Rinse Your Eyes

Tom Knuppel Other
Rinse Your Eyes

          Rinse Your Eyes

I finished reading a book called The Gold Mine Effect by Rasmus Ankersen about cracking the secrets of high performance. It was at the end of the book, in the Epilogue, that he stated something that I find really intriguing about people in today’s society.

He wrote:

In Indonesia they have a beautiful expression for travel: to rinse your eyes. When you stay at home, caught up in the routines of your everyday life, your vision becomes cloudy. The same things pass before your eyes day in, day out, you stop being about to really see them. When you hear the same words spoken again and again, you stop really listening. Traveling gives you your eyes and ears back. It blows away the cobwebs and forces you to see the world afresh.

This is a true fact, isn’t it? When you hear from the same people, go to the same places, sit with people you know, you are likely to never change or see another point of view. It is kind of like a family reunion where they all talk to each other then it is time to eat a picnic lunch and all the immediate families sit together. They don’t sit by their aunts and uncles or cousin from out of state, they sit with their parents or children. We are afraid to sit with them as their views may be different from ours and then we may have to defend the way we think and live.

Think about this. When is the last time you sat on your front porch, back porch, or in your yard and remarked about the beauty that surrounds you? We can go somewhere else and get all ah’d about the scenery or the sunset because we have never view it from there.

We overlook so much. It is time to get out and smell the roses…. Somewhere else.

 

“People who don’t travel cannot have a global view, all they see is what’s in front of them. Those people cannot accept new things because all they know is where they live.” -Martin Yan

 

The opinions in this blog belong to Tom Knuppel

Childhood Innocence- When Do They Lose It?

Tom Knuppel Other
Childhood Innocence- When Do They Lose It?

Childhood Innocence- When Do They Lose It?

Isn’t it cool how children can be so innocent? But what happens to change them? When does it happen?

The thought on this topic came to me as I was teaching an Adult Sunday School class and we discussed Mark Chapter 9:36-37. Jesus teaches us to be like a child in order to gain access to his kingdom.

36 He took a little child whom he placed among them. Taking the child in his arms, he said to them, 37 “Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me.”

I don’t remember the eyes through a child. Children are genuine and real. Remember seeing a child at Christmas and how they light up as they view the decorations or wait to talk to Santa? It is a world of anticipation. Adults smile as they see these things.

Children are pure. They have no preconceived notions and are sometimes brutally honest and sincere. You won’t find them sugar coating anything to make it more palatable as they become spontaneous and much more perceptive than adults.

We are better people and more responsible when we begin having our own children. Our lives are changed forever. They have a way to keep us alive and going forward with our daily routines. Child are a joy and babies are precious to have and to hold.

But, sadly, it doesn’t last forever. When do children lose their innocence?

I have a theory on that issue. I believe that a child loses his or her innocence as he or she gains experience in life.

For example, when children begin to hide things can be the beginning of the loss of innocence. It may be necessary for the child to issue a lie rather than face the consequences. Let’s begin with an adult using their cellphone. The child is eyeing it and wanting to get their grubby paws on it. As you sit it down you tell the child in no uncertain terms to leave it alone or they will be punished.

The child, being a child, can’t stand to see the iphone sitting there and begins to play with it and accidentally drops it and it no longer works. The child now fears that punishment is on the way and puts the phone back in the same spot and leaves the scene.

We you come back and find the phone doesn’t work and you promptly quiz the child about tampering with it and he/she shells out a lie and tells you they never touched it. The child has now learned to hide something from others and he has also learned to lie. He has lost all innocence children naturally have. All this happened because he gained experience in life and learned how to play it safely for him/her.

 

When Children Lose Their Innocence

By Frances Duggan

The innocence of childhood it is a marvelous thing

And all children are untainted in their life’s early Spring

But by the time they’ve reached their teens their innocence they’ve lost

And the experience that we gain from age always comes at a cost.

 

When children lose their innocence they lose their gift of joy

The joy that comes from innocence in every young girl and boy,

Compared to us young children see life quite differently

Of the guilt of corruption they are completely free.

 

I have such happy memories of when I was a boy

My childhood years were happy years but time just seemed to fly

And the experience that I’ve gained from life it came at a great cost

For I lost something beautiful when innocence I lost.

 

When did I lose my innocence?

HeHe, I am not telling that story!

 

The opinions in this blog belong to Tom Knuppel

And We Call Ourselves the Human Race

Tom Knuppel Other
And We Call Ourselves the Human Race

          And We Call Ourselves the Human Race

 

Those were the words of President John F. Kennedy on July 20, 1961. Today, the National Security Archive has released some excerpts of the things going on during the Cold War during the Berlin Crisis.

The National Security Council and the President were listening to a briefing on the consequences of a nuclear war. It was stated that a submarine launched missile strike from the Soviets would result in 48-71 million Americans killed immediately.

chart

Estimated distribution of radioactive fall-out on U.S. caused by a Soviet retaliatory launch-on-warning (LOW) attack in mid-1965 on a range of U.S. target systems: urban-industrial (also Canadian), air defenses (also Canadian), SAC bases, naval bases, command-and-control, and military depots.

This was a secret study that was initiated by Kennedy’s predecessor, President Eisenhower, that was described the Secretary of State Dean Rusk as “an awesome experience”. With those words, Kennedy uttered his famous words, … “and we call ourselves the human race”.

As the Cold War continued and each side was privy to the scenarios of mass destruction we find that they were terrified and began to avoid conflict and pursue détente.

The declassification of NESC reports raises questions about the claim that the “U.S. was never the aggressor” in war games and other exercises depicted as occurring in an “official future.” This claim needs to be considered carefully because the Subcommittee produced several reports — namely, for 1962 and 1963 — that postulated the United States as the initiator of preemptive nuclear attacks, close to a classic first strike. Whether a preemptive strike is “aggressive” depends on the point of view; the concept of preemption depends on accurate strategic warning of an attack, so it could be seen as an aggressive response to imminent aggression. But a preemptive strike based on an inaccurate warning would be both aggressive and catastrophic. In any event, well before 1962, preemption was an element of U.S. nuclear war planning and U.S. military planners continued to assess whether it was advantageous or not.

Open Primaries or Closed Primaries?

Tom Knuppel Other
Open Primaries or Closed Primaries?

       Open Primaries or Closed Primaries?

Chuck Schumer of New York has published an article about how this country needs to trash the primary voting the way it currently sits and go to an “open primary”. I will admit, when I read the headlines I thought it had merit. But as I read the article, which can be found in the New York Times, I liked the idea less and less.

Here is an excerpt from it:

We need a national movement to adopt the “top-two” primary (also known as an open primary), in which all voters, regardless of party registration, can vote and the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, then enter a runoff. This would prevent a hard-right or hard-left candidate from gaining office with the support of just a sliver of the voters of the vastly diminished primary electorate; to finish in the top two, candidates from either party would have to reach out to the broad middle.

Here is my initial problem. This idea doesn’t allow for a varied view for the most part. If you live in a “red” state or a “blue” state, you are likely to nominate two from your color. This doesn’t allow for opposing views to get on the ballot.

Let me put it in other words….

If John Q. Public and Susie Society are both from the same party and their state is aligned with that party strongly, the opposing views will get shut out. I like open primaries if you can go to the polls and not declare a political party. Put them all on one ballot and you select the candidates you want to see go further into the political arena.

There are over 260 comments on this article and I just read a few but I tend to agree with Omnipresence when he/she says:

Mr. Schumer’s suggestion would only further reduce voters’ choices, and would only make it harder for those not in the mainstream of American politics to be heard.

Thoughts?

 

The opinions in this blog belong to Tom Knuppel

Three Mergers that will Dip into the Consumers Pocketbook

Tom Knuppel Other
Three Mergers that will Dip into the Consumers Pocketbook

       Three Mergers that will Dip into the Consumers Pocketbook

Consumers are likely to get it stuck to them again. Big mergers are being considered in Congress that will take away the little guy and install a monopoly in its place. It doesn’t seem that long ago that Congress split up Ma Bell to enhance competition. Now that is all forgotten.

Now, 30 years later we find that the marketplace is reassembling into large monopolies that will price gouge the consumer. Even members of Congress, who can stop this if they knew how, are questioning these tactics. John Conyers, ranking member of the House Judiciary was quoted as saying, “Where does this end?”

I have an answer for that. I would say it could end NOW.

Let’s look at the three most imminent mergers and what they are saying, how it is a bonus for regulators, what the catch to it is and what are the odds to passage.

#1- Comcast/Time Warner

Money on the Table– $45.2 billion

The Pitch: Comcast is the largest cable company and broadband provider in the United States. They are saying they are not big enough and wants to compete with the Big Boys like Verizon, Google, Facebook and AT&T. They state to compete they must get bigger and they go on to say they don’t compete with Time Warner in any of the same zip code areas.

Regulators: The company has announced it will divest $3.9 million video subscribers to Charter Communications and one unnamed company. They state they will honor the FCC’s 2010 open internet rules for three years.

What is the Catch: They may not overlap with Time Warner but putting the #1 and #2 cable companies will allow them unmatched control and they will have about one third of the video market in their control along with 40% of the broadband business. Without conditions they can run amuck over the consumers.

Odds: This has a strong chance to get approved. The reason is consumers will still have the same number of choices for their broadband and video provider.

Deal #2- AT&T/DirectV

Money on the Table: $48.5 billion

The Pitch: This is all about consumer bundle to compete with Comcast. If they can add AT&T to the bundle they now have the famous “triple play” that can be offered. Each will say they can’t compete with the other.

Regulators: AT&T has stated that it can add 13 million underserved rural households and give fiber to 2 million others in the next four years with approval of the deal. They also state they will honor the FCC’s 2010 internet rules for three years.

What is the Catch: Instead of buying the U-Verse video service, AT&T and Directv will combine to add the Sunday NFL Ticket and then have too much control over programming distribution.

Odds: It has a good chance of approval due to the rural additions it can provide. Critics will tell you that 64 markets will have fewer choices if approved.

Deal #3- Sprint/T-Mobile

Money on the Table: nearly $40 billion

The Pitch: The CEO of Sprint argues that is it better to have a strong #3 company that a weak #3 and #4. With this argument they wish to combine and attempt to compete with the bigger companies. They promise lower prices and faster speeds.

Regulators: It is likely these promises will have to be put in writing along with agreeing to honor the FCC ruling of 2010 for at least three years.

What is the Catch: There will be one less competitor if they combine. This type of deal (proposed AT&T/T-Mobile) was denied by the Feds in 2011.

Odds: This is not likely to happen. Odds are given that it has less than a 10% chance of success. Look for this to end up in a courtroom somewhere in the United States to get it resolved.

 

So the big get bigger and more powerful. This sets up the consumer to pay more and be at their mercy to live with decisions that are detrimental.

I can’t say I am happy about any of these mergers.

Resource: www.politico.com/tech

 

The opinions stated in this blog are those of Tom Knuppel

Illinois Signs Bill Prohibiting Employers From Asking about Criminal History

Tom Knuppel Other
Illinois Signs Bill Prohibiting Employers From Asking about Criminal History

    Illinois Signs Bill Prohibiting Employers to Ask about Criminal History

Are we Serious?

 

Bill number is HB5701

From the Illinois Review:

Gov. Pat Quinn will sign legislation prohibiting all private employers from asking prospective employees about their criminal history before they’ve determined the individual is qualified for the job.

The Job Opportunities for Qualified Applicants Act, otherwise known as the “ban the box” bill, was sponsored by Rep. Rita Mayfield and Sen. Antonio Munoz.

The legislation will make Illinois the fifth state to ban employers from requiring disclosure of a criminal history until an applicant is determined qualified for the position.

Munoz says everyone should have the opportunity to be considered for employment regardless of previous actions, including rape, murder, or armed robbery.

The government has allowed some construction jobs, emergency medical jobs and security jobs to be exempt from the legislation.

 

Criminal Background? Feel free to apply.

Child Molester? Come on in.

Convicted Felon? Please handle my money.

IT hacker? We have a job in computers for you.

 

This is nothing short of insanity.

 

The opinions in this blog are those of Tom Knuppel

Send Those Children Back, Oh Wait…

Tom Knuppel Other
Send Those Children Back, Oh Wait…

Send Those Children Back, Oh Wait…

Children coming to the United States without their parents have been coming in since at least 1892. On the day Ellis Island opened, January 1, 1892, the first person in line was Annie Moore and her two brothers that had traveled from Ireland. Being the first, she was given a gold coin and now a statue stand to encourage children to come to America.

Some officials, like Michelle Bachmann have claimed that Ellis Island is required and has strict orders to send them back. That is not true. She called them “invaders” and warned of possible trouble making antics from them. Historically, immigrant children without parents have been getting in trouble for years and years. In 1921, 13-year old Osman Louis, from Belgium, was a stowaway and was helped out by Helen Bastedo to keep the child in the country.

The Immigration Act of 1907 declares that children under 16 that are unaccompanied by parents are not permitted to enter in the normal fashion. They are not sent back. The procedure states they must enter a detention center where an inquiry from special inspectors will determine their fate. May times, synagogues, missionaries and even private citizens would offer to take over the guardianship of the child.

Ellis Island officials made several efforts to care for children detained on the island—those with parents and those without—who could be there for weeks at a time. Around 1900 a playground was constructed there with a sandbox, swings, and slides. A group of about a dozen women known as “matrons” played games and sang songs with the children, many of whom they couldn’t easily communicate with due to language barriers. Later, a school room was created for them, and the Red Cross supplied a radio for the children to listen to.

And of course, many of those kids grew up to work tough jobs, start new businesses and create new jobs, and pass significant amounts of wealth down to some of the very folks clamoring to “send ’em back” today.

You want to send them back? That isn’t the modus operandi of the United States of America.

 

 

The opinions in this blog are those of Tom Knuppel

Bad Parenting- Situations that Could Put You in Jail

Tom Knuppel Other
Bad Parenting- Situations that Could Put You in Jail

 

Bad Parenting or Nosy Good Samaritan?

As I was reading through my bookmarks, as I do every day, I came across an article about a parent that got arrested and their children were taken away for something that shocked me. So, I found some articles from the Washington Post and will share some amazing reasons that parents were considered bad and on “bad behavior”.

o   The first case comes from South Carolina where a mother, Debra, allowed her daughter to play at the park near where she worked at McDonalds. She gave her a cellphone for emergencies and noticed that at any one given time, there were usually near 40 children playing in the park at a time. It was the second day when an adult asked her where her mom was. When the girl told her that her mom was working, the adults called the cops and was arrested for “abandonment” of a child.

o   Another story involves a mother named Kim that went to the store. As she left home, her four-year old child insisted on going with her for the quick errand. When they arrived the child refused to go into the store. Since it was a mild and overcast day of near 50 degrees, the mother allowed the child to stay in the vehicle. Another adult saw her leave the child and recorded it all on a cell phone and called the police and she was arrested.

We all know of stories that have turned out poorly and this appears to be on the mind of the “good Samaritans” that phone the police. But do they know the whole story? Did the parents do irresponsible things? Are they guilty of bad behavior as parents?

Bradley Balko of the Washington Post writes about:

 “increasing criminalization of just about everything and the use of the criminal justice system to address problems that were once (and better) handled by families, friends, communities and other institutions.”

In the book called The Quest for Community by Robert Nisbet, he states that a society without private associations will find the state taking their place. He wrote:

 “It is hard to overlook the fact that the State and politics have become suffused by qualities formerly inherent only in the family or the church.”

In this world, the term “nanny state” takes on a very literal meaning.

A father named Jeffrey from Ohio had the police show up at his front door and arrested him in front of this entire family because one of his sons skipped church. He now faces six months in jail. Here is the story:

o   The local Woodville Baptist Church sends a van to his neighborhood twice a week to offer free transportation to those interested in attending services. Williamson’s children ride the van regularly on Wednesdays and Sundays. This morning was no different, as his eight-year-old son Justin and siblings said goodbye to their father and left their house to board the van. One problem: Justin skipped church and went to play instead. The young boy stayed in the neighborhood to play with friends and then later ended up at the local Family Dollar store down the road. After police officers were called to the store by a customer who recognized Justin, they took him back to his neighborhood where they proceeded to arrest his father for child endangerment.

We now see the breakdown in modern American community—without a sense of communal closeness or responsibility, we act as bystanders rather than as stewards. We warn kids of “stranger danger”, we put guidance system on them, and we lock our doors because the neighborhood is not as safe as it once was.

What is sad in this is that parents are no longer supported by their community. What ever happened to calling the parent first or walking to the McDonalds and checking out the story. Possibly, not sticking our nose into someone’s business with our cellphone video. Society today wants to be police, judge and jury from their seat and not truly be the Good Samaritan of the olden days.

Remember the “it takes a village” cry? Now it seems to be “every man for himself”.

 

The opinions in this blog are those of Tom Knuppel

 

Legacy- What Are You Leaving Behind?

Tom Knuppel Other
Legacy- What Are You Leaving Behind?

         

 

Legacy- What Are You Leaving Behind?

We all want to be liked. We all want to be remembered. We want people to have nice things to say when we are gone. What are they going to say about you?

First, I got to thinking about this word a few weeks ago when I congratulated a Facebook friend on the retirement of her father and mentioned he was going to leave a lasting legacy and she should be proud. Then my thoughts turned to what that means to ‘leave a legacy” and does it have to be good.

Without looking the word up in a dictionary, I am just going to use my thought about what the word means in most cases. Legacy is what people will remember you for. So without getting all personal and analyzing myself, I am going to attempt to pen some stages of legacy. I envision that not everybody will share the same legacy about the same person. It will hinge on their personal relationship and results they shared with the person.

What is the best we can hope for? There is a story at GetMoreStrength that discusses a man that was about to die and his wife, daughters and son-in-laws all were by his bedside during his last moments. One of his daughters wrote to a family friend and stated:

“Our world has lost a righteous man, and in this world, that’s no small thing.”

Those words come from a daughter that admired her father. They are simple words but concise.

Our legacy shouldn’t include the education we received, the places we traveled, the cars we own, the money we made. What it should be about is our honesty, our love of our family, our compassion towards others and our faithfulness to God. William Shakespeare wrote, “No legacy is so rich as honesty.”

As Paul told the Philippians, “Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus” (Hebrews 3:13-14).

It is not too late to build your legacy that will be a shining beacon to the people around you. We can build a legacy that is worth leaving behind but it has to be done through one decision at a time. Live this year to hear Jesus say, “Well done, good and faithful servant.”

 

“Our days are numbered. One of the primary goals in our lives should be to prepare for our last day. The legacy we leave is not just in our possessions, but in the quality of our lives. What preparations should we be making now? The greatest waste in all of our earth, which cannot be recycled or reclaimed, is our waste of the time that God has given us each day.”

― Billy Graham

The opinions in this blog belong to Tom Knuppel

The Lawsuit Epidemic

Tom Knuppel Other
The Lawsuit Epidemic

 

 

The Lawsuit Epidemic

We are part of it. This country has become the lawsuit capital of the world. That is why there is a book published called Sue the Bastards! Let’s examine some numbers that are a few years old but give us a basis for talking about this epidemic.

From 1959-2009 tort related lawsuits (personal injury) has risen 800%. In 2009, a stunning $248.1 billion were paid out in the tort system which amounts to $808 per person. The United States has the highest number of lawyers per capita in the world. There are over 1.2 million attorneys which translates into one for every 254 American.

In 2011 there was a new lawsuit filed every 2 seconds in the USA.  That is one lawsuit for every 12 adults. Over 15 million were filed in the court system. The system has become so costly that it is easier to file a frivolous litigation in an attempt to settle out of court due to the costs of going to trial.

I don’t have an answer but I can tell you from personal experience in teaching for 34 years that the last 10 of them or so had an increased concern from administration due to it becoming a legalistic society. It was easy (no grey area) to enact zero tolerance policies that do the work to track down those guilty and those not guilty.

That is why they put into effect 24/7/365 Athletic Codes. The admins didn’t want any grey area and it made it easier to just declare all guilty and move on. That is a subject I will re-visit in the coming weeks as I am strongly opposed to the schools governing the athletes at all times.

 

The views in this blog are those of Tom Knuppel