I've Got It Coming

 

There are many different ways to compare conservatives and liberals. I used to believe that liberals were the ones with faith in human nature and a generally optimistic outlook. I used to believe that liberals were more idealistic than conservatives, but now I know that's not true. They're far more realistic.

I used to think that conservatives were rich thieves who viewed everyone else cynically. They were practical, not idealistic, and not contributing their fair share to an America that cared for its citizens. But now I know that, too, isn't true. Youth is optimistic and youth is liberal, and youth sees the two as being related. So I used to think what almost all youth, and many who were a lot older, thoughtⁱ – that America was a land of equality, and all that was necessary to obtain that equality was for the conservatives to get out of the way.

The idea wasn't new. The Founding Fathers had written, and the new nation had adopted, a Constitution that deemed promotion of “the general Welfare” and “the Blessings of Liberty” as important reasons for its existence.ⁱⁱ The expectation of national support for those incapable of caring for their own needs was justified, and was there from the beginning. It was not unreasonable that those lacking them should feel entitled to assistance for food, housing, health care, child care, education, and any other form of assistance they might require. There was even a clause in the Constitution that authorized taxation to “provide for the ... general Welfare.”ⁱⁱⁱ What could be clearer and more fundamental than a national responsibility to provide welfare, and the blessings necessary for all its inhabitants.

The idea wasn't new. The Bible had made it clear that we all had an obligation to help the widow, and the orphan, for they were in need. Perhaps that obligation was a voluntary one, and it was up to all of us to give charity, but the responsibility to do so was not something lightly dismissed. Certainly the widow and the orphan needed our help. It was understandable for them to seek it.

But times have changed since the days of the Bible. What was once the widow and orphan is now anyone who claims to be in need – whether because of student loans, hunger, foreclosure, sickness, lack of a job, lack of a spouse, too many children, and other similar hardships. The needs of those afflicted by these ills of society have resulted not only in quiet suffering but in noisy demonstrations around the country,^iv demonstrations that now also include those suffering from ennui and envy of those who are better off than they. It is, according to them, the rich – the one percent – who are benefiting from American prosperity and denying the remaining ninety-nine percent what the Constitution guarantees. Conservatives may consider charity to be laudable and the proper way to care for those in need, but those who protest don't want charity – they want what is properly theirs and what has been stolen by the rich.

The American system supports that claim. Taxes are collected and used to pay for entitlement programs that finance almost all the needs that people claim. It was probably the government that was the source of the education loan, and it may have been the source of funds for the mortgage of the house that is now in default. There are certainly programs that provide food or food stamps, health care, unemployment insurance, education, and general fiscal assistance. The Constitution guarantees it, and the taxpayers provide it. At least that's the contention.

But that's not the case. I used to believe that in violation of our laws, the conservatives and the rich stole from the poor and they should be made to pay for it. Now I'm not so sure. In fact, I'm now convinced that we've been following the lead of Robin Hood – we are stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, not that that's necessarily bad. I can only conclude that the liberals, who favor such policies, have lost faith in their fellows and no longer trust those who are able to do so, to give charity. So they make it a matter of government policy. It's a practical solution to a problem they perceive. And, in a certain way, it makes sense. But the sense it makes is one of perception and revenge only. Attention is focused on one solution – tax the rich – without looking at other possible solutions. It isn't even likely increasing the taxes on the “one percent” will have a significant impact on their desire to aid the rest. After all, the “rich” are already paying most of the income taxes^v and the others may not pay at all. ^vi That, however, doesn't matter. Their hearts are in the right place, and they're determined to deliver what the Founding Fathers promised.

Except they didn't. The references to “the general Welfare” in the Constitution are both directly linked to “the common Defense.”^vii The “Blessings of Liberty” were probably political rights rather than financial blessings. And taxes were to be collected for the purpose of providing for the common defense and general welfare. They were not intended for feeding the hungry and supporting the poor. That wasn't the Founding Fathers' objective. Congress, on the other hand, has expanded both the concept of taxation and “welfare.” After all, it gets votes. And during the (Franklin) Roosevelt administration it served, to a degree,^viii to limit the damage caused by the Depression. But that was certainly an expansion of the initial mandate.

And by the time the government finished propping up the poor,^ix they had come to depend on the entitlements. If the Constitution didn't guarantee them, we did. The problem, of course, is that we can't afford it. The entitlements are considered too important to end. Poverty should be eliminated and the poor should be no different from anyone else. They've got it coming. We have an obligation to all of those who claim it, and if that means higher taxes, so be it. As long as they're taxes on someone else,^x especially the rich. It looks like the taxes will be on someone else, but that will be future generations. There have to be other solutions, and I'll discuss some of them next week.

Next episode: “Write If You Get Work” -- And hang by your thumbs.^xi

i     And still think.

ii    United States Constitution. Preamble.

iii    Ibid. Article I, section 8.

iv   Indeed, around the world. But those abroad are not covered by the United States Constitution, unless they're American citizens.

v     According to The American, in 2007, the top 10% of earners paid 68% of all income taxes collected. The National Taxpayers Union tells us that it was 69.94% in 2008.

vi   The Associated Press (April 7, 2010) notes that “About 47 percent of U.S. households will pay no federal income taxes for 2009, either because their incomes were too low or because they qualified for enough credits and deductions to eliminate their tax liability, according to projections by a private research group.” Indeed, because of those credits, many households will get more money back than they paid in taxes. Meanwhile, for the same year, “the top 10 percent of earners … paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.”

vii    In the first instance the word “defense” is not capitalized.

viii    World War II was the real solution to the social ills caused by the Depression.

ix    Very appropriately, the government has spent enormous amounts of tax money on bailing out those who are in need.

x     Not me! Tax someone else. I can't afford it.

xi     Bob and Ray.

Perception

 

I read in the New York Times today that the top one percent of earners in the United States increased their earnings in the thirty years beginning 1979 by 275 percent. And this increase exceeded that of the remaining ninety-nine percent.

I heard the same story on the radio, although in that version the income of the favored group had tripled. I won't focus on the difference since it isn't that great. But I'm uncertain of the significance of the information, and that's the case with incomplete statistics in general.ⁱ They sometimes lack the meaning which they seem to convey. In this instance the numbers are believed to prove the case presented by those involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement. They are touted as demonstrating that the Wall Street “fat cats” are stealing from the rest of us – that they're living high while the rest of us suffer.ⁱⁱ It's a typical bad guys versus good guys scenario.

But perception plays a large part in the Occupy Wall Street movement and in the concern over the 275 percent increased income of the top one percent since 1979. First of all, that group is different now from then, and includes sports, movie and TV stars like Oprah Winfrey, and entrepreneurs like Bill Gates. We've made them wealthy, though we focus on stock brokers when we wring our hands over their salaries. The comparison of groups that are different lacks the validity attributed to it. Perhaps the Wall Streeters haven't done so well while the nouveau riche have made out like bandits. If, for example, Oprah Winfrey has become a billionaire, we're still inclined to watch her with awe. No one begrudges his idols as much as they can wheedle out of the public. A well-paid baseball player is admired, even if his salary causes admission prices to go up. It's only the nameless bankers we hate.

And we shouldn't forget that a first class stamp then was 15 cents and the average rent $280. Nor that in 1979 undergraduate tuition at a typical private college, the University of Pennsylvania,ⁱⁱⁱ was $5,195. Times have changed. Many consumer items have more than tripled in the past three decades so that, in regard to some things, we are all falling behind. Does this mean that we should lower the salaries of our teachers? Of course not. We should, however, try to decide what the statistics mean rather than simply accept them as proof of an evil system. They provide some information, not condemnation.

Included in the article was other information. One point made was that “for the poorest fifth of the population, average real after-tax household income^iv rose 18 percent.” Stated differently, their real income has increased by nearly a fifth during this period. The problem is not that they aren't doing better, it's that they're not doing as much better as others.

If everyone is doing better, yet it feels worse, and we're incurring greater debt,^v it would be worthwhile to consider why this is happening. Perhaps it is, in part, because our expectations have been raised and we have been indoctrinated into the idea that we are entitled to whatever we want. If we can't force the rich to give us what they have voluntarily, we may be able to convince the government to redistribute resources. In the meantime we can get most of what we want through credit card debt, balloon mortgages, college loans, and similar tactics. Unfortunately our runaway spending cannot go on forever – notwithstanding all the radio advertisements for companies that will help you avoid foreclosures, bankruptcy, high credit card costs and the like. Sooner or later someone has to pay for it, even if it's our children and grandchildren. There's no “app” that will pay all our debts and give us a spotless credit rating.^vi

My intent is not to defend or accuse. Class warfare is not the solution to our problem. Our incomes may have increased but so have our perceptions, expectations, and prejudices. We envy those better off than ourselves. Statistics mandates that there will always be a top one percent. We created them and we support them. Absent socialism, it's up to us to change our idea of "necessities" if we're going to affect the distribution of wealth.

i     There's a fascinating book entitled How To Lie With Statistics, by Darrell Huff, that discusses some of the conscious and unconscious errors of those presenting statistical information. They're not always lying. Sometimes they are simply making silly mistakes which look factual when they're all gussied up.

ii    I suspect that the percentage of crooks among the top one percent is no greater than for the rest of the population. In fact, it's probably lower, since they can afford lawyers to advise them as to how they can get what they want legally.

iii    I used U of P because its numbers were easily available, but all tuitions were a lot lower then.

iv    All the numbers are adjusted for inflation. They do not represent absolute incomes. The absolute numbers are considerably higher because the dollar has lost value since 1979.

v     Which we attribute to the thieves on Wall Street.

vi    Some of that debt results from the purchase of electronics, communications plans, and “apps,” and from the fact that many of the items we buy are greatly increased in price because of actual, but costly, improvements and with additional governmental regulations. In 1979, for example, according to WikiAnswers, “The average price of a car in 1979 was around $4,000 to $6,000, with some being a little over $3,000 and the high-end models being $10,000 or more.” With on-board computers, improved braking systems, changed fuel usage requirements, air bags, and the like, we're more comfortable and safer, but at a cost.

Plausible Deniability

 

My time of day is the dark time
A couple of deals before dawn
When the street belongs to the cop
And the janitor with the mop
And the grocery clerks are all goneⁱ

That's my time, too. It varies though, since dawn comes up at different times at different times of the year. And in my neighborhood the streets are mostly empty. No cops and no janitors. There's an occasional car which is usually driven by someone delivering newspapers to the houses nearby, or other things to the one store open at that ridiculous hour for the convenience of people on their way to work. They value a hot cup of joe to keep their eyes open as they drive.

I value the solitude; the quiet, and the time to think, provided by a walk through the empty streets, and the cool, or even cold, air of the morning. It's peaceful and it's private. I am unobserved and I am unsupervised.

Sky Masterson wanted to share his “time” with Miss Sarah Brown, and no one else. And that was possible at the time the story was written because it was before the time of video surveillance at every corner and at every store. But there is no privacy now in many areas, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's decision that it is a Constitutional right. Fortunately there are no camerasⁱⁱ along my early morning route so I can relax.

Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg also wanted privacy. In their case it was from the listening ears of Nazi intelligence officers. So they went for a hike in the Danish countryside. What they discussed wasn't recorded and they described their conversation differently, but there is no actual record documenting what they said. They wanted privacy and secrecy and they got both. As did “Andrey Botvinnik” and “John Honeyman,” who took walks in the woods near Geneva. Their conversations, in Lee Blessing's play,ⁱⁱⁱ conversations believed to be based on those of Soviet and American diplomats, involved nuclear policy and were unofficial discussions between two men who came to be friends. The conversations were off the record and the men could change their minds without international repercussions. Whatever they said could be denied. Plausible deniability is a valued and proper tool in government – even if it may seem to be unethical. But if something like WikiLeaks comes along it is hard to deny what was not intended for publication in the first place. Privacy in conversation, and the discipline not to reduce all our thoughts to the permanent record, are our best protections against nosiness and the urge to “let it all hang out.” There's no hiding from a working paper which may later be changed because it is recognized to be ill-considered, but which, in the meanwhile, found its way into the hands of someone more interested in “transparency” than laudable motives and results.

Those days, sadly, are over – the days of privacy and secrecy. You have to be suspicious of those you're with – even those you consider friends. With the miniaturization of transmitters, unsuspected everyday objects, like buttons or pens, can betray your words to others. And there are long-distance listening devices as well. The woods are no longer safe, even if you're talking to yourself.

But it does not require hidden cameras or transmitters. Surveillance cameras are everywhere and we have stopped noticing them. But more frightening to me is the fact that almost everyone carries around some sort of recording device. It may be a video camera or even a camera telephone. In some ways, I suppose, that's a good thing. But for the most part I think it intrusive. In fact, the portable telephone itself is not for me. I don't need to “touch” someone at all times. And I don't want to be called when I'm looking for privacy. Nor do I want to hear the conversations of others, which often shatter the peace I seek.^iv I don't need to hear someone screaming into the telephone what ought to be private information. I don't want to know. And I don't need to have my life placed at risk by another driver who may be more interested in gossip than in the road. There may be laws against such behavior, but they're violated so frequently that they might as well not exist. We certainly don't have the means to enforce them.^v

The unseen threats to our privacy are even worse. They're worse, in large part, because even if we know they're there, we don't think about them or recognize what they can do. We may even view them favorably if we are aware of their presence. Having a GPS chip which can connect to a distant site may be of help in locating us if there's an emergency. But most of the time there's no emergency. Even so, our telephones, GPS navigation system, hand-held computers and similar devices know where we are at all times. We're never alone, even when we want to be.

I admit it. I'm a hermit. So I may be oversensitive to intrusions. And I know there is no stopping what we view as progress, whether I like it or not. But, perhaps, technology, and its detritus, are coming at us too fast. Perhaps what we want is overwhelming what we need. I'm convinced that it is. I suspect that too many people are so seduced by the wizardry, the newly discovered abilities, the speed, and the convenience, that they are blinded to the implications. What looks as if it is freeing them is actually doing the opposite. Mae West thought “too much of a good thing can be wonderful.” But it can also be destructive.

Bohr and Heisenberg once hiked to Elsinore – the site of Hamlet's castle. Hamlet had his demons, in the form of ghosts. I have mine too. But they're in the form of Big Brother, and all my little brothers and sisters all around who may be watching me. Leave me alone. I just want peace and quiet. I don't want Sarah Brown, or anyone else, not even Mae West, sharing my private time.  I want to be alone.

Next episode: “I've Got It Coming” – Don't I?

i     Sky Masterson, from Guys and Dolls, by Frank Loesser.

ii     As far as I know.

iii    A Walk in the Woods, 1986.

iv    Nor do I need or want to hear the loud racket of ring tones which are presented to me from the pockets of others wherever I go, and most annoyingly during a concert or religious service.

v    At least not at present. The time will come, however, when automobile manufacturers will not only remove the devices they've already installed – telephones, computer screens, and the like – but will find a way, when the engine is running, to deactivate those brought into their vehicles from outside. Or at least those in the front seat. Taxi and bus drivers may get edgy without their telephones and intercoms, but we'll all be safer. Even GPS's are distracting.

Mistake

 

When I was in high school, one of my English teachers criticized an essay I wrote. I had tipped my hand. I had started with my judgment. It would have been stronger, he offered, if I had marshaled my arguments in such a way that the reader would have reached my conclusion before I did. Based on what I had written, the decision would have been inevitable. My teacher had offered excellent advice and I've tried to follow it. But not in this case.

I am convinced that the agreement by Israel to release more than a thousand Palestinian prisoners in order to gain the freedom of Gilad Shalit is a mistake. It is not a conclusion that I have reached easily, but I cannot see how any other determination can be sustained.

While it is one of our most important obligations to ransom those imprisoned, halakhah places limits on the price to be paid for a prisoner – a price which is somehow proportional to his value. Clearly that is hard to calculate, but there is no doubt that the price being paid in this instance exceeds any limits that might be imagined. It is far too high both in its actuality and in its potential.

I am not unmindful of Shalit's suffering nor of the pain and anguish of his family and friends. I am not unsympathetic. But I also sympathize with the families of those murdered by some of the prisoners about to be let go. And it is hard to avoid the likelihood that they will kill again. That is what has happened in the past with such trades, and it is reasonable to assume it will happen again. We must learn from history.

Neither am I unmindful of the arguments favoring release – which, among others, deal with humanity and national responsibility, military morale, and the feelings of families whose children are now, or in the future will be, in the military. It is a matter of national pride that Israel was able to negotiate for the return of a soldier who was stolen by the Palestinians and denied contact with his family or even with the Red Cross. Gilad Shalit will be returned to his family, and Israel will feel some relief. That family, and those in the military and their families, will be reassured that they won't be forgotten. It will be clear to them that no effort will be spared to gain their release if they are captured. It is argued that this knowledge will make them better and more courageous fighters. And it is a fair argument. That confidence will surely embolden them. Gilad Shalit will be home, ransomed by his country.

But the damage has already been done. Gilad Shalit cannot have spent five years in the hands of terrorists without suffering severe psychological damage. That, of course, is not a reason to abandon him, but the length of his imprisonment, its likely effects, and the fact that the government only took the decision when they decided they couldn't do better, weaken any argument that this represents a big gain for military morale. And if that argument has any merit, it is a thousand times more powerful as a boost for Palestinian fighters and their families. It must be very reassuring to them to know that they can kill and, if they do not die in the process, they stand a strong chance of being released. An Israeli prisoner may be reunited with his family, but a thousand Palestinians may be given the opportunity to kill again.

And its hard not to feel the resentment of those who have lost family members to terrorists, having only the imprisonment of the murderers as “compensation.” With the release of those responsible, they have nothing. It is understandable if they don't share the national pride. And, if those released do kill again, the anger of the families of their victims will also be understandable. The argument that present situations must be dealt with at present while future problems can be addressed when they occur has some merit, but it is hard to make that argument five years after the fact. All that is achieved now, apart from Shalit's release, is the “victory” of the Palestinians and the disappearance of an annoyance to those who support the Palestinians. Now all virtue will again be theirs, and all evil will be attributable to the government of Israel.

I'm glad Gilad Shalit will be free. But I think the price was too high. We have not learned from history. I can only pray that we will not repeat it.

Common Sense

“History is written by the victors.”ⁱ So said Winston Churchill – or at least the aphorism is attributed to him. The latter caveat is added because, as one individualⁱⁱ put it, “this 'proverb' is so manifestly true, that I believe almost every nation throughout history … [had thinkers who] … would easily observe this.” In fact, it is often quoted by historians who would caution their readers against believing everything they read – especially the work of other historians. Unfortunately, it seems that everyone seems to focus on the history itself.

From my perspective, however, the most interesting lesson which is taught by this maxim is embodied in the first three words – “History is written.” Our memories don't constitute adequate repositories of information for more than a limited period. What we know has to be recorded in some way. “Recorded history” relates to the time since writing was first used and, consequently, prehistoric times were those before people started writing.ⁱⁱⁱ Things happened then, and people presumably related them in some way to each other, but there is no written record of it – either what actually happened or what the victors chose to remember.

Thus the key to the past, and to the present, is writing.^iv Writing started, according to historians – whose word we take at face value – at least as early as the sixth millenium BCE.^v So it's been around a long time. Until the time of Gutenberg almost every written document was unique. There was occasional printing using wood blocks, but the vast majority of documents were written and not printed. However following the development of printing using movable type, attitudes changed. It was inevitable. Printing companies were soon established in order to allow the printing of multiple identical representations of what before had been limited to a single copy that had been, often laboriously, crafted by the document's author or a copyist.^vi

The printers allowed people to produce enough copies to sell or distribute otherwise – a process we now call “self-publication.” More recently, in the past few centuries, publishing companies have been established because, as with all commercial efforts, there was money to be made. So they weren't always viewed favorably. As recently as 1911, Encyclopedia Britannica described such ventures with disdain as "purely commercial affair[s]," emphasizing the profit motive rather than any effort to encourage literary excellence. Occasionally another motive played a part in the publish/don't publish decision,^vii but the decision was usually based on anticipated profits.

That, of course, meant that many authors with valuable messages, or superb writing ability, have not been able to find publishers. All-knowing publishers didn't believe that they could make a buck^viii on the work. So “self-publication” has become common. Some of our greatest documents were published by their authors. They include Tom Paine's Common Sense, as well as works by (among numerous others) L. Frank Baum, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, e. e. cummings, Benjamin Franklin, Ernest Hemingway, Stephen King, Rudyard Kipling, Louis L'Amour, Rod McKuen, Edgar Allen Poe, Beatrix Potter, Carl Sandburg, George Bernard Shaw, Percy Bysshe Shelley, Gertrude Stein and Walt Whitman.

So during the period of recorded history, publication by commercial publishers has been the exception rather than the rule. Many great works remained, for a long period, in manuscript form, either because printing was not available or because their value wasn't recognized.^ix Still we judge an individual author not by what he has written but by what he has published commercially. That means that we are willing to accept the judgment of those who are more concerned about profits than quality. And since (commercially) published books and periodicals get the most publicity,^x they get the most sales. So a “best-seller” list is usually comprised of commercially published books, and, while a self-published volume may be superior to those in the store, it is unusual for one to have many readers.

But printing companies still exist, and it isn't difficult^xi to have a work published this way. And publication on the internet of an “e-book” is becoming increasingly common. Unfortunately those who self-publish are too often viewed as egocentric and talentless writers by a public taught to believe that commercial firms are the best evaluators of what is good and bad. What is even sadder is that too many authors accept this point of view. If they write for a living they are compelled to write for whatever audience they can find, although many will not compromise with commercial interests. They value what they have to say more than what they, or someone else, can earn from their thoughts. So self-publication is the only option if they wish to circulate those thoughts.^xii And many of our most famous writers have chosen that route for some or all of their works.

That's what writing is. Its purpose is to record our thoughts. That's why it was developed, even if it has become something else – a way for commercial publishers to make a living. That can only be counted a necessary evil. Self-publication makes a work a “survivor”even if it is not a “victor.” It is a way that writing is remembered. Writing took a long time to come about and it would be a shame if we saw its only purpose as a way for someone to make a living. That makes sense, doesn't it?

Next episode: “Plausible Deniability” – That's not what I said. Nor is anything else.

i     Or, at least, by the survivors. They're the ones who are around to tell the (a) story, and it's usually one that favors their point of view – even if they weren't always the victors.

ii     Chris Mangum on The Puritan Board – April 16, 2008.

iii    Even if there is a recording in another form – the paintings on cave walls, for example – without writing the material is considered prehistoric.

iv    Nowadays there are extensions of the written word such as sound recording, but the vast majority of information is in written form, even if it is on line or tweeted. And, as you'll see, the written word is the one of greatest interest to me.

v     The Dispilio Tablet, a wooden tablet with some form of written markings on it, is carbon-14 dated at about 5,260 BCE.

vi    Actually, printing companies were established to make money. With new technology come new opportunities to do so.

vii   Howard Fast's Spartacus was rejected by several publishers during the McCarthy era because, as a former member of the Communist Party, he had been blacklisted. In fact, he was jailed for contempt of Congress because he refused to name donors to a home for Spanish Civil War orphans. He eventually published Spartacus himself, and later established the Blue Heron Press to publish his other writings.

viii    Or a pound, or whatever.

ix    Every now and then a story appears in the newspaper about an unpublished literary or musical work that was discovered in a library, or in a closet or drawer or box somewhere. It's usually the work of someone already famous. (Who would be interested in reading the unpublished work of a “nobody?” So when those are found they're usually discarded.)

x     One of the functions of a publisher is to hawk his wares. After all, they make money by selling what they've published, so they do whatever they can to increase those sales.

xi    It isn't inordinately expensive either.

xii    Unfortunately not all thoughts are circulated, and this means that many great works have been lost and many more will be in the future. Self-publication at least gives a “commercially not viable” work the possibility of being seen and, perhaps, “discovered.”

The Occupation

 

The “Arab Spring” is still upon us. There is an outpouring of frustration about the sad situation in which many peoples find themselves, and there is anger directed against the leaders of their existing governments. The rebellions – and there are many of them – are directed against tyrants who have, for so long, held power and used it for their own gain. As if in reaction to an old story – the continuation of treatment like that suffered in ancient times – news of the uprisings has been spread by modern means like the social media on the internet. Even if the results of their rebellions won't be significantly different from those of the past, new technology will be used to circulate information about it.

The “Occupy Wall Street” movement bears many similarities to the Arab Spring. Like the unrest in the Middle East there is frustration about the situation in which the protesters find themselves, and there is anger against the one percent of the population who, they feel, are the cause of their situation. Like the protests far away, the social media and the internet are being used to publicize both the movement and the way individuals can join it. The goals of the movement may be unclear, but the passion is not.

There is the impression, common among participants, that the executives of Wall Street firms, and all of those who earn large incomes, are responsible for the difficulties of the rest of the people. So those with debts for their education or homes, those either without jobs or unsatisfied with the ones they have, and people interested in social justice in general, feel the need to express their dissatisfaction, and they do that by establishing tent cities, by marching, and by getting themselves arrested. The movement has become widespread and it is garnering the publicity desired. It has become a national movement and a national obsession.

Lacking focused goals, however, there is no obvious end point. People who insist that the government have a strategy for getting out of a situation before embarking on it, seem to be without any strategy for ending their own protest. It will last “as long as it takes,” although what “it takes” means, remains undefined. The only thing clear – to others if not to them – is that increasing the tax on that “one percent” will not have much effect on the national debt or on their individual situations.ⁱ Perhaps they'll feel better, but it will be based on the suffering of the “rich” rather than on anything more substantive.

More to the point, though, is that the protesters don't – or won't – recognize that on a global scale they are among the rich. They live in a country that provides them with resources that most of the world envies. Indeed, most of the world's population have no access to the level of education of whose cost they complain; most of the world can't even think about the homes which the protesters find too expensive; and the cost of gasoline – a sore point with the owners of automobilesⁱⁱ – is actually lower in the United States than in most parts of the world. And those who demand free health care for all don't seem to recognize that our health care is among the best in the world – even for the poor and undocumented. If some countries provide “free” socialized medicine, it is only because taxes are higher in order to pay for it. Nothing is free. The cost must come from somewhere.ⁱⁱⁱ

It is sobering to consider the financial situation of America and her citizens. While those who are demonstrating express the idea that the “rich” should be taxed to pay for the standard of living to which they feel entitled, they do not think about the fact that they are far better off than most of the world's people. According to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, in 2009 the US GDP was more than 58 times that of Argentina, the lowest rated of the G20 nations. And the list doesn't include developing countries and the Third World. If we consider the global perspective, many of those who are unhappy with their status are actually themselves in the top one percent. What are their obligations to the rest of the world?

My intent is not to minimize the problems faced by those who protest, nor to belittle them, but rather to provide some perspective. Whatever their difficulties, they are vastly better off than most of the world, and complaining about the greed of others is not the answer to the problem. A recognition of our favored position and an adjustment of expectations would be far more realistic and practical than living in tents and communicating with each other over their computers. It's time to go home and deal with the problems. And to consider the problems of others as well as themselves.

As Pogo Possum said,^iv “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

i     According to the National Taxpayers Union (NTU), in 2008 the top one percent already paid 38.02 percent of all personal income tax.

ii    Which, of course, are unaffordable for much of the world's population and they don't have adequate roads for their operation anyway.

iii    The real question is who pays for what. The method of collecting the revenues to pay the bills will be determined based on that. If equality of income, health care, and housing are considered appropriate, income taxes will to be raised while consumption taxes will remain the same or be lowered. According to the NTU the top fifty percent of earners (with incomes greater than $33,048 in 2008) already paid over 97 percent of personal income taxes, but these would have to be raised.

iv    Actually it was Walt Kelly.

The New Egypt

 

There's a new wind blowing through the Middle East. It is the wind of change, and it's called the Arab Spring. There are uprisings in several countries, and old leaders are being overthrown. The changes result from the frustration of the populations – populations long dominated by dictators whose main interest was in maintaining their own power. And the populations suffered under such rule, with poverty and repression, conditions which finally resulted in rebellion.

What the people in the affected countries proclaimed was a wish for democracy. It was a form of government what the United States had long wished to spread. We proselytized the rule of the people, but, simultaneously, we often supported the dictatorships. In a world where conflicts between nations can affect political power, it's best to have as many allies as possible. And quantity is more important than quality. Numbers count. A dictatorship that favors you is better than a democracy that opposes you.

And the American model of democracy is one that many find confusing – especially in places that have never had a tradition of democracy. The idea that a minority may have rights seemingly contradicts the whole idea of elective government. What's the point of popular rule if there are those who don't have to follow the popular rules. In addition, while we may proscribe the involvement of religious doctrine in our government and laws, for many it is second nature to accept theological teachings as the basis for all aspects of life. They will favor the imposition of those teachings on others as part of the basic law. And they will do so democratically, even if their understanding of those doctrines, and their votes, simply mimic the ideas of the local cleric. Whether they mimic what is a proper understanding of their religious law or a biased impression is unimportant. They want what they are told to want, and they expect everyone else to want the same thing. Or at least to follow the laws as they are imposed.

Egypt is a good example of this kind of democracy. Christians may represent 10 to 20% of the Egyptian population,ⁱ but they must follow the same rules. And they will never win an election. So they will have to tolerate the edicts of Islam and Muslim clerics – if they want to live in peace. Even so, they will still suffer discrimination. The Egyptian “democracy” will be no more than a theocracy. And the killing of Christians will be tolerated.

One evidence of this is the threat – one which is likely to turn into a reality – is that oil from Sinai will be more difficult and expensive for Israel to obtain. When Israel, after it was attacked by the Egyptians in 1973, and as part of a peace treaty, returnedⁱⁱ the largest piece of captured Arab territoryⁱⁱⁱ, it included the Alma oil field which Israel had discovered and developed, and by doing so in the name of peace, gave up an asset that would have allowed itself to be self sufficient in terms of energy by 1990.^iv According to the New York Times,^v “An arrangement was also made to insure Israel a right to buy oil from the fields without interruption” but, of course, that insurance, and the return to Egypt of land, and of an oil field which had never existed, guaranteed nothing. According to Reuters, “Egypt's Prime Minister Essam Sharaf said a peace deal with Israel was not 'sacred' and could be changed for the benefit of peace or the region.” Egypt's definition of “the region,” presumably means a region without Israel.

There's a new wind blowing, but there's a lot that's old as well. The antagonism of the Egyptians toward the Jews hearkens back to biblical times – long before there was a State of Israel – so it is reasonable to be suspicious of claims from Egypt that the establishment of Israel is the source of current problems and that it can abrogate a previous agreement for the benefit of the region.

And lest anyone believe that Egypt's argument is with Israel and not the Jews, the actions Egypt is taking to block the export of lulavim^vi will clearly affect Jews around the world. It has nothing to do with Israel. Even if they relent,^vii the point has been made. The Jews are the target. The wind may be new, but the bias is old. Antisemitism has existed for millennia, and the politics of the Middle East includes it. A “democratic” decision among believing Muslims would include this doctrine. From childhood, believing Muslims have been so indoctrinated. The region, with the exception of Israel, understands “democracy” differently from the way we do. But despite this we shall woo her, and all of the other governments that are blown in on the new wind as well.

However the new Egypt is really the old one; the wind, an ill one. Danny Kaye said of the oboe, that it was an ill wind that no one blew good. An ill wind blows in Egypt. It is called democracy. But the bluster of antisemitism, however popular, will be played well^viii by those who are coming into power. The Arab Spring cleaning is simply a substitution of leaders, not of prejudices.

i     Estimates vary. Hard numbers are difficult to obtain in a tyranny or a country in the midst of a revolution.

ii    In 1979.

iii    91% of the territory captured in the Six Day War.

iv   Jewish Virtual Library: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/peace_with_Egypt.html

v     March 27, 1979.

vi    Palm branches used as part of the ritual for the Jewish holiday of Sukkot.

vii   They cost themselves money by refusing to sell the palm branches.

viii   But not for good.

Change

 

We old fogies have a keen memory of the distant past, although we often lack the recollection of more recent events. In fact we long for “the good old days” because we don't remember how bad they were. And that's the way it was when we were young – though it was our elders who bemoaned our “excesses” – those of what was then “modern society.”

There are many possible examples of this situation, but for today I'll limit myself to communication. When I was young,ⁱ there were such things as telegrams and face-to-face conversations and shmoozing over a cup of coffee. There were some party-line telephones left as well. And letters. And we knew only as much about our correspondent as he chose to tell us individually. There was no Facebook, Twitter, and Google, and people actually talked to each other. In full sentences.ⁱⁱ It was expensive to make a telephone call,ⁱⁱⁱ and sometimes took a good deal of time.^iv But it was a treasured experience.

The most treasured of the experiences though – at least for me – was waiting for the delivery of the mail. It happened twice a day then,^v but the excitement never palled. We didn't receive very much mail, but what we got was usually important. We didn't get pounds of magazines, catalogs, political messages, solicitations, and unwanted advertising. Sure, we got bills,^vi but most of all we got letters.^vii

When was the last time you received meaningful mail? When was the last time someone wrote, by hand, words intended for you alone?^viii When was the last time you waited eagerly for the arrival of a personal letter? I suspect it's been a while.^ix

I marvel at the new, but sometimes I miss the old. With the internet and instant messaging I can communicate rapidly and with VoIP, and a program like Skype, I can hold a conversation with someone on the other side of the world. In fact I do. I speak with my daughter and her children frequently, even though we are thousands of miles apart. Technology is wonderful. Who ever dreamed that we'd be able to do this.^x

But technology only responds to our whims. And things are moving faster than we could have guessed. Too fast. In fact, everything is moving too fast. Instant gratification has become the goal in every aspect of our lives. Hence all the tools for instant messaging. Too many of us seem to think that others are interested in what they're thinking and doing in “real time.” And, sadly, it appears that a lot of people are. Hence texting, twittering, and all their relatives. And the rapidly changing statuses of people on Facebook^xi demonstrate that they are mercurial and have too much available time to tell everyone about it.

But I'm a hermit. I don't care if others don't know where I am or what I'm doing. In fact I prefer it that way. I'll let them in on it if I choose to do so – not simply to satisfy their curiosity. I've stopped answering my telephone when the “Caller ID” either doesn't tell me who's calling, or unmasks someone to whom I don't wish to speak. It must be galling to the caller, but I also throw out mail in which I'm not interested and I erase spam from my computer.

I admit it. I'm a throwback. In fact I'd admit more, but I'd rather look out the window and see if the mailman is coming.

Next episode: “Common Sense” – Do it yourself.

iYes. I know. You've heard that before and it bores you. I hope it won't turn you off entirely, though, and that you'll read this essay.

iiAnd with reasonably accurate grammar and orthography.

iiiIndeed, we developed codes and ringing patterns, as well as “person-to-person” long distance requests that allowed us to send messages without ever completing a call and incurring a charge.

ivEspecially with international calls, which often had to be scheduled in advance.

vPost Office costs have sky-rocketed since then, and deliveries have been scaled back as the cost of postage has increased. The government is spending billions of dollars for what used to be primarily a patronage system.

viMost of them now come by e-mail and are paid on line.

viiAnd a letter cost three cents to mail. In all likelihood a local letter would be delivered the next day, or the day after at the latest.

viiiAll right. I have to get this off my chest. When I write a letter I use a computer and word processor. My handwriting is bad and I sometimes can't read what I've written, so I can't expect the recipient to understand it. So it's really not hand-written. Some other advantages are that it saves paper (more words to the page), corrects my spelling, and leaves a copy for me. But the letter is for the individual and so crafted and personalized. And it is written typed by hand.

ixSome people discard mail nowadays without even opening it. It's a waste of time to do so. There's so little that is worth the effort.

xWe may be impressed. but the next generation will wonder how we were able to get by with such primitive technology and tools.

xiAnd their friends.

My Demands Are Not Negotiable – What's Your Best Offer?

 

I wish I were 24 and handsome. And rich. The monetary award I got that went along with the Nobel Peace Prize would only be a small part of that. Eternal world peace would be a bigger reward.

All right. I'm neither 24 nor handsome, and I'll never be rich or win the Nobel Prize. I regret as well that world peace is no more than a dream. But there are some things I can accomplish. Like vacuuming the dining room, or taking out the garbage. That's the approach that most people take. They do the possible. It may not be quiet desperation, but it takes their minds off larger issues. However there are other ways.

It is said that politics is the art of the possible. The Federalists who wrote and proposed the American Constitution opposed a delineation of Rights, but eventually they accepted the idea of a Bill of Rights when the passage of the entire document depended on it. Abolitionists signed on to a document that included the institution of slavery, counting slaves as three fifths of a person for purposes of taxation and representation. And those who favored strong state governments and reduced central power,ⁱacquiesced to having a strong Federal government. All in the service of a new nation. They compromised.

Nowadays “compromise” is a dirty word.ⁱⁱ We view the whole idea with disfavor. It's a sellout. “My way or the highway.” That's the modern creed. “Just say 'No.'” If we can't have it our way, we don't want it at all. We would prefer to sit in the corner and pout, and accuse those we oppose of evil. In England there is at least a pretense of a loyal opposition. There is acknowledgment that others may disagree and still be faithful and patriotic. Perhaps not all the Brits accept this idea – perhaps some, too, see opposition as obstructionism – but at least there is the suggestion that honest disagreement is possible in a civilized society.

American politics has fallen into the trap of total victory or nothing. Liberals and Conservativesⁱⁱⁱwant nothing short of whatever program they are supporting at a particular time.^iv And if not, all we can seem to do is to find different ways to insult each other. Rather than engage in courteous discourse and discussion, we simply “dis.” There used to be an expression,“Politics stops at the water's edge.” It was first enunciated in 1947 by Republican Senator Arthur Vandenberg during President Truman's first term, and indicated that while we may not share the same values, all Americans should be united when it came to dealing with the world.

The obvious implication was that we were not united at home. But that's what politics was all about. Nonetheless, despite disagreements about policies, we found a way to work together in the long run for the common good. Sadly, at least publicly we no longer have any kind of political cooperation – either for domestic or foreign policy. The predictable pattern is that the party out of power will do its best to paralyze the government until it can take over. Then, of course, it will be paralyzed by the party it replaced. The old saw,“Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country,” no longer has currency. Our “leaders” place party above country. “Purity”^vtakes precedence over accomplishment. We do not view half a loaf as better than none.

Of course there are absolute values that cannot be compromised. But those are not the problems at issue. What is involved is the idea of compromise itself. Because everything is done in the open – transparency and all that – accepting anything but a maximum position is seen by one-issue voters and viewed as backing down. Were Congress to act behind closed doors with no one to reveal the details of the negotiations,^vithere might be a way of reaching some accommodation that is impossible publicly. However secrecy is seen as corrupting. Yet when it came to writing the Constitution, the framers worked in secret^viiand, as John Roche wrote in The Founding Fathers:  A Reform Caucus in Action, "Perhaps the time has come, to borrow Walton Hamilton's fine phrase, to raise the framers from immortality to mortality, to give them credit for their magnificent demonstration of the art of democratic politics. The point must be reemphasized: they made history and did it within the limits of consensus."

For the most part, those who met in Philadelphia to write the new document, believed that the others – even those whom they opposed – were patriots. They may have disagreed with their positions but they did not doubt their dedication.^viii They were able to reach a decision because they were willing to trade ideas and institutions in order to reach a position which they believed superior to the one with which they started – the confederation of states. They knew that the document which they crafted would be hard to change later, which was the reason for the determination of some to have a Bill of Rights promised before ratification. But, for the most part, they did not question each other's motives – only their positions.

Unfortunately, the trust they had is often absent today. Compromise is difficult in an open society, and too often viewed, simply, as a starting point for the battle's next round. A typical example of this approach is the position of the Palestinians vis-a-vis Israel. Any public concessions by Israel are considered the starting point for the next round of negotiations.  But that is only the case – that the opponent's compromise is the new starting point – when discussions are possible to begin with. The American Congress is paralyzed by a refusal by all parties to leave their maximalist positions and try to reach a middle ground. They'd lose votes. So they talk to the voters, not to each other.

I am loath to suggest that modern politicians are less patriotic than the “Founding Fathers,” but there is no question that current pressures are different from those once faced. The concerns at that time were only war, peace, and history – as well as the good of a new nation. There were fewer pork-barrel projects and lobbyists then. And the constant jockeying nowadays of pressure groups and others whose main concern is their own benefit, is only aided by polls, focus groups, and the spotlight of the media. Perhaps the time has come for a return of secrecy, and the relinquishing of local representation, which leads to the demands for local projects. Perhaps the time has come for us to adopt a proportional national representation system based on total, not local vote.^ix To do so we'd need marked changes in the Constitution. It would take compromise And that would have to be done in secret.

But I'll be 24, handsome, rich, and a Nobel Peace Prize winner before that happens.

Next episode: “Change” – The more things change, the more things change.

i     The Federalists called them “anti-Federalists” but they were a diverse group and they, themselves, didn't really accept the designation.

ii    In a marriage, however, it's the most important word there is.
iii    And everyone else.

iv   Right or wrong, but never in doubt.

v    Not to mention the next election.

vi    A situation the media would consider intolerable.

vii    In public they could neither have made the necessary compromises nor fashioned an entirely new document, rather than simply fiddling with the Articles of Confederation.

viii   James Madison, a dedicated Federalist and author of the Constitution wrote, “... there never was an assembly of men, charged with a great and arduous task, who were more pure in their motives, or more exclusively or anxiously devoted to the object committed to them, than were the members of the Federal Convention of 1787 ...” cited in Original Meanings, by Jack N. Rakove. It should be remembered that Madison disagreed with the opinions of many of them, but he never lost sight of their dedication.

ix   Many countries have such systems. They require the proposal of a list of candidates by each of the participating parties. Seats in the House of Representatives would then assigned according to the percentage of the vote, and each party would then go down its list until it has filled the number of assigned seats. It is a national rather than a local election. We might even go back to the choice of Senators by State Legislatures to restore the representation of the states and of state interests.