Legalized Gambling

Today while teaching about the Middle Ages we discussed the advent of insurance as part of a business model. One of the reasons why I consider myself a pretty good teacher is I have a way of explaining things to the students in a way they can understand by using widely known analogies. To help explain insurance I describe it as gambling. Businesses before heading out on an trade excursion would insure their goods for their value and would pay in exchange a nominal fee. If anything should happen to the goods on the way - a boat sinks, the caravan is robbed by bandits - the business would receive in cash the value of the goods lost. I apply the same idea of insurance to commonly insured things today: cars, homes, health. I also explain that we are essentially betting against ourselves. We are betting that we are going to get into a car accident, that something is going to happen to our home, or we are going to get sick. We are convinced that we cannot afford to NOT be insured if ever something should happen, and for most, that is correct. Besides that, you cannot own a house or a car without insurance. So we pay a nominal fee and hope that nothing happens. Most of the time we take precautions to prevent actually using that insurance.

But if we were to deliberately create the need to collect the insurance we would be arrested for fraud. We are forced to pay the money and then we are not even allowed to throw the game. Sure, in sports, if an athlete bets against himself and then deliberately loses that is illegal and would get the athlete in a world of trouble with their athletic association. Hence Pete Rose is still in trouble with MLB.

So here we are, forced to buy insurance, sometimes more coverage than we want (especially in the case of brand new car) and do whatever we can to prevent filing a claim while the insurance companies continue to collect the premiums and pay out far less. And when they lose on their risky ventures, when they gamble with the premiums paid to it by the insured, they get bailed out with our tax dollars! But if we lose out and something goes wrong and actually need to make a substantial claim on our insurance policy, we are punished, our rates increase and may even find ourselves dropped by the provider.

So as a citizen I am supposed to accept the double standard that an insurance company can gamble, lose, and be forgiven AND be given a bonus (assumedly for securing the bailout money from the government) while the person paying for the insurance policy can be forced to gamble, WIN, and be punished?

When else are the losers rewarded and the winners punished? (So much for capitalism or is it exactly like capitalism? I am so confused!)

Karma, Dharma and Justice

One of the funniest lines in a movie comes from the 1989 movie "Lethal Weapon 2" occurs when Sgt. Roger Murtaugh (Danny Glover) tells the South African Consulate worker that he wants to go to South Africa to stand with his black brothers and fight against their white oppressors:

Roger Murtaugh: How you doin'?

[his handshake is ignored by the Envoy]

Consulate Envoy: I think there must be some mistake.

Roger Murtaugh: Say what?

Consulate Envoy: Listen to your friend here, he knows what he's talking about. I don't think you want to go to South Africa.

Roger Murtaugh: Why not?

Consulate Envoy: Because you're black!

Leo Getz: [to Murtaugh] You are.

Leo Getz: [to Envoy] He is.

Absolutely hilarious in its delivery, in fact, we still joke with that line today. And yet it is of course not a joke at all. When the movie was made, South Africa was dealing with the very serious question of Apartheid. It was clear that apartheid could no longer survive in South Africa (or anywhere for that matter) and the world joined forces against the racist system to help bring equality to Africans in South Africa. Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, F.W. de Klerk, among other helped to pave the way for a new government in South Africa, one based on more equitable terms for people of all races. This could not have been as successful had it not been for the efforts of the individuals involved and for the support shown by the world in demanding an end to the racist system. I even remember attempts to boycott Coca-Cola because they operated in South Africa.

Today South Africa has the opportunity to stand with the world and help bring greater equality to others oppressed. Ahead of the 2010 World Cup (of Soccer), to be held in South Africa, the first held anywhere on the African Continent, world leaders in peace and many celebrities have been invited to discuss peace worldwide and the role sport can have in fostering peace.

Originally on the guest are:

Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, F.W. de Klerk, Morgan Freeman, Charlize Theron, Martti Ahtisaari, His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and many others

However, the president of South Africa, Kgalema Motlanthe, refused to sign the invitation for the Dalai Lama over concerns regarding relations with China. Currently, the Dalai Lama, spiritual leader of Tibet, is living in exile, and has been since age 16. Tibet has been occupied by China since 1950 and the Dalai Lama in exile since 1959. Rumors abound of the harsh treatment of Tibetans by the Chinese government, but no official documents exist to the actual state of affairs in this Himalayan region of China.

This is South Africa's chance to stand up and put justice over politics. But without an invitiation to the Dalai Lama the peace conference is bound to fail. Already withdrawing from the conference are F.W. de Klerk and Desmond Tutu. How could a peace conference in South Africa be taken seriously without two of their most staunch supporters for peace? Some would say that it is the duty of South Africa to repay the world for the equality that the world helped them achieve. But in the very least, it is the duty of all people to see justice done. As Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote in a letter from a Birmingham jail, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

"SA to Host First Ever Peace Conference" (The Citizen, February 25, 2009)

"Football for Peace" (FIFA.com, February 25, 2009)

"Dalai Lama Denied Visa for South Africa Peace Conference" (CNN.com, March 23, 2009)

"South Africa Bars Dalai Lama from Peace Conference" (Yahoo!News, March 23, 2009

Gangland

It seems the Triangle is not immune to the blight of gangs and their violence. Television storylines are making headlines in the newspaper. Witnesses are being intimidated and parents of young witnesses are not allowing their children to come forward to give testimony that would surely put serious criminals behind bars. Who could blame them? Once the felon is behind bars, and the police and prosecutors are gone, who will protect them?

The problem is not with the parents, their reaction is logical. The problem is not with the children who are not allowed to testify by their parents. The problem is the system. Not the criminal justice system, mind you, but with the socio-economic system. And it is not likely to get better for a while. An often ignored side-effect of economic difficulty is crime. Sure, the news is always reporting on job loss and unemployment, inflation (or deflation), gas prices, foreclosures. But not a word has been mentioned about crime rates.

As I discussed in "Get a Job" (December 13, 2005) and in "More Children Left Behind" (October 3, 2006), the problem starts at home. But let us not be too quick to blame the family. Parents often times have to make a very difficult decision - making ends meet or being more present with their children. What often times exacerbates the problem is the entire absence of a parent leaving the responsibility to fall on only one. The parent who chooses to take two jobs, work many and long hours spends little time with their children. Often times, these families can only afford to live in lower-income neighborhoods that tend to attract "bad elements." No matter how "tough" a particular child may be, he or she is still a child and still craves certain necessities. They need guidance, they need to feel like they are part of a family. And what often substitutes are gangs. In a gang, members feel a sense of belonging. They feel that they are being protected and others are watching out for them. Here one institution takes the place of another - gangs for the family.

Not enough attention is paid to the cause of the breakdown of the family. Too often society will blame the individuals, and in some cases, I would agree. But for it to be happening on such a large scale, it must be more, it must be systemic. What government should be asked to do is get to the root of the problem of the family - and it is NOT gay marriage. Why is it that so many children must be raised by a one parent home without support? Inadequate or no health care? Our economic system has been notorious through its history for leaving segments of the population behind. It has taken large movements and controversial exposes to get government to take notice. It has worked for child labor laws, for unsafe working conditions. What will it take for Congress to notice this large segment of the population that feeds the gangs with new recruits? Instead of treating the symptom, let's get to the heart of the problem, and solve it there.

Gang Threats Scare Off Witnesses (The News and Observer - newsobserver.com) March 1, 2009