Local News & Commentary Since 1890.

Archive for the ‘Opinion’ Category

, , , , , , , ,

Reward yourself for a job well done.

In Business, Economy, National News, Opinion, Uncategorized on June 3, 2014 at 8:28 am

DIH LOGODo you hate your job? You might be surprised how many people despise their work. Even those making upwards of six figures can find the grind most tedious and would do nearly anything to change it. So why don’t they? Chances are, especially at the high end, people have locked themselves into a lifestyle that requires a certain level of money and position that becomes inescapable, or so they think.

If you were one of the millions of folks displaced from a job during the recession, you’re just counting your blessings and dealing with whatever unpleasantness comes along at work. Whatever the reason for staying, there are many reasons why people hate their jobs.

Much of what causes people to dislike their jobs has to do with a lack of obvious appreciation or recognition for your efforts. It takes more than a paycheck to feel fulfilled in your profession and most people don’t get the recognition they feel they deserve for hard work and dedicated service.

Recognition can also come from promotion and a change in responsibilities which can offer more challenges to your day, as well as a better paycheck. If you don’t have opportunities to grow within an organization, you’re likely to feel stifled and unproductive. That will eat away at you over time.

Another reason for someone might feel badly in their job is when they feel they’re meant to do something else or went to school for something entirely different. We all have had moments when we thought we should be something else. I grew up thinking I was going to be a doctor. When I finally enrolled in a pre-med program, I found I really didn’t like it and transferred into an engineering track.

girl_bookDespite what the academics would like us to believe, very few people really know what they want to do at the age of 18 when society is telling us to choose a lifelong career. The fact is we’re just not that grown up yet and, if we think we are and choose a direction, it often change with age and experience.

So what do you do if you are one of those who is just plain unhappy at work? First, it might be a good idea to try to find another job. Don’t wait until you lose the one you have to be looking for something better. Knee-jerk reactions to an employment crisis rarely bring about good change in life, instead just leading to more of the same mediocrity. Get out there and start looking and interviewing for the kind of work you really feel like you want to do, provided it meets your financial and professional qualifications.

Secondly, if changing jobs isn’t a practical option right now, try to provide yourself with some self-rewards and do things throughout the week to make your situation more enjoyable. As an independent worker and small business owner, I don’t get “rewards” for what I do all day. There is no employee of the month or chance for promotion. I’m as high up as I get and, unless the cat learns to use the printer, it’s doubtful I’m going to receive a certificate for outstanding performance anytime soon.

I still need to stay motivated, though, and so do you. So set up rewards for yourself throughout the week. For example, say you have a big project coming up that may test your patience and tolerance of others. Instead of going home stressed every night, establish yourself some rewards for hanging in there. Schedule a special lunch with a friend or ice cream after work. Go to a movie with your significant other in the middle of the week or even plan for a day off if possible.

These observations merely brush the surface of why people might hate their job, but it’s a start. Having a plan to help yourself better enjoy your work will reduce your stress level and increase your productivity. It will also make you less dependent on others for personal growth and self-worth. More importantly, developing a system of self-reward is something you can take with you.

Gery L. Deer is an independent columnist and business writer based in Jamestown, OH. More at http://www.gerydeer.com.

, , , , , , , , ,

V.A. health care debacle is nothing new

In Health, National News, News Media, Opinion, Politics, Senior Lifestyle, Uncategorized on May 27, 2014 at 8:06 am

DIH LOGOAs an organization that serves more than 9 million, it would be difficult to imagine a more complicated system than the United States office of Veterans Affairs (V.A.). Recent allegations of wrong doing within the V.A. health care system has erupted in congressional investigations and strong admonishment from President Obama, one of a half-dozen occupants of the Oval Office under whom this system has thoroughly failed its distinguished beneficiaries.

Naturally, the White House spin doctors tried to express the president’s astonishment and outrage over this issue with their typical press room song and dance. When he finally spoke about the matter publically last Wednesday, Mr. Obama said, “I will not stand for it. There must be consequences.”

Of course there was absolutely no mention of exactly what kinds of consequences.  Even more insulting was the way the administration has fained ignorance about one of the worst kept secrets in America – that there is a mind-blowing level of back-door politics and bureaucracy grinding away below the V.A.’s spit and polished façade.

In the 1992 movie, "Article 99," Kiefer Sutherland struggles to adapt to a broken V.A. system.

In the 1992 movie, “Article 99,” Kiefer Sutherland struggles to adapt to a broken V.A. system.

Critics of the administration are also using this crisis to, once again, lambaste Democrats over Obamacare, to which they compare the crippled V.A. medical system. Some of them have even suggested that the problems deep in the core of the V.A. health care system will eventually overwhelm Obamacare in a similar manner.

Plagued with technical issues and lackluster participation, the “Affordable Care Act” has not been the overwhelming success once envisioned. Legislating mandated health care coverage for all is one thing, but managing patient care based on politics is quite another.

But if you think it’s a stretch to compare the V.A. problems with eventual Obamacare snags, consider this.  Once the Affordable Care Act became law, the U.S. Government suddenly turned into a middle man for selling health insurance and controlling the care received by the patients. Keep in mind this isn’t a “Conservative vs. Liberal” problem. The simple lesson to be learned here is that the government should stay out of the health care business.

As for the existing V.A. problems, the congressional hearings so far have managed to do little more than humiliate the head honcho, Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki, a guy who, while maybe turning a blind eye to these concerns, most certainly inherited the majority of them.

Way back in 1992 director Howard Deutch released a dramatic comedy  called, “Article 99,” which followed a V.A. hospital intern played by Kiefer Sutherland who struggled to acclimate in ridiculously bureaucratic and money-driven system where patients are either denied treatment or made to wait months for life-saving procedures until it’s too late. In a style similar to Robert Altman’s original 1970 film, “MASH,” the main characters are dedicated doctors who regularly defy government rules to help get their veteran patients urgently needed care.

Set in present day – 1992, during the Clinton administration – “Article 99” exposes only a few known problems within the veterans’ health care system. Apparently, things grew increasingly worse.

Oddly enough, government’s treatment of veterans (of all ages) can often mirror the way in which American society deals with the elderly; by putting them off a few more times until they eventually die and the problem solves itself. Shameful.

Perhaps it’s time for the V.A.’s executives, congress and the president, maybe even Supreme Court justices, to be forced to wait a ridiculous amount of time for care. It’s a foregone conclusion that a solution would rapidly appear if the Obama daughters had to wait six months to get their tonsils out, or if John Boehner knew that coverage for some future tanning-induced skin cancer would be denied because it wasn’t a work-related condition. Instead, they enjoy free, top-of-the-line medical care, all on the dime of hard-working Americans, including veterans.

So what to do? Well making a blustering speech on TV is a start, but it’s also an overture to a lack of any real action. Firing the head guy is a gesture to appease the public but it’ll last about 12 seconds. Instead, the entire system needs a full shakedown. That’ll take time and money. Meanwhile, more veterans are waiting for treatment. Drop the bureaucracy and treat the patients, regardless of the paperwork and expense.

 

The Jamestown Comet editor, Gery L. Deer, is an independent columnist and business writer based in Jamestown, Ohio. More at http://www.gerydeer.com.

 

 

 

, , , , , , , , ,

Godzilla: King of the anti-nuclear message

In Entertainment, Environment, Movies, National News, Opinion, Politics, Science, Technology, Uncategorized, World News on May 12, 2014 at 12:00 pm

 

DIH LOGOIn 1955, the Japanese film company, Toho, Inc., introduced America to “Godzilla, King of the Monsters.” The bulky, green monster terrified audiences in the marginally familiar form of an enormous T-Rex, with notable size differences, muscular body and bigger arms and all brought to life by a puppeteer in a rubbery body suit. Originally called by the Japanese word, “Gojira,” meaning “gorilla whale,” the monster was so successful he’s been a worldwide star since his first black and white appearance in Tokyo.

Uncertain how a Japanese film would fare only a decade after the end of World War II, American exhibitors insisted an “American” element be added to make the dubbed, foreign monster flick more relatable to U.S. audiences. So, who better to report on the devastation than one of the most trusted faces on television at the time, Perry Mason himself, Raymond Burr. Not included in the Japanese version, Burr played an American journalist reporting on Godzilla’s attack into a tape recorder from the safety of a nearby office building.

During the 1960s and 70s Godzilla made his way into color features where his ominous appearance was softened a bit and his character reworked a bit from a menace to more of a hero as he battled other creatures threatening Tokyo from Monster Island. His gigantic, “30-story” upright posture, signature stomp, glowing dorsal plates and fiery breath were a hit with movie goers around the world.

Gozilla's original appearance in Japan, 1954. He appeared in America a year later.

Gozilla’s original appearance in Japan, 1954. He appeared in America a year later.

In 1985, Godzilla reappeared in a more serious, direct sequel to the original. Although the monster had made countless appearances in other, sillier films, like “Godzilla vs. King Kong,” and “Godzilla vs. Mothra,” this reprisal brought Godzilla back to his roots – as a devastating, uncontrollable statement on the increasing nuclear scare at the peak of the Cold War.

Although it was no longer necessary to smooth over American audiences, Raymond Burr reprised his role from the original film in a few scenes added to the U.S. release to provide continuity and attract a nostalgic audience. “Godzilla 1985,” did well at the box office and even better in the newly-minted home video market.

Fast forward a few years to 1998, when the monster was licensed by Tri-Star Pictures for an American, almost campy, version set in New York City. Studied by a worm biologist played by the likable Matthew Broderick (Ferris Bueller’s Day Off / The Producers), Godzilla takes up residence in Manhattan and is hunted by the US Military who manages to lay waste to everything except their target, even wrecking the iconic Chrysler Building. A liberally-preachy, anti-nuclear storyline and a totally computer-animated Godzilla, that didn’t look or act much like the original, completely failed to lure audiences.

Over the years, Godzilla appeared in 28 films and an American cartoon show. He even achieved the honor of a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. But the origins of the character are deep in Japan’s nuclear pain and far more serious than most people might know.

Godzilla as he will look in the 2014 version.

Godzilla as he will look in the 2014 version.

Like the newest American incarnation set for release in May 2014, Godzilla is portrayed as a mutation directly resulting from nuclear testing, emphasizing the need to do away with these weapons. He was, essentially, the symbol of everything that can go wrong with nuclear power and weaponry.

The underlying message in the more serious Godzilla story lines is that use of nuclear weapons and power has unimaginable consequences. A mutation that can cause a giant monster with nuclear powered breath is a pretty good personification.

In any case, the new film is sticking closer to the original concept, not just in story but in the look and actions of the monster himself. He’s a rampaging beast and the addition of Breaking Bad’s Bryan Cranston, adds another level of drama to a once-campy character.

In no loss of irony, Japan is the only country in the world whose people have experienced the horrible result of nuclear devastation and America is the only country who has ever inflicted it on anyone else. It’s somehow fitting that people from both countries come together to create a fictional character that personifies the horror that can result.
Gery L. Deer is an independent columnist and business contributor to the WDTN-TV2 program, Living Dayton. More at http://www.gerydeer.com.

 

 

 

, , , , , , ,

Criminalizing rhetorical hyperbole in political ads

In Local News, National News, News Media, Opinion, Politics, Uncategorized on May 7, 2014 at 12:36 pm

DIH LOGOThere is an Ohio law on the books that prohibits politicians from making false claims against an opponent in election campaign ads. Recently, however, the United States Supreme Court took up the question as to whether the legislation infringes on free speech.

Although a dozen other states have similar laws in place, Ohio’s version has come under fire by a conservative group, called the Susan B. Anthony List, who claimed discouraged them from running advertisements against a pro-choice Democratic congressman. It’s likely the case will be kicked back to a lower court, but the implication of the argument leaves room for the exploitation of loopholes, like rhetorical hyperbole.

In general, the law makes it illegal to lie about a political candidate or ballot initiative. What’s left somewhat to interpretation is whether rhetorical hyperbole is permitted. That is, can statements be exaggerated to the edge of falsehood without actually crossing the line? Hyperbole would still stretch the truth, making hours seem like days.

For those who slept through sixth grade English, like me (I know, ironic, huh?), an hyperbole is an exaggerated statement or claim not meant to be taken literally. It comes from a Greek work meaning, “over-casting.” For example, you’re standing in line at the bureau of motor vehicles and you say, “This is taking forever!” Your ordeal in line is not literally going to be indefinite, but you express your irritation and impatience in hyperbole to punctuate your displeasure.

Politicians (and most other advertisers) use hyperbole in many ways. In an extreme example, imagine seeing a political ad where a pro-choice candidate is being attacked by a conservative group. The ad might say, “Congressman Bob hates babies.” Bob may be pro-choice, but no evidence is offered in the ad that he actually hates babies.

What about a conservative senatorial candidate painted as if she is, “going to overturn years of gun control” because she was photographed at a shooting range for a stump speech? In both cases, there’s no evidence given to support the claims but it could be argued that these statements are simple hyperbole and cleverly dodge the “no lying” clause of the Ohio law.

Until this kind of legislation was enacted, only commercial advertisers had to follow rules guarding the consumer against false advertising. Advertising agencies and marketing representatives sometimes find loopholes in the law, but generally color within the lines or risk paying severe (even criminal) penalties to the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission.

So why shouldn’t politicians have to follow the same rules as any other advertiser? Really, they should. A politician has no more right to lie, or even grossly exaggerate, to the consumer than a toothpaste or fast food company. If anything, they should be held to an even tougher standard than someone selling milkshakes – but that’s not likely to happen.

President Richard Nixon has remained one of the poster children for lying politicians. But they ALL do it.

President Richard Nixon has remained one of the poster children for lying politicians. But they ALL do it.

Is it a violation of free speech for a fast food chain to be restricted from promoting their food as “healthy” because a burger contains less special sauce than the competition? No, it’s not; plain and simple. If legislation can be enforced to protect the public from losing $3 to a misrepresented health claim for a hamburger, why shouldn’t the law prevent the potential loss of millions of taxpayer dollars to a dishonest politician?

Then again, most people, if asked off the record, tend to believe all politicians are dishonest. But, dishonest or not, misleading the public in an advertisement is fraud and probably should be criminalized.

The idea of rhetorical hyperbole being some kind of back door to the law should also be addressed. Exaggeration is still misrepresentation because more often than not, the jelly-brained voter out there tends to take things more literally than they probably should.

Regardless of advertising content, the final decision about the truthful nature of our politics is made at the polls. Voters must be proactive and learn as much as possible about the candidates and issues before dropping their choice into the ballot box. In a democracy, you have the power, use it wisely.

 

, , , , , , , ,

E.T. game dig reveals start of Atari collapse

In Business, Economy, Entertainment, National News, Opinion, Technology, Uncategorized on April 28, 2014 at 11:36 am

DIH LOGOIn the nerd-infested world of video game lore, legend says that Atari was so embarrassed by the abject failure of its “E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial” video game cartridge, the company buried all remaining copies of the game in a secret, desert landfill. Following the phenomenal success of Steven Spielberg’s big-budget, heart-wrenching feature film of the same name, the E.T. game was released in 1982 for the classic Atari 2600 game console.

Recently, the legend of the secret cartridge burial was confirmed as a documentary filmmaker set out to unearth the long-lost Atari graveyard, located in a landfill outside Alamogordo, New Mexico, about 200 miles southeast of Albuquerque. Three hours and several layers of trash later, digging in a 150 by 150-foot area, workers uncovered the first signs that this was, in fact, the legendary Atari burial site.

The dig was undertaken by Microsoft Corp’s Xbox Entertainment Studios, the producers behind the documentary film reportedly to be focused on the early years and eventual collapse of the Atari video game empire. The story goes that Atari was saddled with most of the 5 million E.T. cartridges, which were a commercial failure, and buried them, secretly, under cover of night.

One of the VIP’s at the dig was Howard Scott Warshaw, the game’s original designer, who told the press that there could be as many as 750,000 game cartridges buried at the site. Warshaw also designed one of Atari’s biggest hits, “Yar’s Revenge.” Given the “archeological” nature of the Atari dig, there’s an irony in that the game maker also put out a “Raiders of the Lost Ark” video game, also listed with E.T. as one of the company’s worst releases.

ET_GAME_SCREENOn a personal note, and possibly stranger than this story to some, is the fact that I actually still have my original, 1982 Atari 2600 console and game cartridges, all in pristine, working order. Ah, I still marvel at the sleek, faux wood grain finish and the uncomplicated joystick with a single button; classic. I know weird, right? But I always loved my Atari set. It was one of the first “computer” games to which I was exposed and probably contributed to the years of work I spent as a programmer and computer specialist.

A couple of years ago, a friend gave me a modern knock-off of the classic console which is considerably smaller with wireless joysticks and 20 or so games already programmed into it – so no cartridges. Strangely, it loses something on the 46-inch, HD TV screen it’s plugged into. I kind of miss my little, 19-inch color Zenith. Incidentally, I still have my Atari E.T. cartridge and a book that tells you how to win the game. The newer version is just not the same.

In spite of the nostalgia experienced by those of us who grew up in the 80s, there’s a lot to be learned from the E.T. game story. In 1983, Atari was struggling to recover from a failed product and losing sales during a national recession. When a company like Atari creates a product based on a film franchise like “E.T.” or “Batman,” the expense of licensing alone can significantly increase the cost of production over an original title like “Pong” or “Missile Command.”

Because of the added expense, the licensed products must far outperform their counterparts just to be considered successful and add profit for the manufacturer. The E.T. game clearly started out in the red and, because people simply didn’t like the over-priced cartridge, Atari couldn’t recover from the financial blow.

Since Microsoft’s production division is funding the excavation of the Atari landfill site, it stands to reason there is finally money to be made from the demise of the game. My guess is that the dig is simply a film-length “advertisement” for the Xbox game consoles engaged primarily as what now appears to be a highly successful publicity stunt; something Atari could have used more of back in the day.

There’s probably a lot more to be gained from a study of Atari’s successes and failures, but I just don’t have the time. I have to go and see if I can get to the next level on my “Asteroids” cartridge. Good gaming!

 

Jamestown Comet Editor Gery L. Deer is an independent columnist and owner of Deer Computer Consulting, Ltd. in Jamestown, Ohio. More at www.deercomputerconsulting.com

 

, , , , , , , ,

More family advocacy needed for elder care

In Children and Family, Health, Opinion, psychology, Religion, Senior Lifestyle, sociology, Uncategorized on April 16, 2014 at 1:31 pm

DIH LOGOCaring for an aging parent is, in my opinion, one of the most difficult and often painful experiences life throws our way. Providing a safe, healthy environment for an elderly family member is just as taxing as doing the same for a child.

What makes this process even harder is when the parent is resistant to help or simply won’t accept that they are no longer in a position to take care of themselves. Poor decisions, an inability to recognize when driving has become hazardous and, worst of all, when they will listen to anyone’s advice but that of their children, complicates the care process and causes serious damage to the parent/child relationship.

It’s hard to watch parents age and knowing you’re headed the same direction only solidifies the reality of it all. It’s harder still when they resist every attempt to maintain their health and sometimes doctors undermine your efforts by telling them they don’t have to do anything they don’t want to.

I understand that people need to make their own choices, but some shrink in a hospital cannot possibly know an individual’s mental status by talking to them once for three minutes and asking a half dozen pointless questions. “Do you know where you are? Do you know what day it is? Can you draw this box? Write your name.” “Draw this box,” are they kidding?

How about we ask them what their checking account number is, or the name of their insurance company? How about asking when they last paid their phone bill? These are vital questions to someone who is supposedly “competent” and yet this is not what is included in a psychiatric evaluation for a senior’s ability to make his or her own decisions.

Then there are those who are intent on taking advantage of the elderly person’s desire to feel “needed” and useful. These individuals worm their way into the lives of the elderly, showering them with compliments and creating a rift between the senior and his or her family. These unscrupulous people are trying to get money and property away from the senior and alienate children and others who are trying to protect their interests.

Deer In Headlines author Gery Deer is helping his brother Gary Jr and sister Cathy to take care of their father, Gary Sr. and it's rarely easy work.

Deer In Headlines author Gery Deer is helping his brother Gary Jr and sister Cathy to take care of their father, Gary Sr. and it’s rarely easy work.

Laws addressing the rights of seniors, as well as those regarding patient rights, seem to take no account to dementia and speak only to protecting them from family members bent on securing money or locking them away in a nursing home. What about those of us who are trying to protect our parents and provide a safe, secure life for them in their own home as long as possible? Where is our protection and support? There is none.

Preserving a person’s dignity is difficult enough without being able to handle even the most basic decisions absent a mile of legal documents in place only to provide more money for lawyers. Power of attorney documents are meaningless unless the person is thoroughly incapacitated and no one will help without signing over deeds and financial statements.

Believe it or not, sometimes money has nothing to do with it! There are actually situations when families are trying to preserve an aging parent’s lifestyle, dignity and financial security. Someone should be out there advocating for us, not making it harder. Unless you’re loaded with money, there is just no support for people dealing with this kind of problem.

So what is to be done? Good question. I am all for protecting the rights of the elderly and maintaining their ability to make decisions, but there are many degrees of incompetence between fully cognizant and Alzheimer’s dementia and that should be taken into account.

My mother lost all of her reasoning ability as Alzheimer’s set in and it nearly bankrupted my family to get her under a guardianship so we could keep her safe and well-cared for. But when a senior has some competence but not all, that needs to be addressed and the family should be able to have some advocacy for protecting the interest of that individual without so many roadblocks.

Legislation should be put into place for the varying degrees of dementia and stop relying on the ‘one size fits all’ psychiatric evaluations that prove nothing more than the person can read a calendar.

 

Gery L. Deer is the editor and publisher of The Jamestown Comet.com an independent columnist and business writer based in Jamestown, Ohio. More at http://www.gerydeer.com.

 

, , , , , , ,

Alas, the plight of the plastic shopping bag

In Business, Economy, Education, Environment, Health, history, National News, Opinion, Politics, Science, Uncategorized on March 31, 2014 at 8:42 am

Deer In Headlines
By Gery L. Deer
The Jamestown Comet Editor

bag_blowingTake a look around outside after a storm and you’ll see them, clinging to the lathe of a garden fence like barnacles to a ship’s hull – those sad, indigent, plastic shopping bags. They’re everywhere, bouncing along the roadside, hung up in the branches of your backyard tree, even melted and tangled around the undercarriage of your car. Once revered for their strength and amazingly useful handles, these marvels of modern shopping are now the scourge of environmental political correctness.

With humble beginnings in 1950s Sweden, the modern plastic shopping bag was the creation of engineer Sten Gustaf Thulin who developed the simple, one-piece bag for Celloplast, the company which patented the design in 1965. Popularity of the product grew rapidly, for a time even knocking paper bags into relative obscurity.

Never again would husbands need worry about earning a night in the doghouse after losing a gallon of milk to the pavement when it crashed through the bottom of a wet paper sack. But, it was that set of wonderfully brilliant handles that really endeared the bags to shoppers. Since the dawn of time, mothers everywhere have struggled on shopping trips to juggle groceries and family.

With plastic bags, Mom now had the ability to carry half a dozen fully loaded bags on her arms while clutching Junior in one hand and the dog’s leash in the other. Her world now under complete control, at least for one brief moment, thanks to a simple pair of parallel holes in a plastic tube. Once the groceries were put away, she could even re-use them to line the bathroom wastebasket with a water-proof bag that fit both the can and her household budget.

PBThere was no doubt the plastic shopping bag was truly a miracle of modern commerce. By 1982, most major grocery chains, including Kroger, began replacing paper shopping bags with plastic citing cost savings and customer preference. Sadly, however, as with most other success stories, rival jealousy led to ridicule and scrutiny, mostly from operatives of the paper bag industry determined to unseat the plastic bag from its world-wide fame.

By the 1990s, world ecologists became increasingly vocal about plastic’s potentially destructive effects on the environment. Soon, the plastic shopping bag became an innocent by-stander, caught up in the ever increasing fight between good and evil, liberal and conservative, environmentalist and capitalist – or whoever was paying the most lobbyists. More than ever, environmental groups were touting the need for more extensive use of recyclable materials in consumer goods.

Almost overnight, the plastic shopping bag became the poster child for everything wrong with the environment as pundits heatedly debated their recyclability on cable news and in fiercely negative op-eds.  As usual, the critics had it all wrong because plastic shopping bags were every bit as recyclable as their paper counterparts, but were, in a way, victims of their own success.

As it turned out, the very innovations that made plastic shopping bags so powerful in the supermarket were like Kryptonite to the sorting machines used in recycling. When put through, they bound up the machinery and left it jammed and inert, and the cost to overcome that problem outweighed the benefits.

For years, rumors of a plastic bag uprising have permeated the media, suggesting that millions of these poor, trodden-down bags were massing a resistance in landfills all over America. There, they waited silently, collectively preparing to strike back against their opposition by refusing to decompose, even over thousands of years.

Sadly, an empty threat, since the structure of a landfill is meant to keep the refuse dry and stable, limiting degradation. Nothing is intended to fully decompose; not paper, not food, not plastic … nothing. In fact, newspapers buried in the 1960s have recently been exhumed intact and readable.

Perhaps one day, the full truth of their story will be exposed and plastic shopping bags will regain their once proud position at the end of the checkout. But for now, these bags exist as second-class totes, drifting like tumbleweeds on the wind, dancing their lament of a time when they were kings of the market.
Deer In Headlines is available for syndication. Contact GLD Enterprises Commercial Writing – http://www.gldenterprises.net.

, , , , , , , ,

It takes a maverick to make a difference

In Education, National News, Opinion, Politics, psychology, Religion, Science, sociology, State News, Uncategorized, World News on March 24, 2014 at 7:59 am

DIH LOGOAccording to one definition, a maverick is, “an unorthodox or independent-minded person.” But a maverick is also someone who chooses not to give in to the pressures of society, breaking ranks, not for personal gain, but in an effort to improve conditions or expand knowledge for everyone.

In the 16th Century, the now revered scientist Galileo Galilei would certainly have fit the definition of maverick. At a time when the church kept tight control over the public’s understanding of the world around them, Galileo’s challenge that the earth was not actually the center of the universe but instead part of a solar system with our sun at its center was controversial.

Of course he was eventually proven right, but standing against such a powerful entity as the Catholic Church sent Galileo to be tried for heresy. There are countless cases like this throughout history, most related to individuals who chose to challenge long-standing beliefs in politics or religion.

Today, as in Galileo’s time, society is taught and expected, from an early age, to keep quiet; never to upset the status quo for fear of retribution. Those willing to stand up and be heard shape the most change in the world, but often pay a high price for their contribution to progress. Much of what society deems acceptable is dependent on one’s position and the sphere of influence there encompassed.

whatsrightFor example, it is unacceptable in many religious groups for a married couple to divorce. They are expected to remain together indefinitely for the good of the church, their families and so on, regardless of the situation, even in cases of physical abuse. It stands to reason, therefore, that the first few individuals who challenged these rules were certainly dealt with harshly. Fortunately, over time, this type of censure has eased somewhat, at least publically.

On the whole, it is difficult to greatly influence public perception and alter the behavior of a society or to get people to remove the blinders of ideology and accept the possibility that there are other ways of thinking. Ignorance, prejudice and misunderstanding usually lead to fear and resistance.

It should also be made clear that religious groups are certainly not alone in such ridiculously judgmental behavior. Anyone who challenges established norms can find themselves on the receiving end of some pretty unpleasant retribution, particularly in the workplace.

Often employees are never to question authority or decisions made by their superiors, otherwise face reprisal. But what does one do when superiors are actually breaking the law? In 1989, Congress passed the Whistleblower Protection Act. The law is designed to shield workers against retaliatory personnel action – meaning, essentially, it keeps them from being fired – for “blowing the whistle” on illegal activities perpetrated by their employers.

Unfortunately, there is no such protection for the everyday person who simply wants to do the right thing. From Moses and Lady Godiva to Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, taking a stand to alter deeply engrained social beliefs has never been a task for the weak-hearted.

Most people are discouraged by how much retribution might be taken out on them for going against the grain. Sometimes, however, just standing up for the little things can help to affect larger changes. Making a difference in the boardroom, at school or even in the hallowed halls of church might ruffle some feathers, but if the purpose is worthwhile, it would be wrong not to do something.

So, what about those by-standers who agree with the maverick but are afraid to stand with her? If only one other person supported the cause then another would as well, then another, and another. That’s how revolutions are started in the face of resistance. So the next time you see an injustice being done and you have the opportunity to act, what will it be: Maverick or conformist?  Ω

Gery L. Deer is an independent columnist and business contributor to the WDTN-TV2 program, “Living Dayton.” More at www.gerydeer.com.

, , , , , , , ,

Like Earhart, evidence lacking in Malaysian Air mystery

In National News, News Media, Opinion, Science, Technology, Travel, Uncategorized on March 17, 2014 at 9:29 am

DIH LOGOMore than 76 years after aviator Amelia Earhart and her navigator, Fred Noonan, vanished during an attempt to fly around the world at the equator, their fate is still an unsolved mystery. The two were presumed lost somewhere over the Pacific Ocean, along with any trace of their Lockheed Electra aircraft. While many theories have surfaced over the years, no conclusive evidence has ever been found to indicate what really happened to, “Lady Lindy,” a woman who was well aware of the potential dangers she faced as a pilot.

On AameliaEarhart.com, the official website commemorating the aviation pioneer, there are passages from a letter written to her husband, publisher G.P. Putnam, in case a dangerous flight proved her last. One particular section fully demonstrates her bravery and total acceptance of the risks she took in the sky. It reads, “Please know I am quite aware of the hazards. I want to do it because I want to do it. Women must try to do things as men have tried. When they fail, their failure must be but a challenge to others.”

Aviation Pioneer, Amelia Earhart vanished in 1937 during an attempt to fly around the world.

Aviation Pioneer, Amelia Earhart vanished in 1937 during an attempt to fly around the world.

Earhart was a ground breaker, driven by a desire, not only to set an example to women who wanted a piece of man’s world, but also to meet a public expectation created by her husband. She was a risk taker at a time when flying was still young. Even now the risks associated with flying are still quite real but there is a reasonable expectation of safety in modern commercial aviation.

Still, no one could have predicted the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of Malaysia Air Flight 370. As of the time of this writing, there is still no trace of the plane. One needn’t be an aviation expert or pilot to know that a Boeing 777, one of the most complex flying machines ever built, cannot simply vanish into thin air. As with the Earhart disappearance, conspiracy theories are running rampant. Was it sabotage, hijacking, or might the plane have been shot down by terrorists? So far, there are no answers.

Other than the tragedy and sheer mystery involved, there is little similarity between the Earhart disappearance and this most recent incident, with one exception: the sheer lack of telemetry data in both situations. Like Earhart’s Lockheed Electra, the Boeing twin-turbofan is a well-tested, commercial passenger aircraft. But, in order to stay aloft longer with fewer stops, the Electra had been stripped down to what amounted to a flying gas can, even leaving behind two parachutes and a life raft to save weight.

Earhart also left behind key equipment that might have aided in pinpointing her position when she went down; the equivalent of disabling satellite tracking systems and radio transponders used on modern aircraft. Officials are reasonably sure that virtually every piece of telemetry technology aboard Flight 370 was intentionally deactivated making it, like Earhart’s Electra, nearly impossible to track.

With a possible search area stretching north into Central Asia and almost as far south as Australia, finding a needle in a haystack would be a piece of cake in comparison. Malaysian officials have requested electronic and satellite data, as well as search and rescue assistance, from more than two-dozen countries. What data does exist suggests that Flight 370 most likely crashed, either in the Bay of Bengal or elsewhere in the Indian Ocean.

Boeing_777_above_clouds,_cropWhether in pieces at the bottom of the sea or parked on some secret tarmac, someone knows where Flight 370 is and how it got there. The real trick will be to find out who orchestrated the plane’s disappearance and what security flaws exist which allowed it to happen.

The mystery of what really happened to Amelia Earhart may never be solved but the search for answers continues. It seems easier to accept the loss of two people in a primitive aircraft than that of 300 in a modern commercial jetliner, but the lack of information invites uninformed speculation. Until some hard evidence is uncovered, however, all anyone can do is let the investigation proceed … and wait.

Jamestown Comet.com Editor Gery L. Deer is an independent columnist and business contributor to WDTN-TV2’s “Living Dayton” program.

, , , , , ,

Crime can happen to anyone, anywhere

In Children and Family, Crime, Education, Local News, Opinion, Uncategorized on March 10, 2014 at 9:48 am

DIH LOGOIn the early morning hours of Thursday, March 6, in the close-knit, rural resort lake community of Shawnee Hills in Jamestown, Ohio, the unheard-of happened – a home invasion. According to reports, four adult males and one juvenile broke into an occupied home, stealing electronics and video games adding up to less than $500.

All five were arrested in Xenia later the same day. The four adult suspects were charged with one count of aggravated burglary, which is a first-degree felony. At the time of this publication, there was no information available on the status of the juvenile.

Incidents like this happen all over the country, nearly every minute of each day. Burglary and home invasion are more common in the inner city regions, but they can occur anywhere. As urban development spreads into suburban and rural communities, the likelihood of crime increases, probably more because of a rise in concentrated population than most other factors. Suburban and clustered rural developments tend to be inhabited by people with more money and, thus, become an attractive target for various kinds of crime from robbery to drug trafficking.

Many people still believe this kind of thing does not happen in sleepy, country communities. It does, it’s just not as common and often it’s an inside job. That is, the person who commits the crime has some connection with the residents of the home so they are privy to the money or property situation.

The false sense of safety offered by country life encourages people to leave windows open, entrances unlocked and garage doors up, essentially painting a big sign on the house saying, “Come on in and take our stuff.” Robbery, burglary or home invasion, armed or otherwise, can happen anywhere – to anyone. In fact, people might be surprised at the statistics related to who is committing crime and against whom.

For example, according to the National Center for Victims of Crime, overall, crime is disproportionately committed by males. Although it tends to have a greater affect on minorities (both as victims and offenders), most crimes are committed by whites against whites.

The Center’s website states that, “Certain populations are disproportionately affected by crime, not necessarily because of the sheer numbers of victims but as a result of crime’s greater impact on these.” It goes on to point out that young people, for example, aged 16-24, are the population group most victimized by crime and this is also the age group that commits the most crime. Not surprising in the case of the Shawnee Hills incident, since all of the men involved incident were 19 years old and younger.

Additionally, as one might expect, there are some types of crimes such as stalking, domestic violence, and sexual assault that are predominantly committed by males against females. It also seems, as was the case in Jamestown, many home invasions and robberies are committed by someone acquainted with one of the residents. People can help minimize the potential for these kinds of incidents, however, with a few basic precautions.

Always keep doors and windows locked, particularly at night or when leaving the house. Close and lock garage doors and don’t hide spare keys in obvious places. Don’t flaunt expensive possessions, guns, tools or electronics. These are the top of the list for burglary targets, and it only takes a word from a friend to someone you don’t know to set the wheels in motion to have your home robbed.

Wait until you return home to post vacation photos and other information on social media. Broadcasting to the world that the whole household is out of town begs for an unwanted visitor.

Be sure to include the whole family on crime prevention education. Parents need to teach kids everything possible to help keep them safe in and out of the home. Make it a point to get to know the people that kids bring into the house, particularly high-school agers, including names, addresses and parent contact information. If they are unwilling to provide that information, then they don’t get to be there, plain and simple.

Some simple prevention and common sense can keep you from becoming the next statistic.

***************

The Jamestown Comet Editor, Gery L. Deer, is an independent columnist and business contributor to the WDTN-TV2 program, “Living Dayton.”