Tomorrow is Memorial Day, a time to remember fallen military members from all conflicts. But, associated with this holiday and all others, will be the increase in fatal accidents involving drunk drivers. It is a problem that seems to never go away and continues to cause great loss to many families, but frequently, not the drunk. I know what the problem is, and I know how to change it.
In most states the punishment fails to fit the crime. If and when they are convicted of driving drunk, they receive a fine and loss of driving privileges for some period of time. Of course, they can drive after revocation of their license, as long as they don' get caught. So, the consequences really don't fit the crime of causing damages and sometimes death. In many cases where there is  vehicle death there is no jail time. That is what has to change!
I propose the following guidelines: The first offense demands thirty consecutive days in jail. No convenient weekend time. The second offense will get them one year. After that, they are habitual offenders and the jail time has to be increased.
And, to those who are saying the cost would be prohibitive, I would ask the following question: How much does it cost for the affected families, the increased insurance premiums, and the increase in police presence to stop this problem?
State legislatures have failed to address the problem and I suspect that part of the lack of action is with the pressure of the alcohol lobby.  It is another case where the people we elect depend on strong lobbies to get elected. I for one and tired of "head in the sand" politics.

It seems that anytime there is news of any type, news agencies feel compelled to have at least one "expert" explain what has happened. Whether it is economics, technology, politics, natural disaster, or a celebrity acting badly,  someone who knows more than we do will educate us to the real facts. The problem is that when we follow an event, we hear from more than one "expert", each with a different point of view.
So, what is the point of having someone share what is really only an opinion based on their particular slant or agenda? Credibility! A story seems to have more importance when it has a specialist in a given subject. Even when they offer only an opinion which clearly has no real substance.
My observation is that with a little work, I can form my own "expert" opinion and it will be as valid as any one of the specialists. For example the most recent terrible weather and devastation in the Midwest has been explained by several "experts" with many explanations. But the truth is that no one really knows for sure why it has occurred for the first time in 50 years. I think that the most important part of this story is that it happened and that people have suffered great loss. Maybe all of the experts are wrong in their explanations and it is simply cyclic. I would rather trust my instincts and think of the loss and not the explanation.

I have always heard that humans are a highly evolved species and are far above all other animals and fellow creatures. But, the facts simply do not bear this assumption out, and it fact, contradict the phrase “highly evolved”.  I would expect that in the 50,000 years since the modern cave dweller existed, there would be incremental changes in a more orderly and advanced mind. Remember that all of the early humans had the ability to make sounds, reason, and think abstractly. There was no knowledge base but the biological basics were in place for evolution to begin.

But consider how we settle conflict in modern history. We use violence, war, and kill others in an attempt to resolve differences. And even more prevalent is class distinction. We have evidence that early humans had the equivalent of the “haves” and the “have- nots”. The stronger had the food and the weak died hungry. Darwin would have suggested that this is simply natural selection at work.

But all civilizations’ throughout history have had class distinction. The Sumerian’s, the Greek’s, and the Roman's have had the wealthy and elite, and the poor and hungry. There has always been an undervalued group of people in all societies. Consider for a moment our own founding some 240 years ago. The founding fathers were wealthy, elite, better educated, and did not value women, minorities, and others who were not in the same class. If I look at society today I see the same disparity in wealth, education, and origin.

It seems reasonable that if we were truly “highly evolved” that we would have greater social concern, limited violence, and government that had the peoples welfare first, and their own second. I would submit that we have the same primitive mind as our early ancestors but simply better tools to subjugate and kill others.

After reading the previous post I realized that it may seem that I think that all cell phones are wants rather than needs. This is only partially true in that the technology can not be reversed, nor can I make a generalized statement about the trend. Cell phones certainly have helped in emergencies, power outages, and when landline phones are not available. But, cell phones, like other technologies, are being abused. There is a tendency to not plan for tasks but to rather wait until someone calls to tell you to pick up bread on your way home. And of course, there is the meaningless conversation in most public places. It is pretentious to use the cell phone as if it were a friend, and the more it is used for non- productive ends, the more it becomes a want and not a need.

We all have only a certain amount of money to spend and if we wish to spend it wisely we have to make decisions about how to allocate funds. In the past few decades that decision making has become more difficult as the line between what we need and what we want has become less clear. We know that we have to have housing, food, transportation, and other basics for survival. But, through the magic of advertising and marketing, the basic requirements have shifted toward more convenience and comfort. I would also add that some of the technological advances are totally unnecessary as far as needs are concerned. A good example is the ubiquitous use of cell phones. Based on my observations of cell phone use, the "want" is far greater than the "need". Land line phones, although outdated by some observers, still work, and they don't seem to cause traffic accidents And of course, you can't just have a cell phone, it has to be smart!

In the 1960's Bob Dylan sang about the "Times They Are a Changing" and of course he was correct. But then, the times have been changing since life began. If we look at the face of America from our founding until now, we would not see very much that is familiar. The mean age of life expectancy was 45. We were essentially a poorly educated and rural collection of Colonies. When we fast forward to today, the changes are obvious, but could never have been anticipated by our founders.
Change as we see it from the founding has been basically for the better, but there are some clear concerns. Change in the past has taken long periods of time to occur. We often measured changes in our lives by decades. And now we are measuring change in months or sometime days. We once had the luxury of adapting to change and accepting new technologies. But it seems to me that the rate of change has outstripped our ability to recognize what is useful. The next topic will look at wants and needs.