Think differently about guns

I’m tired of the same old, same old.  I’m tired of second graders being killed in their classroom and dancing young people killed in clubs.  I’m tired of angry guys killing their partners. I’m sick to death of strutting fools intimidating people with guns in stores and on the street. And above all, I’m sick of ineffective discussion and political inaction.

It’s time to think differently.  Our right to bear arms is protected by the second amendment.  Fine.  I’ve lived with guns.  My father had a side arm; my husband had a handgun, my significant other has a couple of guns.  None of them walked around with them strapped on in plain view. None felt the need for an automatic or a semi-automatic gun. No one wants to eliminate the second amendment.  No one wants to go around collecting guns.

It is time to amend the second amendment for a new generation of Americans. We are no longer a few colonies without a strong national defense system.  In fact, we spend more than 50 percent of our national wealth on our military forces. We no longer have need of militias, well-trained or not.  If anything, our National Guard, Army Reserves, and the rest of our armed forces reserve corps take the place of citizen armies. That is not to say there is no place for an armed civilian.

The second amendment can still guarantee the right for citizens to own guns.  Not because we need to protect our towns from marauding invading foreign armies.  Not because we may need to rise up against our own government (that was never the intent and should not be now) but because we are a nation of farmers, sportsmen, mountain-dwellers, and urbanites, all of whom may want or need a gun for perfectly legal purposes.

No one wants your guns! 

What many of us do want is an amendment that reflects the reality of life in modern day America.  There are no militias.  We have weapons of mass destruction, not muskets.  We want to feel safe in our public places.  We want our children to be safe in their schools.  We want to dance and love and shop in peace. 

In the same way we want to keep alcohol away from children and cars away from drunk drivers, we want to make sure that gun purchases are fully vetted.  And gun ownership must come with responsibilities, such as insurance.  Gun owners should be licensed, insured, and subject to laws regarding the use of whatever weapon they choose to own.  And we should not be selling weapons that are made for warfare. No one has need of grenades, canons, rocket launchers or automatic weapons. 

Let there be due process but let there also be common sense.  If one has a violent history, or has criminal ties, severe mental illness, or has risen to the attention of national security, that person should be either entirely restricted from gun ownership, or be required to pass a higher level of competence to receive a license and insurance.  We take away the driving privileges of repeat offenders.  We should do the same with gun ownership.  It may be a right, but we can forfeit our rights with our behavior, as do those who lose their right to vote with felonies.

Our second amendment should continue to allow us the right to bear arms but temper that, not according to colonial militias, but according to real-time needs and modern sensibilities.  Specious arguments such as “It’s unenforceable because people will still get guns” are to be ignored.  We regulate all kinds of behavior that despite laws is still practiced.  We don’t make murder legal because we cannot stop all murders.  We don’t say shoplifting is fine because people will still shoplift.  No. We make common sense laws and enforce them.  We penalize those who break them.  We are Americans.  We can do this.  

Friendship

Unlike family, friends are voluntary, found along the path of life, identified though commonalities one might not even know one has.  Some friendship are rooted to a time of life or a job or some other transient period, known from the first as temporary.  Other friendships crash and burn or simply wear out.  Then there are those that are family, minus the genetics.

Mary Lou was such a friend to me.  We met at our jobs at a newspaper and found ourselves scheduling errands at the same time simply to continue our seemingly endless conversation.  She had two boys she was raising; I had two girls.  We ate breakfast biscuits together, shopped sales together, finally taking days at the beach together, burning our noses and drinking in the sun and sand.

My friend would shake both her hands, stopping mid-sentence, declaring  "Oh, oh, quantum leap!" and take our conversation in a new direction, only to return later to the thread with a bemused, "Now where were we?"

She doodled marvelous drawings, creating custom holiday greetings I wish now I had kept.  She understood me without explanation and loved me through some of my darkest days.  When she and her husband retired and moved to another state to live in the mountains, I saw her off.  I pulled up to the curb at her house and as her son and husband loaded a truck, she ran out to me with an old copper kettle she kept on her stove to moisten the winter air.  "Here," she said.  "For you."  We hugged and promised to visit.

Within weeks she was dead.  She had fallen down the steps of her new home.

Today I saw another friend off to yet another state.  We met more than 10 years ago in a small town in South Carolina at a pottery class.  Recognizing in each other that indefinable character that somehow creates friendship, we were delighted to discover we had grown up within a few miles of each other, both the daughters of eastern European widowed mothers. To our amazement we discovered we had been taken to some of the same performances at Carnegie Hall and Lincoln Center in Manhattan. We shared memories of experiences lived separately but remembered together.

As my friend embarked on her adventure I wished her well and told her to travel carefully.  We will share lunches via Facetime and maintain our friendship, but I will miss her because I know that friendship is indeed rare and irreplaceable.  We met by chance and became the sisters neither of us had.

The stuff of life: Politics

In the interest of full disclosure, I stipulate upfront that I have been a Democrat since the difference between the two parties was explained to me when I was about 10.  I will further stipulate that I may be best described as a bleeding heart liberal.  With that out of the way, I feel I can present a few political observations. This blog is, after all, about the stuff of life and politics affects our “stuff” in ways we are not always even cognizant of. 

In this age of social media, I do not know a single person – myself included – who has not lost a friendship over politics.  It also affects families and can strain already emotionally fraught relationships to the breaking point.  Politics invade our bedrooms as well as our laws.  It sits at our dinner tables like an unwelcome guest.  It can take our children from us either with alienation or with war.  Politics is serious stuff.   Some try to opt out by refusing to discuss it or even become educated on the issues, but no one can escape its ramifications.

Justice Scalia died this weekend leaving a vacancy on the high court and a convoluted path forward.  The way such a vacancy on the Supreme Court is supposed to be filled is by the sitting President nominating a jurist and the Senate confirming or blocking the nomination.  Within hours of Scalia’s death, Senate Leader Mitch McConnell stated that the Senate would not hold hearings on anyone President Obama nominates because he wants to wait almost a full year until after the election when a new President will be named and inaugurated in January of 2017.  The current slate of Republican candidates, who could agree on nothing else during their debate that evening, agreed with McConnell.  

In contrast, President Obama praised Scalia during comments he made and said he would fulfill his constitutional duty to nominate someone to fill the empty slot on the bench. His likeliest nominees are all moderates. Most pundits believe it is unlikely that his nominee will be confirmed. This is where politics gets interesting.

If no one is confirmed, the high court is split and any 4-4 tie results in the lower court’s latest ruling remaining in force.  This will benefit the left and the right, but not equally.  More left-leaning rulings are up for review.  So refusing to confirm a moderate candidate might be counterproductive for the right.

Another scenario is for Obama to read McConnell’s statement as pure obstruction and go around him with a recess appointment.  This would likely work and Obama has used his executive powers more in recent months.  He could appoint a wild progressive to the court this way, especially if he waits a bit so that the Senate would be unable to challenge his appointment.  This is, I think, unlikely, though tempting.

Of course, the Senate can do exactly what they have threatened to do, not hold hearings on any proposed jurist.  That’s a risk.  People already view this Congress as the least productive ever.  Also, there is no guarantee a Republican will win the presidential contest.  Should either Sanders or Clinton win, a liberal nomination would be assured and in the unlikely event that the Senate remains red, they would be forced to finally hold hearings and rapidly fill the vacant post, even if with a liberal.

Then there’s the irony inherent in the Republican proposition that since Scalia was a purist, or textural in his interpretation of the Constitution, any replacement should be likewise.  A pure reading of the part of the Constitution that spells out how Supreme Court vacancies are to be filled flies directly in the face of what they have said they would do.  There is no mention of any continuing legacy of a deceased jurist, only that the sitting President nominates and the Senate confirms. There is no language that can be construed to make any exception for an election year.  So in defense of the most purist of interpretations, the Republicans are willing to impute meanings not written in the Constitution they say they are defending.

Sigh.

No matter what the Republicans do, they will likely cause harm to themselves, but they are determined to thwart Obama at every possible turn, regardless of the cost.  I think most Americans find that offensive.  We need a government that does not grind to a halt when one side or the other does not get its way.  We need a full court.  We need a passed budget.  We need to pay our debts.  We need to respect each other’s differences and beliefs.  That should be the stuff of politics.

Word!

I've been thinking a lot about vocabulary lately.  For one thing, I homeschool my granddaughter in language arts.  She's just in the fourth grade and she has a large vocabulary already so I decided to give her some vocabulary words from the S.A.T.  And then there's my own vocabulary that has grown by leaps and bounds due to my study of genetics.  It dawned on me that one learns nearly everything through words.

Not being a geneticist or even a scientist, reading advanced medical texts and academic papers left me feeling like I was missing more than I was understanding.  So I made a concerted effort to look up every word I did not know, as I came upon it.  I used my cell phone and a pocket medical dictionary to do so.  My knowledge of genetics grew as I began to understand the words in their context and it convinced me that my readers will need to at least have access to these words as well.

My second inter-library loan came through yesterday, a medical book exceeding 600 pages, and as I browsed the pertinent parts, the terms were familiar and my understanding of my topic grew.  I have always loved words.  I love their specificity, their ability to elicit feelings, their power, the funny way so many resemble their meanings.  I have a new respect for them now.  I can see how just learning the vocabulary of a new field of study opens it to understanding.

I need not be a scientist to write about genetics and my granddaughter need not be a high school student to call her grandfather cantankerous or know that bovine should elicit a moo.  Words are presents just waiting to be unwrapped.  I can't wait to learn more.

This tenuous life

Sometimes we forget how tenuous life is.  Once born, our lives are at the mercy of pure chance: a semi on the highway, a tiny bacterium or virus, a misplaced step on a flight of stairs and it can all end.  Just getting born is a crap-shoot. We talk callously about poor women who "pop babies out" like it is easy, but it is not.

I had several miscarriages in my youth and  a still-born child.  It tore the heart out of me.  Now it's happening again, just not to me. There will be blood and tears and pain.  And again I am helpless.

I am writing a book on rare genetic disorders and I understand how this happens and that some children might be better off not being born.  My belief system does not include any kind of grand ringmaster directing the affairs of men.  I believe that we are all miracles - miracles of stardust and chance.  I think our souls are no more or less than the energy we contain and expend and that just as energy and matter cannot be destroyed or created, these souls are recycled and born to another or in another time.

Still, at this moment someone I love is losing part of her heart. There will be no child to hold, just pain and damage and doubt. 

Discernment and nonprofits

In recent days, the Wounded Warrior Project (WWP) has come under fire for the way it uses donations.  It has been pointed out that key personnel have high salaries and that the headquarters of the organization is quite nice.  What I don't think was as well covered was all the good done by this organization or how nonprofits really work. 

I have worked with a number of nonprofits in my career, including WWP, and all of them have done good work.  The problems arise when a nonprofit has to explain their budget line-items in a kind of vacuum to its supporters. There is a rule of thumb that says the "overhead" for a nonprofit should not be more than 15 percent of it's total operating budget.  Everything else should go toward direct services to the intended recipients. In the nonprofit world having money left at the end of the year is frowned upon. 

Look at what has to fit into overhead: the salaries of the executive director, his or her secretary or assistant, an operations manager, a bookkeeper, the development officer and any grant writers, and depending on the individual organization, there might be other, necessary, jobs that are not directly related to service for recipients. Then there is the cost of whatever facility is involved.  And the cost of any services that are contracted out, such as advertising for donations or an annual audit.  Even janitorial services cost money.

Then the nonprofit has to pay whoever provides the services to clients.  These are likely professional people such as social workers, psychologists, nurses, etc. Even volunteers represent a cost to an agency.  They must be trained, supervised, supplied with space and equipment and some come through programs, such as AmeriCorps, that charge a fee.

In the private sector, a business would be considered practically insolvent if it ended a year without some funds left in the bank.  As individuals we all know the value of having savings we can tap for emergencies, special needs, or upcoming costs.  Why should we expect nonprofits to simply trust that if their plumbing requires repairs or some other unbudgeted expense arises, someone will donate them? Having a little surplus at year's end for a nonprofit is not a bad thing.  It is a hedge against falling donations, recession, rising salaries due to competition, and emergency expenses.  

As an example, let's look at a modest nonprofit, one that raises $500,000 a year. Let's say it provides after-school care for at-risk kids.  The executive director has a PhD in child psychology and has never worked for less than $65,000 a year.  Her office assistant requires $30,000 and she doubles as the bookkeeper. A part time counselor needs another $20,000 and the agency pays two people each $10 an hour to help out with the kids after school.  So on an annual basis, the overhead salaries total $95,000 out of a $500,000 budget.  That's nearly 20 percent right there and no one is getting rich. And that doesn't even begin to touch the liability insurance the nonprofit must provide or any modifications necessary for handicapped children, or attorney fees or security costs to protect against angry parents who don't like the services.  Reasonable costs can count against a nonprofit.

People think nonprofits run on volunteer labor and they do not.  They need skilled executives to make excellent decisions about the money collected.  These executives need to make good hires.  They need to see that services are provided and they control the quality of the organization.  These people do not come cheap. Professionals of every stripe expect to be paid according to the market for their profession.  Lots of small nonprofits start with a well-meaning person and an idea.  Most of them fail because running a nonprofit is no different than running a business. Someone has to pay the light bill; someone has to sweep the floors; someone has to fix the driveway.

The larger a nonprofit becomes, the more important it is to get and keep excellent people in key positions.  People who work at nonprofits are no different from those who work at a tire factory or in advertising, or at a security firm.  They all have to pay mortgages, buy insurances, save for retirement.  They may work for a nonprofit out of passion for the cause, but their families still have needs.  If we expect a well-run nonprofit, we must expect to pay competitive salaries to all who work there.

Granted, some nonprofits are simply scams.  These donate just a few cents on the dollar to those who are supposed to receive assistance.  But we should not lump successful nonprofits such as WWP in with them simply because their costs are high or because they pay their people market rates or because they have a positive balance at year's end. Most people in that organization are veterans themselves.  WWP has helped countless veterans overcome war injuries and find their way back to their families and communities.  They have helped the families of veterans.  They give out grants every year to other nonprofits that provide all kinds of services, all over the nation. 

WWP does a lot of good, not just on its own, but also with other organizations. One organization with which I work has received funding through WWP and due directly to that funding, more than 19,000 veterans have received homes, jobs, employment, counseling, healthcare, and other services.  That is no small thing and it is just one of the many efforts paid for by WWP. 

The nonprofit sector is not without its flaws, certainly, but let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater.  Let us evaluate them as the businesses they are.  As businesses they have legitimate costs.  They cannot get office supplies for free and they cannot get excellent executives and directors for less than what the market offers.  They must pay for the services they render. 

It is far too easy to look at a handful of salaries or a nice building and think, that money should have gone somewhere else. Comparing nonprofits is also risky.  A multi-million dollar concern can't be compared to a mom-and-pop nonprofit where one or two people do everything for a few clients.  Let us develop discernment.  Let us ask ourselves, if I had those qualifications, how much would I expect to be paid? Let us be realistic.  Nonprofits must compete for our money against not only each other, but also against our own desire to keep every dollar we earn. 

When feeling charitable very few of us go under the bridges where we can find the homeless and start passing out tens and twenties.  We don't go up to a mother on the street as ask if her child has a defect and then give her $5.  We don't go into hospitals or research centers and stuff our money in their desk drawers. We rely on nonprofits to represent us to our concerns. We rely on nonprofits to find those who need help, to sort out any freeloaders, to provide efficient, useful help. Let us do our homework, certainly, but let us keep in mind the totality of the business of nonprofits. 

Rather than asking if a nonprofit is spending more than an arbitrary 85 percent on its clients, ask, what is being done for those it serves?  How does it reach that population?  How effective is it? What opposition does it have?  Do its values line up with my own? Who supports it?  These questions will give a far better evaluation of a nonprofit than simply looking at the salary of its top executives. 

I support WWP because they help a lot of veterans in meaningful ways.  They are always looking for ways to be better, to help more, and to be more efficient. They do pay their executives well.  I have no problem with that as long as they keep providing significant services to those they help.  I hope the recent bad press causes all of us to look carefully, not only at the nonprofits we support, but also at what we expect of all our nonprofits.  We should develop reasonable guidelines for running and evaluating a nonprofit.  It costs a lot to help people. Nonprofits are businesses, businesses with tenuous incomes, difficult clients, and many responsibilities. It is hard work. It is not done for free.
That's just the truth. 

Take a hammer to it!

As a pottery student, my work was criticized, along with all my fellow students, on a regular basis.  The comments would range from, "I love the glaze combination!" to "That handle is weak."  Nothing personal was ever meant, or taken, during such criticism.  Exposing one's work to critical thought is supposed to teach, not tear down.

Writers are more delicate creatures, it would seem.  Though many in my various writers' groups post their work frequently, some are so defensive as to repel critical thought.  They question the critic's qualifications and the criticism's validity. It is like watching a mother protecting her child.

In large groups it is not unusual to find someone who enjoys being negative about others' work just for the sake of doing so.  A perceptive writer can tell the difference between an honest criticism and a simple tear-down.  One appreciates the former and walks away from the latter without comment.  Not all criticism is bad; not all require discussion.  Take what you need and leave the rest.

I learned that in crafting my clay vessels many things could go wrong:  handles could warp in the fire; glazes could craze or crawl; they could just turn out ugly.  When this happens I take a hammer to them, not wanting them to continue to exist in such a flawed state as a testament to me, its maker. I take the same approach to my writing.

Tell me - please - where my errors are.  I want to know if I have misspelled something, shifted my tense, lost track of who is speaking.  I want to fix it.  I want to know if my words sing or clang.  I want to know if my reader understands the story, the message behind it, or if I've gotten off track.  I want to know if I should make massive revisions, tweak it, or take a hammer to it!  If you just want to tell me my character should be wearing blue, save it.  If you are grasping at straws and just spewing negativity for the sake of sounding critical, I will understand and roundly ignore you.

We writers need criticism the way plants need sun and water.  It is a good thing.  Welcome it, use it, or if need be, ignore it!