Does America Got Talent?

Nowadays some of the most popular T.V. shows are neither comedies nor dramas - they are “reality” T.V. shows. Among the most popular are American Idol and America’s Got Talent. Both shows audition thousands of American hopefuls who truly believe that they have a great talent. The judges on these programs reduce the thousands to about 48 or 24 and then ask the American public to judge the performers, and by their vote select and reject participants until only one remains.

Both shows originated in England (yes, I said England, not Great Britain or the U.K., but England!). Both use judges from England as well as a few Americans to see if America really has talent. And do we?

We watch the many pathetic souls who believe that their life’s salvation depends on some great talent, if only it could be discovered. Many have tragic stories to tell, almost competing to have the saddest. We watch them perform only to learn that there is absolutely no hope for their salvation, since their talent was only imagined. It’s like watching the characters from Midnight Cowboy competing, hoping for a miracle that never happens.

It soon becomes painfully obvious that barely a handful of the contestants have a talent of any real value. The choices are usually so obvious that the voting seems spot on. But then when the only really talented people remain, the top five or six, the voting becomes a popularity contest rather than one for talent. The clearly best singer or act might not win because of some personal characteristic that does not appeal to the masses. In American Idol it is usually because the talent seems too gay or too ethnic. The winner is usually the nice, white, Christian person with some real talent, just not the most. The most recent winner was an exception to the rule.

I look at our country and see a similar situation. We have nationwide, statewide and local talent contests every two, four and six years. In every race, there are more contenders than positions and so the audience (voters) must choose the one with the most talent for the elected office. Many of those running think that they have great talent that needs only to be discovered. Many think that they can lead their electorate by making wise decisions on their behalf. And we see it again now as the minority party tries to select a nominee to run against the President of the United States in the new reality show, “Does America Got A Talented Leader?”

There have been about nine people who formally announced their ambition to run for the highest office in the land. How many of them have any real talent for this competition?

There is the smartest of the group. He has a Phd. in something basic like history. He has white hair and used to be the Speaker of the House until his caucus told him to stop speaking for them and invited him to return to private life, suggesting the professorial route given his education. He chose the lobbyist/consultant route, given his apparent propensity for greed and gluttony. He had been doing the worst of the group putting his foot into his mouth each time it opened. He reminded us why he lost his government job 15 long years ago. We had almost forgotten how severe his hypocrisy really was. But he somehow stayed in the competition and by a process of elimination rose to the top of this unsightly heap, until people started to remember who he was and what he had done.

There is the one also exited from office and whose name means something unimaginably vile while his political opinions are almost worse. He would eliminate Social Security and Medicare. That would really do the trick. No doubt, this candidate is eligible for neither so why should anyone else be? He appeals to the Christian conservatives by being against homosexual lifestyles, abortion under any circumstance, gun control and raising taxes - their bread and butter issues.

Then there was the businessman who must have gotten lucky and made some money somehow. It was not with intellect — no thinking or analysis there. He got confused about what Libya was, came out with an absurd economic plan and then forgot about the settlements made to women who claimed he harassed them while he was carrying on a 13 year extra-marital affair which he confused with a friendship with benefits. He bowed out gracefully, or as gracefully as he could under the circumstances.

These three contestants would have been eliminated at their first audition if this were a talent show. That would leave six. Check them out.

The leader of this group has been on the show before. He was a contestant four years ago and was doing well until his policies came back to contradict him at every turn. People quickly saw him as a phony who would say anything to get a vote. His big pluses are that he is very rich and very good looking. But those are his only pluses. He is considered the odds on favorite for the party nod as long as his past and his tax returns don’t make him seem too unelectable.

The understudy, who was hoping to be there when numero uno falls, has a first name that seems to be an abbreviation of his character flaw — timidity. He could not help appearing desperately weak while being too nice to be saying all those terrible things about his opponents. He has since departed quietly from the stage, almost unnoticed. His best bet would be to change his name, strengthen his chin, grow a beard, die his hair white and run as an unknown, in Canada.

There is also a backup understudy who might even be related to the declared front runner. They are both rich and are both very handsome and they share the same religion. The understudy was more of an independent than a bone fide contestant in this talent show. He was there just in case the judging audience came to its senses, an unlikely scenario. They didn’t and wouldn’t so he also bade farewell, disappointing his handful of supporters who will continue to be related to him.

Then there are the next two. One can only wonder who persuaded them to consider running for an office they could never win or even spell. The two are very similar but not in good ways. They both claim to be evangelical, which means against gays, minorities, the poor, welfare, abortion, evolution and science. They both feel that G-d speaks to them and that they respond because they want to help G-d do His work. Neither has a clue about economics or foreign policy. Their mantra is identical — cut taxes and shrink the government to its minimal and let the kindness and wisdom of the free market system driven by the richest among us rule the day. The fact that this is the formula that almost bankrupted the country does not give them pause. And the fact that both have spent their entire professional lives working for the government also does not seem to faze them; it might actually strengthen their argument by making government employees look even worse. The more attractive of the two has already departed from the competition and the other is doing so as I write this, thus avoiding finishing last in South Carolina, behind TV host Stephen Colbert who is not even on the ballot.

At least with America’s Got Talent and American Idol, the five finalists have talent. In this case the only one among them with any talent is the one most neglected because he is such a libertarian. If he were on the talent shows he would lose because he isn’t the type to be popular even if he is the most talented. Could he ever be forgiven for raising the son who went on to become Kentucky’s junior senator and its senior crazy? Will he try to deny paternity retroactively at this late date? Would he really cut the annual deficit by one trillion dollars in his first year and close all 700-1000 foreign military bases?

I find it sad not only that this is all the talent the minority party can bring to such an important election, but that the American people are not surprised at our lack of political talent. We have gotten used to being disappointed, so human failure is no shock to us. We’ve gotten used to inadequate news coverage of complex issues, and incomplete medical care caused by assembly-line-like appointments necessitated to maximize corporate profit. We accept the fact that our public schools cannot properly educate our children and that our precious tax dollars will be squandered in vain attempts to assist countries controlled by dictators. We recognize that most of our T.V. shows and commercials as well as most of our movies will fail to entertain or enlighten us. We have already stopped believing our politicians, but nowadays we don’t even expect them to be intelligent, informed or to have any integrity, with one notable exception, the current White House incumbent.

Foreigners always say that they hate the American government but love the American people. Many of us have learned to accept that as making any sense at all. In America we freely elect fellow Americans to run our government. How are the two different? The answer is they are not.

We Americans who know that we are the greatest people on earth living in the greatest country on earth under the greatest political system on earth, also accept all these aforementioned shortcomings in direct contradiction and opposition to that greatness.

Does America got political talent? Does the emperor got new clothes?

Feedback: kaye@westsideobserver.com

February 2012

A Simple and Fair Federal Income Tax

America is in the midst of an economic crisis. We have a federal debt in excess of $14 trillion dollars, we are running annual deficits of more than a trillion dollars, we have 14 million people out of work, and 50 million people, including one in five of our children, living in poverty. While job creation is essential, so is reducing the annual deficit by cutting unnecessary federal spending and raising revenue.

Studies have found that the richest Americans are paying at an average rate of only 17% for their annual federal income tax, and that half of American households pay no federal or state income tax at all.

There has been much discussion about changing the tax code to make it simpler and more fair. Conservatives want a flat tax with everyone paying the same rate. They want to reduce the highest rate while expanding the base, meaning that more people would be paying taxes while the richest would pay less. The last time tax rates were lowered in favor of the wealthiest Americans, under the Bush/Cheney administration, the result was no new jobs, record deficits, a Wall Street crash and the tattered economy we are now suffering.

I have a recommendation that would simplify the federal and therefore the state income tax code for individuals and couples, not including the self-employed. My plan would be very simple, fair, and would raise at least $200 billion a year in new revenues. This figure could be adjusted, as could the recommended tax brackets and standard deductions.

Under this plan taxes would have one purpose - collecting revenue with which to fund needed government services. The tax code would not try to encourage or discourage behavior with deductions or credits. It would treat all income equally, be it from work (minus FICA deduction), dividends, pensions, insurance benefits, bonuses, interest, lawsuits, lotteries, etc.

As of 2008, people's income from stock dividends has been taxed at 15% while income from savings interest can be as high as 35%. Actual capital gains are also now at the 15% level, down from 35%, while only a maximum of 85% of Social Security benefits are taxable and legal settlements are not taxed at all. Under this new system all these income sources would be treated as equal.

Under this plan there would be no itemized deductions, only a standard one. For discussion purposes it could be $15,000 for an individual or $30,000 for a couple. There would be no deductions for children, medical care costs, charitable contributions, education costs, mortgage payments, state income tax, etc. Currently there is no itemized deduction for buying food for the family or for eating at restaurants with the kids, but people do it. There is no itemized deduction for buying the family clothes, but people do it. There was a deduction for interest paid on credit cards and car loans but that was dropped 30 years ago. People still pay interest on them even though they can't write it off. The three martini lunch was dropped as a business deduction, but people still have them every day.

There would be only five tax brackets that would range from (after the standard deduction) 10% for net incomes up to $50,000, 15% up to $100,000, 20% up to $250,000, 25% up to one million, and 30% for income over $1 million These brackets could be adjusted to raise or lower the tax burden.

Here are some examples:

Imagine that there is a couple that earned $50,000 in net salary (after deducting FICA withholding for payroll taxes), $20,000 in Social Security benefit payments, $10,000 in interest, and $5,000 in capital gains. The total is $85,000. The couple would deduct $30,000 in a standard deduction, leaving them a net income of $55,000. The first $50,000 could be at a 10% tax rate or, in this case, $5,000. The remaining $5,000 of net income would be taxed at 15% or, in this case, $750. The total tax would be $5,750 or 6.7% of their gross income.

Let's say there is a couple who earned $200,000 in net salary and $310,000 in capital gains. Their total would be $510,000. Using the standard deduction, they would net $480,000. The first $50,000 would be at 10%. The second $50,000 would be taxed at 15%. The next $150,000 would be taxed at 20% and the remaining $230,000 (net income over $250,000) would be taxed 25%. So in this case, the couple would owe $5,000+$7,500+$30,000+$57,500 = $100,000 in taxes. That equals a 20.8% tax on their gross income.

As a third example has a couple making $5 million in capital gains, (including dividends also currently taxed at only 15%). They would have a standard deduction of $30,000 and then owe $230,000 for the first $1 million and $1.2 million for the remaining $4 million for a total of $1.43 million or 28.6% in federal income tax.

This tax code would not give an Earned Income Credit or a Making Work Pay Credit to low earners, who currently not only don't pay taxes but actually get paid taxes costing $115 billion a year. The lowered rates for the wealthiest, under Bush/Cheney, reduced tax revenues by almost $100 billion a year.

That does not mean that those in need of relief for college loans, income supplements, special medical needs or anything else currently credited in the tax code would be ignored. With the money saved, hundreds of billions a year, there would be money for these purposes. More and larger college grants and some very low interest federal loans could be awarded to deserving students; low income workers could receive a reduced cost for health care benefits, help with rent payments, access to food discounts and other benefits targeted at those in need of help.

But what about the loss of deductions for home mortgages and charitable contributions? Will people still buy homes or give to charities? Good question.

While home mortgages have other problems now, if people see buying a home as a lifetime investment in their own well being, they will continue to buy homes. With some of the revenue raised by eliminating this deduction, more affordable mortgages can be funded to qualifying families. The $30,000 standard deduction is more than most middle class families claim in itemized deductions for home mortgage interest and charity.

With charities, it is an open question. I have found in my own case, now that I have subjected my family taxes to the standard deduction, I still pay as much for charities and feel better about it because I don't have to keep track of every receipt and tally them to see how much I can save for my kindness. This way it is just out of the desire to help others without any expectation of reward.

I believe that this recommended tax code change would raise needed revenue by both expanding the base, meaning more than just half of all families will be paying some tax, and by getting the rich to pay more but at a lower marginal tax rate.

Then, if this plan is adopted and revenue is raised, it must be put to good use. Government waste, including fraud, inefficiency, ineffectiveness, duplication of effort and international overreaching must be minimized and our deficit must be reduced. Our tax dollars should go to good use.

Feedback: kaye@westsideobserver.com

December 2011

 

Who Is Elite?

The word "elite" usually is used to refer to excellence. An elite military unit is one that is the best trained and equipped. An elite university, like Harvard or Stanford, is one considered better than most. Statistically, the elite are those in the top of the bell curve, being at least in the third standard deviation above the mean or above 95% of the sample population.

Today, the word "elite," means something very bad to the people on the left politically and to those on the far right.

To the people on the left, the elite are the cause of all problems in the world. Since the Left firmly believes that we were all created equal, it blames the manipulation by the elite to oppress the working class to increase profits and personal wealth for making the poor, poor. They also believe that elite countries like the U.S. and England have been the cause of so many failed countries in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America, countries that would be successful were it not for outside intervention.

To those on the left, the elite are those who have the most money and power. They are corporate CEOs, hedge fund managers, stock brokers, bankers and heirs to family fortunes. The Left finds these people to be greedy, gluttonous, power hungry, cruel, biased and taking unfair advantage of the working class. It is these elites, the Left says, who control our elected representatives with their demands for their special interests because they want to have all the money and power and want to control our country and then our world. These elite pay lower tax rates and live the high life while the rest of us suffer.

To those on the right, the elite are those who are highly educated. The elite attended our most elite colleges and universities. They are college professors, medical doctors, highbrow lawyers, psychologists and psychiatrists, economists, philosophers, journalists, historians, and scientists. The Right finds these people to be weak, condescending, amoral, controlling and trying to destroy our country's moral and economic fiber with liberal laws and socialistic economic policy - taxing the rich too much to give free handouts to the undeserving poor. The Right feels that many on the left pay no taxes while trying to bleed the productive members of our society in their attempt to force equality of outcome on all of us.

It has therefore come as a shock to those reading the latest data concerning our distribution of wealth. It turns out that 90% of Americans are worth less than less than $600,000. This personal wealth includes the value of one's stock, real estate, equity, bonds, 401Ks, and art collection. Many on the left, especially in the Bay Area, are worth much more than that. Are they then the elite - the top 10% of household wealth? And add to them many on the left who worked for local government and have retired with generous pension and medical coverage benefits? What are they worth?

A police officer or fire fighter who retires from service in San Francisco, as well as many nearby cities, will receive as much as 90% of his final pay as the base of his pension payments. This same person also will receive a Cadillac health coverage that costs the City $15,000 a year, more if the retiree has a dependent. Say the total value of both (the pension and medical coverage) is $100,000 a year, how much would one need to have in the bank or in stocks to earn $100,000 a year? At 2%, it is equal to $5 million. That's a lot more than $600,000. So how many government retirees and members of the left are the elite?

The Right has similar problems though still comes closer to being its own ideal. The Right hates the educated elite and yet many on the right have college degrees and some have advanced degrees. But with the right, it causes one to wonder about the value of the education because of its lack of apparent effect. One current darling of the right has a medical degree. Another got a law degree being in the first and last graduating class at her decertified law school and went on to get a post graduate degree at a school that offers no such degree - another singular educational accomplishment. A third favorite of the right has a bachelor's degree from the fifth college she attended. Only about one of every four Americans has a college degree, less than 10% have graduate degrees. So these leaders of the right who decry the intellectual elite, are themselves in that category, at least on paper. The minute they start talking, we forget about their educational credentials and so do they.

So what are we to do about this apparent cognitive dissonance? We can stop using the word "elite" in a negative manner and preserve it to honor excellence. We can start using the appropriate adjectives to describe what we misnamed "elite."

The Left should start to clearly identify the culprits and their sin. I suspect that they are the corporate CEO's, the Wall Street bankers and brokers, the lobbyists and the defense industry. Their collective sin is placing personal and corporate profit over morality or patriotism. They are not elite but they are rich and powerful and could have used their talents to help this country rather than just themselves.

The Right must come to realize that intelligence, education, science and philosophy are not bad or scary things. They are tools that can be used for good rather than greed. Those on the right can also be educated and let their minds and hearts combine to do the right thing. Their fight is, or should be, not with intelligence or education but with philosophy. What they object to from the left is its apparent and mistaken belief that we are all created equal and so our lives should have equal outcomes. The Left seems to always blame society rather than the individual when both are at fault. Those on the right legitimately believe that some people work harder and have more talent than others and should be rewarded accordingly. But they also mistakenly believe that the free market should be left to regulate itself without government interference disregarding the many past examples to the contrary. They would do well to realize that government regulation is necessary for everyone's sake even the person or company that is tempted to trespass against someone. The Wall Street crash and recent real estate debacle should be sufficient evidence of that.

The Left must recognize that we are not all created equal and our effort and outcomes will not be the same. Some people have much more talent or perseverance than others in some areas. Some provide services that pay more than others and some people will have a lot more money and all that it buys. The people of the left must acknowledge that individuals and cultures have a responsibility to themselves and others to do their very best to achieve their full potential. People must be more self reliant and less dependent on the kindness of strangers and taxpayers. Unions, the darlings of the left, must appreciate individual differences and not treat all members as equally deserving regardless of actual performance. Merit should trump seniority and politics. The Left must accept the fact that with almost 50 million of our people living in or near poverty, we cannot invite more poverty from other countries. American jobs should go to Americans and not the imported or exported poor.

Those on opposite sides of our political and philosophical spectrum should be able to come together on our many shared beliefs. We can produce a simple and fair tax system and use our collective wisdom to find the best uses for our redistributed wealth. We can reduce or eliminate waste, fraud, duplication of effort, and inappropriate government activities. We can encourage a culture that allows all of its citizens to achieve their highest level of activity and joy. We can be brought together by our unanimous and unifying love of our country and its people.

Or we can allow our extremes to tear our country and culture apart. The choice is ours to make.

Feedback: kaye@westsideobserver.com

November 2011

 

What is the American Dream?

Now that America is experiencing an economic slowdown brought on by a banking crisis, many Americans feel that they are missing out on the American Dream. But what is the American Dream?

I think that it used to be that a poor, uneducated person could come to America, work hard at his greatest talent and become very, very rich. His children would be brought up with everything money could buy and go on to father generations of rich, well-educated, attractive Americans. This dream is still alive for the billions of poor, uneducated people all over the world — that if they can get to America, the Promised Land, they will also be rich and successful. It seems almost guaranteed, but of course, it isn't.

For Americans after World War II, the Dream became having a good job, owning one's own home with two cars in the garage, having at least two kids and retiring with a generous pension after a long career of good work.

But sometime around the 1970s or 80s, the definition changed again. In recognition of the fact that while all of us are allegedly created equal, some have much more than others and some have very much less, we decided to level the playing field by stressing variety over performance, diversity over excellence and entitlement over hard work. We now live in a country where half the population pays no taxes while one percent of our people own and control most of our country's wealth. A recent study found that the average white American has assets (like homes, bank accounts, IRAs, pensions, gold, etc.) worth 20 times more than the average black or Hispanic American has - $120,000 versus $6,000. And more alarming, that 90% of Americans have total assets worth less than $600,000. We are hearing that now, one in five children lives in poverty defined as $22,000 a year for a family of four. (This same amount is what many of our congressional representatives go through each month for their lifestyle.) We have 14 million people out of work instead of the normal 4.5 million. There are now almost 50 million Americans on Food Stamps, up 40% in a decade.

What is our American Dream now — more generous Food Stamp benefits, another extension of unemployment benefits, a lowering not only of our mortgage interest rate but also the principal owed, or is it more soup kitchens serving better quality food?

And what is the Dream for our children? Can they look forward to excellent, affordable education, at least K-12; to getting objective and comprehensive news coverage from the media, or having political candidates who have the country's interest at heart with the intellect and integrity to realize their highest hopes for the people? Must our children continue to work to fund the biggest military force the world has ever known covering every continent with almost 1000 military bases filled with our 2.5 million military personnel, or to send $50 billion dollars a year in foreign aid to cruel dictators to prevent worse dictators from taking over? Will our children have good jobs that are neither outsourced nor in-sourced (using document-free labor), and will those jobs provide them with a substantial pension when they can retire at age 75? Will Social Security and Medicare still exist, and will living, and affording to, still be possible?

What could the American Dream be now and in the future?

Could it truly be the greatest country with the greatest people, who are united as a people, not distracted with their identification with their foreign ancestors? Could we be a country rich enough to eliminate poverty among our people, wise enough to dramatically reduce waste and pollution, practical enough to realize the primary importance of providing the very best education from kindergarten through college, and secure enough to pull our troops out of foreign lands and wars knowing that the best defense is a strong economy and an educated, united populace? Could we once again be known as a country that makes great things that the world wants, while able to be self-sufficient in raw materials, finished products and needed services?

Is it just a dream and not an entitlement or guarantee? Yes, but it is a dream that we can make come true if we work hard enough for it, rather than sitting around waiting for it to happen, or for the government to do it for us.

Feedback: kaye@westsideobserver.com

October 2011

 

Ridding The World of Bad Words

Lately, certain words usually only referred to by using their first letter have been identified for elimination. What these words represent and the effect they have on people have made these forbidden words unworthy of human utterance.

There is the "N" word that is used extensively in America's most famous novel, "Huckleberry Finn." Since this word appears more than 200 times in Mark Twain's book, many schools refused to let their students read it. Recently, a new edition was published substituting the "n" word with the word "slave," considered a much more tolerable label for human beings.

During a recent governor's race, someone in the background used the "w" word about a candidate during a telephone call made by her opponent. The word was meant to highlight this female candidate's willingness to do anything for money. The woman feigned great offense to her new title in such a way that the name seemed too good to describe her. She claimed that the word was an affront to every woman in the state. But was it a sexist slur? Should it no longer be used?

Now there is a movement to get people to stop using the "r" word out of consideration for people with learning challenges. Using this word with any reference should be stopped, immediately, advocates urge.

And then there is the word so bad that I don't even use its letter. It is the one between "e" and "g." While it describes what most people seem to greatly enjoy, it is considered unspeakable. There is now a record using the full word in its title and throughout the song. Is this pushing artistic freedom too far? Can this word followed by the second person singular be used at least when listening to a terribly dishonest politician lie on T.V.? (I must admit that at times I get so upset at disingenuous congressmen that I sometimes yell out "letter between 'e' and 'g' to your second person singular!" while watching them on T.V. I can only hope that nobody has heard me.)

What other words should be limited to just their first initial, if mentioned at all?

Surely all words that can be deemed racial or ethnic slurs could be banned or limited to their first initial. We could have the "J" word, the "k" word (the worse, though lower case, version of the prior letter's word), the "C" word (or the Ch if allowed two letters), the "P" word (all the jokes would be "P" jokes) and so on.

Then there are the words that denigrate character, like the "w" word that was so politicized recently. There could be the initialization of the "l" word for people who don't speak the truth, the "p" word for those who appear too gluttonous, and the "g" word for those of us who like airing the laundry of our friends and acquaintances.

But then we come to words like the "r" word. These words add insult to injury. They help us point out and ridicule the physical or mental shortcomings of others. Words like "stupid," "ugly," "moron," "dumb," "homely," "short," "stubby," "coward," "dimwit," and "slug," could be forever banned because of the hurt they cause those given these labels which are frontal assaults on their self-esteem and feelings of adequacy.

There is another solution, one that would save countless adjectives that could be reconditioned and used for peaceful purposes. Rather than limiting the kind of words available for use, why not work on creating and nurturing a culture that has such understanding and compassion that such words lose their negative meaning? Not only would we be beyond even considering expressing vulgarity or insensitivity, the victims of even the then-very occasional use of these terms would see them only as sad reflections of the speakers, and have compassion for their ignorance and apparent feelings of inadequacy.

But can a culture change? This question has risen in the minds of many watching the events in the Middle East and Northern Africa. Can these cultures change what seems to be their collective DNA? Can tribal nations come together as one people? Can education and exposure to the civilized world help them radically change their brutal attitudes, beliefs and behaviors?

The same could be asked about ours. Can we wean ourselves away from the violence and greed that drives some of our worst behavior? Can the elite learn to take less and give more? Can we spread intelligence and consideration to all corners and all aspects of our culture? Can we come together to end poverty and its resultant crime in our land? Can we come to learn that bigger is not always better and that more is sometimes less? Can our politicians stop their petty squabbling and partisan rhetoric and try their best to solve our country's pressing problems?

I think that the answer is "yes" for us and an almost "maybe" for some of the other cultures mentioned. Germany and Japan changed dramatically after World War II. I think that we are seeing that happening in China and India. Even in the Middle East there is the beginning of a recognition that their way doesn't work anymore and probably never did. It will take them a while to realize that first they must stop subjugating women, even if that makes the men feel even more inadequate. Men there will not be free of their tyrants until they stop being tyrants to their women.

We will never ban enough bad words to make all our people feel that their self esteem is not under assault. But we can work harder to ban ignorance and perhaps, to give all our people reason to have high self esteem, making using negative terms against others unimaginable.

Feedback: kaye@westsideobserver.com

September 2011

 

The Israel Issue

Once again the U.S. is trying to get a peace settlement between Israel and Palestine. Israel was granted statehood by the League of Nations (which became the U.N.) after World War II which saw the death of more than half the Jewish population of the world. The general region referred to as the Palestine was under British rule at the time. The Palestine has been under many rules, but never has had self rule. Israel had been the home of the Jewish people since the time of Abraham, the father of Judaism, Christianity and of Islam, more than 4,000 years ago. The word Israel is in almost every Jewish prayer. The Jews believe that the land was given to their people by G-d.

The 1948 agreement gave statehood to Israel with the boundaries limiting it to about 8,000 square miles. Israel is surrounded by Arab countries which have approximately 8.6 million square miles (1000 times the size of Israel) in 21 countries with a current population of more than 360 million Arabs. Israel has a current Jewish population of 5.3 million, about the same number as those who reside in the U.S. The number of countries with majority Muslim populations including non-Arab countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Indonesia, is 47.

When Israel was recognized as a state, so were several other countries in the world and in the region. Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Libya and Iraq were some of the newly formed and recognized countries created during that time, as were Pakistan, Bangladesh, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, to name a few. Boundary lines were also moved after World War I in other countries like Hungary, Poland, Germany and Romania and for the entire Middle East after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire.

Now, in 2011, the world has watched the "Arab Spring." Arabs in Northern African countries are revolting against their dictators who have ruled them almost since many of the nations were first created. The Arabs claim that after all these years they want democracy and freedom from oppression. But these same young, brave freedom fighters do not want the same for their own women, nor for the Jewish people.

It isn't enough that this ancient people who have done so much for the world in science, philosophy, art, and literature should be restricted to a mere 8,000 square miles of what had been arid waste land; the reborn Arabs do not want Israel to exist, at all.

And yet, seeing all this, some in America side with the Arabs. These people consider the Arabs the underdogs because 63 years ago some Arabs living in Israel were displaced. At the same time Jews living in what became Jordan were also displaced. But they cannot see Israel as the underdog even though it has one-68th the number of people and one-1000th the land mass that the Arabs do.

Some people feel that the Jews should not have a homeland because no country should be religion-oriented. They must concede that Muslims have 47 countries. They say that is wrong, too. They must be reminded that the Jews are not only a religion, they are also a people, a nationality like Arabs or Italians or Mexicans. And like all the other nationalities, they deserve a homeland, Israel. The Arab people have 21 homelands; why can't the Israelites have one the size of New Jersey?

So what is the solution to their situation? Our President and their Prime Minister said it differently, but clearly. Israel must go back to its pre-1967 borders plus swaps to ensure Israeli security. The swaps would be that Israel keeps East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, which they took in 1967 after all of the surrounding Arab nations attacked Israel and were soundly defeated by this small struggling nation. In exchange, the Israelis would return the West Bank and all the Israeli settlements there which now accommodate 300,000 Israelis. (They have already returned the Sinai to Egypt and the Gaza to Palestine as prior peace gestures.) Under this plan, Israel with its 5.3 million people would have 8000 square miles, while 4 million Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza would have 10,000 square miles.

The land and homes would be given to the Palestinians, who could house the descendants of those Arabs displaced from Israel in the late 1940s. These "refugees" have been mostly kept in refugee camps in neighboring Arab countries for the past 63 years. Refugees, not welcomed and integrated into their new home's society, for 63 years!

This agreement would end the problem. Everyone involved knows that this is the deal. But the Palestinians are a divided camp. The residents of Gaza, given their independence by Israel, elected Hamas to lead them. Hamas is a terrorist organization whose goal is the elimination of the Israeli state. They have now formed a coalition with Fatah, the governing power of the West Bank. Even if Fatah wants to accept this deal, its partner can't and at the same time say that Israel cannot exist.

I think that it's high time that we realize who the true underdog is in this drama. It is Israel, the little country, one tenth of one percent the size of its hostile neighbors.

If the Arab states said that they would no longer use any weapons to attack others or even to defend themselves, there would be peace in the Middle East. If Israel said that it would disarm completely and not fight even to defend itself, it would be destroyed in days.

Now who's the underdog?

Feedback: kaye@westsideobserver.com

July-August 2011

Numbers Count, Size Matters

One effect of our de-emphasis on math in this country is that we have stopped thinking with numbers, preferring descriptive adjectives that are more forgiving and less intimidating. Instead of saying that it is 3,280 feet high, we say that it was very tall. Instead of saying that the car was 183 inches long, we say that it is a compact. Instead of being told that our cholesterol is 150 or 205, we are told that it is normal and we accept that.

We now see this happening in the media. San Francisco's major daily has been moving away from numbers on every front. First it was the stock market results. All stocks traded on the New York or American stock exchange had always been listed daily showing their most recent prices as well as past highs and lows. This was then abbreviated to showing only the major stocks. And now there are just a few highlights. They then contracted out their entire business section to gain further distance from the tyranny of numbers. They still use numbers to describe the weather but that also has been contracted out to a national service that seems to think that the San Francisco airport is in downtown San Francisco, especially for rainfall totals.

It turns out that somehow rainfall totals for San Francisco have always been contentious not to mention inaccurate. There always seems to be a bias toward understating rainfall totals in order to prolong the illusion of a drought. In the mid 90s, as we were drowning in heavy rainfall, the media kept insisting that the drought was still with us. (It ended the career of a respected investigative reporter when she persisted to report the drought even as record high totals were being witnessed.) This year, it took the State until the beginning of May to announce an end to the drought even though our totals for this year are as high as 150% of normal and our reservoirs are overflowing. This year San Francisco is on track to have had a record rainfall year, but you don't hear much talk about it. Some people, apparently, have something to gain by keeping the "D" word constantly in play.

Our same daily paper also has told its very small band of news reporters to refrain from using numbers in their reports. (Sports reporters are exempt from this so far, but who knows? They might have to start reporting just who won and who lost without using the actual scores.) Perhaps they want to avoid making factual errors or maybe they want to soften the effect hard numbers might have on their readers.

But numbers have their place, especially when describing finite objects. Numbers help us make more precise evaluations so that we can make the best choices. Sometimes a bigger number is better, but I find that, more often than not, size matters and smaller could very well be better.

We have seen this repeatedly with American fashion: Remember when women's shoulder pads made them look like linebackers in uniform? Until recently men wore jackets that were several sizes too large. We are still designing and producing men's shorts and bathing suits that are so long that they appear to be attempting to conceal as much as possible while making the wearer look as unappealing as he can be. They cannot be described as "shorts" and should be referred to as "mediums" or "knee-lows." There were times when men's ties were clearly much too wide and suit jackets had lapels that were grossly oversized. Now we have a craze among some to wear pants many sizes too large so that they settle much too low and leave the wearers looking clown-like in their baggy length.

And as mentioned in an earlier column, watches have gotten too big since Rolex underwater watches got popular in the 60s.

And, of course, there is the debate about our national budget crisis with no one providing the actual numbers to make the choices clearer. No one mentions that though Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid take up a sizable part of our $3.5 trillion annual budget, all the money comes from separate trust funds and their costs do not add to our budget deficit and won't for at least 15-25 years. No one mentions that the biggest item is defense at more than $800 billion a year funding two unnecessary wars and staffing more than 700 bases oversees to protect the citizens of other countries from possible attack from a Soviet Union that no longer exists and a North Korea, which can barely feed its own people.

But what most concerns me at this moment is the size of American family cars and the public's unawareness of the vast variations. What American car companies call a compact car is what I consider a large car, but I use actual numbers to describe their differences.

Family cars sold in America range in size from about 147 inches for the Mini Cooper to about 223 for the Cadillac Escalante. That's a 76 inch or 6.3 foot difference. And like Goldilocks, I think that some are too small but many are too large and some are just right. I believe that a small car should be around 165 inches long - about the size of a VW beetle, VW Golf, Honda Fit, Mini Coachman (the new four-door), the Audi A3, etc. The next size still acceptable and roomier is around 175-180 inches long and is found in cars like the BMW 1 and 3 series, the Audi A4, the VW Jetta, Mercedes C class, Volvo 50, etc.

I think that the largest size should be no more than 190 inches. There are many examples of this size as well.

The only problem is that America car companies are not producing quality small cars. American buyers and car makers seem to not really see the problem. The large cars and SUVs many of us are driving are not only gas guzzlers and a danger to more reasonably sized vehicles, they are also much more difficult and less fun to drive than smaller cars. And they are harder to park.

Yes, Chevy and Ford do have some smaller cars, but who wants them? Who even knows what they are? The Chevy has the Aveo and the Cruze. The former is 170 inches and the latter is 180. Ford has the Fiesta at 174 inches and the Focus at 178. How do they compare with the smaller European cars named above?

I strongly believe that the American car producers should begin the process, as they did in the early 60's, of building high quality, attractive, and exciting, cars that also have great fuel economy and are small but roomy. After the great VW Beetle invasion of the early 60's, American car companies began making small and appealing cars. There was the Pontiac Tempest/Lemans, the Chevy Corvair, the Oldsmobile Cutlass, the Buick Skylark, the Rambler Metropolitan, the Ford Falcon, Plymouth Valient, and the Dodge Lancer, to name a few.

But each one of these models either grew significantly in size or disappeared. The Tempest/Lemans grew in every way to become the mighty G.T.O by 1964. The Corvair was killed single-handedly by a young upstart named Nader. The Skylark, Valient, Lancer, and Falcon grew a little and then disappeared. The Metropolitan, which started in the 50s and was as cute as cute can be, just disappeared.

The American car industry decided to go the other way. Instead of making excellent small cars, they decided that they would make high-powered, large cars. Then they realized they could take cheap pick-up trucks, doll them up with more seats and a covered truck bed, call them S.U.V.s and people would be willing to spend big bucks for them choosing comfort, imagined safety and size over small and economic cars.

The Japanese and Europeans jumped in to fill our small-car gap.

I would like to see a small, elegant, attractive and economical model for each of the six car lines: a 165 inch Chevrolet, Buick, Cadillac, Chrysler, Ford and Lincoln as well as a 175-180 inch model in each line and maybe one top-of-the-line model of no more than 190 inches for the premium lines using their old premium names: Cadillac Eldorado or Fleetwood , Buick Roadmaster, Chrysler Imperial and Lincoln Continental. The small Chevy could be called the Monza.

I have not included Dodge in this list because I think that it should and will be discontinued as a car line and become, like Jeep and GMC, a truck line.

I think in order for this reduced-size car plan to succeed, Americans must become more number conscious.

But if we as a people are to become more number conscious, we must become more attentive to our everyday events and much more accurate in our descriptions. This is not a bad thing. It is nice to pay attention and to be able to clearly and precisely describe objects or events.

Numbers really do count and size really does matter, even if we are not aware of it.

Jack Kaye feedback: kaye@westsideobserver.com

June 2011

Driven By, To, From and Around Distraction

There's a great new television commercial featuring a man in a car approached in a garage by a gentleman who warns him that he will be talking on his cell phone when he backs his own car up and might accidentally hit this man's vehicle. The same man in the car is later cautioned by another driver that she will be doing her makeup while driving and might swerve into his lane. Another person alerts the same driver that he will be eating while driving and so might side swipe his car by accident.

The man is being warned that the people around him are distracted and could pose a danger to him and his property. Most of us don't get that warning. We might not realize that we ourselves are too distracted to be completely reliable, that we are driven by, to, from and around distraction. We might be unaware of its effect on ourselves and others. And most of all, we might know why distraction drives us so.

Two great Russian philosophers, Gurdjieff and Ouspensky, believed that most of us are asleep and live our lives like machines. Their suggested remedy was to be ever conscious of who we are and what we are doing - by remembering ourselves.

A modern version of this might be that we are terribly distracted and therefore find ourselves reacting to life rather than creating it. We seem to always be a few seconds behind. Life has become so complex and there are so many important things going on in our lives that we want to do as much as we can. We don't want to miss anything. But what is the remedy?

We have our cell phones that go everywhere with us. When they make a noise of our choosing we are duty-bound to answer, no matter where, no matter when. Some of us also have our iPods, iPads, iMacs, our Walkman (where have you been?), FAX, blog, tweets, and text messages demanding our immediate attention. What are we to do? The world beckons.

So why do we allow this to happen, if we really have a choice, and is it good or bad?

As always, I have a theory.

I think that there are several reasons why we have allowed ourselves to become so distracted.

First there is the genuine desire and need to do the best we can. Many of us of believe that in order to do our best we must be available to all the inputs or stimuli that we can. If we network, we should have as wide a net as we can spread. If we are serving clients, we want to be available to and for them and to all correspondence needed to assist them. We want to be productive.

Then, I think that there is the need to feel connected. If it is a woman walking alone in an unfamiliar part of town or if it's someone dining alone at a restaurant filled with happy couples, or just people wanting to make sure no one thinks that they are really alone or have nothing to do. Our electronic devices have become our friends and sidekicks. Our devices are magical, like the Captain Video ring or Dick Tracy's wristwatch phone were to us 50 years ago. We won't go anywhere without them. Our connection with them and with all the interactions that they avail us is rooted, I believe, in our umbilical cord's link to our mothers, our primary source of nutrition and love.

But I think that there is a deeper reason why we are so subject to and also eager for distraction. I think that it is for the same reason people drink alcohol - to divert us from the weight and responsibility of the here and now.

How many of us have denied responsibility for some mindless or thoughtless act by saying that we were drunk and didn't know what we were doing or failing to do at the time? What is the purpose of college fraternity parties if not to get co-eds so drunk that they won't be or feel so morally responsible?

I see the same deniability every day in the dog park. A couple are walking their dog but are distracted and never seem to notice that their dog is going to the bathroom and needs to be cleaned up after. Sometimes it is because the people are in a deep conversation and can conduct it only by looking away from where their dog is. Or maybe one is on a real important cell phone call that must be done while facing away from their canine charge. Or maybe they are busy with their beloved child and just do not notice.

How many people late for their appointments or unable to return calls were just too distracted? How many cars go through red lights and stop signs because the driver is deeply involved in his cell phone call? How many parents ignore signs of trouble for their children because they were just too involved in other things? How many orders for goods or services go wrong because someone along the line was thinking about something else?

It may be just me but it seems that this problem has gone way beyond errors by government agencies and children spilling milk. It has gotten to be a gamble whether the ultimate product will even approximate the original request. If you order your burger medium rare, will it be? Or was the waitress too distracted to get your complete request or was the chef busy text messaging his girlfriend who was in the middle of a brain surgery and was trying to find just the right part of the brain to drill in this life and death operation?

When you call customer service trying to resolve a serious issue, is the customer service representative so overwhelmed by the many calls that she accidentally disconnects you after you waited half an hour on the line to get her? If you finally, after the third or fourth try, get to speak to the live person and the person promises to take a certain action on your behalf, will that person remember? And if so, will the memory be correct or confused with another order?

I've noticed it driving lately. People don't seem aware that the light has changed or that they can go ahead and make a right at the light or that the speed limit is well over the five miles per hour they are driving or that they don't have to maintain eye contact with their passenger, if driving while conversing, especially if the passenger is in the back seat. And these drivers aren't even the ones on cell phones, or eating and drinking their lunch, or text messaging while on the move.

So is this good? If distractions are driving us to accomplish more, but poorly, is it good? Is quantity more important than quality? And if, as we are constantly reminded by columns like this one, the key to life is living in the here and now by doing everything as an end in itself as well as a means to an end, how can distractions help? If the key to success is the ability to focus completely on what we are doing, how does doing several things at the same time fit?

How many home runs did Babe Ruth or Mickey Mantle or Barry Bonds hit while they were thinking about something else? How many actors give their best performances with their minds on something else? Are great pianists or opera singers actually mentally involved in a different activity while they perform?

If these questions seem so easy to answer "no" to, then why do we continue to sacrifice our ability to perform at our best for the sake of performing at our most, shortchanging everything we do?

I think that as Shakespeare lamented "the world is too much with us." It's too much to take in one bite so we take parts of it at different times. We don't want to put all our eggs in one basket because what if it leaks? Instead of putting all our money on one horse to win, why not put money on three horses to at least show. If you're really lucky they might all finish in the top three. If you're really lucky, you might be able to have an intelligent cell phone conversation while driving at the appropriate speed and stopping at the right place for the right amount of time. Sometimes, we are lucky, and sometimes, we're not.

I suggest that we test this theory. Let us try to do one thing at a time giving it our full attention. Let us do this not only as the means to some future end, which it always is, but also as an end in itself. If we are vacuuming to keep our home clean, let us also do it for the pleasure of doing it. When we eat, let us do it not only for nutrition, but also just for the pleasure of tasting different flavors. If we drive to the store let us enjoy the ride.

If my theory is correct, we will perform more efficiently, effectively and enjoyably. We will experience the beginner's mind, finding that whatever we do will feel like it's the first time. We will know pleasure of childlike simplicity as in a constant meditation.

If my theory is incorrect, it will be because I have been very distracted trying to keep my laptop steady as I drive through the rain. It's not my fault.

Feedback: kaye@westsideobserver.com

April 2011

Who Are We and What Do We Want?

Being a native American born in our nation's largest city of immigrant parents, I always thought I had a clear idea of who we Americans are and therefore, what we wanted.

I knew that ours was an international country with many of the best qualities of other homelands. Our people had a bit of the charm of the Irish, the warmth of the Italians, the hard work ethic of the Germans, the integrity of the Hungarians (I added this because my mother was Hungarian) and the childlike simplicity of a humble Latin American. We were free and loved our freedom. We were generous and shared our prosperity with the less fortunate. We gave everyone a chance to be the best that they can be, just like the slogan of our all-volunteer army.

In America a foreigner could enter our land legally, learn our language and culture, become a citizen after renouncing all others (kind of like a wedding vow) and be considered an American as would his or her children, born in this country as I was.

When our President campaigned for office, he told us that there is one America, not two or three, but just one. There was no Blue America or Red America. There was no Italian-American or Hungarian-American or Black-American. We are all Americans. This idea, like so many in life, is both true and false.

Compared to people of other lands, we are all the same. We're like the Bette Midler song "From a Distance." From a distance we are all Americans, but the closer you get, the more different we seem.

We saw it in the past election. A black candidate got more than 90% of the black vote but lost the white vote to his absurdly inferior rival in every age category except for that of our youngest voters. If an American of Asian, Hispanic or Jewish heritage runs for office, he or she can be sure to get the vast majority of his or her group's members' votes. So much for our non-hyphenated equality.

We have somehow forgotten the notion that an American must renounce all other citizenships. Some of us are trying to see how many passports we can qualify for. Did your great grandmother come from Germany? You can be a German. And if your grandmother was from France, you can also become French. Wasn't there a great-grand parent from Ireland? Let's add that to your nationality shopping cart.

So as our country of melting pot fame becomes one that strives for salad bowls with each difference among us taken to its greatest extremes, we seem to lose our cohesiveness, our national identity.

But in addition to these cultural divides, I think there is a deeper one, one becoming harder to bridge. The polarization of our political parties has created extremists on both sides—the Left and the Right.

The Left is for the underdog. Our underdogs include most minority members, union workers, government employees, the disabled and best of all, illegal immigrants (referred to here as document-free residents). The document-free residents have everything a Left-leaner is looking for. They are usually less educated, unskilled, poor, living in the shadows and unable to fend for themselves.

Many in the Left have lost their faith and declare themselves to be atheists (or just claim to not believe in any of the controversial parts of their religion) primarily because the idea of absolute truth flies in the face of their quest to reduce causes of low self- esteem that violators of objective laws (read "sinners") might feel. They do not believe in Adam and Eve as described in Genesis, but rather in Nature and its laws of natural selection via the survival of the fittest. But they don't want even these laws applied to our least fit, our underdogs, their raison d'etre. They believe that a force greater than the individual, like the State (or G-d if He exists) should step in and help the helpless. Food stamps should provide food for the hungry, welfare programs should provide for the living needs of the poor and disabled and the government should ensure that all Americans have health care coverage. The underdogs cannot be allowed to fail no matter what Nature demands.

Many in the Right are devoutly religious. The vast majority claim Christianity as their proud national religion whose main teaching is that the way we treat the most needy is the way we treat our Savior. Jesus, Himself, helped the lepers, the poor and the disenfranchised. He demonstrated the ultimate example of noblesse oblige.

But the Right also believes in maintaining the supremacy of the top dog. Their top dogs are the rich and powerful. To the Right, the top dog is everything that America stands for. The top dog works hard to win in whatever he attempts and is not inhibited by objective moral laws or agreed upon rules of conduct to successfully compete. The Ten Commandments, whatever they actually say, are really important until and unless they stand in the way of coming out on top. Ideas like thou shall not steal, lie (yes, the one about false witness is not only about court appearances), covet and most of all to have no gods before the One are no impediment to these folks.

And though members of the Right are religious, they believe that Man's future is most secure when natural selection (also known as the free market) is allowed to operate freely. That means that only the fittest survive. There should be no intervention by a force greater than the individual like the State (or even the Creator who they say does exist). Do not extend unemployment benefits, do not bail out failed banks and auto companies and do not prevent foreclosures and bankruptcies, they say. And, they add, do not give health care to those who cannot get it at work or pay for it themselves. They want tax cuts for the very richest among us, but don't want to subsidize health care coverage for 30 million Americans without it. They want government to stop regulating the private sector, trusting in their basic integrity and the infallibility of the free market.

The Right also wants us to trust the intuitive wisdom of human nature. Parents, no matter how uneducated, know what's best for their kids to eat, no matter how obese. We should also trust the intrinsic goodness of business leaders, the Right insists. They don't need a bunch of government regulations to make sure that their product and service are of the highest standard. Business is self regulating, they want us to believe, despite thousands of class-action suits, the BP oil spill, the discrimination against its female employees by the country's largest retail corporation, the manipulation of the energy market in California by large energy companies, the fraud and moral bankruptcy of Enron, Providian, MCI, Countrywide, Arthur Anderson, Lehman Brothers, Bernie Madoff, Goldman Sachs et al notwithstanding. These many examples of systemic failure have failed to dampen their world view.

And while members of the Left, no matter how successful in their own pursuits, still identify with those least able to excel, the members of the Right, no matter how unsuccessful and unlikely to ever be otherwise, identify with the top dogs. They want the rich to get tax breaks because they think that someday they too may join their privileged ranks, disregarding all signs to the contrary. These misguided believers will defend the very people who are exploiting them against the laws and government trying to protect them.

So what is the answer? How do we unite a badly divided nation?

Plato and Aristotle had the answer. I think that they called it the Golden Mean. Buddha had the Middle Path. President Obama has finding common ground. I call it moderation.

We must stop looking for our top dogs or underdogs so that we can see all of our people and attend to their common needs and goals. The rich are much too rich, even for their own good and the poor are too poor even for all their shortcomings. We must have a tax code that is both simple and fair. Our government must free itself of waste, corruption, inefficiency and ineffectiveness. Holes in our safety nets like Social Security and Medicare must be mended. We must stop subsidizing industries that are doing well on their own like agriculture and oil. American businesses, while continuing to work to increase profit, must also strive to make this a better country by treating their American workers and customers fairly. And, it would really help if we stayed out of the affairs of other countries by neither attacking them nor bribing them with foreign aid and military bases to protect them.

And let's go back to being 100 percent Americans and not also citizens of other lands. We marry only one person at a time, why not be a citizen of one country at a time?

Then, perhaps we will truly be, up close as well as at a distance, one nation with a united, non-hyphenated people who know who we are and what we really want.

Feedback: kaye@westsideobserver.com

March 2011

 

What's In A Name?

I have always been fascinated by language, especially words and more specifically, names. This interest was recently piqued by a conversation I had in the park. I met an attractive, middle-aged, blond-haired woman who told me that she was from the Netherlands. I asked her why the Netherlands was/were called Holland. She told me that Holland is an important part of the country, so people call the country Holland. She said it was like England—there is no country named England, but people still call it that.

I told her that England is a country and that Great Britain referred to England, Scotland and Wales, what I thought were three countries on the same island - Britain. I told her that the United Kingdom included Northern Ireland as well as the other three lands.

I checked online when I got home and found that there is some question as to whether Scotland and Wales are really countries anymore or yet. But England is definitely a country.

Then I noticed that when reporting the news, reporters never say England to describe where London is, they say the U.K. or the United Kingdom. Sometimes they even refer to England as the UK while then going on to mention Scotland and Wales by name as though separate.

Why can't England be England? Why can't Scotland and Wales be countries, again?

Then there is Europe with former countries breaking up into still previous ones. Remember Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia? Now they are what they were before World War 1 - Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro instead of the former and the Czech Republic and Slovenia for the latter.

Many European countries are part of the E.U. They share the same currency, allow free access between countries without border checks or tariffs, and are even striving for a common language, English (or should it be called British or Ukish or Euish, though it doesn't look Euish?). Even calling Europe E.U. is confusing since the French call America, E.U. (Etats Unis) and even more confusing when people in Latin America call themselves Americans.

In India, China and Burma, cities, states and even an entire country itself are having a name change. What was once India included what is now Pakistan and that included what is now Bangladesh. And what was wrong with Bombay or Peiking? Whatever happened to Tibet which used to be a great independent country of monks and mystics? It is now called a part of materialistic China, but not by me. Burma isn't always Burma; its dictators have changed its name and now we don't know what the more P.C. name for it is. I say stick with Burma.

Someone once said that a rose is a rose is a rose and by any other name would smell as sweet. I'll call that someone Zelda since her words should be no less true if her name is changed, but they are. A rose is a rose only because we say it is and if it were called some vulgar name, it would not be smelled at all. It's all perception even about perception.

So I say let's call England, England and let's call Tibet, Tibet. And Burma must be Burma (too many good restaurants' names are at stake here). And not only do I think that the Netherlands should not be called Holland unless they officially change it and their people and language should be Netherlanders and Netherlandic, respectively or if they become Holland, the people and language should be Hollandaise.

This, I'm afraid, is my final word on the subject.

Feedback kaye@westsideobserver.com

February 2011