Some Thoughts, Profound and (Mostly) Otherwise

There is a very light coating of snow this morning in Colorado Springs, with a promise of more to come. According to news sources, this is the latest date for a first snow on record. We've been having a drought lately, and shouldn't equate local weather with climate change, but I can't help thinking our lack of snow is one more straw in the wind (note weather metaphor) of global warming.

Commercials for Cialis are all over the airwaves. They always conclude with a man and woman sitting side-by-side in bathtubs in some very scenic setting. All I can say is that if I had to carry those tubs down to the beach or to some woodland glen I'd be so tired I'd have to say, "Not tonight, honey," to my wife. There's also the matter of filling the tubs with water, and I don't see any spigots near the tubs in those ads. That guy must have hauled the water to the tubs by the bucketful. By the time they get into the water, it would be the same temperature as the air, and unless they're in Miami that means the water is most likely cold. Which would not help with the problem that prompted all that work in the first place!

Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina is quoted this morning as saying, "You can't be a fiscal conservative without being a social conservative." I wonder what the Libertarians will think of that! As almost always happens, political success leads to a fracturing of the winning coalition, and moderation in their goals. Republicans always seem more cohesive than Democrats, but they will have their own problems figuring out what they want to do.

If the girl in the song's bikini was so itsy-bitsy and teeny-weeny, how would anyone know it was yellow polka-dot? Perhaps close inspection?

Recently I had a dream in which my wife and I were living with Colin O'Brien. At least I think it was Colin. He had red hair and kept singing "When Irish Eyes Are Smiling."

With Christmas on the horizon, I have a suggestion for our material society. Rather than ship gifts long distances why not make a contribution to a charity in the name of our intended? We'd save postage, not have to worry that the gift is unwanted, and help people in need.

A Press release from Heaven

God announced today a major change in the standards for salvation. Called "Sin-and-Trade," it should allow a much different method of achieving eternal happiness.

"Up to now, of course, each person was responsible for his or her own sins," God explained. Our new plan will provide a way for wealthy people to enter the kingdom. You probably remember my Son railing on and on about rich people: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven," He claimed. "Well, what we're after here is just a way to level the playing field. We don't want any of this 'salvation redistribution' idea taking hold.

"Rich people are often called 'gifted.' This one can catch a flyball hit directly over his head, that one can hit high C, those other ones can figure out a complicated tax code to take advantage of loopholes, and all of them profit from their 'gifts' all out of proportion to any benefit they might provide to the population at large. People at the bottom of the income ladder are never called gifted. You never say, 'He has a gift for collecting garbage, she really has a knack for checking out groceries.' Unfortunately, folks who have done so well with what was given to them also have a way of committing large sins. Think about Tiger Woods and you'll know what I mean. Or Dick Cheney. Now why should they have to go to hell and leave all the poor people in heaven?

"Our new idea allows rich folks who have sinned to trade their wickedness to people who are virtuous but broke. That way, sinners can make their way into paradise and poorer people can have some earthly comforts, or at least necessities. Now, we've had to wrestle with the question of how much various sins are worth, but in the end we think we'll leave the matter to good old private enterprise. Sinners can even look for bargains - truly indigent people will sell their chance at eternal bliss much more quickly than those who are of just modest means. We recommend trying Haiti. It's really just compassionate conservatism."

Narcotics

Here in Colorado Springs we're fussing about medical marijuana. City council is contemplating and will almost certainly enact a ban on medical pot within 1000 feet of any school. I'm not against the ban, but lets not fool ourselves - the ban will not keep any kid away from marijuana.

I want to talk about harder drugs today, however. Ranging from hashish through cocaine and heroin and the synthetic substances, LSD and meth, and the new alcoholic caffeine drinks, they wreak havoc on our own population and do incalculable damage to the impoverished peoples of the earth.

Use of organic drugs undermines the health of users, drains their bank accounts, and causes their children to grow up in want. Whatever the motivation people have for narcotic abuse - poor self-esteem, desire for a thrill, rebellion against the hypocrisy in our society - the result is unhappiness and violence.

To prove the point, just look to our neighbor to the south. Gang violence, murder of innocents, enormous fortunes being accumulated by vicious persons while they terrorize honest farmers - all can be laid to the desire of Americans to use these awful substances.

As Americans, we demonstrate incredible arrogance going to poor people in other countries and asking them not to send us narcotics because our people can't control themselves. Not only are the deaths in Central America attributable to us, we also are buying opiates grown in Afghanistan where our soldiers are fighting and dying to defeat the Taliban, part of whose ability to keep battling us comes from sale of those same drugs.

To put it shortly, no one can be a patriotic American and use these drugs.

So, what we desperately need is a public education effort to call attention to the price we pay for experimentation or addiction. All that money spent on electing candidates could have been spent so much more beneficially trying to stop use of drugs.

Of Time and Money Flowing

So, the Republicans won the election last week. They will assume control of the House of Representatives and will be able to stop anything they don't like in the Senate. During the campaign they insisted they will cut government expenses and reduce the regulations imposed on small businesses.

They were careful to say SMALL businesses, because popular opinion still is hostile to large corporations. Halliburton, Enron, and so forth still leave a very sour taste in the mouth of most people. Corporate executives who fly private jets to Washington to beg for bailouts are still on my mind even if many other people have forgotten them.

The Republican candidates were very cagey about what they will cut from the budget, but they did make two proposals: allow insurance companies to sell policies across state lines, and reduce or eliminate capital gains taxes. Supposedly this will stimulate economic growth.

I'm not too much of a fan of states-rights. Too often the concept was used to prolong racial segregation or thwart federal legislation. In the case of insurance companies, however, I'm inclined to invoke states-rights. Allowing insurance companies to sell policies across state lines would allow them to locate in the state with the most permissive laws, effectively nullifying the insurance laws of 49 states.

The idea of reducing or eliminating capital gains taxes is touted as a means of stimulating savings and investments. It seems to me that a far better way of accomplishing the same goal would be to reduce the tax on dividends and interest. This would promote steady growth while the capital gains option would result in an overheated boom-and-bust economy. We have seen the results of just such an economy in the last few years. A capital gains tax reduction or elimination bill should be titled "The Day Traders' Relief Act."

I wouldn't be too worried about either of these proposals if the Democrats would have the courage of their convictions, but they very well might run away from their convictions again. God, but we could use Harry Truman right now!

Some Ethical Questions

I've been thinking about Dietrich Bonhoefer lately, the German theologian who was hanged by the Nazis as the Third Reich itself was dying in April 1945. Bonhoefer was involved, to what extent is unknown, in the plot to kill Hitler in July 1944.

Bonhoefer started out as a traditional religious thinker, but came to America in the early 1930's. He came to enjoy jazz. His American experience seems to have started him on his ethical odyssey. Bonhoefer returned to Germany prior to the beginning of the war to work as a pastor.

He became interested in the matter of honesty. While agreeing that honesty is the best policy, he wondered if it was always best. The scenario that changed his thinking was: a little boy is called to the front of his classroom by his busybody teacher and asked, "Was your father drunk again last night?" Now as it happens, the father was drunk last night, but the boy doesn't have the presence of mind to tell the teacher to mind his own business. Instead, he's faced with a conflict between honesty and loyalty. If he answers truthfully his father will be humiliated and might lose his job.

So, Bonhoefer claimed the boy not only has a moral right to lie, he has a duty to do so.

There are many other instances where a lie is the best policy. You're at the hospital to visit a very sick friend. Before you go into his room you hear a doctor say, "It's hopeless. He has 24 hours to live." You go into the room and your friend gasps, "I'm not going to die am I? I couldn't stand it if I thought I was about to die." What do you say?

Of course, lying isn't as great a matter as some other dilemmas. If lying can be justified, even required, what about theft, violence of different sorts, destruction, or murder?

Bonhoefer had to face the question whether he had a moral obligation to murder a few men to save millions of lives. Math would make the answer easy, but of course the puzzle has to do with what actions an individual would take, not just allow to happen.

The commandment says, "Thou shalt not kill." Some people claim it actually says, "Thou shalt commit no murder," allowing killing in the greater good for example. Most of us would agree. We support sending drone planes to kill suspected al-Qaida supporters in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and brush off civilian deaths as just unavoidable, or even blame them for being in the way. What should someone who is horrified by this carnage do?

A hundred thousand Iraqis have died as a consequence of "Operation Iraqi Freedom." Is that worse than the toll Saddam Hussein would have taken on his own people? What gave us either the right or the responsibility to overthrow him? President Bush claimed Saddam was behind the attacks on the United States though in retrospect the evidence for his involvement is lacking. Even in 2003 many Americans suspected the rationale for war was bogus.

Ethical questions have a way of becoming complicated. People who claim there are simple answers . . . well, I'll leave it at that.

Well, I'm Back

Bowing to popular demand - actually just one request, and that from my sister - I am resuming my lonely fight to bring truth, justice, and the American way to one and all, even Lex Luthor.

We've just had an election, turning the country significantly to the right. This is not unusual in mid-term elections where the voters tend to be older and more conservative than in presidential years. For some reason, younger people tend to be uninvolved with politics at the halfway point between presidential elections. The turnout this year among eighteen to twenty-four year olds was estimated at eleven percent, which is about normal.

It's actually kind of interesting to say younger voters tend to be more to the left, considering that their parents thirty years ago were the new conservative wave. I remember a Time magazine article at that time saying that Ronald Reagan was "dynamite on campus." That itself contradicts the presumed pattern of the 1960's, the generation that begat the young Reagan fans. My contemporaries of the '60's who were allegedly all hippie draft-resisters.

Possibly each generation rejects the values of their parents. (Frankly I doubt it. I'm more inclined to think most of us gradually turn into our parents.) More likely, those who do contradict what their elders believe are the ones who get the most attention.

Be all this as it may, we can look forward to almost no federal legislation in the next two years. (And not much state legislation either.) The new House of Representatives will not agree to anything President Obama wants to do, and the president will not stand for any substantive changes in the laws passed in 2009 or 2010. Mr. Obama can (and should) concentrate on foreign relations for the next two years.

Monday Morning Thoughts

My father told me this story. One day when he was fifteen or sixteen years old, he was walking along a street in downtown Boston with some friends. Like many another teenager, he wasn't paying much attention to where he was or where he was going and then suddenly found himself flat on his back on the sidewalk and, as he told it, "A big Irish cop was standing over me saying, 'And if you do the same again you'll get worse next time.'"

He didn't have any idea what he'd done to annoy the officer, but the incident stayed with him. He lived another sixty years, and always kept a kind of disdain for the police.

He had reasons, of course. Police officers broke strikes and enforced segregation. In Boston, and in virtually every other place, police officers accepted free merchandise and meals. Some were truly corrupt, turning a blind eye to organized crime and rackets of one kind or another in exchange for bribes.

Years later, as it happened, I made a part of my work career in law enforcement, albeit working in national parks where bribes are offered infrequently and incorruptibility is an honored trait. I don't share my dad's feelings about the police. Frankly, I think police officers nowadays are better trained, better equipped and better paid than ever before. Their performance on the job reflects their improved status.

My larger point is that professional performance on a job is tied to those factors: training, equipment and pay. If an employer wants professional work, he must provide the employees with these things. Trying to get professional performance on the cheap just doesn't work.

A colleague found a story on the Internet about a town in Tennessee that tried that to an extreme degree. Trying to cut taxes (at popular demand no doubt) this town decided to make firefighting a subscription service rather than one supported by tax money. If you wanted fire protection, you would have to pay an annual fee to the town in the amount of $75.

One man decided not to pay the fee. When a fire broke out at his house, he called the fire department and then was horrified when the fire crew arrived, consulted the list of subscribers, and then just watched as his house burned down. My colleague said, "How stupid could this guy be, not to pay the fee?"

I think there's a larger point, which is, how stupid could the voters in this town be to make firefighting a fee instead of a tax supported activity? And, how far does the venality of the public go in trying to cut taxes?

In a democracy, people have a right to ask "What's in it for me?" We should be angry if our tax dollars are wasted, but cutting taxes left right and center isn't the best response to government waste. How much can taxes be cut and when do we begin cutting our own throats, as the residents of this town in Tennessee undoubtedly have?