PRESIDENTIAL HANDSHAKES

Thomas Jefferson danced to a different tune with regard to many socially acceptable activities of his time. Examples included liking the ladies and drinking a bit. He was a man  amongst men. Common men as well as aristocratic.

 

Equality was his passion. He penned the Declaration of Independence. He was one of our most revered Presidents.

 

Jefferson was the third President of the United States.The first two were George Washington and John Adams. Initial ruling colonists, they were not sure how to conduct themselves when greeting guests at official functions. Washington and Adams ended up conducting themselves in a regal fashion. They would bow stiffly from the waist. The other person would bow in a similar fashion in return.

 

Jefferson was uncomfortable with the bowing. At an official function on July 4, 1801, he shocked guests by not bowing. Instead and to the surprise of those present, he shook the hands of his guests. Every guest was treated in the same way, regardless of position. Foreign diplomats uncomfortable though they were, were required to greet Jefferson with the handshake rather than bowing.

 

From that Fourth of July to present date, all U.S. Presidents have used the handshake. Not only at official events, but at all activities including campaigning.

 

Which brings us to Abraham Lincoln. He shook hands before making history.

 

It was January 1, 1863. Per custom, the White House was open to visitors. It was a New Year tradition. The President would meet and greet each visitor by shaking hands. That January 1, Lincoln shook thousands of hands.

 

Afterwards, Lincoln and his Secretary of State William Seward were alone in a room. Lincoln had an official duty to perform. Sign the Emancipation Proclamation.

 

His right hand was swollen. He complained to Seward how much it hurt. Lincoln questioned whether he would be able to sign the document. He feared his signature would look weak.

 

Some time later, Lincoln made the following statement: "The signature looks a little tremulous, as my hand was tired, but my resolution was firm."

 

Since Jefferson, every President has shaken hands rather than bowing. How strange it would appear today if we were to see a Presidnet bow.

 

THE CONSCIENCE OF A NATION

I just finished listening to the NRA's first comments regarding the Newtown tragedy. NRA CEO Wayne La Pierre spoke on behalf of his organization at a televised press conference.

 

A more arrogant and off base presentation I have never heard. And I have listened to many as a trial lawyer of almost fifty years.

 

La Pierre suggests that easy accessibility to firearms is not the problem. Nor are our laws. Rather he blamed everyone els and everything else for the shootings. The NRA was not responsible in any fashion. His solution to preclude any further Newtowns was to have guns in schools. Armed guards and/or armed teachers. His position that what stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

 

I believe La Pierre's comments did much to injure the cause of the NRA. He set them back a number of years. It will be difficult for those elected officials who dance to the NRA's tune to continue to do so. Let me phrase it differently. It should be. We never know with today's politicians.

 

This is a wake up time for America. The time for words is past. Action is required .Dictated. Demanded. Significant laws to restrict gun activity. Anything less is to invite another Newtown.

 

The United States Supreme Court bears responsibility for Newtown, also. The Court came down with two decisions in 2008 and 2010 which aggravated/expanded the problem. The end result of the decisions was that a person is allowed to carry a gun inside and outside the home for purposes of protection. In my opinion, the Second Amendment does not say this.

 

The Second Amendment word for word reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

Why did James Madison write the Second Amendment as he did back in the 1780s? The answer is simple. The United States at the time had no standing army. If an army was required to defend the new Nation, citizens would be called. From the farms and the cities. And they were to bring their guns with them because the government had no guns to give them.

 

What does the reading of the Second Amendment have to do with the right to keep a gun in the home or carry one on the street for purposes of defense? Nothing.

 

I have to smile. We have heard for years that the Suprme Court should be made up of strict constructionists. Persons who would  interpret the Constitution as written. Not those liberal type judges who stretch the law and in effect make law. The Supreme Court in 2008 and 2010 was controlled by a strict constructionist majority. However, they did philosophically what they were opposed to. The Court liberally construed the Second Amendment. Stretched it in my opinion.

 

I ask this question of all die hard NRA/Second Amendment supporters. What is more important, the purported right to bear arms or a child's right to grow up? That is the issue as framed by Newtown.

 

America is at a cross roads regarding guns. I am hopefull immediate appropriate steps will be taken to alleviate the problem. Otherwise, Newtown will not be the last time our children will be a shooting gallery.

 

 

 

BIG BROTHER

We all recognize government can be Big Brother. One we do not need nor want. It is accepted that Big Brother has no place in people's lives. Not only should the government stay out, also other people. My business is my business. Not someone elses.

Recall George Orwell's classic 1984. People were constantly watched by cameras integrated into their television screens.

It took a while, but what was described in Orwell's book is here. There is now the capacity for a person's TV set to watch that person. Phrased another way, some one can watch a person while that person is watching TV.

And hear conversations, also.

All via camera and microphone.

.

It is others watching while I watch TV in my bedroom and living room. Watching while I have sex with a wife or girl friend. It is watching as I argue with some one in the living room. There is no discrimination. Everything is filmed and recorded.

A joke this is not.

Verizon filed a patent in 2011 for a set top box. The box would operate when the TV did. Total visual and audio would be captured and available instantly to outsiders. Comcast and Google already have similar patents, either for the box approach or directly embedded in the television set itself. Samsung's 2012 plasmas and LED HDTVs already have camera and microphone built into the unit itself.

Intrusive! No question about it.

The purpose is marketing. The various organizations mentioned wish to tailor advertisers to what TV viewers are doing. Doing is the operative word.

If a couple is arguing, an advertisement for a marriage counselor might be in order. If cuddling or love making, advertisements for romantic getaway vacations or flowers.

Beware!

TOYS 'R US AND GENDER DISCRIMINATION

Sweden is a bit different. Dances to its own tune occasionally. Its approach to sex is one example.

There is another.

Gender neutrality. Sweden's position is that male and female are to be treated alike. No preferential treatment one over the other. Described by the Swedes themselves as equality. Equality in the work place and society. A Swedish obsession.

One example of the obsessive ends Swedes go to achieve gender neutrality is how teachers refer to students. Not as him or her, he or she. Rather as friends.

In 2008, a sixth grade class in Sweden was studying gender discrimination. The Toys 'R Us catalogue drew their attention. The six graders decided the catalogue was discriminating and not gender equal. For example, boys generally were shown wearing blue and girls pink. Girls wore princess dresses. The boys never. Guns for boys, not for girls. Dolls for girls, not for boys. Girls pushing baby carriages, boys playing with miniature soldiers. Girls with tiny kitchens cooking, boys with sporting equipment. Girls alone playing with Barbie dolls. No boys doing the same.

The sixth graders felt everything in the catalogue should be for both sexes.No stereotyping. I have to ask at this point: A princess dress for a boy?

Sweden has a State Agency to hear gender discrimination complaints. The sixth graders filed a formal complaint. Justice is slow moving in Sweden. The State Agency decision came out this year. The State Agency agreed with the sixth graders. The decision included phrases such as outdated gender roles, narrow mindedness, and degrading to both genders.

Toy 'R Us took heed. Out went the old catalogue. In came a new. Just in time for Christmas.

The new catalogue is under scrutiny .It did not go so far as to put a boy in a princess dress. However, it did dress the girls in blue and boys in pink in some instances. It has boys playing with beauty instruments. Hair blowers and the like. Doing a doll's hair.The boys are also shown doing housework like ironing and vacuuming. The girls were portrayed holding all types and sizes of guns and playing battle games. The girls were on the sport pages advertising gloves, bats, basketballs, footballs, and the like.

Will the new Toys 'R Us pass muster? Time will tell. I suspect it will, even though no boy was portrayed wearing a princess dress.

Is this right? I don't know. I never really thought about gender equality in this fashion. Sweden may be at the forefront,  the wave of the future. Thirty years from now as male and female roles and responsibilities in society will have changed, persons of that era may look back at Sweden 2012 and ask.....What was the big deal? Why all the fuss?