This columnn was my final column with the Jonesboro Sun. I intend to continue posting columns here from time to time.
As all things end, it is time to say a fond farewell to this column. Those of us blessed with attention deficit sooner or later find something that distracts us from whatever useful and enjoyable activity we are engaged in and we find ourselves off on some new adventure. And so, it has happened again.
Pearl and I just returned from a couple of weeks in Mesa, Arizona, where among other things, I finished the motorcycle ride which I started two years ago and that put me in the hospital for 60 days. We shared a toast to recovery with my riding partner, Fast Eddie Copeman, and his wife, Loretta, from Calgary. We then flew to Seattle for four days for the gathering of the Grove clan and my mother’s memorial service.
When we arrived back in Jonesboro, there was an advertisement in the Jonesboro Sun. The Paragould paper was looking for a general assignment reporter. I have been substitute teaching, substitute bus driving, and driving a charter bus for a local company to supplement my retirement income, but mostly to break up the dullness of retirement. Though each of these activities was okay, they didn’t offer much of a challenge.
I looked at the ad for a reporter and thought back on my days in the newsroom from 1968 to 1970. They were interesting, creative times and the more I thought about it, the more the idea intrigued me. There were some things I like about the newsroom. No two days were ever the same. There was always a good bit of commotion and clutter to satisfy the attention deficit. It was interesting to write the town’s raw history and deadlines forced me to get something done. The only thing I didn’t like was the poverty reporters endure. Newspapers are notoriously low pay. So, when a much larger distraction came my way, I shelved the career and chased after it. The irony was that some of the distractions involved even worse poverty
Now that I’m retired following a lifetime of distractions, pay ceases to be an issue. I decided to toss my application in the hopper and see what happens, though I was only willing to make a 12 to 15 month commitment. Our son recently moved from Houston, Texas, to Gig Harbor, Washington. We realize if we are going to have time with our grandkids, we are going to have to move back to the Northwest. We hope to do this in the spring of 2012.
I was offered the job, took it, and here is how it affects this column: The Sun has a policy that reporters are not allowed to write columns. I assume this is to keep the news reporting separate from opinion writing, as it should be. Both the Jonesboro and Paragould papers are owned by the Paxton Media Group and both of them share the work of reporters through the Paxton News Bureau. For the Sun to continue my column would violate their policy.
I have enjoyed writing this column and must thank Editor Roy Ockert for paying me to do something I would probably have done for nothing. When I was invited to write it, my first task was to create a bank of 10 columns that would insure I would not have to miss deadlines and would always have a column, even during periods of writer’s block, which never happened.
That bank has never run dry and as I leave, I still have several columns which I will post periodically on my blog www.catchatale.blogspot.com. I also can brag that I never missed a deadline in three years, even while lying in the hospital. I intend to continue writing columns and posting them on my blog.
Several times in my life my attention deficit has led me to do-overs. Twenty years after college, I found myself back in college working on an MFA in writing. Twenty-one years after I thoroughly messed up a military career, I found myself back in the military as a navy reservist and then an Army National Guardsman where I managed to get good conduct and commendation medals instead of reprimands. Writing this column was another do-over as I first wrote a column for the “Coeur d’ Alene Press” in Coeur d’ Alene, Idaho, back in 1969.
I am approaching this opportunity as another do-over. Each do-over has been better than the original and I am betting this one will be also. I say a big thank you to those of you who have emailed me concerning the column and those who have encouraged me with positive comments when I would see you about the town. It has been an adventure of a different type. Thank you all.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Taxation and Evil -- commentary
With a new congress in session, we are going to hear a lot about the terrible “T” word – taxes. We will also hear words like “fair share” and “tax the rich.” Since taxes are a necessary evil, there should be an ongoing discussion about both the necessary and the evil part.
To save myself a lot of frustration, I began long ago to look at my pay as being only that part of my check left after taxes were withheld and went about my business. I had friends who had gotten into the anti tax movement, and it consumed their lives, leaving them poorer in the end. However, my approach has also left me poorer.
Consider the evil part first. Let me make a comparison here. In a previous column I talked about war and its main purpose being to maim and kill people. A government at war is a way to legitimize killing which in another context would be called murder. Because of this, it should be done only after careful consideration and only after there is no other rational alternative.
In the same way, taxation is a way to legitimize theft and because of this it is evil. As such it should only be done after careful consideration. The Robin Hood story might have been entertaining reading when we were kids, but the idea of stealing from the rich is wrong, even if we give it to the poor.
In its simplest, rawest terms, taxation is armed robbery. Since you and I don’t push the issue, we never see the gun that backs up the IRS, but my friend who did two years in a federal pen for failure to pay up or the one who lost his house to the IRS understand this well.
So, that is the evil side of the issue, but none of us can deny the necessity of taxation. Our country must be defended, our cities must be policed, and we must have some way to deliver justice to those who have been wronged. These things must be paid for and since we all benefit from them, we should all pay for them. But what about taxation when it is used to achieve social ends? The further you get away from taxation for defense, policing, and jurisprudence, the more the evil and less the necessity.
If you get too much evil and not enough necessity you have a real moral problem. Taxation is at its most evil form when used simply for redistribution of wealth. This is the Robin Hood myth that it is alright to rob from the rich and give to the poor. Can you justify theft just because the person being stolen from has plenty left after you are done?
How far can we go and still me moral? Take our highways and roads for example. They are built with tax dollars, but most of those dollars are taken in the form of fuel taxes from those who use the roads.
What about education? We do want an educated citizenry and so we don’t feel too badly about being taxed for this, but to what extent? There comes a point where the benefits go only to the person receiving them. Most of the social service benefits go only to the recipient.
So, how do we justify this so the theft looks legit? There is a saying that has been attributed to a number of sources: no democracy is safe once the people discover they can vote themselves money from the public largess. I will add to that, nor when the politicians discover they can buy votes from the same. This leads to a moral morass. I hear politicians like Governor Mike Huckabee proposing flat tax schemes. It is an idea that will never happen because our tax structure is a primary tool for social engineering and politicians are not going to give up that tool.
We could go on and talk about public funding of the arts, the building of sports stadiums, and on and on. It is one thing to extract money at the point of a gun to support the court house or the police force but quite another to pay an artist for something most of us would not buy and hang in our own homes.
Much of what we do with taxes seems good. I look at people playing in the city park next to my house and think what a great facility the city has built to enhance the quality of our lives. However, we had to take money from somebody to do it. When we promote taxing Peter to buy something for Paul, we should always ask if it is necessary. Necessity helps make evil feel a little more right.
To save myself a lot of frustration, I began long ago to look at my pay as being only that part of my check left after taxes were withheld and went about my business. I had friends who had gotten into the anti tax movement, and it consumed their lives, leaving them poorer in the end. However, my approach has also left me poorer.
Consider the evil part first. Let me make a comparison here. In a previous column I talked about war and its main purpose being to maim and kill people. A government at war is a way to legitimize killing which in another context would be called murder. Because of this, it should be done only after careful consideration and only after there is no other rational alternative.
In the same way, taxation is a way to legitimize theft and because of this it is evil. As such it should only be done after careful consideration. The Robin Hood story might have been entertaining reading when we were kids, but the idea of stealing from the rich is wrong, even if we give it to the poor.
In its simplest, rawest terms, taxation is armed robbery. Since you and I don’t push the issue, we never see the gun that backs up the IRS, but my friend who did two years in a federal pen for failure to pay up or the one who lost his house to the IRS understand this well.
So, that is the evil side of the issue, but none of us can deny the necessity of taxation. Our country must be defended, our cities must be policed, and we must have some way to deliver justice to those who have been wronged. These things must be paid for and since we all benefit from them, we should all pay for them. But what about taxation when it is used to achieve social ends? The further you get away from taxation for defense, policing, and jurisprudence, the more the evil and less the necessity.
If you get too much evil and not enough necessity you have a real moral problem. Taxation is at its most evil form when used simply for redistribution of wealth. This is the Robin Hood myth that it is alright to rob from the rich and give to the poor. Can you justify theft just because the person being stolen from has plenty left after you are done?
How far can we go and still me moral? Take our highways and roads for example. They are built with tax dollars, but most of those dollars are taken in the form of fuel taxes from those who use the roads.
What about education? We do want an educated citizenry and so we don’t feel too badly about being taxed for this, but to what extent? There comes a point where the benefits go only to the person receiving them. Most of the social service benefits go only to the recipient.
So, how do we justify this so the theft looks legit? There is a saying that has been attributed to a number of sources: no democracy is safe once the people discover they can vote themselves money from the public largess. I will add to that, nor when the politicians discover they can buy votes from the same. This leads to a moral morass. I hear politicians like Governor Mike Huckabee proposing flat tax schemes. It is an idea that will never happen because our tax structure is a primary tool for social engineering and politicians are not going to give up that tool.
We could go on and talk about public funding of the arts, the building of sports stadiums, and on and on. It is one thing to extract money at the point of a gun to support the court house or the police force but quite another to pay an artist for something most of us would not buy and hang in our own homes.
Much of what we do with taxes seems good. I look at people playing in the city park next to my house and think what a great facility the city has built to enhance the quality of our lives. However, we had to take money from somebody to do it. When we promote taxing Peter to buy something for Paul, we should always ask if it is necessary. Necessity helps make evil feel a little more right.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Respsonse to slander
I received the following email from a reader in response to my column on talk show hosts slandering the President and his wife by repeatedly saying they hate their country. As could be expected, the reader missed the point of the column which was to rebut the President’s ideas rather than impugn his character. My response follows his comments.
Mr. Grove:
Do you know the definition of slander? Webster's Dictionary: "false and defamatory oral statement about a person". The person you accuse of slander was giving his opinion that he believed the president and first lady hates America. That is not slander. It may not be truth, but it is not slander.
There are many Americans who believe the Obamas hate America. For many reasons, and not just the ones you cite. His refusal to put his hand over his heart when the National Anthem is played. Refusal to wear a flag on his lapel. His attendance at a church for 22 years where Jemeriah Wright constantly damned America. His behavior and response at the Gulf oil spillage. This and many other reasons.
American presidents have traditionally modeled themselves after such great leaders as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington. Saul Alinsky is his hero. He has associated with such as Bill Ayers.
Dinesh D'souza has written a book, "Roots of Obama's Rage". I have not read the complete book, but many excerpts from it and it helps to explain Obama. Obama's father was a Kenyan communist who had a deep hatred for Western Democracies, especially the British. Much information about the book is on the internet.
I firmly believe Obama would never have been elected if he had been properly vetted by the media. If Obama had been on the ballot in 2010 he would have been defeated. But Obama has now realized that his leftish politics will lead to defeat, and he has now decided to try to rehabilitate himself by moving to the center. Will the American people be fooled?
WR,
Trumann, Arkansas
Mr. WR,
Thank you for your feedback on my column about slander and the Obamas. Yes, as a trained journalist I do know what slander is, the spoken equivalent of libel. You say that what the person to whom I was referring said may not be the truth, but it was not slander. If it was not true, then it was slander. In a court of law, the only defense against libel or slander is to demonstrate the offending material is true.
In your response, you continue to defame the president’s character without challenging his ideas. This is too bad, because it is his ideas that need challenging, and there is so much evidence to show that his ideas don’t work. Socialism, communism, central planning, or whatever one wishes to call it, has never worked well. You don’t need to impugn a man’s character and accuse him of hating his country to demonstrate that his ideas are flawed.
As to Rev. Wright: Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and others love to play over and over again the 20 second sound bite of him saying “not God bless America, but God damn America.” I can’t tell you how many times I have heard white, fundamentalist preachers say, “If God doesn’t punish America, He is going to have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.” They are saying the same thing with a little more finesse, and I have never heard anything but “amen” when they say it.
As to D’souza’s book, let me quote Proverbs, “Of the making of books there will be no end.” As I young man I read a 400 page tome by Robert Welch, founder of the John Birch Society, in which he claims to prove that President Eisenhower was a communist. I guess I learned at an early age not to believe everything I read in print.
I’m sure if you listened to enough of my old sermon tapes or read enough of my college papers, you could find a sound bite or two with which to impugn my character. Times and circumstances change us all. Sometimes all it takes is losing an election or two. No, I don’t expect Obama to abandon his socialistic ways, but that does not justify slander. To stoop to slander is to admit I can’t adequately challenge his ideas.
Mr. Grove:
Do you know the definition of slander? Webster's Dictionary: "false and defamatory oral statement about a person". The person you accuse of slander was giving his opinion that he believed the president and first lady hates America. That is not slander. It may not be truth, but it is not slander.
There are many Americans who believe the Obamas hate America. For many reasons, and not just the ones you cite. His refusal to put his hand over his heart when the National Anthem is played. Refusal to wear a flag on his lapel. His attendance at a church for 22 years where Jemeriah Wright constantly damned America. His behavior and response at the Gulf oil spillage. This and many other reasons.
American presidents have traditionally modeled themselves after such great leaders as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington. Saul Alinsky is his hero. He has associated with such as Bill Ayers.
Dinesh D'souza has written a book, "Roots of Obama's Rage". I have not read the complete book, but many excerpts from it and it helps to explain Obama. Obama's father was a Kenyan communist who had a deep hatred for Western Democracies, especially the British. Much information about the book is on the internet.
I firmly believe Obama would never have been elected if he had been properly vetted by the media. If Obama had been on the ballot in 2010 he would have been defeated. But Obama has now realized that his leftish politics will lead to defeat, and he has now decided to try to rehabilitate himself by moving to the center. Will the American people be fooled?
WR,
Trumann, Arkansas
Mr. WR,
Thank you for your feedback on my column about slander and the Obamas. Yes, as a trained journalist I do know what slander is, the spoken equivalent of libel. You say that what the person to whom I was referring said may not be the truth, but it was not slander. If it was not true, then it was slander. In a court of law, the only defense against libel or slander is to demonstrate the offending material is true.
In your response, you continue to defame the president’s character without challenging his ideas. This is too bad, because it is his ideas that need challenging, and there is so much evidence to show that his ideas don’t work. Socialism, communism, central planning, or whatever one wishes to call it, has never worked well. You don’t need to impugn a man’s character and accuse him of hating his country to demonstrate that his ideas are flawed.
As to Rev. Wright: Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and others love to play over and over again the 20 second sound bite of him saying “not God bless America, but God damn America.” I can’t tell you how many times I have heard white, fundamentalist preachers say, “If God doesn’t punish America, He is going to have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.” They are saying the same thing with a little more finesse, and I have never heard anything but “amen” when they say it.
As to D’souza’s book, let me quote Proverbs, “Of the making of books there will be no end.” As I young man I read a 400 page tome by Robert Welch, founder of the John Birch Society, in which he claims to prove that President Eisenhower was a communist. I guess I learned at an early age not to believe everything I read in print.
I’m sure if you listened to enough of my old sermon tapes or read enough of my college papers, you could find a sound bite or two with which to impugn my character. Times and circumstances change us all. Sometimes all it takes is losing an election or two. No, I don’t expect Obama to abandon his socialistic ways, but that does not justify slander. To stoop to slander is to admit I can’t adequately challenge his ideas.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Obama Slander -- commentary
“Lord who may dwell in your sanctuary? Who may live on your holy hill? He whose walk is blameless … and has no slander on his tongue.” Psalms 15
Though I am no fan of our President’s policies and political thinking, I find myself in need of defending him against the ad hominem attacks he suffers from many pundits. I am a frequent listener of talk radio and on a trip to Arizona over the holidays, I listened to a “host talker” express his hatred of the President and his wife on the basis that they hated America, an often stated sentiment of conservative talk show hosts.
His basis for saying this was Obama’s left wing policies and the various times he has apologized to world leaders over various past actions of our country. He hated Michele on the basis of her comment that the nomination of her husband was the first time she was proud to be an American.
It is a big step with no logical connection between these reasons and saying the President and First Lady hate America. Even as it angered me when the left would launch ad hominem attacks on President Bush, I don’t like it when the right does it to Obama.
Such comments show a lack of any attempt to understand what is behind what is being said, and they tend to shut down discourse. First, let me consider the issues related to the President.
Though I do not agree with his political views and think if he gets his way, it will drastically alter our country in ways I won’t like, his views deserve rational discussion without name calling or without impugning his motives as hatred of America. He obviously doesn’t like things the way they are, but because one wants to change things does not mean that one hates his country. Does it mean I hate my church or my school because I want to enact changes?
I suspect many of us in our college years went through a period of sophomore socialism. Some, like Obama, never out grew it. There is an old saying that this year’s conservative is last year’s liberal who got mugged by reality. Part of that reality involves honest discussion about political thought, not name calling.
As to the apologizing, if the President truly believes our nation wronged others, he has an obligation to apologize if he is an honest man. Mature people can disagree as to whether a particular thing was a wrong committed, but to apologize for the country is not an indication one hates it. As a teacher, when I truly believed I had wronged a student, I found it necessary to apologize and do it publically if I had wronged him publically. I can think of more than one occasion when a mature, honest teacher should have apologized to me and it might have had a positive impact if he had.
As to the First Lady, I believe those who interpret her statement that her husband’s nomination was the first time she was proud to be an American as hatred for the country, have absolutely no empathy for where she comes from.
In understanding this comment, I suggest we change the paradigm. Let’s say that European Christians were first brought to this country as slaves. For a century or more they worked as slaves and were finally given their freedom. However, laws were passed that would keep them oppressed and second class citizens for another century. In time, too much time, the laws which institutionalized their oppression were struck down and they began to experience equality. Finally, one of them rose to the highest position of power in the land, and you are a descendant. You might be inclined to say “for the first time in my life I’m proud to be an American.” Would that imply that until then you had hated the country? The absence of pride is not hate.
I don’t hate America and in fact gave my country 20 years in the armed forces. But, I am not proud of a country where the Supreme Court opened the gates to pornographers because, “we all know it when we see it but we can’t define it,” where they found a constitutional right to privacy where none exists, creating millions of abortions, and a court that can’t distinguish between a prayer at a football game and “the establishment of religion.” If we ever get these issues straightened out, I might again be proud to be an American.
In the meantime, I will live here and work for changes I would like. But, don’t accuse me of hating my country, nor should we level that accusation against our President and First Lady. That would be slander.
Though I am no fan of our President’s policies and political thinking, I find myself in need of defending him against the ad hominem attacks he suffers from many pundits. I am a frequent listener of talk radio and on a trip to Arizona over the holidays, I listened to a “host talker” express his hatred of the President and his wife on the basis that they hated America, an often stated sentiment of conservative talk show hosts.
His basis for saying this was Obama’s left wing policies and the various times he has apologized to world leaders over various past actions of our country. He hated Michele on the basis of her comment that the nomination of her husband was the first time she was proud to be an American.
It is a big step with no logical connection between these reasons and saying the President and First Lady hate America. Even as it angered me when the left would launch ad hominem attacks on President Bush, I don’t like it when the right does it to Obama.
Such comments show a lack of any attempt to understand what is behind what is being said, and they tend to shut down discourse. First, let me consider the issues related to the President.
Though I do not agree with his political views and think if he gets his way, it will drastically alter our country in ways I won’t like, his views deserve rational discussion without name calling or without impugning his motives as hatred of America. He obviously doesn’t like things the way they are, but because one wants to change things does not mean that one hates his country. Does it mean I hate my church or my school because I want to enact changes?
I suspect many of us in our college years went through a period of sophomore socialism. Some, like Obama, never out grew it. There is an old saying that this year’s conservative is last year’s liberal who got mugged by reality. Part of that reality involves honest discussion about political thought, not name calling.
As to the apologizing, if the President truly believes our nation wronged others, he has an obligation to apologize if he is an honest man. Mature people can disagree as to whether a particular thing was a wrong committed, but to apologize for the country is not an indication one hates it. As a teacher, when I truly believed I had wronged a student, I found it necessary to apologize and do it publically if I had wronged him publically. I can think of more than one occasion when a mature, honest teacher should have apologized to me and it might have had a positive impact if he had.
As to the First Lady, I believe those who interpret her statement that her husband’s nomination was the first time she was proud to be an American as hatred for the country, have absolutely no empathy for where she comes from.
In understanding this comment, I suggest we change the paradigm. Let’s say that European Christians were first brought to this country as slaves. For a century or more they worked as slaves and were finally given their freedom. However, laws were passed that would keep them oppressed and second class citizens for another century. In time, too much time, the laws which institutionalized their oppression were struck down and they began to experience equality. Finally, one of them rose to the highest position of power in the land, and you are a descendant. You might be inclined to say “for the first time in my life I’m proud to be an American.” Would that imply that until then you had hated the country? The absence of pride is not hate.
I don’t hate America and in fact gave my country 20 years in the armed forces. But, I am not proud of a country where the Supreme Court opened the gates to pornographers because, “we all know it when we see it but we can’t define it,” where they found a constitutional right to privacy where none exists, creating millions of abortions, and a court that can’t distinguish between a prayer at a football game and “the establishment of religion.” If we ever get these issues straightened out, I might again be proud to be an American.
In the meantime, I will live here and work for changes I would like. But, don’t accuse me of hating my country, nor should we level that accusation against our President and First Lady. That would be slander.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Bike Trails -- commentary
Jonesboro transportation planners have raised a little ruckus with their proposals for making bicycling and walking more attractive alternatives for our community. Those in opposition see it as part of a United Nations plot forcing us to live in more densely populated areas.
I am no friend of the United Nations, but even institutions I don’t care for can have a good idea occasonally. It’s an old country saying that “even a blind hog can find an acorn once in a while.” I don’t know whether this is some kind of conspiracy by control freaks, but I do see it as an effort to rectify the unintended consequences of an early attempt at social engineering.
Turn your calendars back to the early 1900’s. The automobile was beginning to come into its own. Henry Ford and his Model T made it possible for common people to own a car. As a side note, this created havoc with a burgeoning motorcycle industry. People could now buy a car as cheaply as a motorcycle and they found it more comfortable being out of the weather.
Up through the 30’s, most cities had good mass transit systems. Many store owners lived in apartments above their stores, and most people lived within walking distance of their employment. Cities with mills often had mill towns that housed mill workers within walking distance of work. Though the sawmill has been closed in my home town for decades, the old mill town is still there and the houses still occupied.
With politicians promising a chicken in every pot and a car in every driveway, the social planners realized we could now spread out away from city centers and they created a phenomenon called the suburb. For the two college girls I overheard trying to figure out what a suburb is, it is short for suburban. Sub is a prefix meaning just outside of and urban is Latin for city.
Suburbs begin to grow like weeds around cities, creating “urban sprawl.” To encourage people to move to the suburbs, and as a sop to the growing automobile industry, social engineers and urban planners convinced cities to purposefully dismantle their mass transit systems, making cars a necessity. They did not envision what an environment would be like with millions of cars and millions of miles of concrete and asphalt road ways.
Now we know. The problem is, we are hooked on our automobiles and our big houses and yards in the suburbs. We no longer want to live in apartments above our stores and in small houses near the mine, the mill, or the factories.
Head out of town on any given work day between six and eight a.m. and you will be met with a parade of factory works heading into town to work, and in the evening the parade is reversed. I remember a friend remarking that it seems that all the people who live on the west side of town drive to work on the east side and the east siders all drive to work on the west side. They should just trade jobs or houses.
So, the social planners now want us to live in tighter communities, to live, work, shop, go to school and to church in the same general area. This trend makes sense. When I was in the navy reserves, I always preferred my two weeks active duty to be in San Francisco rather than Los Angeles. There were hundreds of things to do in San Francisco, and since the city was so compact and had such a great mass transit system, I never needed a car. There were also hundreds of things to do in LA, but LA was designed around the automobile. These things were miles apart and the mass transit was not very good. Without a car, I couldn’t enjoy them.
Trying to get the modern American to give up his car and a nice house in the suburbs, however, will be a bit like getting an NRA member to give up his rifle. Still, I would like to see this town more bicycle and pedestrian friendly. When I left Anchorage back in 1990, we had about 110 miles of bicycle trails and they have added many more miles since. These trails are used for recreation every bit as much as the city parks. On nice summer days you will find bike riders, inline skaters, joggers, mothers with baby carriages and walkers using them. They are much safer than competing with traffic on the over used streets.
Building bike paths and sidewalks will probably not accomplish what the planners envision, but it will improve the quality of life for people who choose to use them. Maybe the UN found an acorn.
I am no friend of the United Nations, but even institutions I don’t care for can have a good idea occasonally. It’s an old country saying that “even a blind hog can find an acorn once in a while.” I don’t know whether this is some kind of conspiracy by control freaks, but I do see it as an effort to rectify the unintended consequences of an early attempt at social engineering.
Turn your calendars back to the early 1900’s. The automobile was beginning to come into its own. Henry Ford and his Model T made it possible for common people to own a car. As a side note, this created havoc with a burgeoning motorcycle industry. People could now buy a car as cheaply as a motorcycle and they found it more comfortable being out of the weather.
Up through the 30’s, most cities had good mass transit systems. Many store owners lived in apartments above their stores, and most people lived within walking distance of their employment. Cities with mills often had mill towns that housed mill workers within walking distance of work. Though the sawmill has been closed in my home town for decades, the old mill town is still there and the houses still occupied.
With politicians promising a chicken in every pot and a car in every driveway, the social planners realized we could now spread out away from city centers and they created a phenomenon called the suburb. For the two college girls I overheard trying to figure out what a suburb is, it is short for suburban. Sub is a prefix meaning just outside of and urban is Latin for city.
Suburbs begin to grow like weeds around cities, creating “urban sprawl.” To encourage people to move to the suburbs, and as a sop to the growing automobile industry, social engineers and urban planners convinced cities to purposefully dismantle their mass transit systems, making cars a necessity. They did not envision what an environment would be like with millions of cars and millions of miles of concrete and asphalt road ways.
Now we know. The problem is, we are hooked on our automobiles and our big houses and yards in the suburbs. We no longer want to live in apartments above our stores and in small houses near the mine, the mill, or the factories.
Head out of town on any given work day between six and eight a.m. and you will be met with a parade of factory works heading into town to work, and in the evening the parade is reversed. I remember a friend remarking that it seems that all the people who live on the west side of town drive to work on the east side and the east siders all drive to work on the west side. They should just trade jobs or houses.
So, the social planners now want us to live in tighter communities, to live, work, shop, go to school and to church in the same general area. This trend makes sense. When I was in the navy reserves, I always preferred my two weeks active duty to be in San Francisco rather than Los Angeles. There were hundreds of things to do in San Francisco, and since the city was so compact and had such a great mass transit system, I never needed a car. There were also hundreds of things to do in LA, but LA was designed around the automobile. These things were miles apart and the mass transit was not very good. Without a car, I couldn’t enjoy them.
Trying to get the modern American to give up his car and a nice house in the suburbs, however, will be a bit like getting an NRA member to give up his rifle. Still, I would like to see this town more bicycle and pedestrian friendly. When I left Anchorage back in 1990, we had about 110 miles of bicycle trails and they have added many more miles since. These trails are used for recreation every bit as much as the city parks. On nice summer days you will find bike riders, inline skaters, joggers, mothers with baby carriages and walkers using them. They are much safer than competing with traffic on the over used streets.
Building bike paths and sidewalks will probably not accomplish what the planners envision, but it will improve the quality of life for people who choose to use them. Maybe the UN found an acorn.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Helmets and IQ -- commentary
There goes another one; he flunked my primary IQ test. How’s that you say? He was riding a motorcycle without wearing a helmet, which is one of the least intelligent things a rider can do.
A recent AP article in the Sun reported there were 4,400 motorcycle deaths in the United State last year with head injuries as the leading cause. Sadly, only 20 states have laws requiring all riders to wear helmets. Arkansas used to be one of them.
For 20 years, all riders in Arkansas were required to wear a helmet, but in 1997 the law was changed, and a recent proposal requiring those not wearing helmets to carry at least $10,000 in health insurance didn’t make it out of committee. In truth, even this would not have been enough.
Medical studies show beyond a doubt that the costs to our society are extremely high when riders have accidents without helmets. I look at the damage done to my own helmet and realize that damage would have been done to my skull and brain if I hadn’t been wearing it. The cost without any brain damage was close to $200,000 and a couple of years of recovery. With brain damage, that cost would have been much higher and full recovery probably impossible. If you think it is “cool” to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, visit a rehab hospital and watch people who are trying to recover from brain damage. Riding without a helmet might be “cool,” but living with muscles that won’t work and slobber running down your chin is not.
Only slightly more than half the motorcycle crash victims have health insurance, which means the government winds up picking up the cost for the rest. And, the average cost for the unhelmeted rider is eight percent higher. Without adequate insurance, you are going to be sent home from the hospital long before you are ready and your family will bear the burden of your care: feeding you, emptying your bed pan, dressing you, and bathing you in bed: not nearly as cool as having your hair flowing freely in the wind as you cruise down the highway.
In spite of what the medical literature and cost analyses show, lobbyists for motorcycle enthusiasts managed to get helmet laws changed at the federal and state levels. After the repeal of the helmet law in Arkansas, the percentage of motorcycle fatalities where the rider was not wearing a helmet went from 47 percent to 78 percent.
The anti-helmet crowd argues that “nobody has the right to tell me I have to wear a helmet.” The same argument is used by the anti-seatbelt crowd. This kind of elementary school idea of freedom doesn’t exist anywhere. And though it is tough for one with my libertarian instincts to defend these laws, I will, in part because a true libertarian society exists only in books and in the minds of libertarians like myself.
Where does the government get the right to dictate helmets, seatbelts or other such safety measures? It comes from we the people and our expectations. When faced with catastrophic financial ruin through an accident, an act of God such as a tornado or earthquake, or maybe a terrorist attack, we expect our government to provide some relief. Add to this government programs like Medicare and health insurance.
If the government is going to pick up the tab for these catastrophes, they have the right to make some rules. How many of you subsidize your teen agers living expenses or would consider financing a car for them without some rules? If you do or would, you are a highly irresponsible parent. Neither is the government going to pick up these costs without some rules.
We all want freedom until there are consequences to pay. One reason libertarianism doesn’t work is because most people don’t have the stomach to allow those without financial resources to die in the street, so we create social programs to care for them and ask the government to pay.
For those who want to ride without a helmet or ride in a car without a seatbelt, we could create an alternative. Let them sign a waiver that says in case of an accident, they will take full responsibility. Let them waive the right to the help of any government subsidized ambulance, EMT personnel, emergency room or medical care.
Then have them wear a med-alert bracelet that says “I am a free and independent person able to pay my own way. If you are in anyway subsidized by the government, you are forbidden to help me.”
Forget the waiver; we welcome government or insurance programs which spread these costs among many. When we do, we lose the right to abandon common sense and agree to abide by reasonable rules.
A recent AP article in the Sun reported there were 4,400 motorcycle deaths in the United State last year with head injuries as the leading cause. Sadly, only 20 states have laws requiring all riders to wear helmets. Arkansas used to be one of them.
For 20 years, all riders in Arkansas were required to wear a helmet, but in 1997 the law was changed, and a recent proposal requiring those not wearing helmets to carry at least $10,000 in health insurance didn’t make it out of committee. In truth, even this would not have been enough.
Medical studies show beyond a doubt that the costs to our society are extremely high when riders have accidents without helmets. I look at the damage done to my own helmet and realize that damage would have been done to my skull and brain if I hadn’t been wearing it. The cost without any brain damage was close to $200,000 and a couple of years of recovery. With brain damage, that cost would have been much higher and full recovery probably impossible. If you think it is “cool” to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, visit a rehab hospital and watch people who are trying to recover from brain damage. Riding without a helmet might be “cool,” but living with muscles that won’t work and slobber running down your chin is not.
Only slightly more than half the motorcycle crash victims have health insurance, which means the government winds up picking up the cost for the rest. And, the average cost for the unhelmeted rider is eight percent higher. Without adequate insurance, you are going to be sent home from the hospital long before you are ready and your family will bear the burden of your care: feeding you, emptying your bed pan, dressing you, and bathing you in bed: not nearly as cool as having your hair flowing freely in the wind as you cruise down the highway.
In spite of what the medical literature and cost analyses show, lobbyists for motorcycle enthusiasts managed to get helmet laws changed at the federal and state levels. After the repeal of the helmet law in Arkansas, the percentage of motorcycle fatalities where the rider was not wearing a helmet went from 47 percent to 78 percent.
The anti-helmet crowd argues that “nobody has the right to tell me I have to wear a helmet.” The same argument is used by the anti-seatbelt crowd. This kind of elementary school idea of freedom doesn’t exist anywhere. And though it is tough for one with my libertarian instincts to defend these laws, I will, in part because a true libertarian society exists only in books and in the minds of libertarians like myself.
Where does the government get the right to dictate helmets, seatbelts or other such safety measures? It comes from we the people and our expectations. When faced with catastrophic financial ruin through an accident, an act of God such as a tornado or earthquake, or maybe a terrorist attack, we expect our government to provide some relief. Add to this government programs like Medicare and health insurance.
If the government is going to pick up the tab for these catastrophes, they have the right to make some rules. How many of you subsidize your teen agers living expenses or would consider financing a car for them without some rules? If you do or would, you are a highly irresponsible parent. Neither is the government going to pick up these costs without some rules.
We all want freedom until there are consequences to pay. One reason libertarianism doesn’t work is because most people don’t have the stomach to allow those without financial resources to die in the street, so we create social programs to care for them and ask the government to pay.
For those who want to ride without a helmet or ride in a car without a seatbelt, we could create an alternative. Let them sign a waiver that says in case of an accident, they will take full responsibility. Let them waive the right to the help of any government subsidized ambulance, EMT personnel, emergency room or medical care.
Then have them wear a med-alert bracelet that says “I am a free and independent person able to pay my own way. If you are in anyway subsidized by the government, you are forbidden to help me.”
Forget the waiver; we welcome government or insurance programs which spread these costs among many. When we do, we lose the right to abandon common sense and agree to abide by reasonable rules.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Spending Our Way -- commentary
We are again spending our way through a happy holiday season with Christmas representing the epitome of a consumer economy, lured on by the plethora of ads stuffed into our daily newspapers.
I am no economist and don’t understand that complex science, but I am troubled by an economy based on endless buying where the credit card has replaced the crèche as a primary holiday symbol.
I think a consumer economy contains the seeds of its own destruction. It works only if we keep spending more and only if we keep creating more people to consume. However, we live in a world with limits of both space and resources. To exacerbate the problem, our consumption has become a measure of success. I was recently channel surfing and came across a documentary featuring one of my former employers and his $50 million yacht. His conspicuous consumption lets the world know he has succeeded.
A serious young salesman working for me would often receive a monthly commission check of $10,000 or more and ask, “how much is enough?” In a consumer economy where the amount we are able to spend is our indicator of success, the answer is there is never enough. So, we continue to build or rent more and more mini-storage space to house our purchases after we have stuffed our two car garage so full we have to park our cars in the driveway.
Finally, we use all this stuff to expand the inventory of garage sales and flea markets so the less successful can also participate in the consumer economy. If we can afford to store it for a lifetime, it will then pad the pocket of the estate auctioneer or become treasure for “The American Pickers.”
It reminds me of Christ’s parable about the rich farmer who continued to build bigger and bigger barns. I think the punch line was “foolish man. Tonight your soul will be required of you.” My serious philosophical bent began with a reading of “Walden.” Thoreau, observing a railroad being built wrote, “We do not ride on the railroad, it rides upon us.” Was he prophetic?
As a younger man wanting to join in this madness, I often attended success workshops where presenters would advise, “find a need and fill it.” I think that advise has evolved into “create a product and convince the consumer it is a need.” The line between wants and needs has become so blurred that most of us can’t tell the difference. In a consumer economy, yesterday’s wants become today’s necessities. Consider the cell phone.
Where does it all end and what are the true benefits? Are we trapped in an unending cycle? If we quit consuming, manufacturing slows. If manufacturing slows, jobs are lost. On one hand politicians and bureaucrats want us to spend, spend, spend to stimulate the economy. Keep those interest rates low so we can afford to buy those big consumer items. At the same time we get public service commercials telling us to “feed the pig,” that is our piggy banks. To be (a spender) or not to be (a spender), that is the question.
Keep the interest rates low so we can borrow money for the real big items. A modern car, well cared for, should last 15 or 20 years, but the consumer economy needs us to get a new one every three or four years.
Is there some other kind of economic system that works better? Are
capitalism and consumerism necessarily tied together? What was our economy based on before consumption began to dominate? I wonder.
Once I realized the things that interested me would never make me wealthy in a consumer economy, I redefined wealth to suit me. To be wealthy is to achieve a life style that is comfortable and convenient and accrue enough assets to sustain it for a lifetime. This precludes having to rent a mini-storage space or park the car in the driveway.
Though consumption has become the hallmark of Christmas, it doesn’t have to cloud our understanding of what it is all about. Yes, it is about gifts. In that traditional nativity scene there were gifts representing two different economies.
There were the gifts brought by the three wise men: gold, frankincense, and myrrh. In many ways, we try to emulate these gifts with our own giving in our consumer economy.
There was also a gift in the manager, the Christ child. It was God’s gift to mankind from an economy of love, a sacrificial gift to inspire “peace on earth goodwill toward men.” This kind of gift giving is much more difficult to emulate but much more worthy of the effort. To again quote Thoreau, “Money is not necessary to buy one necessity of the soul.”
I am no economist and don’t understand that complex science, but I am troubled by an economy based on endless buying where the credit card has replaced the crèche as a primary holiday symbol.
I think a consumer economy contains the seeds of its own destruction. It works only if we keep spending more and only if we keep creating more people to consume. However, we live in a world with limits of both space and resources. To exacerbate the problem, our consumption has become a measure of success. I was recently channel surfing and came across a documentary featuring one of my former employers and his $50 million yacht. His conspicuous consumption lets the world know he has succeeded.
A serious young salesman working for me would often receive a monthly commission check of $10,000 or more and ask, “how much is enough?” In a consumer economy where the amount we are able to spend is our indicator of success, the answer is there is never enough. So, we continue to build or rent more and more mini-storage space to house our purchases after we have stuffed our two car garage so full we have to park our cars in the driveway.
Finally, we use all this stuff to expand the inventory of garage sales and flea markets so the less successful can also participate in the consumer economy. If we can afford to store it for a lifetime, it will then pad the pocket of the estate auctioneer or become treasure for “The American Pickers.”
It reminds me of Christ’s parable about the rich farmer who continued to build bigger and bigger barns. I think the punch line was “foolish man. Tonight your soul will be required of you.” My serious philosophical bent began with a reading of “Walden.” Thoreau, observing a railroad being built wrote, “We do not ride on the railroad, it rides upon us.” Was he prophetic?
As a younger man wanting to join in this madness, I often attended success workshops where presenters would advise, “find a need and fill it.” I think that advise has evolved into “create a product and convince the consumer it is a need.” The line between wants and needs has become so blurred that most of us can’t tell the difference. In a consumer economy, yesterday’s wants become today’s necessities. Consider the cell phone.
Where does it all end and what are the true benefits? Are we trapped in an unending cycle? If we quit consuming, manufacturing slows. If manufacturing slows, jobs are lost. On one hand politicians and bureaucrats want us to spend, spend, spend to stimulate the economy. Keep those interest rates low so we can afford to buy those big consumer items. At the same time we get public service commercials telling us to “feed the pig,” that is our piggy banks. To be (a spender) or not to be (a spender), that is the question.
Keep the interest rates low so we can borrow money for the real big items. A modern car, well cared for, should last 15 or 20 years, but the consumer economy needs us to get a new one every three or four years.
Is there some other kind of economic system that works better? Are
capitalism and consumerism necessarily tied together? What was our economy based on before consumption began to dominate? I wonder.
Once I realized the things that interested me would never make me wealthy in a consumer economy, I redefined wealth to suit me. To be wealthy is to achieve a life style that is comfortable and convenient and accrue enough assets to sustain it for a lifetime. This precludes having to rent a mini-storage space or park the car in the driveway.
Though consumption has become the hallmark of Christmas, it doesn’t have to cloud our understanding of what it is all about. Yes, it is about gifts. In that traditional nativity scene there were gifts representing two different economies.
There were the gifts brought by the three wise men: gold, frankincense, and myrrh. In many ways, we try to emulate these gifts with our own giving in our consumer economy.
There was also a gift in the manager, the Christ child. It was God’s gift to mankind from an economy of love, a sacrificial gift to inspire “peace on earth goodwill toward men.” This kind of gift giving is much more difficult to emulate but much more worthy of the effort. To again quote Thoreau, “Money is not necessary to buy one necessity of the soul.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)