UHP Colonel Lance Davenport found that Trooper John Gardner’s tasering of Jared Massey was "lawful and reasonable under the circumstances." Indeed, as the UHP investigation of Trooper Gardner lamented, "officers are often forced to make split-second decisions or judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain or rapidly evolving."
As an example of this refrain, we need only look at the experiences of Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Kent State. In all of these past events, while the citizens involved were not polly annas, they also were not significant enough risks to society’s well being to necessitate extraordinary measures. To the contrary, it was law enforcement that, upon finding its manhood questioned, created tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving crises which forced it to make split-second decisions and thereby justified its use of deadly force. In all of these cases, while its action may have been "lawful and reasonable under the circumstances," the "circumstances" were created by law enforcement and were as unjustifiable as were the deaths that arose out of them.
Similarly, while Trooper Gardner may very well have had an excuse to taser the hapless Jared Massey, it didn’t have to go that far. When Massey refused to sign the traffic ticket (as he had every right to do), Trooper Gardner should have walked away. But he couldn’t. His masculinity had been called into question. This is what Massey meant when he said that it was Trooper Gardner, "who [was] the professional . . [who] escalated [the] situation to where he had to use [the taser.]
Trooper Gardner escalated the situation by ordering Massey around, knowing Massy would either make his day by doing something stupid or learn a valuable lesson in diplomacy by being unnecessarily delayed in his journey. Either way, Trooper Gardner could go home to mom with a much bigger cod piece. As fate would have it, to the Trooper’s great glee, Massey supposedly groped his own codpiece. He thereby put Trooper Gardner in fear of his life, leaving him no option than to take Massey on "a ride with the teaser," –a much funner experience for the giftor as well as the gifftee than merely seeing each other in court.
So to end the uncertainty in such cases, the UHP should announce that during the holidays, all motorists will be given the option, on the spot, of either signing their tickets and paying a fine or getting a quick taser in the ass. That way, the citizen can then be put back in charge of the "circumstances" and the consequences of his or her choices.
Loren Lambert,
December 4, 2007 ©
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
BAD SENTENCE CONTEST
From the stump a shaggy mushroom sprang spewing thousands of spores of which, he explained, perhaps two would germinate and that I had the same probability of ever wedding his daughter--thus compelling me to proclaim that I would indeed be the fungal bud upon the stump of his posterity.
Loren M. Lambert
October 16, 2007 ©
It was not the numbing vulgarity that I found to be most disturbing about my companion’s limited vocabulary, nor the unsettling emotions his obscenity conjured up within my soul, but the revelation spreading across his face that his feeble mind was so overburdened by the boredom of his own words that there was nothing left for it to do then to snap like a tensed-up piece of chalk on the verge of writing a thousand times, "I have a potty mouth."
Loren M. Lambert
October 16, 2007 ©
Loren M. Lambert
October 16, 2007 ©
It was not the numbing vulgarity that I found to be most disturbing about my companion’s limited vocabulary, nor the unsettling emotions his obscenity conjured up within my soul, but the revelation spreading across his face that his feeble mind was so overburdened by the boredom of his own words that there was nothing left for it to do then to snap like a tensed-up piece of chalk on the verge of writing a thousand times, "I have a potty mouth."
Loren M. Lambert
October 16, 2007 ©
PHONE DIRECTORY HELL
In many industries, such as taxi cab services, commercial river running and dentistry, unfettered competition is not allowed. This is done to prevent various types of chaos–cutthroat competition, overcrowding and indiscriminate teeth pulling. I propose one more area that cries out for some type of regulation-- the ever burgeoning and prolific industry of telephone directory services–hard copy and internet services. Perhaps the biggest–the Quest Dex–demands more than Uncle Sam does in federal taxes with the promise that if it doesn’t increase your wealth at least you’ll be entertained with the contortionist antics of its millionaire pitchman.
After selling your soul to Dex, you will have to decide which of the dozen other phone book companies to spend your pension and health insurance money on--the Regional Yellow Pages, the local Yellow Book, the Valley Wide Directory, the Dex Hispanic Section, the Hispanic Yellow Pages, the Local Union Directory, the City Directory, the Gay Yellow Pages and so on and so forth. What’s a business owner to do? Which book will the home owner keep and which name comes up most on the internet? And how many times have you either paid or almost paid a fake directory solicitation posing as a bill? I say please, for the love of Pete, let’s reach some kind of truce here in which either only a limited number of phone directories are given license to compile directories or lets all enter into a pact to only keep the directories that we buy advertising space in and join together to create a collective bargaining agreement to negotiate lower prices. Okay?
Loren M. Lambert
November 6, 2007 ©
After selling your soul to Dex, you will have to decide which of the dozen other phone book companies to spend your pension and health insurance money on--the Regional Yellow Pages, the local Yellow Book, the Valley Wide Directory, the Dex Hispanic Section, the Hispanic Yellow Pages, the Local Union Directory, the City Directory, the Gay Yellow Pages and so on and so forth. What’s a business owner to do? Which book will the home owner keep and which name comes up most on the internet? And how many times have you either paid or almost paid a fake directory solicitation posing as a bill? I say please, for the love of Pete, let’s reach some kind of truce here in which either only a limited number of phone directories are given license to compile directories or lets all enter into a pact to only keep the directories that we buy advertising space in and join together to create a collective bargaining agreement to negotiate lower prices. Okay?
Loren M. Lambert
November 6, 2007 ©
THE NEW CEO OF WATER BOARD INC.–MICHAEL MUKASEY
President Bush’s nominee for attorney general, Michael Mukasey, says he doesn’t know if water boarding is torture. Where on this planet does President Bush find these guys? What hole, rock, prison, escape hatch from hell did he scout out to find these jewels of intellectual duplicity?
I was pondering this question when I realized what a genius Mukasey is. Could it be that he, like many of Bush’s cronies, has or wants some connection to big business--like maybe starting up a company that manufactures equipment to use for water boarding? Or perhaps he has stock in the company that just came up with the new video game that gives people like him the thrills of torture? Or just maybe he’s being cute, like the US Supreme Court’s pronouncement on pornography--"I don’t know how to define pornography [torture], but I know it when I see [feel] it."
Someone should check on this. In the meantime, unless he actually supports Bush’s torture policy and doesn’t want to let on, his response indicates that he’s either been hiding out in a cave for his entire life or he has the IQ of a nematode and thought that, after wake boarding, water boarding would soon be that next big X-Game sport. Whatever the explanation, is this the guy we want providing leadership to ensure that the United States of America can repair the damage done from the sub-par leadership that gave us the endless stream of failures in Iraq?
No. He, like the company that just released the new torture video game that would be proud to have him as its huckster, should be boycotted, shunned, booed and rejected. Get someone that has the courage to stand up to the Bush team’s disdain for the law and disregard for human dignity, and who can stop dragging us into the Bush Presidency’s morass of twisted rationalization.
Loren M. Lambert
November 6, 2007 ©
I was pondering this question when I realized what a genius Mukasey is. Could it be that he, like many of Bush’s cronies, has or wants some connection to big business--like maybe starting up a company that manufactures equipment to use for water boarding? Or perhaps he has stock in the company that just came up with the new video game that gives people like him the thrills of torture? Or just maybe he’s being cute, like the US Supreme Court’s pronouncement on pornography--"I don’t know how to define pornography [torture], but I know it when I see [feel] it."
Someone should check on this. In the meantime, unless he actually supports Bush’s torture policy and doesn’t want to let on, his response indicates that he’s either been hiding out in a cave for his entire life or he has the IQ of a nematode and thought that, after wake boarding, water boarding would soon be that next big X-Game sport. Whatever the explanation, is this the guy we want providing leadership to ensure that the United States of America can repair the damage done from the sub-par leadership that gave us the endless stream of failures in Iraq?
No. He, like the company that just released the new torture video game that would be proud to have him as its huckster, should be boycotted, shunned, booed and rejected. Get someone that has the courage to stand up to the Bush team’s disdain for the law and disregard for human dignity, and who can stop dragging us into the Bush Presidency’s morass of twisted rationalization.
Loren M. Lambert
November 6, 2007 ©
ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
If due to fear we are too timid to confront a friend and ally with the awful truth of its past, then what hope have we ever of mustering the courage to confront others with the alarming truth of their present–the same truth that compels them forward to relive the failures committed by the Ottoman Empire a hundred years ago?
Besides, wouldn’t we all be bigger if the Turkish parliament simply apologized for its past history, promulgate its own resolution declaring as genocide the United State’s treatment of the Native Americans, and then called it even?
Finally, to make it all feasible, I will apologize in advance for my ancestors and the American people.
Loren M. Lambert
October 16, 2007 ©
Besides, wouldn’t we all be bigger if the Turkish parliament simply apologized for its past history, promulgate its own resolution declaring as genocide the United State’s treatment of the Native Americans, and then called it even?
Finally, to make it all feasible, I will apologize in advance for my ancestors and the American people.
Loren M. Lambert
October 16, 2007 ©
PAKISTAN'S LAWYERS FOR DEMOCRACY
Thousands of Pakistani Lawyers, showing great courage in stepping out of the privileged lives they enjoy, have been beaten, jailed and most likely tortured, for opposing Pakistan Dictator, General Pervez Musharraf’s declaration of Marshal Law. These lawyers, who probably have great influence and widespread support throughout all levels of Pakistan, are bulwarks for democracy. They should be supported by any means available. They, instead of Musharraf, are best positioned to bring about real change and democracy to Pakistan.
Both Shakespeare and Mao Se Tung understood that, before obtaining complete control over a population, dictators first obliterate the legal system by killing the lawyers and judges. They are the proverbial canaries in the mine. After they go, so will everyone else that is a friend of democracy and of law and order.
General Musharraf only does enough to aid the US in its fight against Pakistan to placate the west and perpetuate his power. But don’t expect the Bush administration to really care about the lawyers. Like Musharraf, the Bush administration, masterful in pronouncing superficialities, will publicly, but mutely, condemn Musharraf while then continuing to aid his government and going on as if nothing has happened. In the long run, this will be a disaster and will cause the radicalization of Musharraf’s opposition, which, out of necessity, will also have to rebel against Musharraf’s most ardent supporter, the United States of the Bush Administration.
Loren M. Lambert
November 6, 2007 ©
Both Shakespeare and Mao Se Tung understood that, before obtaining complete control over a population, dictators first obliterate the legal system by killing the lawyers and judges. They are the proverbial canaries in the mine. After they go, so will everyone else that is a friend of democracy and of law and order.
General Musharraf only does enough to aid the US in its fight against Pakistan to placate the west and perpetuate his power. But don’t expect the Bush administration to really care about the lawyers. Like Musharraf, the Bush administration, masterful in pronouncing superficialities, will publicly, but mutely, condemn Musharraf while then continuing to aid his government and going on as if nothing has happened. In the long run, this will be a disaster and will cause the radicalization of Musharraf’s opposition, which, out of necessity, will also have to rebel against Musharraf’s most ardent supporter, the United States of the Bush Administration.
Loren M. Lambert
November 6, 2007 ©
GEORGIA BELIEVES A YOUTHFUL INDISCRETION MERITS 10 YEARS IN JAIL
When I heard about Genarlow Wilson, who had his 10-year prison sentence overturned for having consensual oral sex when he was 17-years-old with a 15-year-old female, I was flabbergasted and astounded. First, because of the length, second, because it took two and a half years to overturn the sentence, and third, because I hadn’t heard about it before. When the sentence was first passed, it should have caused a firestorm. This case typifies almost every idiocy of the United States federal and state criminal justice systems. In our constant haste to show, by authoritarian force, how we are allegedly tough on crime, we weld our laws to impose our fanatical religious excesses and our bias ridden philosophies on the immature, impoverished and impaired. Often, it is not the blind matron of Liberty, with her equal scales of justice being held up to the multitudes, that best symbolizes our sense of fairness. Instead, it is the many-eyed, bloated black widow who is discriminately spewing out sticky webs to entrap and imprison all who are unfortunate enough to have blundered into her traps to be bundled up, stung, and stored away to have their life slowly sucked away.
Genarlow’s 10-year prison sentence is a stark example of Georgia’s, if not the Nation’s, religious and racial bigotry. Passing draconian laws to control the human race’s sexual proclivities because of our religious zealotry is like trying to control a fistful of slime by squeezing it more tightly in your hand. The harder you squeeze the more dismal will be your loss of control. While, as a society, we certainly need some boundaries to curb the dangerous sexual excesses of the few, we do not need to crucify the handful of the millions who engage in a youthful, or even adult indiscretion and are caught. The truth is there are perhaps hundreds if not thousands of thousands that have engaged in some sexual activities that would, when acknowledged publically, be deemed inappropriate by the "moral majority." This alleged "moral majority" needs to again learn the lesson that Jesus gave the world when he rescued the adulteress from stoning. I am confident that the same Jesus would stand at Genarlow’s side and many of the other alleged criminals crushed by our system of mandatory minimums and ridiculously long prison sentences. This punishment is meted out by those in authority who, if they were honest, are not without sin and, therefore, not worthy to cast such an unforgiving and unmerciful stone.
Some may think that Genarlow’s case is a single anomaly of things gone horribly wrong. It is not. It could never have happened without the combined effort of hundreds of religious extremists and secretly racist zealots in the Georgia State legislative, executive, and judiciary branches of government who have joined forces to promulgate, enforce, prosecute, and impose a law that would knowingly be selectively used against black Americans and other disfavored minorities and groups. Now, how can I make such a claim when the law is religiously and racially neutral? I can because, while the dictator of Iran may claim there are no homosexuals in Iran, and the elite in Georgia may claim there are no other 17-year-old men that have had consensual sex with 15-year-old women, every honest human being who has knowingly experienced this life with their eyes fully open and their ears fully engaged (no matter how "pure" their own lives) know this is just not the case. The only reason it may appear so is, because in Iran any homosexual who dares reveal his or her orientation is murdered; and in Georgia you can bet when some elite white law enforcement officer’s child is caught in the act, discretion is exercised by quietly looking the other way. Intuition would also indicate that, although it was not said, Georgians most likely passed such a law to wield against any black American who dared touch a white woman. In essence, if they couldn’t get away with lynching, then a mandatory 10-year sentence could maybe pass under the radar (which it apparently did).
The other issue brought to the front by the Genarlow case is the fallacy, in its current day application, that statutory rape and statutory sexual abuse laws can be wholly justified without serious question. These laws often impose unduly harsh sentences for engaging in sex with a minor even though there is not a great disparity in age of the participants and the female was honestly perceived for being of adult age. Also, most of these laws are imposed, either explicitly or by implementation, against only the male partner of the consensual sex. This is not appropriate.
The notion that consent when given by a minor child to engage in sex or that a mis-perception of the age of one’s partner in consensual sex should not drastically mitigate the consequences is unjustifiable. Moreover, the additional cultural sentiment that the minor female never bears responsibility for consensual sex sends the wrong message and is inequitable.
As an attorney, I have encountered many cases in which the female partner’s choices, actions, and own criminality, were equal too, if not more condemnable than her male partner. In such cases, should not society be as equally concerned about redirecting the female participant as well as the male? Additionally, there is a great difference in a male who knowingly pursues and entices an underage female into engaging in sexual relations than a male who honestly believes he is having sex with an adult who is fully capable of understanding the consequences of her choices. In short, instead of disintegrating into a revengeful society bent on metaphorical lynching and stoning, as Bill O’Reilly has said, we need a fair and balanced approach in our laws that attempt to manage human sexuality within reasonable boundaries without creating criminals of all who are unwilling or unable to adhere to our religious and moral views on human sexuality.
Loren M. Lambert
November 6, 2007 ©
Genarlow’s 10-year prison sentence is a stark example of Georgia’s, if not the Nation’s, religious and racial bigotry. Passing draconian laws to control the human race’s sexual proclivities because of our religious zealotry is like trying to control a fistful of slime by squeezing it more tightly in your hand. The harder you squeeze the more dismal will be your loss of control. While, as a society, we certainly need some boundaries to curb the dangerous sexual excesses of the few, we do not need to crucify the handful of the millions who engage in a youthful, or even adult indiscretion and are caught. The truth is there are perhaps hundreds if not thousands of thousands that have engaged in some sexual activities that would, when acknowledged publically, be deemed inappropriate by the "moral majority." This alleged "moral majority" needs to again learn the lesson that Jesus gave the world when he rescued the adulteress from stoning. I am confident that the same Jesus would stand at Genarlow’s side and many of the other alleged criminals crushed by our system of mandatory minimums and ridiculously long prison sentences. This punishment is meted out by those in authority who, if they were honest, are not without sin and, therefore, not worthy to cast such an unforgiving and unmerciful stone.
Some may think that Genarlow’s case is a single anomaly of things gone horribly wrong. It is not. It could never have happened without the combined effort of hundreds of religious extremists and secretly racist zealots in the Georgia State legislative, executive, and judiciary branches of government who have joined forces to promulgate, enforce, prosecute, and impose a law that would knowingly be selectively used against black Americans and other disfavored minorities and groups. Now, how can I make such a claim when the law is religiously and racially neutral? I can because, while the dictator of Iran may claim there are no homosexuals in Iran, and the elite in Georgia may claim there are no other 17-year-old men that have had consensual sex with 15-year-old women, every honest human being who has knowingly experienced this life with their eyes fully open and their ears fully engaged (no matter how "pure" their own lives) know this is just not the case. The only reason it may appear so is, because in Iran any homosexual who dares reveal his or her orientation is murdered; and in Georgia you can bet when some elite white law enforcement officer’s child is caught in the act, discretion is exercised by quietly looking the other way. Intuition would also indicate that, although it was not said, Georgians most likely passed such a law to wield against any black American who dared touch a white woman. In essence, if they couldn’t get away with lynching, then a mandatory 10-year sentence could maybe pass under the radar (which it apparently did).
The other issue brought to the front by the Genarlow case is the fallacy, in its current day application, that statutory rape and statutory sexual abuse laws can be wholly justified without serious question. These laws often impose unduly harsh sentences for engaging in sex with a minor even though there is not a great disparity in age of the participants and the female was honestly perceived for being of adult age. Also, most of these laws are imposed, either explicitly or by implementation, against only the male partner of the consensual sex. This is not appropriate.
The notion that consent when given by a minor child to engage in sex or that a mis-perception of the age of one’s partner in consensual sex should not drastically mitigate the consequences is unjustifiable. Moreover, the additional cultural sentiment that the minor female never bears responsibility for consensual sex sends the wrong message and is inequitable.
As an attorney, I have encountered many cases in which the female partner’s choices, actions, and own criminality, were equal too, if not more condemnable than her male partner. In such cases, should not society be as equally concerned about redirecting the female participant as well as the male? Additionally, there is a great difference in a male who knowingly pursues and entices an underage female into engaging in sexual relations than a male who honestly believes he is having sex with an adult who is fully capable of understanding the consequences of her choices. In short, instead of disintegrating into a revengeful society bent on metaphorical lynching and stoning, as Bill O’Reilly has said, we need a fair and balanced approach in our laws that attempt to manage human sexuality within reasonable boundaries without creating criminals of all who are unwilling or unable to adhere to our religious and moral views on human sexuality.
Loren M. Lambert
November 6, 2007 ©
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Utah Mormons and Mitt on Polygamy
During an interview with Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes, Mitt Romney indicated that he couldn’t "imagine anything more awful than polygamy." He also apologized for his great-grandfather who took on additional wives because he was ordered to do so. This is same sentiment that many Utah Mormons have expressed during the Jeffs trial.
Please spare me the political and self-righteous prattle. Maybe Mitt and Utah Mormons can’t think of something more awful (with the exception of losing the political support of the Christian right), but I can. I’ll start with Mormons who try to pretend that polygamy was just some strange aberration with no connection to early Mormon doctrine.
To the contrary, polygamy was a core tenant taught from every pulpit and expounded by the highest leaders as a practice needed for eternal salvation. While I don’t have a problem with fellow Mormons who personally believe that polygamy is an awful idea, I do have a problem with Mormons who disavow our forefathers and history in order to more conveniently comport with our modern sensibilities. This approach is hypocritical and repugnant.
If polygamy was needed for eternal salvation one hundred and fifty years ago, don’t brand as abhorrent those who believed it then nor those who believe this same "truth" today. There is nothing inherently wrong with polygamy, nor is there anything inherently right about monogamy– it’s just the most sensible ideal for our modern age– nothing more, nothing less.
Loren M. Lambert
March 1, 2007 ©
Revised Sept. 25, 2007 ©
Please spare me the political and self-righteous prattle. Maybe Mitt and Utah Mormons can’t think of something more awful (with the exception of losing the political support of the Christian right), but I can. I’ll start with Mormons who try to pretend that polygamy was just some strange aberration with no connection to early Mormon doctrine.
To the contrary, polygamy was a core tenant taught from every pulpit and expounded by the highest leaders as a practice needed for eternal salvation. While I don’t have a problem with fellow Mormons who personally believe that polygamy is an awful idea, I do have a problem with Mormons who disavow our forefathers and history in order to more conveniently comport with our modern sensibilities. This approach is hypocritical and repugnant.
If polygamy was needed for eternal salvation one hundred and fifty years ago, don’t brand as abhorrent those who believed it then nor those who believe this same "truth" today. There is nothing inherently wrong with polygamy, nor is there anything inherently right about monogamy– it’s just the most sensible ideal for our modern age– nothing more, nothing less.
Loren M. Lambert
March 1, 2007 ©
Revised Sept. 25, 2007 ©
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Ex-Congressman Cannon Calls All to Multiply and Replenish the Earth
Well now we know, thanks to Deseret News Editor Joseph A. Cannon, it is not the threat of nuclear war, global warming, middle east strife nor environmental degradation that threatens our planet, it is the "impending ‘empty cradle’" that most threatens our world. Moreover, we also know that those who choose not to have large families to drive around in their 15-Person Ford Assault-Vans are just plain selfish and most probably Godless and unfeeling. And if you think about it, Jesus Christ would fit into this category (apparently he was single and had no children). Now, I do not necessarily disagree with Ex-Congressman Cannon that it is indeed sometimes selfishness that causes people to choose to be childless, but it is also that same selfishness that causes people to gut steel mills and send jobs to cheaper labor markets, own huge homes, drive around in Hummers, and act as if there’s no one else in the world but them (or me, you, or Ex-Congressman Cannon).
Ex–Congressman Cannon’s editorials go on to champion those countries that have promulgated policies to encourage procreation while he castigates Malthus and his adherents who warned the world of overpopulation. Never does this proponent of exuberant procreation stop to analyze why declining populations present a crisis for westernized countries. It is this: Declining populations are a threat to consumer-based economies and are the bane of xenophobics who realize that in order to maintain their consumer-based, market-driven economies, foreign workers of different races, cultures, colors and religions must be immigrated into their economies to maintain their standards of living. You see, if populations decline, then there is less demand for food, clothing, and shelter and all of us that are depending upon our land values to remain high would see them plummet with the population. We are all part of a giant house-of-cards Ponzi scheme that is one deadly flu virus away from crashing down on our heads. That is what concerns the President Putins of the world.
Ex-Congressman Cannon concludes that this empty cradle dilemma was purposely foreseen by God who therefore gave the commandment to humankind to "multiply and replenish the Earth." His opinion, naturally and not surprisingly, comports with what many of the LDS faith believe as an unquestionable doctrine of the Mormon Church; that is, they are commanded to have large families. Therefore, at least in Utah, his editorial will ride high above the grinding truth mill of serious public discourse. However, the LDS Church has never established a doctrine regarding the number of children a couple should bring into the world. Moreover, as occurred with polygamy, what the individual, the couple, or the body of the church may be asked to do, when it comes to procreation, may very well depend upon individual circumstances and the collective exigencies of a particular era.
Once, when asked if Mormons were directed to have large families, a prominent LDS leader responded that Mormons, "plan to have children, and plan to take care of them." The problem is that Mormons, as well as with many of similar bent, very naturally remember the "multiply" part of God’s commandment and engage in it with exuberant, often mindless abandon but forget the equally relevant requirement to "replenish" and to plan to take care of their families. "To plan" does not mean to tumble into bed for a 10-year love binge and then when the fog of procreation lifts with the advent of six children under the age of 10, to get two jobs, go to night school, max out the credits cards and, if all this fails, go on welfare and take out bankruptcy. Nor is the Earth replenished, when during the pleasure-filled fog of procreation or birth-controlled sex you are able to provide your many progenies (or yourself) with a 500,000 square foot home, a houseboat on Lake Powell, and an SUV for each child’s graduation or for all you friends.
There is a balance and it is a balance that we humans either need to establish or it will be forced upon our heads. Nature in its natural God-given cycle goes through its replenishment process in cycles of population growths and population declines. Population declines occur when there are insufficient resources. Having the benefit of foresight, Humans should not be so arrogant that God will spare them from this natural law, and He therefore will not save us from our failure to replenish the Earth. Perhaps the "impending empty cradle" crisis is a solution to humanities’ inability to find this balance. It will force upon us a solution that doesn’t involve mass human extinctions, which will occur if all give heed to Congressman Cannon’s call to multiply.
To seek this balance, and avoid a Cannonisian tragedy, some people should not have children, some people should have fewer children, and some people who are responsible and plan to take care of their children should be allowed the privilege of having several children. However, no society should be allowed, with or without half a dozen kids a couple, to deplete, degrade, and destroy the Earth and thereby extinguish all of its many creatures. Similarly, no couple, including Ex-Congressman Cannon, should steep themselves in opulent luxury. We are all guilty of this in the United States, as it is the common denominator of the Godless and the God-fearing.
Despite Ex-Congressman Cannon’s inference to the contrary, I do not believe it was ever God’s plan that every square mile of Tierra Firma be a developer’s paradise with sterile theme parks and the few animals we deem worthy to live. To survive physically and spiritually, we need our wild places, our tundras, our teaming seas, our barrier reefs, our jungles, and unpolluted expanses.
I say, do not fear the Cannonisian prophecy of doom and an impending "empty cradle." Fear more a world populace that cannot find balance; that, instead of becoming an educationally driven society engaged in developing the depths of its love, knowledge, skills, abilities, and spirit, it is only interested in expanding its waistline, families, portfolios, houses, vehicles, and resorts. Yes, plan to have families and plan to take care of them, but more importantly give money and time to those who would fill and enlighten your minds and mold and develop your bodies, and not to those who would overfill your eyes or your bellies. This is the only path towards a sustainable, replenished and peaceful Earth and provides a place for both the childless, the "child wealthy," and all of our fellow creatures.
Loren M. Lambert
August 5, 2007 ©
Ex–Congressman Cannon’s editorials go on to champion those countries that have promulgated policies to encourage procreation while he castigates Malthus and his adherents who warned the world of overpopulation. Never does this proponent of exuberant procreation stop to analyze why declining populations present a crisis for westernized countries. It is this: Declining populations are a threat to consumer-based economies and are the bane of xenophobics who realize that in order to maintain their consumer-based, market-driven economies, foreign workers of different races, cultures, colors and religions must be immigrated into their economies to maintain their standards of living. You see, if populations decline, then there is less demand for food, clothing, and shelter and all of us that are depending upon our land values to remain high would see them plummet with the population. We are all part of a giant house-of-cards Ponzi scheme that is one deadly flu virus away from crashing down on our heads. That is what concerns the President Putins of the world.
Ex-Congressman Cannon concludes that this empty cradle dilemma was purposely foreseen by God who therefore gave the commandment to humankind to "multiply and replenish the Earth." His opinion, naturally and not surprisingly, comports with what many of the LDS faith believe as an unquestionable doctrine of the Mormon Church; that is, they are commanded to have large families. Therefore, at least in Utah, his editorial will ride high above the grinding truth mill of serious public discourse. However, the LDS Church has never established a doctrine regarding the number of children a couple should bring into the world. Moreover, as occurred with polygamy, what the individual, the couple, or the body of the church may be asked to do, when it comes to procreation, may very well depend upon individual circumstances and the collective exigencies of a particular era.
Once, when asked if Mormons were directed to have large families, a prominent LDS leader responded that Mormons, "plan to have children, and plan to take care of them." The problem is that Mormons, as well as with many of similar bent, very naturally remember the "multiply" part of God’s commandment and engage in it with exuberant, often mindless abandon but forget the equally relevant requirement to "replenish" and to plan to take care of their families. "To plan" does not mean to tumble into bed for a 10-year love binge and then when the fog of procreation lifts with the advent of six children under the age of 10, to get two jobs, go to night school, max out the credits cards and, if all this fails, go on welfare and take out bankruptcy. Nor is the Earth replenished, when during the pleasure-filled fog of procreation or birth-controlled sex you are able to provide your many progenies (or yourself) with a 500,000 square foot home, a houseboat on Lake Powell, and an SUV for each child’s graduation or for all you friends.
There is a balance and it is a balance that we humans either need to establish or it will be forced upon our heads. Nature in its natural God-given cycle goes through its replenishment process in cycles of population growths and population declines. Population declines occur when there are insufficient resources. Having the benefit of foresight, Humans should not be so arrogant that God will spare them from this natural law, and He therefore will not save us from our failure to replenish the Earth. Perhaps the "impending empty cradle" crisis is a solution to humanities’ inability to find this balance. It will force upon us a solution that doesn’t involve mass human extinctions, which will occur if all give heed to Congressman Cannon’s call to multiply.
To seek this balance, and avoid a Cannonisian tragedy, some people should not have children, some people should have fewer children, and some people who are responsible and plan to take care of their children should be allowed the privilege of having several children. However, no society should be allowed, with or without half a dozen kids a couple, to deplete, degrade, and destroy the Earth and thereby extinguish all of its many creatures. Similarly, no couple, including Ex-Congressman Cannon, should steep themselves in opulent luxury. We are all guilty of this in the United States, as it is the common denominator of the Godless and the God-fearing.
Despite Ex-Congressman Cannon’s inference to the contrary, I do not believe it was ever God’s plan that every square mile of Tierra Firma be a developer’s paradise with sterile theme parks and the few animals we deem worthy to live. To survive physically and spiritually, we need our wild places, our tundras, our teaming seas, our barrier reefs, our jungles, and unpolluted expanses.
I say, do not fear the Cannonisian prophecy of doom and an impending "empty cradle." Fear more a world populace that cannot find balance; that, instead of becoming an educationally driven society engaged in developing the depths of its love, knowledge, skills, abilities, and spirit, it is only interested in expanding its waistline, families, portfolios, houses, vehicles, and resorts. Yes, plan to have families and plan to take care of them, but more importantly give money and time to those who would fill and enlighten your minds and mold and develop your bodies, and not to those who would overfill your eyes or your bellies. This is the only path towards a sustainable, replenished and peaceful Earth and provides a place for both the childless, the "child wealthy," and all of our fellow creatures.
Loren M. Lambert
August 5, 2007 ©
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Prosecution Means You Never Have to Say You're Sorry
Prosecution Means You Never Have to Say You’re Sorry
and/or
Why Can’t Prosecutors, Governmental Attorney and
Law Enforcement Officers Say They’re Sorry?
and/or
Attorney General Foti and Assistant Attorney General Julie Cullen
Joins Ranks of Those Who Think They’re God
A New Orleans grand jury exonerated Dr. Ann Pou and nurses Cheri Landry and Lori Budo, on allegations that they murdered four patients in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. The grand jury felt that the allegations were not true.
But Foti, erstwhile Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff and the current Attorney General for the state of Louisiana, instead of thanking the grand jury for its civic duty and apologizing for ruining the lives Dr. Pou and nurses Landry and Budo, arrogantly stated, "I am very proud of our efforts on behalf of the victims and their families."
Also, Assistant Attorney General Julie Cullen, upon hearing the news of the exoneration, herded her fellow prosecutors Michael Morales and Craig Famularo quickly from the court and quipped, "It's our position that it was homicide."
This reaction is typical of, I would dare say, every law enforcement officer, prosecutor, and government official who tears into a fellow citizen, then is proven wrong. Why can’t they ever just apologize? Why don’t they believe in the Constitution that states that we are innocent until proven guilty? Is there some innate, genetic flaw that disallows an ounce of humility in such public officials?
Admittedly, as an attorney, when I lose a case I usually think the judge or the jury was wrong. However, please don’t tell anyone, but in hindsight there are many cases that I wish I never would’ve taken because they were mistakes for all kinds of reasons, sometimes including my fallibility, and the fact that the other side was right. There, I’ve confessed. Please let me know if you have ever heard a prosecutor, government attorney, or law enforcement officer apologize for, in hindsight, making a mistake. If so, it would be an earth-shaking revelation. The saddest thing about this all is that not only are no apologies ever given, the victims of prosecutorial misconduct are rarely compensated for their devastating losses.
Loren M. Lambert
July 28, 2007©
and/or
Why Can’t Prosecutors, Governmental Attorney and
Law Enforcement Officers Say They’re Sorry?
and/or
Attorney General Foti and Assistant Attorney General Julie Cullen
Joins Ranks of Those Who Think They’re God
A New Orleans grand jury exonerated Dr. Ann Pou and nurses Cheri Landry and Lori Budo, on allegations that they murdered four patients in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. The grand jury felt that the allegations were not true.
But Foti, erstwhile Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff and the current Attorney General for the state of Louisiana, instead of thanking the grand jury for its civic duty and apologizing for ruining the lives Dr. Pou and nurses Landry and Budo, arrogantly stated, "I am very proud of our efforts on behalf of the victims and their families."
Also, Assistant Attorney General Julie Cullen, upon hearing the news of the exoneration, herded her fellow prosecutors Michael Morales and Craig Famularo quickly from the court and quipped, "It's our position that it was homicide."
This reaction is typical of, I would dare say, every law enforcement officer, prosecutor, and government official who tears into a fellow citizen, then is proven wrong. Why can’t they ever just apologize? Why don’t they believe in the Constitution that states that we are innocent until proven guilty? Is there some innate, genetic flaw that disallows an ounce of humility in such public officials?
Admittedly, as an attorney, when I lose a case I usually think the judge or the jury was wrong. However, please don’t tell anyone, but in hindsight there are many cases that I wish I never would’ve taken because they were mistakes for all kinds of reasons, sometimes including my fallibility, and the fact that the other side was right. There, I’ve confessed. Please let me know if you have ever heard a prosecutor, government attorney, or law enforcement officer apologize for, in hindsight, making a mistake. If so, it would be an earth-shaking revelation. The saddest thing about this all is that not only are no apologies ever given, the victims of prosecutorial misconduct are rarely compensated for their devastating losses.
Loren M. Lambert
July 28, 2007©
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Moral Relativism
Unsettled by all the uncertainty looming on our national horizon with the Iraq war, global warming, the Supreme Court’s right wing verge, and finally Sean Hannity’s comeuppance at the hands of Mayor Anderson, I sought counsel from my old standby, the Thirteenth Apostle, Elder Secret Name. The same guy who has also been the lost Imam, the Fourth Wise Man, the Third Nephite and the Reclining Buddha.
He explained to me that, due to its moral relativism, western civilization is headed over the brink. I asked him if VP Dick Cheney’s use of extraordinary rendition to torture alleged terrorist suspects was an example of this. "No, no, no," Elder Secret Name counseled, "Republicans can do that, especially since they do it in Gods name and in a friendly legal forum."
"Oh, yeah, stupid me," I piped up, thinking I understood. "That’s why you, the Thirteenth Apostle, having spent time in one of those friendly legal forums when you were the Fourth Wise Man, were able to have three wives." He didn’t respond to this, but only smiled slyly.
Emboldened, I asked if I extraordinarily rendered myself into a friendly legal forum like Hilldale or Kuwait, could I pick up a couple of wives? He frowned and reminded me that I was practically a democrat, if not a libertarian, and therefore was not entitled to use extraordinary rendition for this privilege. He then suggested that I be patient, because in heaven even democrats were allowed as many republican wives as they wanted. "Why republican wives?" I asked. "Wasn’t that still against the law like miscegenation once was?"
"No," he chuckled, explaining that democrat women were unwilling, democrat men were scarce, and republican women were tired of all the prissy republican men. Besides, he said, Hilldale was being extraordinarily rendered by Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff.
Yeah, what about that, I asked, what did he think of all the pomp and hypocrisy on the evils of polygamy by the descendants of the polygamists? Then he said, borrowing a phrase from VP Cheney, that it was a no-brainer. He explained that some things were not okay some of the time in some places but, as long as you were a God-fearing Republican, those same things were okay some of the time in other places."Oh," I said. "I get it. Things like drinking, speeding, abusing prescription drugs and cheating on your taxes?"
"No, no, no," he admonished, this time getting a little peeved. "Everyone, even Republicans, can share in the blessings of the principles of temperance and paying their taxes, especially if the taxes go to support a capitalistic war, and not a socialistic health care system." Hoping I’d finally gotten it, I asked him if to avoid moral relativism I just needed to become a good Republican. He then smiled serenely, blessed me and disappeared.
Loren Lambert© April 29, 2007
He explained to me that, due to its moral relativism, western civilization is headed over the brink. I asked him if VP Dick Cheney’s use of extraordinary rendition to torture alleged terrorist suspects was an example of this. "No, no, no," Elder Secret Name counseled, "Republicans can do that, especially since they do it in Gods name and in a friendly legal forum."
"Oh, yeah, stupid me," I piped up, thinking I understood. "That’s why you, the Thirteenth Apostle, having spent time in one of those friendly legal forums when you were the Fourth Wise Man, were able to have three wives." He didn’t respond to this, but only smiled slyly.
Emboldened, I asked if I extraordinarily rendered myself into a friendly legal forum like Hilldale or Kuwait, could I pick up a couple of wives? He frowned and reminded me that I was practically a democrat, if not a libertarian, and therefore was not entitled to use extraordinary rendition for this privilege. He then suggested that I be patient, because in heaven even democrats were allowed as many republican wives as they wanted. "Why republican wives?" I asked. "Wasn’t that still against the law like miscegenation once was?"
"No," he chuckled, explaining that democrat women were unwilling, democrat men were scarce, and republican women were tired of all the prissy republican men. Besides, he said, Hilldale was being extraordinarily rendered by Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff.
Yeah, what about that, I asked, what did he think of all the pomp and hypocrisy on the evils of polygamy by the descendants of the polygamists? Then he said, borrowing a phrase from VP Cheney, that it was a no-brainer. He explained that some things were not okay some of the time in some places but, as long as you were a God-fearing Republican, those same things were okay some of the time in other places."Oh," I said. "I get it. Things like drinking, speeding, abusing prescription drugs and cheating on your taxes?"
"No, no, no," he admonished, this time getting a little peeved. "Everyone, even Republicans, can share in the blessings of the principles of temperance and paying their taxes, especially if the taxes go to support a capitalistic war, and not a socialistic health care system." Hoping I’d finally gotten it, I asked him if to avoid moral relativism I just needed to become a good Republican. He then smiled serenely, blessed me and disappeared.
Loren Lambert© April 29, 2007
Cut and Run
The Deseret News Sunday Editorial states that setting a timetable for withdrawal in Iraq is naive and dangerous. It further states that, "the best course is one that quickly helps Iraqis take responsibility for their own security." What is misunderstood by this position is that we have accomplished this mission. The Iraqis have taken responsibility for their own security. They have joined up, en masse, with militias and insurgencies that they think will best accomplish this goal. If we stay, we are going to continue to get horrendously mauled no matter how many troops we send in.
When I was about 10 years old, I found myself in the wrong place at the wrong time, facing a kid twice my size who wanted to pound my head into the ground. Usually my ego is bigger than my ability, but this time I had the wisdom to make the following calculations. First, I knew if I tried to fight, I was not likely to win. Second, I lacked both life insurance and divine heritage, so no one would benefit from my death. Finally, no one was going to be better off if I stayed. So, I must confess, I cut and ran.
The Bush administration says that failure is not an option in Iraq. Fine. But, with the exception of toppling Sadam, failure has been the norm in Iraq–from the massive looting, to the prisoner abuses, to the failure to bring stability. The perception most Iraqis still hold is that it is wrong for us to be there. Unfortunately, since perception is reality, we and our allies in Iraq need to come to grips with the fact that our immense national ego cannot overcome our inability to quell the anger, hate, mistrust and skepticism of the Iraqi people. We may have the guns, but the power of Iraq’s collective angst towers over us the like the school yard bully did over me when I was ten.
We must further realize that we are not the saviors of the Iraqi people, and the Iraqis are not going to be better off with our presence. While failure is not an option, victory as we define it is not probable and nothing is going to change that by unduly delaying our withdrawal. We need to leave the Iraqis to the fate of their own self-determination. It is dangerous to think that we can dictate any outcome by the force of our fire power. It’s time to leave, and the best way to do so, in fairness to our dwindling Iraqi allies, is to let them know ahead of time.
Loren Lambert
© April 29, 2007
When I was about 10 years old, I found myself in the wrong place at the wrong time, facing a kid twice my size who wanted to pound my head into the ground. Usually my ego is bigger than my ability, but this time I had the wisdom to make the following calculations. First, I knew if I tried to fight, I was not likely to win. Second, I lacked both life insurance and divine heritage, so no one would benefit from my death. Finally, no one was going to be better off if I stayed. So, I must confess, I cut and ran.
The Bush administration says that failure is not an option in Iraq. Fine. But, with the exception of toppling Sadam, failure has been the norm in Iraq–from the massive looting, to the prisoner abuses, to the failure to bring stability. The perception most Iraqis still hold is that it is wrong for us to be there. Unfortunately, since perception is reality, we and our allies in Iraq need to come to grips with the fact that our immense national ego cannot overcome our inability to quell the anger, hate, mistrust and skepticism of the Iraqi people. We may have the guns, but the power of Iraq’s collective angst towers over us the like the school yard bully did over me when I was ten.
We must further realize that we are not the saviors of the Iraqi people, and the Iraqis are not going to be better off with our presence. While failure is not an option, victory as we define it is not probable and nothing is going to change that by unduly delaying our withdrawal. We need to leave the Iraqis to the fate of their own self-determination. It is dangerous to think that we can dictate any outcome by the force of our fire power. It’s time to leave, and the best way to do so, in fairness to our dwindling Iraqi allies, is to let them know ahead of time.
Loren Lambert
© April 29, 2007
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Disappointment in VP Dick Cheney
Vice President Dick Cheney, in response to the Scooter Libby convictions, indicated that he was "disappointed with the jury’s decision." Does VP Dick Cheney know that the jury consisted of 12 members of "we the people?" Does he know that stating he’s "disappointed with the jury" is stating he’s disappointed with the American public? Does he understand that he, the second most senior official of the executive branch of the United States has, in essence, delivered the middle finger salute to all of us? Does he think we’re that naive? Maybe so, but I would urge the American public to stand up and say, "We are disappointed in Vice President Dick Cheney; we are disappointed in the lies, flippancy and arrogance of the Bush administration; we are disappointed that apparently good people have been placed in positions in which they feel the need to rat out CIA operatives, lie about it in criminal investigations, and then fall on their swords. Yes, we the people are disappointed, and that is why we the people were forced to render a verdict against a good man who made a bad decision while working for a bad employer."
Loren M. Lambert
© March 6, 2007
Loren M. Lambert
© March 6, 2007
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Ban Tryouts in Secondary Public School Sports
Here, in the heart of pay-your-own-way, get-off-the-public-dole, be self-sustaining conservatism, why do I have to pay my tax dollars to help train your over-developed Billy or Betty to be a professional athlete? Okay, okay, okay, I admit that I am a bit piqued at some recent set backs in my own childrens’ athletic endeavors (let alone my own, years ago), however, I have always held this belief: allow all– yes, all– kids, so long as they have the desire and commitment to adhere to whatever rules are established for participation, to engage, without tryouts, in competitive team sports, up to the senior high school level.
Why? Because, while at the NFL level, Vince Lombardi was right on the money (emphasis on $) when he said that, "Winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing," in our secondary schools, winning is not everything, nor is it the only thing. What is the only thing? Having the opportunity, regardless of one’s biological or environmental circumstances, to develop one’s full potential--not just intellectually, but physically, emotionally, socially and even spiritually. This goal, as perhaps many athletic greats would agree, can often be advanced through the rigors of competitive team sports.
Now, I realize that the idea of public school athletics being open to all without tryouts will cause many an old-school jock to rip out the last hairs from his balding head, pull several groin muscles, and put on sack cloth and ashes, but it shouldn’t. Tryouts do nothing more than create an unnecessary sense of entitlement, elitism, and exclusion among youthful athletes. Moreover, given that kids are a development in progress, tryouts are little more useful than if they were undertaken at the age of 9 months. Take the oft-quoted Michael Jordan story; he, the greatest basketball player ever, as a sophomore was cut from his high school basketball team. Many coaches will proclaim that Jordan’s story proves that if you have enough talent and persistence, no patently wrong coaching decision will hold you back.
This, however, is not the moral of the Michael Jordan story. It’s lesson is this--even though many think and act as if they are, and sometimes look the part, coaches are not God. Lacking God’s prescience, except when it comes to their own little Johnny or jumping Jane, coaches are ill-suited for divining the potential of our disparately developing kids, who need their instruction more than their judgment. Moreover, picking "winners," and a "winning team," should not even be their mission.
While Michael Jordan, due to his virtuosity and determination, was able to overcome the obstacle of a horrendously bad coaching decision, many who may lack his ability, but who nonetheless have the seeds of greatness, will not. Coaches are given enormous power; they can, and often do, become God-like figures over our children. By their choices, they can take two identically talented kids with similar potential, label one a loser, label the other their go-to-guy or gal, and thereby inevitably ensure that their prophetic labeling becomes a reality. The unfortunate result of such labeling is that it sometimes has no basis in fact, but is the product of bias, nepotism and sheer ignorance. Being better instructors than Gods, coaches should therefore not sit in judgment to pick "winners" and "losers," but should do what we are all paying them to do--to train and instruct all of our kids.
"No," they’ll say, "we can’t do it, there will be an overwhelming crush of scrawny, spastic, underdeveloped, belligerent, hygienically challenged kids diluting our limited capacity!"
First, in the eyes of another, the same might be said about a coach’s own bumptious progeny.
Second, if kids and their parents want an elite athletic experience, let them do as is done in Europe: pay for it in the private sector.
Third, like every other over-taxed teacher who does not have the luxury of cutting the worst English, history, or math students from their classes, you coaches will find a way.
Fourth, it is a myth, perpetuated by the egos of athletes and coaches, that everyone wants to be on the basketball or football team–they don’t–they just like the thought of it, like we all like the thought of getting up early every morning to run a mile or two and watch the sun rise.
Fifth, many wannabe athletes will sadly realize that playing game boy is more riveting than pounding out drills until puking up one’s breakfast of sugar puffs.
Sixth, more parental enthusiasm creates greater political concern about our schools, which in turn garners more mula for public schools, which in turn equates to more mula for coaches, which leads to bigger smiley faces on coaches.
And lastly, after five years of dedicated work, grades 7-11, without ever having faced the agony of a cut, and without ever having been anointed a "winner" by any coach, the Michael Jordans of the pack will have established themselves–some to the great surprise of all, including their fallible coaches. Under this system, the truly good and devoted coaches will find that they won’t have to pick the best, because, before they ever have to cut a single teary-eyed basketball wannabe, the best will materialize before them; whether as well-rounded, disciplined students who have learned the great benefits of team competition, or as great ball players headed to the NBA, WNBA or NFL .
This is as it should be, because winning in athletics in our secondary schools is so far from being "the only thing," that it, as the overarching goal, should be banned from schools as zealously as guns, alcohol, and drugs. We tax-paying parents commend our children into the care of our public schools believing, hoping, and praying that its devoted teachers and coaches will provide them with every opportunity to reach their full potential. While we may not necessarily expect our child to be the next Michael Jordan, Bill Gates, or Albert Einstein, we do expect these professionals, even though they are often under-paid and under-appreciated, to allow all of our children a place at their feet. And while it takes much greater courage, maturity, organization, and intelligence to coach, teach, and train the seemingly less able-bodied and less skilled and to stand up to the win-at-all-costs crowd than to take the path of least resistance and concentrate, and cater to, the supposed child stars and their fawning parents, we know they are up to the challenge (as well as resisting the urge to coach, whenever possible, their own kids).
Loren M. Lambert, March 1, 2007 ©
Why? Because, while at the NFL level, Vince Lombardi was right on the money (emphasis on $) when he said that, "Winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing," in our secondary schools, winning is not everything, nor is it the only thing. What is the only thing? Having the opportunity, regardless of one’s biological or environmental circumstances, to develop one’s full potential--not just intellectually, but physically, emotionally, socially and even spiritually. This goal, as perhaps many athletic greats would agree, can often be advanced through the rigors of competitive team sports.
Now, I realize that the idea of public school athletics being open to all without tryouts will cause many an old-school jock to rip out the last hairs from his balding head, pull several groin muscles, and put on sack cloth and ashes, but it shouldn’t. Tryouts do nothing more than create an unnecessary sense of entitlement, elitism, and exclusion among youthful athletes. Moreover, given that kids are a development in progress, tryouts are little more useful than if they were undertaken at the age of 9 months. Take the oft-quoted Michael Jordan story; he, the greatest basketball player ever, as a sophomore was cut from his high school basketball team. Many coaches will proclaim that Jordan’s story proves that if you have enough talent and persistence, no patently wrong coaching decision will hold you back.
This, however, is not the moral of the Michael Jordan story. It’s lesson is this--even though many think and act as if they are, and sometimes look the part, coaches are not God. Lacking God’s prescience, except when it comes to their own little Johnny or jumping Jane, coaches are ill-suited for divining the potential of our disparately developing kids, who need their instruction more than their judgment. Moreover, picking "winners," and a "winning team," should not even be their mission.
While Michael Jordan, due to his virtuosity and determination, was able to overcome the obstacle of a horrendously bad coaching decision, many who may lack his ability, but who nonetheless have the seeds of greatness, will not. Coaches are given enormous power; they can, and often do, become God-like figures over our children. By their choices, they can take two identically talented kids with similar potential, label one a loser, label the other their go-to-guy or gal, and thereby inevitably ensure that their prophetic labeling becomes a reality. The unfortunate result of such labeling is that it sometimes has no basis in fact, but is the product of bias, nepotism and sheer ignorance. Being better instructors than Gods, coaches should therefore not sit in judgment to pick "winners" and "losers," but should do what we are all paying them to do--to train and instruct all of our kids.
"No," they’ll say, "we can’t do it, there will be an overwhelming crush of scrawny, spastic, underdeveloped, belligerent, hygienically challenged kids diluting our limited capacity!"
First, in the eyes of another, the same might be said about a coach’s own bumptious progeny.
Second, if kids and their parents want an elite athletic experience, let them do as is done in Europe: pay for it in the private sector.
Third, like every other over-taxed teacher who does not have the luxury of cutting the worst English, history, or math students from their classes, you coaches will find a way.
Fourth, it is a myth, perpetuated by the egos of athletes and coaches, that everyone wants to be on the basketball or football team–they don’t–they just like the thought of it, like we all like the thought of getting up early every morning to run a mile or two and watch the sun rise.
Fifth, many wannabe athletes will sadly realize that playing game boy is more riveting than pounding out drills until puking up one’s breakfast of sugar puffs.
Sixth, more parental enthusiasm creates greater political concern about our schools, which in turn garners more mula for public schools, which in turn equates to more mula for coaches, which leads to bigger smiley faces on coaches.
And lastly, after five years of dedicated work, grades 7-11, without ever having faced the agony of a cut, and without ever having been anointed a "winner" by any coach, the Michael Jordans of the pack will have established themselves–some to the great surprise of all, including their fallible coaches. Under this system, the truly good and devoted coaches will find that they won’t have to pick the best, because, before they ever have to cut a single teary-eyed basketball wannabe, the best will materialize before them; whether as well-rounded, disciplined students who have learned the great benefits of team competition, or as great ball players headed to the NBA, WNBA or NFL .
This is as it should be, because winning in athletics in our secondary schools is so far from being "the only thing," that it, as the overarching goal, should be banned from schools as zealously as guns, alcohol, and drugs. We tax-paying parents commend our children into the care of our public schools believing, hoping, and praying that its devoted teachers and coaches will provide them with every opportunity to reach their full potential. While we may not necessarily expect our child to be the next Michael Jordan, Bill Gates, or Albert Einstein, we do expect these professionals, even though they are often under-paid and under-appreciated, to allow all of our children a place at their feet. And while it takes much greater courage, maturity, organization, and intelligence to coach, teach, and train the seemingly less able-bodied and less skilled and to stand up to the win-at-all-costs crowd than to take the path of least resistance and concentrate, and cater to, the supposed child stars and their fawning parents, we know they are up to the challenge (as well as resisting the urge to coach, whenever possible, their own kids).
Loren M. Lambert, March 1, 2007 ©
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Workers Comp Predation
Recently it was reported by the Deseret News that Sen. Mayne is sponsoring a bill to "safeguard settlements" by prohibiting cutthroat financing companies from the "predatory" practice of buying injured workers' disability settlements for lump sums at 30 cents on the dollar. As an example of this pernicious evil, Alan Hennebold of the Utah Labor Commission lamented that recently a disabled truck driver sold his future $200,000 Worker's Comp. settlement for a quick $40,000.
While this bill may be an eensy weensy spider step in the right direction, the question is, how has a market been created in which an injured worker is willing to sell her $200,000 settlement to a predatory financial company? Answer: it has been created by the predatory insurance companies who own the predatory financial companies who buy up legislators, lobbyists, industrial commissions and insurance defense attorneys. They, in turn, work to ensure that, as Hennebold intimated, while "wait[ing] for [her] claims to move through the legal process," the injured worker loses her home, hearth, and health.
Ask any honest broker familiar with the Utah Worker’s Comp. system and they’ll tell you it’s more cloyed up than a poodle on chocolate. The blame lies directly at the feet of our insurance companies, their legislators, and defense attorneys, who all benefit from the injured workers’ desperation. Currently, the Worker’s Comp. system is riddled with myriad systemic and substantive problems that allow the insurance companies to deny, delay, stall, and drag their collective sagging behinds. Why? Because, well, they can. The current laws are so flawed that they not only condone this delay, but encourage it.
Hence, when the worker is told by her doctor that she is terminally ill, or she immediately needs a $40,000 surgery to return to work, or when the mortgage company puts her house into foreclosure, what can she do? She certainly can’t wait for the Industrial Commission to void, nor for the Legislature’s next round of nose-picking progress. She does what she must. Out of a fit of desperation, she takes the $40,000 from the predatory financial company, owned by the predatory insurance company--who in turn takes half of the $160,000 windfall and buys up more legislators, lobbyists, and insurance defense attorneys to cloy up the system even more. Then, the next injured worker, who becomes even more desperate, will sell his $200,000 claim for 20 cents on the dollar.
So, to slim down the beast from a plus size 24 dress to a strapping 20, maybe leaving injured workers alone with their desperation is a step in the right direction. Maybe not. You decide. Just hope you don’t become a member of this maligned minority and need that $40,000 to avert death. If you do, in the near future your only choice may be to rest in peace knowing that, instead of a predatory financial company getting $160,000 of your never realized $200,000, because you died, a predatory insurance industry kept all $200,000 of it.
Loren Lambert
©January 23, 2007
While this bill may be an eensy weensy spider step in the right direction, the question is, how has a market been created in which an injured worker is willing to sell her $200,000 settlement to a predatory financial company? Answer: it has been created by the predatory insurance companies who own the predatory financial companies who buy up legislators, lobbyists, industrial commissions and insurance defense attorneys. They, in turn, work to ensure that, as Hennebold intimated, while "wait[ing] for [her] claims to move through the legal process," the injured worker loses her home, hearth, and health.
Ask any honest broker familiar with the Utah Worker’s Comp. system and they’ll tell you it’s more cloyed up than a poodle on chocolate. The blame lies directly at the feet of our insurance companies, their legislators, and defense attorneys, who all benefit from the injured workers’ desperation. Currently, the Worker’s Comp. system is riddled with myriad systemic and substantive problems that allow the insurance companies to deny, delay, stall, and drag their collective sagging behinds. Why? Because, well, they can. The current laws are so flawed that they not only condone this delay, but encourage it.
Hence, when the worker is told by her doctor that she is terminally ill, or she immediately needs a $40,000 surgery to return to work, or when the mortgage company puts her house into foreclosure, what can she do? She certainly can’t wait for the Industrial Commission to void, nor for the Legislature’s next round of nose-picking progress. She does what she must. Out of a fit of desperation, she takes the $40,000 from the predatory financial company, owned by the predatory insurance company--who in turn takes half of the $160,000 windfall and buys up more legislators, lobbyists, and insurance defense attorneys to cloy up the system even more. Then, the next injured worker, who becomes even more desperate, will sell his $200,000 claim for 20 cents on the dollar.
So, to slim down the beast from a plus size 24 dress to a strapping 20, maybe leaving injured workers alone with their desperation is a step in the right direction. Maybe not. You decide. Just hope you don’t become a member of this maligned minority and need that $40,000 to avert death. If you do, in the near future your only choice may be to rest in peace knowing that, instead of a predatory financial company getting $160,000 of your never realized $200,000, because you died, a predatory insurance industry kept all $200,000 of it.
Loren Lambert
©January 23, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)