So. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the "mandate" - the requirement that everyone must have health insurance or pays a penalty for not doing so - is actually a tax. A tax on everyone who does not have health insurance. Therefore, on those who do not have health insurance provided for them in some way, such as by their employer, a tax imposed for not doing something, i.e., not buying health insurance.
Republicans would have us believe that this "tax for not doing something" is unprecendented. (Many of them, by the way, would also have us believe that this "tax" is the largest tax increase ever in the United States, the world, and, even - I'm not kidding - the universe. All those assertions are easily shown to be not true, by the way. But, when have the Republicans let truth get in the way of a good sound bite?)
However, it turns out that even the assertion that "a 'tax for not doing something' is unprecendented" is just ... well ... wrong.
We have long had taxes imposed on us for not doing things.
I, for instance, am taxed for not having minor children. I am taxed for not getting married. I'm even taxed for not giving enough to my church.
Yes, each of those is, in fact, a tax benefit for those who do those things, not a direct tax on me. If you have minor children, you get a tax deduction. If you are married, you get a lower tax rate. If you give enough to your church, you can take a tax deduction for part of your gift.
But, whenever someone avails him or herself of the tax benefit for doing something which I did not do, I, and everyone else who doesn't do those things, must pay more taxes to make up the difference. The effect is the same: a tax paid because you don't do something.
The truth is that taxes have always been used as a tool to encourage (or coerce, depending on your point of view) people to do things which the government wants them to do, whether that's having children, getting married, giving to charities, drilling for oil, producing mohair, or investing your money.
To suggest that this tax, which is designed to motivate people to buy health insurance so the rest of us don't have to pay for the uninsured's health care, is something unique or new or unprecedented is just more ... well ... nonsense.
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Friday, June 22, 2012
I Don't Know
I don't know why Americans would ever be okay with the American government keeping an American citizen isolated, without contact with family or attorneys, in a military prison, for years, without ever being charged with a crime.
I don't know why Americans would ever be okay with the idea of trying people who we claim are our military enemies for crimes that didn't exist at the time they were alleged to have committed them in courts that didn't exist at the time their alleged crimes were committed.
I don't know why Americans would ever be okay with forcing someone to testify against themselves by torturing them.
I don't know why Americans would ever be okay with keeping anyone in jail forever without ever charging them with any crime.
I don't know why Americans would ever be okay with other Americans snatching people off the streets of their countries and secretly delivering them to other countries so that they can be tortured.
I don't know why Americans would ever be okay with America knowingly and intentionally violating the Geneva Conventions.
I don't know why Americans who claim to worship the greatest healer the world has ever known would be against providing health care for all Americans.
I don't know why an American would answer the question "What do we say to this poor sick woman who doesn't have health care" by screaming, "Let her die!"
I don't know why Americans would cheer when someone says to a poor, sick American woman who has no health care, "Let her die!"
I don't know why Americans would blame someone for failing to do something that they kept him from doing.
I don't know why Americans would be okay with capital unions but be against labor unions.
I don't know why Americans have become the people they have become.
And I am afraid.
I don't know why Americans would ever be okay with the idea of trying people who we claim are our military enemies for crimes that didn't exist at the time they were alleged to have committed them in courts that didn't exist at the time their alleged crimes were committed.
I don't know why Americans would ever be okay with forcing someone to testify against themselves by torturing them.
I don't know why Americans would ever be okay with keeping anyone in jail forever without ever charging them with any crime.
I don't know why Americans would ever be okay with other Americans snatching people off the streets of their countries and secretly delivering them to other countries so that they can be tortured.
I don't know why Americans would ever be okay with America knowingly and intentionally violating the Geneva Conventions.
I don't know why Americans who claim to worship the greatest healer the world has ever known would be against providing health care for all Americans.
I don't know why an American would answer the question "What do we say to this poor sick woman who doesn't have health care" by screaming, "Let her die!"
I don't know why Americans would cheer when someone says to a poor, sick American woman who has no health care, "Let her die!"
I don't know why Americans would blame someone for failing to do something that they kept him from doing.
I don't know why Americans would be okay with capital unions but be against labor unions.
I don't know why Americans have become the people they have become.
And I am afraid.
Sunday, May 27, 2012
"The Hunger Games"
Several weeks ago, the Austin American-Statesman published a commentary by Ashley Sanchez, a "regular contributor" to the Statesman, entitled "'Hunger Games' spurs teens to live virtuously."
From her previous "regular contributions" I deduce that Ms. Sanchez considers herself to be deeply religious, Christian, Catholic, Conservative, and Pro-Life. So it was with double concern that I read Ms. Sanchez' "contribution" to the public discourse about "The Hunger Games."
Ms. Sanchez begins her "contribution" by describing how she and her husband were riding bikes when they came across a "girl" with a bow and arrow. When Ms. Sanchez' husband asked her if she was "playing 'The Hunger Games,'" the girl said she was. Ms. Sanchez opines that "[t]here could be worse influences." Indeed, there could be. But, the implication of Ms. Sanchez "contribution," starting with the headline, is that somehow "The Hunger Games" is a good influence on our children.
I strongly disagree.
First, in the spirit of full disclosure, I do not think of myself as at all religious, Christian, Catholic, Conservative, or Pro-Life, although I do think of myself as decent, conservative, and pro-life. As such, I would defend to my own death anyone's right to write or make a movie with the story-line of "The Hunger Games." I have seen the movie and I thought it was very good. It had me riveted to my seat. As a piece of story-telling drama it was among the best I've ever seen.
But, it was not a good message for our children. In fact, it was exactly the wrong message for our children.
Ms. Sanchez opines that "[t]he story shows how good can maintain its goodness when evil tries to corrupt it." On the contrary, the story shows how easy it is to cooperate with evil and become a part of that evil, even while despising that evil and thinking that you are not part of that evil, because you are afraid to resist evil.
And, frankly, I am mystified at how those who most loudly decry compromise in our government as "compromising with evil" seem to be the ones who are the least troubled by "The Hunger Games."
Let us think through the story.
First, for those who have not seen it, the premise is that three-quarters of a century ago a tyrannical government crushed a popular rebellion. Now, the descendants of those who revolted live in twelve districts. Each year the government requires that each of the twelve districts send two of their children, a boy and a girl, to participate in "the Hunger Games" in the capital. During the Hunger Games, the 24 children are required to fight each other to the death, until there is only one left. The survivor gets to go home to his or her district, apparently a hero.
So, each year, two "tributes" - children - are chosen from each district in a ceremony. These two children will be sent off to the capital to fight and almost surely die (there is a one in twenty-four chance that the child will survive, so 23 of the children will die and at the very best at least one of the children from any given district will be killed by other children).
But, here's the first compromise with evil. Instead of resisting this great evil, instead of standing up to the government and saying "we will not voluntarily send our children off to kill each other," the parents docilely dress their children in their Sunday best and send them to the selection ceremony where two of them are chosen at random to go kill other children and be killed by other children. The parents don't even try to hide their children, much less fight to save them. They just surrender them up. Why? In the hope that it won't be their child who is chosen. But, that means that it will be your friends' child or your neighbor's child. But, if you actively resist, you will almost surely be killed yourself and your child probably killed, too. The best chance of skating by is to cooperate with evil and hope it falls on someone else.
A good message for our children? The message that your parents will not protect you? A message that, our of fear, your parents will cooperate with evil and just hope it's not you who gets killed? I don't think so.
So, then two children are chosen. When they are, their parents are allowed a few minutes to visit with them in private before they are shipped off to the capital to kill other children and be killed by other children. Do the parents use these few moments to encourage their child to resist, to not cooperate with this obvious evil? Do they tell them they must stand up to the government and refuse to give them their spectacle, even if it means their own death? No. Instead, they encourage their children to fight well, win, and come home. In other words, they encourage their children to kill other children in the tiny hope that their child will come home alive.
A good message for children? If you are confronted with evil that endangers you, the thing to do is cooperate if that maximizes your chances of surviving the evil? Even if it means that you have to kill other children to do it? I don't think so.
Then the children arrive at the capital, where they are treated like heros, even though they are, in fact, victims. For several days, perhaps several weeks, they are prepared (and trained) for the Hunger Games. During that time, do any of the adults say to any of the children, "This is wrong and I'm not going to help you do it"? Do any of the adults help the children to escape? Do any of the adults encourage the children to band together with the other children from the other districts and refuse to participate in this evil spectacle, thereby putting a stop to it once and for all, even if it means losing their own lives? No. Instead, the adults coach the children on various techniques to win. In other words, the adults coach the children that the goal is to kill, or at the very least, let 23 other children die, in the hope that you might live.
A good message for children? If someone tries to force you to do something evil, the thing to do is be really good at it so you may survive? I don't think so.
During this "preparation" period, do any of the children resist? Do any of them stand up to the government representatives and say, "This is wrong and I'm not going to do it, no matter what you do to me. You can't make me participate in this evil?" Do any of them try to talk any of the other children into resisting as a group, into simply refusing to put on this performance, thereby ending the spectacle forever? No. None of them do. In fact, they all participate whole-heartedly, even to the point of smilingly giving a televised interview about how they feel about being a "tribute." They, in fact, try as hard as they can to get ready to kill other children.
A good message for children? If you are forced into an evil situation, be as good at being evil as you can? I guess that's sort of a version of "is something is worth doing, it's worth doing well," but I bet my mother never thought of that particular perversion of the old saying? A good message for children? I don't think so.
Then the "games" begin and there is a moment before the killing starts when all the children are together. They can all see each other and hear each other. Does even one of them call out to the others and plead, "Don't do this! This is wrong! It is evil for us to kill each other for the pleasure of others! I will not kill you, no matter what! Please don't kill me! But, even if you do kill me, I, even if it is only me alone, will not do this!" That's the speech I'm hoping for at that moment. Those words represent the values I was taught as a child, the values I think are important. But, that speech doesn't happen. Instead, the moment passes and all of the children tear off on their various strategies for surviving the "games" at the expense of 23 other children's lives.
Then, it is true, the heroine of the story, Katniss from District 12, doesn't go on the offensive to kill other children. But, she does kill other children. And other children try to kill her. Never once does she say, "I'm not going to kill you, no matter what. It is wrong for us to do this. I'm not going to do it, even if you do. You may participate in this evil, but I won't, even if it costs me my life." No. She participates, albeit defensively, and her fictional television supporters cheer her when she kills another child. And, I admit, sitting in the movie audience, I wanted her to prevail and I mentally cheered her when she killed another child.
But, as "feel good" as it may be once you've become attached to the character, is that a good message to send to our children? I don't think so.
Finally, 20 other children are dead. Some are killed by others, but some are killed by Katniss with her bow and arrows. There are only two left, Katniss and her male co-"tribute" from District 12. The government has fooled them into thinking that they could both win, but when it is just the two of them left, the government informs them that there can be only one winner. One of them has to kill the other.
The boy, who loves Katniss, tells her that she should kill him, and he offers himself to her so she can live and go home. Does she say, "No! This is not right! I won't kill you! Even if they kill us both, this has to stop, right now, this very moment! Let them kill us, but I won't kill you!" No, she proposes that they commit suicide together. The viewer thinks they are going to do it, when at the last moment, the government relents and lets them both live.
This is proposed by Ms. Sanchez as one of the examples of virtue taught by the movie. Interesting, coming from an avowed Catholic, for whom suicide is a mortal sin. But, even without being Catholic, I recognize a significant diffference between, "Let's kill ourselves, so we don't have to kill each other," and "If they kill us so be it, but we are not going to cooperate with that."
Now, admittedly, there were examples of real virtue in the movie. One was when Katniss volunteers to go to the "games" to save her sister from having to go. A moment of self-sacrifice in the face of evil. Another is when the boy from District 12 says to Katniss that she should kill him so she can live, but he will not kill her. Unfortunately, neither of these moments is paramount in the story. They are both almost asides to the real story of Katniss being the heroine who survives at the expense of the lives ot 22 other children, by cooperating with evil.
We ought also to look at the relationship between Katniss and her male co-"tribute." It turns out that he has loved her for years, but it is plain that she is in love with another boy in her district. At one point in the past, when Katniss is inexplicably cold and hungry in the rain, the boy gave her some bread that was meant for the pigs. He throws it to her while he is feeding the pigs. During the movie, he tells her how guilty he feels about that good act, because he didn't go out to her and give her the bread face-to-face. Real regret for not doing the right thing. Further, he is adamant from the beginning that he will not kill Katniss, no matter what.
What is Katniss' reaction? Katniss does things to lead the boy to believe that she shares his feelings, or is growing to do so. She leads him on until, by the end of the movie, he thinks she loves him, even though she really doesn't. Even when the "games" are over, they have both survived, and they are heading home, she doesn't tell him the truth - that she loves another. But, he winds up suspecting. Not only does this hurt him, but it hurts the boy Katniss really loves, all because Katniss is afraid to tell the truth.
So, while I am very interested in stories that explore the complexity of evil and show how easy it is to fall into evil, I do not think that is a good message for children. I do not think a movie that makes a hero out of a child who compromises with evil in order to survive is a good message for children.
With movies like this held up as examples of how teenagers ought to behave, it is very little wonder that we have children who arm themselves and come to school and kill their classmates or that the teen suicide rate is way too high.
When I consider those who think this movie had a good message for children, I can only wonder what they would say if the 24 children in the story were chosen to go to the capital and have sex with each other, instead of killing each other. Would they then have thought that a movie with a message that you needed to compromise your morals in order to survive was a good message?
I think children's movies should tell them that one does not compromise with evil for one's own benefit, no matter what, ever. That would be a good message for children.
For adults? "The Hunger Games" was a great move. But, no one should have held it up as an example of the way children - or adults, for that matter - ought to behave.
From her previous "regular contributions" I deduce that Ms. Sanchez considers herself to be deeply religious, Christian, Catholic, Conservative, and Pro-Life. So it was with double concern that I read Ms. Sanchez' "contribution" to the public discourse about "The Hunger Games."
Ms. Sanchez begins her "contribution" by describing how she and her husband were riding bikes when they came across a "girl" with a bow and arrow. When Ms. Sanchez' husband asked her if she was "playing 'The Hunger Games,'" the girl said she was. Ms. Sanchez opines that "[t]here could be worse influences." Indeed, there could be. But, the implication of Ms. Sanchez "contribution," starting with the headline, is that somehow "The Hunger Games" is a good influence on our children.
I strongly disagree.
First, in the spirit of full disclosure, I do not think of myself as at all religious, Christian, Catholic, Conservative, or Pro-Life, although I do think of myself as decent, conservative, and pro-life. As such, I would defend to my own death anyone's right to write or make a movie with the story-line of "The Hunger Games." I have seen the movie and I thought it was very good. It had me riveted to my seat. As a piece of story-telling drama it was among the best I've ever seen.
But, it was not a good message for our children. In fact, it was exactly the wrong message for our children.
Ms. Sanchez opines that "[t]he story shows how good can maintain its goodness when evil tries to corrupt it." On the contrary, the story shows how easy it is to cooperate with evil and become a part of that evil, even while despising that evil and thinking that you are not part of that evil, because you are afraid to resist evil.
And, frankly, I am mystified at how those who most loudly decry compromise in our government as "compromising with evil" seem to be the ones who are the least troubled by "The Hunger Games."
Let us think through the story.
First, for those who have not seen it, the premise is that three-quarters of a century ago a tyrannical government crushed a popular rebellion. Now, the descendants of those who revolted live in twelve districts. Each year the government requires that each of the twelve districts send two of their children, a boy and a girl, to participate in "the Hunger Games" in the capital. During the Hunger Games, the 24 children are required to fight each other to the death, until there is only one left. The survivor gets to go home to his or her district, apparently a hero.
So, each year, two "tributes" - children - are chosen from each district in a ceremony. These two children will be sent off to the capital to fight and almost surely die (there is a one in twenty-four chance that the child will survive, so 23 of the children will die and at the very best at least one of the children from any given district will be killed by other children).
But, here's the first compromise with evil. Instead of resisting this great evil, instead of standing up to the government and saying "we will not voluntarily send our children off to kill each other," the parents docilely dress their children in their Sunday best and send them to the selection ceremony where two of them are chosen at random to go kill other children and be killed by other children. The parents don't even try to hide their children, much less fight to save them. They just surrender them up. Why? In the hope that it won't be their child who is chosen. But, that means that it will be your friends' child or your neighbor's child. But, if you actively resist, you will almost surely be killed yourself and your child probably killed, too. The best chance of skating by is to cooperate with evil and hope it falls on someone else.
A good message for our children? The message that your parents will not protect you? A message that, our of fear, your parents will cooperate with evil and just hope it's not you who gets killed? I don't think so.
So, then two children are chosen. When they are, their parents are allowed a few minutes to visit with them in private before they are shipped off to the capital to kill other children and be killed by other children. Do the parents use these few moments to encourage their child to resist, to not cooperate with this obvious evil? Do they tell them they must stand up to the government and refuse to give them their spectacle, even if it means their own death? No. Instead, they encourage their children to fight well, win, and come home. In other words, they encourage their children to kill other children in the tiny hope that their child will come home alive.
A good message for children? If you are confronted with evil that endangers you, the thing to do is cooperate if that maximizes your chances of surviving the evil? Even if it means that you have to kill other children to do it? I don't think so.
Then the children arrive at the capital, where they are treated like heros, even though they are, in fact, victims. For several days, perhaps several weeks, they are prepared (and trained) for the Hunger Games. During that time, do any of the adults say to any of the children, "This is wrong and I'm not going to help you do it"? Do any of the adults help the children to escape? Do any of the adults encourage the children to band together with the other children from the other districts and refuse to participate in this evil spectacle, thereby putting a stop to it once and for all, even if it means losing their own lives? No. Instead, the adults coach the children on various techniques to win. In other words, the adults coach the children that the goal is to kill, or at the very least, let 23 other children die, in the hope that you might live.
A good message for children? If someone tries to force you to do something evil, the thing to do is be really good at it so you may survive? I don't think so.
During this "preparation" period, do any of the children resist? Do any of them stand up to the government representatives and say, "This is wrong and I'm not going to do it, no matter what you do to me. You can't make me participate in this evil?" Do any of them try to talk any of the other children into resisting as a group, into simply refusing to put on this performance, thereby ending the spectacle forever? No. None of them do. In fact, they all participate whole-heartedly, even to the point of smilingly giving a televised interview about how they feel about being a "tribute." They, in fact, try as hard as they can to get ready to kill other children.
A good message for children? If you are forced into an evil situation, be as good at being evil as you can? I guess that's sort of a version of "is something is worth doing, it's worth doing well," but I bet my mother never thought of that particular perversion of the old saying? A good message for children? I don't think so.
Then the "games" begin and there is a moment before the killing starts when all the children are together. They can all see each other and hear each other. Does even one of them call out to the others and plead, "Don't do this! This is wrong! It is evil for us to kill each other for the pleasure of others! I will not kill you, no matter what! Please don't kill me! But, even if you do kill me, I, even if it is only me alone, will not do this!" That's the speech I'm hoping for at that moment. Those words represent the values I was taught as a child, the values I think are important. But, that speech doesn't happen. Instead, the moment passes and all of the children tear off on their various strategies for surviving the "games" at the expense of 23 other children's lives.
Then, it is true, the heroine of the story, Katniss from District 12, doesn't go on the offensive to kill other children. But, she does kill other children. And other children try to kill her. Never once does she say, "I'm not going to kill you, no matter what. It is wrong for us to do this. I'm not going to do it, even if you do. You may participate in this evil, but I won't, even if it costs me my life." No. She participates, albeit defensively, and her fictional television supporters cheer her when she kills another child. And, I admit, sitting in the movie audience, I wanted her to prevail and I mentally cheered her when she killed another child.
But, as "feel good" as it may be once you've become attached to the character, is that a good message to send to our children? I don't think so.
Finally, 20 other children are dead. Some are killed by others, but some are killed by Katniss with her bow and arrows. There are only two left, Katniss and her male co-"tribute" from District 12. The government has fooled them into thinking that they could both win, but when it is just the two of them left, the government informs them that there can be only one winner. One of them has to kill the other.
The boy, who loves Katniss, tells her that she should kill him, and he offers himself to her so she can live and go home. Does she say, "No! This is not right! I won't kill you! Even if they kill us both, this has to stop, right now, this very moment! Let them kill us, but I won't kill you!" No, she proposes that they commit suicide together. The viewer thinks they are going to do it, when at the last moment, the government relents and lets them both live.
This is proposed by Ms. Sanchez as one of the examples of virtue taught by the movie. Interesting, coming from an avowed Catholic, for whom suicide is a mortal sin. But, even without being Catholic, I recognize a significant diffference between, "Let's kill ourselves, so we don't have to kill each other," and "If they kill us so be it, but we are not going to cooperate with that."
Now, admittedly, there were examples of real virtue in the movie. One was when Katniss volunteers to go to the "games" to save her sister from having to go. A moment of self-sacrifice in the face of evil. Another is when the boy from District 12 says to Katniss that she should kill him so she can live, but he will not kill her. Unfortunately, neither of these moments is paramount in the story. They are both almost asides to the real story of Katniss being the heroine who survives at the expense of the lives ot 22 other children, by cooperating with evil.
We ought also to look at the relationship between Katniss and her male co-"tribute." It turns out that he has loved her for years, but it is plain that she is in love with another boy in her district. At one point in the past, when Katniss is inexplicably cold and hungry in the rain, the boy gave her some bread that was meant for the pigs. He throws it to her while he is feeding the pigs. During the movie, he tells her how guilty he feels about that good act, because he didn't go out to her and give her the bread face-to-face. Real regret for not doing the right thing. Further, he is adamant from the beginning that he will not kill Katniss, no matter what.
What is Katniss' reaction? Katniss does things to lead the boy to believe that she shares his feelings, or is growing to do so. She leads him on until, by the end of the movie, he thinks she loves him, even though she really doesn't. Even when the "games" are over, they have both survived, and they are heading home, she doesn't tell him the truth - that she loves another. But, he winds up suspecting. Not only does this hurt him, but it hurts the boy Katniss really loves, all because Katniss is afraid to tell the truth.
So, while I am very interested in stories that explore the complexity of evil and show how easy it is to fall into evil, I do not think that is a good message for children. I do not think a movie that makes a hero out of a child who compromises with evil in order to survive is a good message for children.
With movies like this held up as examples of how teenagers ought to behave, it is very little wonder that we have children who arm themselves and come to school and kill their classmates or that the teen suicide rate is way too high.
When I consider those who think this movie had a good message for children, I can only wonder what they would say if the 24 children in the story were chosen to go to the capital and have sex with each other, instead of killing each other. Would they then have thought that a movie with a message that you needed to compromise your morals in order to survive was a good message?
I think children's movies should tell them that one does not compromise with evil for one's own benefit, no matter what, ever. That would be a good message for children.
For adults? "The Hunger Games" was a great move. But, no one should have held it up as an example of the way children - or adults, for that matter - ought to behave.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Impressions of Mitt Romney
I rarely make personal observations here, but I feel compelled to make this one.
I've been thinking about it for quite some time.
As I listen to and watch Mitt Romney, something seems a little off. Not terrible, but enough that I notice. I've been trying to put my finger on it, but until recently I haven't been able to.
A day or so ago, it hit me.
Mitt Romney is like the high school kid who is trying to be friends with the cool kids. He's a little uncomfortable, and it shows. He says things he thinks will make him sound cool, and they aren't bad, but everyone wonders, "Why did he say that?" He doesn't quite stutter, but neither is he smooth. He always seems just a little out of place. Not enough so that it's terrible, but enough so that you can't help but notice and wonder, as I did, "What is it about him that doesn't quite fit?"
He is like the high school kid who is trying to be friends with the cool kids.
I've been thinking about it for quite some time.
As I listen to and watch Mitt Romney, something seems a little off. Not terrible, but enough that I notice. I've been trying to put my finger on it, but until recently I haven't been able to.
A day or so ago, it hit me.
Mitt Romney is like the high school kid who is trying to be friends with the cool kids. He's a little uncomfortable, and it shows. He says things he thinks will make him sound cool, and they aren't bad, but everyone wonders, "Why did he say that?" He doesn't quite stutter, but neither is he smooth. He always seems just a little out of place. Not enough so that it's terrible, but enough so that you can't help but notice and wonder, as I did, "What is it about him that doesn't quite fit?"
He is like the high school kid who is trying to be friends with the cool kids.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Health Care
I completely understand how reasonable, good-hearted, intelligent people can honestly differ on how to best provide universal health care.
But, I have never been able to understand, no matter how hard I try, how people who claim to be followers of the greatest healer the world has ever known can oppose universal health care.
But, I have never been able to understand, no matter how hard I try, how people who claim to be followers of the greatest healer the world has ever known can oppose universal health care.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Henry Ford
"It is well enought that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."
Thursday, February 16, 2012
His Ideas Haven't Worked
When there is a problem that requires a solution, a man comes to you with a proposed solution, and you actively prevent him from trying that solution, you cannot with integrity then say that his solution did not work.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Thomas Alva Edison
"Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages."
Friday, February 3, 2012
Firing People
Governor Mitt Romney has made lots of money while firing people. He likes being able to fire people. He is endorsed by the man who made the phrase "You're fired!" a television household word. And he isn't concerned about poor people.
Okay, okay. I know none of that is fair and much of it is taken out of context, but I just couldn't resist. My apologies.
Okay, okay. I know none of that is fair and much of it is taken out of context, but I just couldn't resist. My apologies.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Thomas Alva Edision
"Results! Why, man, I have gotten a lot of results. I know several thousand things that won't work."
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
How Does This Make You Feel?
In today's Austin American-Statesman, there is an article entitled "Romney says his tax rate only about 15 percent."
Now, we know that while Mitt Romney worked for Bain Capital, he worked on projects where Bain made a profit by investing in companies that succeeded, but we also know, for good or ill, that he also worked on projects where Bain invested in companies that eventually went bankrupt, leaving the employees without jobs or pensions, and Bain still made a profit. One may like that or not, or one may not like it but excuse it, but however one feels about it, it's true.
The newspaper article mentioned the following additional truths.
1. Governor Romney said that "[h]is effective tax rate was 'probably closer to the 15 percent rate than anything.'" (The lowest Federal income tax rate is 10%. Anyone who works and makes $17,000 or more pays at least 15% on everything over $17,000. The highest tax rate, due on income over $379,150, is 35%.)
2. Governor Romney earned $374,327 in speaking fees last year, which he characterized as "not very much." ("[T]hat sum would, by itself, very nearly catapult most families into the top 1 percent of American earners.")
3. "During 2010 and the first nine months of 2011, the Romney family had at least $9,600,000 in income ... ." That's 9 million dollars.
4. Romney acknowledged that most of his income comes from investments. (The highest federal tax rate on long term capital gains is 15%. So, theoretically, if you earn $400,000 in income, you'd be in the 35% bracket, but if you earn 9 million dollars in investments, you're only in the 15% tax bracket.)
5. "President Barack Obama ... reported paying an effective federal tax rate of 26 percent on his 2010 family income."
Don't get me wrong. I'm not in any way suggesting that Governor Romney or his family have earned even one penny through illegal or unethical means. I'm not saying that and I have no reason to think that even might be true. Nor do I begrudge him and his family the fact that they make a lot of money. I wish I made that kind of money. I have always said, and it has always been true, that my secret (now not so secret) ambition has always been to be a filthy capitalist pig.
But, I know how these facts make me feel. First, they reinforce my belief that the rich in America really aren't paying too much in taxes. As a percentage of income, they often pay a lot less than the rest of us.
Second, I can't help but feel like it's mean-spirited to make anything in the range of $5,000,000 a year (or 9.6 million in less than two years), pay a smaller percentage of that in taxes than most folk, and still want to balance the federal budget by reducing benefits for poor people instead of raising taxes, even a little bit, on rich people.
So, how does it make you feel?
Now, we know that while Mitt Romney worked for Bain Capital, he worked on projects where Bain made a profit by investing in companies that succeeded, but we also know, for good or ill, that he also worked on projects where Bain invested in companies that eventually went bankrupt, leaving the employees without jobs or pensions, and Bain still made a profit. One may like that or not, or one may not like it but excuse it, but however one feels about it, it's true.
The newspaper article mentioned the following additional truths.
1. Governor Romney said that "[h]is effective tax rate was 'probably closer to the 15 percent rate than anything.'" (The lowest Federal income tax rate is 10%. Anyone who works and makes $17,000 or more pays at least 15% on everything over $17,000. The highest tax rate, due on income over $379,150, is 35%.)
2. Governor Romney earned $374,327 in speaking fees last year, which he characterized as "not very much." ("[T]hat sum would, by itself, very nearly catapult most families into the top 1 percent of American earners.")
3. "During 2010 and the first nine months of 2011, the Romney family had at least $9,600,000 in income ... ." That's 9 million dollars.
4. Romney acknowledged that most of his income comes from investments. (The highest federal tax rate on long term capital gains is 15%. So, theoretically, if you earn $400,000 in income, you'd be in the 35% bracket, but if you earn 9 million dollars in investments, you're only in the 15% tax bracket.)
5. "President Barack Obama ... reported paying an effective federal tax rate of 26 percent on his 2010 family income."
Don't get me wrong. I'm not in any way suggesting that Governor Romney or his family have earned even one penny through illegal or unethical means. I'm not saying that and I have no reason to think that even might be true. Nor do I begrudge him and his family the fact that they make a lot of money. I wish I made that kind of money. I have always said, and it has always been true, that my secret (now not so secret) ambition has always been to be a filthy capitalist pig.
But, I know how these facts make me feel. First, they reinforce my belief that the rich in America really aren't paying too much in taxes. As a percentage of income, they often pay a lot less than the rest of us.
Second, I can't help but feel like it's mean-spirited to make anything in the range of $5,000,000 a year (or 9.6 million in less than two years), pay a smaller percentage of that in taxes than most folk, and still want to balance the federal budget by reducing benefits for poor people instead of raising taxes, even a little bit, on rich people.
So, how does it make you feel?
The Land of Opportunity?
Yesterday, Tuesday, January 17, 2012, the Austin American-Statesman published an opinion article entitled "America's unlevel playing field won't get flattened by Romney," written by Paul Krugman. It contained some interesting assertions.
1. "Americans are much more likely than citizens of other nations to believe that they live in a meritocracy."
2. "[T]his self-image is a fantasy."
Mr. Krugman supported this second assertion with an equally interesting assertion.
"America actually stands out as the advanced country in which it matters most who your parents were, the country in which those born on one of society's lower rungs have the least chance of climbing to the top or even to the middle."
While I find these assertions interesting in and of themselves, I find them particularly interesting because they are things I have been saying for some time now. I did not make the assertions up. They are based on hard statistical facts. In America, it is much less likely that you will die at a higher socio-economic level than the one you were born into than it is in most European countries.
Now, to be clear, I am not saying that America is bad. Hardly. As someone long ago once told me, the test is: Are they trying to get out, or are they trying to get in? While not so much as they used to, they are still trying to get into America, not out.
But, we are not the "Land of Opportunity" that we tell ourselves we are. And it is interesting to hear a Nobel-Prize-winning economist agree with me.
Not long ago, I was having dinner with some friends. All three of them were naturalized U.S. citizens. They are Americans now, but they had all been born citizens of other countries.
One of them asserted that America was the "Land of Opportunity." When I disagreed and tried to explain that the facts showed that the assertion simply was not true, that many countries offered more opportunity to their citizens than did America, he refused to be dissuaded. When I asked him how he could continue to believe the "Land of Opportunity" motto in the face of rather stark facts, he replied, "I don't believe the facts."
At that point, the only thing to be said, if anything, is what Senator Moynihan is reputed to have said: "You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts." Rational conversation is over.
Later, I was castigated by one of those at the table for disagreeing with the one who asserted that America was the "Land of Opportunity." "He was just trying to compliment your country."
I thought about the implications inherent in the idea that it was my country, not the country of all those seated at the table, but I passed that over. But, what I thought about was: Why did I dispute him when he said something apparently complimentary about America?
One thing I can promise is that it was not because I am anti-American. I do not hate America. On the contrary, I love my country, and I consider myself to be among the most fortunate men on the planet for the single reason that I was born in America.
But, because I love my country, I want her to be as good as we can possibly make her. As good as she is now, I want her to be better, if that can possibly occur.
It cannot occur if we lie to ourselves. This is as true of a nation of people as it is of an individual. If we are convinced, or convince ourselves, that we are perfect, we are never motivated to improve. Thoughtful, accurate self-criticism is not bad. Thoughtful, accurate self-criticism is good.
Consider the difference between looking in the mirror and saying to yourself, "Ah, I'm not that overweight. In fact, a little girth looks good on me. I don't need to be careful about what I eat or whether I exercise," and "Hmmm. I think I'm gaining too much weight. That won't be healthy. I think I'll be a little more careful about what I eat and I'll start getting some more exercise." One is self-delusion which allows us to continue our bad habits uncontrolled, and the other is thoughtful self-criticism which allows us to recognize where we need to improve and start taking steps to be better.
Our nation is exactly like that. When we tell ourselves that we are the "Land of Opportunity," it may sound like a compliment, but actually we are self-deluding and we won't be motivated to actually improve opportunity for Americans.
We need to speak truth to ourselves so that we can be even better than we are. If we truly love America, we will tell the truth about her, and we'll be happy when others do the same.
1. "Americans are much more likely than citizens of other nations to believe that they live in a meritocracy."
2. "[T]his self-image is a fantasy."
Mr. Krugman supported this second assertion with an equally interesting assertion.
"America actually stands out as the advanced country in which it matters most who your parents were, the country in which those born on one of society's lower rungs have the least chance of climbing to the top or even to the middle."
While I find these assertions interesting in and of themselves, I find them particularly interesting because they are things I have been saying for some time now. I did not make the assertions up. They are based on hard statistical facts. In America, it is much less likely that you will die at a higher socio-economic level than the one you were born into than it is in most European countries.
Now, to be clear, I am not saying that America is bad. Hardly. As someone long ago once told me, the test is: Are they trying to get out, or are they trying to get in? While not so much as they used to, they are still trying to get into America, not out.
But, we are not the "Land of Opportunity" that we tell ourselves we are. And it is interesting to hear a Nobel-Prize-winning economist agree with me.
Not long ago, I was having dinner with some friends. All three of them were naturalized U.S. citizens. They are Americans now, but they had all been born citizens of other countries.
One of them asserted that America was the "Land of Opportunity." When I disagreed and tried to explain that the facts showed that the assertion simply was not true, that many countries offered more opportunity to their citizens than did America, he refused to be dissuaded. When I asked him how he could continue to believe the "Land of Opportunity" motto in the face of rather stark facts, he replied, "I don't believe the facts."
At that point, the only thing to be said, if anything, is what Senator Moynihan is reputed to have said: "You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts." Rational conversation is over.
Later, I was castigated by one of those at the table for disagreeing with the one who asserted that America was the "Land of Opportunity." "He was just trying to compliment your country."
I thought about the implications inherent in the idea that it was my country, not the country of all those seated at the table, but I passed that over. But, what I thought about was: Why did I dispute him when he said something apparently complimentary about America?
One thing I can promise is that it was not because I am anti-American. I do not hate America. On the contrary, I love my country, and I consider myself to be among the most fortunate men on the planet for the single reason that I was born in America.
But, because I love my country, I want her to be as good as we can possibly make her. As good as she is now, I want her to be better, if that can possibly occur.
It cannot occur if we lie to ourselves. This is as true of a nation of people as it is of an individual. If we are convinced, or convince ourselves, that we are perfect, we are never motivated to improve. Thoughtful, accurate self-criticism is not bad. Thoughtful, accurate self-criticism is good.
Consider the difference between looking in the mirror and saying to yourself, "Ah, I'm not that overweight. In fact, a little girth looks good on me. I don't need to be careful about what I eat or whether I exercise," and "Hmmm. I think I'm gaining too much weight. That won't be healthy. I think I'll be a little more careful about what I eat and I'll start getting some more exercise." One is self-delusion which allows us to continue our bad habits uncontrolled, and the other is thoughtful self-criticism which allows us to recognize where we need to improve and start taking steps to be better.
Our nation is exactly like that. When we tell ourselves that we are the "Land of Opportunity," it may sound like a compliment, but actually we are self-deluding and we won't be motivated to actually improve opportunity for Americans.
We need to speak truth to ourselves so that we can be even better than we are. If we truly love America, we will tell the truth about her, and we'll be happy when others do the same.
Henry Ford
"One of the greatest discoveries a man makes, one of his surprise, is to find he can do what he was afraid he couldn't do."
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Henry Ford
"If there is any one secret of success, it lies in the ability to get the other person's point of view and see things from that person's angle as well as from your own."
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Thomas Alva Edison
"The brain can be developed just the same as the muscles can be developed, if one will only take the pains to train the mind to think. Why do so many men never amount to anything? Because they don't think."
Monday, January 2, 2012
The Social Contract v. Class Warfare
I believe the social contract for modern day America is "I am my brother's keeper." I may be wrong. Others may disagree. But, I believe that is our social contract in America today.
If I'm right, then each American has an obligation to help care for his or her fellow Americans. They are his or her "brothers" and he or she is their keeper. This obligation is not a choice. It is an obligation which arises from the fact that the social contract exists and from the terms of that contract.
Likewise, each American has a right to be cared for by his or her fellow Americans. He or she is the "brother" of every other American and they are his or her keeper. This right is not earned. It is a right which arises from the fact that the social contract exists and from the terms of that contract.
So, let us examine this notion with an eye to determining how the application of this obligation and this right relate to the concept of "class warfare."
I'm going to pick some easy numbers to work with. Of course, these numbers are not real. They are intended only to be illustrative.
Suppose there are ten members of our society. Suppose that each of them makes 100 economic units a year. I'm going to call those "Units." Suppose that each of them needs 90 Units to survive. All is well. Everyone has a little more than he or she needs and no one has to take care of anyone else or be cared for by anyone else. No class warfare there.
However, assume that person number 1 - I'm going to call him or her One - only makes 90 Units a year and all the rest still make 100 Units a year. One still has as much as he or she needs and no one has to take care of One. So, all is still well. No class warfare there.
But, change the assumption just a little. Assume that One becomes incapacitated in some way, perhaps even at birth, and makes zero Units a year, but still needs 90 Units a year just to survive. All the rest still make 100 Units a year. The social contract kicks in. All the rest have an obligation to care for One, and One has a right to be cared for. So, each other person contributes 10 Units a year to the care of One, and now One has 90 Units a year, enough to surivive, and so does everyone else.
Is it class warfare because the 9 are required to each contribute equally to the care of One? Clearly, the 9 are in a different economic class than One. After all, each has more than he or she needs and One has nothing. So, is One, in a lower economic class than the other 9, waging class warfare on the other 9, or is One merely using the social contract exactly as it was meant to be used? I think there is no class warfare in this example, merely the social contract in action.
Now, vary the example just a little more. Assume that One makes zero Units a year, Two makes only 90 Units a year, and Ten makes 110 Units a year, but everyone still needs 90 Units a year, just to survive. Now, to be clear, the assumption is that Ten has done nothing wrong in making 110 Units a year when the most anyone else makes is 100, Two only makes 90, and One makes nothing. Perhaps Ten is smarter, or works harder, or is just luckier. But, Ten has done nothing wrong. The 110 Units a year are rightfully his.
In this example, if everyone contributes 10 Units to care for One, then everyone winds up with just what they need to survive, except Two and Ten. Two winds up with only 80 Units and will slowly starve to death, while Ten will have 100 Units, more than he needs to survive. So, Two is in trouble and everyone else is okay. To solve this problem, everyone could contribute one more Unit. Then Two would have 89 Units, almost enough to survive. He'd still starve to death, but not as quickly. Ten would have 99 Units, still more than he needs. But Three through Nine would, like Two, only have 89 Units. So, in this example, everyone but One, the totally destitute, and Ten, the fairly better off, will die. One will just barely make it, while Ten will be fine, but the rest will die.
This doesn't seem to make sense. Worse, it is not in compliance with the social contract. Ten, who has an obligation to care for everyone else in his society, is not meeting his obligation, while Two through Nine have a right to be cared for, but that right is not being honored.
On the other hand, there is a straightforward way to follow the terms of the social contract to a tee in this example. Instead of having everyone, including Two, who has barely enough, contribute to the care of One, who has nothing, Three through Nine could contribute 10 Units and Ten could contribute 20 Units. Then, everyone would have 90 Units, everyone would survive, everyone would be cared for, and the terms of the social contract would be perfectly met.
Is this class warfare? More to the point, when Three through Nine realize that if everyone contributes equally, they are going to all starve while Ten prospers, is it class warfare if one of them even suggests that they should, perhaps, discuss the possibility of Ten, who has more than he needs, contributing a little more so that everyone can survive?
Is it class warfare if those who have barely enough suggest that those who have more than enough ought to contribute more so that all can survive? I don't think so. I think it is merely the carrying out of the social contract.
But, let's make the example a little tougher. Let us assume that One has nothing, Two has exactly 90 Units, Three through Nine have 100 units, and Ten, through entirely fair means, has 200 Units. Clearly, if Three through Nine each contribute 10 units and Ten contributes 20 Units, there will be enough to care for One and make sure he survives. But, then, Three through Nine, who start with more than they need, will barely make it by, while Ten will live in oppulence.
Is it class warfare if Three suggests that they all discuss whether it would make more sense for Three through Nine to contribute only 9 Units each, and ask Ten to contribute 29 instead of 20? Ten would still have way more than he needs to survive, One and Two would have enough to get by, and Three through Nine would at least have a little extra, instead of barely getting by. Ten would still be paying more than Three through Nine, and more than if he paid 20, but he'd still be a lot better off than everyone else. Class warfare? Class warfare even to suggest that the possibility of Ten paying a larger share even be discussed? I don't think so.
Now, would it be class warfare if Three through Nine all forced Ten to pay 90 Units - everything that was needed to care for One, thus leaving Ten with only 120 Units while Three through Nine, who could pay something, paid nothing at all? Yeah, it might be. In that case, one economic class is clearly ganging up on another economic class and maybe that's class warfare.
Somewhere in between suggesting that the society discuss whether someone might pay more than their pro rata share and forcing someone to pay everything that is needed there is a line. On one side of that line it is at least reasonable to have the discussion. On the other side of that line folks are being unreasonable. I can't tell you where that line is, but I can tell you that I don't think merely raising the idea of discussing whether a rich person ought to pay a little more so that the middle class can prosper, just a little, is class warfare. That, on its face, is not unreasonable.
Yet, that is exactly what those who cry "class warfare" everytime someone suggests talking about raising taxes on the rich are claiming. They are accusing someone who merely suggests a reasonable discussion of being unreasonable, of engaging in "class warfare."
I don't know where the right balance is. Reasonable people will disagree on where the right balance is. But, I am convinced that merely suggesting that we discuss whether we have the right balance now and where that right balance may be is not class warfare.
And those who claim it is are not being reasonable.
If I'm right, then each American has an obligation to help care for his or her fellow Americans. They are his or her "brothers" and he or she is their keeper. This obligation is not a choice. It is an obligation which arises from the fact that the social contract exists and from the terms of that contract.
Likewise, each American has a right to be cared for by his or her fellow Americans. He or she is the "brother" of every other American and they are his or her keeper. This right is not earned. It is a right which arises from the fact that the social contract exists and from the terms of that contract.
So, let us examine this notion with an eye to determining how the application of this obligation and this right relate to the concept of "class warfare."
I'm going to pick some easy numbers to work with. Of course, these numbers are not real. They are intended only to be illustrative.
Suppose there are ten members of our society. Suppose that each of them makes 100 economic units a year. I'm going to call those "Units." Suppose that each of them needs 90 Units to survive. All is well. Everyone has a little more than he or she needs and no one has to take care of anyone else or be cared for by anyone else. No class warfare there.
However, assume that person number 1 - I'm going to call him or her One - only makes 90 Units a year and all the rest still make 100 Units a year. One still has as much as he or she needs and no one has to take care of One. So, all is still well. No class warfare there.
But, change the assumption just a little. Assume that One becomes incapacitated in some way, perhaps even at birth, and makes zero Units a year, but still needs 90 Units a year just to survive. All the rest still make 100 Units a year. The social contract kicks in. All the rest have an obligation to care for One, and One has a right to be cared for. So, each other person contributes 10 Units a year to the care of One, and now One has 90 Units a year, enough to surivive, and so does everyone else.
Is it class warfare because the 9 are required to each contribute equally to the care of One? Clearly, the 9 are in a different economic class than One. After all, each has more than he or she needs and One has nothing. So, is One, in a lower economic class than the other 9, waging class warfare on the other 9, or is One merely using the social contract exactly as it was meant to be used? I think there is no class warfare in this example, merely the social contract in action.
Now, vary the example just a little more. Assume that One makes zero Units a year, Two makes only 90 Units a year, and Ten makes 110 Units a year, but everyone still needs 90 Units a year, just to survive. Now, to be clear, the assumption is that Ten has done nothing wrong in making 110 Units a year when the most anyone else makes is 100, Two only makes 90, and One makes nothing. Perhaps Ten is smarter, or works harder, or is just luckier. But, Ten has done nothing wrong. The 110 Units a year are rightfully his.
In this example, if everyone contributes 10 Units to care for One, then everyone winds up with just what they need to survive, except Two and Ten. Two winds up with only 80 Units and will slowly starve to death, while Ten will have 100 Units, more than he needs to survive. So, Two is in trouble and everyone else is okay. To solve this problem, everyone could contribute one more Unit. Then Two would have 89 Units, almost enough to survive. He'd still starve to death, but not as quickly. Ten would have 99 Units, still more than he needs. But Three through Nine would, like Two, only have 89 Units. So, in this example, everyone but One, the totally destitute, and Ten, the fairly better off, will die. One will just barely make it, while Ten will be fine, but the rest will die.
This doesn't seem to make sense. Worse, it is not in compliance with the social contract. Ten, who has an obligation to care for everyone else in his society, is not meeting his obligation, while Two through Nine have a right to be cared for, but that right is not being honored.
On the other hand, there is a straightforward way to follow the terms of the social contract to a tee in this example. Instead of having everyone, including Two, who has barely enough, contribute to the care of One, who has nothing, Three through Nine could contribute 10 Units and Ten could contribute 20 Units. Then, everyone would have 90 Units, everyone would survive, everyone would be cared for, and the terms of the social contract would be perfectly met.
Is this class warfare? More to the point, when Three through Nine realize that if everyone contributes equally, they are going to all starve while Ten prospers, is it class warfare if one of them even suggests that they should, perhaps, discuss the possibility of Ten, who has more than he needs, contributing a little more so that everyone can survive?
Is it class warfare if those who have barely enough suggest that those who have more than enough ought to contribute more so that all can survive? I don't think so. I think it is merely the carrying out of the social contract.
But, let's make the example a little tougher. Let us assume that One has nothing, Two has exactly 90 Units, Three through Nine have 100 units, and Ten, through entirely fair means, has 200 Units. Clearly, if Three through Nine each contribute 10 units and Ten contributes 20 Units, there will be enough to care for One and make sure he survives. But, then, Three through Nine, who start with more than they need, will barely make it by, while Ten will live in oppulence.
Is it class warfare if Three suggests that they all discuss whether it would make more sense for Three through Nine to contribute only 9 Units each, and ask Ten to contribute 29 instead of 20? Ten would still have way more than he needs to survive, One and Two would have enough to get by, and Three through Nine would at least have a little extra, instead of barely getting by. Ten would still be paying more than Three through Nine, and more than if he paid 20, but he'd still be a lot better off than everyone else. Class warfare? Class warfare even to suggest that the possibility of Ten paying a larger share even be discussed? I don't think so.
Now, would it be class warfare if Three through Nine all forced Ten to pay 90 Units - everything that was needed to care for One, thus leaving Ten with only 120 Units while Three through Nine, who could pay something, paid nothing at all? Yeah, it might be. In that case, one economic class is clearly ganging up on another economic class and maybe that's class warfare.
Somewhere in between suggesting that the society discuss whether someone might pay more than their pro rata share and forcing someone to pay everything that is needed there is a line. On one side of that line it is at least reasonable to have the discussion. On the other side of that line folks are being unreasonable. I can't tell you where that line is, but I can tell you that I don't think merely raising the idea of discussing whether a rich person ought to pay a little more so that the middle class can prosper, just a little, is class warfare. That, on its face, is not unreasonable.
Yet, that is exactly what those who cry "class warfare" everytime someone suggests talking about raising taxes on the rich are claiming. They are accusing someone who merely suggests a reasonable discussion of being unreasonable, of engaging in "class warfare."
I don't know where the right balance is. Reasonable people will disagree on where the right balance is. But, I am convinced that merely suggesting that we discuss whether we have the right balance now and where that right balance may be is not class warfare.
And those who claim it is are not being reasonable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)