Cell Phones: Love Them or Hate them, We Do Use Them

In a recent piece Joel McNally wrote for The Shepherd Express entitled, Cell Phone Conspiracy, McNally takes on the on a recent decision by the Milwaukee Superintendent of Schools to ban cell phones from schools.

I take exception to some of Joel’s arguments that the ban is ridiculous and another example of the problem with Milwaukee Schools is the administration not the students, because the problems with the Milwaukee Schools system are too numerous and varied to get into in any format less than book length expose.

But what his article did point out to me is how long the cell phone has taken to acquire a set of social protocols’. In other words, what is appropriate cell phone use and when does it become rude and unseemly to use one?

One of the problems with technology is that it challenges the way we have done things in the past. As a result we don’t have rules about the use of new technology and ambiguity results. Trust me, you don’t want to be in theater during a live performance and have your cell phone ring, particularly if you customize your ring tone with something like the opening bars of “Stairway to Heaven” or Beethoven’s, “9^th Symphony”. The sacrifice of your dignity is the least you’ll surrender.

For as long as cell phones have been in common use, the controversy still rages about public cell phone use, cell phone use while driving or answering your cell phone during meetings. We simply haven’t agreed on generally acceptable rules.

We are shocked to learn that people use the camera and record functions at times that seem to violate people’s privacy, but rejoice when a cell phone photo exposes wrongdoing or criminal activity, all the while recognizing that the line between these things is non-existent.

The other problem is less obvious. I call it techno-envy. Some people feel that things like cell phones have certain cachet or class distinction. If everybody can have cell phones, when ownership becomes so common that it has no social or economic status, than some people feel free to rewrite the rules.

I recognize that part of the problem with the use of cell phones in schools is a feeling amongst many adults that kids shouldn't own cell phones much less when we discuss poor inner-city kids owning cell phones. As McNally mentioned in his column, if an inner-city kid owns a cell phone the assumption is that he must be in the drug business. When it turns out he is just blabbing with his friends like a soccer mom cruising the grocery aisle with her ear phone or her shoulder cocked holding her flip phone in place, than the inevitable question comes up. How can he afford that?

The other problem with some technology is that it grows and changes so quickly. We quickly established that it’s not a good idea for people to have active cell phones in a theater and than the manufacturer’s put cameras in them. Now the questions becomes is cell phone use inappropriate, but camera use permissible in some cases. When we realize that a cell phone Camera is just that, and if the occasion permits the use of a camera than the fact that it resides in a cell phone makes no difference.

We will sort this out. After awhile, it becomes a matter of what makes sense. In the end, this means that people with no common sense will always offend people who think before they act.

Addiction

My friend Johnny B and I were having a conversation about our mutual problem. As John and I might have said back-in-the-day, we both drank a bit. A bit too much was the problem. I still think Robin Williams pegged it when he talked about addiction. First it’s fun, than it’s fun with problems and than it’s just problems. Some of us are able to deal with it in ways that stop the problems and for most of us that means total abstinence. As I have told anyone that was interested, I am a man of addictions. I have become very good at dealing with my demons, because I’ve had a lot of practice.

One thing that John and I discussed is the feeling of lost time. It goes through your mind, as you get older, how much you could have done if you weren’t dealing with your hangover’s, figuring out where your next drink was coming from and wasting all of that money.

In a way, it’s the opposite of future anxiety. I’ve written elsewhere that one thing I notice people do and one of the reasons they acquire so many material things that end up in the garage or on e-bay is they somehow think their life will be better if they just bought… (you fill in the blank). It can be the same in reverse. My life would have been better if I hadn’t spent all the time energy and treasury on booz. That may be right but it can also be an excuse for not doing something you might not have been capable of doing in any case.

What John and I shared is the feeling of having to get something done before we can’t do anything. John is doing some creative and useful woodworking. I strive to become a writer. What we agreeded was that the common element in our efforts is the feeling of not just striving, but the need to make up for lost time. Hum, could we be turning a goal into a compulsion? Could that compulsion become and addiction? So predictable!

More on Unity 08

I went, as I hope you will, to the website for Unity 08. ( www.unity08.com ) There is a link to the article in The Atlantic that I mentioned in my other blog and tons more information on the organization and what they stand for and hope to accomplish.

One of the pages on their site is called The Shoutbox. On this page there are a number of strings of conversation relating to issues that people are concerned about and want debated in the upcoming campaign. What was interesting to me is the largest concern, based on the number of participants was a debate on what people wanted from their politicians. It was interesting to me, because on this the day of President Bush’s State of the Union Address in 2007, the press would have us think that the only issue that is worth talking about is the War in Iraq.

Now anyone has to agree that the situation in Iraq is bad and we need to have a long overdue debate and some plan to end our involvement, but what is apparent to me is that again the national press ay be entirely misreading the reason for discontent in the American public. Maybe it’s Iraq, maybe it’s healthcare, maybe it’s the economy and maybe, just maybe, it’s business as usual in the beltway. My bet is on the last reason.

Like a Broadway show that has run to long the American people are not only looking for something new fresh and positive I think they are fed up with the old one.

One of the contributors to this section of the Shoutbox, makes mention of having a candidate tell the voters what he or she will do about an issue, not what the opponent didn’t do. He wants his candidate to tell the truth about their position on all of the issues instead of riding the wave of public sentiment and issue-of-the-week mania. This in spite of the fact that the stance my be controversial and might be out of favor. Why should a candidate do this even though it might cost him votes? Because, it is an honest appeal for support. The theory is that while we may not agree with the candidate on all of the issues, (there is no candidate that we agree with on all of the issues in any case), we will reward the honest candidate with our vote vs. the candidate the dodges the issues in an attempt to avoid discovery and controversy. If both candidates are forth coming than the one that wins will be the one that is representing the majority of the public will. Is this politics as we wish it was and have no basis in reality? I submit that the reason John McCain and Barak Obama command such attention is that they are this type of candidate.

The other thing you will notice is that on the issues being debated in the Shoutbox that gay marriage, flag burning, prayer in schools and abortion are nowhere to be found in the top of the list of things people are concerned about.

Could it be that people are concerned about these issues, but have come to realize that there is no need for a legislative remedy for a solution to these problems? Is it possible that people finally realize that while the majority of attention is being paid to these issues in many campaigns that it is like the magician slight of hand? We are subjected to a diversion so we do not pay attention to what we really should be concerned about.

Unity 08, The New Third Way

How many times have you heard it said, the Democratic Party is too far to the left and the Republican’s are too far to the right. Why isn’t there a party for the guy in the middle? Well believe it or not there will be a party that represents itself as the third party that represents the middle. It’s going to call itself Unity 08.

In the January / February Issue of The Atlantic, Joshua Green writes about three political consultants, who admittedly caused the problem with political campaigns today, feeling enough remorse to do something about the situation.(Surprise Party Page 114) Their solution is to create a third party that will challenge the candidates to campaign and recognize the middle. Jerry Rofshoon, Doug Baily and Rodger Craver have come up with a modern and innovative way of creating the next great political party.

(I’m going to simplify this to much, so go to the back issue and read the story in its entirety.) In essence what they are going to do is create an online entity, Unity 08 that will organize, co ordinate, nominate and campaign for a viable third party candidate selected by its registered members.

They all worked with internet campaigns in one form or another and, as a group, have come to the conclusion that the internet has gained the status as the technical development that will impact the political selection process as much as television did in the sixties. Television took the process out of the smoky back rooms of the conventions and brought it out into the primary battle of the so-called impact states. No longer did candidates o into the convention marshalling strength to gain a nomination they have it in hand.

What Unity 08 proposes is not necessarily fielding candidates that they expect will win, but a genuine place for people to get the issues of the great center of the political mainstream a home and force the candidates in the other two parties to debate them.

Mathematics’ tell you this is a great idea. The past election is an example. The great middle had skewed toward the Republicans in 2000, 2002 and 2004. (About 30% of the population consider themselves Democrat and about the same number proclaim themselves Republican.) The middle 40% skewed back toward the Democrats in 2006 and changed the majorities in both the House of Representatives and The Senate. Note I said skewed. By this I mean both parties may hold or have held commanding positions, but neither of them, regardless of the rhetoric, held mandates.

I believe the problem is that when neither of the candidates represents the main concerns of a large proportion of the voting public, disaffected citizens vote with their feet and abstain.

If this population had a candidate to rally behind, it could activate them, in much the same way as Howard Dean and Barak Obama have brought new and here-to-fore uninvolved voters into the fray. If these guys can do as well as moveon .com they will undoubtedly become a factor in the 2008 election. Who knows they might surprise even themselves and back a winner?

Planting My Potato on the Couch

Television is getting to be something thing I do when I’m too tired to do anything else. My wife thinks my lack of interest is because we see so many movies that the weakness in content is magnified. I think there’s another reason. I think I’ve seen every character and script scenario that can be written so many times that I automatically think I’ve seen the program I’m watching.

Two and a Half Men seemed so familiar until I realized it ‘s a rehash of The Odd Couple. Every sitcom that involves couples is a regurgitation of The Honeymooners. Grey’s Anatomy looks like Friends without the jokes. I have no idea how many cop shows, Medical dramas and lawyer scenario’s we need to see until we exhaust the entire case files of the various professions. Although it seems people seem capable of finding new ways of violating the law in strange and humorous ways.

I feel that the reason the new TV shows fail or succeed is the characters that people like and identify with. I did not love Raymond, but it’s obvious that a lot of people did. One of the methods used successfully is to have and ensemble cast. If the viewer doesn’t attach to the major character, maybe they will be attracted to one of the others. Where would Cheers be without Norm? Try and watch Will & Grace minus Jack or Karen.

There is a new trend that is interesting and irritating. We are introduced to characters and the settings via a widely promoted opening show. They tease us with the shadows of the characters, put them in a challenging setting, play out the base premise of why they are all in this setting and than kill off one of the characters. Than they dare us not to watch next week and all of the following weeks to see what happens. But people are getting sick of Survivor.

ABC tried something similar with a show called The Nine. In The Nine we witness a botched bank holdup where a number of people are held hostage for 48 hours before they are freed. In the following episodes the audience is given more and more back ground on what actually went on in the bank during the forty eight hours they were kept hostage. In true and good dramatic form things are not always as we are lead to believe. I found this program compelling and I wish I knew what happened but evidently not enough people agreed with me because, we haven’t seen the series since before Thanksgiving. That is a long hiatus. Me thinks that the series met with the same fate as out holiday turkey.

(A check at ABC’s Website tells you that , “The next episode has not been scheduled”).

If you don’t see the Soprano’s, Lost, or 24 from the first week and each week thereafter can you stay in the story? Most people tell me no. I’m advised to wait until the entire season comes out on DVD and rent it. Maybe that’s the way to watch TV drama today. It might be better than TIVO.

The History of the Mystery, The Lost Painting

I’ve read a number of good books already this year. One of my all time favorite writers Carl Hiassen treated us this year to his latest serving of hi-jinks by his zany characters and barely probable circumstances in his home state of Florida titled Nature Girl.

Isabel Allende wove another romantic historical novel of her native Chile with her novel, Ines of My Soul.

But the book that has knocked me out is a book I have been looking at for well over a year, but didn’t buy. I received Jonathan Harr’s, The Lost Painting as a gift from my family for Christmas.

Harr is one of a small number of authors who has the talent to put a story that would normally be of narrow interest into a compelling narrative. As he defines his characters and places them in their settings, in this case Italy, London and Dublin as he begins to define the journey.

In the midst of a growing appreciation for the artist Caravaggio, two young Italian art history students begin the search for a painting that may or may not still be in existence. I guess it wouldn’t be a stretch to assume that eventually the painting would be found, because it wouldn’t make for a very good story if it didn’t, but in this case while the destination is glamorous the trip is fabulous.

Not unlike the painter, Harr’s descriptions of the landscape and events are vivid, deep and compelling. As he describes events, I often felt like I was having coffee in a sidewalk café watching the young girl walking from her school to the library on a spring day in Rome. And while he charms me with these characters, he simultaneously begins to build the improbability of their success.

They are young. They are charming. They are persistent. But their task is formidable as they are going over ground covered by experts for years. They need a break. They get a break and it’s all because they are young, charming and persistent.

Harr moves the story to Dublin where he introduces us to an Italian expatriate art restoration expert, who is dreaming to do something memorable and significant in the world of art.

After frequent stops in London, the whole thing is tied together like one of those Robert Altman films where seemingly separate worlds blend together to give clarity to the issue at hand.

Harr’s narrative is compelling because he builds characters you care about and places them on a journey that is exciting, romantic and worthwhile. I only wish I could find another book like this, but unfortunately they are few and sadly far between.

Guns or Butter?

It is the odd situation in history and in circumstance that would allow a country to prosper economically if it were simultaneous waging a major conflict far from home. . All you have to do is consider the treasury going into the waging of the battle.

Take the same amount of money and invest it in the production of consumer products that enhance people’s lives or invest it in infrastructure that benefits generations of people and you'd have a tough time making the positive economic argument for the war time economy.

Even more distressing is the so-called guns or butter issue. Given that a government has limited income and resources, one would expect that a country at war would be expecting its people to make sacrifices, giving up some things in order to finance the war. This was certainly true during WW II. My mother was rationed for meat, sugar and many other things we don't even think twice about consuming. My dad had to be concerned about the tires for the car and gasoline. With the conflict we are involved in today, we are not asked to sacrifice aything if we don’t have a family member involved in the combat.

Technically, we are not at War today, (Congress did not authorize a declaration of war) although I'm sure our service men and women in the Middle East don't know the difference. What we are involved in is a contest with terrorists. This contest is for the hearts and minds of not only the people in the Middle East, but every citizen of the world.

It’s a given we have the strongest military on the planet. We have a successful economy and our form of government is a model for freedom in the world. But what everyone is wondering is can we lead as well as we can produce. Can we walk the walk or do we just talk?

My observation is that we are letting the world down. Our leaders state that if another nation is not with us they are against us. We feel we have the right to wage preemptive war any place we choose, because we can always seem to make the case that it is in our security interests.

John Kennedy always said in dealing with the Russians that "...what was theirs was theirs and what was ours was always negotiable." And so it seems, we’ve turned the tables there is no place in the world that we can't claim as being vital to our security interest and nobody who can define that interest, except us.

The conflict in Iraq we are fighting is costing us millions of dollars a day, while our infrastructure is slowly rotting underneath us. We do not have the resources to deal with that rot because it is being spent on this ill conceived venture. However the American People are being shielded from the sacrifice because we are not paying for the war out of pocket. We are charging it and the bill is climbing at an amazing rate.

It seems that if we are willing to continue to put this conflict on our national credit card, we can continue to pretend that we can afford the guns and the butter. Who is going to pay the credit card bill? I don’t know but given the current state of political will, I’d say the kids that are just starting grade school.