All Men Are Created Equal

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” So states the second sentence of the Declaration of Independence.

As we celebrate our independence from England so many years ago, I wonder: do our actions today honor or forefathers … or demean them?

“All men are created equal” means literally every man, and woman and child. This does not mean that one race (white), one religion (conservative Christian) or one political party (Republican) is, to use a quote from the novel Animal Farm, “more equal than others.”

Recent actions by various conservative groups—the Tea Party being one of the most visible—seem to ignore equality. You are either for them, or a goddamn liberal communist, to use one of the mildest names I’ve heard them use. Organizations such as the Tea Party promote hatred and intolerance, which is the opposite of what our forefathers sought by founding this nation. Instead of seeking informed discourse through polite conversation, the Tea Party seeks to enforce its agenda by out-shouting, out muscling and using verbal violence on anyone who dares challenge its views.

According to the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, we are all equal. This means Democrats and Independents have the same right to express their views as Republicans, that Jews and Muslims have the same right to practice their religions as Christians, and that skin color has no bearing on a person’s rights.

In terms of personal liberties and rights, our forefathers did not state in the Declaration that only white, conservative Christians had rights, even though every one of them qualified as such. They made no distinction in terms of wealth. It made no difference to them if someone had arrived on the Mayflower, or a ship from Africa. All were welcome.

In today’s America, the wrong-headed right-wingers act as if only people who have a particular set of characteristics are welcome. If you are Latino, gay or non-Christian, “stay the bleep out.”

We should return to the ideals of our forefathers: freedom for all, not just a select few.

Tips For Saving Digital Photo Files

I use a time-consuming method with photos and "digital illustrations" that saves time and frustration overall.

The upshot is that I end up with multiple copies of the same photo that take up storage space on my hard drives. The good news is drives are huge and inexpensive, so it's very possible to store thousands of photos and still not fill up a single drive.

The process I use to avoid problems is:
1. Shoot your photos at the highest possible resolution. You can never make copies sharper than the original but you can always "dumb 'em down."
2. Make my exposure adjustments to the original shot so the colors and lighting are best.
3. This is where the time-consuming aspect comes into play. I always make a copy of the original before cropping or resizing it. This way I have unchanged original to fall back on if I don't like the crop or new size.
4. Assuming I like my cropped version, I'll save a copy of it (copy #3) at a specific size and/or resolution, depending on the photo's intended distribution and use.

For example, if I know that a given shot is only going to be sent via email and the recipients are unlikely to print it, I'll save my cropped, adjusted copy as a 4-inch by 6-inch at 72 dpi (screen resolution). If the image is going to be printed, I'll save the copy at 200-300 dpi, which is far sharper but makes for a much larger file size.

Also, the format you save the file in is very important. I like JPG ("JPEG") for email distribution because of its universal use. PNG is becoming very common as an alternative, but far fewer folks will be able to see these shots.

JPG graphics allow you to set the compression amount, which affects the quality. Little or no compression (9-12 on the 12-point scale) means larger files, which translates to longer upload and download times, but better viewing and printing quality. Medium to high quality (6-9 on the JPG scale) is usually enough for most emails, though.

You set this quality level when saving the file as a JPG. Hitting the Enter key twice saves the copy at the same resolution as the last shot and locks the file. The first time, though, lets you adjust the compression and quality from ultra small, low quality, to huge, high quality.

Another key step is naming your files so low-res copies don't overwrite high-res originals. Here's an example:
Original or copy 1: Filename.RAW. Because I use an interchangeable lens digital camera most often, I can save photos in the RAW format that retains all of the original exposure information, including the ability to adjust the exposure after the fact.
Copy 2: Filename.PSD. I'll save a copy in the native Adobe PhotoShop format if I've significantly altered the image, such as by adding text (see my Christmas card as an example).
Copy 3: Filename 4x6.JPG. This is the high-res version for general print distribution. My originals are shot at even higher resolution, so making a 4x6 print is still lower quality--and makes for significantly smaller files--than the original.
Copy 4: Filename 4x6-72.JPG. The "-72" tells me this version is for email distribution and on-screen viewing only.

That's the lengthy, step-by-step process I use. I hope it helps.

Gamesmanship

A lot of people play emotional power games. They have one goal: be THE boss, the big kahuna, the only one in charge. My question is: is it worth it?

The short and simple answer is a quote from the ancient movie "War Games" with Matthew Broderick: "The best way to win is not to play the game."

I've known more than a few people--family members and co-workers--who feel that they have to be in charge and dictate how someone else--you--feels. You are happy or sad at their whim, not based on how you feel like feeling.

I was involved in a very rocky marriage many years ago that involved this sort of "power struggle." I wanted to control my own destiny; my wife at the time wanted to dictate what I would do for the rest of my life.

I gave her the power to turn me from a calm, rational, thinking human being into an angry, raving monster. I allowed her to push my emotional buttons, particularly the one that said, "instant raving asshole." I was that, unquestionably.

Eventually I learned that my ex wasn't at fault in this situation, though her comments were still very nasty and very self-serving. While she got a kick out of proving to other people that I was not fit to be around, I was the object of scorn and ridicule.

No, she wasn't at fault. I was. Why? Because I played her game. I allowed her to make these rules then I played her game by rules set up for only one possible winner: her.

When I finally woke up and realized what was happening, I had three choices: I could continue playing her game by her rules; I could play a new game by my rules where only I could win (this had a different winner, but still had a loser); or I could walk away and not play any game.

Once I decided not to play my ex's game, that marriage was officially over. Unfortunately, while I'd learned a valuable lesson, I hadn't learned it well enough as many other relationships suffered the same doomed fate for the same doomed, and stupid, reasons.

When enough years--and deep emotional pain--had passed, the "control" aspect finally came to the forefront. When that happened, I finally found happiness.

Here's what I said and here's what I learned. I told the woman who became my wife that, "what you see is what you get." Like every other human being, I express the full range of emotions from extreme happiness to extreme sadness, from placid calmness to raging anger. I am all of these and everything else in between.

The key now is that I try not to let other people control me. I control myself and myself only. I do not generally allow anyone else to dictate how I feel and I try not to control the emotions of others. Yes, I can still be hurt, and yes, my words can still inflict pain on others, but the amount of pain I feel and I cause has been lessened since I learned my lesson.

The best way to take control of situations like this, where someone else is trying to control you, is this: take a deep breath, step back, regain control of your breathing (you will probably be experiencing a lot of shallow breaths), disengage the heart and emotions and engage your brain.

Next, try to answer these questions: What's in it for me if I allow this person the control they so desperately seek? What's in it for them if I give them that control? What will happen if I refuse to give them the control and not play their game? Can I accept the results of my choice?

Once you've made up your mind, act on it and tell the other person, but do it calmly. My ex-wife tried to continue playing her power trip games even after our divorce. When I acted calmly and rationally, instead of with extreme vehemence and anger, she was the one who became angry. My calm, slow, logical approach drove her nuts because it wasn't what she was expecting.

Even though I often refuse to play these games, other people still try to force me into it. They do not realize that some people--namely me--can see what they are doing and refuse to go along with it.

I've become much happier my knowing--and practicing--that the only person who can control they way I think, feel and act is me. It's not you. It's not my ex-wife. It's not one of my sisters, my daughter or even my current (and hopefully forever) wife. It's me.

It took a lot of time to figure this out and even more to put it into practice. Give it a shot and see if it works for you.

Thanksgiving Is About Religious Freedom

On Thursday, Nov. 27, 2009, many Americans will celebrate the Thanksgiving holiday. Traditionally, families will gather and get caught up on everyone’s activities, then stuff themselves with a large meal. Some of these people will have a blessing before eating. During the blessing, they give thanks to a higher power for the bountiful meal they are about to consume. Few, if any, will discuss how Thanksgiving came about, or what caused a group of Englishmen and women to leave their homes and immigrate to an unknown new world … and that is a shame.

Historical Background

Americans celebrate Thanksgiving based on events occurring at Plimouth Plantation (spelled differently than the city) in 1621. In this situation, so legend has it, a group seeking religious freedom cross the Atlantic from England and landed on the Chesapeake Bay shore of Massachusetts near the city of Plymouth. The group—known as Pilgrims—sough to practice their religion outside the bounds of the Church of England, which was the only religion allowed in Great Britain at the time. The English settlers and members of a native Wampanoag tribe gathered for a harvest festival feast.

Religious Freedom is Everyone’s Right

The key here is that these people celebrated their religious freedom, meaning they were not required to one particular church at the risk of losing live and property. One tenet the founders of these United States included in the earliest documents is that everyone, regardless of race, age, gender or national origin, is free to practice their religion. Membership in a given church is specifically prohibited as a requirement for elected office as stated in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. This founding document states in part, “… but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Religious freedom is also guaranteed to every citizen through the Constitutional amendments known collectively as the Bill of Rights. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” Amendment 1 begins.

Religious Freedom and the Christian Right

However, one group wants to change this. They want to take away the freedom to practice any religion that differs with theirs. Anyone who has even glanced at a newspaper or television news show in the last few years reads and hears numerous attacks led by the Christian Right (also known as the Religious Right and the Evangelical Bloc).

“The politically active social movement of the Christian right includes individuals from a wide variety of conservative theological beliefs, ranging from traditional movements within Pentecostalism, fundamentalist Christianity and Mormonism to the adherents of Lutheranism and Catholicism that are theologically conservative,” a Wikipedia article states.

This is a name given to many different organizations who share similar, extremely conservative, religious-based beliefs. These organizations and their members take the words of the Christian Bible (though no specific version, such as King James, is ever agreed on) as being literally the Word of Law. A simplified version of what they groups are saying is that everyone, whether they belong to this specific church or not, MUST CONFORM to the rules and behaviors which they dictate. In essence, these right-wingers want to establish a national religion, which is contrary to the ideals on which this nation was founded.

According to these groups, if you follow their strict rules and behaviors, you are a good person and you will be assured a place in that church’s version of a pleasant afterlife. If you disagree in any way, you are a heathen, you are not fit to walk the same earth as God-fearing men of this church and you are doomed to eternal damnation.

Who dictates what members of a church are required to believe? Their leaders.

Who are their leaders? Almost exclusively men who have a special relationship with God.

How do we know these leaders have a special relationship with God? Because the leaders say so.

Where is the concrete, unbiased and unimpeachable proof these leaders have of their close-knit relationship with God? There isn’t any.

Common Beliefs Among Christian Right Organizations

Even a casual glance at right-wing Christian groups will find several striking similarities. They include at a minimum:

· Only God-fearing people who submit to our Christian religious views should hold public office or be considered citizens. Therefore these elected leaders must adhere to the rules set forth by religious leaders, which is in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution.

· Only men—not women—can make decisions. “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex,” states Article 19 of the Constitution, ratified on Aug. 18, 1920. However, many religious organizations still consider women second-class citizens.

· Abortion is a sin and must be outlawed. In Rowe vs. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that women have the right to determine the fate of their own bodies, including during pregnancy. If a woman chooses to prematurely end a pregnancy, she is legally allowed to do so. “Pro-Lifers”—which includes virtually every member of the Religious Right—take that view.

· A marriage—which in their eyes is a religious ceremony blessed by a Christian leader—is only between one man and one women. Only married couples can have children, but unmarried couples cannot abort pregnancies. Groups seeking equal rights for couples of the same sex have been unsuccessful in getting laws to that effect enacted. The Christian Right in recent months has overturned laws allowing same sex marriage in several states.

· Only people born in the United States are citizens. Anyone who entered the country illegally—regardless of their age at the time—or whose ancestors entered the country illegally, does not qualify for citizenship.

· Your beliefs and behaviors are what we tell you to believe and do. Thinking and acting for yourself is not allowed.

· People who agree with these beliefs are patriotic Americans. Anyone who disagrees with these views is a communist.

Another unstated—but quite common belief based on television coverage of several events including the 2008 Republican National Convention—is that elected leaders also should only be of Caucasian (white skinned) Northern European ancestry. No form of “mixed race” heritage (Native American, Hispanic/Latino or Asian) is allowed.

Logical Issues With These Views

I don’t know about you, but I sure can’t find any reference in the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights or the Declaration of Independence that states people are not allowed to practice other forms of religion. If this line of thinking was followed, then people who base their religion on any book other than the Christian Bible (The Old Testament and King James versions being but two of many) would not be allowed to hold citizenship or public office. This means that Catholics, who use Catechism as their religious teachings, would not qualify. Neither would Jews, Muslims or members from scores of other religions.

The Constitution already states that women are equally qualified to hold elected office. People in other countries such as The United Kingdom (Margaret Thatcher), Israel (Golda Meir) and India (Indira Gandhi) have elected women to their highest offices. Elected office can, and is, held by people who are openly homosexual. The only voting-related restriction allowed is age, but it’s unofficially set at 18.

Abortion is a very touchy subject since it involves ending a human life. People on both sides have their rigid points of view, some of whom use violence to enforce their views. While I have heard of abortion doctors and clinics being shot or bombed, I have yet to hear of one person being attacked for not performing a legal abortion.

“Marriage” versus “civil union” is a matter of semantics and legal wrangling. However states wish to word it, though, I believe that couples should have equal legal rights and responsibilities, regardless of their sexual orientation.

When speaking strictly in terms of immigration, the only people whose distant ancestors were born here are Native Americans, and some scientists say they moved here from Siberia. In strictest terms, the descendants of European immigrants came here without the express written consent of the local residents. Taking the Christian Right at its word (or worst) means everyone else—you, me and the family down the block—should be deported. Obviously there would be exceptions, but some groups such as Latinos and Asians would be targeted for deportation.

My beliefs and my behaviors are my concern, not anyone else’s. If I violate society’s accepted standards, then I’m breaking the law and—if I’m caught—I will be punished. However standing up for personal and religious freedoms is not illegal—at least not yet—and I will continue to think for myself as long as I am able.

Republican comments that only people who agree with their views are patriots is one view that I emphatically denounce. Here’s why.

Patriotism vs. Communism vs. Dictatorships

The majority of people who are living and working within the borders of the United States—regardless of their citizenship status—are here because they believe in what this country stands for. Their skin colors are white, black, brown and yellow. Their ancestry comes from each and every race on the planet. Their religious views also cover the gamut from monotheism (one God, such as Christianity) to polytheism (many gods such as those of classical Greece and Rome and people in modern-day India). People from all of these groups have sent members off to die as part of the U.S. Armed Forces, supporting U.S. actions worldwide.

Any members of the Christian Right saying that only people espousing their beliefs are patriots need to get their brains tattooed with the phrase, “This space for rent.” They have conveniently forgotten about these other sacrifices by groups such as the Buffalo Soldiers of World War II fame.

Also, these people don’t have a clue what the word “communism” means.

What follows is a direct, unedited quote from Wikipedia:

“Communism is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general. Karl Marx posited that communism would be the final stage in human society, which would be achieved through a proletarian revolution. “Pure communism” in the Marxian sense refers to a classless, stateless and oppression-free society where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made democratically, allowing every member of society to participate in the decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life. In modern usage, communism is often used to refer to Bolshevism or Marxism-Leninism and the policies of the various communist states which had government ownership of all the means of production and centrally planned economies. Communist regimes have historically been authoritarian, repressive, and coercive governments concerned primarily with preserving their own power.

“As a political ideology, communism is usually considered to be a branch of socialism; a broad group of economic and political philosophies that draw on the various political and intellectual movements with origins in the work of theorists of the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution. Communism attempts to offer an alternative to the problems with the capitalist market economy and the legacy of imperialism and nationalism. Marx states that the only way to solve these problems is for the working class (proletariat), who according to Marx are the main producers of wealth in society and are exploited by the Capitalist-class (bourgeoisie) (i.e., the wealthy), to replace the bourgeoisie as the ruling class in order to establish a free society, without class or racial divisions. The dominant forms of communism, such as Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism and Trotskyism are based on Marxism, but non-Marxist versions of communism (such as Christian communism and anarcho-communism) also exist.

“Karl Marx never provided a detailed description as to how communism would function as an economic system, but it is understood that a communist economy would consist of common ownership of the means of production, culminating in the negation of the concept of private ownership of capital, which referred to the means of production in Marxian terminology.”

Dictatorships are countries ruled by one person or one group (think of the South American military councils known as juntas). If the Religious Right has its way, the U.S. would not be ruled by votes from every citizen. Instead, officials elected by the people would then be subjected approval by a religious body. Christian leaders would have the final say as to who leads this country. This is not a democracy: it is a dictatorship.

In Conclusion

So while you are sitting down to your pre-Thanksgiving meals, give thanks to our forefathers—and their forefathers—who created a land where people of all faiths can practice their religion without fear of persecution. And give thanks to all the people, regardless of their religion or ancestry, who laid down their lives so you can enjoy yours. Lastly, read what you can about these topics. If you agree with the Religious Right, great! But if you disagree, I also wish you well.

Let’s have a civilized, unemotional and informative discussion. Taking outlandish views and actions is guaranteed to end in violence. To quote the late author Isaac Asimov, “Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.”

Happy Thoughts (and Postings)

“Don’t Worry, Be Happy.” Bobby McFerrin sang that song back in the 1980s. While it’s a lot tougher to do in these tough economic times, the sentiment makes sense.

I’m like a lot of other people: I spend far too much time dwelling on the negatives and no where near enough time being positive. Here’s an example based on a different from an event that inspired another blog posting.

The event: A man was smoking a cigarette at a gas station while filling his truck’s tank. The sheer stupidity of it inspired me to call his employer and complain.

Now for the bright side: Neither I nor my wife was hurt by this idiot’s actions.

And despite strong winter storm striking early, our home and pets came through unscathed. The only “damage” we had were a few downed twigs and dead tree limbs. The good news take on this is: it saved me the time of cleaning up leaves only to have a lot more come down later. Now I’ve only got one larger clean-up to do instead of two.

I could also be depressed about my wife’s July emergency room bill for $26,000 coupled with our lack of medical insurance. Instead, I’m happy that my wife found a billing person to work with us and reduce the bill to a more manageable amount. If the bill is cut in half, great! If the bill can be reduced even more, that is even better. What’s most important to me is that my wife survived the night and is taking steps to protect her health.

Here’s one other related thought: it takes the same energy or less to be positive about life than it does to be negative. We are all exposed to a tremendous amount of stress in our daily lives caused by all the negativity. Being positive will help us live longer and most importantly, enjoy our time in this plane of existence.

If I'm not mistaken, McFerrin also sang "Smoke Two Joints." If someone smoked as much marijuana as that song calls for, they would be so stoned, they would qualify as a rock quarry!

Each Person Must Be Accountable For Their Actions

My apologies for not updating this blog in a very long time. I’ve been making posts, but on my communications blog, not here. That said, here’s today’s topic: accountability.

I stopped for gas last night after taking my wife to dinner at the Red Haw Casino. While I was filling up our Honda Civic’s tank, I looked at the guy ahead of us. Then I looked again. Then I grabbed a pen and a receipt and jotted down the name of his company, the vehicle number and its license plate number. This morning I found the phone number for the company, called and explained what I witnessed. A few minutes later, a company spokesman called me back, asked a few questions and said he would take care of the issue.

What got me going—more out of concern than anger—was the witless action I witnessed: a man filling up his truck’s gas tank while nonchalantly smoking a cigarette.

People that know me understand I flat-out don’t like cigarette smokers, mainly because I’ve been around far too many who are going to smoke, regardless if other people can’t stand the smell or don’t want to breathe the noxious fumes. I normally don’t have a problem when people are puffing away outdoors and the wind is blowing the smoke away from me. I do have a problem when they are smoking near businesses and the fumes are allowed to enter the building, especially in California where state law prohibits smoking within 20 feet of an open doorway or window, but that was not the case here.

I also have a problem with people behaving stupidly. We’ve all seen the people doing dumb, idiotic, moronic and highly-dangerous acts while driving. Smoking in an enclosed car is one. I’m just as guilty as the next driver for sipping my coffee and eating while driving, so I can’t complain too much about that.

What really got me going about last night’s action, though, was this guy’s total disregard of common sense. Let me make this perfectly clear: gasoline + open flame = trip to the ER or morgue. If the smoker had ignited any gas fumes, I might not be writing this.

My phone call this morning wasn’t designed to punish this guy for his action—though having “Safety” be part of the company name played a part—it was more to wake him up to what he was doing. His boss promised he would mention it to the guy, with his tone of voice saying the driver was going to get an earful. Many people disregard safety warning signs. For example, how many men out there don’t wear safety goggles or gloves every time they use power tools? I sure don’t.

But come on, be real. If you want to kill yourself—and smoking is a good way to do it—be my guest. Just don’t take me and the people I love with you.

There Are Too Many Complex Laws

We have far too many complex laws on the books and they are not being enforced. It’s time for the public to demand that the number of these ordinances, rules, restrictions and laws be reduced and that all laws be enforced, and enforced equally.

I’m like a lot of people: I’ve had tax problems in the past. Tax laws have gotten so complex in the last few years, taxpayers are forced to hire a professional to fill out the forms for them. So in addition to what you owe the government, you are being penalized for this legal complexity by having to fork over the preparer’s fee. You might earn a $400 refund, but have to pay the preparer $500, or owe the government $3,500 and with the accountant’s tariff, your bill comes to $4,000. That’s frankly insane, largely because many of these laws are inane!

Laws need to be written in such a way that someone with an eighth grade education can read and understand them. Here’s an example taken directly from the California Motor Vehicle Code:

“22450. (a) The driver of any vehicle approaching a stop sign at the entrance to, or within, an intersection shall stop at a limit line, if marked, otherwise before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection.

“If there is no limit line or crosswalk, the driver shall stop at the entrance to the intersecting roadway .

“(b) The driver of a vehicle approaching a stop sign at a railroad grade crossing shall stop at a limit line, if marked, otherwise before crossing the first track or entrance to the railroad grade crossing.

“(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a local authority may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution providing for the placement of a stop sign at any location on a highway under its jurisdiction where the stop sign would enhance traffic safety.

“Amended Sec. 8, Ch. 630, Stats. 2007. Effective January 1, 2008.”

This law would be easier to understand if it were written like this: “Come to a complete stop at all stop signs. The front of your vehicle should not extend beyond a line from the stop sign to the other side of the road. If you do not come to a complete stop, you may be fined.”

Instead of spending millions of dollars on legislative salaries to write more complex laws, let’s cut out the deadwood, rewrite the rest and put it to the kid test: if a kid can’t figure it out, the law is too complex. This way people understand what will happen to them if they commit a crime. The money spent on these salaries could then be used to hire more people to enforce the laws.

Here’s another example. A rewrite of one murder law would state simply, “If you kill someone while committing a crime, or your actions from the crime cause their death, you will be put to death.” That simplified variation would make people think first before shooting or stabbing someone while robbing them or killing a pedestrian after robbing a store.

Personally, I’m in favor of reducing crime by making the punishment fit the crime. If a crook is convicted of robbing a home, then anyone and everyone should be allowed to legally enter the robber’s home and take whatever they want. If the crook trashes a home while robbing it, the crook’s home should also be vandalized.

Taking this ultra-conservative approach would make people think long and hard before committing crimes.