Until this year, I have prepared and filed a paper annual Income Tax return. I looked at the tax guide for any changes, and completed the return by hand, carefully double-checking the schedules and calculations and referring to my prior year's return.
This year Canada Revenue Agency advised that they were no longer sending out paper forms or tax guides and suggested that I complete my return using computer software and file it electronically. A little slow to move past my comfortable habits, I realized that most filers had probably made this transition and that I was a straggler.
CRA provided a short list of approved software, and I selected Studio Tax, rather than UFile or TurboTax, because it was free (donation) and I had no idea of their relative merits.
Studio Tax turned out to be easy to use. After a few questions regarding identification, residency, and status, it asked me to transfer information from my tax statements to their similar statements and produced a preliminary tax return with schedules, worksheets, and tax calculations completed. I added other earnings for which I had not received statements, plus my quarterly instalments, recalculated, and my tax return was done.
Because it looked similar to my previous return and the figures seemed in line, I decided to accept that the calculations were correct (after all it was CRA approved), saved it, and then created a "Netfile" version for CRA. Using their website, I submitted the return to CRA, checked my online account, and saw that it had been received.
Last year, I had been a little annoyed that it took six weeks for CRA to process my return (submitted March 6, but not processed until April 16). This year, I submitted the return on Monday, March 10, and when I checked on Friday, it was processed and I could print a summary. CRA did not identify any errors and indicated that my refund would be deposited on the following Thursday.
Reducing the processing time from six weeks to four days was certainly an improvement, suggesting that the slow service from the previous year was possibly intentional to get filers to change over.
On the cautionary side, the return did not require a signature, and I could have filed a return for someone else if I had their Social Insurance Number and birthdate. There is also the downside that as they make it more convenient, I will become less knowledgeable, so I should probably find an online tax guide to review before taking too much for granted.
Saturday, March 16, 2013
Monday, January 21, 2013
Blue Monday
I see that today is "Blue Monday", described as the most depressing day of the year. The assumptions on which this is based are that it is probably cold, the Christmas hangover of unpaid bills has arrived, and New Year's resolutions are already broken.
In my case, however, it is just the opposite. We have yet to have any serious snow, only two light days in December and one light day in January. My Christmas bills are paid and the yearly contribution to my TFSA (Tax-Free Savings Account) has been made. My two New Year's resolutions are still well intact, the first (as usual) to lose a few pounds and the other to focus less on political and social issues from the United States.
Of my resolutions, I am ten pounds overweight according to the BMI calculator. Given that I tend to have my highest weight in January and am ten pounds below where I was three years ago at this time (when I then lost twenty pounds), I'm fairly optimistic that I can again get back to healthy weight. For my age, I am at the 46 percentile, meaning I am actually a little less than average in an overweight population.
The second resolution, to reduce the amount of unpleasant political information I receive from the U. S., is also under way. I've limited the amount of time watching CNN and am in the process of severely reducing time on Facebook. Although I like my Facebook "friends", the attempt to engage in meaningful political or social discussion on the forums doesn't work. I was particularly amazed a week ago when three seemingly moderate comments I made were severely attacked by others. On both the left and the right, there is very little tolerance for the middle ground, very little effort to look at both sides of issues, and strong partisan identification. Maybe this is just the nature of Facebook, but I've decided that aside from staying in contact with real friends and family, there isn't much to be gained from it.
In my case, however, it is just the opposite. We have yet to have any serious snow, only two light days in December and one light day in January. My Christmas bills are paid and the yearly contribution to my TFSA (Tax-Free Savings Account) has been made. My two New Year's resolutions are still well intact, the first (as usual) to lose a few pounds and the other to focus less on political and social issues from the United States.
Of my resolutions, I am ten pounds overweight according to the BMI calculator. Given that I tend to have my highest weight in January and am ten pounds below where I was three years ago at this time (when I then lost twenty pounds), I'm fairly optimistic that I can again get back to healthy weight. For my age, I am at the 46 percentile, meaning I am actually a little less than average in an overweight population.
The second resolution, to reduce the amount of unpleasant political information I receive from the U. S., is also under way. I've limited the amount of time watching CNN and am in the process of severely reducing time on Facebook. Although I like my Facebook "friends", the attempt to engage in meaningful political or social discussion on the forums doesn't work. I was particularly amazed a week ago when three seemingly moderate comments I made were severely attacked by others. On both the left and the right, there is very little tolerance for the middle ground, very little effort to look at both sides of issues, and strong partisan identification. Maybe this is just the nature of Facebook, but I've decided that aside from staying in contact with real friends and family, there isn't much to be gained from it.
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Post-Election
The U. S. election finally took place and happily President Obama was re-elected. Not that this will put an end to partisan bickering, but the general tone coming from the U. S. is likely to be far more to my liking than if the result had been different. This has put me in a good mood and I can only hope that it will last.
On Friday after the election, I had fifteen windows replaced in my house. The installers came on time and did a tidy, efficient job. The previously single-paned windows are now double-glazed with automatic locks. The living room windows are now casement, which crank out, instead of the smaller awning type. Immediately I noticed the difference with significant noise reduction and a warmer-feeling house.
My wife gave me a little lecture about home improvement projects, however: (1) Do the projects in the summer; (2) Don't do them just because the neighbour does them; (3) Don't put them off. In general, I agree with this. I actually started the window project in the summer, but getting multiple quotes, ordering the windows, and waiting for the installation to be scheduled took two months, which is not unusual. I don't think I do things just because I see the neighbour do them, but they are a good source of ideas. I have to admit guilt on the third item, generally because there are a variety of projects that could be undertaken and it probably takes a catalyst to move them forward.
I wonder what the catalyst for re-doing the kitchen will be?
On Friday after the election, I had fifteen windows replaced in my house. The installers came on time and did a tidy, efficient job. The previously single-paned windows are now double-glazed with automatic locks. The living room windows are now casement, which crank out, instead of the smaller awning type. Immediately I noticed the difference with significant noise reduction and a warmer-feeling house.
My wife gave me a little lecture about home improvement projects, however: (1) Do the projects in the summer; (2) Don't do them just because the neighbour does them; (3) Don't put them off. In general, I agree with this. I actually started the window project in the summer, but getting multiple quotes, ordering the windows, and waiting for the installation to be scheduled took two months, which is not unusual. I don't think I do things just because I see the neighbour do them, but they are a good source of ideas. I have to admit guilt on the third item, generally because there are a variety of projects that could be undertaken and it probably takes a catalyst to move them forward.
I wonder what the catalyst for re-doing the kitchen will be?
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Avoiding U. S. Politics and Preserving Sanity
Political campaigns, particularly U. S. style, can be annoying (if not depressing). Another two months yet before the U. S. Presidential election, to be filled with hyperbole, accusations, media hype, gotcha moments, and manipulative TV ads. As former Canadian Prime Minister (short-lived) Kim Campbell once remarked, "Elections are no time to discuss serious issues". When asked this year about U. S. election politics, former U. N. ambassador Stephen Lewis described them in one word: "Preposterous".
My task is how to avoid the noise as much as possible.
It should be easy. Don't watch TV or use the internet. That, however, is easier said than done. I pretty much confine U. S. TV watching to TCM, PBS (which have no paid commercials), and CNN. I've cut my viewing of CNN in half, usually only glancing quickly, before deciding whether to subject myself to more self-serving political "debate". For two weeks I watched the Olympics on Canadian channels CTV, TSN, and SNETP, completely excluding NBC. (This worked well, because as Canadians watched major events live, the U. S. audience waited until evening prime time to see the same on a delayed basis).
As far as the internet, I've unfriended conservatives and reduced liberals to "only important" updates. I generally agree with liberals, but they also like to pursue irrelevant matters, and are equally capable of reducing discussion to name-calling, overstatement, and simplistic solutions (if only the 1% would pay up).
I know others shut out this process as well, one of the reasons for low voter turn-out. The reality is that many issues are complex, involve multiple interests, and can only be resolved by trade-off, negotiation, and consideration of both costs and benefits over the long term. Elections are conducted on sound bites, easy solutions, identity politics, emotion (mainly fear), and short term events. Therefore, we get theatre (mostly tired and uninspired), instead of substance.
Not long ago, the election period started in February and was over in November. Unfortunately, the process is now twice as long and twice as tiring and banal.
My task is how to avoid the noise as much as possible.
It should be easy. Don't watch TV or use the internet. That, however, is easier said than done. I pretty much confine U. S. TV watching to TCM, PBS (which have no paid commercials), and CNN. I've cut my viewing of CNN in half, usually only glancing quickly, before deciding whether to subject myself to more self-serving political "debate". For two weeks I watched the Olympics on Canadian channels CTV, TSN, and SNETP, completely excluding NBC. (This worked well, because as Canadians watched major events live, the U. S. audience waited until evening prime time to see the same on a delayed basis).
As far as the internet, I've unfriended conservatives and reduced liberals to "only important" updates. I generally agree with liberals, but they also like to pursue irrelevant matters, and are equally capable of reducing discussion to name-calling, overstatement, and simplistic solutions (if only the 1% would pay up).
I know others shut out this process as well, one of the reasons for low voter turn-out. The reality is that many issues are complex, involve multiple interests, and can only be resolved by trade-off, negotiation, and consideration of both costs and benefits over the long term. Elections are conducted on sound bites, easy solutions, identity politics, emotion (mainly fear), and short term events. Therefore, we get theatre (mostly tired and uninspired), instead of substance.
Not long ago, the election period started in February and was over in November. Unfortunately, the process is now twice as long and twice as tiring and banal.
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Stockton, California
I lived in Stockton, California, from 1947 to 1953, between the ages of four and ten. I attended El Dorado Elementary School on Pacific Avenue, a very nice two-story school with a large playground built in 1916, for kindergarten through grade five. From the first grade on, I walked to and from school every day, carrying my lunch in either a brown bag or lunch pail. In the fifth grade, I was a boy cop crossing guard, with a red jacket and cap, signalling the cars to stop at nearby crosswalks, both at lunch and after school. I can't remember any incident involving police in the years that I attended El Dorado.
Two weeks ago, Stockton declared bankruptcy, unable to reach an agreement with creditors over a $26 million deficit in the city budget. Really? $26 million in a city of almost 300,000? Why not just raise property taxes?
It turns out that the issue is a lot more complicated. In 1978, California passed Proposition 13, an initiative constitutionally limiting property taxes to a maximum 1% of assessed valuation. As the result of falling house prices during the current downturn, property taxes fell. Even though homeowners started paying far less than previously, Stockton was prohibited by Proposition 13 from raising the tax rate and maintaining revenue. The city cut services, but increasingly was unable to balance the budget and service their debt. Consequently, they filed for bankruptcy.
The neighborhood around El Dorado School when I lived there was probably moderate income, middle class, and well-maintained. Economically and socially, it appears to have declined.
Checking the status of El Dorado School, I discovered that on a academic achievement scale of 1-10, it rates a 1. 90% of the kids qualify for the free lunch program. The school's highest concern appears to be safety. In February, there was a gang-related shooting on the south side of the school, at an intersection where I was once a crossing guard.
During the current recession, Stockton's unemployment rate rose to nearly 18%. Currently, it stands at about 15.4%, nearly twice the national average. The neighborhood, once almost entirely white, is now more than 50% Hispanic, and non-Hispanic white has declined to 15%. Possibly, it has been impacted more than other neighborhoods by declining employment, particularly in occupations such as construction.
Somehow, sixty years of supposed U. S. economic growth and increases in opportunity haven't been realized in Stockton, at least not here.
Two weeks ago, Stockton declared bankruptcy, unable to reach an agreement with creditors over a $26 million deficit in the city budget. Really? $26 million in a city of almost 300,000? Why not just raise property taxes?
It turns out that the issue is a lot more complicated. In 1978, California passed Proposition 13, an initiative constitutionally limiting property taxes to a maximum 1% of assessed valuation. As the result of falling house prices during the current downturn, property taxes fell. Even though homeowners started paying far less than previously, Stockton was prohibited by Proposition 13 from raising the tax rate and maintaining revenue. The city cut services, but increasingly was unable to balance the budget and service their debt. Consequently, they filed for bankruptcy.
The neighborhood around El Dorado School when I lived there was probably moderate income, middle class, and well-maintained. Economically and socially, it appears to have declined.
 |
| Shooting near El Dorado School, February 2012 |
During the current recession, Stockton's unemployment rate rose to nearly 18%. Currently, it stands at about 15.4%, nearly twice the national average. The neighborhood, once almost entirely white, is now more than 50% Hispanic, and non-Hispanic white has declined to 15%. Possibly, it has been impacted more than other neighborhoods by declining employment, particularly in occupations such as construction.
Somehow, sixty years of supposed U. S. economic growth and increases in opportunity haven't been realized in Stockton, at least not here.
Monday, June 25, 2012
Game of Life
I saw John Conway's Game of Life on Stephen Hawking's "Grand Design" on Discovery Channel.
http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life
The game is played on a cellular grid. Each cell may be living or not. What happens to it depends on its neighbors.
If a living cell is in contact with only one or two other living cells, it dies of loneliness.
If a living cell is in contact with four or more other living cells, it dies of overcrowding.
If a living cell is in contact with two or three other living cells, it survives.
If a non-living cell becomes contacted by three living cells, it is born.
The population may start small, grow, die out, become static or oscillating. If an "immigrant" is added to a static population, it may grow again or be destroyed and disappear. Static populations may consist of isolated groups, which may be energized by adding "immigrants" and recontact each other. The population may survive many generations of growth and depletion, before becoming dormant or dying out.
It's called the Game of Life, because of the many parallels to natural populations and the suggestion that human thought patterns may operate the same way, based on simple rules, with many repetitions of the same pattern.
http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life
The game is played on a cellular grid. Each cell may be living or not. What happens to it depends on its neighbors.
If a living cell is in contact with only one or two other living cells, it dies of loneliness.
If a living cell is in contact with four or more other living cells, it dies of overcrowding.
If a living cell is in contact with two or three other living cells, it survives.
If a non-living cell becomes contacted by three living cells, it is born.
The population may start small, grow, die out, become static or oscillating. If an "immigrant" is added to a static population, it may grow again or be destroyed and disappear. Static populations may consist of isolated groups, which may be energized by adding "immigrants" and recontact each other. The population may survive many generations of growth and depletion, before becoming dormant or dying out.
It's called the Game of Life, because of the many parallels to natural populations and the suggestion that human thought patterns may operate the same way, based on simple rules, with many repetitions of the same pattern.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Alan Bock (1943-2011)
Al Bock was a fraternity brother of mine at UCLA, whom I lived with from 1962 to 1965. His career included being an editorial writer for the Orange County Register for thirty years, writing from a libertarian perspective. Yesterday, checking for recent commentaries by him, I discovered that he had passed away last year from cancer.
On November 22, 1963, having just returned to the house from an English literature lecture on The Great Gatsby , someone said that he had heard that President Kennedy had been attacked in Dallas. Initially, this was greeted with incredulity and dismissed as a joke. Al then came down the stairs with a radio, and said quietly, "He's dead". I still have a vivid picture of his giving us this news.
At the end of the fall term of 1963, post cards with final grades arrived. Going through them (looking for our own), we saw that Al had several Grade "A", with the admonition, "Please see us. You are not enrolled in this class". It turned out that he had been in a dispute with ROTC (mandatory at UCLA) about having his army uniform cleaned before he could return it. He refused to pay for dry cleaning and subsequently had not been allowed to register for the fall term. He took courses anyway, but didn't get credit towards his degree. (You could see the libertarian strain coming out.)
One night we were fooling around in the living room. Al put his hand through a pane of glass in the outside door and cut it badly. We raced him to the UCLA Medical Center. He had severed two tendons and afterwards wasn't able to close his ring and small fingers on the hand. Surprisingly, he didn't have his registration card with him at the Med Center. (We were still unaware of his non-registration.) They fixed him up anyway.
Al wrote four books, The Ecology Action Guide (1970), The Gospel Life of Hank Williams (1976), Ambush at Ruby Ridge (1995), and Waiting to Inhale: The Politics of Medical Marijuana (2000), which gives an idea of the variety of his interests, including environment, music, and politics.
In addition, he was a frequent contributor to Antiwar.com and a critic of U. S. policies in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In his final column published two months before his death, he wrote:
“I remain convinced that the cause of individual liberty is the most noble and constructive political cause around. Albert J. Nock noted that there are two ways for people to relate: through honest exchange and mutual agreement or by one party imposing its will on the other through force, the threat of force, or fraud. He called these the economic means and the political means.
“There are plenty of things more important than politics: your family and friends and treating them right, the search for spiritual meaning in an often confusing and ambiguous world, art, music, science, simple enjoyment of the good things in life, struggling to make good choices rather than destructive ones, and supporting your children in their intellectual endeavors and at soccer and softball games. All these challenges, however, can be handled better – not necessarily easily, but better – in an atmosphere of personal liberty and freedom to make one’s own choices than in a repressive regime that makes choices for you and forces them on you.”
Tributes to Alan Bock may be found at this site: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/alan-302298-register-bock.html.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Bail and American Justice
In the fall of 1970, I was volunteering with the United Farmworkers Union in Delano, California. One morning another volunteer informed me that my friend Bob had been arrested by the Delano police the night before and was being held in the Delano jail. He had been walking home early that morning when the police picked him up and charged him with the attempted break-in of a variety store. (I've never had any idea why they did this.)
We found out that his bail was $100.00, but being volunteers and without funds, we didn't have the money to pay it. After visiting the bail bondsman, we needed $20.00 for a bond ($10.00 plus 10%). After scraping this together, I went over to the Delano jail to check that they had Bob and to inform them that we were arranging bail. This was about 11:50 am. When I returned to the bail bondman's office, he had gone to lunch and the office was closed. At 1:00 pm, I arranged for the bail. The bail bondsman walked over to the jail (across the street) and then returned with the news that Bob had been taken to Bakersfield, thirty miles away, and that I would have to go there to pick him up.
Although I was pretty angry at this, we drove to Bakersfield and eventually got Bob (already in his orange jail uniform). I don't know what eventually happened in the case, but suspect that the charges were dismissed.
What reminded me of this was the bond hearing yesterday of George Zimmerman, accused in the death of Trayvon Martin. His bond was set at $150,000.
Presumably in the United States, a person charged is innocent until proven guilty. Unless he is a flight risk or a danger to the public, shouldn't he be released until his trial? Why should his freedom depend on the amount of money he can raise? In my friend's case, he was being held for the lack of $100.00 (or $20.00 bond).
The United States has more people in jail than any other country. One of the factors in their release is the quality of defense. Right or wrong, good lawyers get their clients off (or no jail time); with an inexperienced lawyer, the defendant is at the mercy of the prosecution. Making the ability to pay bail another condition which advantages the wealthy (and keeps the poor in jail), also seems to compromise the idea of "equal justice".
We found out that his bail was $100.00, but being volunteers and without funds, we didn't have the money to pay it. After visiting the bail bondsman, we needed $20.00 for a bond ($10.00 plus 10%). After scraping this together, I went over to the Delano jail to check that they had Bob and to inform them that we were arranging bail. This was about 11:50 am. When I returned to the bail bondman's office, he had gone to lunch and the office was closed. At 1:00 pm, I arranged for the bail. The bail bondsman walked over to the jail (across the street) and then returned with the news that Bob had been taken to Bakersfield, thirty miles away, and that I would have to go there to pick him up.
Although I was pretty angry at this, we drove to Bakersfield and eventually got Bob (already in his orange jail uniform). I don't know what eventually happened in the case, but suspect that the charges were dismissed.
What reminded me of this was the bond hearing yesterday of George Zimmerman, accused in the death of Trayvon Martin. His bond was set at $150,000.
Presumably in the United States, a person charged is innocent until proven guilty. Unless he is a flight risk or a danger to the public, shouldn't he be released until his trial? Why should his freedom depend on the amount of money he can raise? In my friend's case, he was being held for the lack of $100.00 (or $20.00 bond).
The United States has more people in jail than any other country. One of the factors in their release is the quality of defense. Right or wrong, good lawyers get their clients off (or no jail time); with an inexperienced lawyer, the defendant is at the mercy of the prosecution. Making the ability to pay bail another condition which advantages the wealthy (and keeps the poor in jail), also seems to compromise the idea of "equal justice".
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Pension Perils (2)
In February, 2011, I complained here about coming changes to my BC Public Service Pension Plan. Medical benefits were being reduced and contributions were being increased.
Today, I received my first bill from Revenue Services of British Columbia, requesting that I start paying $116.00 per month for Medical Services Plan premiums. Until this month, $64.00 of this amount has been paid by the Pension Plan, and the MSP payment had been made through monthly pension deductions. A number of years ago, my employer stopped paying increases in the premiums, but the residual "subsidy" had been continued. Now the Pension Plan says that it can no longer afford to pay it.
Also beginning next month, the Pension Plan will no longer pay for Blue Cross Extended Health benefits for member's dependents. They rationalize by saying that the value of benefits will then be the same for all members, regardless of spouses or other dependents. This means an additional $48.00 per month (with a $250.00 deductible) to provide for my wife.
The reason given for the reduction in benefits is a loss to the Pension fund of $2.5 billion in 2009, as a result of the global recession. At the time, the fund was reduced from $17.5 billion to about $14.0 billion. Since then, it has recovered well to $18.7 billion, due to improved returns and increases from employee contributions. I guess reducing pension benefits is about sharing the pain.
In some ways I shouldn't complain, because the Plan seems healthy. In fact, with 36,000 retirees and another 64,000 members on their way to retirement, the Plan is ten times better funded on a per member basis than either U. S. Social Security or Canada Pension Plan, (although CPP is only a part of Canadian federal pension benefits). The U. S. Social Security Trust Fund is due to run out of money in 2036, unless changes are made; CPP is rated as "robust" until at least 2075. My pension plan is also more generous in its payments than Social Security or CPP. Somewhat questionable to me is a payroll tax cut this year in the U. S., which reduces contributions to the Social Security Trust Fund. I guess it's "pay me now or pay me later", and the U. S. is opting for "later", at least in an election year.
Today, I received my first bill from Revenue Services of British Columbia, requesting that I start paying $116.00 per month for Medical Services Plan premiums. Until this month, $64.00 of this amount has been paid by the Pension Plan, and the MSP payment had been made through monthly pension deductions. A number of years ago, my employer stopped paying increases in the premiums, but the residual "subsidy" had been continued. Now the Pension Plan says that it can no longer afford to pay it.
Also beginning next month, the Pension Plan will no longer pay for Blue Cross Extended Health benefits for member's dependents. They rationalize by saying that the value of benefits will then be the same for all members, regardless of spouses or other dependents. This means an additional $48.00 per month (with a $250.00 deductible) to provide for my wife.
The reason given for the reduction in benefits is a loss to the Pension fund of $2.5 billion in 2009, as a result of the global recession. At the time, the fund was reduced from $17.5 billion to about $14.0 billion. Since then, it has recovered well to $18.7 billion, due to improved returns and increases from employee contributions. I guess reducing pension benefits is about sharing the pain.
In some ways I shouldn't complain, because the Plan seems healthy. In fact, with 36,000 retirees and another 64,000 members on their way to retirement, the Plan is ten times better funded on a per member basis than either U. S. Social Security or Canada Pension Plan, (although CPP is only a part of Canadian federal pension benefits). The U. S. Social Security Trust Fund is due to run out of money in 2036, unless changes are made; CPP is rated as "robust" until at least 2075. My pension plan is also more generous in its payments than Social Security or CPP. Somewhat questionable to me is a payroll tax cut this year in the U. S., which reduces contributions to the Social Security Trust Fund. I guess it's "pay me now or pay me later", and the U. S. is opting for "later", at least in an election year.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Kent State
On May 4, 1970, the Ohio National Guard shot and killed four students on the Kent State campus. Nine other students were wounded. All were unarmed. Some had been demonstrating against the U. S. invasion of Cambodia; others were just walking to class. No one was ever convicted of a crime.
I was living in Toronto at the time. I borrowed Jerry Brown's van and with four other friends headed out for Washington, DC, the following Friday to participate in a demonstration being organized in protest. We arrived in front of the White House at about 8:00 pm that night. Buses ringed the President's home. Someone with a loudspeaker was blaring, "Fuck Richard Nixon", over and over again. I thought it was strange that possibly the most powerful man in the world was being held a seeming captive.
The demonstration the next day (May 9, 1970) attracted about 100,000. I remember Jane Fonda speaking. A march through the streets was so packed that I started wondering what impact a canister of tear gas would have, feeling that we would go down like a wave and be crushed. Fortunately, there was no panic. Otherwise, we walked around the Washington Monument, watching the mounted police watch us. Everything remained peaceful, as did almost all anti-war demonstrations that I ever saw.
Arriving back at the Canadian border at midnight, we were not allowed to cross, because the van had U. S. plates, and I wasn't the registered owner. We had to wait until morning for Jerry to come down in my car and bring the van back into Canada.
I am reminded of this period by Laurel Krause, a Facebook friend, whose sister Allison was murdered by the National Guard at Kent State. Forty years later, she is still trying to find out why her sister was shot, who gave the order, and whether it was premeditated. Recently, surviving victims and witnesses have been giving their stories as to how the events unfolded: http://www.truthtribunal.org/testimonials.
Of course, if you have a close family member who dies in war or domestic conflict, a parent, child, sibling, it changes your life forever. It's not something you prepare for. It never seems fair. Some choose the adventure of war, the chance to be "all that you can be". Most are just victims of its cruelty.
 |
| White House May 9, 1970 |
 |
| Jane Fonda May 9, 1970 |
Arriving back at the Canadian border at midnight, we were not allowed to cross, because the van had U. S. plates, and I wasn't the registered owner. We had to wait until morning for Jerry to come down in my car and bring the van back into Canada.
I am reminded of this period by Laurel Krause, a Facebook friend, whose sister Allison was murdered by the National Guard at Kent State. Forty years later, she is still trying to find out why her sister was shot, who gave the order, and whether it was premeditated. Recently, surviving victims and witnesses have been giving their stories as to how the events unfolded: http://www.truthtribunal.org/testimonials.
Of course, if you have a close family member who dies in war or domestic conflict, a parent, child, sibling, it changes your life forever. It's not something you prepare for. It never seems fair. Some choose the adventure of war, the chance to be "all that you can be". Most are just victims of its cruelty.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Pardons
Former Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour is taking criticism over his decision to grant pardons to over two hundred convicted persons, some of whom have committed murder.
Generally, I agree with granting pardons to people, especially those who had limited offenses, perhaps committed when they were young, and have had a period of "good citizenship". Of course, pardoning those who have committed premeditated murder raises other questions. Weren't they sentenced to life? What's the criterion for a pardon, or is it just that the Governor decides to smile on a few people?
Governor Barbour states that crimes of passion are usually one-time events and unlikely to be repeated. I wonder what the data is on this? Most of us probably haven't spent enough time around murderers to have an opinion.
My wife's nephew was a convicted murderer. He was a heroin user, and another user was stealing from the group. He and a friend took the guy to Stanley Park and executed him. The Crown Counsel suggested leniency, but the judge sentenced him to fifteen years. He spent the rest of his life in prison, dying at Matsqui Institution in his early 50's of liver disease.
Over the years I got to know Jack, as he received escorted leaves from prison and had periods at half-way houses. Unfortunately, there is no real support for persons in his situation. When someone gets released, they usually gravitate back to the same neighborhood, associate with the same friends. One time he ran away from the half-way house, spending about a year living with a girl friend. I don't think the police made much of an effort to find him, and when his girl friend's money ran out, he turned himself back in. Of course, this extended his sentence.
Jack treated my wife well. She was one of very few who ever visited him in prison. He made her a nice lamp in the prison shop. He was always very polite. He once told me, "Vince, you're an accountant. Me, I'm a criminal", as though that was a fate he couldn't escape it. Maybe if his father hadn't died young of cancer; or if he hadn't been shuttled between foster homes as a kid; or if he hadn't been started on morphine after he injured his ankle, his life might have been different.
Hopefully, Governor Barbour's pardons will make it easier for those receiving them to find jobs and live normal lives. The prison system doesn't seem to work in the U. S.; trying something else might.
Generally, I agree with granting pardons to people, especially those who had limited offenses, perhaps committed when they were young, and have had a period of "good citizenship". Of course, pardoning those who have committed premeditated murder raises other questions. Weren't they sentenced to life? What's the criterion for a pardon, or is it just that the Governor decides to smile on a few people?
Governor Barbour states that crimes of passion are usually one-time events and unlikely to be repeated. I wonder what the data is on this? Most of us probably haven't spent enough time around murderers to have an opinion.
My wife's nephew was a convicted murderer. He was a heroin user, and another user was stealing from the group. He and a friend took the guy to Stanley Park and executed him. The Crown Counsel suggested leniency, but the judge sentenced him to fifteen years. He spent the rest of his life in prison, dying at Matsqui Institution in his early 50's of liver disease.
Over the years I got to know Jack, as he received escorted leaves from prison and had periods at half-way houses. Unfortunately, there is no real support for persons in his situation. When someone gets released, they usually gravitate back to the same neighborhood, associate with the same friends. One time he ran away from the half-way house, spending about a year living with a girl friend. I don't think the police made much of an effort to find him, and when his girl friend's money ran out, he turned himself back in. Of course, this extended his sentence.
Jack treated my wife well. She was one of very few who ever visited him in prison. He made her a nice lamp in the prison shop. He was always very polite. He once told me, "Vince, you're an accountant. Me, I'm a criminal", as though that was a fate he couldn't escape it. Maybe if his father hadn't died young of cancer; or if he hadn't been shuttled between foster homes as a kid; or if he hadn't been started on morphine after he injured his ankle, his life might have been different.
Hopefully, Governor Barbour's pardons will make it easier for those receiving them to find jobs and live normal lives. The prison system doesn't seem to work in the U. S.; trying something else might.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Shopping Season
Unusual for me, I finished Christmas shopping Wednesday, a full ten days before Christmas. Gifts are wrapped, put away, and I'm ready to contemplate the new year.
Neither Guildford nor Central City Shopping Centres seemed very crowded. In fact, I kidded the salesperson at the Bay at Guildford for the lack of staff. Whatever happened to holiday hiring? Much of the merchandise at the Bay was 40%-50% off (genuinely so, compared to other years, not just marked up to be marked down), but still little traffic.
The new 212,000 square foot Wal-Mart Super Centre at Guildford is now open, but not accessible from the main mall. It has a separate parking lot and entrance, and maybe that is part of the reason for fewer shoppers. I predicted a year ago when construction began that the new store (now including a large grocery section) would negatively impact the other businesses in the mall. We'll have to wait and see, but I'm not sure how stores can survive if they are empty during the Christmas season.
I had an afternoon dental appointment at Central City on Thursday, and it seemed empty as well. I had a laugh at Lucinda's jewelry, promoting everything at 80% off. The merchandise should have been flying off the shelves. Instead only one sales clerk, looking a bit forlorn. The only business with steady traffic seemed to be Tim Hortons, which always has a lineup. People do like to eat. I took home half a dozen doughnuts myself.
I'm not sure how the economic slowdown has impacted North Surrey. No new businesses are opening up, but then hardly any have closed. In the past, growth has been more dynamic, at least variable. Maybe just a sign of a maturing neighborhood.
Neither Guildford nor Central City Shopping Centres seemed very crowded. In fact, I kidded the salesperson at the Bay at Guildford for the lack of staff. Whatever happened to holiday hiring? Much of the merchandise at the Bay was 40%-50% off (genuinely so, compared to other years, not just marked up to be marked down), but still little traffic.
The new 212,000 square foot Wal-Mart Super Centre at Guildford is now open, but not accessible from the main mall. It has a separate parking lot and entrance, and maybe that is part of the reason for fewer shoppers. I predicted a year ago when construction began that the new store (now including a large grocery section) would negatively impact the other businesses in the mall. We'll have to wait and see, but I'm not sure how stores can survive if they are empty during the Christmas season.
I had an afternoon dental appointment at Central City on Thursday, and it seemed empty as well. I had a laugh at Lucinda's jewelry, promoting everything at 80% off. The merchandise should have been flying off the shelves. Instead only one sales clerk, looking a bit forlorn. The only business with steady traffic seemed to be Tim Hortons, which always has a lineup. People do like to eat. I took home half a dozen doughnuts myself.
I'm not sure how the economic slowdown has impacted North Surrey. No new businesses are opening up, but then hardly any have closed. In the past, growth has been more dynamic, at least variable. Maybe just a sign of a maturing neighborhood.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Disciplining Staff
The knives seem to be out for Joe Paterno. We are rapidly learning about all of his shortcomings; things that were known for years, but no one was able to speak up, because of the mysterious power that he possessed at Penn State. We now know that he used off-colour language; told the odd tasteless joke; refused to retire when asked. Wow! Forget the good things he might have done: visiting kids in the hospital, contributing to the library, encouraging athletes to study. He's now a target.
Maybe he knew more about the child molestation scandal at Penn State than we know. Or maybe he heard rumours or noticed that his assistant coach, Jerry Sandusky, was too attentive to young boys. But rumours, denied; or a coach being interested in young boys are not enough to file a police complaint. What do you usually do in these situations? Maybe talk to the employee, sound him out, give some advice, and discuss with your superior. In this case, Sandusky initially left his coaching position. Later, when more serious charges became known, Paterno referred the matter to the athletic director. Obviously, from what's now happening, he should have done more.
We had a wellness program at my workplace. Ideally, staff and management worked together to promote a healthy environment. From the standpoint of physical health, it worked well. We had little illness due to colds or flu or "calling in sick"; by far the greatest problem was stress. Sometimes staff had personal/relationship problems at home; sometimes conflicts arose in the workplace; sometimes underlying, emotional/psychological problems were triggered. We could refer staff to an occupational health doctor, if we felt that their conduct warranted it.
A fellow who worked at a downtown district office once complained to me that he didn't like working with social service clients; that he found it stressful. I offered him a position in our accounting office, thinking this might suit him better. A mistake. John soon transferred his stress to others, who became uncomfortable working with him, because of his erratic behaviour. He once stormed into my office just before lunch, handed in his resignation, on the grounds that he could no longer work with his co-workers, because their standard of performance was too low. Maybe I should have accepted it; but after lunch, he came back and sheepishly asked for his letter back, and I gave it to him. Eventually staff became concerned whether they were safe and started to turn their desks around, so that they could watch the door, in case he totally lost it. We sent him to occupational health for evaluation, were told that he wasn't dangerous, and that we should be more "sensitive" to his needs. Finally, when he put his supervisor on four months stress leave, my manager drew the line, kicked John out, and told Personnel to place him somewhere else. The point of this is that employees in public service positions have quite a few rights, and it is not a simple thing to discharge an employee without good cause, once they have passed a probationary period.
Over the years, I saw that an employee would be charged and fired for stealing money. Other offenses more or less had to be endured until a series of incidences indicating unsuitability for the job were established. This process included a letter of expectations, coaching, written reprimand, and suspension, before someone could be discharged. Usually, the problem employee would adjust or find other employment before this played out.
Maybe we'll find out that Paterno was more interested in "protecting the Penn State brand" than doing the right thing. The list of people I've stuck up for also includes Al Campanis, Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder, and Helen Thomas, all of whom said "dumb" things, and lost their jobs; but I thought were victims of "political correctness" and should have been allowed to explain themselves after some reflection.
Maybe he knew more about the child molestation scandal at Penn State than we know. Or maybe he heard rumours or noticed that his assistant coach, Jerry Sandusky, was too attentive to young boys. But rumours, denied; or a coach being interested in young boys are not enough to file a police complaint. What do you usually do in these situations? Maybe talk to the employee, sound him out, give some advice, and discuss with your superior. In this case, Sandusky initially left his coaching position. Later, when more serious charges became known, Paterno referred the matter to the athletic director. Obviously, from what's now happening, he should have done more.
We had a wellness program at my workplace. Ideally, staff and management worked together to promote a healthy environment. From the standpoint of physical health, it worked well. We had little illness due to colds or flu or "calling in sick"; by far the greatest problem was stress. Sometimes staff had personal/relationship problems at home; sometimes conflicts arose in the workplace; sometimes underlying, emotional/psychological problems were triggered. We could refer staff to an occupational health doctor, if we felt that their conduct warranted it.
A fellow who worked at a downtown district office once complained to me that he didn't like working with social service clients; that he found it stressful. I offered him a position in our accounting office, thinking this might suit him better. A mistake. John soon transferred his stress to others, who became uncomfortable working with him, because of his erratic behaviour. He once stormed into my office just before lunch, handed in his resignation, on the grounds that he could no longer work with his co-workers, because their standard of performance was too low. Maybe I should have accepted it; but after lunch, he came back and sheepishly asked for his letter back, and I gave it to him. Eventually staff became concerned whether they were safe and started to turn their desks around, so that they could watch the door, in case he totally lost it. We sent him to occupational health for evaluation, were told that he wasn't dangerous, and that we should be more "sensitive" to his needs. Finally, when he put his supervisor on four months stress leave, my manager drew the line, kicked John out, and told Personnel to place him somewhere else. The point of this is that employees in public service positions have quite a few rights, and it is not a simple thing to discharge an employee without good cause, once they have passed a probationary period.
Over the years, I saw that an employee would be charged and fired for stealing money. Other offenses more or less had to be endured until a series of incidences indicating unsuitability for the job were established. This process included a letter of expectations, coaching, written reprimand, and suspension, before someone could be discharged. Usually, the problem employee would adjust or find other employment before this played out.
Maybe we'll find out that Paterno was more interested in "protecting the Penn State brand" than doing the right thing. The list of people I've stuck up for also includes Al Campanis, Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder, and Helen Thomas, all of whom said "dumb" things, and lost their jobs; but I thought were victims of "political correctness" and should have been allowed to explain themselves after some reflection.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Workplace Misconduct
After forty-six years on the job, Penn State head football coach Joe Paterno is fired, because he failed to report to the police alleged sexual abuse of young boys by an assistant no longer working under him. Apparently, he did report the situation to his superior, the athletic director. Maybe there's more to it, but this seems a bit harsh.
What do you normally do when you become aware of improper/possibly illegal conduct in the workplace? You evaluate the source and bring it to the attention of your superior. He may or may not act on it; but how far does your responsibility go if he doesn't? Do you go to his boss? Do you go to Human Resources? When do you take it upon yourself to contact the police?
Over the years, I've witnessed lots of improper conduct. Not assaults on children, but claims of sexual harassment, prohibited sexual use of e-mail, violations of labour laws, dishonest competitions, etc. I've taken these up with my superior. He, in turn, may take them up with his superior, with personnel, or ignore them. Doing more may invite some risk.
A co-worker once complained to me that she wasn't being paid overtime for hours worked in a week after forty-eight, as required by the Ontario Hours of Work Act. I asked my boss about it and was told it was none of my business. I brought it to the attention of the Employment Standards Branch of the Ministry of Labour, who said they didn't believe me, and only the victim could file a complaint anyway. I contacted the Canadian Labour Congress about union representation and told the staff what was going on. I was fired, although my employer said that I quit. I was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits for having "quit". It may seem humorous today, but filing complaints is a tricky business.
I've participated on employment interview panels, where it was obvious that a candidate had been given answers in advance. I once brought this to the attention of my boss, making him quite unhappy, because the person in question was the best friend of his assistant, who had typed the questions. A waste of time, but it was a public service position.
Claims of unwanted sexual attention are usually dealt with by a discussion with the parties involved, some direction as to future conduct, and possibly a reprimand. They are not always clear cut; one party pleads innocence; and they end up being monitored for future behaviour.
Republican Presidential candidate Herman Cain insists that four complaints of sexual harassment brought against him are all false, and that he can't recall the incidents, although there were financial settlements in two of the cases. Those coming forward are now subject to additional harassment and hate mail. Making any form of negative allegation against those in more powerful positions is always perilous. They tend to be believed or the issue is dismissed to the accuser's detriment.
So we'll see what happens to Joe Paterno. If he didn't report the situation when he first knew about it, he would be failing his responsibility and deserves to be fired. But if he reported it and trusted others in higher positions to follow through, I have sympathy for him..
What do you normally do when you become aware of improper/possibly illegal conduct in the workplace? You evaluate the source and bring it to the attention of your superior. He may or may not act on it; but how far does your responsibility go if he doesn't? Do you go to his boss? Do you go to Human Resources? When do you take it upon yourself to contact the police?
Over the years, I've witnessed lots of improper conduct. Not assaults on children, but claims of sexual harassment, prohibited sexual use of e-mail, violations of labour laws, dishonest competitions, etc. I've taken these up with my superior. He, in turn, may take them up with his superior, with personnel, or ignore them. Doing more may invite some risk.
A co-worker once complained to me that she wasn't being paid overtime for hours worked in a week after forty-eight, as required by the Ontario Hours of Work Act. I asked my boss about it and was told it was none of my business. I brought it to the attention of the Employment Standards Branch of the Ministry of Labour, who said they didn't believe me, and only the victim could file a complaint anyway. I contacted the Canadian Labour Congress about union representation and told the staff what was going on. I was fired, although my employer said that I quit. I was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits for having "quit". It may seem humorous today, but filing complaints is a tricky business.
I've participated on employment interview panels, where it was obvious that a candidate had been given answers in advance. I once brought this to the attention of my boss, making him quite unhappy, because the person in question was the best friend of his assistant, who had typed the questions. A waste of time, but it was a public service position.
Claims of unwanted sexual attention are usually dealt with by a discussion with the parties involved, some direction as to future conduct, and possibly a reprimand. They are not always clear cut; one party pleads innocence; and they end up being monitored for future behaviour.
Republican Presidential candidate Herman Cain insists that four complaints of sexual harassment brought against him are all false, and that he can't recall the incidents, although there were financial settlements in two of the cases. Those coming forward are now subject to additional harassment and hate mail. Making any form of negative allegation against those in more powerful positions is always perilous. They tend to be believed or the issue is dismissed to the accuser's detriment.
So we'll see what happens to Joe Paterno. If he didn't report the situation when he first knew about it, he would be failing his responsibility and deserves to be fired. But if he reported it and trusted others in higher positions to follow through, I have sympathy for him..
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Occupy Surrey
Former U. S. Presidents Bill Clinton and George Bush spoke this morning at the Surrey Regional Economic Summit held at the Sheraton Guildford Hotel in Surrey, British Columbia. 
Previously, Amnesty International had announced that Canada should arrest President Bush for war crimes when he came to Surrey. As a result, some of the Greater Vancouver "Occupiers" arrived to demonstrate against Bush's appearance. The location is five minutes from my house, so I ventured up to take a few pictures.
There were plenty of police on site, just to make sure that no one thought about rushing into the hotel and upsetting the conference, chaired by Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts and attended by BC Premier Christy Clark.
Over the years, the police have gotten smarter about controlling crowds wanting to convey a message. Although lined up in front of the Sheraton, they didn't object to demonstrators taking over the westbound traffic lane and provided flaggers to slow the traffic going eastbound.
Years ago, stepping off the curb might have resulted in action with the baton. Today, the demonstrators and the police stood pretty much next to each other, each content to let the other fulfill their mission.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Taxes and Social Equity
I don't really mind paying my taxes. I can afford them; and I feel an obligation to pay my share for public services. Of course, taxes should be fair and equitable, meaning that those who benefit should pay and those who have more should pay more. They should also be collectible.
Taxes in the U. S. are a big issue, largely because of a sense that they are not fair and equitable. Apparently, 47% of American households pay no income tax, creating a resentment among the "53%" who do. Having spent my life with others who worked and paid taxes, I was somewhat surprised to hear this. Canada Revenue Agency was immediately questioned and assured the public that only 34% of Canadians didn't pay, being primarily those earning minimum wage, part-timers, students, seniors on pension, and the disabled. This figure seemed more reasonable and not much more was heard about it.
The other issue in the U. S. is that the wealthy don't pay an equitable share, because of low tax rates and available deductions. I noticed that Warren Buffett, one of the wealthiest men in the U. S., reportedly pays a lower marginal tax rate (17.5%) and a lower percentage of income (about 10%) as taxes than I do. My enthusiasm waned a bit, but then maybe he gives a lot to charity.
Of course, I feel that I justly should pay. I read a survey, however, than only 18% pay all of their income taxes, because it's the right thing to do. 32% pay out of fear of being caught cheating. (Fair enough; I have to own this, too.) But then another 38% cheat to some extent; and 12% completely evade taxes. Statistics like this may not be terrible, but they definitely make me think another system might be fairer.
The real need is to maintain a middle class with productive, well-paying jobs. When there is a growing economy, there is better feeling towards the Government, less pressure to cheat, less concern about the "lazy" unemployed, less resentment of the wealthy, and fewer demands that immigrants be deported.
One effect of the "Occupy Wall Street" movement is to give an alternative to the "Tea Party". While the "Occupiers" concerns are amorphous, multiple, and social, they contrast to the "Tea Party" approach of reaction, self-absorption, and individualism. The "Tea Party" resents paying taxes; the "Occupiers" want a more equitable society. The "Occupiers" are resented by the established players as a threat to their control.
For the time being, the "Occupiers" are being tolerated with the belief that they will die out. It will be interesting to see if a movement generated by the social media can expand and have a permanent impact, potentially creating a fairer, more accessible, democratic, inclusive, and equal society.
Taxes in the U. S. are a big issue, largely because of a sense that they are not fair and equitable. Apparently, 47% of American households pay no income tax, creating a resentment among the "53%" who do. Having spent my life with others who worked and paid taxes, I was somewhat surprised to hear this. Canada Revenue Agency was immediately questioned and assured the public that only 34% of Canadians didn't pay, being primarily those earning minimum wage, part-timers, students, seniors on pension, and the disabled. This figure seemed more reasonable and not much more was heard about it.
The other issue in the U. S. is that the wealthy don't pay an equitable share, because of low tax rates and available deductions. I noticed that Warren Buffett, one of the wealthiest men in the U. S., reportedly pays a lower marginal tax rate (17.5%) and a lower percentage of income (about 10%) as taxes than I do. My enthusiasm waned a bit, but then maybe he gives a lot to charity.
Of course, I feel that I justly should pay. I read a survey, however, than only 18% pay all of their income taxes, because it's the right thing to do. 32% pay out of fear of being caught cheating. (Fair enough; I have to own this, too.) But then another 38% cheat to some extent; and 12% completely evade taxes. Statistics like this may not be terrible, but they definitely make me think another system might be fairer.
The real need is to maintain a middle class with productive, well-paying jobs. When there is a growing economy, there is better feeling towards the Government, less pressure to cheat, less concern about the "lazy" unemployed, less resentment of the wealthy, and fewer demands that immigrants be deported.
One effect of the "Occupy Wall Street" movement is to give an alternative to the "Tea Party". While the "Occupiers" concerns are amorphous, multiple, and social, they contrast to the "Tea Party" approach of reaction, self-absorption, and individualism. The "Tea Party" resents paying taxes; the "Occupiers" want a more equitable society. The "Occupiers" are resented by the established players as a threat to their control.
For the time being, the "Occupiers" are being tolerated with the belief that they will die out. It will be interesting to see if a movement generated by the social media can expand and have a permanent impact, potentially creating a fairer, more accessible, democratic, inclusive, and equal society.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Pandering to the Right
Fortunately, when it comes to Republican Presidential debates, I can switch to another channel or find something useful to do. I've tried watching a few times, but my tolerance (even pretending that it's only entertainment) runs out after a few minutes.
Whether it's Rick Perry (Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme; If you think I can be bought for $5,000, I'm offended); Newt Gingrich (Building a mosque anywhere near the Twin Towers site is Muslim "Triumphalism"); Rick Santorum (I believe American "Exceptionalism" should guide the world); Herman Cain (Wouldn't appoint a Muslim to his cabinet; Blacks are "brainwashed" into voting Democratic); Ron Paul (If you can't afford health insurance, you may die, but that's the risk you take); or Michele Bachmann (The Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery; Jesus Christ is the creator of the Universe!; Giving adolescents vaccine for cervical cancer causes mental retardation); they seem to be a group out of touch with any progressive thinking.
Of course, they are pandering to the extreme right of the Republican party, and the extremes frequently win primaries, although their candidates generally fail in general elections. But what if one of these actually became President? The United States has had weak Presidents in the Nineteenth Century, but has never had a blatantly unqualified person in the Twentieth. At some point there is a risk of nullification by the public, refusing to accept the election results (as the Southern States did after the election of Lincoln).
The Republicans have two mainstream (and qualified) choices in Mitt Romney and John Huntsman. Romney is not the choice of the "Tea Party", having shifted on a number of issues after being Governor of Massachusetts; and Huntsman is unable to attract much support, having been President Obama's Ambassador to China.
It's been a sour summer listening to these people, including the "debt ceiling" spectacle. I realize that I can ignore them, but it almost means blocking out the U. S. news.
Whether it's Rick Perry (Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme; If you think I can be bought for $5,000, I'm offended); Newt Gingrich (Building a mosque anywhere near the Twin Towers site is Muslim "Triumphalism"); Rick Santorum (I believe American "Exceptionalism" should guide the world); Herman Cain (Wouldn't appoint a Muslim to his cabinet; Blacks are "brainwashed" into voting Democratic); Ron Paul (If you can't afford health insurance, you may die, but that's the risk you take); or Michele Bachmann (The Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery; Jesus Christ is the creator of the Universe!; Giving adolescents vaccine for cervical cancer causes mental retardation); they seem to be a group out of touch with any progressive thinking.
Of course, they are pandering to the extreme right of the Republican party, and the extremes frequently win primaries, although their candidates generally fail in general elections. But what if one of these actually became President? The United States has had weak Presidents in the Nineteenth Century, but has never had a blatantly unqualified person in the Twentieth. At some point there is a risk of nullification by the public, refusing to accept the election results (as the Southern States did after the election of Lincoln).
The Republicans have two mainstream (and qualified) choices in Mitt Romney and John Huntsman. Romney is not the choice of the "Tea Party", having shifted on a number of issues after being Governor of Massachusetts; and Huntsman is unable to attract much support, having been President Obama's Ambassador to China.
It's been a sour summer listening to these people, including the "debt ceiling" spectacle. I realize that I can ignore them, but it almost means blocking out the U. S. news.
Friday, September 16, 2011
La Paz - Historic Place
The United Farm Workers Union headquarters at Keene, California, Nuestra Senora Reina de La Paz (Our Lady Queen of Peace), has been added to the National Register of Historic Places. Union founder Cesar Chavez worked and lived there from 1971 until his death in 1993.Originally a tuberculosis treatment centre, the property was purchased and donated to the Union in 1970. I was a volunteer at the Union headquarters in Delano in April 1971 when Cesar decided to move the central Union offices to La Paz.
The site wasn't much. It had an administration building, a small hospital, a dining room, a couple of houses, and a few small cottages. A few trailers were brought in for married couples. Staff moved into the hospital; spent a week painting; and set up the Union administration, legal, boycott, accounting, and data processing offices, as well as the Robert F. Kennedy Farm Worker Medical Plan.
There wasn't any money for improvements. Cesar was very sensitive about appearing to be benefit personally from the Union, and La Paz was left in a fairly primitive condition. There were vague plans about transforming the property into a retreat for farm workers, but that was for some time in the future.
Today, La Paz is somewhat changed. The National Chavez Centre includes a visitors centre, conference facilities, a museum, monuments, and gardens. The walks are paved and there are stone benches. Nice facilities, perhaps what Cesar would have wanted, but I wonder what the cost has been. One thing Cesar was very opposed to was creating a cult of personality around him. Once, Ben Maddock at the print shop in Delano produced a badge with Cesar's picture on it, framed with "Boycott the Hell Out of Them". Cesar became angry when he saw it and made Ben destroy the badges. He said that the Union was about farm workers, and the last thing he wanted was to give the impression of self-promotion.
 |
| Cesar Chavez Gravesite |
I'm not suggesting that there is anything excessive about what's been done at La Paz. However, when you have nice facilities and start paying staff good salaries, it may be harder to recruit volunteers and maintain grassroots support. The social and economic justice aspect diminishes, and the organization starts looking like a business. There is also some irony in making a modern facility a historic site.
Friday, September 2, 2011
Rhodes Family - Maryland and Pennsylvania
My 3x great grandfather George Rhodes (1783-1847) was a stonemason and house builder, who contracted for the U. S. Naval Shipyard at Gosport, Virginia. He married Anna Maria McCabe in 1805. Their third son George (1813-1885) married Elizabeth Cunningham at Georgetown, Washington, DC, in 1838, and took up farming around Hyattstown, Frederick Co., Maryland. George and Elizabeth had nine children, the eldest being my great grandfather William Lee Rhodes, born at Hyattstown in 1840.
Maryland, being a slave state, but not in rebellion, had divided loyalties during the American Civil War. Their father being a slaveholder, William Lee and his brother George joined the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia, William attaining rank of captain, his brother that of sergeant. A letter received by William's daughter Nelle in the 1920's indicates that her father served in General Jubal Early's Corps, General Robert Rodes Division. He may have been at Petersburg at the end of the War. His father George was held at Fort McHenry, Maryland, for two weeks in October-November, 1862, as a political prisoner, probably because of his sympathies or aid he may have offered the Confederates. (The Battle of Sharpsburg/Antietam was fought nearby in Maryland in September, 1862).
After the Civil War, William returned to Hyattstown for a short time, then moved to Chambersburg, Pennysylvania, where he married Barbara Allen Heayd in 1869. William's uncle, William Powell Rhodes (1809-1887), had purchased property at Chambersburg in 1849, and it may have been this tie which attracted him there. (William Powell Rhodes later relocated to Virginia and Missouri).
William Powell Rhodes' daughter Annie (William Lee's first cousin), who grew up near Chambersburg, married a Methodist Minster, Reverend Leonard Marsden Gardner (1831-1925). They resided at York Springs, Adams County, Pennsylvania, north of Gettysburg. On the morning of July 4, 1863, as Lee was withdrawing form Gettysburg, a messenger with dispatches for Union commander General George Meade asked Reverend Gardner how to get around the rebel forces and reach Meade's headquarters. Gardner, being a strong Union supporter, personally escorted the messenger there; and then spent the following week assisting the sick and wounded from both armies who remained at Gettysburg. He described the scene in an article, "The Carnage at Gettysburg - As Seen by A Minister". During the Wilderness Campaign of 1864, he again ministered to and aided wounded soldiers, serving with the Union Army of the Potomac.
Of William Lee Rhodes' siblings, his brothers Charles Cunningham Rhodes (1850-1921) and Frank Valerius Rhodes became lawyers and formed the law firm Rhodes and Rhodes in Baltimore, Maryland. Charles Rhodes met a sad end, when returning home from a store on the evening of November 29, 1921, and crossing the tracks at the Howardville, Maryland, station, he was struck and killed by the mail train of the Western Maryland Railroad.
William Lee Rhodes and Barbara Heayd had nine children, the second youngest being my father's mother Nelle, who married James Cowsill, Sr., in 1913. The Chambersburg farm was sold in 1917 and is now the Rhodes Grove Camp and Conference Centre, a Christian retreat.
 |
| William Lee Rhodes (1840-1902) |
Maryland, being a slave state, but not in rebellion, had divided loyalties during the American Civil War. Their father being a slaveholder, William Lee and his brother George joined the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia, William attaining rank of captain, his brother that of sergeant. A letter received by William's daughter Nelle in the 1920's indicates that her father served in General Jubal Early's Corps, General Robert Rodes Division. He may have been at Petersburg at the end of the War. His father George was held at Fort McHenry, Maryland, for two weeks in October-November, 1862, as a political prisoner, probably because of his sympathies or aid he may have offered the Confederates. (The Battle of Sharpsburg/Antietam was fought nearby in Maryland in September, 1862).
After the Civil War, William returned to Hyattstown for a short time, then moved to Chambersburg, Pennysylvania, where he married Barbara Allen Heayd in 1869. William's uncle, William Powell Rhodes (1809-1887), had purchased property at Chambersburg in 1849, and it may have been this tie which attracted him there. (William Powell Rhodes later relocated to Virginia and Missouri).
William Powell Rhodes' daughter Annie (William Lee's first cousin), who grew up near Chambersburg, married a Methodist Minster, Reverend Leonard Marsden Gardner (1831-1925). They resided at York Springs, Adams County, Pennsylvania, north of Gettysburg. On the morning of July 4, 1863, as Lee was withdrawing form Gettysburg, a messenger with dispatches for Union commander General George Meade asked Reverend Gardner how to get around the rebel forces and reach Meade's headquarters. Gardner, being a strong Union supporter, personally escorted the messenger there; and then spent the following week assisting the sick and wounded from both armies who remained at Gettysburg. He described the scene in an article, "The Carnage at Gettysburg - As Seen by A Minister". During the Wilderness Campaign of 1864, he again ministered to and aided wounded soldiers, serving with the Union Army of the Potomac.
Of William Lee Rhodes' siblings, his brothers Charles Cunningham Rhodes (1850-1921) and Frank Valerius Rhodes became lawyers and formed the law firm Rhodes and Rhodes in Baltimore, Maryland. Charles Rhodes met a sad end, when returning home from a store on the evening of November 29, 1921, and crossing the tracks at the Howardville, Maryland, station, he was struck and killed by the mail train of the Western Maryland Railroad.
William Lee Rhodes and Barbara Heayd had nine children, the second youngest being my father's mother Nelle, who married James Cowsill, Sr., in 1913. The Chambersburg farm was sold in 1917 and is now the Rhodes Grove Camp and Conference Centre, a Christian retreat.
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Market Volatility
I keep hearing to expect "Volatility" in the stock markets. Nothing new, really. Some event spooks investors and they sell in a panic. Sometimes it lasts a few hours; sometimes a few days; but sometimes a prolonged slump sets in. Eventually, however, good companies return to their original prices.
During the fall of 2008, stock prices fell 40% in reaction to the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the panic that ensued. By the following summer, most had recovered substantially. However, the American and Canadian economies have limped along and anticipated growth hasn't occurred.
Last week, the markets continued a two-week downtrend, particularly alarming on Thursday, when the Dow Industrial Average had its sharpest sell-off since 2008. The current slump is attributed to sovereign debt problems in the U. S. and Europe, a fear that austerity measures to reduce debt will further injure weak economies.
After the markets closed on Friday, Standard and Poor's reduced their rating on U. S. Government bonds from AAA (top) to AA+, the first time U. S. bonds have not had the highest rating. Standard and Poor's doesn't believe that the U. S. is in danger of defaulting on its bonds, but instead cited a lack of political will by the Federal Government to deal with its growing debt.
How will this affect the stock market? We'll have to wait and see. A lack of confidence in the future of the U. S. economy may lead to a sell-off. On the other hand, nothing immediately changes, and two other bond rating agencies (Moody's and Fitch) continue to rate U. S. bonds AAA.
What do I do as an individual? The stocks I hold are high quality, pay dividends, aren't overpriced, and have had good growth long-term (more modest recently). As a long-term investor, I should hold on and not be checking the market every day. At least this is the advice I hear. I don't consider myself good at predicting the future, so I shouldn't try to be too smart. Emotions are likely to take control if I do.
Before the crash of 2008, there were a lot of signs of problems. Asset-backed commercial paper had frozen in Canada in August 2007. Bear Stearnes investment bank had collapsed, and fears about Lehman Brothers were prominent. At that time, I sold most of my market holdings ahead of the crash. Now I'm much more heavily-invested. How worried should I be?
During the fall of 2008, stock prices fell 40% in reaction to the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the panic that ensued. By the following summer, most had recovered substantially. However, the American and Canadian economies have limped along and anticipated growth hasn't occurred.
Last week, the markets continued a two-week downtrend, particularly alarming on Thursday, when the Dow Industrial Average had its sharpest sell-off since 2008. The current slump is attributed to sovereign debt problems in the U. S. and Europe, a fear that austerity measures to reduce debt will further injure weak economies.
After the markets closed on Friday, Standard and Poor's reduced their rating on U. S. Government bonds from AAA (top) to AA+, the first time U. S. bonds have not had the highest rating. Standard and Poor's doesn't believe that the U. S. is in danger of defaulting on its bonds, but instead cited a lack of political will by the Federal Government to deal with its growing debt.
How will this affect the stock market? We'll have to wait and see. A lack of confidence in the future of the U. S. economy may lead to a sell-off. On the other hand, nothing immediately changes, and two other bond rating agencies (Moody's and Fitch) continue to rate U. S. bonds AAA.
What do I do as an individual? The stocks I hold are high quality, pay dividends, aren't overpriced, and have had good growth long-term (more modest recently). As a long-term investor, I should hold on and not be checking the market every day. At least this is the advice I hear. I don't consider myself good at predicting the future, so I shouldn't try to be too smart. Emotions are likely to take control if I do.
Before the crash of 2008, there were a lot of signs of problems. Asset-backed commercial paper had frozen in Canada in August 2007. Bear Stearnes investment bank had collapsed, and fears about Lehman Brothers were prominent. At that time, I sold most of my market holdings ahead of the crash. Now I'm much more heavily-invested. How worried should I be?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)