Giving and Receiving

 

I enjoy giving charity. No. “Enjoy” isn't the right word. Nor is it a matter of noblesse oblige. There is something condescending about such an idea: that we “rich” people have an obligation to help the poor folk. It isn't like that though. I may not be rich but I do recognize some kind of obligation to help others even if I regret the need to do so. But more to the point, I view it as an obligation of everyone, irrespective of his resources. Those who can afford to do so should certainly give more than those less able, but the obligation belongs to us all. It is sad to note that no matter how poorly we are doing, there is always someone who is worse off than we. We are all responsible for others.

Whatever it is though – however it's defined – there is one thing that is essential to me. I am giving freely. At least, the compulsion to give is internal, not deriving from any external source. I give (or I work for a public organization – sometimes “sweat equity” is what is needed most) because I want to – because I feel the need to – not because someone else tells me I must.

But, unfortunately, that's the way it works nowadays. While the government makes allowance for voluntary contributions, and even “helps out” by making many of them tax-deductible, there is a system of allotments from government funds for food, housing, health, and all manner of other benefits for voters, non-voters, constituents and contributors.ⁱ And we have developed a mindset that considers such allotments as the right of the recipient. Because, according to “common knowledge,” we have created poverty – we have made the poor poor – it is our legal obligation to support them. Is charity a test of the giver or an entitlement of the recipient?

The latter is the view of many of our fellows, and certainly of the majority of those receiving aid. They are entitled to support. The government – that is, each of us – has a legal obligation to provide for their needs irrespective of the reason for those needs. So what was once a necessity for survival is now a right. And what was once freely given charity is now tax.ⁱⁱ We resent the forced giving, and the recipient resents us. There is neither willingness on the part of the giver, nor any feeling of gratitude by the recipient.

Perhaps, when giving true charity, seeking gratitude will be viewed as inappropriate and as condescension, but that is not its value. For some, though not all, the recognition that the assistance that they receive stems from good will, not obligation, may provide the impetus to work harder to avoid a future need for more. Certainly there are those who choose poverty as a way of life, and there are those who would not accept charity irrespective of how it is labeled, but they are the minority. We can only hope that those who accept aid will be inspired to find a way to avoid the need for it in the future.

But for those who view aid as an entitlement, there is little impetus to find another way. If what they receive comes by right, then no one can criticize them, and there is no reason to seek any other way of achieving their needs.ⁱⁱⁱ Why should they? After all, they are only getting what is due them.

It is better to give than to receive. Perhaps. It is certainly better to be able to give than to have to receive. So I'm grateful for the ability to help. “Grateful.” That's the word. It's one that can apply both to the giver and receiver. It's definitely better than “resentful.”

Next episode: “Politics As Usual” – You thought there was a difference?

i     It has nothing to do with charity, but contributors and organizations with good lobbyists get a large part of the available government money. Of course they defend their windfalls as investments in the improvement of life for those who need it most.

ii    Feelings of guilt drive the urge to give away tax money. Of course, it's usually someone else's money. And those giving it away are often looking for the votes of the recipients. Or if they're corporations, the politicians are looking for their contributions.

iii   Many people consider this view to be mean and an elitist one. They regard those who question the rationale of throwing money at problems as the real villains, and those who collect these “entitlements” as the victims of a repressive society. Oscar Lewis introduced the term “Culture of Poverty” in 1959 to depict a way of life in which poverty was assumed and accepted, and, in 1965, the term was popularized by Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Perhaps it is time to rethink our entire welfare and entitlement systems so that they will more successfully encourage an end to the “cycle of poverty.”

No Answer

 

I got a call a few days ago from “NRA.” That's what it said on my telephone. I assumed it was the National Rifle Association and the woman at the other end confirmed that. I told her I didn't have a rifle and I hung up. It wasn't my intent to be impolite, but I have no interest in the NRA or in its goals.

The call, however, exemplifies one of the many problems in our “system.” I've listed my telephone on the “Don't Call List,” but now I know that this list is only for telemarketers. Politicians, charities, organizations that claim to have done business with me, and others, are excluded. Since the NRA is a lobbying organization rather than a charity, and I've never done business with it, I can only assume it is one of the other organizations not covered by the regulation. Somewhere buried in the act there must be an exemption for any individual or organization who donates to a Congressman's treasure chest.

That's the way it is with too many of our laws. A bill is a piñata, a Trojan Horse with a fancy name that has been carefully crafted to contain benefits of some kind for one or more special interests while appearing to the voters as a public service designed to protect them. Our new health care bill was well over two thousand pages, and required tens of thousands of pages of additional regulations. It's summarized as providing health care for all. That's a short summary for a bill that's so long, and it's hard to imagine that there isn't something else inside. But, in all likelihood, no one but those who stuffed the horse with goodies has ever examined the contents in detail.ⁱ As they say, “the Devil is in the details.” So there's a lot of room there for Scratch and his many faithful servants. And for the lobbyists as well (assuming they're not already there among his “faithful servants”). A recent edition of my morning paper told of the new finance overhaul bill which, in addition to regulating financial firms, is said to be aimed at job creation. The bill is over twenty-three hundred pages long, so just cutting down the trees, making the paper, typing it out, and distributing the bill certainly required many new jobs,ⁱⁱ even if no one reads the small print. Similarly there are likely to be many new agencies and bureaus (and the jobs that go with them) created by the bill. And, of course, there are probably significant benefits for the organizations that support the bill's writers.

There are also numerous new regulations in it as there are with the health-care bill, however their enforcement should not be assumed. Notwithstanding the Don't Call List, I've still been getting many appeals from telemarketers, but when I complained to my State Attorney General and the FTC, I was told that there wasn't much they could do about it.ⁱⁱⁱ I should just hang up on the callers. I vaguely recall “Just say 'no'” from a previous administration but I didn't know it still existed. Enforcement appears to be a low priority. Once the publicity value of a bill is gone, and once the benefits have been distributed to the donors, there is no need to go further. The nominal justification for the bill is of no concern to those who have voted for it, and the public will be mollified by the next bill, which will be announced to the press this afternoon. Report at eleven.

But we don't require new bills. Especially those whose primary purposes are to win benefits for members of Congress and extend special privileges to their contributors. We need proper enforcement of the ones we already have.

I don't need any more calls from the NRA.

Next episode: “Giving and Receiving” – Charity or “charity”?

i       Not even other legislators who vote for it. Especially if you promise to vote for their bills.

ii      The same is true, of course, of the lengthy health-care bill.

iii     That's funny. The IRS never has problems with its job.

Tuck and Cover

 

It must be scary to live in the British Isles. Mary Shelley and Bram Stoker both came from there, Transylvania notwithstanding. And while Frankenstein's monster didn't actually sneeze, Count Dracula sniffed. Must be the gray, rainy British weather (actually Stoker was Irish).

From the costume of the good(?) Count we have adopted a new way of sneezing – the “Dracula Sneeze.” We used to sneeze into our hands or our handkerchiefs (or tissues, if we owned paper company stock) but now we are admonished to sneeze and cough into our elbows – as if we were wearing capes and hiding our faces behind them. But people don't wear capes nowadays, so just elbows will have to do. The practice is based on the idea that sneezing into our hand or a hand-held sneeze-catcher will leave germs on our hands – germs we will pass on to the next person we meet.

Sounds good, but is there any evidence to back it up? Do politicians and clergymen – notorious hand shakers both – get sick more often than others?ⁱ Are there fewer colds among the contacts of those who sneeze into their elbows than in those who don't? I suspect no one has ever checked on either of these important questions. There is an increased incidence of asbestos-related diseases not only among asbestos workers but also among those who do the laundry of family members working in facilities using asbestos, especially among wives who wash asbestos-laden clothes. But do those who clean clothing elbows, and the shirts and jackets that contain them, catch cold more often than the general population? Or is this a fad based on someone's idea of what sounds reasonable and sensitive to the needs of others? After all, lots of germs exit from our airways when we sneeze and we certainly don't want to pass them on to others.

On the other hand (I probably should not have used the word “hand”), we expel the same germs when we breathe. Indeed, in the course of a day we launch far more germs by breathing than by sneezing or coughing, and no one has suggested that we stop breathing, although they do bewail the polluted air. Just as we usually avoid getting in someone else's face, impinging on his space, favoring him with our hot breath, it makes sense that we turn our heads when we sneeze or cough. But do we lessen the possibility that someone else will get a cold when we sneeze into our elbows rather than our hands, handkerchiefs or into mid-air away from others? Probably not, but I must admit that my contention has no more scientific basis than that of the “Dracula Sneeze” proponents. Using your elbow, though, makes it look as if you really care. And, whether or not you're accomplishing anything by that maneuver, you probably do care. Unless you're a child who has been taught that it's the only right way to sneeze (though we never tell them how to wipe their snotty little noses without using their hands – and we often do it for them, getting their germs on our hands instead of theirs). If you've never learned any other way, that procedure will simply be the default.ⁱⁱ

When I was growing up, during a time of overblown anxiety about the possibility of atomic war, we were taught in school to “Duck and Cover” – to scramble under our desks for our own protection should a bomb fall. That was one of the fads of the day. The idea that we might not be any safer from nuclear annihilation under our desks was never part of the conversation. We had to have the opportunity to protect ourselves by ducking (though by ducking we were more likely to injure ourselves than by sitting still). After all, we were doing something that seemed to make sense. But it is a part of our culture to do things that make no sense, based on “common knowledge,” the “obvious,” or early, but unconfirmed, scientific studies. And whoever doesn't go along with what is unmistakable, clearly doesn't care about those around him. It doesn't matter that there is no evidence for the “self-evident.” Everyone knows what's best.

So we are pressed, among other things, to take mega-vitamins and herbal medicines – both of which may be harmful, to have our cell phones with us at all times so we can stay in touch with those who must speak to us immediately, even if we are driving, and to buy bottled water, which increases the supply of plastic requiring disposal, and increases the profits of those who market an unnecessary product.

In this instance, though, we must be concerned about those around us, so I urge you to talk through your hat and laugh up your sleeve. And don't dry your hands after you wash them. You never know who used the towel last. (Wipe that smile off your face – preferably with your cape.) In addition, your child should always clean the tomato sauce off his mouth with his sleeve rather than the napkin. That way he won't risk getting germs on his hands and you'll save the cost of cleaning the napkin. All of your formal dinner party guests will appreciate your consideration and will forswear the use of their own napkins. You'll be famed on the dinner-party circuit for the cleanliness of your napkins.ⁱⁱⁱ So keep it up.

And, of course, another benefit of sneezing into your elbow is that you won't stain your handkerchief.

Next episode: “No Answer” – A call from the NRA.

i While you may view them – especially politicians and men of the whole cloth– as a sick bunch, I'm specifically dealing with germ-based maladies.

ii By the way, I hope your folks taught you to yawn into your elbow as well. You should never cover your mouth with your hand when you yawn.

iii You may even start a new style – red blotches on the clothing. If grunge proved successful, why not smudge. Wearers will be identified as people who care about others.

Prolegomenon

 

There are millions of bloggers. And all have something to say. At least they have something they want to say. And, even if they deny it, they want others to read what they write. Never believe a blogger – even me – who says that it's all right if no one reads his words. After all, if that were the case – if he didn't care – he'd either put his ideas in a diary or not write them down at all. No. He's looking for reactions.

Who is the blogger? With millions of participants that might seem like a complex question, but it isn't. Even with so many people, there are really only two types: those who are self-important, serious, didactic, and arrogant, and those who are self-important, humorous, homey, and arrogant. The first group are – or at least think they are – smart; the second group, clever. So where do I fall? Well, I'm smart. I know everything. As for arrogant, I'm above that. And I don't fall.

Another way of dividing bloggers (and anyone else) into two groups is by age. The younger ones know everything and doubt the wisdom of their elders. In the past it was believed that wisdom comes with age. Now the only thing that anyone older than thirty is credited with is dementia.ⁱ Well I don't think I have dementia, preferring to ascribe to myself wisdom. And this blog will present that wisdom – my thoughts.ⁱⁱ They may not be original, but they're mine.ⁱⁱⁱ

I never did keep my thoughts secret, but letters to the editor have only a limited reach and I can't be sure they'll be published. Even if they are, it may not be on my schedule. And there's a limit on how often letters can be submitted or published, and to how long they can be. So I'll try my computer at this format. With a blog my thoughts can have international exposure, even if no one reads them. There is an old precept that he who saves a single life saves an entire world. If I positively influence a single person – and how can I help that if you're reading this? – perhaps I will have influenced an entire world. Of course, if my views are off base, and I convince another of them, I may destroy an entire world. But I'll chance it. After all, I know what's right and wrong even if no one else does.

I hope that others will benefit from my wisdom (which is a given if they read this), but even if not, just putting ideas on screen allows me to consider and develop them. I can confront my own rare logical weakness when I see (and recognize) it in front of me, and, since I always agree with the point I am trying to make, that helps me reinforce and strengthen my arguments. I make no pretense as to fair and balanced opinions. The views are my own. If I present someone else's, it's only to expound on why it is wrong. I can say as much or as little as I want. And I can do it whenever I choose – frequently or infrequently. I decide. I have a life beyond the blog.

I also have the option of changing style at will. And length. Because it's my blog, I can do whatever I like. The world has gone to Hell, and so will you if you ignore my ideas. If you don't want to read this, that's your choice – but you'll be the worse for it.

[As of today, March 30, 2012, there are 98 posts – including ones scheduled for publication in the future.  (They'll keep coming weekly, usually on Sundays.)  And I'm going strong.  I didn't know I had so much to say.  Whatever its value.]

[ Update:  It's January 14, 2013 and I've written 151 posts.  Read them if you dare.  Even after I stop writing them they'll continue to appear since I schedule some in advance.  You'll know there are no more if I die or if I notify you that I'm quitting.]

 

Next episode: “Tuck and Cover” – The “Dracula Sneeze.”

 

i   Youth know everything, viewing their parents as dumb. When they become parents they are accorded the same respect. They finally understand the Parents' Curse: “May your children treat you the way you treated me.”

ii   It's my thoughts that I'll present, not a journal of my activities. Other people bore me, and I assume my life would bore them. So what I'll try to write about are subjects like pop culture, religion, philosophy, politics, and things of that sort. If I talk about myself at all it will be in the form of an example, or an introduction to some other topic. This isn't a diary. You don't care about me anyway.

iii  Indeed, I make no pretense regarding originality. There is nothing new under the sun, and many people have the same views. I write this in the expectation that the way I formulate some issues will resonate with the reader better than the expressions of some others. And the presentation will be more or less straight. Humor is not the goal. At least not the primary goal.