Why we must never allow the 2nd Amendment to be infringed upon

December 8, 2013

Why I'm opposed to gun control

One of the ideas for supporting gun control we hear concerns the word "militia" being used in the 2nd Amendment. Anti-gun advocates claim this word clearly shows the only Constitutionally approved ownership of firearms guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment must be connected to the owner serving in a state militia--period.

In fact, the Supreme Court, as recently as 2008 and 2010, affirmed “individuals” right to own firearms cannot be constrained by either state or federal laws, or by requiring membership in a militia. So, this particular basis for supporting gun ownership restrictions is simply opinion and is a moot point which has no basis in law. Remember, we live in a land governed by our Constitution, and only our Supreme Court has the final say on exactly what the individual parts of the Constitution mean. It doesn’t matter what any of us think as individuals, or if we do or don't agree with a court ruling. Any law, as interpreted by this highest court in the land, is a law which we must all obey. The only way the Constitution can be legally altered is via amendment. Therefor, if individuals or groups don't agree with any segment of the Constitution, they should either accept it or try to change it via an Amendment.

Many of our founders' historical writings make it clear they supported the 2nd Amendment primarily to assure our future citizens would be able to protect themselves and our nation from a rogue federal government. A global history of atrocities by evil dictators since our Constitution was written has proven how wise they were, and it's why we must never allow any group, no matter how well-intended, to ever weaken in any way the legal rights of a law-abiding American citizens to own firearms.

America has less risk than many other nations of an evil leader being tempted to enslave our people--but, it's primarily because of the high level of firearms ownership by our citizens. Any evil despot wannabe would know America currently has around 80 million citizens who own nearly 300 million firearms. He/she also know the chances of winning a guerrilla war against this huge number of highly motivated and well-armed defenders of liberty without destroying the entire nation would be quite small.

In the past hundred years or so tens of millions of innocent humans have been tragically murdered by their own evil leaders in places like China, Russia, Germany, and Cambodia, among others. This can only be guaranteed to be prevented here if we doggedly resist all attempts to weaken in any way honest citizens rights to own firearms.

The following statistics provide a logical reason to oppose any ban on honest citizen's rights to own semi-automatic rifles...which gun control advocates incorrectly label “military assault weapons”.

Begin by examining the FBI U.S. Crimes website for 2011. You will find of the 12,664 homicides by all causes committed in 2011 (last year available), only 323 were committed by long rifles of any kind. Knives were used nearly 1700 times, hands/fists/feet over 700 times, and hammers/clubs 500. Yet, gun control advocates remain focused on semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines as their main target. Why? Given the above statistics, how does that make any sense? If these advocates were successful in removing semi-automatic rifles...the reduction in homicides would be almost non-existent. Do you think they don't understand these facts? The only possible reason for advocating such a first step is because it is just that--a first step toward eventually removing the 2nd Amendment rights of all honest law-abiding American adults to own any firearms.

As additional evidence to support overall gun ownership freedom, a recent report from the government's Bureau of Justice Statistics, showed between 1993 and 2011 America had a nearly 50% reduction in gun homicides. Have criminals and the insane simply become kinder and gentler? Or, is it possible broader gun ownership by honest citizens is a major factor?

I actually wish most honest, law-abiding adult Americans owned and were trained to use firearms in order to protect their families and their fellow citizen's freedom.

Frankly, I can't understand reasonable people not rejecting the focus on weapons in the gun violence arguments, and instead acknowledging criminals and crazy people are the real killers. Let's focus our energy on improving identification, diagnosis, and treatment for the mentally ill. Let's create and enforce more severe penalties for gun use by criminals. Too much evidence proves gun ownership by honest citizens is simply not the real cause of firearm tragedies.

Finally, we ought to consider the highest incidence of homicides by guns in America are in the places which currently have the strictest gun control laws. Chicago is the perfect example.

Mike Tower

American supermarkets not customer focused

December 1, 2013

Supermarkets don't make it easy

Have you noticed the increasing time and effort it seems to take to shop in most modern supermarkets? I'm guessing most of these chains have signs in their corporate offices proclaiming their number one goal is to serve customers. However, all evidence suggests most of their activities are aimed at maximizing the store's short-term financial performance by encouraging customers to buy stuff they didn't intend to buy when they entered the store.

It's apparent the folks in charge of store operations for most grocery chains have made a science of laying out stores to ensure every customer who enters will walk past as many product categories and displays as possible. None of this is done to make shopping easier on customers. In fact, success is measured by the extra distance customers cover once they walk thorough the front doors, and, more important, how how much extra stuff they buy along the way.

When you enter a modern super-market, you usually encounter barriers intended to guide you on the path they want you to take. The foodstuff staples such as milk, meat, dairy, and bread are placed in opposite sections of the store. Then, the highest profit margin items are placed on shelves at average eye level and lower margin items on the lower and higher shelves. I'm willing to bet all super markets have corporate staffs whose sole function is to develop computer programs designed to maximize customer spending. Perhaps these programs have names such as, "sales maximizer" or "empty their wallets".

Over the past couple of years, my wife and I have begun to notice entire categories of products suddenly relocated. It's obvious "sales maximizer" programs have discovered relocating items will result in customers spending even more time in the store looking for the new location of items regularly purchased, and assure they will walk past even more displays of impulse purchase items.

Physicians should ask patients complaining about memory loss if they first noticed the problem after recently shopping at a super market? I find myself too often going to a specific location for an item I have purchased in the past, only to find it missing, and then wonder if I'm losing it! Thankfully my basic understanding of modern corporate businesses reminds me I am once again being led around by the nose to help lighten my wallet.

"Sales maximizer" understands when a customer cannot find an item, they will initially wonder around trying to read aisle signs for help. When that doesn't work they have to then travel even further trying to find a store employee to ask. Of course, all of this makes you wonder all over the store as planned...and guess what...your shopping cart magically ends up with stuff you never even thought about buying when you first walked in the front door.

The best part of the process comes when the check-out person usually smiles and asks: "were you able to find everything you wanted?" I usually answer, "no I did I not find everything I wanted but, I sure did buy stuff I didn't intend to." Not once has the clerk stopped smiling.

I am not blaming Super markets for trying to maximize their bottom line...I'm just tired of them sapping my energy and causing me think I'm developing dementia in the process. I'm actually surprised they haven't found a way to charge extra for the exercise program!

The more serious question I would pose is: Why don't the folks who run these supermarkets try to increase customer loyalty the old fashioned way--treating people as valued customers by providing pleasant shopping experiences designed to make them want to come back, instead of mainly laying out stores to make sure customers end up tired and poorer when they depart. It really doesn't take a genius to understand why Walmart is literally eating the lunch of most grocery chains. They don't treat customers special either, but they have a reputation for charging less for the shopping pain.

I don't think American supermarkets will ever win a price war with Walmart; but they would have a chance to survive and prosper by better serving their customers--from the customer's perspective. Sadly, this would require something that is missing among senior management for most large publicly traded organizations these days--long range thinking.

My suggestion to the corporate management of these chains would be to begin by asking their customers what they like and dislike about shopping in their stores.

Please understand this article is not intended to portray the folks who manage or work in any local super markets in a negative light. If anything, it is their unwavering friendly service which makes shopping while hanging upside down as one's wallet or purse is being emptied even somewhat bearable.

Mike Tower

Caveat Emptor applies to charitable giving too

November 17, 2013

Donate with caution!

Most of us know mankind often commits fraud and outright theft against fellow humans.

It also happens within charitable and non-profit organizations.

Several weeks ago, Harry Smith on NBC, reported a very negative story about Goodwill Industries. I suspect most of us have shopped at or donated money or goods to Goodwill. They are famous for hiring the handicapped as a major part of their mission in order to provide income and the dignity of work for many otherwise unemployable humans. On the surface it all sounds wonderfully benevolent and admirable. That is until, as Smith pointed out, some of the handicapped and disabled who work there make as little as 22 cents an hour! You read correctly....22 cents an hour! That comes out to a less than paltry $9 per week.

According to Smith, Goodwill workers repetitive activities are timed by observers and they are paid what they are then judged to be worth. No matter how it is explained, this seems more deserving of being called slave labor than just low pay. To make it even worse, Smith went on to report that one senior Goodwill executive was paid more than a million dollars a year, and many others were paid over a half million dollars. How can this be rationally explained, or even possible? I'm guessing these executives are timing each others productivity!

It all goes back to an obscure law signed into law by President Roosevelt in 1938 which shelters some employers from having to pay even minimum wages as an inducement for them to employ disabled or handicapped workers.

I'm sorry, but I was under the impression slavery had been abolished. How can those at the top of Goodwill look themselves in a mirror and not be totally embarrassed?

I encountered another despicable example of charitable failure a few years ago while playing golf at a resort in Florida. My foursome came to the tee of a par three hole where we were greeted by a very attractive lady who had a table with a sign indicating she was representing the American Diabetes Association. She said she was accepting donations of $5 in return for a chance to win a sleeve of golf balls if the golfer could hit a tee shot onto the green. I asked her how much of the $5 went to the charity. She said she didn't know. I asked how much of each donation she kept. Without a hint of embarrassment she replied, half. So, I went on, then half goes to the charity? She replied that she passed on the remaining money to the person who coordinated the event, and who had workers at every golf course in the area on most busy days, and he kept part of it for his work. It didn't take much imagination to understand that this was mainly a money making scheme for the organizers of these events.

I have seen many news stories over the years with the same theme. For example, organizations hire phone solicitors to call homes and request donations. These folks are very well trained and always begin a request for money by describing a person or group most of us will have empathy toward. After all, who can turn their back on requests to support burned children, veterans, disabled veterans, firefighters, or police. The problem is that many if not most of these operations net far more money for the fundraisers than the final beneficiary they claim to be representing. Money finally received by many charities who fund-raise this way will be a fraction of the amount collected.

I will also never donate money to any quasi political group claiming benevolent objectives for our nation. I speak specifically of organizations such as AmericansElect and their ilk. I wrote an article warning about them in late 2011. Careful investigation had shown this particular organization was started by a hedge fund manager. The moment I saw hedge fund manager connected to a supposedly benevolent political non-profit--I was stopped in my tracks. Information on their website showed a small group of individuals, including the leader, had provided several million dollars in seed money to start the organization. However, in the small print, it said these initial contributions were promised to be returned once sufficient funds were raised. I may not be the brightest bulb, but even I can see giant red flags when they're waving in my face!

Guess what subsequently happened? Just before the election in 2012 AmericansElect folded like a tent. Those who sent in donations were left to wonder what happened to the additional millions of dollars raised above the returned seed money?

From now on when someone I do not personally know approaches me to request a donation for any cause...the answer will be no. I will decide to whom I will make donations...after checking out the charity to ensure most of the money will actually reach named recipients. My current answer to phone requests is a firm but polite, "I do not respond to phone solicitations!"

We all know Caveat emptor applies to any purchase decision we make. Sadly, it applies to charitable giving too. Don't stop giving, but do stop giving carelessly!

Mike

American's not trained for survival

November 10, 2013

Most Americans not trained for survival

Bill Howard's article in the Times-News on June 8 should serve as a reminder most citizens of civilized nations are woefully unequipped to provide their own food and shelter in the event of a major disaster of almost any type.

He pointed out, as humans developed greater specialized individual skills in order to become able to earn a living in a capitalistic society, we lost the broader general survival skills of earlier generations. In our own history all the way up to the early 20th century, most people had multiple skills they were able to use to help themselves survive. Families knew how to hunt, gather, and grow their own food, prepare and store foods for consumption, make clothes, even treat minor illnesses. It's clear these skills helped many of the great depression era generation survive in spite of little money to buy life's necessities.

It seems pretty clear most of our current generation severely lack these basic survival skills. Most of us do not know how to hunt, dress, store, or prepare any game foods. Most of us don't really know how to raise our own crops.

You may have seen some of the reality TV shows based on individuals preparing to survive any type of disaster. Most of us likely laugh at the notion of these so-called "preppers" spending time and money to be prepared for a natural or man-made disaster...as if we really can't imagine it happening to us or our part of the world.

Howard describes those who are sincerely interested in making sure they are properly equipped to survive as being survivalists...not "preppers".

In America, as in most modern developed nations, the distribution system used to supply most items needed for human survival has become so efficient, almost every community literally has only a few days worth of food/water available. This means any disruption of the supply chain will result in almost immediate shortages of needed items. Panic buying then ensues, making shortages even worse.

Take a long serious look in a mirror and ask yourself...what will you do if some sort of disaster happened, and the food/water supply runs out within a few days? Do you have enough food...and more important...water to last your family for a few weeks? After the initial survival period passes, do you know how to gather food and water? Probably as important, if you did have the foresight to plan for such an event, do you also have the means to protect your supplies from others who were less inclined to prepare?

I have been watching a Netflix series about real survivalists in rural Alaska. It seems clear, even most of these folks would also struggle to survive because so much of their living requirements are brought in by bush pilots. However, it's obvious from watching them, they have a much better chance than most urban dwellers.

I'm thinking my first option should be to adopt an Alaskan family who would be willing to move south for better weather. We can provide a place for them to live in exchange for their skills to keep us fed and protected from the elements.

In large urban centers where the majority of our citizens live, food shortages will produce almost immediate rioting and bands of normally honest folks will band together to go out and take food away from weaker groups who have no way to protect themselves. As a local young local once told me...when my kids are hungry and I have no food to give them...I will have to go take it from those who have it. For those who have repeatedly asked why a civilian should ever consider owning a semi-automatic weapon...this may be as good a reason as any.

It certainly makes one wonder about what we should be doing? Should we just ignore the possibilities and accept our likely fate? Should we begin to learn survival skills from experts? Should we begin to store extra food and water? Should we begin to form local support groups pledged to help each other survive?

If I had a young family today and wanted to find a way to help us be better prepared for survival I think I would strongly consider searching for a survival training program to take my family through on our next family vacation.

It certainly makes sense to set up a supply of canned and dried foodstuffs...and even more importantly...drinking water. Humans can live much longer without food than water.

Picture you and your family waking up tomorrow in a world in which the basic necessities you have always depended on are no longer readily available. It's a terrifying thought!

These are my opinions. What do you think?

Mike Tower

PS I considered moving to Alaska, except I realized I would remain unable to find/kill/grow/prepare food--and I'd also be colder than you know what.November 10, 2013

Most Americans not trained for survival

Bill Howard's article in the Times-News on June 8 should serve as a reminder most citizens of civilized nations are woefully unequipped to provide their own food and shelter in the event of a major disaster of almost any type.

He pointed out, as humans developed greater specialized individual skills in order to become able to earn a living in a capitalistic society, we lost the broader general survival skills of earlier generations. In our own history all the way up to the early 20th century, most people had multiple skills they were able to use to help themselves survive. Families knew how to hunt, gather, and grow their own food, prepare and store foods for consumption, make clothes, even treat minor illnesses. It's clear these skills helped many of the great depression era generation survive in spite of little money to buy life's necessities.

It seems pretty clear most of our current generation severely lack these basic survival skills. Most of us do not know how to hunt, dress, store, or prepare any game foods. Most of us don't really know how to raise our own crops.

You may have seen some of the reality TV shows based on individuals preparing to survive any type of disaster. Most of us likely laugh at the notion of these so-called "preppers" spending time and money to be prepared for a natural or man-made disaster...as if we really can't imagine it happening to us or our part of the world.

Howard describes those who are sincerely interested in making sure they are properly equipped to survive as being survivalists...not "preppers".

In America, as in most modern developed nations, the distribution system used to supply most items needed for human survival has become so efficient, almost every community literally has only a few days worth of food/water available. This means any disruption of the supply chain will result in almost immediate shortages of needed items. Panic buying then ensues, making shortages even worse.

Take a long serious look in a mirror and ask yourself...what will you do if some sort of disaster happened, and the food/water supply runs out within a few days? Do you have enough food...and more important...water to last your family for a few weeks? After the initial survival period passes, do you know how to gather food and water? Probably as important, if you did have the foresight to plan for such an event, do you also have the means to protect your supplies from others who were less inclined to prepare?

I have been watching a Netflix series about real survivalists in rural Alaska. It seems clear, even most of these folks would also struggle to survive because so much of their living requirements are brought in by bush pilots. However, it's obvious from watching them, they have a much better chance than most urban dwellers.

I'm thinking my first option should be to adopt an Alaskan family who would be willing to move south for better weather. We can provide a place for them to live in exchange for their skills to keep us fed and protected from the elements.

In large urban centers where the majority of our citizens live, food shortages will produce almost immediate rioting and bands of normally honest folks will band together to go out and take food away from weaker groups who have no way to protect themselves. As a local young local once told me...when my kids are hungry and I have no food to give them...I will have to go take it from those who have it. For those who have repeatedly asked why a civilian should ever consider owning a semi-automatic weapon...this may be as good a reason as any.

It certainly makes one wonder about what we should be doing? Should we just ignore the possibilities and accept our likely fate? Should we begin to learn survival skills from experts? Should we begin to store extra food and water? Should we begin to form local support groups pledged to help each other survive?

If I had a young family today and wanted to find a way to help us be better prepared for survival I think I would strongly consider searching for a survival training program to take my family through on our next family vacation.

It certainly makes sense to set up a supply of canned and dried foodstuffs...and even more importantly...drinking water. Humans can live much longer without food than water.

Picture you and your family waking up tomorrow in a world in which the basic necessities you have always depended on are no longer readily available. It's a terrifying thought!

These are my opinions. What do you think?

Mike Tower

PS I considered moving to Alaska, except I realized I would remain unable to find/kill/grow/prepare food--and I'd also be colder than you know what.

Americas's moderates can have a powerful voice

November 3, 2013

America's moderates can have a powerful voice

As a result of gerrymandering, of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives, nearly 70 percent are controlled by one political party. Opposing party voters end up knowing their candidates can never win unless the district is someday re-gerrymandered.

We saw this play out in our own congressional district in 2010 when Jeff Miller ran unsuccessfully against incumbent Heath Shuler for the District 11 seat. Jeff had almost no chance of winning because our gerrymandered district had an overwhelming number of Democratic voters.

Then the tables turned. The GOP won control of the N.C. Legislature for the first time in a century at the end of 2010, and it took immediate action to gerrymander every district possible in its favor. Shuler, knowing he had no chance of being re-elected, stepped aside, and Mark Meadows won a hard-fought primary race to become our congressman.

Perhaps one of the reasons we are seeing such abysmal voter participation rates is because voters from the secondary party in any gerrymandered district know they have almost no voice in determining who will be elected to represent them in Congress.

To make matters worse, in a majority of these gerrymandered districts, party extremists control who gets nominated — and remember, anyone nominated from one of these districts is nearly guaranteed to win.

Because of gerrymandering, the majority of elected congressional representatives end up coming from districts controlled by either ultra-liberal or ultra-conservative extremists. They are left unable to compromise, and the frozen political debate in D.C. results.

Interestingly, while this partisan debate is happening, the majority of voters define themselves as middle-of-the-road moderate-centrists. However, they have almost no say in the nominating process for their party since they are rarely well organized, and so usually support the candidate chosen by their party's extremists.

I'm going to share an idea that would easily allow moderates to not only be heard but to actually kill the power of the extremists.

Remember, in the 300 or so gerrymandered districts, winning the primary of the party in power is the key to getting elected. Did you know that if you are registered as an independent, you can vote in either party's primary?

Today more than a quarter of American voters are registered as independent, and the number is growing steadily — mostly because so many people simply can't fully support either party.

Here's the simple strategy to help make real change in American politics:

If you are a moderate-centrist who is a member of the controlling party for your district, don't just go along with the crowd. Work to help nominate the most moderate candidate you can find. You would be even more effective by also registering as an independent to signal to party leaders that you are unhappy with them.

If you are registered as a member of the minority party in your district, change your registration to independent. Next — and here's a huge key to making change — vote in the opposing party's primary elections for the most moderate candidate.

Obviously, if you are already registered as an independent, make sure you vote to nominate the most moderate candidate for the party in power. If you are a moderate-centrist but not currently registered, please register as an independent and support moderate candidates of the party in power during primary elections.

Imagine the power that could be unleashed if the majority of moderate-centrist independent voters followed this strategy.

Imagine how it could change the behavior of current incumbents as they face the new challenge of speaking to this new powerful constituency that is larger than the extremist minority, whose directions they have been following.

Imagine the types of candidates who will surface in an environment in which their basic decency and desire to serve all of their constituents will be highly valued.

If this strategy were followed, when the next Republican primary rolls around for District 11 and all moderate voters are deciding on a candidate to support, how likely is it that the current tea party poster boy would be re-nominated?

It seems clear that the majority of moderate-centrists are very frustrated at the frozen partisan politics playing out in Washington. This partisan politics is being led by each party's extremist minority. This is moderate Americans' chance to be heard in ways that can actually force positive behavioral change in those we elect to represent our best interests.

Wouldn't it be refreshing and uplifting to hear candidates say they intend to represent the best interests of their moderate constituents instead of either the ultra-liberals or the ultra-conservatives? Wouldn't it be even better if they were elected, and their walk matched their talk?

It's up to each of us to take the first step by registering as independents, and then follow that up by voting in the primary for the most moderate candidate of the party in power during the primary election. This is action we can and must take if we are to have any chance of taking back control of our nation from the opposing extremists in both parties.

We've all seen how stubborn and unyielding the extremists can be. They won't back down willingly. So let us moderates join together and push them out of the way!

Mike Tower

Memories for my Father

Memories for my father

October 31, 2013

On a winter day in Indiana in 1981, my then-64-year-old dad took a face-first tumble from his garage roof while trying to remove accumulated snow. His crash landing fractured his nose and both cheekbones. When he awoke from surgery to repair the damage, we discovered he had permanently lost his short-term memory.

At the time, he and my mom owned and operated a small landscaping business. Mom did the paperwork, dad did the planning and communicating with customers, and they had a small group of workers to do most of the heavy lifting.

Mom quickly realized he could no longer deal with customers effectively because he would immediately forget every conversation. Rather than close the business, she became his memory. She listened in on all customer phone calls and accompanied him to customer meetings to take notes about their conversations. She then translated her meticulous notes into work instructions to remind him of what work he had agreed to do for each customer. She also accompanied him to each job site to make sure he was reminded of what he was supposed to accomplish each day.

Amazingly, he never forgot what he knew about landscaping and could apply his skills as well as before the accident. He simply could not recall any immediately recent event or exchange. They managed to run the business effectively for several more years.

My wife and I were living in Connecticut at the time, and on every home visit we always found Dad in great spirits. He had always been a voracious reader and could no longer enjoy that pleasure because the moment he put a book aside he could not recall what he had just read. But he never stopped trying, and books were scattered all around the house, opened to the last page he had turned. He once joked that one good side effect of no memory was that TV shows no longer had reruns.

I never once saw him demonstrate an ounce of anger or disappointment about the bad luck he had encountered in losing his memory.

My mom was simply amazing, too. She never complained and did whatever it took to help him keep their business and only means of support operating. They finally retired and closed the business when he turned 70. They had saved enough to look forward to a peaceful retirement.

About a year later, Dad was diagnosed with terminal leukemia. The oncologists told us they could slightly prolong his life with chemotherapy, but in recognition of dad’s missing short-term memory, they told us it would be a horrible experience for him because he would have to be hospitalized, and every time he woke up he would be terrified because he would not know where he was or why he was strapped to a bed. Mom could not stand putting him through this suffering and decided to let him go peacefully.

I was full of guilt at being so far away during what would clearly be his last year alive because I felt like I was failing my parents. My wife came up with what turned out to be a brilliant idea. She reminded me that about the only meaningful conversations we could have with Dad since his injury was to jog his memory by reminding him of some old family memories. He never forgot the distant past, and once reminded would spend long periods of time retelling stories. It took a bit of patience because he would finish a story and then begin again ... and again.

She suggested we send Dad memory cards. She explained that we could buy a large supply of greeting cards, and every day until he died, we could write down a memory about Dad’s life and mail him a card describing some past event in his life to jog his memory.

That’s exactly what we did. Each new card would start out with, “Dear Dad, do you remember the time when ...” — and the memory of an event would follow. It turned out to serve several purposes; it helped me recall many fond memories I had forgotten, it helped my mom recall and remind him of their shared memories, and it definitely provided immense pleasure to my dad during the last year of his life.

Mom told us Dad couldn’t wait for the mailman to show up each day so he could open his next memory card. She told us it made her cry to see the pleasure on his face as he read each new message and began to share the rest of the story, and the sad look when, for whatever reason, a card was delayed in the mail.

It cost little, but it provided a small way to be there more often for Dad in spirit if not in person. I will always be grateful to my wife for her loving thoughtfulness.

As Dad was dying in hospice, my brother and I were on either side of his bed when he woke up for the last time. He recognized us and smiled. For some reason, I asked him if he was afraid of dying. Ever the optimist, he said no because he couldn’t wait to see what was on the other side!

His answer and the peaceful smile on his face are memories I will never forget.

Mike Tower

Americans fail to appreciate our blessings

October 20, 2013

No rational person can deny that America was blessed with an amazing abundance of natural resources. I believe in God, and so I believe he/she provided the blessings. Even if you don’t believe in God, it doesn’t make America’s natural gifts less real.

Why then aren’t Americans among the happiest people in the world? Perhaps many of us need an attitude adjustment.

While TV channel surfing a couple of weeks ago, I came across a show on CNN featuring a chef, writer and travel journalist named Anthony Bourdain. The show is called “Parts Unknown.” Bourdain previously had a similar show on the Travel Channel.

In his show, Bourdain travels throughout the world meeting locals, exploring and explaining their culture, and sampling their food. Watching several of his shows reminded me of the truly deplorable living conditions of the majority of humans in other nations compared to America.

Bourdain, while sometimes a bit profane, has a unique way of describing each place he visits to allow the viewer to better understand life’s realities for these often impoverished people. What’s interesting is that he doesn’t often pick the places you would expect a famous chef and food critic to visit.

Thanks to the magic of digital video recording (DVR) technology, I have managed to watch shows that featured places such as Ecuador, Kurdistan, Mexico, India, Liberia, Myanmar, Colombia, Morocco, Libya, Peru, the Congo and Jerusalem. In each show, Bourdain tends to focus on the way the locals live and eat — not the wealthy but often the poorest locals.

His shows feature restaurants serving favorite local cuisines, street food vendors and family gatherings. No matter how occasionally bizarre, somehow the food always looks interesting, and I find myself wanting to try most of it.

The poor in most of these places (the majority) live in truly grinding poverty and know they have almost no chance of ever improving their situation. Most were born generationally poor, and most know they and their children will live and die the same way.

Of course, it is this realization that fueled much of the immigration to our nation in the first place. It is what has caused so many of our poorer Southern Hemisphere neighbors to take the long and risky journey to illegally enter the legendary land of milk and honey, America.

What has really amazed me is how often even the very poor people from these places derive much pleasure from just being with friends and family to share a home-cooked meal. No matter how poor people are, and no matter the low quality of food ingredients available, when food is skillfully and lovingly prepared and shared, the resulting pleasure is universally positive.

Observing this happening repeatedly in different countries made me realize just how self-focused and spoiled many Americans, including myself, often are.

Compared to the places shown in many of Bourdain’s shows, the poorest Americans are far better off than the poor in the majority of the world. Yet even the most well-off Americans don’t seem as happy as those truly poor humans.

Too many Americans scurry around living lives at a frenetic pace. Most of us rarely take the time to enjoy being with the people whose company we should most enjoy. Many of us eat too often at fast-food joints where we don’t even enjoy what we are eating.

The old days of families regularly sharing meals is mostly a faded memory. Many of our children think microwaved frozen food is home cooking.

Instead of enjoying face-to-face company with other humans, too many of us seem addicted to electronic devises. My wife and I eat lunch out nearly every day. It is amazing how often we look around a restaurant and see couples and even families sitting throughout a meal staring at their smartphones or tablets instead of communicating with each other.

In every Bourdain show featuring poor people in these other nations, it was rare to see a cellphone or tablet device. In fact, in one show Bourdain’s crew took a helicopter into a remote African bush village. The locals swarmed them with welcoming smiles on their faces, clearly excited to have them as guests. One native fellow in the crowd smiled broadly as he pretended to talk into an old green desktop telephone he was holding, even though you could see it was not plugged into anything.

My wife has resisted owning a smartphone, and I think she’s actually better off. She has encouraged me to at least turn mine off while we are eating. I usually comply because her kicks under the table hurt like the dickens when I can’t resist the urge to sneak a peek at the darn thing.

We Americans need to get down on our knees more often and thank God, or the Big Bang, for our blessings because, compared to most other nations, we are truly privileged to be living in one of the most blessed countries in the world — no matter how the too-greedy and our politicians keep trying to screw it up.

America's government shut down: Who's to blame?

America's government shutdown: No high ground should be claimed by either party 

I deeply disagree with the Republicans for allowing a subgroup within their party to hold our government operations hostage in their fight for political power. They know the Democrats cannot fold on Obamacare without a massive loss of face, yet they persist.

I'm no fan of Obamacare, either, mainly because its rules and regulations resulted from a grand bargain between the Democrats and lobbyists for the pharmaceutical and insurance industries. It's not difficult to imagine the many millions of dollars going into the Democratic campaign coffers in exchange for a seat at the health care law design table.

However, as reprehensible as the process was, it was done within the laws of our nation by those who were legally elected to represent us during the 2008 campaign.

The Republicans' strategy to defund Obamacare has resulted in the government shutdown, which is causing harm to millions of innocent Americans. They could have chosen to take a legal path to change the law — by winning the next couple of elections and returning to majority power in both houses and the presidency. Clearly they rightfully aren't optimistic about their chances.

The current GOP strategy nearly guarantees it will never happen. By following the lead of their tea party loyalist members, the Republicans have deeply offended the majority of moderate voters whether registered as Democrats, Republicans or independents. Along with the steadily declining voting power of white Americans and the complete failure of the GOP to attract minority voters, this leaves the Grand Old Party in immediate danger of becoming the former Grand Old Party.

Neither party can claim high ground in the current debate because both have failed to even slightly govern in the best interests of the vast majority of Americans during this fight for political power — which is what it's really about.

A majority of Americans are worried about jobs, saving money, affordable educations, access to health care, feeding their families, shelter and being able to retire. I did not mention them being worried about our current national debt, upcoming entitlement debts or even climate change. Most Americans don't have time to worry about these things because most are focused on the immediacy of their own here and now.

The Times-News recently published an article about the Defense Department recalling all 350,000 employees furloughed by the government shutdown. What motivated that? Did some lobbyists for the military-industrial complex agree to cover their costs in order to keep their businesses flourishing?

I also read that a special bipartisan bill was passed ensuring that all furloughed federal employees will receive full pay when the shutdown is over. Hmm — I wonder if it had anything to do with our elected officials making sure they and their staffs were taken care of.

Locally, many of our neighbors will feel the negative side effects of these destructive politics. It began with the Department of Interior shutting down all public services along the Blue Ridge Parkway. The majority of the Parkway's visitors come during the fall leaf season, which is just underway. If you were a prospective visitor and you learned all public services along the parkway will be closed, would you bother visiting?

A specific local situation inspired this column. The Pisgah Inn was forced to shut down under orders of the Department of Interior in Washington. This is a privately operated business in which the proprietor of the inn leases the facilities from the National Park Service and then attempts to make a profit by providing food, shelter and restrooms for the public. I don't know all of the details, but it likely costs the government more to keep it shut because I'm guessing the operator doesn't have to pay rent when forced to close, and additional costs are being incurred by the government in providing park rangers to guard the entrances.

Besides the Pisgah Inn proprietor, all tourism-based businesses in the communities along the hundreds of miles of the Parkway, including Hendersonville, will be harmed. Tourists and the dollars they bring in will be sorely missed by these small businesses that depend on the revenues generated during their version of America's Christmas holiday to keep them afloat during slower seasons.

I wonder if U.S. Rep. Mark Meadows is going to introduce a bill to reimburse all of the businesses in his district for their losses during the shutdown, especially since he was one of the primary leaders in linking defunding Obamacare to the budget impasse, which led directly to the shutdown.

Meadows campaigned on a promise to govern in the best interests of all of the more than 700,000 people in his district. However, his actions during events leading up to the government shutdown prove he values and deserves the head of the Asheville Tea Party recently saying he is “turning out to be our poster boy.” If I had to label his behavior in office so far, I would call it governing for the vocal minority.

I endorsed Mr. Meadows during his initial campaign. With all due respect, all I can say now is: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

I reserve the right to change my mind, but only if I see strong and consistent evidence that the congressman's campaign promises will be matched by his actions.

Mike Tower

Unforgettable family memory

October 6, 2013

I hope this story will help take your mind off all the nonsense going on in Washington. It helped me to recall some warm memories that even our politicians' behavior can't soil.

When I was around 12 and my brother was 10, our dad decided to take us on a journey he promised we would never forget.

We lived in Indianapolis, and our dad had somehow ended up owning a two-person canvas and wood kayak. It had been hanging unused from the ceiling of our garage for several years. One summer day, for reasons known only to him, he pulled it down and decided to take his two boys on what he called the adventure of a lifetime.

The following Saturday, we loaded the kayak onto the roof of our car. Along with our mom and our older sister, we drove about 20 miles west to a bridge that crossed over a tributary of the White River called White Lick Creek.

Dad said the creek meandered southwest, and he knew the location of another bridge about 15 miles away by car where the creek again passed by. He provided driving directions to the girls and told them to meet us at the second bridge a couple of hours later.

Dad always seemed to know everything and could do just about anything. I learned that day, while he did know and could do a lot of things, he didn't know what he didn't know. He clearly didn't know just how much more distance a meandering creek would travel than roads. And he also apparently hadn't thought about the speed of a kayak on a slow-moving stream compared to a car.

We removed the kayak from the car and carried it through thick brush down to the edge of the creek. Getting the kayak and us into the water went smoothly. My brother and I were both pretty small in stature, so we were able to snuggly share the rear seat. We had no flotation devices or provisions — after all, the trip was only supposed to last a couple of hours, and what could go wrong?

I will never forget the look of glee on Dad's face as he shoved off from shore on our adventure.

We had two paddles. He handed one back to us and told us to take turns paddling, but only when and how he told us to do so. My brother and I had no paddling skills because we had never been in any sort of kayak or canoe.

In spite of that, we were happily off! Dad did most of the paddling, which to be honest didn't seem that difficult because we were going downstream in a slow-moving current, and all he really had to do was keep the small craft in the center of the stream.

It was smooth sailing, and Dad was clearly enjoying playing the dual roles of paddler and nature guide — until we came around a curve and faced a turbulent set of rapids.

My brother and I didn't even think about paddling. We were too busy holding on for dear life. Somehow Dad managed to keep the kayak under control, and we came out safely into a calm area. Dad turned around with another confident smile, as if to say, “Wasn't that great?”

We had traveled a couple of hours when we started asking him when we were going to get to the other bridge. Don't worry, he would confidently reply, it's just around the next bend or two.

Before long, we came to another set of rapids where we bottomed out on some sharp-edged rocks and ripped a huge hole in the kayak's bottom. We learned that a wooden and canvas kayak sinks very quickly when it springs a large leak.

There we sat, up to our necks in a couple of feet of rushing water. My brother and I were more amused than afraid. Instead of his usual smile, Dad shared a few curse words to show he was not happy!

We managed to crawl out of the boat and helped Dad drag the kayak to shore. He said he couldn't repair it there, so we were going to have to carry it out. He told us we couldn't be more than a mile or so from the destination bridge.

So we picked up the 100-pound or so kayak, my brother and I at the rear and Dad leading the way. We made it for about 30 minutes through fairly dense brush when my brother and I told Dad we couldn't continue. We then dragged the boat up an embankment for safekeeping until we could return to get it.

So off we went, three soaked travelers with no provisions, trudging along the creek bank looking for the bridge that Dad kept saying had to be around the next bend. Four hours, and many bends later, we made it! Our mom and sister were crying because they thought we had drowned. We never saw the kayak again.

Throughout his life, Dad often reminded us of our trip of a lifetime, and he was absolutely right. It was a great adventure I will never forget!

My brother now has severe dementia. When I began to read him this story on the phone, he took over and recalled every detail.

Mike Tower

American third party overdue

September 29, 2013

According to a recent Gallup poll, Congress has a pitiful 14 percent approval rating. It’s a direct reflection of the extreme frustration Americans are feeling with our frozen governance caused by the never-ending partisan political debate.

I believe most voters, whether Democrats, Republicans or independents, are equally disappointed by our broken governance. Supporters from both parties often say that while they don’t always agree with the actions taken by their party leaders, they truly hate the extremists on the other side. And so most stick with their chosen party, hoping the actions of their elected representatives will soon match theirs and their party’s espoused values.

Sadly, what supporters of both parties mostly receive in return is carefully constructed rhetoric designed to further fuel the fires of anger against the true enemy in the other party. In military terms, it’s called divide and conquer. And make no mistake about it, the conquered will end up being all American citizens!

Independent voters are perhaps the most upset. They chose to register as independents mainly because they know neither party is representing the best interests of most Americans. However, they remain mostly stuck with choosing from among the candidates of the two existing parties. As a result, their only choices are to either not participate in elections or vote for the least worst candidates.

I believe the majority of Americans, regardless of voter registration, are moderate centrists. A much smaller proportion, by actions or words, show themselves to be ultra-conservatives or ultra-liberals. I call them “ultra” because they find it to be nearly impossible to even slightly compromise their core beliefs. It’s why they are also called extremists.

Their inability to compromise is a perfect example of what Voltaire meant when he said, “The perfect is the enemy of the good.” Clearly he meant holding desperately to one’s version of perfect solutions for problems completely prevents finding any good solutions. Both parties hold diametrically opposed visions of perfection. Their resulting actions have frozen our governance, and it appears both sides would rather see our nation die than compromise.

Both parties are engaged in a battle to the death of their opponent. Unfortunately, if left unchecked, it will lead to the death of America.

I have long advocated for firing all incumbents. I have abandoned this direct approach in favor of a more realistic idea, which accomplishes the same objective of forcing our elected to actually represent the best interests of the majority of our citizens. I’m now supporting the creation of a centrist-sponsored third party that would shrink the size of the two existing parties and severely reduce the power of the extremists leading them.

Think about it — what’s magic about having only two major political parties? Many other nations have multiple parties. Our two-party system worked fine as long as those we elected actually listened to the voices of the majority of Americans and compromised according to what they heard. However, both parties have been captured by the extremists. The parties’ collective actions prove majority voices are no longer heeded.

Perhaps the Canadian political system, with its three primary parties, offers a better model for governing. It has left- and right-dominated parties similar to ours. But it also has a third party, supported primarily by moderate centrists, that has for most of the past century served as a buffer between the extremists on either end of the political spectrum. It seems Canada has found a viable solution for perfect being the enemy of good.

The base for creating a third party already exists in America. It is populated by the 25 percent of all voters who are now registered as independents. In fact, the two existing parties have lost nearly 1.5 million registered voters since 2008.

Independent voters reject being classified as red or blue Americans. As this base of independent voters grows, it is inevitable that a third party will be created that will force our future elected to focus more on the best interests of we the people.

If you are an American who views yourself as a moderate centrist, and you are unhappy with the actions of the extremists in both parties, please change your voter registration to independent as soon as possible. Even if you have given up and aren’t registered, please register as an independent.

By taking this action, we can increasingly show both parties that the majority of Americans no longer support their extremist-led agendas.

We simply cannot stand idly by and hope perfect answers will be forthcoming. We don’t even need perfect — good would be a major improvement over the status quo!

If you agree, please change your voter registration, and pass this article on to your friends.  Please don’t sit on the sidelines and do nothing. If we fail to act, we deserve what we will receive — and it won’t be pretty!

Americans--A collective sigh of relief over Syria

September 15, 2013

The American attacks on Syria have been delayed, and most Americans are grateful. For President Barack Obama to have even remotely considered another Middle East war was utter madness. The only realistic American beneficiary for such a war is the armaments industry.

In trying to drum up support for an attack on Syria, Obama claimed it was to teach its leader that we will not stand by and allow innocent people to be killed with dreaded chemical weapons. Continuing use of conventional weapons, which has already killed 100,000, apparently is OK, but another 1,000 or so killed by unknown perpetrators with chemical weapons somehow crossed an imaginary red line. Are the other 100,000 or so killed less dead?

Any civil war is tragic. However, in Syria, we can't even identify the good or bad players. We don't know how many various factions sponsored by outside organizations are fighting to depose or support Bashar Assad. We can be sure that no matter who wins, the winners and losers will remain united in their hatred of America.

Let's take a journey back in time to remember some of the other notable military engagements our elected leaders from both parties have led our nation into, and the horrible devastation that was caused by their bad decisions.

In Vietnam, our politicians, from the safety of their offices, led our troops in the killing of hundreds of thousands of opposing military and innocent civilians. These battles ended up costing American families more than 58,000 of their children's lives and three times that number of wounded, many of those disabled for life.

Ground-based killing was massively supplemented by dropping millions of pounds of bombs and napalm on areas that purposefully included civilians because our leaders were certain these outgunned people would surrender once they realized they had no chance against our technical superiority.

Next, we dumped millions of gallons of a chemical warfare product called Agent Orange aimed at deforestation and destroying food crops. It worked so well that it resulted in the reported deaths of an estimated 400,000 civilians — and another 500,000 birth defects during the decades that have followed. If that wasn't chemical warfare, what is?

We should abhor the deaths and suffering of innocent Vietnamese civilians caused by our politicians. However, as Americans, we should feel even worse for our armed services personnel, who either paid the ultimate price or returned home, often wounded and disabled, only to be treated horribly by fellow citizens simply because they had done their duty by honorably serving their nation.

The returning troops should never have been blamed. It was the damned politicians who should have felt the American anger!

Following 9/11, and with full congressional support, Bush invaded Afghanistan. I doubt many Americans did not support this initial engagement in the war on terror. Unfortunately, as they had done in Vietnam and would later repeat in Iraq, our leaders gave little thought to a future exit strategy.

Before this war was even finished, Bush decided to invade Iraq. We can speculate about the real reasons for this war, but it clearly was not because of weapons of mass destruction. We attacked with an incredible array of sophisticated weaponry but did little to prevent civilian casualties. Total Iraqi deaths have been estimated to be between 175,000 and a million. The number of American military killed was relatively small, but many thousands more were wounded and many have been left with lifelong disabilities.

The decision to remove Saddam Hussein turned out to be a gift that never stops giving — bloodshed, that is! Many Middle East experts warned, correctly it turns out, that Iraq would inevitably end up a virtual killing field as the Sunni and Shiite Muslim religious sects would fight for control if he were removed.

Vietnam is a distant memory except for the brave surviving veterans who fought so valiantly and sacrificed so much. Iraq has been abandoned to civil war, and no matter who wins, the winners and losers will hate America forever. Afghanistan is also soon to be abandoned. Al-Qaida and the Taliban can hardly wait for the spoils left behind. The real losers in these three countries invaded by America are the innocent civilians, our brave troops, and taxpayers.

When Obama was elected, most Americans expected him to remove our troops from Afghanistan as soon as possible. Instead he made two bad decisions. He sent in even more troops and then told the enemy exactly when we would be pulling out. The enemy may not be sophisticated, but it is smart enough to know all it had to do was hunker down and wait for the withdrawal. Can you imagine how Afghan civilians who had agreed to help our troops must feel knowing they will soon be abandoned to our enemies, who are well known to practice swift and brutal retribution?

We all had better hope the international community can find ways to ensure that Assad turns over his chemical weapons stockpiles. If not, our president may have backed America into a corner.

I'm sure the armament industry lobbyists are working day and night to develop convincing reasons for him to order an attack. They are clearly becoming short of the customers that are created by wars, and their institutional shareholders must be worried.