By Daniel B. Kline
As America's leading toy store general manager/op-ed columnist, I may be the country's foremost authority on the joint topics of newspapers and fun. Though those two words might be mutually exclusive for some people, many of us who grew up loving newspapers gladly group them together.
For the younger folks seeing this column online wondering why my blog entry is so long, let me explain that reading a daily newspaper used to be a ritual the way checking your email or updating your "what am I doing" thing on Facebook is now. Newspapers once contained most of the best writers, reporters and columnists and, if you lived in a major city, they covered your community as well as the world at large.
More than just a method for telling people what happened, the best newspapers pulsated with life, offering news, analysis and dare I say it, fun. At one point, newspapers stood at the center of the community, binding everyone together and offering a way to understand the world around you.
Those days have passed, however, and the newspaper industry has gone into a free fall so bad that it makes the banking industry look just a little ill in comparison. Most in the business blame this on the rise of the Internet, but I consider the problem one of content, not delivery method.
Of course, some young people prefer getting their news online over reading an actual paper, but if the newspaper had compelling content it would capture that reader either through the paper or on its Web site. Instead, the newspaper industry has consolidated and budgeted itself out of most of the best writers, basically asking a whole generation to find their fun elsewhere.
Just look at the page you are probably reading me on right now -- the op-ed page. Once an exciting venue for thought and ideas along with humor and even a little anger, now, in most papers, we get an endless parade of syndicated drivel, failed politicians and boring lecturers who appeal only to the news junkies on the copy desk.
Of course, the very fact that you're reading a column by a self-syndicated writer who can be silly and occasionally courts controversy suggests you are reading a paper run by people at least trying to buck the tide. I may not be good compared to the historical greats who once wrote columns, but compared to most of the people doing it in print today, I'm Larry Bird playing against a junior high girls team.
Can anyone -- readers or editors -- tell the difference between the droning bores that usually occupy this space? Look through the entire roster of syndicated columnists and you'd be hard-pressed to find more than a couple that use humor, possess an opinion not dictated by party lines or a thought that anyone not working in a newsroom would care about.
The best columnists (present, decidedly arrogant, company excluded) now work online, in magazines or in books. Of course, some papers have quality local columnists that raise people's passions (Mike Lupica in New York and Howie Carr in Boston come to mind) but most are more than content to just fill the space with another interchangeable Dale McFeatters column.
Saving the newspaper industry won't take a $700 billion bailout or one of the endless, unsuccessful rescue plans all the big papers are trying. Simply find the best writers and pay them to come back.
Get the people who have an audience online, in magazines or in books and let them do their thing. If millions of people followed Howard Stern from a free medium to a pay one, don't you think the same thing would happen if ESPN's Bill Simmons, essayist Chuck Klosterman or even gossip blogger Perez Hilton moved to a newspaper?
As you lure these established voices to print (or back to print in some cases) develop new ones that don't sound like the old ones. Finding writers that can actually compel people into reading is not easy, but we do exist, we're just a little off the beaten path.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. When he is not writing Kline serves as general manager of Time Machine Hobby New England's largest hobby and toy store, www.timemachinehobby.com. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com or you can visit notastep.com.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Simple sock solution saves sanity
By Daniel B. Kline
Underwear, specifically Fruit of the Loom briefs, last for approximately nine years. Women would never attempt to discover this particular fact, but as a man, I can assure you that with normal washing and use, that's about how long you can keep a pair before the elastic band begins detaching.
Socks, on the other hand, have a significantly more varied life expectancy depending upon use. While it's highly unlikely you will ever subject your underwear to being dragged along your driveway while you take the trash out this can happen with socks.
Most people would have a problem pinpointing the specific lifespan of their underwear. Generally we purchase our undergarments on a staggered basis and do not add any sort of dating information to them. While women might be able to tell you how long they have had a specifically fancy pair, neither gender can normally give specific ages on their day-to-day skivvies.
I, on the other hand know exactly when I purchased my underwear. This is not due to some odd fetish or personality quirk, but because approximately nine years ago I decided to replace all my socks and, because I was in the store anyway, all my underwear.
At the time my sock collection contained an unwieldy variety of white athletic socks, black, blue and brown dress socks. Since I had socks of all brands, shapes and sizes, doing my laundry and folding my foot coverings became a chore I was unwilling to undertake.
Since under no circumstances did I want to spend time pairing up my socks, dealing with the inevitable frustration caused by a sock missing its mate. I instead simply jammed everything into a drawer, leaving selecting a pair until I actually got dressed in the morning.
In those days, my now wife, then girlfriend, was finishing her doctorate and left for school much later than I left for work. Since we lived in a one-bedroom apartment, this forced me to get dressed in the dark which often resulted in me wearing shockingly mismatched socks.
While my co-workers were usually too kind to comment on my odd choice of foot coverings (though someone did comment on the day I wore different colored sneakers) it was somewhat embarrassing. To remedy this, I did something I recommend all men do. I threw away all my socks and underwear, replacing them with many packs of the same variety.
I literally walked into an underwear outlet store somewhere in New York's Hudson Valley and purchased 100 or so pairs of white socks along with a dozen of each dress sock variety. I added a stack of the aforementioned Fruit of the Loom briefs and my laundry woes were solved.
My original plan had been to buy 365 pairs of socks and underwear making laundering them only necessary once a year. Since this would present a storage problem and require me to keep dirty underthings in the house for extended lengths of time, I was dissuaded from this plan.
This may not be quite the same as casting aside my whole wardrobe in favor of simple brown robes, but there's a certain serenity in removing a layer of complexity from life. Of course, there's also a certain foolishness to going to such extreme lengths to not have to match up my socks, but it's easier to think of myself as cleverly efficient than wildly lazy.
Daniel B. Kline is the author of "50 Things Every Guy Should Know How To Do," which is available in book stores everywhere. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com.
Underwear, specifically Fruit of the Loom briefs, last for approximately nine years. Women would never attempt to discover this particular fact, but as a man, I can assure you that with normal washing and use, that's about how long you can keep a pair before the elastic band begins detaching.
Socks, on the other hand, have a significantly more varied life expectancy depending upon use. While it's highly unlikely you will ever subject your underwear to being dragged along your driveway while you take the trash out this can happen with socks.
Most people would have a problem pinpointing the specific lifespan of their underwear. Generally we purchase our undergarments on a staggered basis and do not add any sort of dating information to them. While women might be able to tell you how long they have had a specifically fancy pair, neither gender can normally give specific ages on their day-to-day skivvies.
I, on the other hand know exactly when I purchased my underwear. This is not due to some odd fetish or personality quirk, but because approximately nine years ago I decided to replace all my socks and, because I was in the store anyway, all my underwear.
At the time my sock collection contained an unwieldy variety of white athletic socks, black, blue and brown dress socks. Since I had socks of all brands, shapes and sizes, doing my laundry and folding my foot coverings became a chore I was unwilling to undertake.
Since under no circumstances did I want to spend time pairing up my socks, dealing with the inevitable frustration caused by a sock missing its mate. I instead simply jammed everything into a drawer, leaving selecting a pair until I actually got dressed in the morning.
In those days, my now wife, then girlfriend, was finishing her doctorate and left for school much later than I left for work. Since we lived in a one-bedroom apartment, this forced me to get dressed in the dark which often resulted in me wearing shockingly mismatched socks.
While my co-workers were usually too kind to comment on my odd choice of foot coverings (though someone did comment on the day I wore different colored sneakers) it was somewhat embarrassing. To remedy this, I did something I recommend all men do. I threw away all my socks and underwear, replacing them with many packs of the same variety.
I literally walked into an underwear outlet store somewhere in New York's Hudson Valley and purchased 100 or so pairs of white socks along with a dozen of each dress sock variety. I added a stack of the aforementioned Fruit of the Loom briefs and my laundry woes were solved.
My original plan had been to buy 365 pairs of socks and underwear making laundering them only necessary once a year. Since this would present a storage problem and require me to keep dirty underthings in the house for extended lengths of time, I was dissuaded from this plan.
This may not be quite the same as casting aside my whole wardrobe in favor of simple brown robes, but there's a certain serenity in removing a layer of complexity from life. Of course, there's also a certain foolishness to going to such extreme lengths to not have to match up my socks, but it's easier to think of myself as cleverly efficient than wildly lazy.
Daniel B. Kline is the author of "50 Things Every Guy Should Know How To Do," which is available in book stores everywhere. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
America falters while Congress plays
By Daniel B. Kline
As a watchdog protecting the American people, Congress has done about as well as a blind, geriatric poodle would do keeping your home safe. Instead of safeguarding the public from a failing economy and skyrocketing gas prices the out-of-touch people in the House and Senate mostly seek ways to gain or, at least cling to, power.
While the economy has stumbled and our incompetent, perhaps negligent, president continues to ignore our pain, one would expect Congress to do something. Instead, we get endless press conferences, grandstanding over showboat issues like windfall profit taxes and no actual leadership.
Rather than spending billions on a war nobody actually knows why we're fighting, why have our elected officials not turned our focus to not being dependent on foreign oil? Clearly the technology exists to make cars that get heretofore unheard of gas mileage, but our corrupt politicians do little to advance those causes.
Congress has no interest in solving actual problems when made-for-TV problems get you so much more press coverage. Nobody watching the news understands fuel cell technology or flat tax proposals, so why would our senators or congressmen bother with them?
Regular Americans face a frightening future and Congress investigates baseball players taking steroids, football coaches videotaping signals and professional wrestler buying drugs. While those all seem like important problems, they hardly compare to the collapse of our economy and they certainly seem unworthy of the time of our highest elected officials.
The American people deserve better than leaders who seek to solve superficial problems rather than real ones. A Congress full of people worried about us would focus on whether regular folks can buy food and shelter while ours focuses on whether Roger Clemens deserved his Cy Young awards.
For most people -- at least those of us who are not super-wealthy -- our main problem comes from not having enough money no matter how hard we work. Rising costs, our ridiculous tax system and creeping inflation have caused many of us sleepless nights.
While everyone -- Congress included -- focuses on climbing gas and food prices as the cause of our collective concern that misses the obvious. Food and gas pale in comparison to taxes when most Americans consider where there money goes.
Obviously America's poor people are struggling, but the bulk of the tax burden falls upon those of us in the middle class. We make decent money, maybe even good money, but not so much that the government's endless picking of our pockets goes unnoticed.
Our government has become so bloated and inefficient that it requires an absurd amount of money to operate. To fund the largess of these incompetent buffoons we get taxed more than once on the same money, sitting back quietly while Washington steals from us.
We pay income tax when we make a dollar, sales tax when we spend it and yet another tax on our cash when we die. Perhaps I could accept this endless fleecing if the government actually did something for us, but they don't now, not do they seem to have any plans to.
Instead, on our behalf, they enter wars that turn more of the world against, essentially making us less safe. They create an education system which is in a shambles and a social services infrastructure that does a poor job getting money where it's needed. They accomplish all this while providing an unstable economy, forcing most of our manufacturing jobs overseas and making hope for the future one of our rarest commodities.
I'm beyond thinking that Congress or the President have any hope of fixing things. Perhaps they could just get out of the way, stop taking and spending so much of our money and simply let us fend for ourselves. It's hard to imagine we'd do worse spending our cash than they have and it's nearly impossible to believe we would not do better.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com.
As a watchdog protecting the American people, Congress has done about as well as a blind, geriatric poodle would do keeping your home safe. Instead of safeguarding the public from a failing economy and skyrocketing gas prices the out-of-touch people in the House and Senate mostly seek ways to gain or, at least cling to, power.
While the economy has stumbled and our incompetent, perhaps negligent, president continues to ignore our pain, one would expect Congress to do something. Instead, we get endless press conferences, grandstanding over showboat issues like windfall profit taxes and no actual leadership.
Rather than spending billions on a war nobody actually knows why we're fighting, why have our elected officials not turned our focus to not being dependent on foreign oil? Clearly the technology exists to make cars that get heretofore unheard of gas mileage, but our corrupt politicians do little to advance those causes.
Congress has no interest in solving actual problems when made-for-TV problems get you so much more press coverage. Nobody watching the news understands fuel cell technology or flat tax proposals, so why would our senators or congressmen bother with them?
Regular Americans face a frightening future and Congress investigates baseball players taking steroids, football coaches videotaping signals and professional wrestler buying drugs. While those all seem like important problems, they hardly compare to the collapse of our economy and they certainly seem unworthy of the time of our highest elected officials.
The American people deserve better than leaders who seek to solve superficial problems rather than real ones. A Congress full of people worried about us would focus on whether regular folks can buy food and shelter while ours focuses on whether Roger Clemens deserved his Cy Young awards.
For most people -- at least those of us who are not super-wealthy -- our main problem comes from not having enough money no matter how hard we work. Rising costs, our ridiculous tax system and creeping inflation have caused many of us sleepless nights.
While everyone -- Congress included -- focuses on climbing gas and food prices as the cause of our collective concern that misses the obvious. Food and gas pale in comparison to taxes when most Americans consider where there money goes.
Obviously America's poor people are struggling, but the bulk of the tax burden falls upon those of us in the middle class. We make decent money, maybe even good money, but not so much that the government's endless picking of our pockets goes unnoticed.
Our government has become so bloated and inefficient that it requires an absurd amount of money to operate. To fund the largess of these incompetent buffoons we get taxed more than once on the same money, sitting back quietly while Washington steals from us.
We pay income tax when we make a dollar, sales tax when we spend it and yet another tax on our cash when we die. Perhaps I could accept this endless fleecing if the government actually did something for us, but they don't now, not do they seem to have any plans to.
Instead, on our behalf, they enter wars that turn more of the world against, essentially making us less safe. They create an education system which is in a shambles and a social services infrastructure that does a poor job getting money where it's needed. They accomplish all this while providing an unstable economy, forcing most of our manufacturing jobs overseas and making hope for the future one of our rarest commodities.
I'm beyond thinking that Congress or the President have any hope of fixing things. Perhaps they could just get out of the way, stop taking and spending so much of our money and simply let us fend for ourselves. It's hard to imagine we'd do worse spending our cash than they have and it's nearly impossible to believe we would not do better.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com.
Forget sticks and stones, names actually might hurt us
By Daniel B. Kline
Our presidential election has come down to the battle of the old guy versus the black guy with the Muslim-sounding name, but actually saying either of those things remains frowned upon. Instead, both candidates try to more subtly call each other names, quietly fanning the flames of hatred in order to get elected.
John McCain at least gets to suffer thinly veiled barbs for something he actually is. It's hard to argue against the idea that McCain has a few years on his opponent. It's also not ridiculous to question whether a 71-year-old man should be president.
These questions, however, should be presented directly, not through subtle wordplay. Barack Obama himself has made clever quips about McCain's age and if the younger candidate thinks youthful energy tops tired experience, than he should say so clearly.
Instead, Obama and his people never exactly come out and say that McCain should head off to Florida to play shuffleboard, but it's heavily implied. Obama also very clearly hints, but never says, that being young means having new ideas, while being old means being unable to change.
The subtle jabs that McCain must endure from his opponent, however, pale in comparison to the cleverly veiled remarks that question Obama's age, race and religion. Of course, only the most blatant racists actually say that Obama should not win the election because of the color of his skin while smarter, less blatant racists raise the issue indirectly.
This collection of more clever, but still prejudiced, political operatives use Barack Hussein Obama's non-traditional name against him, subtly suggesting that he has some sort of secret Muslim identity. These ignorant folks clearly link any hint of an Islamic background to terrorism and imply that anyone with a Muslim sounding name must harbor plans to blow up America.
The same people who bash Obama because of what his Christian preacher said now want to label the man a Muslim. Never mind that Muslim and terrorist are not synonymous and there's absolutely no reason why a Muslim could not be president. Instead consider that despite Obama's repeated assertions of his belief in Christianity, a portion of the public actually believes he has some sort of Islamic double life.
While that notion seems absurd, FOX News, a channel as biased towards Republicans as ESPN is towards sports fans, reported the story that Obama had been educated at a radical Muslim school. There's no truth to this story, but that has not stopped an Internet smear campaign aimed at spreading these made up facts.
Unfortunately, truth is not important to racist ideologues as according to Politico.com "Barack Obama Muslim" is the third most popular Google search for the presidential candidate's name, behind "Barack Obama" and "Barack Obama biography." In addition, a CBS News poll in August found that, in response to an open-ended question about Obama's faith, seven percent of Americans identified him as a "Muslim" more than any other response.
While dirty tricks and name-calling have long been a part of American politics, this simply goes to far. If McCain and Obama want to discredit each other, they should do so directly, not through wordplay and behind-the-scenes smear campaigns.
As a voting public, perhaps we need questions about McCain's age and Obama's religious upbringing answered. If we do, then we have the responsibility as voters to respond to the truth and not be swayed by those with devious agendas who would lie to get their favored candidate elected.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. When he is not writing, Kline is general manager of Time Machine Hobby, www.timemachinehobby.com. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com.
Our presidential election has come down to the battle of the old guy versus the black guy with the Muslim-sounding name, but actually saying either of those things remains frowned upon. Instead, both candidates try to more subtly call each other names, quietly fanning the flames of hatred in order to get elected.
John McCain at least gets to suffer thinly veiled barbs for something he actually is. It's hard to argue against the idea that McCain has a few years on his opponent. It's also not ridiculous to question whether a 71-year-old man should be president.
These questions, however, should be presented directly, not through subtle wordplay. Barack Obama himself has made clever quips about McCain's age and if the younger candidate thinks youthful energy tops tired experience, than he should say so clearly.
Instead, Obama and his people never exactly come out and say that McCain should head off to Florida to play shuffleboard, but it's heavily implied. Obama also very clearly hints, but never says, that being young means having new ideas, while being old means being unable to change.
The subtle jabs that McCain must endure from his opponent, however, pale in comparison to the cleverly veiled remarks that question Obama's age, race and religion. Of course, only the most blatant racists actually say that Obama should not win the election because of the color of his skin while smarter, less blatant racists raise the issue indirectly.
This collection of more clever, but still prejudiced, political operatives use Barack Hussein Obama's non-traditional name against him, subtly suggesting that he has some sort of secret Muslim identity. These ignorant folks clearly link any hint of an Islamic background to terrorism and imply that anyone with a Muslim sounding name must harbor plans to blow up America.
The same people who bash Obama because of what his Christian preacher said now want to label the man a Muslim. Never mind that Muslim and terrorist are not synonymous and there's absolutely no reason why a Muslim could not be president. Instead consider that despite Obama's repeated assertions of his belief in Christianity, a portion of the public actually believes he has some sort of Islamic double life.
While that notion seems absurd, FOX News, a channel as biased towards Republicans as ESPN is towards sports fans, reported the story that Obama had been educated at a radical Muslim school. There's no truth to this story, but that has not stopped an Internet smear campaign aimed at spreading these made up facts.
Unfortunately, truth is not important to racist ideologues as according to Politico.com "Barack Obama Muslim" is the third most popular Google search for the presidential candidate's name, behind "Barack Obama" and "Barack Obama biography." In addition, a CBS News poll in August found that, in response to an open-ended question about Obama's faith, seven percent of Americans identified him as a "Muslim" more than any other response.
While dirty tricks and name-calling have long been a part of American politics, this simply goes to far. If McCain and Obama want to discredit each other, they should do so directly, not through wordplay and behind-the-scenes smear campaigns.
As a voting public, perhaps we need questions about McCain's age and Obama's religious upbringing answered. If we do, then we have the responsibility as voters to respond to the truth and not be swayed by those with devious agendas who would lie to get their favored candidate elected.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. When he is not writing, Kline is general manager of Time Machine Hobby, www.timemachinehobby.com. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com.
Jury system must be changed
By Daniel B. Kline
The Michael Jackson case has proven once again that jury trials do not work anymore. This outdated concept must be eliminated and replaced by smaller panels of professional jurors who receive at least some legal training.
The idea of having your fate decided by a panel of your peers may have made perfect sense in an eighteenth century agrarian society, but the law has become too complex for its continued use. Cases that hinge on scientific evidence or complex financial documents are significantly more involved than the ones envisioned when the jury concept was created.
Twelve people pulled from the community may be perfectly capable of deciding whether someone stole a chicken or robbed a stagecoach. They are not, however, prepared to hear the evidence generated by modern law enforcement techniques.
The legal code has simply become too complicated and the subtle distinction between guilt and reasonable doubt too vague for amateurs to sit in judgment of their supposed peers.
Instead of the fair trial that a jury is supposed to guarantee, the system works against the interest of fairness. Defendants who can pay for jury consultants and hire experts to predict how evidence will impact jurors have a better chance of being acquitted.
Under the current system a well-funded defense team can have significant influence on the type of person who ends up hearing a case. If the defense's research shows that single mothers would be sympathetic to their client, but divorced fathers would not be, they can make sure the right type of person ends up in the jury box.
Conversely, a defendant without money faces a jury picked by luck of the draw. Sure, his lawyer might have some basic ideas about the type of person he is looking for, but hunches and past experience do not equate with the expensive research used by the wealthy.
Whether Jackson is actually innocent or guilty, the panel of people assigned to hear his case lacked the training and expertise to make that decision. Instead, as we see in so many cases, they appeared to have been swayed more by the personality of the witnesses than the actual facts.
There are very few cases where the prosecution has ironclad evidence that the accused has committed the crime. If there were photos or videotape of the person breaking the law, than the case would very likely be pleaded out before reaching trial. Most prosecution cases involve verbal testimony from witnesses and very technical evidence.
Using amateurs as jurors forces the prosecution to spend too much time explaining evidence and defending testimony. Scientific evidence, such as DNA, can't simply be introduced, it must be explained. This leaves the defense plenty of room to challenge complicated scientific concepts and create juror doubt by questioning the science, not the evidence itself.
Professional, trained jurors would solve this problem. Defendants would still receive a jury of their peers, but this jury would be assigned on a rotating basis like judges are now. This would remove many of the advantages money brings for the defense and would have the added benefit of cutting down the length of trials.
These professional jurors would serve for a limited, non-renewable period of time so as not to become jaded when hearing cases. They would also receive training in how evidence must be gathered, the science that law enforcement uses and what constitutes reasonable doubt.
Making this dramatic change is the only way to ensure that everyone receives a fair trial. Professional jurors would return the question of guilt or innocence to one answered by weighing the facts rather than one of defense tactics and showmanship.
Daniel B. Kline is an executive with Lynn Ladder & Scaffolding in New Haven, CT and former editor of the Register Citizen in Torrington, CT. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com
The Michael Jackson case has proven once again that jury trials do not work anymore. This outdated concept must be eliminated and replaced by smaller panels of professional jurors who receive at least some legal training.
The idea of having your fate decided by a panel of your peers may have made perfect sense in an eighteenth century agrarian society, but the law has become too complex for its continued use. Cases that hinge on scientific evidence or complex financial documents are significantly more involved than the ones envisioned when the jury concept was created.
Twelve people pulled from the community may be perfectly capable of deciding whether someone stole a chicken or robbed a stagecoach. They are not, however, prepared to hear the evidence generated by modern law enforcement techniques.
The legal code has simply become too complicated and the subtle distinction between guilt and reasonable doubt too vague for amateurs to sit in judgment of their supposed peers.
Instead of the fair trial that a jury is supposed to guarantee, the system works against the interest of fairness. Defendants who can pay for jury consultants and hire experts to predict how evidence will impact jurors have a better chance of being acquitted.
Under the current system a well-funded defense team can have significant influence on the type of person who ends up hearing a case. If the defense's research shows that single mothers would be sympathetic to their client, but divorced fathers would not be, they can make sure the right type of person ends up in the jury box.
Conversely, a defendant without money faces a jury picked by luck of the draw. Sure, his lawyer might have some basic ideas about the type of person he is looking for, but hunches and past experience do not equate with the expensive research used by the wealthy.
Whether Jackson is actually innocent or guilty, the panel of people assigned to hear his case lacked the training and expertise to make that decision. Instead, as we see in so many cases, they appeared to have been swayed more by the personality of the witnesses than the actual facts.
There are very few cases where the prosecution has ironclad evidence that the accused has committed the crime. If there were photos or videotape of the person breaking the law, than the case would very likely be pleaded out before reaching trial. Most prosecution cases involve verbal testimony from witnesses and very technical evidence.
Using amateurs as jurors forces the prosecution to spend too much time explaining evidence and defending testimony. Scientific evidence, such as DNA, can't simply be introduced, it must be explained. This leaves the defense plenty of room to challenge complicated scientific concepts and create juror doubt by questioning the science, not the evidence itself.
Professional, trained jurors would solve this problem. Defendants would still receive a jury of their peers, but this jury would be assigned on a rotating basis like judges are now. This would remove many of the advantages money brings for the defense and would have the added benefit of cutting down the length of trials.
These professional jurors would serve for a limited, non-renewable period of time so as not to become jaded when hearing cases. They would also receive training in how evidence must be gathered, the science that law enforcement uses and what constitutes reasonable doubt.
Making this dramatic change is the only way to ensure that everyone receives a fair trial. Professional jurors would return the question of guilt or innocence to one answered by weighing the facts rather than one of defense tactics and showmanship.
Daniel B. Kline is an executive with Lynn Ladder & Scaffolding in New Haven, CT and former editor of the Register Citizen in Torrington, CT. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Fail grandly and we all pay the bill
By Daniel B. Kline
Spend too much on credit cards and buy a big house you can't really afford the payments on and nobody steps in to bail you out. Overextend your giant corporation, however, and here comes Uncle Sam riding to the rescue.
Those of you who have accumulated debts you cannot pay by buying food, shelter and maybe a few too many pairs of shoes simply made a mistake of scale. Failing on a small level does not create a ripple effect, but fail spectacularly and others will attempt to minimize the collateral damage.
Nobody in government cares about your inability to pay your mortgage because that pretty much only affects you. If you run a large investment bank that accumulates thousands of bad mortgages then here comes Uncle Sam to bail you out.
Thousands of small businesses in America struggle everyday. Run by honest hard-working folks these tiny companies receive no special attention from the government because their loss only impacts a handful of people.
When a huge investment bank fails it not only costs tens of thousands of people there jobs, it undermines the entire nation's confidence in banks in general. If Washington Mutual or Citibank go under than everyone starts taking their money out of their local branch and stuffs it into mattresses.
Though the folks at Sleepy's might like that option the government dislikes instability and steps in to prevent truly giant companies from failing. While this seems like a good idea, it actually undermines our entire economic system forcing the little guys to pay for problems they did not create.
Of course, if you let AIG or another insurance giant go under than the little guy would get hurt too, but at least the pain is from something he actually signed up for. Nobody expects their investment bank or insurance company to go bankrupt, but we at least understand the theoretical possibility when we sign up.
As a taxpayer I don't remember signing off on the idea that my money could be used to prop up giant corporations which through a combination of greed and incompetence run out of cash. The big boys need to play by the same rules as us little guys and that means when you have no money left and nobody will loan you anymore, you go out of business.
The basic principles of capitalism do not allow for a "do-over" when things don't work out. The free market offers the opportunity to make and lose huge amounts of money without limits in either direction.
Remove the downside risk by allowing the government to bail you out when you fail and you still failed, only someone else has to pay for it just. That's a pretty good deal if you're the business getting bailed out, but a pretty bad one if you're the little guy footing the bill.
I'll gladly take the same deal if any casino wants to make me the offer. I'll play blackjack and make large bets. If I win big, I keep the cash and if I lose big then the everyone playing for $10 a hand has to pitch in to cover my losses.
Of course, no entity besides the federal government would be foolish enough to actually do this. Instead of letting the economy take its lumps from these giant failures, we've put a band-aid on a wound that needed stitches. We'll still bleed to death, only it will be slower and a lot more painful.
Daniel Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. When he is not writing Kline serves as general manager of Time Machine Hobby New England's largest hobby and toy store, www.timemachinehobby.com. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com.
Spend too much on credit cards and buy a big house you can't really afford the payments on and nobody steps in to bail you out. Overextend your giant corporation, however, and here comes Uncle Sam riding to the rescue.
Those of you who have accumulated debts you cannot pay by buying food, shelter and maybe a few too many pairs of shoes simply made a mistake of scale. Failing on a small level does not create a ripple effect, but fail spectacularly and others will attempt to minimize the collateral damage.
Nobody in government cares about your inability to pay your mortgage because that pretty much only affects you. If you run a large investment bank that accumulates thousands of bad mortgages then here comes Uncle Sam to bail you out.
Thousands of small businesses in America struggle everyday. Run by honest hard-working folks these tiny companies receive no special attention from the government because their loss only impacts a handful of people.
When a huge investment bank fails it not only costs tens of thousands of people there jobs, it undermines the entire nation's confidence in banks in general. If Washington Mutual or Citibank go under than everyone starts taking their money out of their local branch and stuffs it into mattresses.
Though the folks at Sleepy's might like that option the government dislikes instability and steps in to prevent truly giant companies from failing. While this seems like a good idea, it actually undermines our entire economic system forcing the little guys to pay for problems they did not create.
Of course, if you let AIG or another insurance giant go under than the little guy would get hurt too, but at least the pain is from something he actually signed up for. Nobody expects their investment bank or insurance company to go bankrupt, but we at least understand the theoretical possibility when we sign up.
As a taxpayer I don't remember signing off on the idea that my money could be used to prop up giant corporations which through a combination of greed and incompetence run out of cash. The big boys need to play by the same rules as us little guys and that means when you have no money left and nobody will loan you anymore, you go out of business.
The basic principles of capitalism do not allow for a "do-over" when things don't work out. The free market offers the opportunity to make and lose huge amounts of money without limits in either direction.
Remove the downside risk by allowing the government to bail you out when you fail and you still failed, only someone else has to pay for it just. That's a pretty good deal if you're the business getting bailed out, but a pretty bad one if you're the little guy footing the bill.
I'll gladly take the same deal if any casino wants to make me the offer. I'll play blackjack and make large bets. If I win big, I keep the cash and if I lose big then the everyone playing for $10 a hand has to pitch in to cover my losses.
Of course, no entity besides the federal government would be foolish enough to actually do this. Instead of letting the economy take its lumps from these giant failures, we've put a band-aid on a wound that needed stitches. We'll still bleed to death, only it will be slower and a lot more painful.
Daniel Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. When he is not writing Kline serves as general manager of Time Machine Hobby New England's largest hobby and toy store, www.timemachinehobby.com. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Palin represents a frightening belief system
By Daniel B. Kline
Being anti-abortion and against sex education, vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin has no choice but to act happy at her 17-year-old daughter's pregnancy. Realistically though, only a truly misguided person could actually be joyous at the news that her teenage daughter has made the choices that led her to this point.
Of course Sarah Palin welcomes the baby and will do her part to help her daughter as any parent would. It's truly frightening however if she thinks her daughter has made a good decision and that having a baby at 17 represents family values.
Had I fathered a child at 17, my parents would have loved the child but been very disappointed in my actions. They would have wanted me to take care of my responsibilities to the child, but would not have pushed me into marrying the mother and they likely would have advised against it.
Bristol Palin's parents lack even that much common sense. They seem happy not only about the baby, but about Bristol Palin's decision to marry the father. Of course, being a good Republican requires getting married if you're pregnant even if the success record for teenage shotgun weddings is around the same as the one for big budget dramas starring Carrot Top.
If Chelsea Clinton had gotten pregnant at 17, the Republican party would have attacked Bill and Hillary labeling them horrible parents. When Bristol Palin gets knocked up at 17, the GOP somehow makes Sarah Palin a hero.
This occurs because the Republican party, or at least the most vocal part of it, clearly considers the babies of unwed, teenage Democrats as a drain on society while the infants of unwed, teenage Republicans are a gift from god. You can apparently never have too many down home backwoods white babies because they'll grow up to vote Republican.
For some reason the entire Republican party -- or at least the officials who back the McCain/Palin ticket seem overjoyed at this 17-year-old's illegitimate child. Not one GOP member has pointed out that raising a child is difficult at any age and even more difficult as a teenager.
Apparently when the daughter of a Republican politician gets pregnant she's not making a foolish choice, she's making a statement about abortion. Realistically, it's not exactly shocking that Bristol Palin got pregnant when she grew up in a house that taught abstinence and never got around to mentioning how things worked if you didn't wait for marriage.
No sane parent wants her 17-year-old daughter to get pregnant. In fact, most parents of daughters fear exactly that happening and make every effort to keep their child from becoming with child.
Every child makes mistakes and those mistakes do not always represent a failure of the parent. Sarah Palin is neither a bad person, nor a bad parent because her daughter got pregnant. Her total unwillingness to say that while she supports her daughter she does recognize that getting pregnant and married at 17 might not be the best choice in most cases should at least make us question her judgment.
Daniel Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. When he is not writing Kline serves as general manager of Time Machine Hobby New England's largest hobby and toy store, www.timemachinehobby.com. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com.
Being anti-abortion and against sex education, vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin has no choice but to act happy at her 17-year-old daughter's pregnancy. Realistically though, only a truly misguided person could actually be joyous at the news that her teenage daughter has made the choices that led her to this point.
Of course Sarah Palin welcomes the baby and will do her part to help her daughter as any parent would. It's truly frightening however if she thinks her daughter has made a good decision and that having a baby at 17 represents family values.
Had I fathered a child at 17, my parents would have loved the child but been very disappointed in my actions. They would have wanted me to take care of my responsibilities to the child, but would not have pushed me into marrying the mother and they likely would have advised against it.
Bristol Palin's parents lack even that much common sense. They seem happy not only about the baby, but about Bristol Palin's decision to marry the father. Of course, being a good Republican requires getting married if you're pregnant even if the success record for teenage shotgun weddings is around the same as the one for big budget dramas starring Carrot Top.
If Chelsea Clinton had gotten pregnant at 17, the Republican party would have attacked Bill and Hillary labeling them horrible parents. When Bristol Palin gets knocked up at 17, the GOP somehow makes Sarah Palin a hero.
This occurs because the Republican party, or at least the most vocal part of it, clearly considers the babies of unwed, teenage Democrats as a drain on society while the infants of unwed, teenage Republicans are a gift from god. You can apparently never have too many down home backwoods white babies because they'll grow up to vote Republican.
For some reason the entire Republican party -- or at least the officials who back the McCain/Palin ticket seem overjoyed at this 17-year-old's illegitimate child. Not one GOP member has pointed out that raising a child is difficult at any age and even more difficult as a teenager.
Apparently when the daughter of a Republican politician gets pregnant she's not making a foolish choice, she's making a statement about abortion. Realistically, it's not exactly shocking that Bristol Palin got pregnant when she grew up in a house that taught abstinence and never got around to mentioning how things worked if you didn't wait for marriage.
No sane parent wants her 17-year-old daughter to get pregnant. In fact, most parents of daughters fear exactly that happening and make every effort to keep their child from becoming with child.
Every child makes mistakes and those mistakes do not always represent a failure of the parent. Sarah Palin is neither a bad person, nor a bad parent because her daughter got pregnant. Her total unwillingness to say that while she supports her daughter she does recognize that getting pregnant and married at 17 might not be the best choice in most cases should at least make us question her judgment.
Daniel Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. When he is not writing Kline serves as general manager of Time Machine Hobby New England's largest hobby and toy store, www.timemachinehobby.com. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Conventions mean nothing, offer even less
By Daniel B. Kline
After four days, hundreds of speeches and an uncountable amount of meaningless rhetoric, absolutely nothing changed for the Democratic party. When the Republicans held their tedious convention last week, we got exactly the same thing, but with even less excitement because the Democrats have better celebrities.
Put thousands of people who think pretty much exactly the same as each other in a room and you guarantee that nothing exciting will happen but there will be a lot of applause. Whether you're holding a rally for a sports team, a Klan meeting or a political convention, the complete lack of diversity of thought guarantees that nothing of importance will occur.
At least at a Klan meeting there might be some room to debate exactly which groups to hate and in what particular way. At a political convention there's no room for debate or even mildly divergent opinions. You either tow the party line or you get accused of hurting "party unity" and cast aside.
The dreary sameness of thought that has infected both the Republicans and the Democrats leads to dull conventions where no actual policy or ideas get discussed. Instead we get a parade of beaten primary candidates and party luminaries delivering fiery speeches full of nothing. They talk loud and hit all the applause points, but say little more than "them bad/us good."
Once full of intrigue and excitement, the political conventions have become completely devoid of substance. Since nominees and even running mates get announced in advance, the conventions simply serve as a coming-out-party for the new ticket.
Unfortunately, we're talking the kind of party an older relative throws with paper hats and punch, not the ones with an open bar and a hot DJ. Instead of floor votes and back room dealings to decide the ticket, we get party unity and acclimation votes.
All of this tedium comes from the idea that somehow the parties need to be unified not only after the convention, but during it. You're supposed to love the nominee even if there are legitimate questions about his experience and he just barely squeaked by his rival.
Had the Democrats wanted an entertaining convention or a truly democratic one, they would not have counted the super delegate votes until they were actually cast. This would have made Barack Obama the favorite since he held a lead over Hilary Clinton in pledged delegates, but not an automatic winner.
Clinton had enough pledged delegates and probably enough support to stop Obama from winning on the first ballot. That would have led to exciting back room deals where even the lesser candidates with a handful of pledged delegates would have had a role to play.
Under this scenario Clinton could have demanded the vice presidential nomination or forced Obama to pick someone from her camp. That would have given the Democrats a stronger ticket and would have made for compelling television.
On the Republican side, McCain had the nomination clinched, but it would have been nice to see some discussion of issues. Perhaps someone could have mentioned abortion or gay rights instead of pandering to the religious right that makes up the so-called "party base."
Sadly, the days of compelling conventions are over because the political parties have become so rigid that no room for debate actually exists. Instead of intrigue and impassioned discussion we're doomed to getting a sporting event where both teams agree on the outcome beforehand.
Daniel Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. When he is not writing Kline serves as general manager of Time Machine Hobby New England's largest hobby and toy store, www.timemachinehobby.com. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com.
After four days, hundreds of speeches and an uncountable amount of meaningless rhetoric, absolutely nothing changed for the Democratic party. When the Republicans held their tedious convention last week, we got exactly the same thing, but with even less excitement because the Democrats have better celebrities.
Put thousands of people who think pretty much exactly the same as each other in a room and you guarantee that nothing exciting will happen but there will be a lot of applause. Whether you're holding a rally for a sports team, a Klan meeting or a political convention, the complete lack of diversity of thought guarantees that nothing of importance will occur.
At least at a Klan meeting there might be some room to debate exactly which groups to hate and in what particular way. At a political convention there's no room for debate or even mildly divergent opinions. You either tow the party line or you get accused of hurting "party unity" and cast aside.
The dreary sameness of thought that has infected both the Republicans and the Democrats leads to dull conventions where no actual policy or ideas get discussed. Instead we get a parade of beaten primary candidates and party luminaries delivering fiery speeches full of nothing. They talk loud and hit all the applause points, but say little more than "them bad/us good."
Once full of intrigue and excitement, the political conventions have become completely devoid of substance. Since nominees and even running mates get announced in advance, the conventions simply serve as a coming-out-party for the new ticket.
Unfortunately, we're talking the kind of party an older relative throws with paper hats and punch, not the ones with an open bar and a hot DJ. Instead of floor votes and back room dealings to decide the ticket, we get party unity and acclimation votes.
All of this tedium comes from the idea that somehow the parties need to be unified not only after the convention, but during it. You're supposed to love the nominee even if there are legitimate questions about his experience and he just barely squeaked by his rival.
Had the Democrats wanted an entertaining convention or a truly democratic one, they would not have counted the super delegate votes until they were actually cast. This would have made Barack Obama the favorite since he held a lead over Hilary Clinton in pledged delegates, but not an automatic winner.
Clinton had enough pledged delegates and probably enough support to stop Obama from winning on the first ballot. That would have led to exciting back room deals where even the lesser candidates with a handful of pledged delegates would have had a role to play.
Under this scenario Clinton could have demanded the vice presidential nomination or forced Obama to pick someone from her camp. That would have given the Democrats a stronger ticket and would have made for compelling television.
On the Republican side, McCain had the nomination clinched, but it would have been nice to see some discussion of issues. Perhaps someone could have mentioned abortion or gay rights instead of pandering to the religious right that makes up the so-called "party base."
Sadly, the days of compelling conventions are over because the political parties have become so rigid that no room for debate actually exists. Instead of intrigue and impassioned discussion we're doomed to getting a sporting event where both teams agree on the outcome beforehand.
Daniel Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. When he is not writing Kline serves as general manager of Time Machine Hobby New England's largest hobby and toy store, www.timemachinehobby.com. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Neither Palin nor Obama ready to be president
By Daniel B. Kline
By picking the wildly unqualified one-term governor of Alaska as his running mate, John McCain has put a giant spotlight on Brack Obama's own complete lack of qualifications to be president. Though the majority of the press has chosen to highlight Sarah Palin's inexperience and ignore Obama's, their resumes are similar.
One could actually argue that Palin's background prepares her slightly better for the White House should her ticket win and something befall John McCain. Both Palin and Obama have spent less than a full term in their current jobs and Obama has spent much of his time in office running for president.
It can also be argued that being a governor -- a largely administrative job like the presidency -- prepares you more for the big desk in the Oval Office. Obama does come from a more populous state, but it's not like being a first-term senator from Illinois gives you a lot of foreign policy experience.
I don't remember there being any treaties negotiated between the Chicago Cubs and North Korea anymore than I remember Alaska playing an important role in peace discussions in the Middle East. Realistically, neither Obama nor Palin has the experience to be president. Palin's presence in the race forces people to look at Obama's actual qualifications not the bright ideals he supposedly represents.
Palin got picked because she's a woman who by political standards is pretty. Though she has frighteningly rigid views on abortion, she's a mom with five kids who might help McCain pull in some wayward former Hillary Clinton voters. Everyone knows that her selection reeks of pandering, but that never seems to bother the people being pandered to.
Realistically Obama got nominated because he's charming and articulate. He speaks of grand ideas, at least in a vague way, and promises something different from what we have now. He offers no concrete details on how he might exact these changes, but he knows how to get a crowd going and he most certainly represents a major change from the Bush administration.
Clever speeches and buckets of idealism don't count as experience and Obama has a lot of the former, but nearly none of the latter. He'd make an excellent vice presidential candidate but his charisma and verbal skills put him on the big stage before he had actually accomplished enough to deserve to be there.
The mainstream media has chosen to ignore this, however, and has largely chosen to not question Obama's experience while spending days laughing at McCain's seemingly foolish pick. The Republican party understood what McCain was doing though and began hammering their nominee's point home for him.
South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty and other McCain surrogates hit the talk shows last weekend and waited for the questions about Palin's lack of experience. When they came, and you had to know they were coming, they answered by comparing Palin's experience to Obama's.
Subtly unsaid was that Palin isn't running for president and would at least have some time to learn as vice president while Obama would immediately be leading the country. You can't possibly argue that Palin is ready to be president and if you cede that point than it's hard to argue the same can't be said of Obama.
I'm not eager for a McCain presidency and I question whether being a senator really prepares you for being president. Still, an experienced senator backed by an inexperienced governor simply presents a stronger ticket than one headed by a senator who masks his total lack of preparedness for the job by being really charming.
Daniel Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. When he is not writing Kline serves as general manager of Time Machine Hobby New England's largest hobby and toy store, www.timemachinehobby.com. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com.
By picking the wildly unqualified one-term governor of Alaska as his running mate, John McCain has put a giant spotlight on Brack Obama's own complete lack of qualifications to be president. Though the majority of the press has chosen to highlight Sarah Palin's inexperience and ignore Obama's, their resumes are similar.
One could actually argue that Palin's background prepares her slightly better for the White House should her ticket win and something befall John McCain. Both Palin and Obama have spent less than a full term in their current jobs and Obama has spent much of his time in office running for president.
It can also be argued that being a governor -- a largely administrative job like the presidency -- prepares you more for the big desk in the Oval Office. Obama does come from a more populous state, but it's not like being a first-term senator from Illinois gives you a lot of foreign policy experience.
I don't remember there being any treaties negotiated between the Chicago Cubs and North Korea anymore than I remember Alaska playing an important role in peace discussions in the Middle East. Realistically, neither Obama nor Palin has the experience to be president. Palin's presence in the race forces people to look at Obama's actual qualifications not the bright ideals he supposedly represents.
Palin got picked because she's a woman who by political standards is pretty. Though she has frighteningly rigid views on abortion, she's a mom with five kids who might help McCain pull in some wayward former Hillary Clinton voters. Everyone knows that her selection reeks of pandering, but that never seems to bother the people being pandered to.
Realistically Obama got nominated because he's charming and articulate. He speaks of grand ideas, at least in a vague way, and promises something different from what we have now. He offers no concrete details on how he might exact these changes, but he knows how to get a crowd going and he most certainly represents a major change from the Bush administration.
Clever speeches and buckets of idealism don't count as experience and Obama has a lot of the former, but nearly none of the latter. He'd make an excellent vice presidential candidate but his charisma and verbal skills put him on the big stage before he had actually accomplished enough to deserve to be there.
The mainstream media has chosen to ignore this, however, and has largely chosen to not question Obama's experience while spending days laughing at McCain's seemingly foolish pick. The Republican party understood what McCain was doing though and began hammering their nominee's point home for him.
South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty and other McCain surrogates hit the talk shows last weekend and waited for the questions about Palin's lack of experience. When they came, and you had to know they were coming, they answered by comparing Palin's experience to Obama's.
Subtly unsaid was that Palin isn't running for president and would at least have some time to learn as vice president while Obama would immediately be leading the country. You can't possibly argue that Palin is ready to be president and if you cede that point than it's hard to argue the same can't be said of Obama.
I'm not eager for a McCain presidency and I question whether being a senator really prepares you for being president. Still, an experienced senator backed by an inexperienced governor simply presents a stronger ticket than one headed by a senator who masks his total lack of preparedness for the job by being really charming.
Daniel Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. When he is not writing Kline serves as general manager of Time Machine Hobby New England's largest hobby and toy store, www.timemachinehobby.com. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
