantage of a toll road.
And to sum up those advantages, the toll road is almost always in good condition, is not subject to legislative meddling, and can set speed limits wherever the operating authority sees fit. All this, and yet, as an autonomous public-owned facility, it doesn't have to make a profit, just pay for itself. And that, friends, is why I like toll roads.
Well, no. Actually the people of Ohio voted to keep it a toll road. They did that because the road wasn't up to Interstate standards (it was authorized at the same time but built a lot sooner.) Also the maintenance on the thing is astronomical. It is close to Interstate standards now, may even be fully meeting them for all I know, but it remains a toll road. It is also the nicest road in the State in terms of surface conditions, traffic flow, and ease of use. It even lacks the damnable dual speed limits which Ohio and some other States impose, thus guaranteeing that motorists will be darting in and out to pass slow moving trucks. As an autonomous highway the Turnpike is safe from the whims of the Ohio Legislature, or even Congress for that matter. They make the speed limit whatever they want. There is a toll road in Denver that had a higher speed limit than the Federal limit at one time for that same reason. Another advantage of a toll road.
And to sum up those advantages, the toll road is almost always in good condition, is not subject to legislative meddling, and can set speed limits wherever the operating authority sees fit. All this, and yet, as an autonomous public-owned facility, it doesn't have to make a profit, just pay for itself. And that, friends, is why I like toll roads.
Labels: Politics, Social Commentary
Taxes, and Like That
In the Northwestern corner of the Great Basin Desert, in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada, sits the Nevada legislature in its biannual session. There is much hue and cry these days about the state of the highways in Clark County. Mainly that there aren't enough of them, and that those that we have are too small for the amount of traffic that they carry. Since quite a few local residents moved here from Southern California, where they know a traffic jam when they see one, I think that maybe there is some substance to the plaint. Somehow, the legislature, which is fairly evenly split between the two major parties, has come up with a novel plan to pay for highway improvements statewide. They plan to raise taxes.
Normally such a suggestion would be met with an incredible amount of screaming and yelling from, among others, the "all taxation is evil" crowd exemplified by the editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Instead, that gentleman is endorsing the plan. The plan which would not only raise taxes on gasoline and other automotive things, such as license plates and registration fees, but would also index all that to the rate of inflation. Maybe such a thing is so damned sensible that even a normal apparent congenital idiot can see why it's a good idea. That's good, actually, that we are seeing a way to get some much needed highway improvements paid for within a few years and not on our grandchildren’s' tab. And that's the real thing I want to talk about: taxes being a good thing.
Ouch! Now, that hurts! Please! Oooh, those nasty words! Seriously, though, taxation is not all evil. Consider the effects of the tax cuts pushed through by our Republican friends at the beginning of the current administration. I'm not arguing about who pays and who gets the cuts. Frankly, the rich have a lot more money to pay, so it makes sense to me to ask those benefiting most from our nation to pony up the most, but as I said, that's not my topic. The effects I'm talking about include the FDA being gutted in terms of resources by budget cuts made necessary by a big tax cut combined with an expensive war. George W. is proud that the deficit is shrinking again. Of course, when Clinton shrunk it, the VA had an enviable hospital system, the FDA kept our food safe, and the middle class felt reasonably secure in its income. Now, of course, the VA is being investigated for patient abuse, the middle class is under attack, and the FDA is too thinly stretched to keep things like the frequently reoccurring e-coli and other food contamination incidents from happening. The cure for that problem, of course, is to collect enough tax to cover the expense of keeping food safe. Even, of course, if you have to collect enough to pay for a war at the same time.
Now back to who pays. The "Liberals" are a frequent target of scorn these last twenty years. FDR was a "Liberal" of course. FDR was also rich. Hmmm. Bill Clinton is the "Liberal" that the "Conservatives" love to hate, right? He's also rich, and self-made at the same time. No wonder they hate him, huh? Al Gore is rich, and getting richer I imagine, since an Oscar can't hurt movie sales any. What in heck is going on, then, if these rich people favor higher taxes on the rich? Are they crazy? Drinking the Kool-Aid, as they say? Or are they just smart enough to know that spending public money on some things is a damned good idea. Private roads, to pull an apt example out of my hat, have been tried off and on since before the Revolutionary War. In ten or fifteen years, every time, the roads get taken over by government. You just can't make a profit off of a road, no matter how hard you try. I suspect that good modern health care, properly delivered, is another thing that really can't be done at a profit. Roads* and good health care both cost so much, with so many uncertainties built in, that only a fool would think he could profit from them and still deliver a good product.
So there you have it: good things about paying taxes. Taxes ensure that you can trust the food you eat. Taxes ensure that you can get where you need to go. And, yes, taxes ensure that you can promulgate a war effectively if you need to. Not paying taxes enables, well, just the sort of idiotic mess we seem to be in. So, you go, Nevada Legislature. Build those roads, and send us the bill.
* I'm not talking about toll roads, which many governments operate, but of private roads. See the post above about the Ohio Turnpike.
Normally such a suggestion would be met with an incredible amount of screaming and yelling from, among others, the "all taxation is evil" crowd exemplified by the editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Instead, that gentleman is endorsing the plan. The plan which would not only raise taxes on gasoline and other automotive things, such as license plates and registration fees, but would also index all that to the rate of inflation. Maybe such a thing is so damned sensible that even a normal apparent congenital idiot can see why it's a good idea. That's good, actually, that we are seeing a way to get some much needed highway improvements paid for within a few years and not on our grandchildren’s' tab. And that's the real thing I want to talk about: taxes being a good thing.
Ouch! Now, that hurts! Please! Oooh, those nasty words! Seriously, though, taxation is not all evil. Consider the effects of the tax cuts pushed through by our Republican friends at the beginning of the current administration. I'm not arguing about who pays and who gets the cuts. Frankly, the rich have a lot more money to pay, so it makes sense to me to ask those benefiting most from our nation to pony up the most, but as I said, that's not my topic. The effects I'm talking about include the FDA being gutted in terms of resources by budget cuts made necessary by a big tax cut combined with an expensive war. George W. is proud that the deficit is shrinking again. Of course, when Clinton shrunk it, the VA had an enviable hospital system, the FDA kept our food safe, and the middle class felt reasonably secure in its income. Now, of course, the VA is being investigated for patient abuse, the middle class is under attack, and the FDA is too thinly stretched to keep things like the frequently reoccurring e-coli and other food contamination incidents from happening. The cure for that problem, of course, is to collect enough tax to cover the expense of keeping food safe. Even, of course, if you have to collect enough to pay for a war at the same time.
Now back to who pays. The "Liberals" are a frequent target of scorn these last twenty years. FDR was a "Liberal" of course. FDR was also rich. Hmmm. Bill Clinton is the "Liberal" that the "Conservatives" love to hate, right? He's also rich, and self-made at the same time. No wonder they hate him, huh? Al Gore is rich, and getting richer I imagine, since an Oscar can't hurt movie sales any. What in heck is going on, then, if these rich people favor higher taxes on the rich? Are they crazy? Drinking the Kool-Aid, as they say? Or are they just smart enough to know that spending public money on some things is a damned good idea. Private roads, to pull an apt example out of my hat, have been tried off and on since before the Revolutionary War. In ten or fifteen years, every time, the roads get taken over by government. You just can't make a profit off of a road, no matter how hard you try. I suspect that good modern health care, properly delivered, is another thing that really can't be done at a profit. Roads* and good health care both cost so much, with so many uncertainties built in, that only a fool would think he could profit from them and still deliver a good product.
So there you have it: good things about paying taxes. Taxes ensure that you can trust the food you eat. Taxes ensure that you can get where you need to go. And, yes, taxes ensure that you can promulgate a war effectively if you need to. Not paying taxes enables, well, just the sort of idiotic mess we seem to be in. So, you go, Nevada Legislature. Build those roads, and send us the bill.
* I'm not talking about toll roads, which many governments operate, but of private roads. See the post above about the Ohio Turnpike.
Labels: Politics, Social Commentary
Monday, April 09, 2007
From Out of The Fog
So we went off to San Francisco this weekend, just got in last midnight, in fact. I like that city, and the area. It’s an interesting bit of Northeastern attitude plunked down into the more typical Western sensibilities of most of California. (Yes, by area I mean, not by population. Southern California is a culture unto itself, and has most of the people.) I think that the difference comes from when the city was founded. The Golden Gate is called that because that’s where the ships bringing the fortune seekers came through just before discharging their human cargo into the already bustling city where once had been only a sleepy Spanish mission. For what it’s worth, the founders of the State of California centered their lives around San Francisco, and in fact Los Angeles a hundred years ago was a sleepy little town away off down South. That may explain why so much of the rest of the West, settled way after San Francisco, likes to hate California so much.
San Francisco has a lot of amenities found only in Northeastern cities. For instance, subways, light rail, street cars, busses, heavy rail, and even cable rail. They may be the only place in the world with cable railways for all I know. They’re a hoot to ride, but would be illegal if they were invented today. That’s progress. San Francisco also has a social attitude that is almost unique in this country. If you’re qualified as human by a medical professional, they’ll pretty much leave your lifestyle choices to you. Unless, of course your lifestyle choices involve smoking indoors in a public place or something equally distressing to the San Francisco psyche. But San Francisco is not what most people think of when they imagine “California.” The movie industry comes to town occasionally to film a chase scene. If you only want to watch one, I’d recommend the one in The French Connection. All others are pale imitations, anyway. Other than that, the ultra-conservative movie producers stick to Los Angeles for the most part, and their ultra liberal celebrity employees are rarely seen in the Bay Area.
San Francisco thrives on finance. The home mortgage industry was invented here, shortly after the devastating earthquake of 1906. The man who did that is credited with largely saving the city after the quake, as he was willing to lend money to small businesses to allow them to rebuild, and then to individuals wanting to buy homes. The rest of the banking community in those days only dealt with large businesses, sort of like the way they’re depicted in humorous ads today. He never got rich, either, although his company certainly is. They are known as Bank of America. You might have heard of their bank card? They call it Visa. It’s hard to hate a city that was home to a guy like that, even though they do have some of the most aggressive beggars I’ve ever seen. The only one we donated anything to had two cats, and didn’t ask for a thing. The cats seemed healthy and happy. The rest of them I’m sure will find a living somehow in those foggy streets.
Speaking of which, we ate dinner at John’s Diner, where Sam Spade ate once, if you believe The Maltese Falcon. Chops, baked potato, and sliced tomatoes. Best chops I’ve ever tasted, in fact. Mr. Hammet used to stalk the district, so for anyone interested in mystery the place is almost a required stop.
San Francisco has a lot of amenities found only in Northeastern cities. For instance, subways, light rail, street cars, busses, heavy rail, and even cable rail. They may be the only place in the world with cable railways for all I know. They’re a hoot to ride, but would be illegal if they were invented today. That’s progress. San Francisco also has a social attitude that is almost unique in this country. If you’re qualified as human by a medical professional, they’ll pretty much leave your lifestyle choices to you. Unless, of course your lifestyle choices involve smoking indoors in a public place or something equally distressing to the San Francisco psyche. But San Francisco is not what most people think of when they imagine “California.” The movie industry comes to town occasionally to film a chase scene. If you only want to watch one, I’d recommend the one in The French Connection. All others are pale imitations, anyway. Other than that, the ultra-conservative movie producers stick to Los Angeles for the most part, and their ultra liberal celebrity employees are rarely seen in the Bay Area.
San Francisco thrives on finance. The home mortgage industry was invented here, shortly after the devastating earthquake of 1906. The man who did that is credited with largely saving the city after the quake, as he was willing to lend money to small businesses to allow them to rebuild, and then to individuals wanting to buy homes. The rest of the banking community in those days only dealt with large businesses, sort of like the way they’re depicted in humorous ads today. He never got rich, either, although his company certainly is. They are known as Bank of America. You might have heard of their bank card? They call it Visa. It’s hard to hate a city that was home to a guy like that, even though they do have some of the most aggressive beggars I’ve ever seen. The only one we donated anything to had two cats, and didn’t ask for a thing. The cats seemed healthy and happy. The rest of them I’m sure will find a living somehow in those foggy streets.
Speaking of which, we ate dinner at John’s Diner, where Sam Spade ate once, if you believe The Maltese Falcon. Chops, baked potato, and sliced tomatoes. Best chops I’ve ever tasted, in fact. Mr. Hammet used to stalk the district, so for anyone interested in mystery the place is almost a required stop.
Labels: Holidays, Social Commentary
Sunday, April 01, 2007
What Can't We Do?
I’ll answer my own question first, short form: not much. I read an article in Time magazine (next Monday’s issue) to the effect that we as a nation are obsessed at the moment with what we can’t do. In fact, says the author, we can do almost anything if we put our minds to it. His article is really more of an analysis of the liberal excesses of mid-century compared with the conservative excesses of recent years. His points are valid, but I’m going off on a side trip involving possibilities. Long time readers know how I love to digress.
To illustrate my conclusion (nice of me to put it in the first sentence, wasn’t it?) I’m going to tell a short story about the experiences of a church in Denver. Now, don’t panic, because I’m not going to deliver any moralizing, or claim that God did the work. It’s a Unitarian Church, and I’m pretty sure that if God thinks of Unitarians at all it’s just to say, “Okay, smart guys, you figured it out, or so you think, eh? Go ahead and take care of your own stuff!” That is, I doubt that God had anything to do with this story, other than as a bemused observer, maybe. The church was having a centennial celebration, well two of those actually since it was chartered in 1889 and again in 1890. Long story, that. Anyhow, there were two main ideas put forth by members of the church on how to celebrate the dual events. One was to redo the building, which was at that time about twenty-five years along from its last remodeling. The kitchen was horrendous, the sanctuary reminded me a lot of the cafetorium at my kids’ middle school (and if there’s a meeting space I truly hate, that cafetorium is it!), and as I recall parts of the place even smelled funny. So, that was a good idea. The other good idea was to charter a new congregation, since the denomination was (and still is, come to that) doing well and it seemed like a new church in the area would be a good legacy for a century of work.
Some people of course favored one of the other, and there was much hand-wringing over the fact that we didn’t have the resources to do both things. Until, that is, the minister stood up one Sunday morning and announced that we could do both things better than we could do either one alone. Was he crazy? We didn’t even know where the resources were going to come from for either project, and he figured we had what we needed to do both? He had to have stripped a gear or something. Except that he was right. I joined the committee that founded the new church (it’s called the Columbine Unitarian Universalist Church, and you can look that up if you want.) Others joined the committee to fix up the old dump. My volunteering took me away from the mother church for a couple of years. But once the new organization was up and running (an amazingly easy task, in retrospect) I went back and discovered, to my amazement, a totally remodeled facility with a state of the art kitchen, a great meeting space, and no odd smells anywhere. We, in short, did both, and both things worked out very well indeed.
All we need in America is to realize several things. First, and most importantly, is that we’re all Americans, we all love the place, and that by working together we can solve problems that frustrate even the most creative politicians. This is a government by the people, after all, and the best way to keep it that way is to get involved one way or another. Run for office, or run a campaign to bring about change, or at least donate some money and time to a cause. It’s okay to put yourself out there. It’s how some famous people got holidays. People like Washington, Lincoln, and King didn’t get famous by staying at home and complaining about things. One thing we seem to have forgotten is that there are some things that government does really well. Building roads, for instance, has been given over to private investors time and again, but in the end it’s the government who builds and maintains them. Even the Romans used public money for roads, and they were pretty much the original running dog capitalists of the Western world, so to speak. There are other things, too, maybe running the VA hospital system, even. While government can’t solve all our problems (and personally, I’d hate not having any problems) there are some problems that government is just better suited to handle than is any other conceivable institution. Government, in this country at least, is just us acting together for our mutual benefit. Why should I help fund a noise barrier for people along a freeway in Reno? Because I might want one along the freeway down the street in Southern Nevada and I can’t afford to build it myself, is why.
I can think of several things we could accomplish by working together a whole lot sooner than we’ve been able to accomplish them by letting government solve the issue. For instance, we as a people have been pretty good with public health issues. Almost never hear of anyone dying of polio any more, do we? Well, fifty years ago it was a scourge. Once people died from cholera, typhus, typhoid, all sorts of terrible things, but when we worked together we managed to virtually eliminate most of these diseases, and in fact completely eradicated smallpox in the wild. That’s a great record. What do you suppose we could do if, instead of relying on the paramilitary DEA to cut drug use, a strategy that by any sane analysis is a failure, we turned our public health expertise loose on drug abuse and addiction? Well, we turned our collective public health expertise loose on smoking tobacco, and it’s down sharply. Even the rate of drinking and alcoholism has dropped drastically since the day we stopped making it a government problem (with prohibition) and turned it instead into a public health issue. We’re good at that sort of thing. We can do it with drugs.
I’ll bet that somewhere amongst the great mass of my fellow Americans, probably collectively among us, is a real, workable solution to the problem of affordable health care. There’s almost certainly the solution to the major issues raised by global warming out there. Neither of these things probably requires strident insistence on any given position being the right one. Both require everyone being able to add their bit to the collective wisdom. Maybe a government health program wouldn’t be the end of the world as we know it. For instance, in Britain if you have the bucks, er, quid, you can get private medical care, the same as here. You can have your own room, in a private hospital, with whatever doctor you choose. That certainly sounds less dire than the strident opponents to any sort of Universal Health Care would like us to believe, doesn’t it?
We Americans have been solving big, seemingly impossible problems for centuries. I’m sure we can handle the paltry few we’re facing today. Want to give it a try?
To illustrate my conclusion (nice of me to put it in the first sentence, wasn’t it?) I’m going to tell a short story about the experiences of a church in Denver. Now, don’t panic, because I’m not going to deliver any moralizing, or claim that God did the work. It’s a Unitarian Church, and I’m pretty sure that if God thinks of Unitarians at all it’s just to say, “Okay, smart guys, you figured it out, or so you think, eh? Go ahead and take care of your own stuff!” That is, I doubt that God had anything to do with this story, other than as a bemused observer, maybe. The church was having a centennial celebration, well two of those actually since it was chartered in 1889 and again in 1890. Long story, that. Anyhow, there were two main ideas put forth by members of the church on how to celebrate the dual events. One was to redo the building, which was at that time about twenty-five years along from its last remodeling. The kitchen was horrendous, the sanctuary reminded me a lot of the cafetorium at my kids’ middle school (and if there’s a meeting space I truly hate, that cafetorium is it!), and as I recall parts of the place even smelled funny. So, that was a good idea. The other good idea was to charter a new congregation, since the denomination was (and still is, come to that) doing well and it seemed like a new church in the area would be a good legacy for a century of work.
Some people of course favored one of the other, and there was much hand-wringing over the fact that we didn’t have the resources to do both things. Until, that is, the minister stood up one Sunday morning and announced that we could do both things better than we could do either one alone. Was he crazy? We didn’t even know where the resources were going to come from for either project, and he figured we had what we needed to do both? He had to have stripped a gear or something. Except that he was right. I joined the committee that founded the new church (it’s called the Columbine Unitarian Universalist Church, and you can look that up if you want.) Others joined the committee to fix up the old dump. My volunteering took me away from the mother church for a couple of years. But once the new organization was up and running (an amazingly easy task, in retrospect) I went back and discovered, to my amazement, a totally remodeled facility with a state of the art kitchen, a great meeting space, and no odd smells anywhere. We, in short, did both, and both things worked out very well indeed.
All we need in America is to realize several things. First, and most importantly, is that we’re all Americans, we all love the place, and that by working together we can solve problems that frustrate even the most creative politicians. This is a government by the people, after all, and the best way to keep it that way is to get involved one way or another. Run for office, or run a campaign to bring about change, or at least donate some money and time to a cause. It’s okay to put yourself out there. It’s how some famous people got holidays. People like Washington, Lincoln, and King didn’t get famous by staying at home and complaining about things. One thing we seem to have forgotten is that there are some things that government does really well. Building roads, for instance, has been given over to private investors time and again, but in the end it’s the government who builds and maintains them. Even the Romans used public money for roads, and they were pretty much the original running dog capitalists of the Western world, so to speak. There are other things, too, maybe running the VA hospital system, even. While government can’t solve all our problems (and personally, I’d hate not having any problems) there are some problems that government is just better suited to handle than is any other conceivable institution. Government, in this country at least, is just us acting together for our mutual benefit. Why should I help fund a noise barrier for people along a freeway in Reno? Because I might want one along the freeway down the street in Southern Nevada and I can’t afford to build it myself, is why.
I can think of several things we could accomplish by working together a whole lot sooner than we’ve been able to accomplish them by letting government solve the issue. For instance, we as a people have been pretty good with public health issues. Almost never hear of anyone dying of polio any more, do we? Well, fifty years ago it was a scourge. Once people died from cholera, typhus, typhoid, all sorts of terrible things, but when we worked together we managed to virtually eliminate most of these diseases, and in fact completely eradicated smallpox in the wild. That’s a great record. What do you suppose we could do if, instead of relying on the paramilitary DEA to cut drug use, a strategy that by any sane analysis is a failure, we turned our public health expertise loose on drug abuse and addiction? Well, we turned our collective public health expertise loose on smoking tobacco, and it’s down sharply. Even the rate of drinking and alcoholism has dropped drastically since the day we stopped making it a government problem (with prohibition) and turned it instead into a public health issue. We’re good at that sort of thing. We can do it with drugs.
I’ll bet that somewhere amongst the great mass of my fellow Americans, probably collectively among us, is a real, workable solution to the problem of affordable health care. There’s almost certainly the solution to the major issues raised by global warming out there. Neither of these things probably requires strident insistence on any given position being the right one. Both require everyone being able to add their bit to the collective wisdom. Maybe a government health program wouldn’t be the end of the world as we know it. For instance, in Britain if you have the bucks, er, quid, you can get private medical care, the same as here. You can have your own room, in a private hospital, with whatever doctor you choose. That certainly sounds less dire than the strident opponents to any sort of Universal Health Care would like us to believe, doesn’t it?
We Americans have been solving big, seemingly impossible problems for centuries. I’m sure we can handle the paltry few we’re facing today. Want to give it a try?
Labels: Social Commentary
