Music and Comments on The Port Whitman Times
LATEST ENTRIES
Friday, December 14, 2007
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
LEARNING 101
© Port Whitman Times 2006
Okay, which would you say is really more important, knowing, or being able to judge? "Education" has in the past meant cramming facts and formulae into our personal Read-Only-Memory, without regard to the ability to do any more than reproduce that data on tests. But tests only measure what percent of the facts memorized that we can reproduce for the purpose of the test, not necessarily the ability to use the material in real-life problems. It is assumed that, once exposed to all of the lessons academically, we will, having been taught to think and analyze, be able to apply these abilities to life situations, but it ain't necessarily so. Once tested, we tend to forget what we crammed in, and even where it reposes.
Isn't having the answers to the test, as in the results of the NY state chemistry exam whose answers were actually published before the administration of the test, also a kind of education in itself? So you study the published answers, relate them to the questions, thus "learning" the important material, go in and look at the questions again, remembering the answers, mark the right blocks, and forget the material at the same rate you would have had you crammed the larger mass and taken the test. Learning is easy; nothing to it...
If education is really to be a "learning" experience it must be a process of threading one's way up a creek of knowledge by stepping on the rocks of fact to arrive at a concept, remembering where but not necessarily what the rocks were, for a possible return trip. Once we find our way up a few of these creeks, using the map of where the facts are rather than what they are, it becomes easier to avail ourselves of all the knowledge that begs our attention, and using this process of learning will leave us time for the genuinely important tasks involving judgement, which is after all the thing that clears or clouds our lives.
Henry Francisco, Special to
The Port Whitman Times
Okay, which would you say is really more important, knowing, or being able to judge? "Education" has in the past meant cramming facts and formulae into our personal Read-Only-Memory, without regard to the ability to do any more than reproduce that data on tests. But tests only measure what percent of the facts memorized that we can reproduce for the purpose of the test, not necessarily the ability to use the material in real-life problems. It is assumed that, once exposed to all of the lessons academically, we will, having been taught to think and analyze, be able to apply these abilities to life situations, but it ain't necessarily so. Once tested, we tend to forget what we crammed in, and even where it reposes.
Isn't having the answers to the test, as in the results of the NY state chemistry exam whose answers were actually published before the administration of the test, also a kind of education in itself? So you study the published answers, relate them to the questions, thus "learning" the important material, go in and look at the questions again, remembering the answers, mark the right blocks, and forget the material at the same rate you would have had you crammed the larger mass and taken the test. Learning is easy; nothing to it...
If education is really to be a "learning" experience it must be a process of threading one's way up a creek of knowledge by stepping on the rocks of fact to arrive at a concept, remembering where but not necessarily what the rocks were, for a possible return trip. Once we find our way up a few of these creeks, using the map of where the facts are rather than what they are, it becomes easier to avail ourselves of all the knowledge that begs our attention, and using this process of learning will leave us time for the genuinely important tasks involving judgement, which is after all the thing that clears or clouds our lives.
Henry Francisco, Special to
Friday, June 15, 2007
HATERS & HATEES
© Port Whitman Times 1998
Writing in a TIME editorial re the international conference on Hate, held in Oslo Norway with many notables (Elie Wiesel, Jimmy Carter, Nelson Mandela) in attendance, Lance Morrow wondered why Hate is not named as one of the seven deadly sins, since there's so much of it around, and reported it was found difficult to discuss by "virtue's choir" i.e. the good.
It occurred to me that much as these good people would try to get into the mechanics of hate, it is something that is really defined in the mind of the hatee, he or she who experiences its effects, thus has a much better idea of what it produces. After all, none of the haters, even the Hitlers and Saddams, get up and look in the mirror and says "Well, who shall I hate today?" No, their actions have logic, peculiar to be sure, nevertheless they feel they are actually doing good by actions appropriate to achieve their particular goals. Hate, that notorious detribute, doesn't really enter into it. Unless you're the object; then hate looms large.
Now love, on the other hand, is defined by the lover because he can feel the emotion and the resultant joy or disappointment. Hopefully more of us know love than hate, and there are more ardent suitors than helpless victims, but one wonders, when looking over the situation in the entire world just who would win in a tug of war.
Vaclav Havel, another attendee at the conference, stated: "The hater longs for the object of his hatred." I doubt it; what the hater really wants is to be rid of the object and to go on to his own idyllic existence without the problems he feels the hated object represents. The sooner we rid ourselves of this simple concept that people do things simply out of unreasonable hatred, the sooner we can deal with the real problems -- by education, so that we know each other, thus love one another more, or at least hate one another less.
But then, doesn't that mean we will have to get rid of our minted idea of love too? Let's think about it.
Henry Francisco, Special to
The Port Whitman Times
Writing in a TIME editorial re the international conference on Hate, held in Oslo Norway with many notables (Elie Wiesel, Jimmy Carter, Nelson Mandela) in attendance, Lance Morrow wondered why Hate is not named as one of the seven deadly sins, since there's so much of it around, and reported it was found difficult to discuss by "virtue's choir" i.e. the good.
It occurred to me that much as these good people would try to get into the mechanics of hate, it is something that is really defined in the mind of the hatee, he or she who experiences its effects, thus has a much better idea of what it produces. After all, none of the haters, even the Hitlers and Saddams, get up and look in the mirror and says "Well, who shall I hate today?" No, their actions have logic, peculiar to be sure, nevertheless they feel they are actually doing good by actions appropriate to achieve their particular goals. Hate, that notorious detribute, doesn't really enter into it. Unless you're the object; then hate looms large.
Now love, on the other hand, is defined by the lover because he can feel the emotion and the resultant joy or disappointment. Hopefully more of us know love than hate, and there are more ardent suitors than helpless victims, but one wonders, when looking over the situation in the entire world just who would win in a tug of war.
Vaclav Havel, another attendee at the conference, stated: "The hater longs for the object of his hatred." I doubt it; what the hater really wants is to be rid of the object and to go on to his own idyllic existence without the problems he feels the hated object represents. The sooner we rid ourselves of this simple concept that people do things simply out of unreasonable hatred, the sooner we can deal with the real problems -- by education, so that we know each other, thus love one another more, or at least hate one another less.
But then, doesn't that mean we will have to get rid of our minted idea of love too? Let's think about it.
Henry Francisco, Special to
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
WHY THE TRAGEDY
© Port Whitman Times 2001
Let's be frank. It isn't personal. No way could whoever perpetrated The Tragedy of 9/11 personally hate all the people they killed. No, they hate US, hate our "Way Of Life," as opposed to their way, which to us, who are USED to our way, is NO way. Hey, who'd want to give up a three hundred million dollar existence to live in the desert? You? Me? Not this week, or any week, pal. But Osama bin Laden did. So they have a point to make, Heaven knows what it is, but we might be able to get our minds around it if we take a serious look at ourselves.
In America, we are a country of EXCESS, writ large. "Small" is now what we used to consider "Jumbo," and there is no smaller, so if you want it, whatever it is, you pay the price and throw the rest away, like a good American. And it goes into a good old American landfill, I mean what the heck, we haven't filled up the Grand Canyon yet, haven't even started, so why panic about all the trash we make. Plenty of holes in the ground still to be filled, and covered over with housing developments.
When was the last time your toothpaste tube was actually FULL of toothpaste, and not just air at the end? When did you get a pound of coffee in a can that was meant to hold a pound, or a bag of potato chips that wasn't mostly air?
The other day, I went searching for a pair of Groucho Glasses. You know, with the big nose, the eyebrows, to use in a comedy skit. Most of the variety stores I went to "only carry them around Halloween," when they try to maximize their profits by palming off anything that's spooky on those of us who are rushing around and will grab up anything that seems to fill the bill. Hurry up and get it over with so we can get back to the couch and the security of the TV remote control. "Yeah, yeah, gimme the whatever..." I looked in several places, and finally found a store - a Dollar Store yet - that had Groucho Glasses; the clerk took me back to the Halloween department (Two months early, but you never know, a little business might just materialize) and got me the bubble-wrapped card, with FOUR sets of Groucho Glasses, all cheap plastic with stamped out eyebrows which were really part of the rims of the eyeglasses, and the wrong nose (a politically correct WASPish proboscis as opposed to the semitic schnoz that's always been the rule). But FOUR Groucho Glasses! "I only want one" said I, even though the four were nothing but cheap junk. "Can't break up the set" said the clerk, who was actually the proprietor. "No thanks, then." American merchants try to make you buy more than you want, so they can charge accordingly. EXCESS.
Go to the movies. A SMALL popcorn is $3.25. Probably costs them less than a dime to make, but they try to hold you up for as much as they can get, figure you're a hostage. Most people just pay it and use their union to get more money from the job, justifying it by the "everything's going up" rationalization. In the movies the concessions use the logic that we figure we're subsidizing art by paying more. Bullshit. Movies are an industry just like mining or construction. Art schmart. I bring fruit, nuts, munchies, my own popcorn made at home. Pay my own dime for my popcorn.
Go to the Ice Cream store. A "small" is really more than you can eat, but you try, hey, get fat, you pass this way but once (maybe). You paid the "small" price which is $1.75. To be fair, you can get a "baby" size (They actually call it that, more as a deterrent to adults who don't want to be put in the infant category, than as something a baby would be able to eat), which used to be 50¢ and was just about right for a normal adult, sizewise, but now costs a buck, plus tax, and is far more than a baby could eat, in fact just about more than a reasonable, repeat reasonable, adult can consume too. "Baby" indeed! MORE EXCESS.
How do all professional people, doctors, dentists, lawyers, etc., know exactly how much to charge for a particular service? No competition, charge the standard amount. Want a crown for a tooth? $850. Call another dentist - "How much do you charge for a crown?" (if they'll even quote a price over the phone) It's $850. Call 10 dentists - $850. Is this price fixing? "Well, no, we all just seem to have arrived at the same price by some sort of telepathy, surely not from talking to one another at the dental convention." Yeah, sure. Or maybe the insurance companies set the rate - good 'n' high so they can charge plenty of premium to the employers who pay for the coverage. But what about the people who who don't have coverage, who have to pay by themselves? Tough, pal, but the rates just come out of the computer, take it or leave it. Right. The dentists, the doctors, gotcha over a barrel, they know it, and in a society where everyone seems to be getting as much as they can, they sock it to you when they've got you down sick. To pay for their boats, or second home in Florida, or Mercedes 500SL. Gougers all.
We're a nation of fat people. From all this excess consumption, we've gradually over the years become bloated, and we don't even recognize it because we're ALL that way. Go into a restaurant - bigger is better - the 20 ounce prime rib special, all you can eat buffet, whopper burgers. Try to get a small, just try. They just about ask to see your age card, to make sure you're young enough to order a child's portion, which is really about all you can comfortably eat.
But notice the terrorists: all thin. No fat terrorists allowed. Not conducive to the imposition of terror. Don't look mean enough. Hey look, Santa Claus is fat; you wouldn't think he would hijack your airliner, wouldja? Mister Niceguy who brings gifts, comes down the chimney without getting sooty - mythical in all proportions. The terrorists are stark realists, using our myths of excess against us, and we are pushovers for the finely tuned cynicism of people who have to, or have chosen to live on, the minimum. Like pricking a balloon with a needle. Boom! So why are we surprised? We're soft, and willing to go along with excess, and this is excess of a different sort. Excess of evil, a new dimension of evil that kills indiscriminately.
Our cars are representations of us - big fat SUV's that guzzle gas, and keep us safe, impenetrable, and high off the ground (i.e., away from what's "below" figuratively). OPEC knows this, so socks it to us on the oil prices, and everyone down the line adds a little bit of profit so gas sometimes goes up to three bucks a gallon, not all due to OPEC, the purveyors at home can take part of the blame. Pile on the profit. At least there's a little competition there, or we'd be paying terrorist prices at the pump.
"Shall we get regular cable, digital cable, HBO and Showtime, Hey, howzabout Satellite TV, 150 channels, all the sports, all the Discoveries, wow! We can have the whole world, with just the flick of a remote." "Look at those nomads down there, riding around on goats. aw, aren't they cute! Look, they're waving at us, oh no, it's their fists, and they're shouting something, and burning something. It's our flag, and Bush, they're burning Bush. Just like in the bible, get it? Let's change the channel, shall we?" Right, we have it ALL, and the have-nots have zilch, nada, ugatz, niet, but they do have the one thing that everyone CAN have: Kids, kids to grow up and hate The Haves. Hate us precisely because we have it all, and all they have is their kids and their religion. Their religion that can promise them a better life in the hereafter, if only they sacrifice here... perhaps the ultimate sacrifice, taking along a few thousand of the Hated Haves. Religion is a very persuasive tool, especially when its subjects crave, and don't know what they crave, beyond survival. Still, they crave.
Before World War II, we had to scrimp, just to get along during the depression, though everything in the USA was bigger, better, more fecund, just waiting to be developed. WWII proved, thank heavens, that the bigger can smash the smaller, faster, more agile, with huge mass-production war industries. Feed the battle more than THEY can, and you'll win. Certainly true, and fortunately we did win, but this same mentality carried over to our society, and has produced opulence to be sure, along with every variation on excess that about forces us to guzzle and get fat. Such excess that the rest of the world, especially the have nots, those who scrape along like moles in the desert or the hills, harbor a jealousy that in time becomes murderous, then murderous on a large excessive scale to match our excess, especially when we are so easily murdered, our fat balloon is so easily pricked. Their logic would be "They won't miss a few thousand people, a couple of skyscrapers." But we DO, even mired in our excess, miss our people and our couple of skyscrapers. And those who sink to this new dimension of evil have forced our machine back into an excess of war making. Hopefully to eliminate them.
It's understandable why the have-nots would want to JOIN us, to come here and become fat, excessive, but why would anyone want to DESTROY us? The only motive would be jealousy of course, because they can't have what we have. We've reached the point of diminishing returns in our excess, and are beginning to implode anyway, so they feel they're just helping us along. But there's not telling how far excess can go. Look inward though, right here: people here killing their families, their classmates, their employers, their colleagues, because they're fed up and just can't take it anymore. Can't take the excess, perhaps not having it all in spite of being so close to it.
Time to take a good hard look at ourselves. What do we watch on the evening news, besides the morsels of actual happenings we're allowed to witness? DRUG ADS. "Take OUR drug. This is what's wrong with you." "No, take OUR drug. THIS is what's wrong with you." "Ask your doctor" (Sure, at seventy bucks a visit). Day and night the whole medical industry, which includes drug companies, insurance companies, HMO's, hospitals, medical practitioners, pharmacists, the whole lot, hammer away at us with ads on television, then claim that most of their money is spent on research. This is nothing but spurious, egregiously spurious claptrap. We can SEE where their money is going, and why the price of medical care and drugs is skyrocketing. WE are paying for those prime-time spots, make no mistake. And the drug companies don't just cure you, they SUGGEST what ails you so they can cure it, with THEIR drug or treatment. And the insurance pays for it... But what if one doesn't have insurance? Then one PAYS through the nose, enough to give you a nosebleed.
Well, at least we have our "Way Of Life" such as it is for some of us. We have America, even if we're poor here, and that's better than anywhere else on earth. But america to the struggling here is not what it seems to the struggling over there. To them it IS what it seems, what they hate, what they're jealous of. Well guess what: There are those of us who hate it and are jealous of it too, because it's all around us but not ours. We wouldn't, most of us, however, kill people to express our rage. There are other avenues. We seek opportunity to get to the good life we see. And opportunity is there, so we join the excess instead of making war against it. Perhaps instead of making war on them, we should make opportunity on them. Is that possible? Is there any other civilized choice?
Henry Francisco, Special to
The Port Whitman Times
Let's be frank. It isn't personal. No way could whoever perpetrated The Tragedy of 9/11 personally hate all the people they killed. No, they hate US, hate our "Way Of Life," as opposed to their way, which to us, who are USED to our way, is NO way. Hey, who'd want to give up a three hundred million dollar existence to live in the desert? You? Me? Not this week, or any week, pal. But Osama bin Laden did. So they have a point to make, Heaven knows what it is, but we might be able to get our minds around it if we take a serious look at ourselves.
In America, we are a country of EXCESS, writ large. "Small" is now what we used to consider "Jumbo," and there is no smaller, so if you want it, whatever it is, you pay the price and throw the rest away, like a good American. And it goes into a good old American landfill, I mean what the heck, we haven't filled up the Grand Canyon yet, haven't even started, so why panic about all the trash we make. Plenty of holes in the ground still to be filled, and covered over with housing developments.
When was the last time your toothpaste tube was actually FULL of toothpaste, and not just air at the end? When did you get a pound of coffee in a can that was meant to hold a pound, or a bag of potato chips that wasn't mostly air?
The other day, I went searching for a pair of Groucho Glasses. You know, with the big nose, the eyebrows, to use in a comedy skit. Most of the variety stores I went to "only carry them around Halloween," when they try to maximize their profits by palming off anything that's spooky on those of us who are rushing around and will grab up anything that seems to fill the bill. Hurry up and get it over with so we can get back to the couch and the security of the TV remote control. "Yeah, yeah, gimme the whatever..." I looked in several places, and finally found a store - a Dollar Store yet - that had Groucho Glasses; the clerk took me back to the Halloween department (Two months early, but you never know, a little business might just materialize) and got me the bubble-wrapped card, with FOUR sets of Groucho Glasses, all cheap plastic with stamped out eyebrows which were really part of the rims of the eyeglasses, and the wrong nose (a politically correct WASPish proboscis as opposed to the semitic schnoz that's always been the rule). But FOUR Groucho Glasses! "I only want one" said I, even though the four were nothing but cheap junk. "Can't break up the set" said the clerk, who was actually the proprietor. "No thanks, then." American merchants try to make you buy more than you want, so they can charge accordingly. EXCESS.
Go to the movies. A SMALL popcorn is $3.25. Probably costs them less than a dime to make, but they try to hold you up for as much as they can get, figure you're a hostage. Most people just pay it and use their union to get more money from the job, justifying it by the "everything's going up" rationalization. In the movies the concessions use the logic that we figure we're subsidizing art by paying more. Bullshit. Movies are an industry just like mining or construction. Art schmart. I bring fruit, nuts, munchies, my own popcorn made at home. Pay my own dime for my popcorn.
Go to the Ice Cream store. A "small" is really more than you can eat, but you try, hey, get fat, you pass this way but once (maybe). You paid the "small" price which is $1.75. To be fair, you can get a "baby" size (They actually call it that, more as a deterrent to adults who don't want to be put in the infant category, than as something a baby would be able to eat), which used to be 50¢ and was just about right for a normal adult, sizewise, but now costs a buck, plus tax, and is far more than a baby could eat, in fact just about more than a reasonable, repeat reasonable, adult can consume too. "Baby" indeed! MORE EXCESS.
How do all professional people, doctors, dentists, lawyers, etc., know exactly how much to charge for a particular service? No competition, charge the standard amount. Want a crown for a tooth? $850. Call another dentist - "How much do you charge for a crown?" (if they'll even quote a price over the phone) It's $850. Call 10 dentists - $850. Is this price fixing? "Well, no, we all just seem to have arrived at the same price by some sort of telepathy, surely not from talking to one another at the dental convention." Yeah, sure. Or maybe the insurance companies set the rate - good 'n' high so they can charge plenty of premium to the employers who pay for the coverage. But what about the people who who don't have coverage, who have to pay by themselves? Tough, pal, but the rates just come out of the computer, take it or leave it. Right. The dentists, the doctors, gotcha over a barrel, they know it, and in a society where everyone seems to be getting as much as they can, they sock it to you when they've got you down sick. To pay for their boats, or second home in Florida, or Mercedes 500SL. Gougers all.
We're a nation of fat people. From all this excess consumption, we've gradually over the years become bloated, and we don't even recognize it because we're ALL that way. Go into a restaurant - bigger is better - the 20 ounce prime rib special, all you can eat buffet, whopper burgers. Try to get a small, just try. They just about ask to see your age card, to make sure you're young enough to order a child's portion, which is really about all you can comfortably eat.
But notice the terrorists: all thin. No fat terrorists allowed. Not conducive to the imposition of terror. Don't look mean enough. Hey look, Santa Claus is fat; you wouldn't think he would hijack your airliner, wouldja? Mister Niceguy who brings gifts, comes down the chimney without getting sooty - mythical in all proportions. The terrorists are stark realists, using our myths of excess against us, and we are pushovers for the finely tuned cynicism of people who have to, or have chosen to live on, the minimum. Like pricking a balloon with a needle. Boom! So why are we surprised? We're soft, and willing to go along with excess, and this is excess of a different sort. Excess of evil, a new dimension of evil that kills indiscriminately.
Our cars are representations of us - big fat SUV's that guzzle gas, and keep us safe, impenetrable, and high off the ground (i.e., away from what's "below" figuratively). OPEC knows this, so socks it to us on the oil prices, and everyone down the line adds a little bit of profit so gas sometimes goes up to three bucks a gallon, not all due to OPEC, the purveyors at home can take part of the blame. Pile on the profit. At least there's a little competition there, or we'd be paying terrorist prices at the pump.
"Shall we get regular cable, digital cable, HBO and Showtime, Hey, howzabout Satellite TV, 150 channels, all the sports, all the Discoveries, wow! We can have the whole world, with just the flick of a remote." "Look at those nomads down there, riding around on goats. aw, aren't they cute! Look, they're waving at us, oh no, it's their fists, and they're shouting something, and burning something. It's our flag, and Bush, they're burning Bush. Just like in the bible, get it? Let's change the channel, shall we?" Right, we have it ALL, and the have-nots have zilch, nada, ugatz, niet, but they do have the one thing that everyone CAN have: Kids, kids to grow up and hate The Haves. Hate us precisely because we have it all, and all they have is their kids and their religion. Their religion that can promise them a better life in the hereafter, if only they sacrifice here... perhaps the ultimate sacrifice, taking along a few thousand of the Hated Haves. Religion is a very persuasive tool, especially when its subjects crave, and don't know what they crave, beyond survival. Still, they crave.
Before World War II, we had to scrimp, just to get along during the depression, though everything in the USA was bigger, better, more fecund, just waiting to be developed. WWII proved, thank heavens, that the bigger can smash the smaller, faster, more agile, with huge mass-production war industries. Feed the battle more than THEY can, and you'll win. Certainly true, and fortunately we did win, but this same mentality carried over to our society, and has produced opulence to be sure, along with every variation on excess that about forces us to guzzle and get fat. Such excess that the rest of the world, especially the have nots, those who scrape along like moles in the desert or the hills, harbor a jealousy that in time becomes murderous, then murderous on a large excessive scale to match our excess, especially when we are so easily murdered, our fat balloon is so easily pricked. Their logic would be "They won't miss a few thousand people, a couple of skyscrapers." But we DO, even mired in our excess, miss our people and our couple of skyscrapers. And those who sink to this new dimension of evil have forced our machine back into an excess of war making. Hopefully to eliminate them.
It's understandable why the have-nots would want to JOIN us, to come here and become fat, excessive, but why would anyone want to DESTROY us? The only motive would be jealousy of course, because they can't have what we have. We've reached the point of diminishing returns in our excess, and are beginning to implode anyway, so they feel they're just helping us along. But there's not telling how far excess can go. Look inward though, right here: people here killing their families, their classmates, their employers, their colleagues, because they're fed up and just can't take it anymore. Can't take the excess, perhaps not having it all in spite of being so close to it.
Time to take a good hard look at ourselves. What do we watch on the evening news, besides the morsels of actual happenings we're allowed to witness? DRUG ADS. "Take OUR drug. This is what's wrong with you." "No, take OUR drug. THIS is what's wrong with you." "Ask your doctor" (Sure, at seventy bucks a visit). Day and night the whole medical industry, which includes drug companies, insurance companies, HMO's, hospitals, medical practitioners, pharmacists, the whole lot, hammer away at us with ads on television, then claim that most of their money is spent on research. This is nothing but spurious, egregiously spurious claptrap. We can SEE where their money is going, and why the price of medical care and drugs is skyrocketing. WE are paying for those prime-time spots, make no mistake. And the drug companies don't just cure you, they SUGGEST what ails you so they can cure it, with THEIR drug or treatment. And the insurance pays for it... But what if one doesn't have insurance? Then one PAYS through the nose, enough to give you a nosebleed.
Well, at least we have our "Way Of Life" such as it is for some of us. We have America, even if we're poor here, and that's better than anywhere else on earth. But america to the struggling here is not what it seems to the struggling over there. To them it IS what it seems, what they hate, what they're jealous of. Well guess what: There are those of us who hate it and are jealous of it too, because it's all around us but not ours. We wouldn't, most of us, however, kill people to express our rage. There are other avenues. We seek opportunity to get to the good life we see. And opportunity is there, so we join the excess instead of making war against it. Perhaps instead of making war on them, we should make opportunity on them. Is that possible? Is there any other civilized choice?
Henry Francisco, Special to
Friday, June 8, 2007
PARIS HILTON IN-OUT
Hooray for Paris! Why shouldn't Paris Hilton be able to spend her jail time at home? Oh, sure, she's a privileged, spoiled rich kid, lucky her. What young chick wouldn't trade places with her, even with the ankle bracelet and domestic incarceration. Silver-spoon slammer time. Maybe the restriction could be confined to one room, if the technology is that pinpointedly accurate, and the room barely fitted with minimal facilities, so it isn't a vacation, and it's subject to summary inspection at any time. In her dreams...
But think about it from a more practical, economic viewpoint: Now that we have this new surveillance capability where the "prisoner's" whereabouts can be pinpointed 24/7, why then do non-violent criminals have to be put in local or state prisons at all? Prison is for punishment, yeah sure, but mainly to protect society from those who must be caged, lest they wreak havoc on the outside. Now granted Paris could wreak havoc behind the wheel on the outside, but if she can't leave her room, she can't drive. Or is our form of imprisonment a relic from some calvinistic sense of revenge? Certainly not because NV's are a threat to us on the outside.
Paris Hilton's "crime" was basically a traffic violation (of DUI probation), and no doubt she shouldn't be allowed to play her game in traffic (Why would a star of this magnitude and wealth be driving anyway? There are cabs and limos for the likes of her), and anyone with that conviction needs punishment and a stiff fine, but to provide a state maintained jail cell with meals, guards, supervised free time, and all the expense of keeping her penned up, when she could be severely fined and punished by restricting her to a room in her own house, would seem more prudent from the taxpayers' point of view.
Fine her? She has millions! Good. Let the fine be in proportion to her income, which is right there at the IRS for law enforcement to check. If, say, she has an annual net income of two million dollars (not unthinkable), and her sentence is 45 days, then the fine, in addition to restriction by ankle-bracelet for that period, should equal her income for that time, or 45/365ths of $2,000,000 = $246,575 out of Paris' net income. A good, hard-cash wake-up call. So then, instead of the state spending (at an estimated $35,000 annual cost) $4,603 to incarcerate her, they come out $246,575 + $4,603 (that would have been spent) to the good, a net increase of $251,178. Wake up taxpayers! Here's a solution. This wouldn't make Paris Hilton, or her family, or her agent, or her entourage, or anyone who makes money off the PH notoriety, happy, but it would surely teach the lesson. If it doesn't, next time double the sentence, thus the fine.
Why not do this with any non-violent offender? Domestic incarceration with ankle-bracelet, plus a fine of net income for the days spent in restriction. Payable in cash before the restriction is lifted. After all, why should someone caught in any minor offense become a responsibility of the state at an estimated $35 thousand a year? If judges had the leeway in sentencing in this regard, our "prison" systems and their expense would shrink drastically, and punishment would be a lot more effective.
Henry Francisco, Special to
The Port Whitman Times
But think about it from a more practical, economic viewpoint: Now that we have this new surveillance capability where the "prisoner's" whereabouts can be pinpointed 24/7, why then do non-violent criminals have to be put in local or state prisons at all? Prison is for punishment, yeah sure, but mainly to protect society from those who must be caged, lest they wreak havoc on the outside. Now granted Paris could wreak havoc behind the wheel on the outside, but if she can't leave her room, she can't drive. Or is our form of imprisonment a relic from some calvinistic sense of revenge? Certainly not because NV's are a threat to us on the outside.
Paris Hilton's "crime" was basically a traffic violation (of DUI probation), and no doubt she shouldn't be allowed to play her game in traffic (Why would a star of this magnitude and wealth be driving anyway? There are cabs and limos for the likes of her), and anyone with that conviction needs punishment and a stiff fine, but to provide a state maintained jail cell with meals, guards, supervised free time, and all the expense of keeping her penned up, when she could be severely fined and punished by restricting her to a room in her own house, would seem more prudent from the taxpayers' point of view.
Fine her? She has millions! Good. Let the fine be in proportion to her income, which is right there at the IRS for law enforcement to check. If, say, she has an annual net income of two million dollars (not unthinkable), and her sentence is 45 days, then the fine, in addition to restriction by ankle-bracelet for that period, should equal her income for that time, or 45/365ths of $2,000,000 = $246,575 out of Paris' net income. A good, hard-cash wake-up call. So then, instead of the state spending (at an estimated $35,000 annual cost) $4,603 to incarcerate her, they come out $246,575 + $4,603 (that would have been spent) to the good, a net increase of $251,178. Wake up taxpayers! Here's a solution. This wouldn't make Paris Hilton, or her family, or her agent, or her entourage, or anyone who makes money off the PH notoriety, happy, but it would surely teach the lesson. If it doesn't, next time double the sentence, thus the fine.
Why not do this with any non-violent offender? Domestic incarceration with ankle-bracelet, plus a fine of net income for the days spent in restriction. Payable in cash before the restriction is lifted. After all, why should someone caught in any minor offense become a responsibility of the state at an estimated $35 thousand a year? If judges had the leeway in sentencing in this regard, our "prison" systems and their expense would shrink drastically, and punishment would be a lot more effective.
Henry Francisco, Special to
Thursday, June 7, 2007
AFRICAN-AMERICAN ACTORS PROTEST
PORT WHITMAN: Richard Seales, president of the African American Actors Guild of Port Whitman, led a recent demonstration outside KROK-TV, protesting the lack of African-American actors cast in roles of criminals such as car thieves, burglars and armed robbers in commercials for security alarm and crime prevention companies. Noting that the majority of the criminals that one sees on the evening news are African-American, Mr. Seales and his group are demanding that their members be proportionally represented in these ads. "This is one case where affirmative action isn't even necessary" stated Seales "If we are going to be displayed in the media as 'the criminal element' then as actors we should be getting our fair share of the work portraying who we're being seen as in the real world. It's only fair."
Media executives and ad agency directors, in an attempt to be politically correct, have been steering clear of using African-American actors in roles that would denigrate black Americans and magnify racial stereotypes, and it is felt by more conservative African-Americans that Mr. Seales is rowing against the current in making his demands. Nevertheless, he is supported by his group of more than 50 performers, most notably Port Whitman Playhouse leading man Bobby Davis, who recently garnered rave reviews for his stage portrayal of both twin brothers, one of whom died homeless of AIDS, and the other who became a world-class yodeler and mountain climber, then went on to a second career as a world-famous NeuroSurgeon. The scene where the twins meet, done with mirrors and recorded sound, is said to be a classic by local theatre buffs. Davis led the marchers, chanting in Ebonic "We be's de felons, or we keeps on wit de yellin'."
Choosing Ebonic over plain English, the group seeks to identify itself with the millions of other African-Americans who the group claims have been denied their rights and been refused employment in jobs for which they eminently qualify, and for which others, white actors, have been chosen simply as a political expedient. "We can play the bad guys because we KNOW the bad guys, know how they look, how they act, how they go about their business of robbery and the like, simply from our common life experiences in the black ghettoes, and we just want to be able to put that life experience to work in a constructive way. If that way is helping to warn the haves, and help protect them from the havenots who would take it away illegally, then we have made a substantial contribution to society, and been gainfully employed in the process."
"Why, just look at those stupid looking ofays made up in scraggly beards, with tattoos and cigarettes dangling from their lips. You might find them in prison, being had by every stud in the place, but no respectable African-American criminal would have anything to do with them on the job. They're trash and they look like trash, act like trash, and couldn't make any kind of a living doing the kind of theft you see them doing in these ads. That's a step UP for them. You want realism, then get a Black Man to do the job. That's why we're here," Davis continued. "And we're going to stay here until we get our fair due."
Harry McManaman, CEO of Roundtable Associates, producers of the ads for Castle Security Systems, tried to soften the situation, saying "We are just trying to sell product without offending anyone in the process, and we feel that the public sees enough African American criminals on the news, without having to look at them portrayed as such in the ads too. We didn't realize that by casting the ads in this way, we would be playing into the hands of those who would claim we discriminate in our casting process. We're just trying not to offend.
Martin Shlevey, Vice President in charge of Sales for Harbor Communications, owners of KROK-TV, concurred, publicly apologizing to Seales' group, and promised that he would ask advertisers to be more considerate in the future. Shown this sliver of hope, the demonstrators gradually disbanded, against the wishes of some of the more hard-core protagonists, but with the recognition by their leaders that a measure of progress had been made.
Henry Francisco, Special to
The Port Whitman Times
Media executives and ad agency directors, in an attempt to be politically correct, have been steering clear of using African-American actors in roles that would denigrate black Americans and magnify racial stereotypes, and it is felt by more conservative African-Americans that Mr. Seales is rowing against the current in making his demands. Nevertheless, he is supported by his group of more than 50 performers, most notably Port Whitman Playhouse leading man Bobby Davis, who recently garnered rave reviews for his stage portrayal of both twin brothers, one of whom died homeless of AIDS, and the other who became a world-class yodeler and mountain climber, then went on to a second career as a world-famous NeuroSurgeon. The scene where the twins meet, done with mirrors and recorded sound, is said to be a classic by local theatre buffs. Davis led the marchers, chanting in Ebonic "We be's de felons, or we keeps on wit de yellin'."
Choosing Ebonic over plain English, the group seeks to identify itself with the millions of other African-Americans who the group claims have been denied their rights and been refused employment in jobs for which they eminently qualify, and for which others, white actors, have been chosen simply as a political expedient. "We can play the bad guys because we KNOW the bad guys, know how they look, how they act, how they go about their business of robbery and the like, simply from our common life experiences in the black ghettoes, and we just want to be able to put that life experience to work in a constructive way. If that way is helping to warn the haves, and help protect them from the havenots who would take it away illegally, then we have made a substantial contribution to society, and been gainfully employed in the process."
"Why, just look at those stupid looking ofays made up in scraggly beards, with tattoos and cigarettes dangling from their lips. You might find them in prison, being had by every stud in the place, but no respectable African-American criminal would have anything to do with them on the job. They're trash and they look like trash, act like trash, and couldn't make any kind of a living doing the kind of theft you see them doing in these ads. That's a step UP for them. You want realism, then get a Black Man to do the job. That's why we're here," Davis continued. "And we're going to stay here until we get our fair due."
Harry McManaman, CEO of Roundtable Associates, producers of the ads for Castle Security Systems, tried to soften the situation, saying "We are just trying to sell product without offending anyone in the process, and we feel that the public sees enough African American criminals on the news, without having to look at them portrayed as such in the ads too. We didn't realize that by casting the ads in this way, we would be playing into the hands of those who would claim we discriminate in our casting process. We're just trying not to offend.
Martin Shlevey, Vice President in charge of Sales for Harbor Communications, owners of KROK-TV, concurred, publicly apologizing to Seales' group, and promised that he would ask advertisers to be more considerate in the future. Shown this sliver of hope, the demonstrators gradually disbanded, against the wishes of some of the more hard-core protagonists, but with the recognition by their leaders that a measure of progress had been made.
Henry Francisco, Special to
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
MUSICAL MUSEUMS?
ARE CONCERT HALLS BECOMING MUSICAL MUSEUMS?
(Question posed by Lawrence Kramer in The Sunday New York Times 6/3/07)
ANSWER: Yes! Museums of sound, with the exception that, unlike other museums, you can't browse, you have to pay attention and be quiet! Oh, and sit still, turn off your cell, don't chew gum, jiggle your leg, talk, all the rest of the seventh grade discipline. It's a drag! On my iPod, I can listen to what I want when I want, while I'm doing all of the above bad behavior and more, replay it, rehear it, rethink it, relive it. I can re-experience the melodies of Mozart after 200 and some years, the musical thoughts of all the great geniuses of music. Why do I need to go sit still and behave to watch a bunch of musicians re-create the great symphonies?
Fact is, going to hear music played live by musicians - REAL music of whatever stripe (as opposed to pop), is itself slowly becoming obsolete. Oh, we go for the EVENT, whether it be dress up to the Philharmonic, or jeans to the rolling stoned. But to really listen, we buy or download the CD.
To get the musical ideas of the composer or improviser of honest-to-God music, it's much better to listen to it on a personal headset or in a well-equipped stereo-room. Even to get the subtleties of the performers. Actually, the future of performers, especially performing their own compositions, is YouTube, where you can see them interpret their own compositions. In the end, the transmission of the musical ideas of the composer to the appreciative mind of the listener is what it's all about, and as technology allows us to eliminate all the in-between folderol, even the performers become less important to musical purists.
Composing music, or any art, is a form of mental self-gratification. The composer does it for himself, sets it down just as he wants it, to hear it perfectly reflected back to him exactly as he thought it up.
Up to now, the way it works is: The composer either goes and plays the music himself, or finds an entity with cash to finance the production and performance of his musings so an audience can listen. But just imagine, if Mozart had all the technology we have available today, would he do all that? Or would he get out his music program to make his own Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart MP3? And guess what... If he did do that, using 100 voices on his computer instead of 100 musicians playing in a hall or studio, making the whole Jupiter Symphony or Eine Kleine Nachtmusic at his desktop, skillfully using all the musical dynamics and inflections and accents his computer and its application are capable of producing, I venture to say a large majority of listeners wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
That's a direction music is taking - away from the human performance and interpretation, and directly from composer's brain to listener's brain, or soul to soul. The rest is just commerce - selling tickets to an audience that will attend and listen. The final destination is the listening, and we can do that through earphones plugged into a computer (An iPod IS a computer after all). The art is in the composition, in the direct transmission of an idea, or feeling, or impression, from one mind to another, so the less in-between "stuff" needed to do that, the better. Like writing a letter, or blogging. Me to you.
This is already being done - by lesser minds than Mozart - but it IS being done, for example at John Henry Music where all the music is composed in the mind of one person and notated on the computer, which then "plays" the music back just as the composer wants it. This is in its early stages, but there it is. And there will be more. Keep listening, keep watching on YouTube, and reading on Blogspot. It will all be there sooner than you think. Then the halls shall truly be museums.
Henry Francisco, Special to
The Port Whitman Times
(Question posed by Lawrence Kramer in The Sunday New York Times 6/3/07)
ANSWER: Yes! Museums of sound, with the exception that, unlike other museums, you can't browse, you have to pay attention and be quiet! Oh, and sit still, turn off your cell, don't chew gum, jiggle your leg, talk, all the rest of the seventh grade discipline. It's a drag! On my iPod, I can listen to what I want when I want, while I'm doing all of the above bad behavior and more, replay it, rehear it, rethink it, relive it. I can re-experience the melodies of Mozart after 200 and some years, the musical thoughts of all the great geniuses of music. Why do I need to go sit still and behave to watch a bunch of musicians re-create the great symphonies?
Fact is, going to hear music played live by musicians - REAL music of whatever stripe (as opposed to pop), is itself slowly becoming obsolete. Oh, we go for the EVENT, whether it be dress up to the Philharmonic, or jeans to the rolling stoned. But to really listen, we buy or download the CD.
To get the musical ideas of the composer or improviser of honest-to-God music, it's much better to listen to it on a personal headset or in a well-equipped stereo-room. Even to get the subtleties of the performers. Actually, the future of performers, especially performing their own compositions, is YouTube, where you can see them interpret their own compositions. In the end, the transmission of the musical ideas of the composer to the appreciative mind of the listener is what it's all about, and as technology allows us to eliminate all the in-between folderol, even the performers become less important to musical purists.
Composing music, or any art, is a form of mental self-gratification. The composer does it for himself, sets it down just as he wants it, to hear it perfectly reflected back to him exactly as he thought it up.
Up to now, the way it works is: The composer either goes and plays the music himself, or finds an entity with cash to finance the production and performance of his musings so an audience can listen. But just imagine, if Mozart had all the technology we have available today, would he do all that? Or would he get out his music program to make his own Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart MP3? And guess what... If he did do that, using 100 voices on his computer instead of 100 musicians playing in a hall or studio, making the whole Jupiter Symphony or Eine Kleine Nachtmusic at his desktop, skillfully using all the musical dynamics and inflections and accents his computer and its application are capable of producing, I venture to say a large majority of listeners wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
That's a direction music is taking - away from the human performance and interpretation, and directly from composer's brain to listener's brain, or soul to soul. The rest is just commerce - selling tickets to an audience that will attend and listen. The final destination is the listening, and we can do that through earphones plugged into a computer (An iPod IS a computer after all). The art is in the composition, in the direct transmission of an idea, or feeling, or impression, from one mind to another, so the less in-between "stuff" needed to do that, the better. Like writing a letter, or blogging. Me to you.
This is already being done - by lesser minds than Mozart - but it IS being done, for example at John Henry Music where all the music is composed in the mind of one person and notated on the computer, which then "plays" the music back just as the composer wants it. This is in its early stages, but there it is. And there will be more. Keep listening, keep watching on YouTube, and reading on Blogspot. It will all be there sooner than you think. Then the halls shall truly be museums.
Henry Francisco, Special to
Monday, June 4, 2007
CRIME EXPLOSION
So now violent crime has shot up, and everyone's scratching their heads - too many guns, too few police. Sure, but what's the real cause? It's a little business that's very lucrative, and very dangerous, but the money is worth the risk to some. And violence just happens to be one of the ingredients.
Just how long has the establishment been pushing to get drugs off the streets? Whatever the number, it's been an abysmal failure; the street drug business keeps growing. Faster than the stock market, bigger than Microsoft or Google. Why? Because there are enormous profits to be made, that buy anything from jewelry to big cars, to bank accounts and villas in the Caymans. To paraphrase a small town Police Chief: "They improve the quality of life - for the drug dealers."
But our quality of life? We, who are not part of the drug dealing or taking world, most of whom couldn't care less about those who deal or take drugs until it affects us personally, are saddled with the burden of investigating, catching and putting away these people, at an astronomical cost, pouring money down a rathole for police, drug task forces, helicopters, incarcerating offenders at a cost of some $40,000 per year each, in a losing war where children gun down children for profit. The opportunity to make big bucks selling drugs is too tempting for kids who might otherwise have to work at some minimum-wage legitimate job. The cost of incarceration is only for the ones who are caught selling or buying. To that add the costs of pre-incarceration, from investigating to arresting and trying each case. Moreover, among those who are yet to be arrested, big money we cannot touch still flows from hand to hand.
Of course we want to protect our own children, friends, relatives, co-workers et al. But that's not a matter of stopping the flow of drugs, because once one source is eliminated, two others pop up. Any high school kid knows how to get drugs. Just go to the right people and they go to the right people, and voila! You got pot. The pot guy knows a coke guy, that guy knows a crack guy, that guy knows a smack, or ecstasy, or speed or whatever guy... The key to preventing drug use is education, not incarceration. All that money that is spent on pushing drugs off the streets could be spent on serious education programs to immerse everyone into what the drug culture is all about, why and how to avoid it.
To eliminate the drug trade, the enormous profits must be removed. After all, why should an undereducated "unemployed" teen be able to drive around in a new Lexus or Mercedes, just because he's brave enough to flaunt his business in the face of the law? Answer: Because it's where the money is.
Oh boy, helicopters with spotlights. Duh, any minimally intelligent rodent can figure that out. you go where the light doesn't shine; if you hear the chopper coming, you hide. It's not rocket science. Nor is buying low and selling high. Oh sure, there are undercover cops risking their lives to ferret out dealers, that's just one "business cost." Meanwhile, taxpayers have high crime, speeding police cars, cops battering into homes, search warrants, low-flying aircraft disturbing the peace. All that money that is made in selling drugs and in the catching and jailing of those who deal and take drugs could be put to use: better schools, better services, more responsive government, lower taxes.
The solution is to make drugs legal. Not just de-criminalized, but legal, sold just like liquor (Remember Prohibition? It's deja vu all over again) in state-run or taxed liquor stores. Thus, money is made two ways: In heavily participating in the profits, and in eliminating expensive enforcement of ineffective drug laws. "Oh, that makes the state a drug dealer," you say. Well, isn't that already true in the case of alcohol and tobacco products? If drugs were legal, their potency could be regulated - if you're a drug user, who would you rather buy from, the street dealer who might cut or lace the product with an unknown substance, or a store where the quality is regulated (Think Len Bias, River Phoenix or anyone who died from an overdose); and the age of buyers could be restricted. Quality or age restriction is not a choice we outside of the drug culture have to make, but surely one that is a major factor in the milieu of the drug taker.
The way to get drugs off the streets is to take drugs off the streets. Literally. As long as there are human beings, there will be drugs. Just watch the evening news, and you'll see ads for drugs from Adderall to Zoloft. Y'know - "Ask your doctor if _______ is right for you." At least with legal drugs, there is some control. But on the streets, no control beyond what overworked, over-matched drug law enforcement can muster.
Henry Francisco, Special to
The Port Whitman Times
Just how long has the establishment been pushing to get drugs off the streets? Whatever the number, it's been an abysmal failure; the street drug business keeps growing. Faster than the stock market, bigger than Microsoft or Google. Why? Because there are enormous profits to be made, that buy anything from jewelry to big cars, to bank accounts and villas in the Caymans. To paraphrase a small town Police Chief: "They improve the quality of life - for the drug dealers."
But our quality of life? We, who are not part of the drug dealing or taking world, most of whom couldn't care less about those who deal or take drugs until it affects us personally, are saddled with the burden of investigating, catching and putting away these people, at an astronomical cost, pouring money down a rathole for police, drug task forces, helicopters, incarcerating offenders at a cost of some $40,000 per year each, in a losing war where children gun down children for profit. The opportunity to make big bucks selling drugs is too tempting for kids who might otherwise have to work at some minimum-wage legitimate job. The cost of incarceration is only for the ones who are caught selling or buying. To that add the costs of pre-incarceration, from investigating to arresting and trying each case. Moreover, among those who are yet to be arrested, big money we cannot touch still flows from hand to hand.
Of course we want to protect our own children, friends, relatives, co-workers et al. But that's not a matter of stopping the flow of drugs, because once one source is eliminated, two others pop up. Any high school kid knows how to get drugs. Just go to the right people and they go to the right people, and voila! You got pot. The pot guy knows a coke guy, that guy knows a crack guy, that guy knows a smack, or ecstasy, or speed or whatever guy... The key to preventing drug use is education, not incarceration. All that money that is spent on pushing drugs off the streets could be spent on serious education programs to immerse everyone into what the drug culture is all about, why and how to avoid it.
To eliminate the drug trade, the enormous profits must be removed. After all, why should an undereducated "unemployed" teen be able to drive around in a new Lexus or Mercedes, just because he's brave enough to flaunt his business in the face of the law? Answer: Because it's where the money is.
Oh boy, helicopters with spotlights. Duh, any minimally intelligent rodent can figure that out. you go where the light doesn't shine; if you hear the chopper coming, you hide. It's not rocket science. Nor is buying low and selling high. Oh sure, there are undercover cops risking their lives to ferret out dealers, that's just one "business cost." Meanwhile, taxpayers have high crime, speeding police cars, cops battering into homes, search warrants, low-flying aircraft disturbing the peace. All that money that is made in selling drugs and in the catching and jailing of those who deal and take drugs could be put to use: better schools, better services, more responsive government, lower taxes.
The solution is to make drugs legal. Not just de-criminalized, but legal, sold just like liquor (Remember Prohibition? It's deja vu all over again) in state-run or taxed liquor stores. Thus, money is made two ways: In heavily participating in the profits, and in eliminating expensive enforcement of ineffective drug laws. "Oh, that makes the state a drug dealer," you say. Well, isn't that already true in the case of alcohol and tobacco products? If drugs were legal, their potency could be regulated - if you're a drug user, who would you rather buy from, the street dealer who might cut or lace the product with an unknown substance, or a store where the quality is regulated (Think Len Bias, River Phoenix or anyone who died from an overdose); and the age of buyers could be restricted. Quality or age restriction is not a choice we outside of the drug culture have to make, but surely one that is a major factor in the milieu of the drug taker.
The way to get drugs off the streets is to take drugs off the streets. Literally. As long as there are human beings, there will be drugs. Just watch the evening news, and you'll see ads for drugs from Adderall to Zoloft. Y'know - "Ask your doctor if _______ is right for you." At least with legal drugs, there is some control. But on the streets, no control beyond what overworked, over-matched drug law enforcement can muster.
Henry Francisco, Special to
WATER TRASH
What to do with all those plastic bottles your water comes in? Billions are thrown away every day, and they're piling up. (See NYTimes Magazine article from 5/27/07) Merchants don't want to collect deposits when they're sold and give refunds when they take them back (dirty, messy, nuisance, etc.), so they just get tossed, hopefully into the recyclables, IF your municipality or county or state has recycling. But that costs too, and who's to pay? Well, we are, right? So how to handle it?
Here's an idea:
The merchants collect bottle deposit, 5¢ or 10¢ for each bottle sold, and pay the money to the state or county or city for the collection process. Then that entity pays for the recycling collections. Otherwise, our landfills get overfilled with non-digestible trash. Soon we'll be talking about filling up the Grand Canyon if we don't watch out.
Henry Francisco, Special to
The Port Whitman Times
Here's an idea:
The merchants collect bottle deposit, 5¢ or 10¢ for each bottle sold, and pay the money to the state or county or city for the collection process. Then that entity pays for the recycling collections. Otherwise, our landfills get overfilled with non-digestible trash. Soon we'll be talking about filling up the Grand Canyon if we don't watch out.
Henry Francisco, Special to
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)