How is a tractor pull like the government?

As I expected, my friend Buddy was able to boil down my last rant into a few salient points.  Perhaps the most basic of these has to do with what citizens expect from their government.  Is it to provide some basic services (defense, post office, a few others) or should the government do more (protect the environment, a monetary system) or even more than that (a social safety net, basic human rights, infrastructure) or still more (protect consumers, regulate businesses)?  My order of additional services at each step can be argued but the idea of increasing government involvement in our lives is the fundamental issue.  Buddy asks if I think the role of government is to redistribute wealth.

That is a great question.  And I have a solid answer – no.  With a caveat.  I don’t want to take anything away from anyone.  If you have managed to gain wealth, good for you.  Gain more; I have only good wishes for you.

That being said, there is more to my answer.  I want the government to provide a more even playing field.  I want government to respect the ideas of the majority of citizens, not just those that have amassed wealth.  I want a government that puts people in front of ideology.  I want a government that responds to the needs of the people and has the foresight to provide a direction for the future.

Here’s my idea for a tax system.  Have you ever been to a tractor pull?  Loads of fun.  Two similarly powered tractors are driven down a track pulling a weighted sled whose weight continues to shift, eventually to the point the tractor is unable to continue.  The winner is the tractor that pulls the weight the farthest.

What’s that got to do with taxes?  Tractors are placed into categories determined by engine size – think of those as tax brackets.  Lawn tractors don’t compete against the largest farm tractors.  And the weights are taxes.  Small tractors pull less weight (pay less tax) and larger ones pull more (pay more tax).  There are still winners in each category and depending on the ingenuity and hard work of the competitors some do better than others.  And the big tractors (wealthier people) still get much further than the small tractors (those that are less wealthy).

There are fees to be paid to be in the race.  The track has to be maintained, there are officials, judges, vendors – a large network that provides the infrastructure for the race.  I see the federal government as the owner of the racetrack.  I see each of us as entrants in the race.  We all have to pay to be in the race and to keep pulling.  Current pullers are able to pull today because of earlier pullers who may not be able to pull any longer and so are owed some support.  In some cases tractors have broken down through no fault of their own.  It is in the best interest of the whole field to help these pullers until they are repaired and can contribute again.

It is not the job of the track owners to try and make small tractors bigger by taking away from the bigger tractors.  It is their job to make the playing field even for everyone.  Larger tractors do more damage, use more resources, and place more demands on the track than the smaller ones.  And so they should pay more.  They aren’t creating opportunities for most of the other competitors but rather participating with them.  It isn’t us versus them.  No 99% and 1%.  It is everyone working for a common good so we can each have a fair go on the track.  Some will get farther than others.

In all likelihood my analogy breaks down at some point (maybe from the beginning).  But for the moment it works for me.  Tell me where I went wrong..

 

Can someone please help me understand the link between religion, politics and business?

We are just an hour into the New Year and I’ve already had my first revelation.  I grapple every day with my inability to return to weekly prayer services.  I went from attending more than once a week to attending a handful of times last year.  I feel guilty every Saturday morning but that guilt isn’t sufficient to get me to pray in an organized way.  My belief in a higher power is unswayed and I have no desire to turn away from the basic tenets of my faith.  My soul searching started about 15 months ago and I’ve gotten no closer to finding an answer except the problem is slightly more crystallized in my mind.  The problem isn’t the tenets of my faith (or any other faith for that matter) but with the people that superficially show their adherence to faith.

The façade starts early in our lives and continues throughout in so many different forms.  In the sight of our Lord we promise to love, honor and cherish a partner and then when the promise becomes uncomfortable or annoying we convince ourselves that the vow didn’t mean much and there are special circumstances which, in each specific case, makes divorce legitimate.  Maybe if we took the original oath more seriously there would be fewer marriages and a lower rate of divorce.  Or there would be more civil unions and the same rate of divorce.

But that isn’t close to the problem that bothered me the most in 2011.  I have written about income inequality and problems with the economy.  I have had arguments with close friends about our different perspectives.  My friend Buddy is one of the best souls I know and understands the economy far better than I.  He leans toward being a libertarian and is always able to show me flaws in my logic.  And he is right.  Sort of.  But the argument that “I don’t understand how jobs are created” is correct only up to a point.  I don’t understand the nuances.  But I do know what is right about how my faith tells me to treat everyone else.  That leads to my current state of mind.

Here’s are my latest questions.  Explain to me how giving wealthy people even more wealth creates more jobs.  The richer have gotten far richer and there are fewer and fewer jobs.  Explain to me how the growing divide between the wealthy and the average person has improved the lives of the average person.  Explain to me how, in my profession (an academic), faculty salaries have remained stagnant, taking into account inflation, for 40 years and administrators (the academic equivalent of executives) have seen a 75% increase in the last 10 years?  How has that created jobs?  How has further dividing the country created jobs, engendered hope, or added to the stability of the nation?

That is the central problem of my religious uncertainty.  Supposedly religious politicians support the ridiculous notion of “trickle down” economies.  During the news I saw a picketer with a sign that reminded me of previous protests “What would Jesus do?”  I’m not a Christian but that to me is the question I wanted answered by everyone in Congress that supposedly represent the People.  I want to hear how their adherence to political dogma takes precedence over the lives of their constituents.  I want business executives attending religious services to explain how they send jobs overseas and foreclose on homes and then take pay raises and bonuses.

I want to understand this.  I really do.

 

My 2011 Book Awards

Last year at about this time I wrote about the books I had read and bestowed my personal honors on them.  I realize now that the reader had no idea what I was choosing among so this year I first offer my rather esoteric reading list:

2030 : the real story of what happens to America / Albert Brooks.

Bossypants / Tina Fey.

Electric Barracuda / Tim Dorsey.

Infinite jest : a novel / David Foster Wallace ; foreword by Dave Eggers.

It’s a long road to a tomato : tales of an organic farmer who quit the big city for the (not so) simple life / Keith Stewart ; with illustrations by Flavia Bacarella.

It’s my f—ing birthday : a novel / Merrill Markoe.

Merrill Markoe’s guide to Love / Merrill Markoe.

One of our Thursdays is missing : a novel / Jasper Fforde.

Sacred treasure–the Cairo genizah : the amazing discoveries of forgotten Jewish history in an Egyptian synagogue attic / Mark Glickman.

Simple times : crafts for poor people / Amy Sedaris and Paul Dinello.

Squirrel seeks chipmunk : a modest bestiary / by David Sedaris ; illustrations by Ian Falconer.

The Griff : a graphic novel / Christopher Moore and Ian Corson with Jennyson Rosero.

Tomatoland : how modern industrial agriculture destroyed our most alluring fruit / Barry Estabrook.

When elves attack : a joyous Christmas greeting from the criminal nutbars of the sunshine state / Tim Dorsey.

Wordy shipmates / Sarah Vowell

That’s 15 books  although Infinite Jest should count as at least three given that it is over 900 pages.  So from among these my awards go to:

Funniest: a tie between Amy Sedaris and Merril Markoe.  Both authors make me want to laugh out loud (and I often do) as I read.  I am more embarrassed to be laughing at Amy Sedaris but she is way too funny.  You can’t be depressed after reading whatever they write.

Best continuation of a series:  Tim Dorsey.  I have read all the Serge Storms books and look forward to more.  Who knew there were so many entertaining ways to kill people?

Most disturbing must read: Tomatoland.  If I could, I would order everyone who eats to read this book.  You will want to eat only homegrown fruit and vegetables after you read this.

I just don’t get it but I wish I did: The Griff by Christopher Moore.  I like all of his previous books and look forward to moore but this graphic novel is pointless.  Sorry.

Best historical must read: Wordy Shipmates.  If you want to know what really happened in the early days of the colonies rather than the sanitized high school bits this is a great read.

Perhaps the best book I have ever read: Infinite Jest.  Most of us rarely read a 900+ page book and wish it were longer.  I’ll certainly be reading it again the next time a have a couple of months to spare as there is so much in this book that it can’t be absorbed in one reading.  The sense that the author has lived so much of the detail is clear and his ability to express the feelings of his characters as well as weave a captivating story is remarkable.  I have read reviews that aren’t as glowing as mine but I think that perhaps that is a problem with the perspective of the reader.  I have read reviews of Shakespeare that aren’t so flattering either.  READ THIS.

I am already on my way to reading for 2012.  I’d appreciate your thoughts and opinions.  Happy New Year!

 

“So few,” “so many,” Churchill and the economy

“Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.”  Winston Churchill   August 20, 1940

In a stirring speech, Winston Churchill used these words to describe the pilots of the RAF as they defended England with their lives.  For whatever reason, I woke up this morning thinking about the Battle of Britain.  I’m not sure what I had been dreaming (I’m not a history buff and had not been watching a WWII movie) but I instantly made a connection between these sentiments and the protests of the last few weeks by the Occupy Wall Street movement.

I mulled this over.  The pilots, 544 of them, gave their lives to protect the citizens of England in the Battle of Britain between July 10 and October 31, 1940.  That represents over 20% of all the pilots that flew during that period who died protecting their nation.  There is no doubt that Churchill had it right.  To Churchill the “so many” were the 99% and “the few” were the less than 1% that sacrificed so much for the benefit of their country.

And now?  Today “the few” are asked to do their part to try and help the American economy recover from a disaster needlessly created by greed.  We ask “the few” to consider their overabundance of wealth and give a hand to those that have much, much less.  Not with charity or handouts but with jobs, opportunities, or a reasonable chance of at least not being in debt or having homes foreclosed.  For many reasons, “the few” are considerably less willing than “the few” of 70 years ago.  Let alone risk their lives, they are unwilling to give up bonuses on top of their inflated salaries.  They move jobs offshore to make more profit as opposed to paying their fellow citizens a wage that might cut into profits.

Even worse, there is a discussion in Congress regarding the extension of the reduction in payroll tax.  One political party wants to have the cost of the savings to the taxpayer (it will cost the government many billions of dollars in lost revenue) to come from more cuts in Federal programs.  Asking the “the many” to support “the few” is again envisioned as helping the country.  Our Congress holds “the many” as hostages to make sure “the few” are well protected.  Somehow giving the wealthy even more wealth benefits “ the many.”   Somehow, having even more means there will be some spending that will “trickle down”  (I hate the expression) to the hoi polloi.

The many have done enough.  “The few, ” the wealthy executives on Wall Street and in the banking industries were bailed out, got huge bonuses, and then proceeded to screw over “the many.”  When is enough going to be enough?  How much greed is sufficient?  Apparently we are not yet at that point.

 

December’s Lament – 2011

I haven’t posted anything lately.  Not that there haven’t been many things that have mattered to me but I just haven’t had the heart to recount them all.  But now is as good a time as any.  I wrote a similar posting a year ago and I imagine what I’m going to say here will have the same impact.  I can hope otherwise but I am a realist.  Anyway, here goes…

I have been teaching a course on the relationship between food and where humans have ended up living for the past few years.  I have no trouble finding current topics that have to do generally with foods.  Recently Congress decided the nutritional health of school children was secondary to the health of the industries that produce the not so healthy food the children consume.  By the same logic considering the size of the tobacco industry I imagine the current Congress would resist any regulations on the tobacco industry because it might put tobacco farmers in financial jeopardy.  Lung cancer?  Emphysema?  Those are your problems.  And no, your health insurance won’t pay for sufficient care.

Today, there was a recall of tomatoes that might be contaminated with salmonella.  In either case, where is the FDA in protecting us?  Unfortunately, because of limitations placed on the agency by Congress, they are both gutless and toothless (I loved writing that sentence as it has two references to the inability to process foods by the agency that is supposed to protect the citizenry.  Did you notice?).

Along similar Congressional lines, there was an item in the news yesterday that the Senate decided female soldiers that are raped would not have their elective abortions covered by military health insurance.  Being involved in wars, obviously putting out soldiers at risk, is fine as long as there is clear risk to our industrial interests (going into Iraq) but protecting our soldiers from one another does not warrant similar attention.

Here’s my conclusion from these and the rest of the year’s events.  This Congress does a fine job of protecting corporations and moneyed interests.  And since corporations have been ruled to be people I guess they are worthy of the same protection as the rest of us.  But somewhere along the way the rest of us non-corporate people seem to have been left behind.  I know I don’t have the political clout of a big industry (i.e., I don’t have sufficient funds to buy appropriate attention/protection) but I thought the interests of the citizenry were supposed to be the main function of the government.

What has happened?  How have human people been left behind corporate people?  How does a Congress with single digit approval ratings continue to tell all of us their ideologies are vastly more important than the immediate welfare of human people?  I imagine I’ll be writing another posting next December with a new year’s set of governmental laments.  Be safe out there.

 

Belief, Evolution and Miss USA

There was an interesting item in the Huffington Post the other day regarding the contestants in the recent Miss USA pageant.  Apparently the winner was one of only two women that believed in the theory of evolution.  This bothers me on two levels, neither of which has to do with the pageant or objectifying women (although I do think Miss Tennessee was the more attractive of the two finalists).  My issue has to do with the two important terms in the one sentence and how they are so misused and misunderstood.

What does it mean to “believe” something?  The online dictionary defines it as “to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so.”  The key element to me has to do with “absolute proof” and the lack of it in belief.  One can believe in a deity for which there is no proof other than some ancient text or oral tradition handed down through millennia.   Humans of all cultures and all times have done so in some form and there is nothing inherently bad about this.  Again, the key for me is the fact that there is no proof and no way to disprove the belief.    I consider myself to be a somewhat observant Jew and I base my observance on a set of untested beliefs.  I allow this to be the case because I think it is important to suspend my logical, scientific life to embrace a set of ideas that inform me about my relationship with other people and Hashem.

The other important term is “theory.”  In science (of which evolution is part) a theory is “constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.”  An idea is elevated to the status of theory only after many years of vigorous testing by many scientists.  In science the term “theory” is NOT used in the colloquial sense of “guess.”  This is a critical yet overlooked point – I, as a scientist, use the word in one sense and you, as the uniformed listener, hear it with a different meaning.

So my observation about the Miss USA contestants is that they have been so poorly educated that they don’t know what a theory is or what a belief is.  I don’t blame them for this lack of knowledge but rather a national educational system that fails to understand that science is more than a set of facts to be memorized but rather that science is a process the conclusions of which have been assigned a probability of being correct.  I would be impressed by any one of the contestants who did not “believe” in evolution if they could cite some data that conflicts with the current theory to add some weight to their thoughts.  Citing the Bible is insufficient because that is based on unverifiable observations and hence the basis of belief.

Unfortunately, their public display of ignorance (NOT stupidity as I don’t think any of them are stupid but rather uninformed) mirrors the population at large.  And again, this is an indictment against the educational system and scientists who put themselves above trying to educate teachers.

 

Life at college from my side of the podium

There is an article in yesterday’s Boston Globe that has irritated me enough to get to write again.  In “The Adjunct Economy”  Nick Parker describes the state of teaching at many of colleges and universities across the country.  He does so accurately and I have no complaints about the content of his article.  That being said, I have plenty to say about what he says.  Where to start…

I am currently an adjunct teacher at a “local” state university.  I say “local” because it is 35 miles away but you take jobs where you can find them.  My official title is “visiting lecturer” so as not to confuse me with a permanent faculty member.  I identify myself as such to my students and point out that my office is in the basement, shared with all the other VL’s.  I am paid less per course than I was in 1985, without taking inflation into account, in which case I make a great deal less.  Yet I am paid well compared to the other teaching gigs I have had in the area.  I am not sure how this is possible but I would bet anyone (if I had any money to bet) that college administrators are making considerably more now than they did 25 years ago.

When I got my PhD my career goal was NOT to be a part-time teacher.  I expected to be a professor at some university and settle into a life of research and doing the teaching expected of me so I could continue to do my research.  It seemed like a fair trade-off and I was eager to start my adult life.   I would imagine that a PhD finishing today has the same aspirations.  The reality, then as now, is much less glamorous than anyone outside of academia would think.   In particular, the consumers, students and their parents, are pretty much clueless about what really happens on the faculty side of a university.  Many parents have a remote memory of their own university years heavily biased by their student biases which I assure you, have nothing to do with academic reality.  Today, the parent is concerned with the finance officers for the school and not much else.  The student is concerned with the amenities and not much else.  There are exceptions to my generalizations, but that’s why they’re generalizations.

The truth?  You can’t handle the truth.  Okay, you probably can, but it isn’t nice.  For the incoming students and parents:  I have never had a course in how to teach.  The same is true for the vast majority of my colleagues (at least in the sciences).  Teaching is NOT the thrust of graduate education.  I was trained to be a scientist not a teacher.  Teaching was supposed to be a necessary evil, not the thrust of my career. The anti-teaching ethic is strong at many universities.  I have colleagues that consider it an imposition and others that insist that their graduate students do absolutely as little as possible with their teaching assistantships (TA’s).  Neither attitude does much to promote good teaching.  I learned to teach by being bored countless times and excited a few.  I have tried to use both experiences to guide me to be a better educator.  Most of the time my students agree that I have learned my lessons well.

Administrators, another necessary evil, have promoted this attitude as well.  Tenure is often decided by the quality and quantity of research with only a passing nod to teaching.  As long as there were no student revolts, good enough.  How much was published and where?  What do administrators have to do with this?  Look at the structure of biology departments in my region of the country.  They are heavily, heavily, heavily loaded toward the cellular and molecular end of biology because that’s where the grant dollars are.  That has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of biology education being received.  If anything, it does a great disservice to students by giving them a warped view of the natural world while providing an accurate world of science through the eyes of grants.

I live a few blocks from a major research institution that has two biology faculty that study whole organisms and 22 that study bits and pieces.  The reason is clear: there is more grant money in bits and pieces and the decision about who to hire has almost nothing to do with providing a good education to their students and almost everything to do with grant funding.  Again, I am generalizing and there are many schools that seriously evaluate teaching.  I guess it is the job of the consumers to find those schools when applying for admission, assuming that quality education is a goal.  But it usually isn’t.  I’ll pick up with this soon.

 

Homeless Vets and the New Golden Rule

Some free association from events of the last couple of days.  I think there is a thread that ties it all together.

I was looking through the latest issue Time magazine yesterday and came across an item that indicated that the Republicans are proposing eliminating aid to homeless veterans.  To say that I was upset is an understatement.  Later on the TV news there was a story about homeless female vets many of whom are mothers.  Can even one homeless vet be justified?  It is horrible enough to have homeless people at all, but veterans?  Many from a war that was unjustified and poorly considered at best?

These brave men and women who sacrificed so much are now to be sacrificed on the altar of balancing the budget.  Republicans, particularly those of the so-called religious right, should be outraged and ashamed but there is little chance for that.  I would love to hear the twisted logic by which this cut is justified, in either financial or moral terms.  The new Golden Rule has everything to do with gold, and keeping your fists tightly wrapped around what is “yours” rather than looking after those less fortunate than yourself.  The sorry state of affairs is made all the worse by the fact so many of those out of work or homeless are in that situation because of the selfish behavior of a very few of the privileged minority.

An insight I had this morning: the American population responds to the Republican party the same way as an abused partner does to their abuser.  I have to punish you to teach you a lesson.  You deserve to be punished.  It is all your fault.  I promise I won’t do it again but if you persist in your behavior I’ll have to hit you again.  It is for your own good.  Think about it.  We re-elected our abusers in the 1980’s and 2000’s even though they were horrible for the working person.  It makes no sense.

A great joke I heard on the radio this morning:

A public union employee, a Tea Party activist and a corporate CEO are sitting at a table with a plate of a dozen cookies in the middle of it. The CEO takes 11 of the cookies, turns to the Tea Partier and says, “Watch out for that union guy, he wants a piece of your cookie.”

 

 

Thoughts After Our 40th High School Reunion



My 40^th high school class reunion was in October but I waited until now to describe my impressions and feelings.  I wanted to see what stuck with me as opposed to my immediate response.  I wrote about my 30^th reunion and those feelings still hold but I have some new remembrances as well.  In no particular order:

Although we are approaching our 60^th birthdays and many of us have grandchildren, I still consider my classmates as “guys” and “girls.” I knew you as teenagers and that’s the core person to which I connect.  I am well aware of the status of “woman” the females have attained but you are each a “girl” to me and I mean not the tiniest shred of disrespect.  I described many of the events of the reunion to my wife and had a hard time not speaking about the “girls.”  “Guys” seems relatively natural regardless of age and that’s the way I use the term “girls.”  We’ll be at our 60^th reunion and I’ll still refer to the females as “girls.”  Is it just me?

I was surprised to learn, 40 years later, that there were “mean” girls in our class.  I can guess with little certainty at who that might have been (are) but where was I?  Everyone seemed to get along back then.  There were cliques but I don’t remember them being spiteful or mean but rather natural accumulations of people based on similarities.  The negative feelings were apparently so strong among the girls that some considered not attending because they didn’t want confrontations or to be reminded of the old days.  I had no clue the feelings were so strong they created an emotional response after 4 decades.  Perhaps this is a lesson for our children.

I was surprised to learn of the insecurities of my friends in high school.  I spoke with one of my female friends and she told me how insecure she was.  She was (and is, I want to stress) attractive, athletic, smart, outgoing, nice…the picture of what I think a secure person would be.  And she told me about how insecure she was then.  How could this be?  I thought I was the only one thinking that I was an uncoordinated, not particularly attractive, goofball.  The one date I had with this friend was disastrous at best but in a funny way that even 40 years later still makes me grimace and laugh.  But I thought it was a statement about me then, but no, there were other things going on.

I remain deeply saddened by the passing of my friend Steve Berry.  I feel I let him down even though I knew how sick he was.  I didn’t try to make contact for over 8 years and then found out he had passed.   My friends tried to console me telling me that Steve could have reached out too.  Maybe.  But he was the one that was sick and I didn’t do anything to offer encouragement or a joke or talk about the old times.  I have resolved to be a better friend to everyone else but I don’t know how good a job I am doing.

I was pleased to see that after not seeing so many of my friends since the last reunion that we can pick up the conversation where we left it 10 years ago.  That is such a good feeling, confirming the bonds we forged so long ago.  Another lesson for our children?

I was proud to see the accomplishments of so many friends.  Not just the monetary achievements, but the way in which they have raised families, established themselves in their communities and have made a difference in so many lives.  I say it on a regular basis but I’ll say it again: I have been blessed with many wonderful friends.  I hope we can get together before another 10 years have passed.  Go ‘Hounds!!

 

 

Politics As I Sadly Know It

The camel’s back was finally broken today when I got my daily e-mail from the political party I support wherein was the announcement that their “job” was to stop the other party.  That was after the other party said that their “job” was to make the sure the President was not re-elected.  I don’t want to use names because it doesn’t matter.  Both parties are guilty and I am fed up.  I did not vote for anyone to do these “jobs.”

I elect people to represent me at all levels of government and look out for my interests.  I want them to consider laws and rules that will make my life more pleasant.  I want a certain level of service from the government while paying as little as I can for them in taxes.  I can’t imagine that anyone, of any political persuasion, could disagree about what they expect from a representative.  I don’t want anyone beaten, stopped, or held from re-election because it serves a cause.  The only cause I support is getting fairly represented.

I am tired of all politicians that want to do anything other than serve their constituents.  And that means doing the right thing regardless of what their party tells them.  Two examples from my side of the fence, and I am sure there are plenty more from the other side: holding benefits back for 9/11 first responders and taking the unemployed hostage so the rich wouldn’t be taxed their fair share.  How do these actions help me, a constituent that sees these issues as so non-partisan and fair?  Other than saying one party “won,” what did these actions provide to me, the citizen?  All it did is disgust me that anyone could be so callous, particularly someone elected to serve their constituents FIRST.

Polls have repeatedly shown that citizens are tired of the antics of Congress.  With good reason.  Rather than electing adults to see to our interests we end up electing children (or those with minds with the simplicity of children) who first look to their own interests, the interest of their party, and the interests of those that can afford the attention of the representatives.

Listen now and I am writing at the top of my lungs:  We elect representatives to represent US.  We elect representatives to serve US.  We expect that our interests will be served first.  The party and re-election and ousting the other party and showing you are more manly; these are not a concern to the vast majority of people.  If a representative does the right thing and cares for constituents first, they will be re-elected.  Why must this be a game?