On A Personal Note

Editorials - On A Personal Note

Throwing Stones When There Is A Better Way By Maramis Okay. Not everybody wants peace on earth and good will toward men (read that mankind, which DOES include women). Why? Well, strange as it may sound, if you've been raised to believe that one must do whatever it takes to get others to think as you do, to believe as you do, and to act as you do, sometimes that will take war to make your point. War is not peace, and in my book, war does not further good will toward anyone, not even the people themselves who think they are doing what they are supposed to do; in their minds, they are doing the right thing. From their standpoint, if others (those who have their own ideas about what they choose to believe) can't see that they're “wrong,” those who are intent on showing them what to believe will make them see! It is their job to make them see! Their upbringing or “education system” teaches them so. Therefore, while we know we cannot force peace on everyone, we cannot even offer peace to everyone. That is simply a given. But we also can't live in a “What we can't do” kind of world. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of things we can't do to which I say, “So?” We need to look for what we can do and do it! Why? Well, for starters, nobody likes a whiner. I would say that none of us enjoy even one whiner in a bunch, so much less would we want a whole great big bunch of whiners worldwide, saying: “Wah! We can't do this and we can't do that! Wah! Why can't we ever do the other thing? Others get to do the other thing, but not us! Wah!” Yes, others do get to do the other thing because they take a stand. Maybe that stand is all out of proportion to what it is they want to do, but if they take that stand, and get away with it, they get to do what they set out to do. It only took one person taking a stand to get prayer out of the schools. It only took one person saying that “Merry Christmas” offended them to have that greeting removed from certain businesses and public places. And, on the other hand, you might remember Rosa Parks! But why are so many “ordinary” people afraid to take their own stands, while certain “narrow-focused” individuals get to speak up and have their way over the overwhelming majority of those with more diversified and all-embracing viewpoints who are losing their freedoms of celebratory expression or everyday rights? Can there ever be peace on Earth among the diversity of men? Of course! I refuse to ask that question and not give a positive answer. But will it happen this year? Or next? Or during this administration? Of course not. The road is long and winding and filled with potholes of our own making. Oh, yes it is! Every time we have an opportunity to build a more secure “bridge” to another person, group, or whole country or race, we often use inferior “materials” and the bridge breaks. Every time we have a chance to change our vocabulary to be more considerate of or more sensitive toward our brethren, someone will get it in his head that it's okay for him (or her) to use the old word, or the old expression, because that's just the way they speak and they don't really mean it in the negative way and why should they have to change. And every time it's discovered that there's a difference between one group of people and another, rather than focusing on the similarities and trying to understand the history of the differences, many people jump on the differences and don't even see the similarities. We see what we look for and look at. Ask any bunch of assorted “witnesses” at the same crime scene. In my ponderings about peace and brotherhood, I sometimes wonder why it is that if a person has just one drop of what some refer to as “black blood” in them, they consider themselves black, but if they have one whole white parent and the white parent's blood flowing through their veins, they don't consider themselves white? Actually, my real pondering in such a case is, why wouldn't someone call it what it really is? Neither black nor white, but biracial! Is there anything wrong with that term? Can we not consider that taking the best of one race and intermixing it with the best of another race could produce a “hybrid” of superior overall qualities? Even if each parent did not represent the “best,” could we not expect the resultant child to have strengths not otherwise available to the original one-sided blood line? Why do we have to forever focus on the black half of a biracial child? Is it because being part of a confirmed minority race, the black child would get more benefits in life? Or because calling himself white would not go over with the so-called white race, if they detected that there was some “black” going on? Why do we still make such a big deal out of the color of our skin? But peace should not be about skin color. And it certainly should not be about religion. Yet we know full well that wars are fought over both. Kill all the people who look different or think differently or worship differently. Heaven knows that's what God wants. After all, he made it very clear that it's all about sameness, right? So pick the look (hair color, skin color, slant of eyes), pick the religion (this belief, that belief; follow this leader, follow the other guy) and somebody get out there and throw the first stone! That will start the ball rolling, and those with similar views will gather up their stones and throw them at those with dissimilar views, until everyone is ready to join the fray. Soon, there will be battle cries of “Kill the enemy!” and all the enemies will fall down. And guess who those enemies will be? To them, it will be us; to us, it will be them. And we all fall down. And so it goes. But why not consider how it could be? Win over one nation, and we're all that much closer to peace. (But wait! Don't jump ahead here; I don't mean that any other nation has to think and believe and act like we Americans do, any more than we would want to have to think and believe and act like any other nation if they “won” us over.) It shouldn't have to be “We're better than you are,” or “We make the rules and you obey them.” Who “anywhere” really wants to be ruled or taken over by another group or another country? It seems that was tried before and didn't feel good then, just as it doesn't feel good today in any country. When I say “win over,” I mean come to a meeting of the minds and a softening of the hearts in something resembling “nationship” friendship between nations that is just as sincere as that between good friends. So until we can figure out a way to co-exist and all be accountable to each other, which means no one person or no one nation will be a self-proclaimed god in charge of the whole world, we're probably stuck with war. So is there anything we can do? Think peace. Think brotherhood. Eliminate those words that spark the fires of hatred and misunderstanding. Look for the connections between people. Avoid pushing racial and religious buttons. Build bridges with honesty, caring and genuine willingness to learn about each other. And when all else fails, admit you cannot understand another's way, but you will not give up your own free will to follow their way. That may be the point where you have to take a stand. Then be big enough to do it. And let's hope we can all do that without involving any stones. Maramis Choufani is the Managing Editor of the Las Vegas Tribune. She writes a weekly column in this newspaper. To contact Maramis, email her at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

Editorials - On A Personal Note

It's really hard to be a teacher. Or a politician. Or a healthcare practitioner. Well, not if you only follow the so-called party line, of course. You just teach what you're told to teach, or tell the people what your party or higher-ups want you to tell, or offer the same old “solutions” that are in keeping with the AMA and/or Big Pharma.

But what if you knew better? What if you had access to information that disproved what you were supposed to teach your students? Could you knowingly teach the untrue? Would you? Have you? Don't be too quick or too sure about your answer. History books from the past (and I have no idea how history has been reworded for our present-day classrooms) barely enlightened any of us as to the true extent and horror of slavery. We know today that our Founding Fathers struggled with the concept of slavery, yet still kept slaves. Yet do students know that eight months after delivering his famous “Give me liberty or give me death” speech, Patrick Henry ordered “diligent patrols” to keep all the slaves in Virginia from accepting the offer of freedom proffered by the British to those who would join them on their side? Patrick Henry himself could see the contradiction between his own words and his deeds, and exclaimed, “Would anyone believe I am the master of slaves of my own purchase!” To answer his question, probably not, unless you had read one of the few textbooks which addressed the inconsistency. But the sad truth is, if one digs deeply and searches for truth diligently, one would find that Patrick Henry never reconciled his words and his deeds, to the sorrow of his slaves. He added more slaves to his holdings throughout the Revolutionary period, and never freed a one, even at the hour of his death. So is it trustworthy - honest - to say that Henry viewed slavery “as repugnant to humanity as it is inconsistent with the Bible and destructive of liberty” without mentioning the fact that he himself held slaves? How will students ever learn what they can trust if our history is edited to make it more palatable for certain people and give our proclaimed heroes more shine?

As a politician, have you ever, for example, worked late into the night - or had your staff work late into the night for you - trying to reword a piece of information that you had to include in a speech or a commercial for the next day? If that piece of information needed to be included, but you needed to reword it to reflect a different angle on the truth of the matter (in other words, you wanted the most honest-sounding lie you could come up with), did you feel justified and at peace with yourself for reinterpreting the facts to suit your particular needs? Is that the sort of lesson you would like to pass on to your children? Are you content knowing that such is the way of politics? We have all been exposed to some of the most blatant “truth-fudging” the world of politics could possibly give us, and it seems there is no end in sight. It isn't bad enough that some politicians enhance their own life experience with make-believe university degrees or war-time service records that do not exist, or deny till they are purple in the face that they did something the whole world knows they did, but some take that even bigger leap into dishonesty and cast their net of lies over anyone who stands in their way, creating a story with just enough truth in it to make voters wonder... No one has to mention names: we all know a politician or two who got ahead by casting aspersions on his opponents and then walked to victory over the backs of those unfairly defeated foes. And we all know of at least one who is doing it today, hoping against hope that his plan of casting aspersions will pay off. But I am naive enough to say - and believe - that truth does not suffer from close examination. What is true will surface. What is true will be found out. And then there's the healthcare profession: Nurses who will tell you they'll check with the doctor and never do because they take it upon themselves to determine if you're really in pain. Doctors who will tell you what they want you to do or submit to, but will not tell you about your alternatives, which would not only be less invasive or less expensive, but very possibly more health- and life-enhancing. Healthcare practitioners who will happily suggest the “drug of the day,” as suggested by their pharmaceutical drug-pushers, and who will brainstorm to come up with ways to save money for the “healthcare” institution or business, even if such measures put the patient in peril. I wonder if any healthcare practitioners of any kind who are reading this ever knowingly ignored their patient's genuine cry for help because they were warned the doctors or nurses or technicians (or anyone else in the care-giving loop) did not want to be disturbed, or were told or warned that it would cost too much money to do that one extra (however necessary) thing? I wonder if any health practitioner ever went against what he or she felt was the right thing to do - in order to conform to the “party line” of the so-called healthcare profession - and suffered the consequences of regret? (What about those involved in the more or less recent “syringe reuse” scandal?) And have any healthcare practitioners out there ever felt “forced” to blatantly lie to a patient, but only for the good of the “healthcare” personnel or institution, not the good of the patient?

Honesty is apparently an ever mutable, somewhat changeable virtue or concept that appears differently to the various eyes and ears and minds that behold it or look for it or employ it. Everyone will tell you they like honesty in a person; some will say they want honesty in a person; and some will tell you they expect - or even demand - that honesty. Well, whether you like it or not, want it or want, demand it or not, you get what you get. And some people will actually demand dishonesty in their employees (when dealing with the public, not with them) so that is what they want, and obviously what they like. And some people see nothing wrong with “rearranging” the facts of the situation at hand to come out benefiting their own self-interests. They do it in court all the time. They do it in business every day. They do it in books, when authors write slanted to serve a cause. They do it in politics to ensure a victory. They do it in doctors' offices, hospitals, advertisements for medical procedures and prescription drugs, in health insurance companies, and so forth, all in the name of money: to put more in their pockets and pay out the least amount possible, to keep all they can for themselves. So much for honesty out there in the workplace, or in the everyday world.

Yet in spite of all that, there is a common thread that unites every person with every profession in the world. That thread is trust in the honesty of the people with whom we must deal. Some parts of that thread are strong and healthy, making us feel comfortable in our dealings and safe and confident regarding our outcomes with the person or the situation; some parts are weak and frayed, causing us grave concern and scepticism and raising many reservations about every step we take; and some parts of that common thread imitate the changeling chameleon, turning a different color or in any way possible reflecting a distorted image, trying to hide the truth of what is really going on, making it impossible for trust to get a hold, or even for distrust to have a clear and present reason for existing. Since every profession is intended to serve some cause, every profession is linked to someone - and usually, many someones. Even the person who is holed up for years doing research on his own is serving the cause of digging out information to enlighten that one person, or those many who need to know. I can't think of any profession that does not have some cause attached to it that includes people in some way. And if we're serving each other - however remotely, single-handedly, or jointly - we need to believe we're doing the best we can do. We need to know that there is a best way to do what it is we do, and that we are aiming toward that higher or highest standard. We need to be open to any additional input that will cast light on what it is we do that will allow us to do it better. But we need to accept that not everyone sees things that way; that some will do everything in their power to keep the status quo if it is to their benefit, regardless of the better way. We need to remember that honesty and openness between people out there in the world who ostensibly are there to serve us, may view things as our being there only to serve them. Really. In whatever way they can “use” us. They may simply take that thread of trust, tie-dye it to serve their purposes (chameleon-disguise-like), and present it to the world as whatever they need it to be for the return they want.

Teacher. Politician. Doctor or nurse. No matter what profession or path you have chosen, you are tied to every other person by that thin thread of trust. In some ways, it may be all we have.

Maramis Choufani is the Managing Editor of the Las Vegas Tribune. She writes a weekly column in this newspaper. To contact Maramis, email her at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

Editorials - On A Personal Note

It was Thursday evening. My daughter called and wondered if I had any plans for the weekend. Well, there's always all the “normal” things I do, one of which is work on this paper, but since I don't get to see her very often, I knew I could see her and do whatever else I “normally” do as well.

She had a friend drive her here from Pahrump, so I knew it was a serious visit, since most of her visits for fun are in the daytime, and she drives herself.

Well, it didn't take long to put together her spoken reason with the in-person reality of why she felt “I needed to see her.” By morning, she was in the emergency room at San Martin Hospital.

Read more: Vacation Time at San Martin (pronounced Mar-teen)

Editorials - On A Personal Note

Adventures in Busland, Part III

There is a particular bus driver in Las Vegas who must be the happiest bus driver around. I have never yet seen him not greet every single passenger as they get on the bus, and add some personal comment to cheer them on, from something like “Happy Monday!” to “Looking good!” or just “How are you today?” He will engage in conversation with anyone, and punctuates his own dialog with sounds of happy squeals or the clapping of his hands. He will talk to cars - as in, “Oh, no you don't!” or “Watch what you're doing!” - and applaud himself when something apparently good happens.

In a way - from my viewpoint - he's a little bit like Willy Wonka in the original movie, seen as living in a different reality, but enjoying his own world and focused on his own purpose. And people do smile more when on his bus!

But there are also the Scrooge-like drivers who, while still stopped, won't even re-open their doors for someone who has been running and just gets there in time to tap on the back window to make his presence known. Even if any of us call out “Another passenger!” it would be to no avail. This sort of driver also tends to withhold any greeting of any sort to any passenger. A “Good morning” to him or her would go unreturned.

Read more: Bus Drivers, Passengers, and Memories