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.
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.
