business practices

     When I go into a  grocery store, and ask where the coffee is, the clerk doesn't ask if I'd like to talk with the man who couldn't find the cereal.  The clerk tells me what I want to know.
     When I go into an auto repair shop to have my transmission checked, the mechanic doesn't ask if I'd like to meet the man with the bad radiator. The mechanic fixes my car.
     When I go to the doctor's, the nurse doesn't ask if I'd like to chat with some sick people. The nurse asks about my symptoms.
     If  I ask a police officer for directions, the officer doesn't ask me if I would like to connect with other lost people, so that we could form a club. The officer gives directions.
    But this is all in realityville. Cyberspace is different, or so it seems.
   

voting

If you're not planning to vote in November, remember that among those who do vote, your non-vote means that you have agreed to everything or anything the rest of us decide with our votes. No quibbling. Or complaining. If you want to complain, vote.

stamps--it matters

     A new campaign suggests that we put pictures of living people on United States stamps. The people you see honored on stamps are always dead people, usually people who have been dead for 10 years, at least.  The image of a living person on a coin or stamp traditionally, and currently around the world, means that the person whose image is on the stamp or coin is the head of state, and probably the hereditary monarch, of the country issuing the coin or stamp. From ancient times, when the Romans "recalled" and reissued coins when a new leader took over, to the modern image of the British queen on British stamps and coins, the figure of a living person has meant the ruler of the state. In America, we use the stamps and coins to remember and honor those who have made contributions to our society, not to proclaim a new dictator.

voter ID

     How about a joint program to help people without ID's obtain them before election day? They ought to have them anyway, and there's still plenty of time. They will need a Social Security card, a birth certificate and  ( 2 ) proofs of residency, such  as a piece of mail addressed to them or a W-2 form. If the applicant doesn't have a piece of mail, send him or her one.A birth certificate can take weeks, so the time to send for one is now. The fee is $10, sent to the Division of Vital Records of the State of Pennsylvania. There is an online application for this, to speed things up.
     A Social Security card can be obtained at the Social Security office. The applicant will need a birth certificate and other ID, preferably photo ID, such as a school or employee ID. Social Security cards don't cost anything, but you may spend a few hours in the Social Security office. A Social Security card is required for employment, so everyone needs one anyway.
     For the  state-issued ID, the applicant will need a $13.50 fee and perhaps transportation to the driver's license facility.  The ID process takes an afternoon or a morning, including getting to the facility and back. The person leaves with a state-issued ID card, not a driver's license. The ID card is as good as a driver's license for identification at the bank or anyplace that asks for an ID. So why not get moving?

Dear Google

    Dear Google,

I would like to suggest that you reconfigure Blogger so that the template on which I type the blog matches the one you use to print it. There is no reason I should have to check the blog and reformat it if I don't think it looks nice. The "compose" function should be made to match the "print" function, with the same number of characters per line.
thanks

the next amendment, maybe

     If the people--the voters-- of the United States want to take guns out of private hands, they would need a constitutional amendment.  Gun advocates argue that the intent of the framers ( of our Constitution ) was that every citizen should be allowed to own a gun. I find the "intent of the framers " argument to be worse than spurious. The men who "framed" our Constitution were some of the plainest writers and clearest thinkers who have ever lived. Their intent is evident in their written words. They left us a written law, and the capacity to change that law when we disagree with it. What's there in plain words is " the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". We can't merely wish these words into something else--a dangerous precedent. We have written laws so that we are not subject to the whim of a king or potentate. We may never get all the way to "equality under the law", but without written laws, we would still be medieval.
    As for the "intent of the framers", what the people of the United States did, in 1775,  was to form militias that were illegal, according to the British government. The American Revolution began when these militias fought to defend their store of arms--guns and ammunition-- from confiscation by the British. We are taught to admire this, as part of the history of the freedom enjoyed by American citizens. But using it to advocate gun ownership would mean that paramilitary groups and neo-Nazi militias have the same rights those embattled farmers insisted on at Lexington and Concord.
    

jury selection

     The system of jury selection is theoretically a way to choose 12 people at random to render a verdict in a trial. In reality, the system is far from random. No one can sit on a jury if he or she has been a victim of a crime in the past several years. No one can sit on a jury if a close relative or friend had been a victim of  a crime. No one can sit on a jury in a capital case unless he or she has already decided--before anyone utters a word of legal argument, or produces any evidence--that the death penalty would be a good idea.  Other people are "usually" dismissed from juries--teachers, lawyers, law enforcement officials, and some other occupations or professions.
     Every one of these exceptions make the jury less representative of the public at large, which it should be, since that's what gives it legitimacy. It's why we respect a jury's decisions. Decisions made by juries fine-tuned by lawyers are decisions made by lawyers--not by a group of 12 citizens.