Children having children may not be at epidemic proportions, but it happening at an ever increasing rate. Recently, a school class in Bosnia took a class trip and seven 13 to 14 year old girls came back pregnant. I don't know much else about this incident but it says a lot about society and morality.
Legally, a 13 year old girl cannot consent to sexual intercourse, creating a rape condition if her partner is a legal adult. However, if her partner is a legal minor as well, there is no rape and the state has another mouth to feed. Is there something wrong with this picture?
It is generally accepted that most girls will more quickly mature emotionally than boys of the same age. Statistically, seven pregnant girls in one class suggests that there were more participants who dodged the bullet. Given the adolescent ages is could also suggest that the girls were the organizers. Whatever happened is unknown, but certainly something went terribly wrong.
When I was a very young boy, my mother had a sex chat with me. She told me that one day my hormones would try to kidnap my brain and common sense and that I should resist hormonal surges. Perhaps the most important thing she told me was to always respect girls and their bodies, especially the one I found myself with when my hormones began to shout. She warned that some girls might pretend to want sexual contact to test my sincerity and level of respect. When I was 16, I finally confronted just such a situation and I navigated through it successfully, sending the girl on into life intact. It was a difficult decision, but I was able to stop and think.
My point is this: children develop hormonal urges that result in "feel good" sexual contact. If no one warns them or arms them with evasive maneuvers, a tragedy could occur. Many parents are derelict in this phase of child rearing and expect the school system to fill in for them. Many other parents just don't care and depend on "street" knowledge to protect their children. In cases of child pregnancy, there often isn't an adult to blame; so who is to blame? Society believes the girl isn't capable of knowing to say "no." I think she is, if she has been properly prepared for the crucial moment.
Some religions believe in a Natural Law, which helps decide right from wrong, and that children reach the age of reason (knowing right from wrong) at around age seven. If this were true, a 13 year old would have a strong premonition that engaging is sexual behavior is not acceptable behavior. Or not?
A pregnancy resulting from the union of two underaged children should indict the parents of both children. These parents should be held criminally liable for dereliction of their parental duties. My heart aches for the children of these missteps because they are probably doomed to the same fate.
Saturday, December 20, 2014
Wednesday, December 17, 2014
Religion - What It Is and Isn't
I have deep religious beliefs, most of which I keep to myself and try to practice them. If there were ever anything good that has spun totally out of control, it's "religion." It didn't begin with jihadists and won't end with them. Religion has almost always been an excuse for all things evil. Religion is truly a huge paradox. In the name of religion:
We sent Crusaders to conquer Middle Eastern peoples of another faith.
We fled to a new country (America) to escape religious persecution in England and promptly forbade the practice of any other religion than our own.
Members of the Ku Klux Klan went piously to church every Sunday with their families.
Mohammed created a catch-all religion, hoping to combine the religions of the world into one - Islam (great idea!). His dream has been twisted by religious fanatics who slaughter children, oppress women and stifle education, all in the name of Allah. Did he write Sharia Law?
We tortured and killed thousands during the Spanish Inquisition.
Many religions profess to be "Christian," but live their lives according to the teachings of the Bible's Old Testament - exactly what Christ said to forget as a blueprint for life.
Jews have elevated their religion to the status of a nationality, completely forgetting that their roots are in Palestine, just like so many Arabs. In many ways, they live the Cain and Abel scenario every day - brother against brother.
We burned supposed witches in Salem in the name of God.
Croatians have killed Serbians in the name of religious fervor and they both have attempted to wipe out Muslims in their countries.
Why are Ireland's Orange and Green aligned along religious lines and not political ones?
Henry VIII didn't like the divorce rules of his religion, so he founded another one.
Martin Luther deplored the corruption in his religion but, rather than fix it, founded his own religion.
In their fervor, religious fanatics often infringe on the good nature of others, even to the point of forcing themselves into homes during intense, door-to-door evangelism.
Some religions believe that heavenly salvation is available only to its members.
That there are so many varieties of religion, is actually a good thing. I believe that people choose their religion largely because of the level of ritual. Religious ritual covers a huge continuum from the most plain (nearly devoid of ritual) to the ornate, ritual-rich Byzantine, to the horrific ritual of the Satanists.
I believe that a good religion consists of one that recognizes the Natural Law within all of us and helps us follow it. Religion must pass the practicality test so it can be internalized, resulting in peaceful, tolerant, charitable, respectful, and understanding behavior. Religion shouldn't consist of "What I believe," rather "How I treat others." Religion must never be fanaticism. Anything taken to extreme runs the risk of becoming negative and destructive.
Unfortunately, perception is reality. To an Islamic fanatic, slaughtering children is acceptable behavior. To almost anyone else, it's abhorrant.
Perhaps religion can be summed up in the words of what is now called the Platinum Rule (vice Golden Rule): "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them." Please ponder these powerful words!
We sent Crusaders to conquer Middle Eastern peoples of another faith.
We fled to a new country (America) to escape religious persecution in England and promptly forbade the practice of any other religion than our own.
Members of the Ku Klux Klan went piously to church every Sunday with their families.
Mohammed created a catch-all religion, hoping to combine the religions of the world into one - Islam (great idea!). His dream has been twisted by religious fanatics who slaughter children, oppress women and stifle education, all in the name of Allah. Did he write Sharia Law?
We tortured and killed thousands during the Spanish Inquisition.
Many religions profess to be "Christian," but live their lives according to the teachings of the Bible's Old Testament - exactly what Christ said to forget as a blueprint for life.
Jews have elevated their religion to the status of a nationality, completely forgetting that their roots are in Palestine, just like so many Arabs. In many ways, they live the Cain and Abel scenario every day - brother against brother.
We burned supposed witches in Salem in the name of God.
Croatians have killed Serbians in the name of religious fervor and they both have attempted to wipe out Muslims in their countries.
Why are Ireland's Orange and Green aligned along religious lines and not political ones?
Henry VIII didn't like the divorce rules of his religion, so he founded another one.
Martin Luther deplored the corruption in his religion but, rather than fix it, founded his own religion.
In their fervor, religious fanatics often infringe on the good nature of others, even to the point of forcing themselves into homes during intense, door-to-door evangelism.
Some religions believe that heavenly salvation is available only to its members.
That there are so many varieties of religion, is actually a good thing. I believe that people choose their religion largely because of the level of ritual. Religious ritual covers a huge continuum from the most plain (nearly devoid of ritual) to the ornate, ritual-rich Byzantine, to the horrific ritual of the Satanists.
I believe that a good religion consists of one that recognizes the Natural Law within all of us and helps us follow it. Religion must pass the practicality test so it can be internalized, resulting in peaceful, tolerant, charitable, respectful, and understanding behavior. Religion shouldn't consist of "What I believe," rather "How I treat others." Religion must never be fanaticism. Anything taken to extreme runs the risk of becoming negative and destructive.
Unfortunately, perception is reality. To an Islamic fanatic, slaughtering children is acceptable behavior. To almost anyone else, it's abhorrant.
Perhaps religion can be summed up in the words of what is now called the Platinum Rule (vice Golden Rule): "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them." Please ponder these powerful words!
Sunday, December 7, 2014
Amateurs, and More Amateurs
No one is qualified to become President of the United States. It's a job that requires a clear slate with the flexibility and cunning to read the signs in the sand and react appropriately. Only one imperative is indelible: protect the national security of the United States of America.
Recent events tend to underscore once more the critical skills of leadership. The first rule is recognizing the need to build a team with complete and complementary skill sets to supplement deficiencies in the leader. All bases must be covered. John F. Kennedy owes his entire positive reputation to his unique ability to gather highly skilled staff around him; a staff that supplemented his weaknesses; a staff that would offer sound advice. Others, like Richard Nixon and George W. Bush, weren't no lucky (or skillful?) and were lured into grievous errors by their staffs. Unfortunately, Barak Obama takes the lack of this skill to an entirely new level. An amateur himself, he has surrounded himself with amateurs who add nothing to fortify his weaknesses.
The second rule of leadership is to articulate clear definition of the mission and a firm dedication to it, no matter what. Everything a U.S. President does must be defined in terms of national security; not political survival, not party politics, not personal agenda, or not what history will write (the legacy). Again, Obama fails miserably.
Obama's campaign promise to close Guantanamo was based on emotion and lacked any consideration of national security. In fact, if Guantanomo ever does close, it could seriously endanger the entire economic structure of the U.S. Nearly all of our export wealth sails through the Gulf of Mexico, right past Cuba. In a time of conflict, skilled missileers could shut down much of our export capability. We would be seriously wounded and many of our friends wounded mortally. I submit that Guantanamo is very important, if not critical, to our national security. Its closing should not become a political trophy.
I won't expand on how the current "band of amateurs" leading our country has negatively affected our image throughout the world. We need someone like Ronald Reagan to return us to the prominence we once enjoyed. We may still be the major world hegemon, but it's in spite of the Obama administration, not because of it.
Very recently, a bungled rescue attempt caused the execution of both an American hostage and a South African hostage who was destined to be returned safe to his family. All of the critical players in this rescue attempt dropped the ball. No one even knew that successful negotiations had reportedly ensured the imminent release of the South African hostage. What's even worse is that we may have known but didn't care! Instead of going home alive and well, South African hostage Pierre Korkie was executed by his captors during the bungled attempt to free American hostage Luke Somers. Both of these men were innocent victims of a weak and amateurish American government; of fractured diplomatic and intelligence systems.
One last caveat: Barak Obama is not an African American President. He is the President of the United States of America, after stripping away all of the labels that tend to flavor how we view people and what we expect of them. He was elected to office not once, but twice, to represent the American people (all of them, also minus any defining labels) and to protect our national security. History will determine whether he lost his focus or never had it. History will decide whether he was a victim of bad advice or of world events. History will be initially cruel and unforgiving, but eventually will sort out and focus on the empirical truth. It worked for Truman and I hope it will work for Obama. He deserves his place in history, based on the merits, or lack of them, and nothing else.
Recent events tend to underscore once more the critical skills of leadership. The first rule is recognizing the need to build a team with complete and complementary skill sets to supplement deficiencies in the leader. All bases must be covered. John F. Kennedy owes his entire positive reputation to his unique ability to gather highly skilled staff around him; a staff that supplemented his weaknesses; a staff that would offer sound advice. Others, like Richard Nixon and George W. Bush, weren't no lucky (or skillful?) and were lured into grievous errors by their staffs. Unfortunately, Barak Obama takes the lack of this skill to an entirely new level. An amateur himself, he has surrounded himself with amateurs who add nothing to fortify his weaknesses.
The second rule of leadership is to articulate clear definition of the mission and a firm dedication to it, no matter what. Everything a U.S. President does must be defined in terms of national security; not political survival, not party politics, not personal agenda, or not what history will write (the legacy). Again, Obama fails miserably.
Obama's campaign promise to close Guantanamo was based on emotion and lacked any consideration of national security. In fact, if Guantanomo ever does close, it could seriously endanger the entire economic structure of the U.S. Nearly all of our export wealth sails through the Gulf of Mexico, right past Cuba. In a time of conflict, skilled missileers could shut down much of our export capability. We would be seriously wounded and many of our friends wounded mortally. I submit that Guantanamo is very important, if not critical, to our national security. Its closing should not become a political trophy.
I won't expand on how the current "band of amateurs" leading our country has negatively affected our image throughout the world. We need someone like Ronald Reagan to return us to the prominence we once enjoyed. We may still be the major world hegemon, but it's in spite of the Obama administration, not because of it.
Very recently, a bungled rescue attempt caused the execution of both an American hostage and a South African hostage who was destined to be returned safe to his family. All of the critical players in this rescue attempt dropped the ball. No one even knew that successful negotiations had reportedly ensured the imminent release of the South African hostage. What's even worse is that we may have known but didn't care! Instead of going home alive and well, South African hostage Pierre Korkie was executed by his captors during the bungled attempt to free American hostage Luke Somers. Both of these men were innocent victims of a weak and amateurish American government; of fractured diplomatic and intelligence systems.
One last caveat: Barak Obama is not an African American President. He is the President of the United States of America, after stripping away all of the labels that tend to flavor how we view people and what we expect of them. He was elected to office not once, but twice, to represent the American people (all of them, also minus any defining labels) and to protect our national security. History will determine whether he lost his focus or never had it. History will decide whether he was a victim of bad advice or of world events. History will be initially cruel and unforgiving, but eventually will sort out and focus on the empirical truth. It worked for Truman and I hope it will work for Obama. He deserves his place in history, based on the merits, or lack of them, and nothing else.
Monday, March 3, 2014
Putin and the Ukraine
In many ways, Putin is acting in the strategic interests of Russia's national security. Russia is exceptionally vulnerable to land attack and must develop buffer states to delay any attacks from Europe.
I fully expect all of Eastern Ukraine to secede from Kiev and to form some sort of federation with a puppet government loyal to Russia. Putin is smart, however, and is not rebuilding the old Soviet Union which had to carry financial responsibility for member states. The new "republic" of East Ukraine will be a separate state, responsible for paying its own bills. Since it contains the major industrial complexes in Ukraine, has a huge trade relationship with Russia and will be protected by Russia, East Ukraine will probably be able to take care of itself quite well.
Not much can be done to reverse the inevitable. However, we must focus on limiting the Russian encroachment to East Ukraine. Some of our options are:
1. Station American troops in Kiev to "protect" the American embassy and other American interests in the Ukraine (read: Western Ukraine).
2. Station American troops in Poland to conduct an exercise with the Polish military.
3. Place U.S. sanction against Russian/East Ukraine individuals and banking interests and work hard to negotiate or coerce other European countries and the EU to do the same,
4. Long term: develop the infrastructure and sell American natural gas to Europe, especially Germany to help offset Russia's monopoly in Europe. Pressure other natural gas producers to do the same.
2. Station American troops in Poland to conduct an exercise with the Polish military.
3. Place U.S. sanction against Russian/East Ukraine individuals and banking interests and work hard to negotiate or coerce other European countries and the EU to do the same,
4. Long term: develop the infrastructure and sell American natural gas to Europe, especially Germany to help offset Russia's monopoly in Europe. Pressure other natural gas producers to do the same.
To President Obama: It is paramount to remember that the Russian military is not comparable to the U.S. military and could not win a head-to-head confrontation. Putin is bluffing when he acts as the "world" power Russia is not!
Monday, February 10, 2014
A CEO Can't Win Either Way
A CEO is entrusted with the growth and prosperity of the company he or she leads. One critical element of company growth and prosperity is taking very good care of employees. Among other things, compensation, training, promotion potential, health care and retirement programs are key to reward and motivate employees. In an environment of uncontrolled, spiraling costs and government mandates, health care has become a central issue in terms of properly protecting employees while controlling costs. To complicate matters, health care issues can be incredibly emotional, placing its business aspects far out of focus.
Health care premiums are exorbitantly high and volitile because costs in the health industry are essentially out of control. Typically, a company shares health care costs with its employees because of these high premiums. A 50-50 cost sharing is not uncommon. Additionally, to keep health care premiums down for employees, the company will agree to pay substantial health care claims before liability to the insurance company comes into play. For example, a company will typically pay 50% of employees' health care premiums and the first $1 million or so in claims each year. Needless to say, a company's stake in its employees' health care is substantial and often unpredictable.
Unfortunately, a few excessively high claims will consume the company's co-pay share and cause the insurance company to pay large claims. The result is to substantially raise premiums or the company's co-pay. Whatever happens, the company's health care costs will soar. The options are simple for the company: share the additional health care costs with all employees by raising their premiums or absorb the additional costs and offset them by other austerity measures.
Please note that I have deliberately avoided placing a face on the "excessively high claims" I mentioned above. The decisions a CEO must make are strictly business in nature, doing what is best for all employees and for the company. The ice gets thin, however, when a CEO chooses to pay unanticipated costs for one benefit (health care) by curtailing another (retirement plan). In this case, all employees are still liable to pay the full price. In retrospect, the CEO needs to find a way to pay the costs of providing expected and fair benefits to all employees and absorbing unanticipated costs as they occur. In health care issues, it's pretty certain, claim and premium costs will rise yearly. The trick is to stay ahead of the trend and meet it head-on. That's what CEOs are paid to do.
Health care premiums are exorbitantly high and volitile because costs in the health industry are essentially out of control. Typically, a company shares health care costs with its employees because of these high premiums. A 50-50 cost sharing is not uncommon. Additionally, to keep health care premiums down for employees, the company will agree to pay substantial health care claims before liability to the insurance company comes into play. For example, a company will typically pay 50% of employees' health care premiums and the first $1 million or so in claims each year. Needless to say, a company's stake in its employees' health care is substantial and often unpredictable.
Unfortunately, a few excessively high claims will consume the company's co-pay share and cause the insurance company to pay large claims. The result is to substantially raise premiums or the company's co-pay. Whatever happens, the company's health care costs will soar. The options are simple for the company: share the additional health care costs with all employees by raising their premiums or absorb the additional costs and offset them by other austerity measures.
Please note that I have deliberately avoided placing a face on the "excessively high claims" I mentioned above. The decisions a CEO must make are strictly business in nature, doing what is best for all employees and for the company. The ice gets thin, however, when a CEO chooses to pay unanticipated costs for one benefit (health care) by curtailing another (retirement plan). In this case, all employees are still liable to pay the full price. In retrospect, the CEO needs to find a way to pay the costs of providing expected and fair benefits to all employees and absorbing unanticipated costs as they occur. In health care issues, it's pretty certain, claim and premium costs will rise yearly. The trick is to stay ahead of the trend and meet it head-on. That's what CEOs are paid to do.
Monday, January 27, 2014
Our National Anthem
I'm including the following quote because it expresses so well my feelings of many years about how our national anthem has been butchered by "musicians" trying to outdo each other in style and publicity. I am concerned that we have lost the pride and humility to embrace the few American traditions we have with enthusiasm and respect. Singing our national anthem in a stylistic and ego-centric manner is insulting to true Americans and patriots. Or have we forgotten about that?
Superbowl Sunday Date: Feb.2 2014 08:22:07 -0500 From a Marine Corps Colonel in Afghanistan:
"So with all the kindness I can muster, I give this one piece of advice to the next pop star who is asked to sing the national anthem at a sporting event: save the vocal gymnastics and the physical gyrations for your concerts. Just sing this song the way you were taught to sing it in kindergarten - straight up, no styling. "Sing it with the constant awareness that there are soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines watching you from bases and outposts all over the world. Don't make them cringe with your self-centered ego gratification. Sing it as if you are standing before a row of 86-year-old WWII vets wearing their Purple Hearts, Silver Stars and flag pins on their cardigans and you want them to be proud of you for honoring them and the country they love - not because you want them to think you are a superstar musician. They could see that from your costume, makeup and your entourage. Sing 'The Star Spangled Banner' with the courtesy and humility that tells the audience that it is about America, not you. And please remember, not everything has to be sung as a Negro spiritual. We're getting a little weary of that. Francis Scott Key does not need any help." Semper Fi !
Superbowl Sunday Date: Feb.2 2014 08:22:07 -0500 From a Marine Corps Colonel in Afghanistan:
"So with all the kindness I can muster, I give this one piece of advice to the next pop star who is asked to sing the national anthem at a sporting event: save the vocal gymnastics and the physical gyrations for your concerts. Just sing this song the way you were taught to sing it in kindergarten - straight up, no styling. "Sing it with the constant awareness that there are soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines watching you from bases and outposts all over the world. Don't make them cringe with your self-centered ego gratification. Sing it as if you are standing before a row of 86-year-old WWII vets wearing their Purple Hearts, Silver Stars and flag pins on their cardigans and you want them to be proud of you for honoring them and the country they love - not because you want them to think you are a superstar musician. They could see that from your costume, makeup and your entourage. Sing 'The Star Spangled Banner' with the courtesy and humility that tells the audience that it is about America, not you. And please remember, not everything has to be sung as a Negro spiritual. We're getting a little weary of that. Francis Scott Key does not need any help." Semper Fi !
Saturday, January 25, 2014
Abortion
This issue is so charged with emotion that objectivity seems impossible. Polarity is so strong that a middle-of-the-road position can't be found. Arguments incorporate religious, social, political, feminist, legal, and medical beliefs. Ignorance plays a key role in preventing understanding and prohibiting compromise. No one is interested in trying to understand the opposite position, let alone accept even portions of it. For the moment, let's forget exceptional cases such as rape, fetal viability, medical issues, etc., which deserve separate contemplative treatment on their own merits.
Women argue, largely successfully, that they have a right to determine what happens in and to their bodies. This includes terminating an unwanted pregnancy, using a variety of abortive measures. Largely forgotten, is the other half of the relationship that created the pregnancy. Since the pregnancy exists in the female body, she claims sole right to retain it or dispose of it according to her own whim. Also at issue is whether the fetus is a legal person, entitled to life, or a vegetative growth that can be excised at will. Essentially, is the fetus a person or an inanimate, growing tumor? The huge question is "When does life begin?"
Since it takes both a male and female to create a pregnancy, perhaps it should take the permission of both to terminate it. After all, paternity usually determines the person responsible for financial support of the maternal side.
I recently heard a discussion of abortion where proponents associated pro-life positions with prejudice against women. Pro-abortionists used a technique of making the opposition feel ashamed of who they were. The concept of destroying a fetus, which could be defined as a "person," was relegated to a subordinate level and the "rights" of women elevated to the highest level. I couldn't help but wonder if, in 50 years or so, a mother would be permitted to "terminate" a three year old child who becomes a drag on career and social freedom. The concept playing out was sacrificing the weak in favor of the convenience of the strong.
If abortions are deemed socially acceptable and legal, why should the government (read: taxpayers) pay the bill? Abortion, like impregnation, is an individual choice that shouldn't require society to rectify. I can certainly support the concept that the father should both agree and be held financially liable for one-half of the cost of an abortion. I find it strange that we tend to support aborting a "non-person" but are abhorred at the thought of using the result for stem cell research.
I happen to believe that, at the very moment of conception, a person endowed with an eternal soul is created; that "life" begins at the moment of conception. Given that belief, I cannot accept abortion as any form of medical or social solution. (Case in point: Beethoven.) I object vehemently, however, to taxpayers paying for abortion for any reason. I submit as well that a pregnant woman does not have the right to unilaterally opt for abortion. These are my private beliefs and ones that I cannot expect others to share. I can't help but wonder what contributions to mankind so many aborted fetuses might have made.
Women argue, largely successfully, that they have a right to determine what happens in and to their bodies. This includes terminating an unwanted pregnancy, using a variety of abortive measures. Largely forgotten, is the other half of the relationship that created the pregnancy. Since the pregnancy exists in the female body, she claims sole right to retain it or dispose of it according to her own whim. Also at issue is whether the fetus is a legal person, entitled to life, or a vegetative growth that can be excised at will. Essentially, is the fetus a person or an inanimate, growing tumor? The huge question is "When does life begin?"
Since it takes both a male and female to create a pregnancy, perhaps it should take the permission of both to terminate it. After all, paternity usually determines the person responsible for financial support of the maternal side.
I recently heard a discussion of abortion where proponents associated pro-life positions with prejudice against women. Pro-abortionists used a technique of making the opposition feel ashamed of who they were. The concept of destroying a fetus, which could be defined as a "person," was relegated to a subordinate level and the "rights" of women elevated to the highest level. I couldn't help but wonder if, in 50 years or so, a mother would be permitted to "terminate" a three year old child who becomes a drag on career and social freedom. The concept playing out was sacrificing the weak in favor of the convenience of the strong.
If abortions are deemed socially acceptable and legal, why should the government (read: taxpayers) pay the bill? Abortion, like impregnation, is an individual choice that shouldn't require society to rectify. I can certainly support the concept that the father should both agree and be held financially liable for one-half of the cost of an abortion. I find it strange that we tend to support aborting a "non-person" but are abhorred at the thought of using the result for stem cell research.
I happen to believe that, at the very moment of conception, a person endowed with an eternal soul is created; that "life" begins at the moment of conception. Given that belief, I cannot accept abortion as any form of medical or social solution. (Case in point: Beethoven.) I object vehemently, however, to taxpayers paying for abortion for any reason. I submit as well that a pregnant woman does not have the right to unilaterally opt for abortion. These are my private beliefs and ones that I cannot expect others to share. I can't help but wonder what contributions to mankind so many aborted fetuses might have made.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)