sociology | The Jamestown Comet

Archive for the ‘sociology’ Category

cover up, Deer In Headlines, facial recognition, Gery L. Deer, Mike DeWine, Ohio Attorney General, photograph, Republican, secret data collection

AG collecting BMV data: Who’s watching the watchers?

In Local News, Media, Opinion, Politics, sociology, Uncategorized on September 30, 2014 at 9:31 am

Apparently the National Security Administration (NSA) isn’t the only government agency collecting information on American citizens without oversight. According to multiple news sources, including CNN, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine has just disclosed that Ohio driver license photos have been uploaded to a facial recognition database for criminal identification.

According to DeWine, the program allows police to quickly compare photographs of suspects or crime victims to an electronic pool of mug shots and driver license photos in the Ohio database. Comparisons are made of facial measurements from one image to the next in search of a match. The problem with all of this is that it’s been active since June – in secret.

With no rules or written regulations governing the use of this information, the AG can do whatever he wants with it. No official should have such wide-sweeping access to personal information on citizens.

Ohio AG Mike DeWine Photo Courtesy RawStory.Com.

Neither DeWine, nor any of his cronies, has any right to dig through the records of Ohio citizens without due process. Within moments of disclosing this information, the American Civil Liberties Union pounced on the situation, and, for a change, rightfully so.

ACLU Associate Director Gary Daniels issued a statement calling upon DeWine to, “Pull the plug” on the system. “This system needs to be shut down until there are meaningful, documented rules in place to keep this information secure, protect the privacy of innocent people, and prevent government abuse of this new tool,” Daniels said.

According to his statement at the press conference revealing this program, DeWine said, “Misuse of the facial recognition system is a felony offense.” But how can he make a statement like that when there are currently no written rules to govern its use?

As he told The Enquirer, it’s the AG’s opinion that he didn’t need to inform the public when the system was launched because 26 other states already have similar databases in operation. Only now, after the information was prematurely uncovered by the press, has DeWine decided to publicly form an expert advisory panel of judges, prosecutors and law enforcement representatives to create rules preventing privacy abuse.

Where is the state legislature in that list of “experts?” Our state representatives should be the ones governing the rules of operation for such a system, not those who already have control over it and the ability to exploit the information.

All this begs the question, if DeWine is uploading identification photos, what else is he collecting? Every photo is part of a larger database of names, addresses, and Social Security numbers. So who is looking at all of that and how much access do they have? Even more importantly, what can be done to control its use?

Protecting the public is what an attorney general is supposed to do. Sadly, when the person holding that office has an overwhelming sense of omnipotence, the public has to protect itself instead from him. Then, only the state legislature can take the proper action to limit DeWine’s reach with such sensitive data.

People need to call, email, fax, write to their state representative and demand they act immediately to avoid mishandling of this information and force the AG to disclose every detail of this program to the public. The idea that he felt he was not obligated to tell anyone only emphasizes the need for extensive regulation by the State House.

In the meantime, be aware that likely anyone in the AG office has access to any and all personal information collected by the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles without proper due process of law, warrant or oversight. It’s not good enough that we’re supposed to simply “trust” Mike DeWine’s policies, especially knowing now that he has hidden this program for months. If he has concealed this, then what else could he be he hiding?

▶ Comment

atheism, atheist for Congress, athiest, Deer In Headlines, Fairborn Daily Herald, freedom from religion, Gery L. Deer, lying politicians, religious freedom, Xenia Daily Gazette

Support religious freedom by defending rights of atheists

In Education, history, Local News, Media, National News, Opinion, Politics, psychology, Religion, sociology, Uncategorized on September 3, 2014 at 11:24 pm

For what is apparently the first time ever, an openly atheist candidate is running for United States Congress this fall. James Woods, an atheist Democrat, is seeking election in the Arizona 5th Congressional District, a region well known as strictly Republican. According to a CNN op-ed piece by columnist Carlos S. Moreno, Woods will be the only congressional candidate to ever run after outing himself as a non-believer.

As it turns out, under the constitutions of eight American states, atheists are banned from holding public office: Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas (Source: The Washington Post). More accurately, the restriction applies to those who deny the existence of, “a Supreme Being,” or “Almighty God,” the wording varies.

Regardless of whether people agree with it, such bans would seem to violate Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, which states, “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” It’s probable that any related civil suit would eventually land at the feet of the United States Supreme Court which would undoubtedly have to rule these laws unconstitutional.

Even so, most atheists stay, “in the closet,” so to speak, to avoid social repercussions and public scrutiny and rarely do they attempt to run for political positions. It might be assumed that the anti-atheist rules were originally established to ensure that public servants would have a predictable moral fiber.

But, the very idea that the religious are inherently “moral,” is, in a word, ridiculous. History is full of religiously-sanctioned violations of God’s moral commandments, from centuries of open warfare to decades of child abuse. As usual, many of the devout try to pretend none of it ever happened. So, in a completely predictable act of contradiction, violations of God’s laws are fine so long as they serve a “higher purpose.”

Likewise, the moral character of a politician is supposed to be part of the reason why people choose to elect him or her to office. Sadly, a disturbing lack of morality is evident in many high-ranking politicians, who spend much of their time lying, cheating and stealing. These are the same men and women who, at some point, stood up in front of their God and everyone else and swore to their personal integrity and commitment.

Easy examples come to mind like John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton, who were known to be serial adulterers, and it could be argued that the very definition of politician should include, “liar.” In any case, one needn’t be a Christian, nor a member of any other religion, to have a well-aligned moral compass.

Put simply, being frightened into morality by the threat of fire and brimstone only goes so far in keeping people on the straight and narrow, particularly those who crave power and believe themselves at some point to be above retribution. It seems like it would be better to have a public servant who has found his or her own moral direction rather than having it lorded over them by fear of suffering in the hereafter.

Regardless of how the devout are behaving when no one is looking, however, what Americans need to understand from all of this is that freedom from religion must be protected in order to preserve its uninhibited practice. The fine balance between freedom “from” and “of” religion is necessary to ensure every citizen can practice his or her faith openly, all while any other may enjoy none at all. It goes both ways.

Put another way, no one likes to have religious groups going door to door pedaling their ideology. So why is it alright for anyone else to do the same thing simply using more socially acceptable methods, such as being coerced into declaring a religion before qualifying for political office?

Up until now a great many public servants who have affirmed a religious affiliation and filled speeches with thanks to God for their success have managed to shame both their religion and their office with shaky morality. In the end, the most devout Christian can take the same oath as their atheist counterpart and guarantee no greater a moral platform. If history is any indicator, it might even be less.

Gery L. Deer is the editor and publisher of The Jamestown Comet.com and a syndicated independent columnist.

▶ Comment

Big Bang Theory, cool kids, Deer In Headlines, Gery L. Deer, Living Dayton, nerd, popularity, television, writer, Xenia Daily Gazette

When did being nerdy become cool?

In Children and Family, Economy, Education, Opinion, sociology, Technology, Uncategorized on August 25, 2014 at 12:14 pm

Am I to understand that, largely because of a television situation comedy, it is now cool to be awkward, socially inept, and very smart, all while being considered – dare I use the word – “nerdy?” When did this happen? In my day, we nerds were cast out from all the best tables in the school lunchroom or forced to get bad grades to avoid being picked on because we were smart – that never worked, by the way. It’s just not fair that today’s geeks get a pass! But, it’s about time!

Yes, I was a nerd, of the ultimate type, though I never made much of an effort to show my smarts on my report card; the dreaded “permanent record.” Best part is, I’m still pretty nerdy, if not more so, except now, people think it’s much cooler. Ok, maybe not so much when you’re nearly 50 years old, but still, it’s better than the reverse.

It is highly unlikely, however, that the power struggle of lunchroom hierarchy has changed too much. Although I have learned that there are now “smart kid cliques,” like a “herd of nerd.” These gaggles of bespectacled hackers, techies, science geeks and math whizzes won’t let the cool kids – jocks, cheerleaders, etc. – sit at their tables. Oh my, how the lunch tables have turned! So what, exactly happened to cause this mirror universe effect (there’s a Star Trek reference for anyone who’s paying attention)?

GLD Enterprises Commercial Writing managing copywriter Gery L. Deer at his Jamestown office. Nerd is in!

Were our Heisenberg compensators out of calibration? Was there a paradoxical overlap in the delicate fabric of space and time? Perhaps J.J. Abrams decided to re-imagine nerddom in his own image? However interesting these explanations may sound, the popularity shift albeit a smaller one than you might think has more to do with money than anything else, on several levels.

In the 1990s, the nerds of the 80s were rolling in the cash as the tech boom swept across the nation and rapidly spread worldwide. Billions of dollars were going into research and development as the Internet expanded and commerce took notice.

Suddenly, everyone was a hacker or web developer. Countless tech startups swamped Silicon Valley and the rest of the country as everybody with a modem tried to cash in on the boom. In short, the nerds of yesterday are the successful business tycoons of today, at least some of the time.

Next, it would be hard to talk about this subject without at least a hat-tip to the TV nerds of CBS’s hit comedy, “The Big Bang Theory.” The quirky, discomfited antics of Sheldon, Leonard, Raj and Howard have become a sensation. The show seems to be broadcast every hour of the evening, primetime or in syndication. Watching people who seem far more awkward and unsure than ourselves has always been a pastime, but this is somehow even more engaging.

Most of us who have worked in the engineering or technical fields knew or knows someone like each of these guys, but with nowhere near the personality or likability of the four fictional personas. Speaking of real life, I’m fortunate that I don’t carry a grudge for all the harassment I endured growing up.

If anything, it’s been a source of great resolve and I’ve have written many times on the subjects of bullying, mean-spirited teasing and the like. Unfortunately, there are some of my nerd kin out there who just can’t let it go or, if they’re still in school, carry a sharp chip on their shoulders because they aren’t part even of the herd of nerd that as claimed a spot at one of the cool tables.

There is every possibility that the reason someone doesn’t socially advance has as much to do with the person than the environment. A bad attitude goes both ways. No one will be popular if he or she is always pointing out the mistakes of others, belittling someone’s intelligence or carries that chip on the shoulder that keeps others at bay.

I learned to embrace my inner (and outer) geek and like whom I’ve become. In the end, it’s far better to be smart and socially functional, than sit alone in the cafeteria.

Gery L. Deer is an independent columnist and contributor to WDTN-TV2’s program, Living Dayton. More at gerydeer.com.

▶ Comment

anti-semitism, Deer In Headlines, Gaza, Gery L. Deer, Israel, Jamestown, Ohio, Palestine, political correctness, UN school bombing, Xenia Daily Gazette

Gainsay of Gaza school bombing not anti-Semitic

In history, National News, Opinion, Politics, sociology, Uncategorized, World News on August 9, 2014 at 2:50 pm

There’s an inherent problem with “political correctness” when it extends to speaking out against bad policy or horrific acts against the innocent. When the super-sensitive “left” can’t accept that people can dislike someone’s opinion without literally hating them, any hope of long-term, productive dialogue or constructive discourse is totally squelched.

When President Obama was elected, people became so obsessed about his being our first African American president, that to even mention a disagreement with his policies labeled one a racist. Naturally, that’s ridiculous. But, for the majority of his first term anyone who argued against him was considered to simply be hateful and bigoted.

We’re in a similar, uncomfortable, situation now with the problems going on in Gaza and the alleged bombing of civilian targets by both Israel and Hamas. There is no question that what’s going on there is terrible and it’s a given that Israel has suffered its share of problems in its short existence as a nation. But, criticism of their tactics in the current conflict does not make one anti-Semitic.

Because Hamas is seen by many as a “terrorist” organization, it is therefore more acceptable to criticize them publicly, but that’s not the debate. It’s not anti-Semitic to state, “It’s wrong for Israel to bomb civilian targets and kill innocent people, including children.” Anyone who thinks that it’s ok to bomb kids regardless of the purpose may be hinging on sociopathic mentality.

Many United Nations officials condemned the bombing of a UN-run school in Gaza, including Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, seen here.

After a United Nations-operated school was bombed in Gaza City last week, killing 20 and wounding dozens, including children, The Washington Post reported that the U.N. officially condemned Israel for the bombing with UNRWA Commissioner-General Pierre Krähenbühl saying, “I condemn in the strongest possible terms this serious violation of international law by Israeli forces. This is an affront to all of us, a source of universal shame. Today the world stands disgraced.”

There are, of course, those who have accused the U.N., as an organization, of being anti-Semitic since its inception, but this is not an indication of that. This is a statement from the commissioner-general communicating that the world group disagrees with the Israeli tactic and would prefer they try to find a peaceful solution.

Considering that the GPS coordinates of the school had been reportedly sent to Israel at least 17 times, at this point it’s Israel’s own actions drawing negative opinion and squelching sympathy for their cause. Still, it’s seen as distasteful to speak against the Jewish nation without being labeled racist and therein lays the problem.

Will it always be that with any minority or historically trodden-down group, negative opinion or public critique will draw for the speaker undo hatred or have them forever labeled racist, anti-Semitic or worse? Is political correctness always this blind, even in the court room? Yes. It always will be. Take, for instance, mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes here in America.

Statistics suggest that the vast majority of drug criminals in the U.S. are African American. Since there are often mandatory minimum prison sentences on the books for various levels of possession, sale and use of street narcotics, by the logic of some, which makes mandatory minimums racist. Are they? That’s a debate for another time, but the same logic is at work here as well.

There seems to be a belief among modern liberals and conservatives alike that freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, so long as you only say what they want to hear. Anything that goes against the grain on either side of the aisle will earn a swift retribution for the originator of the message. Oddly, it’s always been that way, but now, with social media, the Internet and an instant news cycle, there’s just more of a platform for argument.

Speaking one’s mind about an atrocity is the purview of any conscientious observer. Whether someone is doing so from a racial bias is another matter entirely. However, if those committing the atrocity expect sympathy in some way, it’s unlikely that they will achieve any of their goals by fueling the fires of hate through horrific actions, regardless of whether they believe it to be the means to the end.
Gery L. Deer is an independent columnist and business writer syndicated by GLD Enterprises Commercial Writing. More at gerydeer.com.

▶ Comment

border crisis, dayton, Dayton Ohio, Deer In Headlines, Gery L. Deer, GOP, greene county ohio, immigration, Jamestown, letter, Mayor Nan Whaley, Mike Turner, xenia, Xenia Daily Gazette

Border crisis will become a local issue

In Charities, Children and Family, Dayton Ohio News, Local News, National News, Opinion, sociology, Uncategorized on July 28, 2014 at 11:33 am

Unless someone is a true bigot, it’s hard to imagine why people don’t want to help the immigrant Mexican children being sent across the border without family, without supervision. But wanting to help is not the same thing as having the resources and infrastructure to do so properly, in a way that meets the ultimate goal which should be to see that the children have better life in America than they had in Mexico.

Unfortunately, people are so focused on the problem of the immigration process, they forget about what will happen once the kids get into the United States. Without a plan, infrastructure, money and personnel, it’s unlikely that these children will be living in anything less than squalor once they arrive and are processed.

Our government should do everything they can to help these kids, even if that means the best thing to do is to send them back home. Why? Because there are some vital questions still as yet unanswered. For example: Where will they live? Who will pay to feed and clothe them? Who will pay to educate them?

Each night in the United States, an estimated 611,000 people are sleeping homeless and nearly 50 million go hungry, according to the charity groups National Alliance to End Homelessness, and Feeding America. As unbelievable as it may seem in the most powerful country in the world, organizations such as these struggle each year to find the millions of dollars needed to provide food and shelter for people already living here, a great many of which are children.

(Photo NY TIMES)

When hundreds of immigrant children become thousands, they become refugees, not immigrants and caring for the kids will eventually land squarely on the shoulders of local government. The White House and congress might clear the way for an easier method of entry or grant them all amnesty once here, but then it’s the problem of Main Street U.S.A. to care for them.

Sure, there will be federal money – probably from new taxes that will overburden a still recovering Middle America – but it will be pennies per child, per day, leaving the remainder to be covered at the local and state levels. The current welfare system cannot handle such a fast influx of need, especially while still recovering from the stress of the recession.

Some local leaders, however, are welcoming the immigrants with open arms. Dayton, Ohio Mayor Nan Whaley recently stated that she would welcome the immigrant children to the area. It’s clear that Mayor Whaley, who previously served on the Dayton city commission, does not realize that what happens in Dayton affects the outlying communities of the Miami Valley region, both socially and economically. None of these suburban areas have the kinds of resources necessary to handle such a massive issue.

As expected, the democratic mayor’s comments drew a firm response from area republicans, led by Congressman Mike Turner. Turner sent a letter to President Obama signed by him and six local area leaders which states, “We are writing to express that our community does not support Mayor Whaley’s proposal and to further express that our community does not have the available resources to support such a proposal.” It goes on to point out that, while they are sympathetic to the issues related to the border crisis, the community is simply not in a position to offer assistance.

There is speculation that Whaley’s comments were little more than a publicity stunt, aimed at getting a sound bite on national news, which she accomplished without question. Others believe her intention was to gain more favor with Dayton’s large and ever-expanding Hispanic population. Only the mayor knows why she really made such a sweeping statement without discussing the concept with other local leaders.

These sentiments are playing out across the country in a constant battle. While there is an overwhelming feeling of obligation by most to help children and families fleeing poverty and abuse, there must first be resources in place to properly handle the situation without making it worse.

Jamestown Comet Editor Gery L. Deer is an independent columnist and business writer. More at gerydeer.com.

▶ Comment

affordable healthcare act, Deer In Headlines, Gery L. Deer, GOP, Greene County Combined Health District, Hobby Lobby, obamacare, Republican, Supreme Court, Xenia Daily Gazette

Hobby Lobby ruling sets religious freedom in business

In Business, Charities, history, Media, National News, Opinion, Politics, Religion, sociology, Uncategorized on June 30, 2014 at 11:59 am

On June 30^th, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby’s suit to be exempted from the ObamaCare mandate forcing companies to provide contraceptive coverage to employees, including the controversial Plan B, or “morning after,” drugs. Many conservative business owners equate these drugs to abortion since they’re designed to terminate a pregnancy within hours of conception.

The primary argument to the court is whether the owners or management of a corporation has the same rights to freedom of religion as an individual. The Obama administration has already set exceptions for various religious non-profit organizations, which, other than their non-profit status, are structured similarly to their for-profit counterparts.

In March of this year, according to TheHill.com, the U.S. House of Representatives, “Approved the Equitable Access to Care and Health (EACH) Act, H.R. 1814. The bill allowed people avoid buying health insurance under ObamaCare if they could cite a religious reason. People seeking an exemption would have to include sworn statements in their tax returns explaining their objection to health insurance.” In effect, all they needed to get out of paying the federal healthcare mandate (tax) was a note from home.

A further question is whether there is a fundamental business difference between a non-profit corporation and a for-profit corporation? The practical answer is, no. Charity or not, a corporation is created to protect the individual operators from legal responsibility with regard to the business. Most non-profit filings are for tax and donation purposes, a process that seems outdated and inefficient with the advent of mega churches and multi-billion-dollar evangelical organizations.

In America, there are countless religiously-focused, non-profit corporations worth millions more than some of the largest for-profit businesses. The Christian television network, Daystar, for example has been approved by the Internal Revenue Service as a “church,” according to NPR.com news. Celebrity, sometimes politician evangelist Pat Robertson and the late Billy Graham registered with the IRS as “religious organizations,” making them exempt from most taxes. All they had to do was file disclosure papers.

According to available records, NPR.com reports that the top three evangelical television broadcasters – Christian Broadcast Network, Trinity Broadcasting Network and Daystar Television — have a combined net worth of more than a quarter of a billion dollars. It is unknown whether the corporations that operate these broadcasters have filed for religious exemption under the healthcare reform laws.

The question persists, however, that if the only difference between a for-profit corporation and these mega non-profits is an earnings disclosure, why have the distinction at all? Certainly there are for-profit companies that give away millions of dollars in charitable funds each year but still have to comply with the law in every respect. Why then are religious non-profit organizations exempt from anything, much less a controversial healthcare mandate that has American small business struggling to comply or face bankrupting penalties?

The court’s latest decision with regard to religious exemption could have long-reaching implications, and not just in the healthcare arena. Giving a for-profit entity the same constitutional protections provided to non-profit religious groups could cause a flood of lawsuits ranging from tax law to equal employment regulations. Once again, major non-profits have million-dollar earners at the top, private jets, limousines and pretty much every other extravagance thought only to exist in for-profit American business.

If a church – any church – can make a case for religious freedom from legal mandates, why can’t a business owner cite his or her – or their – own religious beliefs for the same purposes? Is the constitution not written for everyone or does it exist specifically to meet the needs of religious groups so they can avoid taxes and dodge the law at their convenience?

This argument poses a great many questions and there will likely be countless more as ObamaCare reaches further corners of commerce. But, if that’s not enough to chew on, here’s another one. What happens if a Muslim, Jewish or non-Christian group requests exemption as well? Will the Christian right fight against their having the same protections?

Gery L. Deer is an independent columnist and business writer and contributor for WDTN-TV2’s LIVING DAYTON program. More at www.gerydeer.com.

▶ Comment

China, Deer In Headlines, Gery L. Deer, greene county, greene county ohio, India, Jamestown, Modi, Narendra, Xenia Daily Gazette, Xenia Gazette

India vs. China: Economic growth and national security

In Economy, history, National News, Opinion, sociology, Uncategorized on June 9, 2014 at 9:47 pm

On June 4, 1989, after three weeks of civil rights protests by nearly a million Chinese, many of them students, Chinese troops stormed a packed square in Beijing, killing and arresting thousands. The Tiananmen Square Massacre shocked the world and confirmed the belief, not that there was any doubt, that China’s political system is completely incompatible with that of the United States and pretty much any other democratic nation.

A quarter of a century later, it’s still largely incomprehensible why America is so tied to a country with no decency with regard to human rights. It’s about two things that shouldn’t surprise anyone, money and political power. There’s a little fear thrown into the mix as well associated with China’s massive military might and a government with no reservations about using it.

Labor costs are incredibly also low in China, with the average factory worker earning just one-tenth of what their American counterparts bring home, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Cheap labor is an attractive prospect to American companies looking to expand production with fewer tax and employment expenses. It seems there is no end to U.S. manufacturers relocating in China; producing cheaper goods to be shipped back America and sold at a premium profit.

Contrary to popular belief, however, according to the Council on Foreign Relations, only 15-percent of U.S. imports come from China. That comes out to something like $29 billion of a $1 trillion monthly output. There are more than 1.3 billion people in China, many of whom, like their American counterparts, want, more than ever, the latest technology, fashions, entertainment and so on. Although it is generally exaggerated, a definite trade deficit exists between the two nations, which is unlikely to change anytime soon.

China or India? Which makes more sense for the US?

It’s entirely possible the United States should be looking a little further southwest for political and economic growth in Asia – India. After all, which would seem a much more stable and amiable political and economic ally? With more than 1.2 billion people living in 29 states, India is the world’s second-largest country and second-largest democracy, English speaking and primed for growth.

If India is a more lucrative and stable prospect, what’s holding America back from a greater fueling of the fire of partnership, economically and socially? Unfortunately, recent years have seen the U.S./India relationship strained over trade and intellectual property disputes. Plus, the Indian economy has had some rocky spots recently.

In 2013, the average median income per capita in India was around $1,200 (Compared to China at $2,100). Add to that, India’s economy has fallen off nearly 5-percent with 8-percent inflation and the country’s fiscal health is a major barrier. However, the election of a new prime minister, Narendra Modi has encouraged investors and the economy has reflected that confidence.

According to CNN Money, “The prospect of a government led by Modi has boosted Indian stocks by 15 percent so far this year. The rupee has responded too, gaining six percent against the dollar after a dismal performance in 2013.”

There are other more politically charged issues slowing down a more aggressive relationship with India, but most U.S. officials see the country as a thriving democracy and a strategic gold mine. Close to Afghanistan and Pakistan, a more advanced partnership between America and India would benefit both countries in terms of economic growth and national security.

America imposed sanctions against India in 1998 because of nuclear testing. But, thanks to former presidents Clinton and Bush, relations improved greatly and the two nations even signed a ground-breaking defense and civil nuclear (power) agreement.

With the possible exception of the political unknowns surrounding a new prime minister, previously a Hindu Nationalist, there is little reason to spend so much time courting the stagnant communist regime in China instead of nurturing a reasonably stable democracy, and growing economy, in India. In the end, it certainly seems that it would be much wiser for Washington to advance trade and economic partnerships with India.

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

▶ Comment

aging parents, Deer In Headlines, elder care, Gery L. Deer, Living Dayton, medicare, senior care, senior citizens, Xenia Daily Gazette

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

Caring 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.

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.

▶ Comment

Deer In Headlines, do what's right, Galileo, Gery L. Deer, heresy, Jamestown, stand alone, WDTN, Xenia Daily Gazette

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

According 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 16^th 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.

For 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.

▶ Comment

American mind, Deer In Headlines, faith, feelings, Gery L. Deer, happiness, logical decisions, psychology

Are you happy, or just think so?

In Education, Opinion, psychology, sociology on January 15, 2014 at 9:22 am

They say … and I admit I’m not totally certain who “they” are in this context. But they say, happiness is just a state of mind. In fact, the same, “they” also believe all reality is just in your head; that your own thoughts create the authenticity of the world around you. Yes, I know, that’s too much heavy thought for such a short column, but it offers an interesting concept.

If everything we know as reality is determined, not by the people and things around us, but, instead, from our own thoughts then how real is it, really? OK, that’s a bit much to take in, even for me. But suffice to say emotions are created and altered by thoughts. So, are you happy? Or, do you just think you are? In the end, if “they” are correct, it doesn’t even matter.

Most people can change how they feel simply by altering their thoughts or, at least, their perception of a situation. That is, unless you suffer from some type of chemical issue in the brain that causes your feelings to spin out of control no matter what you’re thinking. And we’re not going to get into any of that because I am simply not qualified to talk about the subject.

But for most, it is entirely possible to alter your state of emotion and change how you react to outside influences just by shifting your thoughts. For example, many people get upset when a child breaks or spills something. Unless someone is done physical harm, what is there to get upset about? Have you ever heard the saying, “don’t cry over spilt milk?” It’s a bit of good advice telling you not to whine about the accident, just clean it up and move on.

In my opinion, sometimes it’s really hard to get that one, nagging negative thought out of your head. So, I think that altering your way of thinking is more about prioritizing than anything else. In other words, pick your battles.

If you drop a dish or your child dumps Kool-Aid all over that new white rug, does it, in the grand scheme, really matter? Assuming, of course, there is no malicious intent involved. After all, regardless of the political incorrectness of the idea, kids really are just bad sometimes. Either way, getting angry and blowing your top at yourself or the child isn’t going to put the dish back together or “unspill” the drink.

Now what if your husband decided to fire up the new grill he got for Christmas inside the garage? No, I don’t know why someone would even … never mind, just go with me here. In this situation, there is a potential danger to your family so it’s worth getting a bit more upset, but you have to control your thoughts to keep from becoming hysterical.

It will serve you better and help you remain calm if you focus on preventing a potentially devastating situation than to immediately punish your idiot husband. Take the proper steps, ensure everyone’s safety and solve the problem. That’s what I mean by changing the way you think.

Needless to say, altering lifelong behavior, good or bad, doesn’t happen overnight and it’s certainly not easy. It takes practice and diligence. Whenever something happens that throws your day into an uproar, try not to get upset. Try hard to focus on a solution to whatever’s gone wrong and look forward to the positive outcome.

I’ve often argued that people make some of the most important decisions in life based solely on emotion rather than rational thought. Even the faithful are guided almost entirely by pure emotion. Making decisions actually becomes easier, and more productive when done from a logical perspective.

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

▶ Comment

Departments

Email Subscription

Previously In The News

The Jamestown Comet