Saturday, August 30, 2014

The Joy of Sports/More of Maria's Paintings/Guns & Common Sense/How to Treat Refugees/Ed On TV/

(P1) Philosophical
  
Roger Angell Helps Me Validate My Passion For Watching Sports

It is foolish and childish, on the face of it, to affiliate ourselves with anything so insignificant and patently contrived and commercially exploitative as a professional sports team, and the amused superiority and icy scorn that the non-fan directs at the sports nut (I know this look—I know it by heart) is understandable and almost unanswerable. Almost. What is left out of this calculation, it seems to me, is the business of caring—caring deeply and passionately, really caring—which is a capacity or an emotion that has almost gone out of our lives. And so it seems possible that we have come to a time when it no longer matters so much what the caring is about, how frail or foolish is the object of that concern, as long as the feeling itself can be saved. Naïveté—the infantile and ignoble joy that sends a grown man or woman to dancing and shouting with joy in the middle of the night over the haphazardous flight of a distant ball—seems a small price to pay for such a gift.

Roger Angell 1975


Comment or Read Comments Here on any of the above or below. If you do not have a Google account, then log in by checking "Name/URL," (it's easy). Just the name (don't worry about the URL). Actual name is best, but use what you like. Or email me at edcoletti@sbcglobal.net, and I can post it.






(P2) Paintastical

More Paintings By Maria









Maria De Los Angeles emigrated from Mexico to the United States in 1999. She currently resides in New Haven Connecticut and attends MFA in Painting and Printmaking at Yale University. In 2013 received a BFA in Painting from Pratt Institute. Maria works in a variety of media including oil,acrylic painting, etching, woodcut, drawing and sculpture. Current works reflect her interest in  narratives both Allegorical and time base with the symbolic use of color, form and objects.

Maria's paintings are for sale  MdLAfineart@gmail.com


Comment or Read Comments Here on any of the above or below. If you do not have a Google account, then log in by checking "Name/URL," (it's easy). Just the name (don't worry about the URL). Actual name is best, but use what you like. Or email me at edcoletti@sbcglobal.net, and I can post it.

(P2) Political



Our Blind Spot About Guns
Nicholas Kristof (New York Times)
JULY 30, 2014

If we had the same auto fatality rate today that we had in 1921, by my calculations we would have 715,000 Americans dying annually in vehicle accidents.

Instead, we’ve reduced the fatality rate by more than 95 percent — not by confiscating cars, but by regulating them and their drivers sensibly. 

We could have said, “Cars don’t kill people. People kill people,” and there would have been an element of truth to that. Many accidents are a result of alcohol consumption, speeding, road rage or driver distraction. Or we could have said, “It’s pointless because even if you regulate cars, then people will just run each other down with bicycles,” and that, too, would have been partly true.

Yet, instead, we built a system that protects us from ourselves. This saves hundreds of thousands of lives a year and is a model of what we should do with guns in America.

Whenever I write about the need for sensible regulation of guns, some readers jeer: Cars kill people, too, so why not ban cars? Why are you so hypocritical as to try to take away guns from law-abiding people when you don’t seize cars?

That question is a reflection of our national blind spot about guns. The truth is that we regulate cars quite intelligently, instituting evidence-based measures to reduce fatalities. Yet the gun lobby is too strong, or our politicians too craven, to do the same for guns. So guns and cars now each kill more than 30,000 in America every year.

One constraint, the argument goes, is the Second Amendment. Yet the paradox is that a bit more than a century ago, there was no universally recognized individual right to bear arms in the United States, but there was widely believed to be a “right to travel” that allowed people to drive cars without regulation.

A court struck down an early attempt to require driver’s licenses, and initial attempts to set speed limits or register vehicles were met with resistance and ridicule. When authorities in New York City sought in 1899 to ban horseless carriages in the parks, the idea was lambasted in The New York Times as “devoid of merit” and “impossible to maintain.

Yet, over time, it became increasingly obvious that cars were killing and maiming people, as well as scaring horses and causing accidents. As a distinguished former congressman, Robert Cousins, put it in 1910: “Pedestrians are menaced every minute of the days and nights by a wanton recklessness of speed, crippling and killing people at a rate that is appalling.”

Courts and editorial writers alike saw the carnage and agreed that something must be done. By the 1920s, courts routinely accepted driver’s license requirements, car registration and other safety measures.

That continued in recent decades with requirements of seatbelts and air bags, padded dashboards and better bumpers. We cracked down on drunken drivers and instituted graduated licensing for young people, while also improving road engineering to reduce accidents. The upshot is that there is now just over 1 car fatality per 100 million miles driven.

Yet as we’ve learned to treat cars intelligently, we’ve gone in the opposite direction with guns. In his terrific new book, “The Second Amendment: A Biography,” Michael Waldman, the president of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, notes that “gun control laws were ubiquitous” in the 19th century. Visitors to Wichita, Kan., for example, were required to check their revolvers at police headquarters.

And Dodge City, symbol of the Wild West? A photo shows a sign on the main street in 1879 warning: “The Carrying of Fire Arms Strictly Prohibited.”

The National Rifle Association supported reasonable gun control for most of its history and didn’t even oppose the landmark Gun Control Act of 1968. But, since then, most attempts at safety regulation have stalled or gone backward, and that makes the example of cars instructive.

“We didn’t ban cars, or send black helicopters to confiscate them,” notes Waldman. “We made cars safer: air bags, seatbelts, increasing the drinking age, lowering the speed limit. There are similar technological and behavioral fixes that can ease the toll of gun violence, from expanded background checks to trigger locks to smart guns that recognize a thumbprint, just like my iPhone does.”

Some of these should be doable. A Quinnipiac poll this month found 92 percent support for background checks for all gun buyers.

These steps won’t eliminate gun deaths any more than seatbelts eliminate auto deaths. But if a combination of measures could reduce the toll by one-third, that would be 10,000 lives saved every year. 

A century ago, we reacted to deaths and injuries from unregulated vehicles by imposing sensible safety measures that have saved hundreds of thousands of lives a year. Why can’t we ask politicians to be just as rational about guns? 
Comment or Read Comments Here on any of the above or below. If you do not have a Google account, then log in by checking "Name/URL," (it's easy). Just the name (don't worry about the URL). Actual name is best, but use what you like. Or email me at edcoletti@sbcglobal.net, and I can post it.
 (P2a) Political/Philosophical

 I could not have been more moved by an op-ed piece than I was by this one from Washington's former long-term Governor and U. S. Senator Daniel J. Evans who, in the Seattle Times, contrasts his exceptionally successful program of inviting Vietnamese refugees to his state versus current immigration policies pertaining to Central American child-refugees.  I encourage you to read this in its entirety.  Here are several paragraphs and a link to get you going.



On April 30, 1975, Saigon fell and the long war in Vietnam finally ended. Vivid television news clips showed throngs of Vietnamese attempting to catch the last helicopter lifting off the American Embassy in Saigon.

Soon a wave of Vietnam refugees arrived in the United States and were housed temporarily at Camp Pendleton, Calif. As Washington governor, one morning I heard a radio report that Gov. Jerry Brown of California wanted no Vietnamese refugees to settle in California. One of his senior staff even attempted to prevent airplanes loaded with refugees from landing at Travis Air Force Base.
I was appalled and furious, and stormed to my office determined to take action. When I arrived, I found that my staff had already heard the news and were just as offended.

We then found sponsoring families to aid refugees during their early stages of resettlement. Hundreds of Washington state residents responded. Many churches and community organizations offered to assist.

President Ford asked me to serve on a presidential advisory committee on Vietnamese refugees. At the opening meeting he eloquently stated, “Most, if not all, of us are the beneficiaries of the opportunities that come from a country that has an open door. In one way or another, all of us are immigrants. And the strength of America over the years has been our diversity ...
“The people that we are welcoming today ... are individuals who can contribute significantly to our society in the future. They are people of talent, they are industrious, they are individuals who want freedom, and I believe they will make a contribution now and in the future to a better America.”
In September, my assistant Esther Seering told me that a baby was born into one of the Vietnamese families I greeted at Camp Murray. In honor of their new beginning in Washington, the parents named their new son Evans Nguyen. I was astonished, honored and curious to meet my new namesake.

READ THE ENTIRE EVANS OP-ED PIECE HERE

Comment or Read Comments Here on any of the above or below. If you do not have a Google account, then log in by checking "Name/URL," (it's easy). Just the name (don't worry about the URL). Actual name is best, but use what you like. Or email me at edcoletti@sbcglobal.net, and I can post it.

(P3) Poetical

Here I am on Television in San Francisco.

2 comments:

Victor Spear said...

Ed --

I have often confessed over the years my embarrassment over how much I " cared " about things like the 49ers vs. Seattle. After reading Roger Angell's quote I am ready to stop apologizing.

He has always been one of my favorites. If you have missed his description of old age in the New Yorker 6-12 months ago, it is worth searching out.

V.

耿二轩 said...

crusher machine in South Africa! Zenith is a crusher plant, We supply mobile crusher, stone crushing, jaw crusher Etc. Please chat with us for crusher price.
The Used Mobile Stone Crusher(mobile crushing and screening plants) is applied to multistage crush large materials, and then screen the discharges according to their ...
Get Price Mobile Impact Crusher. The mobile impact crusher is a star product of Zenith ,which is equipped by the unit configuration, uses the latest manufacturing ...
magnetite crushing machine and iron ore mobile crusher « sale china: Caiman Manufacturers export Iron Ore Mobile Crusher ...
Crusher Price,Crusher for Sale ... cost of 80 to 100 tph hot mix plant in india Basalt Crusher mobile crusher in india tracked mobile jaw crusher manufacturers in ...
Mobile crusher, what is also called mobile crushing plant, is a simple mobile stone production line, ... providing customers with low cost and effective facilities, ...
mobile crusher. The portable crawler crushing & screening plant, is a new kind of high efficient crushing equipment, which is of advanced technology, fully ...