Friday, February 23, 2007

One selfless act

What is your selfless activity? Please share your thoughts too.

As I was driving to donate blood at my local Red Cross the other day, I realized this was probably the only selfless act that I make an effort to do consistently. And even this I have had months and sometimes years that have slipped through between donations. I do have a wife, children, and contact with much of my extended family where hopefully I am more unselfish than not with them, but I gain way too much from them to consider any acts there selfless.

Also, it is not to say that I have not donated money to worthy causes, that I have not helped out a friend in need, nor that I have not volunteered with my kids activities. But in all of those activities, I probably gained as much or more through my act than others did, and my driving force was to fill an immediate need within a group (volunteer) or support my causes (money). This is not to say they were selfish but I do not think they were truly selfless either. Miriam-Webster OnLine dictionary defines selfless as “having no concern for self.”

Donating blood is a relatively small and simple act that I had not given much thought about until that day. I am blessed with having blood type o-negative, which is also know as the “universal donor” because nearly everyone can receive my blood in an emergency without worry of blood mismatch (I’m sure there is a technical term). Some how I never caught Cytomegalovirus (CMV), which is a common virus carried by more than half of the US population. Most people who have the virus never know it and for the average healthy person, CMV does not cause a problem. However, for patients whose immune systems are not functioning properly (e.g., premature babies, cancer patients, and others who cannot fight infection), CMV can be very serious. (CMV info source) Because of these two factors there have been times in my life where I have been called to donate blood when there was a critical need. Nowadays it seems like there is always a critical need for blood.

This posting is not intended to influence others to donate blood; however, if it does that’s okay. While I hope I can continue to donate blood for many more years, as I age odds are against me because there continue to be new hazards in the world that can render someone blood harmful to others or hopefully I’ll just get too old. So I’ve decided in 2007 I need find and start that next selfless activity for me to continue when the time eventually comes that I can no longer donate blood.

As I am looking for another selfless activity, it would be great for others to share their hidden selfless activities. I realize that many cannot donate blood because of societal regulations, health reasons (including fainting), and religious beliefs, so there must be numerous other activities available.

It seems to me that the US (and world) would be much better off if each of us would find just one selfless act that we could make our own to pursue that provided good without direct benefit to someone we know and without promoting one of our causes. Until you find your selfless activity to pursue, please continue to volunteer for and donate to those many other unselfish opportunities you have in your life.

If you are asking how does this tie in with the concept of this blog? I was there with you, until I realized that we have started to let governments perform acts that previously were provided by unselfish or selfless people. It seems to me that the more we pursue and support these activities first, the easier it will be to push governments back to the roll that they should do and do best.

As I finish this post, I realize that donating blood may not be as selfless as I had hoped, it improves my well-being.

Friday, February 16, 2007

Housewives?

Is it me or did Bravo change the definition of housewife? Merriam-Webster OnLine defines housewife as “a married woman in charge of a household.” So, I have to ask what is Bravo’s definition for their show “Real Housewives of Orange County”? I thought you had to be married to be a wife, since one maybe two of the five women are married, they have missed the point. It is hard to call a “working mother” a housewife, in the traditional sense of the word, since their obligations are at least split between work and household.

I give Bravo credit for finding some of the most dysfunctional people in Orange County to appear in this show. Coto De Caza (a.k.a. Coto) is pictured as being typical Orange County but it is really just a bunch of want-a-bees. While it is not depicted that way in the show, Coto about 15 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean and at least another five miles further away from the “real” shopping of Southcoast Plaza or Fashion Island. Coto lacks the real money and prestige of Newport Beach, Huntington Harbor, San Clemente, Dana Point, or Laguna.

There are plenty of “real” housewives in Orange County but I’m sure they would not make for “Bravo TV” because they are not much different than the housewives through out the country. They put their families before their careers; spend much of their time taxing kids with friends from event-to-event; help with homework; volunteer with school, scouts, sports teams, etc.; and skip the plastic surgery for funding for college or retirement. They are the unsung heroes whose hard work has been trivialized by Bravo.

Monday, February 12, 2007

Endowed by their Creator

While the Declaration of Independence includes the terms “Nature’s God” and “Creator” the Constitution of the United States is mute on the issue until passage of the Bill of Rights, Amendment I, which states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceable to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
With the ratification of the Bill of Rights at the end of 1791 (now over 215 years ago), the debate and understanding of the “separation of church and state” is yet to be concluded. While the Supreme Courts over the years have been wrestling with this one sentence, there decisions have expanded the understanding beyond the words laid out for them.

The founding fathers did include in the Constitution provisions to reasonably protect the rights of the minority while also retaining the rights of the majority. First was the idea of separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial Powers, in a form of checks and balances. Since laws can only be passed by Congress, this power was divested into two groups. The House of Representatives representing the populous (majority) viewpoint; therefore, replacing itself every two years to ensure updated representation of the views of the majority. The Senate represents the interest of the minority because each state no mater how large or small in population have equal representation (California and Rhode Island both have two senators).

Lastly the Constitutional Amendment process was established in Article V, where support of two thirds of both legislative Houses (or state Legislatures) can “call for a Convention for proposing Amendments” to become part of the Constitution when ratified by three fourths of the states.

The time may have come for the people to clarify their intent that what was said is what is meant. “…make no law…establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise…” This does not state or imply that all symbols or recognition of religion is to be removed from the government when deemed appropriate by the majority as long as there is no law or preference is given by the Government based upon religion. Also, that no law or preference is given against the free exercise of religion (or lack there of) as long as doing so does not conflict with areas of the Constitution.

Therefore, unless there is a desire from the majority, there is no need to remove religious symbols from government property (e.g., money, buildings, documents, etc.) unless its existence establishes a shingle religion above all others (or lack there of). Wishes, wants, and lack of comfort are not addressed or prescribed in any of our founding documents. The rights of the minority are not superior to the rights of the majority (e.g., the right to “express” pornography does not supercede the right of the majority to control the display, distribution, sales, etc.).

Sunday, February 11, 2007

Repaying sins of the grandparents?

As we progress into 2007, it is unbelievable that we, the “grandchildren,” are paying for the countries past sins. The 1960s have come and gone. It is time to unite for the common good. All claims against the government and citizens as a whole made prior to the turn of the century must be resolved immediately in the favor of the “common good.” It has been said that those that forget the past are destine to make the same mistakes; however, those that live only in want of restitution for the past, never live at all.

No citizen should have to endure the dishonor of their “class” being degraded to a “Hyphenated American.” In better times this country was affectionately known as the “melting pot.” Now many lack the understanding or desire to become part of the melt; thereby, they segregate themselves into a smaller “pot” sacrificing all of the benefits available to all that come to these shores.

This is not to say that life is fair or equitable for all. Each person has their own set of challenges and their own contribution to make to society and the common good. Some have the burden of ethnicity, others of physical or emotional ailments, desire, motivation, timing, etc. But all have the opportunity to make the best they can of their own lives and improve the opportunities for their children, grandchildren, etc.

Minority rights shall be respected and protected; however, never at the expense of the rights of the majority. A jury of your peers should never be based upon ethnic origin, sex, religion, etc., it should only consist of citizens willing to uphold their oath to perform their civic duty and the directions of the Court.

There will not and cannot be adequate compensation for property (e.g., land) that has been taken, stolen, captured, concord, etc., to those enslaved during our early or more recent history, nor for those that have severely been discriminated against during the last century, etc. However, the past sacrifices have provided their descendents the one thing coveted by many around the world today, US Citizenship. The greatest “crime” is not the price that was paid in the past, but failure of the “now” to capitalize on the opportunities that have already been bought and paid for.

It is important that we respect and remember our past, hereditary, history, and identity, as long as, we are willing to unite as one. “By uniting we stand, by dividing we fall” is as true now as it was during the Revolutionary War. We can no longer have separate “nations” within our boarders (e.g., reservation), except as set aside for delegates of solver friendly nations (e.g., embassy). Therefore, all land and inhabitants within the country must be governed by the same hierarchy criteria for federal, state, county, city, etc. laws, rules, regulations, etc.

Saturday, February 10, 2007

Could this happen to your child?

This is the start of title the title for the website supporting Genarlow Wilson. And, the answer is...Not if you are involved! This young man was charged and convicted “Aggravated Child Molestation for a voluntary act of oral sex” with a 15-year old girl when he was two years her senior. Also, he was acquitted of a rape charge stemming from the same incident.

Mr. Wilson’s mother, Ms. Juanessa Bennett, provides more information about the crime in her January 2006 interview with BlackAmericaWeb. The article clearly shows this was not a simple case of a boy becoming intimate with his girlfriend but a New Year’s Eve party in a hotel where there was a video tape catching the action. Obviously, the classes in Civics are not being understood if a high school senior with a 3.2 GPA has not learned that the activities he participated in at best were inappropriate and likely to have been illegal.

Where are the parents of these kids? It does not take much imagination and/or interaction with your kids to understand that this party in a hotel room was unlikely to be a “positive” experience and that any problems could have long term negative implications. Less than a decade ago Georgia had a sexually transmitted disease outbreak among middle and high school age children (1999 Frontline documentary), which CNN noted as a Wake-up Call was an opportunity missed.

What’s most appalling is that there are people in our country that believe a child of 15 is capable of determining “consensual sex” with its potential for life changing consequences, while not having the maturity to legally operate a motor vehicle on the roads, purchase cigarettes, or be in possession of alcohol. It was not too many years ago that the voting age moved from 21 to 18 and so did the age of majority. It is tough enough to make good decisions at 18, 19 and 20, so how can anyone expect someone 15 to be capable make an intelligent choice about sex, especially when faced with pressure from older classmates?

As usually the ACLU has been involved in a related issue, but misses the “forest” of the problem because it focused on the “tree” of a single individual “minority” right. The CWA sheds a little more light on ACLU claims.

While former President Clinton struggled with the concept that intimacy without intercourse is “sexual relations,” it is clear that the activities in this case are so, and it is only appropriate that children be protected from undue exposure and/or pressure to such activities.

Friday, February 9, 2007

The common good

The Declaration of Independence ends with these powerful words “…we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” I only wish I as a Citizen could come close to living up to the example set by the founding fathers. These fourteen words bring up many thought to me about how we have lost sight of the path laid down for us.

It is not possible to “mutually pledge” if we are not speaking the same language. The time has come for the USA to establish a single language for the citizens that enable us to talk together as one. The language of citizenship and those rights protected by or privileges provided by the governed shall be one. Who among you would be willing to “pledge…our Fortunes” to someone that you can not communicate with?

Our kin and loved brothers to the north, Canada, struggle with this problem of two languages still today. Look at problems within countries around the world, how many could be diminished if there was one common language among their people?

Our founding documents are written in English; therefore, it seems to make sense that English should be the language of the Citizens of the United States of America. If the majority were to select another language (e.g., Spanish, Japanese, Korean, etc.), that would be acceptable because I, as I am sure many others, want to be a Citizens and; therefore, would learn the language quickly (far from my given talent). The same must be true for others wishing to become members of this great country.

The time has come to quit pandering to those that will not immerse themselves into this land, yet expect to become functioning citizens. As soon as possible, all governmental documents, correspondence, writings, speaking, etc. (e.g., ballots) intended for the primary use of US Citizens, or those wishing to reside here legally, shall only be provided in the common language. Also, no government within these United States shall be, or force others to be, compelled to communicate in any language other than the common language.

Obviously, since all people are “…endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” all Citizens, residents, visitors, etc. shall be able to use any language they wish among themselves (including commerce) without restriction.

 
Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites
eXTReMe Tracker