A Scandalous Fraud on the U.S. Public
I never knew, early in my career as a physiologist, much about the pharmacophysiology of recreational drugs. Even the course in Medical School taken by both physiology and medical students was minus any study of these drugs. Funny, but no one seemed to wonder why, including myself. Besides, we knew all about these drugs and their dangers from endless newspaper articles and government warnings, statistics, politicians, and judges. When the Biology Faculty at where I taught asked Professors to offer courses in science as electives for non science majors the task was formidable. Non science majors are not eager to take science courses as electives. Someone pointed out to me that since my background in physiology was medical, and from a Physiology Department out of a Medical School, I would be the perfect choice to offer a course in Physiological Aspects of Drugs and Drug Abuse. Only then did it click that strangely, I was not trained in these drugs at all; in fact neither were medical doctors either since they and I took the same drug courses.
The first thing I found out was how precious little legitimate scientific research on these drugs existed. The reason, I came to find out, was that the U.S. government, which funds most medical research, simply did not fund research in this area. When Nixon launched his War on Drugs he commissioned a scientific study, but when the commission was finished he rejected the report because it pictured a far different War on Drugs than he, the politicians, or the public envisioned. Despite all this there has been over time sufficient scientific data gathered about these drugs, their physiological effects on the body, and the reasons people abuse these recreational drugs. The trick here, in this musing, is to condense some pertinent facts which will summarize the scandalous fraud that has been perpetuated on the American public for over 50 years. Only today are slight cracks appearing in this fraud.
It all started with the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 which outlawed marijuana and criminalized it's possession. The record of the 1937 House hearings makes clear that Congress never was given any medical evidence on the dangers of marijuana, nor did they ask for it. Most Congressmen didn't really know what marijuana was. For many, marijuana was bad because Mexicans used it and Mexicans were bad because they used marijuana. Alcohol Prohibition was ended in 1933 and Harry Anslinger----a Dick Cheney type slime ball---was trying desperately to protect and enlarge his Bureau of Narcotics. Under his direction a massive propaganda campaign was launched with endless horror stories about sex crazed marijuana users, killers maddened by marijuana, children being seduced into marijuana use which then hooked them on even worse drugs, and workers so spaced out on marijuana that they couldn't do their work, while frequent use led to insanity. Of course the newspapers ate it right up. It scared parents and sold papers. And it started America down a 50 year road of recreational drug abuse as a police/crimminal problem, not a health/persoanl problem.
Just like alcohol prohibition the criminalization of marijuana led to underground crime gangs, violence, a massive use of police resources, an ever increasing jail industry, and just like with prohibition of alcohol, the use of marijuana was, if anything, increased. With alcohol, the generation of criminal activity and the ineffectiveness of the prohibition resulted in the repeal of prohibition. With marijuana it took a much darker turn---police resources were more and more used to intercept drug trafficking at all levels---politicians used getting tough on marijuana to get elected. Each round of elections brought tougher and tougher sentencing laws until teenage kids were ending up with mandatory 10 year jail terms. Economically and socially this Police War on Drugs generated pervasive gang activity in the poorest areas of our cities and these neighborhood wars drove businesses out creating war scarred ghettoes across the country.
Today the violence involved by treating recreational drug use as a criminal matter has created a massive complex criminal network which is terrorizing much of Mexico, a country which supplies Americans with huge quantities of marijuana and this same lawless violence is now beginning to creep into American cities, cities already seeped in high levels of violence.
Here are some undisputed facts:
Marijuana use is one of the least toxic recreational drugs---far far less toxic than nicotine and far less toxic than alcohol. All recreational drugs are used to alter our mental state in ways we find desirable. Marijuana is mostly associated with giggly-ness and/or a mellowed-out state of mind. While all of us know many people who have severe medical problems and often die from the abuse of alcohol and nicotine, none of us know people with severe medical problems from, or die from, marijuana use.
Everybody knows the lion's share of drug cartel business is with marijuana. It is marijuana which makes the illicit drug trade so profitable. We know that 90% of the guns used by the drug gangs in Mexico and the U.S. come from American gun dealers. But of course guns don't kill people. Neither do missiles, land mines, etc. People kill people. It is some kind of poetic justice that a high percentage of people killed by guns, both the killers and the victims, are members of the 'guns are good' mind set.
This Police War on Drugs purports to reduce the use of recreational drug use. After 50 years, it has not reduced recreational drug abuse or drug availability, just increased criminal activity exponentially, swelled American jails to the point where a larger percentage of Americans are in jail than in any other country in the world, and has burdened the American tax payer with huge, really huge financial costs to continue this absurd War on Drugs.
Do I use marijuana? No. Why? It doesn't do that much for me and I am too cheap. Is there such a thing as responsible use of marijuana? Yes. Is there such a thing as responsible use of alcohol? Yes. Is there such a thing as responsible use of nicotine? No. Should any of these drugs be illegal? No. Why? It doesn't work, and creates massive underground criminal activity, and the violence which comes with it. Should there be a War on Drugs? Yes. There should be a Medical and educational War on Recreational Drug Abuse. Should people be jailed for recreational drug abuse? No.
Why do some people abuse recreational drugs? They are unhappy with their current mental state and want to escape, or to alter their mental/emotional feelings at work, at a party, etc. Is it bad to use drugs to alter your mental or emotional feelings? Depends. Depends on what? Look, a drug which makes a person feel good and has no toxic effects on the body can still be abused. Many of the goals in our life are established and sought after because we will feel more contented if we reach these goals. So why then struggle to reach these goals if pills will give you the same feelings of well being? Heroin, for example, is a drug used most often by those under stresses which they cannot escape---a bad environment, being in the front line in a war, extreme poverty, trapped by circumstances into hopelessness, etc. Heroin simply makes the emotional pain go away. It also makes physical pain feel differently. A doctor gives you morphine (a form of heroin) so that you will feel differently about the pain. The pain doesn't disappear, it just doesn't bother you like it did before. If your life situation is bad, the bad life situation doesn't go away under heroin, it just doesn't bother you like it did before. And therein lies the trap. If your situation no longer bothers you as before, you are less likely to strive to change the situation. Recreational Drug abuse can have a crippling effect on your motivation and determination to better your situation job wise, career wise, family wise.
Sadly, the whole issue of marijuana and even the whole issue of recreational drug abuse has fallen into the same non rational state as issues like abortion, homosexuality, gay marriage, use of contraceptives, gun control, etc. These are all emotional issues which people rarely change their minds about. It takes decades for changes to occur on such emotionally biased issues. They become emotional beliefs driven by popular or learned dogmas, fed by politicians, religious leaders, cultural enclaves, etc. If one knows the family, political, economic, religious, and cultural environment of someone you pretty much know where they stand on these kind of issues. In the case of Heroin/morphine, it took the medical field a good 50 years before they would accept giving a patient as much morphine as needed to alleviate how they felt about their pain. This is how long it took before doctors received any training about the physiologic effects of recreational drugs. How strange is that? 50 years for doctors to understand that when the pain (physical or mental) went away, the need for morphine/heroin went away too. When doctors are duped what hope is there for the general population?
I wonder if Obama will ever find the time to address the War on Drugs? He seems the best bet, of any President yet, to meet the issue head on with science driving the War instead of politicians and religious leaders. Treatment for recreational drug abuse should be available as part of universal health care for all citizens. It is avaiable now for the affluent who can afford treatment centers. Of course we all know affluent white collar people are a different breed---immune to being harshly treated for crimes dumb ass poorly educated environmentally challenged 'nothingburgers' are jailed for every day.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Something Does Matter (Sequel to 'Doesn't Matter')
Something Does Matter (Sequel to 'Doesn't Matter')
The many kind, supportive, and insightful responses to my last emotions-of-the-moment musing about the assisted death of my cat Cordial have given me more reflective thoughts about the broader issue of human death.
I would like my own death to be as peaceful, short, and painless as the death I accorded Cordial. Strangely, it is difficult to assure I can achieve that since the religious beliefs of some are able, by law, to insist all must obey the religious beliefs of some. If anything is personal in life, our own dying process is certainly one of them. Everyone should have the right to control their own dying process. That is separation of Church and State if anything in that concept has any validity. Each of us should be allowed to die according to our own religious beliefs and situational feelings. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you applies here as it always applies to moral issues. As I would not wish to tell anyone else how they should die, I would not wish others to control how I die. It is about as simple as that.
If I was advised that I had some kind of untreatable blood cancer and only had months to live it should be my decision alone which governs when the end comes and by what means. Not only is it no one else's damn business, but is the right of everyone, for varied reasons, to end their life according to their own dictates. If the State wants to get involved in any way it ought to require periodically updated legal 'living wills' to be signed in case the person is mentally incapacitated at some time in the future. We, as a nation, should put an end to all this family debate as to how and when 'grandma' dies as the end nears. They say something like 1/3 to 2/3 (I forget which) of health care costs are incurred the last three months of a person's life. Perhaps there should be universal health care except the last three months are billed back to the person or family of the person who dies. Of course this sounds outrageous because no one should be forced to die, before they are ready, for financial reasons. I suppose on the surface it is, but one needs to consider that modern medicine has the ability to keep the body functioning in some form or fashion far beyond any natural abilities of the body to live without the massive intervention. We have perfected the art of keeping some cells and organs functioning for longer and longer periods of time. The cost to do this is extravagant---essentially out of sight now.
10 million children die every year from preventable medical causes. The cost per child to prevent this is calculated to be $200. Is it really ethical to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars or even tens of thousands of dollars to keep a dying adult alive for months while having no money available to save the $10 million children? Even $50,000 dollars, a small cost these days to keep the dying alive for a few more months, could save 250 children from death due to preventable medical costs. Okay, you might say a person has a right to say they don't give a damn about the dying children, they want money spent on their parent, their friend, whoever---who lies dying before them. Interestingly, almost without fail, these people who feel that way are not talking about THEIR money. Most all of us, seeing that grandpa could need a lot of medical care, are busy squirreling away his money to safe areas which cannot be tapped for his medical care. After all, we can spend other people's money on grandpa's extended life and save our inheritance too. Not a bad deal. What I am suggesting is that this sort of disingenuous unethical bullshit be ended. A family does have the right to choose extending the life of 'grandpa' over dying children, but then the family should have to pay for the costs. If religious organizations want to support this same mentality, then let them pay for this costly extended life support. Put their money where their mouth is---on the side of selfishness over the common good.
If I choose to end my life as peacefully as Cordial's life was ended, when I have had enough, then that should be how it goes down. These religious 'characters' who feel God is not through with me yet, can take their beliefs and apply them only to themselves. If God wishes me to suffer and I defy His wishes, then I am quite sure God can meet out the appropriate punishment. Furthermore, if I choose to spend my financial portfolio to save the dying children, or other charitable causes, instead of spending it to prolong my own dying process, that should be my choice. I happen to believe that spending vast sums of money to prolong my own dying process instead of spending the money to save the young who have a whole life ahead of them, is clearly an unethical course of action.
It ought to be illegal to put down any human by withdrawing feeding tubes and let them starve to death. It ought to be illegal to remove people from ventilators and let them suffocate to death. This is nothing more than some kind of medieval religious emotional/physical torture. Hardly anyone chooses this for their pet and why the hell is it permissible for humans?
All this 'fucked up' logic about death doesn't come from Jesus or any other prophets, it comes from titled Priests, Ayotollahs, etc creating human dogmas, supposedly delivered from God directly to them. All these human concocted dogmas are a scourge on humanity, and given the problems of population control, environmental degradation, climate change, etc, we need to elevate our mentality beyond these inherited out dated religious dogmas and use the gift of reason, given humans through the God created process of evolution, to save varied forms of life on our planet. Everyone's religion should be the Golden Rule. All the rest is window dressing. Everyone everywhere understands the Golden Rule---the religion of ethics based on reason. Different religious sects can have all the rituals, glittering cathedrals, and peculiarities they choose as long as it is all based on the common universal Golden Rule.
Let us all live a good life and let us all die a good death. Cordial did both. Why can't we all strive for the same?
The many kind, supportive, and insightful responses to my last emotions-of-the-moment musing about the assisted death of my cat Cordial have given me more reflective thoughts about the broader issue of human death.
I would like my own death to be as peaceful, short, and painless as the death I accorded Cordial. Strangely, it is difficult to assure I can achieve that since the religious beliefs of some are able, by law, to insist all must obey the religious beliefs of some. If anything is personal in life, our own dying process is certainly one of them. Everyone should have the right to control their own dying process. That is separation of Church and State if anything in that concept has any validity. Each of us should be allowed to die according to our own religious beliefs and situational feelings. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you applies here as it always applies to moral issues. As I would not wish to tell anyone else how they should die, I would not wish others to control how I die. It is about as simple as that.
If I was advised that I had some kind of untreatable blood cancer and only had months to live it should be my decision alone which governs when the end comes and by what means. Not only is it no one else's damn business, but is the right of everyone, for varied reasons, to end their life according to their own dictates. If the State wants to get involved in any way it ought to require periodically updated legal 'living wills' to be signed in case the person is mentally incapacitated at some time in the future. We, as a nation, should put an end to all this family debate as to how and when 'grandma' dies as the end nears. They say something like 1/3 to 2/3 (I forget which) of health care costs are incurred the last three months of a person's life. Perhaps there should be universal health care except the last three months are billed back to the person or family of the person who dies. Of course this sounds outrageous because no one should be forced to die, before they are ready, for financial reasons. I suppose on the surface it is, but one needs to consider that modern medicine has the ability to keep the body functioning in some form or fashion far beyond any natural abilities of the body to live without the massive intervention. We have perfected the art of keeping some cells and organs functioning for longer and longer periods of time. The cost to do this is extravagant---essentially out of sight now.
10 million children die every year from preventable medical causes. The cost per child to prevent this is calculated to be $200. Is it really ethical to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars or even tens of thousands of dollars to keep a dying adult alive for months while having no money available to save the $10 million children? Even $50,000 dollars, a small cost these days to keep the dying alive for a few more months, could save 250 children from death due to preventable medical costs. Okay, you might say a person has a right to say they don't give a damn about the dying children, they want money spent on their parent, their friend, whoever---who lies dying before them. Interestingly, almost without fail, these people who feel that way are not talking about THEIR money. Most all of us, seeing that grandpa could need a lot of medical care, are busy squirreling away his money to safe areas which cannot be tapped for his medical care. After all, we can spend other people's money on grandpa's extended life and save our inheritance too. Not a bad deal. What I am suggesting is that this sort of disingenuous unethical bullshit be ended. A family does have the right to choose extending the life of 'grandpa' over dying children, but then the family should have to pay for the costs. If religious organizations want to support this same mentality, then let them pay for this costly extended life support. Put their money where their mouth is---on the side of selfishness over the common good.
If I choose to end my life as peacefully as Cordial's life was ended, when I have had enough, then that should be how it goes down. These religious 'characters' who feel God is not through with me yet, can take their beliefs and apply them only to themselves. If God wishes me to suffer and I defy His wishes, then I am quite sure God can meet out the appropriate punishment. Furthermore, if I choose to spend my financial portfolio to save the dying children, or other charitable causes, instead of spending it to prolong my own dying process, that should be my choice. I happen to believe that spending vast sums of money to prolong my own dying process instead of spending the money to save the young who have a whole life ahead of them, is clearly an unethical course of action.
It ought to be illegal to put down any human by withdrawing feeding tubes and let them starve to death. It ought to be illegal to remove people from ventilators and let them suffocate to death. This is nothing more than some kind of medieval religious emotional/physical torture. Hardly anyone chooses this for their pet and why the hell is it permissible for humans?
All this 'fucked up' logic about death doesn't come from Jesus or any other prophets, it comes from titled Priests, Ayotollahs, etc creating human dogmas, supposedly delivered from God directly to them. All these human concocted dogmas are a scourge on humanity, and given the problems of population control, environmental degradation, climate change, etc, we need to elevate our mentality beyond these inherited out dated religious dogmas and use the gift of reason, given humans through the God created process of evolution, to save varied forms of life on our planet. Everyone's religion should be the Golden Rule. All the rest is window dressing. Everyone everywhere understands the Golden Rule---the religion of ethics based on reason. Different religious sects can have all the rituals, glittering cathedrals, and peculiarities they choose as long as it is all based on the common universal Golden Rule.
Let us all live a good life and let us all die a good death. Cordial did both. Why can't we all strive for the same?
Friday, April 17, 2009
AN ANALYSIS OF LOYALTY
An Analysis of Loyalty
Loyalty is a treasured quality in others. Still, loyalty is often as troublesome as it is gratifying. Some loyalty seems purer than others---wrapped in a purity minus the toxicity. Pets have that kind of simple loyalty. 'Till death do us part' is far more likely to apply to pet and owner than to married spouses. That includes both the till-death part and the loyalty. They say around 50% of marriages don't last, yet the bond between pet and owner must be up around 90%. A spouse can tire of the other, a pet never does; a spouse can run hot and cold, a pet never does; to a spouse one has to often explain him/her self, to a pet one never does. And so it goes, this purity of loyalty from a pet.
Loyalty cannot be said to always be a good thing. Blind patriotic loyalty is unethical and self destructive. 'My country, right or wrong' is the basis for much conflict, much persecution, much infringement on human rights, etc. James Baldwin said it well: "I love America more than any other country in the world and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually." To oppose your country's course of action as a matter of conscience, or principle, is hardly an act of disloyalty---but to those of certain political bent it is so declared to be such. When a country invades another country for the wrong reasons and hundreds of thousands die or get displaced or injured, there is no ethical reason for 'supporting the troops' engaged in such a mission. To do so is morally absurd. This is like the mother whose son commits a terrible unjustified assault on another kid and she stands behind him as an act of 'loyalty'. The excuses vary and seem to be endless. The only support such troops need who are engaged in an immoral war is to get the troops the hell home. Any other kind of loyalty is misplaced. Loyalty should be restricted to the Golden Rule. Period. Then loyalty is really pure and unblemished and righteous.
Loyalty to inherited religious dogma is mindless tripe, little better from an intellectual standpoint than a parrot who mimics conversations heard. This kind of rote loyalty to brainwashed inherited dogmas has caused some of the worst bloodshed across history: the Protestants and Catholics in Ireland, the Sunni and Shiites in Iraq, Christians and Muslims across the world, and on and on it goes until people like myself find it all a bit nauseant. I watch all this mindless conflict and sometimes feel "Stop the World, I want to get off". To hell with that kind of obsessed loyalty. Misapplied loyalty can be a curse---a senseless expenditure of energy for oft bad causes and human misery.
Even in sports, like riots over a soccer game. I mean really, are we civilized or not? Are we moral or not? Are we sane or insane? What exactly are these people being loyal to? Loyalty, to have any merit must be directed to right vs wrong.
Even in parenting, blind loyalty often just cripples kids, makes them far too dependent, self centered, boorish in their feelings towards others. We all know kids who have never left the nest, whose stunted development leaves them but a shell of their potential. Loyalty that cripples is loyalty misplaced. To fully develop most kids need some freedom, need developed self confidence, need to realize they are on their own, not forever propped up by parents who use their kids for their own peculiar needs. "Family values", a nice sounding phrase, and is often perverted to justify unqualified loyalty to the needs of biological genetics than to any reasoned code of ethics. I can't think of any prophet in any religion who ever promulgated such such myopic ethics. In case some haven't noticed, most all religious origins came from prophets who preached some version of the Golden Rule. And we all know the Golden Rule is centered around others, their needs as much on equal footing as ours, to the extent we can push it.
When loyalty is not based on doing the right thing, called the Golden Rule, the word becomes a tool for evil. Loyalty to a family, to a country, to a religion, to friends, to a culture, loyalty to really anything instead of the Golden Rule is shameless, not noble. Long live loyalty if it is grounded in the Golden Rule.
I admit, as fits my age, to missing a world of real diversity. My parents gave me some National Geographic Magazines which date back to the early parts of the 20th Century. Even in my own youth, countries tended to be really independent 'worlds' with unique cultures, unique habits, unique food, and on it goes. Today, with communication and travel so different, we truly live in a global society. When you land here or there you can hardly recognize the difference---with only one exception: the poverty level. To those of us addicted to diversity this is sad, but also a fact of life. What, one begins to wonder, is there to be loyal to? Everyone everywhere is now engaged in almost an identical pursuit, using the same techniques, to grab control over the increasingly diminished natural resources available to population levels which have doubled in the last 40 years and are about to double again. What, given such times, is the point of loyalty? What are we to be loyal to? If it is to a country then that translates into, by force, keeping or gaining control over these limited natural resources. Personal wealth becomes the operative center of our loyalty, not the Golden Rule. But as even our own country becomes the biggest example of more and more wealth accumulating in the hands of fewer and fewer, the operative center of our loyalty shifts from country to 'family values'. Clearly more and more families are circling the wagon, the concept of community is shrinking whether it be neighborhood, church congregations, social circles, whatever---families are increasingly becoming wrapped up in their own cocoons with a loyalty so constricted as to render collective support to solve the major global problems an impossibility.
Family values has become an exercise in 'every man for himself'. Many justify this obsession with self by wrapping 'family values' in a cloak of religious 'purity'. The solution to problems becomes less any attempt at global or domestic cooperation and sacrifice but one of desperate faith that God will protect His flock through inherited religious dogmas. I guess as the needed natural resources become increasingly depleted God will distribute them to his special flock of true believers. But wow! Since when in history did this ever prove to be the case? Why then is it going to be different now? If this has any merit then the real religious in our country must be the 1% who own 90% of our national wealth. What religion do they worship, I need to join.
Even more astounding, the vast majority of Americans don't really want this massive accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few to be stopped. Any attempt to reign these accumulators in is met with some kind of brainwashed allegiance to the right of others to amass as much wealth as they can as long as their lobbyists can make the means to do so legal. I mean this is really kind of sick: "you can strangle me slowly as long as it is legal". This is idiocy elevated to new levels. We are more dedicated to protecting the wealthy than the poor, and amazingly the mentality here seems to be that 'most of us are part of the wealthy class, certainly not one of the oppressed. I don't think I even personally know anyone in the top 1%, let alone develop any loyalty toward their schemes to keep on accumulating. Ignorance of a new chilling sort is permeating our times. With no sand in which to bury our heads and see nothing, we can still put our heads up our ass and see nothing just as effectively. I know Obama is trying, but the question is whether it is too late to change entrenched ignorance?
Loyalty, to have any ethical radiance, must land on the side of the common good. For all practical purposes this refers to loyalty to family, to one's community, to one's country, and to the global community. For loyalty to be sans peur et sans reproche---truly praiseworthy----a country's welfare cannot top global welfare; a communities welfare cannot top the welfare of the country; the welfare of the family cannot top the welfare of the community; the welfare of the individual cannot top the welfare of others. This is the Golden Rule broken down into divisions. Of course nothing here dictates the necessity for self destruction at any level. What it does imply is that for loyalty to be properly placed and justice done, sacrifices will always be involved. There is no loyalty without sacrifice. If everything always has to be our way, and we accept our Rush Limbaugh right to grab as much of the pie as we can, loyalty is meaningless, selfish greed rules, and the Golden Rule is dead.
Today, in our own country, the common good has increasingly become a mockery. That 1% of the people own 90% of the wealth is blindly accepted as OK---I guess reflecting only a shame that the rest of us can't show such competitiveness and capitalistic talent. The Golden Rule here becomes some sort of socialistic plot, Christianity reduced to unlimited spoils for the few, loyalty self destructive to our society and in the long run, self destructive to all members of society---the rich and the poor. That this accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few is occurring faster in this country than any other industrialized country is of no concern. As long as laws exist to make all of this legal it is accepted as a good and admirable accomplishment. True, once in a while we fuss about a particular individual's salary or vaguely wish workers could earn more or have vaporous regrets that too many people suffer financially. A prayer at church, miniscule charitableness, and pleasant manners, on the rare occasion of any interaction with the hapless, will suffice.
Here are the facts from the Institute for Policy Studies: Taxpayers who averaged $1.3 million in income in 2006 saw a federal income tax rate of 22.8%. I mean, so what? Everyone is entitled to go out and earn $1.3 million and get the same tax rate. It is perfectly legal so what is the gripe? Why all this hostility to the rich? Besides, it is progress. In 1986 the same people (inflation adjusted) paid 33.1% for earning the same amount of money. Progress is a good thing it is claimed. In fact the 1 percent saw their share of the nation's income double, from 11.3 percent to 22.1 percent. They probably worked harder. Good for them. As a reward, their tax burden shrunk by about one third. You know, the Government is there to look out for the wealthy as well as everyone else. Bush told us that many times.
It is not that the Government has been concerned about, and protective of the rich, just since the Reagan deregulation and tax cut years, because since 1955 the wealthiest few saw their incomes multiply by about a factor of twenty over the past fifty years and pay an income tax rate three times lower. You see, tax cuts help people increase their own incomes. Some people just deserve more help than others. Tis a shame the rest of us are just so lazy. In 1955, when the rich were being picked on by the government, those who made more than $2 million (in 2006 dollars) were taxed at just over 49 percent; by 2006 their tax rate had fallen to just 23.2 %. Republicans now tell us our troubles have been caused, at least in part, because we still tax these people too much. They need a tax break, and if we don't give them one, the economy will not recover, the nonexistent trickle down will trickle less and at least not hurt since getting less from a nonexistent flow at worst does no harm. And if you can't help the many, there is no reason to not help the few.
Fact: restoring the 1955 tax rate to the wealthiest amongst us would pay for 25% of the Obama stimulus program. To pay for 50% of the Obama stimulus program the Government could also do the following:
1. Reverse Bush's tax cuts
2. impose a small tax on financial transactions like stock sales
3. eliminate the tax breaks on capital gains and dividends
4. institute a progressive real estate tax
5. end overseas tax havens
6. close loop holes on huge executive compensation packages.
Are these redistribution of wealth measures? Of course they are. Loyalty to our country, including the rich, demands government prevent too much wealth from accumulating in the hands of too few. It has nothing to do with socialism vs capitalism. If 1% now own 90% of the wealth in this country just where the hell is even more wealth for them going to come from? Or even a better question, just how are others suppose to increase their own economic situation?
Do we want to pay for the entire Obama stimulus package? Our generation should. But who are the only ones in our society with the ability to pay? The lobbyists for the rich and powerful made it possible for them to use altered laws and tax codes to acquire all this wealth. If we went back and taxed the wealthy with the kind of inheritance taxes they imposed back in the early 20th century to break up wealth monopolies by the Rockefellers, Vanderbuilts, etc. then the entire stimulus package could be paid off, and even at this no one earning great wealth would exactly find their lifestyles crimped much, and the idea that people should earn wealth instead of being able to inherit huge wealth would come back to being fashionable. An attack on inheriting vast amounts of wealth is not an attack on capitalism, it is just the opposite---it ensures capitalism is played on a level playing field. It shows loyalty to the legitimate purpose of capitalism---to earn your own way in life. The same people who fuss endlessly about welfare have often inherited much of their wealth. I suggest they look in the mirror.
Loyalty, properly placed is a good thing. A real good thing. Loyalty, misplaced, is a really bad thing.
Loyalty is a treasured quality in others. Still, loyalty is often as troublesome as it is gratifying. Some loyalty seems purer than others---wrapped in a purity minus the toxicity. Pets have that kind of simple loyalty. 'Till death do us part' is far more likely to apply to pet and owner than to married spouses. That includes both the till-death part and the loyalty. They say around 50% of marriages don't last, yet the bond between pet and owner must be up around 90%. A spouse can tire of the other, a pet never does; a spouse can run hot and cold, a pet never does; to a spouse one has to often explain him/her self, to a pet one never does. And so it goes, this purity of loyalty from a pet.
Loyalty cannot be said to always be a good thing. Blind patriotic loyalty is unethical and self destructive. 'My country, right or wrong' is the basis for much conflict, much persecution, much infringement on human rights, etc. James Baldwin said it well: "I love America more than any other country in the world and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually." To oppose your country's course of action as a matter of conscience, or principle, is hardly an act of disloyalty---but to those of certain political bent it is so declared to be such. When a country invades another country for the wrong reasons and hundreds of thousands die or get displaced or injured, there is no ethical reason for 'supporting the troops' engaged in such a mission. To do so is morally absurd. This is like the mother whose son commits a terrible unjustified assault on another kid and she stands behind him as an act of 'loyalty'. The excuses vary and seem to be endless. The only support such troops need who are engaged in an immoral war is to get the troops the hell home. Any other kind of loyalty is misplaced. Loyalty should be restricted to the Golden Rule. Period. Then loyalty is really pure and unblemished and righteous.
Loyalty to inherited religious dogma is mindless tripe, little better from an intellectual standpoint than a parrot who mimics conversations heard. This kind of rote loyalty to brainwashed inherited dogmas has caused some of the worst bloodshed across history: the Protestants and Catholics in Ireland, the Sunni and Shiites in Iraq, Christians and Muslims across the world, and on and on it goes until people like myself find it all a bit nauseant. I watch all this mindless conflict and sometimes feel "Stop the World, I want to get off". To hell with that kind of obsessed loyalty. Misapplied loyalty can be a curse---a senseless expenditure of energy for oft bad causes and human misery.
Even in sports, like riots over a soccer game. I mean really, are we civilized or not? Are we moral or not? Are we sane or insane? What exactly are these people being loyal to? Loyalty, to have any merit must be directed to right vs wrong.
Even in parenting, blind loyalty often just cripples kids, makes them far too dependent, self centered, boorish in their feelings towards others. We all know kids who have never left the nest, whose stunted development leaves them but a shell of their potential. Loyalty that cripples is loyalty misplaced. To fully develop most kids need some freedom, need developed self confidence, need to realize they are on their own, not forever propped up by parents who use their kids for their own peculiar needs. "Family values", a nice sounding phrase, and is often perverted to justify unqualified loyalty to the needs of biological genetics than to any reasoned code of ethics. I can't think of any prophet in any religion who ever promulgated such such myopic ethics. In case some haven't noticed, most all religious origins came from prophets who preached some version of the Golden Rule. And we all know the Golden Rule is centered around others, their needs as much on equal footing as ours, to the extent we can push it.
When loyalty is not based on doing the right thing, called the Golden Rule, the word becomes a tool for evil. Loyalty to a family, to a country, to a religion, to friends, to a culture, loyalty to really anything instead of the Golden Rule is shameless, not noble. Long live loyalty if it is grounded in the Golden Rule.
I admit, as fits my age, to missing a world of real diversity. My parents gave me some National Geographic Magazines which date back to the early parts of the 20th Century. Even in my own youth, countries tended to be really independent 'worlds' with unique cultures, unique habits, unique food, and on it goes. Today, with communication and travel so different, we truly live in a global society. When you land here or there you can hardly recognize the difference---with only one exception: the poverty level. To those of us addicted to diversity this is sad, but also a fact of life. What, one begins to wonder, is there to be loyal to? Everyone everywhere is now engaged in almost an identical pursuit, using the same techniques, to grab control over the increasingly diminished natural resources available to population levels which have doubled in the last 40 years and are about to double again. What, given such times, is the point of loyalty? What are we to be loyal to? If it is to a country then that translates into, by force, keeping or gaining control over these limited natural resources. Personal wealth becomes the operative center of our loyalty, not the Golden Rule. But as even our own country becomes the biggest example of more and more wealth accumulating in the hands of fewer and fewer, the operative center of our loyalty shifts from country to 'family values'. Clearly more and more families are circling the wagon, the concept of community is shrinking whether it be neighborhood, church congregations, social circles, whatever---families are increasingly becoming wrapped up in their own cocoons with a loyalty so constricted as to render collective support to solve the major global problems an impossibility.
Family values has become an exercise in 'every man for himself'. Many justify this obsession with self by wrapping 'family values' in a cloak of religious 'purity'. The solution to problems becomes less any attempt at global or domestic cooperation and sacrifice but one of desperate faith that God will protect His flock through inherited religious dogmas. I guess as the needed natural resources become increasingly depleted God will distribute them to his special flock of true believers. But wow! Since when in history did this ever prove to be the case? Why then is it going to be different now? If this has any merit then the real religious in our country must be the 1% who own 90% of our national wealth. What religion do they worship, I need to join.
Even more astounding, the vast majority of Americans don't really want this massive accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few to be stopped. Any attempt to reign these accumulators in is met with some kind of brainwashed allegiance to the right of others to amass as much wealth as they can as long as their lobbyists can make the means to do so legal. I mean this is really kind of sick: "you can strangle me slowly as long as it is legal". This is idiocy elevated to new levels. We are more dedicated to protecting the wealthy than the poor, and amazingly the mentality here seems to be that 'most of us are part of the wealthy class, certainly not one of the oppressed. I don't think I even personally know anyone in the top 1%, let alone develop any loyalty toward their schemes to keep on accumulating. Ignorance of a new chilling sort is permeating our times. With no sand in which to bury our heads and see nothing, we can still put our heads up our ass and see nothing just as effectively. I know Obama is trying, but the question is whether it is too late to change entrenched ignorance?
Loyalty, to have any ethical radiance, must land on the side of the common good. For all practical purposes this refers to loyalty to family, to one's community, to one's country, and to the global community. For loyalty to be sans peur et sans reproche---truly praiseworthy----a country's welfare cannot top global welfare; a communities welfare cannot top the welfare of the country; the welfare of the family cannot top the welfare of the community; the welfare of the individual cannot top the welfare of others. This is the Golden Rule broken down into divisions. Of course nothing here dictates the necessity for self destruction at any level. What it does imply is that for loyalty to be properly placed and justice done, sacrifices will always be involved. There is no loyalty without sacrifice. If everything always has to be our way, and we accept our Rush Limbaugh right to grab as much of the pie as we can, loyalty is meaningless, selfish greed rules, and the Golden Rule is dead.
Today, in our own country, the common good has increasingly become a mockery. That 1% of the people own 90% of the wealth is blindly accepted as OK---I guess reflecting only a shame that the rest of us can't show such competitiveness and capitalistic talent. The Golden Rule here becomes some sort of socialistic plot, Christianity reduced to unlimited spoils for the few, loyalty self destructive to our society and in the long run, self destructive to all members of society---the rich and the poor. That this accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few is occurring faster in this country than any other industrialized country is of no concern. As long as laws exist to make all of this legal it is accepted as a good and admirable accomplishment. True, once in a while we fuss about a particular individual's salary or vaguely wish workers could earn more or have vaporous regrets that too many people suffer financially. A prayer at church, miniscule charitableness, and pleasant manners, on the rare occasion of any interaction with the hapless, will suffice.
Here are the facts from the Institute for Policy Studies: Taxpayers who averaged $1.3 million in income in 2006 saw a federal income tax rate of 22.8%. I mean, so what? Everyone is entitled to go out and earn $1.3 million and get the same tax rate. It is perfectly legal so what is the gripe? Why all this hostility to the rich? Besides, it is progress. In 1986 the same people (inflation adjusted) paid 33.1% for earning the same amount of money. Progress is a good thing it is claimed. In fact the 1 percent saw their share of the nation's income double, from 11.3 percent to 22.1 percent. They probably worked harder. Good for them. As a reward, their tax burden shrunk by about one third. You know, the Government is there to look out for the wealthy as well as everyone else. Bush told us that many times.
It is not that the Government has been concerned about, and protective of the rich, just since the Reagan deregulation and tax cut years, because since 1955 the wealthiest few saw their incomes multiply by about a factor of twenty over the past fifty years and pay an income tax rate three times lower. You see, tax cuts help people increase their own incomes. Some people just deserve more help than others. Tis a shame the rest of us are just so lazy. In 1955, when the rich were being picked on by the government, those who made more than $2 million (in 2006 dollars) were taxed at just over 49 percent; by 2006 their tax rate had fallen to just 23.2 %. Republicans now tell us our troubles have been caused, at least in part, because we still tax these people too much. They need a tax break, and if we don't give them one, the economy will not recover, the nonexistent trickle down will trickle less and at least not hurt since getting less from a nonexistent flow at worst does no harm. And if you can't help the many, there is no reason to not help the few.
Fact: restoring the 1955 tax rate to the wealthiest amongst us would pay for 25% of the Obama stimulus program. To pay for 50% of the Obama stimulus program the Government could also do the following:
1. Reverse Bush's tax cuts
2. impose a small tax on financial transactions like stock sales
3. eliminate the tax breaks on capital gains and dividends
4. institute a progressive real estate tax
5. end overseas tax havens
6. close loop holes on huge executive compensation packages.
Are these redistribution of wealth measures? Of course they are. Loyalty to our country, including the rich, demands government prevent too much wealth from accumulating in the hands of too few. It has nothing to do with socialism vs capitalism. If 1% now own 90% of the wealth in this country just where the hell is even more wealth for them going to come from? Or even a better question, just how are others suppose to increase their own economic situation?
Do we want to pay for the entire Obama stimulus package? Our generation should. But who are the only ones in our society with the ability to pay? The lobbyists for the rich and powerful made it possible for them to use altered laws and tax codes to acquire all this wealth. If we went back and taxed the wealthy with the kind of inheritance taxes they imposed back in the early 20th century to break up wealth monopolies by the Rockefellers, Vanderbuilts, etc. then the entire stimulus package could be paid off, and even at this no one earning great wealth would exactly find their lifestyles crimped much, and the idea that people should earn wealth instead of being able to inherit huge wealth would come back to being fashionable. An attack on inheriting vast amounts of wealth is not an attack on capitalism, it is just the opposite---it ensures capitalism is played on a level playing field. It shows loyalty to the legitimate purpose of capitalism---to earn your own way in life. The same people who fuss endlessly about welfare have often inherited much of their wealth. I suggest they look in the mirror.
Loyalty, properly placed is a good thing. A real good thing. Loyalty, misplaced, is a really bad thing.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER ANYMORE
It Really Doesn't Matter Any More:
Yesterday I put down the second pet in a year. Like others I try to comprehend the meaning of it all. The pet, a cat named Cordial, doesn't really mean anything to anyone but me. And, after all, he is just an animal, not a human being. Maybe so, but then why do I tear up when I put a pet down and seldom tear up at human deaths?
Cordial was a kitten someone dropped off in the neighborhood where I used to live. He hung in my garage for months busy catching mice, birds, and climbing to the top of the tallest trees. He weaseled his way into the house with my two other cats, a most unwelcome addition in the eyes of one of my other cats, Irridessa. But Cordial could handle her and his behavior was exemplary, as if he understood the consequences.
I think it hurts so much when you put down a pet because they are dependent on you for their welfare. They expect you to protect them, to make things better if they are sick or hurt, to be there when they are happy or sad, hungry or cold. No matter what, they look to you for protection and in return they give you unabated affection. There probably is no other role in life where you are really the King of the Hill than in your relationship with a pet. With your pet you are never a jerk, ignorant, ugly, untalented, or a horse's ass of any ilk. Of course you are at times, but never to your pet. Other relationships blow hot and cold, are hard to keep on the same page, but the relationship with your pet is like etched in stone from the beginning.
Cordial was only sick for like three weeks at most, as it turned out from the beginning stages of plasma cell myloma. He began to lose interest in food and his energy level was a little less. Animals know when things are not right and they expect you to do something. Sometimes, early in the morning, he would meow an eerie kind of distress call and his eyes told me he needed me to do something. But something about what? He was still eating at that point. When I took him to the vet I sensed he tolerated it because he thought whatever I was doing was going to help him. But it didn't. For the first time in his life he came to me for help and I couldn't help him. Other times there was always a solution.
Cordial could have lived for several months. Anti inflammatory drugs could have enabled him to eat food. But a pet can't talk and cats are notorious for tolerating pain in a solitary nonreactive fashion. Unlike most humans, cats like to suffer in solitude and disconnect with others around them. You simply cannot assuage their suffering with your affection for them. They prefer to suffer alone. I am not one of those who believes God is busy controlling who dies when and how, not with humans and not with any of His creations via His created evolutionary process. I can't accept reducing God to that kind of mentality.
The night before I put Cordial down he slept under the bed and didn't want to come out the next morning. If he were an outdoor cat as soon as I let him out he would have probably gone off in the woods and never have come back. That is how they like to die, alone and hidden away in some desolate spot. That is just their nature. Taking a pet in to be put down is unbearable to me. I tear up because I am the one making the decision. And I am the one who understands the finality of it all. Cordial did not. A technician put a catheter in his leg and Cordial rested on a blanket and relaxed when he realized I was there. He fixed his gaze on me trusting once again that I would make things better for him. It is that trusting look which makes me tear up. This is, after all, our final communication, and he still had that look which says we are buddies forever. But forever is now at an end. The vet asks if I need more time. I can't even talk now and just shake my head no. The decision is made, the plunger in the syringe moves in and Cordial almost instantly just stares vacantly into nowhere and the bond which Cordial thought would be forever is gone.
No one outside myself could possibly give a damn whether Cordial is alive or dead. When a human dies I did not make the decision. I wish all humans could control their own dying process. In the near future I suspect they will gain this right. Suffering is not a dictate from God as I believe God to be. But that is another story. I cry not just because I made the decision, a decision I felt saved Cordial from months of senseless bad days, but because unlike most humans, his was a lonely death, a very private goodbye between him and his Protector.
I am thankful he had no concept of death. I am glad even at that moment he thought I was going to make things better for him. He never knew otherwise, never knew that, for once, I was about to let him down. I did save him from senseless suffering and in that knowledge I feel I did my duty, kept the bond of trust to the end and ensured he had a good life right up to the end. The total package was good, the end brief and necessary to keep the bond of trust intact.
We die a little with each death of friends, family, and pets. Evolution is a process of unending changes, some of the changes beyond our control. God created that process, it is a good process, and that process gave me, by chance, a chance to be a participant. And I too, like Cordial, after a generation or two, will be erased from the memory of the living. Cordial was lucky----he never knew life is short, that he would die someday. I am glad, in the end, he never knew it was the end. Knowing that there is an end is no blessing.
The vet was kind, took me out the back door, I got in the car, drove to the racetrack where I could be alone and yet be distracted from pointless grief. You would think with time, endings would be easier, but they never are. Fortunately, with time, you cannot re-create the original emotion and reason prevails and you accept the reality. I am saved by the reality of having done the right thing---if I couldn't save Cordial I could at least prevent his suffering. I think if he could understand and talk he would say, "Thanks buddy".
Yesterday I put down the second pet in a year. Like others I try to comprehend the meaning of it all. The pet, a cat named Cordial, doesn't really mean anything to anyone but me. And, after all, he is just an animal, not a human being. Maybe so, but then why do I tear up when I put a pet down and seldom tear up at human deaths?
Cordial was a kitten someone dropped off in the neighborhood where I used to live. He hung in my garage for months busy catching mice, birds, and climbing to the top of the tallest trees. He weaseled his way into the house with my two other cats, a most unwelcome addition in the eyes of one of my other cats, Irridessa. But Cordial could handle her and his behavior was exemplary, as if he understood the consequences.
I think it hurts so much when you put down a pet because they are dependent on you for their welfare. They expect you to protect them, to make things better if they are sick or hurt, to be there when they are happy or sad, hungry or cold. No matter what, they look to you for protection and in return they give you unabated affection. There probably is no other role in life where you are really the King of the Hill than in your relationship with a pet. With your pet you are never a jerk, ignorant, ugly, untalented, or a horse's ass of any ilk. Of course you are at times, but never to your pet. Other relationships blow hot and cold, are hard to keep on the same page, but the relationship with your pet is like etched in stone from the beginning.
Cordial was only sick for like three weeks at most, as it turned out from the beginning stages of plasma cell myloma. He began to lose interest in food and his energy level was a little less. Animals know when things are not right and they expect you to do something. Sometimes, early in the morning, he would meow an eerie kind of distress call and his eyes told me he needed me to do something. But something about what? He was still eating at that point. When I took him to the vet I sensed he tolerated it because he thought whatever I was doing was going to help him. But it didn't. For the first time in his life he came to me for help and I couldn't help him. Other times there was always a solution.
Cordial could have lived for several months. Anti inflammatory drugs could have enabled him to eat food. But a pet can't talk and cats are notorious for tolerating pain in a solitary nonreactive fashion. Unlike most humans, cats like to suffer in solitude and disconnect with others around them. You simply cannot assuage their suffering with your affection for them. They prefer to suffer alone. I am not one of those who believes God is busy controlling who dies when and how, not with humans and not with any of His creations via His created evolutionary process. I can't accept reducing God to that kind of mentality.
The night before I put Cordial down he slept under the bed and didn't want to come out the next morning. If he were an outdoor cat as soon as I let him out he would have probably gone off in the woods and never have come back. That is how they like to die, alone and hidden away in some desolate spot. That is just their nature. Taking a pet in to be put down is unbearable to me. I tear up because I am the one making the decision. And I am the one who understands the finality of it all. Cordial did not. A technician put a catheter in his leg and Cordial rested on a blanket and relaxed when he realized I was there. He fixed his gaze on me trusting once again that I would make things better for him. It is that trusting look which makes me tear up. This is, after all, our final communication, and he still had that look which says we are buddies forever. But forever is now at an end. The vet asks if I need more time. I can't even talk now and just shake my head no. The decision is made, the plunger in the syringe moves in and Cordial almost instantly just stares vacantly into nowhere and the bond which Cordial thought would be forever is gone.
No one outside myself could possibly give a damn whether Cordial is alive or dead. When a human dies I did not make the decision. I wish all humans could control their own dying process. In the near future I suspect they will gain this right. Suffering is not a dictate from God as I believe God to be. But that is another story. I cry not just because I made the decision, a decision I felt saved Cordial from months of senseless bad days, but because unlike most humans, his was a lonely death, a very private goodbye between him and his Protector.
I am thankful he had no concept of death. I am glad even at that moment he thought I was going to make things better for him. He never knew otherwise, never knew that, for once, I was about to let him down. I did save him from senseless suffering and in that knowledge I feel I did my duty, kept the bond of trust to the end and ensured he had a good life right up to the end. The total package was good, the end brief and necessary to keep the bond of trust intact.
We die a little with each death of friends, family, and pets. Evolution is a process of unending changes, some of the changes beyond our control. God created that process, it is a good process, and that process gave me, by chance, a chance to be a participant. And I too, like Cordial, after a generation or two, will be erased from the memory of the living. Cordial was lucky----he never knew life is short, that he would die someday. I am glad, in the end, he never knew it was the end. Knowing that there is an end is no blessing.
The vet was kind, took me out the back door, I got in the car, drove to the racetrack where I could be alone and yet be distracted from pointless grief. You would think with time, endings would be easier, but they never are. Fortunately, with time, you cannot re-create the original emotion and reason prevails and you accept the reality. I am saved by the reality of having done the right thing---if I couldn't save Cordial I could at least prevent his suffering. I think if he could understand and talk he would say, "Thanks buddy".
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
THINGS I FIND IRKSOME
Things I Find irksome:
1. Envelopes with those little windows on the front for an address to show through.
2. Phone solicitors. I suggest you tell them if you want to hear any shit out of them you will squeeze their head.
3. Statements, you know, which end in "you know". If I do know, why are you telling me?
4. TV political ads. Sleaze perfected.
5. Merchandise coupons. I either lose them or can't find them.
6. Mail in rebates. If you calculate the time of your labor to collect, what did you get?
7. Canned sales pitches while on hold. It seems maybe the only reason you might be on hold is to listen to these sales pitches. And if you really do need to wait you get the every ten seconds "your call is very important to us". It is? Then why am I waiting so long?
8. Parents who can't control their kids in public. My favorite was the gal in the Bronx Botanical Gardens who told her two kids: "Momma said no 3 times, and this is the fourth time I am telling you no." Now that is tough love.
9. Little yappy dogs that force you into a nervous tap dance as they circle your ankles while annoying your eardrums.
10. Politicians expressing moral outrage. (there are a few exceptions including Abe, Barry, and Barack)
11. Professional player salaries.
12. Private ownership of sport teams, corporations which are totally unregulated. Cities should own the teams that play there. That would stop the blackmail and provide some needed revenue.
13. Large people on airplanes. (There should be a separate seating section to comfortably accommodate these people)
14. Stereotyped hatred of diverse groups
15. The death of a pet. Even the dumbest amongst us realizes that something of real value in life is gone, like unrestricted affection.
16. Fourth of July and the endless bang, bang, bang......Other than an excuse to go somewhere with others, after X number of years the scene wears thin.
17. Bratty spoiled kids on airplanes.
18. That these bratty kids are almost always American.
19. Ice storms
20. Balancing my check book
21. Negotiating the price of a new car.
22. Looking for anything I can't find
23. People who drop by unexpectedly. Maybe I shouldn't say unexpectedly because invariably it will happen when I least want company.
24. People who call and say "Guess what?" Huh?
25. Observing those with little going for them get blindsided by tragedies.
26. The stupid trying to act smart
27. The smart pulling fast ones
28. Politicians trying to act sincere
29. Meanspirited pompous assholes parading their obnoxiousness in public.
30. Traffic jams
31. Slow drivers in the left lane.
32. cell phone use while driving
33. bars, dances, and parties where I am age dependent irrelevant
34. Chronic long winded complainers
35. Pompous know-it-alls. They are especially annoying to those of us who do know it all.
36. Realizing that there can only be ONE most beautiful baby and every mother believes she has it.
37. Realizing that there can only be ONE most charming, smartest, most lovable pet and every pet owner believes they have it.
38. Chit chatting with people you are not likely to see again. "You're an accountant at the bank, how fascinating, you must tell me more about it. "
39. Any pet not on it's own property, especially if it is my property or home. Some gal used to visit my mother with this dog and my mother spent the entire visit checking up to see what the dog might be into.
40. My forgetting to get the check when the meal is brought to the table and then having to search for the waitress later.
41. The trouble involved with using he/she to gender neutralize when "Hey YOu" did that for years.
42. Snowblowers, snow shovels, and snow anyplace where it needs shoveling.
43. Used cars, used condoms, used handkerchiefs.
44. Pet vomit---ok, vomit period and mother's overcooked hamburgers
45. Groceries bagged in paper bags. I want to be able to carry in 6 bags at once.
46. Cops driving behind me
47. Speed traps.
48. A cop car on the expressway going exactly the speed limit and no one, including myself, willing to pass him.
49. Perfumed pages in a magazine
50. Those damn little index sized cards spaced throughout a magazine which I have to rip out before I read the magazine.
51. Snakes and skunks
52. Pit Bulls. I am always delighted when one of them eats their owner, or at least tries to.
53. Animal fights of any kind.
54. Noisy restaurants. Occasionally I want the person opposite me to hear what I am saying.
55. Clarinets. My parents made me take lessons to play one.
56. Sound polluters who talk loudly on their cell phones in store aisles, in lines at airports, in museums, etc. Like smokers we need to isolate them to designated areas or cut their larynxes down to the proper sound control volume.
57. Commuter trains should have cell phone talking and non cell phone talking cars.
58. Really hot spicy food. I prefer to taste my food and can always munch on heated charcoals for that burning sensation.
59. Political and charitable organizations who send you asinine questionnaires to fill out like "Do you favor reduced taxes?" Or "should we protect the environment". I resent being talked down to like a child.
60. Political organizations that send you propaganda in large, really large envelopes. Why does the post office permit this. And of course inside will be one of these asinine questionnaires.
61. Early morning trip departures. Necessary but discombobulating.
62. Being outsmarted by one of my cats.
63. Being outsmarted by anything else
64. Getting in the shortest line at the grocery store only to find out the person in front of me needs price checks, remembers two more items they run to grab, has 352 coupons, and pays by check. At these times I am all for a law which allows you to carry a concealed weapon.
65. Trying to find a cat when it is time to go to the vet. How the hell do they know?
66. A sick cat getting a veterinary appointment the same day and when I am sick being told the nearest appointment is 3 weeks away. This causes me to multiply the symptoms until if it all were true I would have been dead an hour ago.
67. Waiting forever in a doctor's office to see the doctor, although once the doctor is in front of me I don't expect him to be in any rush, the rest can wait.
68. Middle aged affluent clowns who clog up intersections wandering around with a cup for questionable local charities. If the poorest soul in town gets out there with a cup he/she would get immediately arrested. I think it should be like bowling, if you skid into the intersection and knock all of them down you get a strike and a trophy. I was once in a car with my mother and told her "Mother, I'll run this pest over and then you get out and stomp on him. " She fussed: "That's not funny, when are you going to grow up?"
69. Arriving in the express check out line behind Mr. or Mrs. Important who has at least half a cart full of groceries.
70. Being in the regular line with a full cart and having the express check out gal motion that she will take you in her line since no one is in it. You no longer start unloading your full cart when a dozen people with an item or two show up and stand behind you glaring at you. As Jackie Gleason would say with an idiot's look: "Ubba, ubba, ubba
71. People who tailgate.
72. Call waiting. You call someone, end up on hold while they decide which person to talk to. My idea of call waiting would be a message which comes on BEFORE your phone rings and asks, "are you sure I want to listen to what you have to say?"
73. Scotch
74. Solicitors at my front door. It should be legal to drive them away with a cattle probe or a stun gun so you can watch them writhe down the driveway like a wounded snake.
75. People who throw trash out car windows. It should be legal to make a citizens arrest and throw them out the window as legal trash to be heaved out a car window.
76. Half wits who take up two parking spaces.
77. People who inherit money and then are furious about welfare recipients.
78. People who character assassinate those with whom they have little first hand experience. Am not referring here to political attacks relating to political positions.
79. People who get all lathered up about other people's sexual preferences or fetishes---I mean why do they care, are they forced to participate?
80. People who are smarter, better looking, and more talented than me at something.
81. That both my parents died before I could write a book blaming all my deficiencies in #80 above on them.
82. "May I give you a little advice?" Damn, you can feel your blood pressure rise almost immediately and generate a bad mood.
83. Seeing some hapless soul living a life of quiet desperation at a social gathering being ignored, unless it is I doing the ignoring.
84. People who never smile---I wonder if they did smile if their face would fracture.
85. People who yawn when I am making a lot of really good points---even if they are really just trying to say something not yawning.
86. People in the check out line who have paid for their goods but continue to chat with the cashier about their kids, their spouse, their pets, etc. Move the fuck along.
87. Giving gifts to those who, like myself, need no gifts. That is one of the reasons we have so much unused crap lying around. I wonder what percentage of gifts get eternally circulated?
88. Wine connoisseurs. I once dumped a cheap wine into an expensive wine bottle and watched the connoisseur describe the qualities which made it a good wine---something about subtlety, delicacy, a bit of something---whatever. If it tastes good and is not expensive I buy it. If it tastes good and is expensive I don't.
89. People who raise hell about something, then when told "Ok, we'll do it your way", protest it is not necessary, that they are 'happy to do it the other way once in a while". When I do this it is then an act of cooperativeness.
90. Getting real agitated about some slow poke in front of me in a car until I realize while passing them (often illegally) that it is some old person as old or older than me. Old people should have special plates so we can be more tolerant of them. Except me. I just want a plate that says GO HOME--Get!
91. Sales persons in a store who hover over your shoulder.
92. Not seeing a salesperson as far as you can see in a store 2 blocks long.
93. Beef overcooked, potatoes undercooked.
94. Other people who should be out in nature, but not where I am out in nature.
95. Other people in a grocery store who can't get by because my cart is blocking the aisle. There are plenty of other aisles they could go down.
96. People who need advice via cell phone as to what brand of peas to buy
97. People who stand behind you and say "Hello". When you turn around you find they are making a cell phone call.
98. The use of slave labor at home or abroad to produce cheap goods for us to buy. If that is not wrong, nothing is wrong. Without global minimum wages, a global economy is global slavery.
99. TV commercials in which I have no idea what they are trying to sell.
100. TV commercials in which I know exactly what they are trying to sell.
101. Spam in my e-mailbox or on my dinner plate.
102. A recent survey which showed that 44% of teen boys have seen at least one nude photo of a female classmate online or via cell phone. I don't know, maybe I just want to be a teen again. Wow, have times changed. "My son thinks your daughter looks real good naked".
103. People who think their own religious beliefs should be the law of the land. How obnoxious is that?
104. That a million species are predicted to become extinct by mid-century
105. That no politicians even talk about human overpopulation or responsible reproduction. Insanity gone wild.
106. That 26% of new jobs created in this country a few years ago went to non- citizens. Slavery is alive and well in this country, just in a different form.
107. That the biggest industry in our country is the military. Our military expenses are greater than the military expenses of the the next five biggest military countries combined. And after all that we lost in Vietnam, have been fighting in Iraq for over 7 years, and seem to be losing in Afghanistan. Crazy.
108. Oversized all terrain vehicles or large SUV's. It must be some kind of King of the Road mentality. They just block your view, threaten your well-being, are gas guzzling. Finally they are falling out of favor and all the phony reasons for having one evaporate and they do quite well with smaller.
I think I will stop here. Now I wonder, when the hell am I not irksome? Where can I get an Uzi?
1. Envelopes with those little windows on the front for an address to show through.
2. Phone solicitors. I suggest you tell them if you want to hear any shit out of them you will squeeze their head.
3. Statements, you know, which end in "you know". If I do know, why are you telling me?
4. TV political ads. Sleaze perfected.
5. Merchandise coupons. I either lose them or can't find them.
6. Mail in rebates. If you calculate the time of your labor to collect, what did you get?
7. Canned sales pitches while on hold. It seems maybe the only reason you might be on hold is to listen to these sales pitches. And if you really do need to wait you get the every ten seconds "your call is very important to us". It is? Then why am I waiting so long?
8. Parents who can't control their kids in public. My favorite was the gal in the Bronx Botanical Gardens who told her two kids: "Momma said no 3 times, and this is the fourth time I am telling you no." Now that is tough love.
9. Little yappy dogs that force you into a nervous tap dance as they circle your ankles while annoying your eardrums.
10. Politicians expressing moral outrage. (there are a few exceptions including Abe, Barry, and Barack)
11. Professional player salaries.
12. Private ownership of sport teams, corporations which are totally unregulated. Cities should own the teams that play there. That would stop the blackmail and provide some needed revenue.
13. Large people on airplanes. (There should be a separate seating section to comfortably accommodate these people)
14. Stereotyped hatred of diverse groups
15. The death of a pet. Even the dumbest amongst us realizes that something of real value in life is gone, like unrestricted affection.
16. Fourth of July and the endless bang, bang, bang......Other than an excuse to go somewhere with others, after X number of years the scene wears thin.
17. Bratty spoiled kids on airplanes.
18. That these bratty kids are almost always American.
19. Ice storms
20. Balancing my check book
21. Negotiating the price of a new car.
22. Looking for anything I can't find
23. People who drop by unexpectedly. Maybe I shouldn't say unexpectedly because invariably it will happen when I least want company.
24. People who call and say "Guess what?" Huh?
25. Observing those with little going for them get blindsided by tragedies.
26. The stupid trying to act smart
27. The smart pulling fast ones
28. Politicians trying to act sincere
29. Meanspirited pompous assholes parading their obnoxiousness in public.
30. Traffic jams
31. Slow drivers in the left lane.
32. cell phone use while driving
33. bars, dances, and parties where I am age dependent irrelevant
34. Chronic long winded complainers
35. Pompous know-it-alls. They are especially annoying to those of us who do know it all.
36. Realizing that there can only be ONE most beautiful baby and every mother believes she has it.
37. Realizing that there can only be ONE most charming, smartest, most lovable pet and every pet owner believes they have it.
38. Chit chatting with people you are not likely to see again. "You're an accountant at the bank, how fascinating, you must tell me more about it. "
39. Any pet not on it's own property, especially if it is my property or home. Some gal used to visit my mother with this dog and my mother spent the entire visit checking up to see what the dog might be into.
40. My forgetting to get the check when the meal is brought to the table and then having to search for the waitress later.
41. The trouble involved with using he/she to gender neutralize when "Hey YOu" did that for years.
42. Snowblowers, snow shovels, and snow anyplace where it needs shoveling.
43. Used cars, used condoms, used handkerchiefs.
44. Pet vomit---ok, vomit period and mother's overcooked hamburgers
45. Groceries bagged in paper bags. I want to be able to carry in 6 bags at once.
46. Cops driving behind me
47. Speed traps.
48. A cop car on the expressway going exactly the speed limit and no one, including myself, willing to pass him.
49. Perfumed pages in a magazine
50. Those damn little index sized cards spaced throughout a magazine which I have to rip out before I read the magazine.
51. Snakes and skunks
52. Pit Bulls. I am always delighted when one of them eats their owner, or at least tries to.
53. Animal fights of any kind.
54. Noisy restaurants. Occasionally I want the person opposite me to hear what I am saying.
55. Clarinets. My parents made me take lessons to play one.
56. Sound polluters who talk loudly on their cell phones in store aisles, in lines at airports, in museums, etc. Like smokers we need to isolate them to designated areas or cut their larynxes down to the proper sound control volume.
57. Commuter trains should have cell phone talking and non cell phone talking cars.
58. Really hot spicy food. I prefer to taste my food and can always munch on heated charcoals for that burning sensation.
59. Political and charitable organizations who send you asinine questionnaires to fill out like "Do you favor reduced taxes?" Or "should we protect the environment". I resent being talked down to like a child.
60. Political organizations that send you propaganda in large, really large envelopes. Why does the post office permit this. And of course inside will be one of these asinine questionnaires.
61. Early morning trip departures. Necessary but discombobulating.
62. Being outsmarted by one of my cats.
63. Being outsmarted by anything else
64. Getting in the shortest line at the grocery store only to find out the person in front of me needs price checks, remembers two more items they run to grab, has 352 coupons, and pays by check. At these times I am all for a law which allows you to carry a concealed weapon.
65. Trying to find a cat when it is time to go to the vet. How the hell do they know?
66. A sick cat getting a veterinary appointment the same day and when I am sick being told the nearest appointment is 3 weeks away. This causes me to multiply the symptoms until if it all were true I would have been dead an hour ago.
67. Waiting forever in a doctor's office to see the doctor, although once the doctor is in front of me I don't expect him to be in any rush, the rest can wait.
68. Middle aged affluent clowns who clog up intersections wandering around with a cup for questionable local charities. If the poorest soul in town gets out there with a cup he/she would get immediately arrested. I think it should be like bowling, if you skid into the intersection and knock all of them down you get a strike and a trophy. I was once in a car with my mother and told her "Mother, I'll run this pest over and then you get out and stomp on him. " She fussed: "That's not funny, when are you going to grow up?"
69. Arriving in the express check out line behind Mr. or Mrs. Important who has at least half a cart full of groceries.
70. Being in the regular line with a full cart and having the express check out gal motion that she will take you in her line since no one is in it. You no longer start unloading your full cart when a dozen people with an item or two show up and stand behind you glaring at you. As Jackie Gleason would say with an idiot's look: "Ubba, ubba, ubba
71. People who tailgate.
72. Call waiting. You call someone, end up on hold while they decide which person to talk to. My idea of call waiting would be a message which comes on BEFORE your phone rings and asks, "are you sure I want to listen to what you have to say?"
73. Scotch
74. Solicitors at my front door. It should be legal to drive them away with a cattle probe or a stun gun so you can watch them writhe down the driveway like a wounded snake.
75. People who throw trash out car windows. It should be legal to make a citizens arrest and throw them out the window as legal trash to be heaved out a car window.
76. Half wits who take up two parking spaces.
77. People who inherit money and then are furious about welfare recipients.
78. People who character assassinate those with whom they have little first hand experience. Am not referring here to political attacks relating to political positions.
79. People who get all lathered up about other people's sexual preferences or fetishes---I mean why do they care, are they forced to participate?
80. People who are smarter, better looking, and more talented than me at something.
81. That both my parents died before I could write a book blaming all my deficiencies in #80 above on them.
82. "May I give you a little advice?" Damn, you can feel your blood pressure rise almost immediately and generate a bad mood.
83. Seeing some hapless soul living a life of quiet desperation at a social gathering being ignored, unless it is I doing the ignoring.
84. People who never smile---I wonder if they did smile if their face would fracture.
85. People who yawn when I am making a lot of really good points---even if they are really just trying to say something not yawning.
86. People in the check out line who have paid for their goods but continue to chat with the cashier about their kids, their spouse, their pets, etc. Move the fuck along.
87. Giving gifts to those who, like myself, need no gifts. That is one of the reasons we have so much unused crap lying around. I wonder what percentage of gifts get eternally circulated?
88. Wine connoisseurs. I once dumped a cheap wine into an expensive wine bottle and watched the connoisseur describe the qualities which made it a good wine---something about subtlety, delicacy, a bit of something---whatever. If it tastes good and is not expensive I buy it. If it tastes good and is expensive I don't.
89. People who raise hell about something, then when told "Ok, we'll do it your way", protest it is not necessary, that they are 'happy to do it the other way once in a while". When I do this it is then an act of cooperativeness.
90. Getting real agitated about some slow poke in front of me in a car until I realize while passing them (often illegally) that it is some old person as old or older than me. Old people should have special plates so we can be more tolerant of them. Except me. I just want a plate that says GO HOME--Get!
91. Sales persons in a store who hover over your shoulder.
92. Not seeing a salesperson as far as you can see in a store 2 blocks long.
93. Beef overcooked, potatoes undercooked.
94. Other people who should be out in nature, but not where I am out in nature.
95. Other people in a grocery store who can't get by because my cart is blocking the aisle. There are plenty of other aisles they could go down.
96. People who need advice via cell phone as to what brand of peas to buy
97. People who stand behind you and say "Hello". When you turn around you find they are making a cell phone call.
98. The use of slave labor at home or abroad to produce cheap goods for us to buy. If that is not wrong, nothing is wrong. Without global minimum wages, a global economy is global slavery.
99. TV commercials in which I have no idea what they are trying to sell.
100. TV commercials in which I know exactly what they are trying to sell.
101. Spam in my e-mailbox or on my dinner plate.
102. A recent survey which showed that 44% of teen boys have seen at least one nude photo of a female classmate online or via cell phone. I don't know, maybe I just want to be a teen again. Wow, have times changed. "My son thinks your daughter looks real good naked".
103. People who think their own religious beliefs should be the law of the land. How obnoxious is that?
104. That a million species are predicted to become extinct by mid-century
105. That no politicians even talk about human overpopulation or responsible reproduction. Insanity gone wild.
106. That 26% of new jobs created in this country a few years ago went to non- citizens. Slavery is alive and well in this country, just in a different form.
107. That the biggest industry in our country is the military. Our military expenses are greater than the military expenses of the the next five biggest military countries combined. And after all that we lost in Vietnam, have been fighting in Iraq for over 7 years, and seem to be losing in Afghanistan. Crazy.
108. Oversized all terrain vehicles or large SUV's. It must be some kind of King of the Road mentality. They just block your view, threaten your well-being, are gas guzzling. Finally they are falling out of favor and all the phony reasons for having one evaporate and they do quite well with smaller.
I think I will stop here. Now I wonder, when the hell am I not irksome? Where can I get an Uzi?
Monday, April 6, 2009
THE SANCTITY OF LIFE
The Sanctity of Life:
The term pro-life has been used as a club for those who insist abortion is murder. This musing is not about abortion, but about life as humans are equipped to comprehend it. Life, as part of evolution, has been around a long time---a real long time----millions of years. In the broadest sense the evolution of life involves a heavy dose of diversity and ever increasing complexity. This God created evolutionary process (my belief), and some would insist to take out the word God, is the sustaining process for life in all its forms. Each of us is such a tiny blip in the process as to render us nothingburgers for the most part. Of course massed together as a species, and with other species, the collective mass of life is about as stunningly impressive as each individual form of life is stunningly dwarfed in comparison. It is hard to be out in nature or on major expressways and feel important at all. Sometimes I look around overwhelmed and just think, "Damn, each of these unimaginable number of people imagine themselves important." Of course if anyone takes the time to wander through a large cemetery one catches a glimpse of endless graves, each one representing the existence of many once 'important' persons, totally lost from the memory of the now living. I have always found it difficult to get too interested in my ancestral tree: John Doe, carpenter, born: blah, blah, died: blah, blah----I want to relate to my ancestors but you really can't relate to a name, a city, an occupation. Try to describe a friend to another by telling them what year they were born and where they lived and how many kids they have. You could give them any kind of date or place or occupation and they still would know nothing meaningful about your friend or relative.
I suppose, in a realistic sense, if any individual life has a sanctity to it, death would not be an absolute requirement in the evolutionary process. No matter how we think, God doesn't seem to see the sanctity of life in the same way we do. Then again, what an incredulous bit of nonsense to envision we can think on the same level or way as God. We always create a God in our own image, claim communication with God, and assume if we worship God as our inherited religion instructs, God will be pleased and reward us on an individual basis. Frankly, the more these 'born again' religious nuts of various ilk rant on about their messages from God, the more nutty they appear. In the past, out of ignorance (or is it ignorance?) human groups often worshipped nature. If I could call the shot, I would choose to have humans worship nature as opposed to human invented religious dogma. I mean, what is worshipping nature but to have reverence for God's evolutionary process?
In one sense life is a continuum. There is no death of life. Rather, life just keeps on going with one life form giving rise to other life forms, some forms more suitable to survival in a certain environment than others. One thing is for sure: life doesn't begin at conception. The sperm and egg are quite alive as entities unto themselves, and the cells from which they came were quite alive and so on until we get back to the original form of life (whatever that was). The beauty of God's created evolutionary process is that, once life began, however it was begun, life never ended. There has never been a point in which life had to start over again. So much for life begins at conception.
Still, in another sense, individual lives are important. People we are close to are important, pets are important, species diversity is important. After that objectivity is lost. Your own kids are clearly more important than someone else's kids and your pets more important than someone else's pets or even a lot of other people etc. But what does it matter, in the total picture, who we think is important? It matters only to us. In the absence of innate human ethical principles, others are of no importance. All human ethics is based on the Golden Rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Period. Most species are minus this inherent ethical value, and survival of the fittest, at any moment in time, prevails. Humans have uniquely inherent ethical values. No matter where found, with whatever culture, humans understand the Golden Rule. We may not always follow it, but we understand it. Humans are inherently ethical minus a psychological disorder.
My favorite ethical philosopher does the best job of describing how we so often fail to follow the Golden Rule---do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I will attempt to condense it here. Almost all of us understand the world is overpopulated and that overpopulation of any species is not good. Nothing good ever comes from overpopulation. In an abstract way everyone can understand that. Yet this topic is almost taboo in political or religious circles. Responsible reproduction is never a topic for any serious political or religious debate. The mother of an Arkansas couple who recently had her 18th child was named Young Mother of the Year in 2004. More recently a young unmarried unemployed destitute gal was accepted for fertility drugs and gave birth to 8 babies to add to the 6 she already had----and it is all legal, in some religious circles even ethical. We still have religions in which using birth control as a method of responsible reproduction is a sin, as is the use of condoms to prevent AIDS. Most times, when the Golden Rule is broken, some sort of religious or political dogma is behind it. Certainly if God wills it, the Golden Rule is trumped. And if your political notions are firmly believed, then even the Golden Rule cannot get in the way of the 'greater good' of your political beliefs.
There are so many people in the world today that there is not enough land or resources to sustain them. The world's population has more than doubled since 1960. I guess, '"So what?" We are just going forth, God's favored species, and multiplying according to God's will. The more the merrier. Going from 3.5 billion to 6.7 billion people in 40 years is, apparently one big yawn. So what? I guess, according to this mind set that doubling in the next 40 years will be another "So what?".
Now let's take a look at our "So what?" attitude. As Singer states: "We tend to assume that if people do not harm others, keep their promises, do not lie or cheat, support their children and their elderly parents, and perhaps contribute a little to needier members of their local community, they've done well." People settled into this mind set would be outraged should anyone question their ethics. In their mind they are chosen candidates for Heaven. Maybe they are.
Singer gives examples of ethical behavior which are easy to understand. Two are below:
1. "On your way to work you pass a small pond. On hot days children sometimes play in the pond, which is only about knee-deep. The weather's cool today, though, and the hour is early, so you are surprised to see a child splashing about in the pond. As you get closer, you see that it is a very young child, just a toddler, who is flailing about, unable to stay upright or walk out of the pond. You look for the parents or babysitter, but there is no one else around. The child is unable to keep his head above water for more than a few seconds at a time. If you don't wade in and pull him out, he seems likely to drown. Wading in is easy and safe, but you will ruin the new shoes you bought only a few days ago, and get your suit wet and muddy. By the time you hand the child over to someone responsible for him, and change your clothes, you'll be late for work. What should you do?"
2. "Bob is close to retirement. He has invested most of his savings in a very rare and valuable old car, a Bugatti, which he has not been able to insure. The Bugatti is his pride and joy. Not only does Bob get pleasure from driving and caring for his car, he also knows that its rising market value means that he will be able to sell it and live comfortably after retirement. One day when Bob is out for a drive, he parks the Bugatti near the end of a railway siding and goes for a walk up the track. As he does no, he sees that a runaway train, with no one aboard, is rolling down the railway track. Looking farther down the track, he sees the small figure of a child who appears to be absorbed in playing on the tracks. Oblivious to the runaway train, the child is in great danger. Bob can't stop the train, and the child is too far away to hear his warning shout, but Bob can throw a switch that will divert the train down the siding where his Bugatti is parked. If he does so, nobody will be killed, but the train will crash through the decaying barrier at the end of the siding and destroy his Bugatti. Thinking of his joy in owning the car and the financial security it represents, Bob decides not to throw the switch."
Just about everyone concludes that the child, in both cases should be saved, that the sacrifice asked, is the only ethical response. And of course, both you and I would, in fact, save the child and pay the price, whether it be shoes and clothes or a car. Certainly, to save life is worth some sacrifice to do it. There is not a religion in the world that teaches otherwise. Really?
Well, let's just look at some facts: 60% of the world population is currently malnourished. There are almost 10 million young children dying every year from AVOIDABLE, poverty-related causes, and another 8 million older children and adults. This raises two separate dilemmas. How do we stop this runaway population growth? And, what do we do about those 10 million young children dying from AVOIDABLE poverty related causes?
The ethical question is this: if ethics requires that we as an ethical person save the child about to drown or get hit by a train, what about saving a child about to die from a poverty-related cause? Relief agencies state, on the average, a child about to die, from a poverty-related cause, can be saved for about $200. Are any of these distant children any less deserving to be saved than the girl in the pond on on the railroad tracks? Clearly not. The only difference is that none of these children are in our face. It seems odd that few, if any, of the abortion fanatics ever show even the slightest concern about these 10 million children about to die, or one I guess could even say be killed. The sanctity of life seems awfully narrow for these people. Hardly any of us, myself included, are willing to address the obvious need to stop these 10 million children from dying.
If pushed, we then respond that Americans are very generous and do what we can to help others across the world. Of course we neglect the fact that no country in the world comes close to us in number of humans killed in military adventures, or wounded, or displaced from their homes in these 'necessary' adventures. But let us ignore all this or assume these really are 'necessary' adventures. On a comparative basis, charitable giving in the United States is around 2.2 percent of gross national income. That is considerably more than any other country. Gold star deserved. On the other hand we lag behind other European countries in giving time for volunteer work. So the two kind of balance out and we are right there in the mix compared to other European countries.
BUT, when it comes to saving any of these 10 million children, all this charity is quite deceiving. A third of charity in the U.S. is given in the form of money to religious institutions. Almost all of this money is used for salaries, building and maintaining buildings, etc. Less than 10% is passed on as aid to developing countries. And most of this money is used to run international exchange programs, things like that. In the end private philanthropy for foreign aid amounts to .07% of our nations gross national income.
Well, you might say, let's not forget all the aid our government gives from our tax money. The U.S. government does give more in total foreign aid than any other country but not as a percent off gross national income. There we are in 21st place. So, in reality, we and our government do something but nothing very spectacular. I wouldn't embarrass all of us by comparing what we do give to the amount we spend on military matters. Here we spend more than all the other top industrialized nations combined---but not enough to save us a loss in Vietnam and a stalemate in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course there is no stalemate, we've only been there over seven years now.
But I stray, as I always seem to do. Every affluent person in the U.S. spends discretionary money on a bunch of stuff we desire in the illusion that acquiring it will bring happiness. It must bring some happiness because we continue to buy more. The fact is that if we spent a little less we could probably, each of us, save a whole bunch of these 10 million children who would otherwise die. If it is wrong for the guy to save his Bugatti instead of a child---and the Bugatti is an expensive item----then how can it not be wrong for the rest of us to spend a lot less to save some of these 10 million children? We have, by human nature, a warped sense of priorities. 2500 people were killed in the Trade Center Towers. 10 million children die needlessly every year. And we yawn. To 'free' Iraq we have displaced 4.5 million Iraqiis, left 1-2 million widows, 5 million orphans, and 1 million dead. To save any of the 10 million children we spend what? Aside from the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 we made them pay a bit more than tit for tat.
The reason for the ethical imbalance is clear. We actually watched Americans leaping out of the Twin Tower high rises. It was a televised spectacle. We don't see any of these 10 million children die. Maybe we should train cameras on them and broadcast their demise. No doubt, watching this I would probably, cheap as I am, send money to save the child I was watching die. Let's face it, most of us probably would. Now the child would be like the child in the pond or on the railroad tracks---an actual child about to die unless one of us does something. Like others, I recently lost about half of my savings. Too late, but I could have saved a good number of those 10 million children dying, and been none the worse off for it---just as affluent today as I am without having done anything.
I have come to increasingly dislike the strange form of American fascism which seems to be some kind of alliance between radical nationalism and religious purism---this notion that 'my religious beliefs and my country are always right'. It puzzles me that they can be so right and yet so angry all the time. I figure the anger comes from a feeling, deep down, gated away from reality, that they are wrong. The mentality is always the same: "I don't care how sensible or rational or ethical an issue might be---if my beliefs are wrong here then maybe much of what I believe is wrong". I guess that really is scary for anyone.
Sadly, no matter if all of us, collectively, were to sacrifice financially and save all these 10 million children---if we really did this, and of course we could, anything gained is short lived. There are too many people. The more we save, the more the situation is aggravated. Mother Nature will take care of overpopulation like she always has. It won't be pleasant and many parts of the globe already feel the mass destruction via wars, terrorism, homelessness, starvation, genocide, pollution, and all the other crushing forces that are consequences of overpopulation.
With ethical choices in matters like this it is always necessary to see the forest for the sake of the trees. Evolution always does this, humans---at this stage in our evolution---have trouble doing this. Saving these 10 million children from death is not the solution to the basic problem. There are too many people on the earth---we have senselessly and carelessly overpopulated the planet. Evolutionary laws do not tolerate overpopulation. The choice humans have is simple: responsible reproduction or more starvation, homelessness, terrorism, genocides, class warfare, and massive slaughter across the globe as each group fights for a piece of the dwindling pie.
Organized religions need to return to the Golden Rule and change their dogma to fit the times. Religions can't be centuries behind the times with change. Almost all the major problems of today are global. With modern avenues of communication solutions have to be global. We even need a global religion based simply on the Golden Rule. Forget the rest of the tripe. The world is governed by the laws of evolution and it is through this God created process that our fates our governed. Forget all the sectarian illusions, the personal communication with God, the notion that inherited religious dogma is a ticket to heaven, and use as the global ethical commonality the Golden Rule. With the golden rule ethics is stable and on sound footing. Issues can be addressed fairly in a timely fashion and all people, everywhere, at every level of society, can finally address issues rationally and be on the same page. When the common good tops sectarianism, cultural matters, ethnic background, economic divisions, and 'family values', only then can all major problems be tackled with an effective collaborative effort to any successful conclusion. Yes, we should all dig down and help save the 10 million children, but to do this and not bite the bullet of responsible reproduction is to render such an effort useless, even cruel as they will merely live to suffer yet another day.
The term pro-life has been used as a club for those who insist abortion is murder. This musing is not about abortion, but about life as humans are equipped to comprehend it. Life, as part of evolution, has been around a long time---a real long time----millions of years. In the broadest sense the evolution of life involves a heavy dose of diversity and ever increasing complexity. This God created evolutionary process (my belief), and some would insist to take out the word God, is the sustaining process for life in all its forms. Each of us is such a tiny blip in the process as to render us nothingburgers for the most part. Of course massed together as a species, and with other species, the collective mass of life is about as stunningly impressive as each individual form of life is stunningly dwarfed in comparison. It is hard to be out in nature or on major expressways and feel important at all. Sometimes I look around overwhelmed and just think, "Damn, each of these unimaginable number of people imagine themselves important." Of course if anyone takes the time to wander through a large cemetery one catches a glimpse of endless graves, each one representing the existence of many once 'important' persons, totally lost from the memory of the now living. I have always found it difficult to get too interested in my ancestral tree: John Doe, carpenter, born: blah, blah, died: blah, blah----I want to relate to my ancestors but you really can't relate to a name, a city, an occupation. Try to describe a friend to another by telling them what year they were born and where they lived and how many kids they have. You could give them any kind of date or place or occupation and they still would know nothing meaningful about your friend or relative.
I suppose, in a realistic sense, if any individual life has a sanctity to it, death would not be an absolute requirement in the evolutionary process. No matter how we think, God doesn't seem to see the sanctity of life in the same way we do. Then again, what an incredulous bit of nonsense to envision we can think on the same level or way as God. We always create a God in our own image, claim communication with God, and assume if we worship God as our inherited religion instructs, God will be pleased and reward us on an individual basis. Frankly, the more these 'born again' religious nuts of various ilk rant on about their messages from God, the more nutty they appear. In the past, out of ignorance (or is it ignorance?) human groups often worshipped nature. If I could call the shot, I would choose to have humans worship nature as opposed to human invented religious dogma. I mean, what is worshipping nature but to have reverence for God's evolutionary process?
In one sense life is a continuum. There is no death of life. Rather, life just keeps on going with one life form giving rise to other life forms, some forms more suitable to survival in a certain environment than others. One thing is for sure: life doesn't begin at conception. The sperm and egg are quite alive as entities unto themselves, and the cells from which they came were quite alive and so on until we get back to the original form of life (whatever that was). The beauty of God's created evolutionary process is that, once life began, however it was begun, life never ended. There has never been a point in which life had to start over again. So much for life begins at conception.
Still, in another sense, individual lives are important. People we are close to are important, pets are important, species diversity is important. After that objectivity is lost. Your own kids are clearly more important than someone else's kids and your pets more important than someone else's pets or even a lot of other people etc. But what does it matter, in the total picture, who we think is important? It matters only to us. In the absence of innate human ethical principles, others are of no importance. All human ethics is based on the Golden Rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Period. Most species are minus this inherent ethical value, and survival of the fittest, at any moment in time, prevails. Humans have uniquely inherent ethical values. No matter where found, with whatever culture, humans understand the Golden Rule. We may not always follow it, but we understand it. Humans are inherently ethical minus a psychological disorder.
My favorite ethical philosopher does the best job of describing how we so often fail to follow the Golden Rule---do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I will attempt to condense it here. Almost all of us understand the world is overpopulated and that overpopulation of any species is not good. Nothing good ever comes from overpopulation. In an abstract way everyone can understand that. Yet this topic is almost taboo in political or religious circles. Responsible reproduction is never a topic for any serious political or religious debate. The mother of an Arkansas couple who recently had her 18th child was named Young Mother of the Year in 2004. More recently a young unmarried unemployed destitute gal was accepted for fertility drugs and gave birth to 8 babies to add to the 6 she already had----and it is all legal, in some religious circles even ethical. We still have religions in which using birth control as a method of responsible reproduction is a sin, as is the use of condoms to prevent AIDS. Most times, when the Golden Rule is broken, some sort of religious or political dogma is behind it. Certainly if God wills it, the Golden Rule is trumped. And if your political notions are firmly believed, then even the Golden Rule cannot get in the way of the 'greater good' of your political beliefs.
There are so many people in the world today that there is not enough land or resources to sustain them. The world's population has more than doubled since 1960. I guess, '"So what?" We are just going forth, God's favored species, and multiplying according to God's will. The more the merrier. Going from 3.5 billion to 6.7 billion people in 40 years is, apparently one big yawn. So what? I guess, according to this mind set that doubling in the next 40 years will be another "So what?".
Now let's take a look at our "So what?" attitude. As Singer states: "We tend to assume that if people do not harm others, keep their promises, do not lie or cheat, support their children and their elderly parents, and perhaps contribute a little to needier members of their local community, they've done well." People settled into this mind set would be outraged should anyone question their ethics. In their mind they are chosen candidates for Heaven. Maybe they are.
Singer gives examples of ethical behavior which are easy to understand. Two are below:
1. "On your way to work you pass a small pond. On hot days children sometimes play in the pond, which is only about knee-deep. The weather's cool today, though, and the hour is early, so you are surprised to see a child splashing about in the pond. As you get closer, you see that it is a very young child, just a toddler, who is flailing about, unable to stay upright or walk out of the pond. You look for the parents or babysitter, but there is no one else around. The child is unable to keep his head above water for more than a few seconds at a time. If you don't wade in and pull him out, he seems likely to drown. Wading in is easy and safe, but you will ruin the new shoes you bought only a few days ago, and get your suit wet and muddy. By the time you hand the child over to someone responsible for him, and change your clothes, you'll be late for work. What should you do?"
2. "Bob is close to retirement. He has invested most of his savings in a very rare and valuable old car, a Bugatti, which he has not been able to insure. The Bugatti is his pride and joy. Not only does Bob get pleasure from driving and caring for his car, he also knows that its rising market value means that he will be able to sell it and live comfortably after retirement. One day when Bob is out for a drive, he parks the Bugatti near the end of a railway siding and goes for a walk up the track. As he does no, he sees that a runaway train, with no one aboard, is rolling down the railway track. Looking farther down the track, he sees the small figure of a child who appears to be absorbed in playing on the tracks. Oblivious to the runaway train, the child is in great danger. Bob can't stop the train, and the child is too far away to hear his warning shout, but Bob can throw a switch that will divert the train down the siding where his Bugatti is parked. If he does so, nobody will be killed, but the train will crash through the decaying barrier at the end of the siding and destroy his Bugatti. Thinking of his joy in owning the car and the financial security it represents, Bob decides not to throw the switch."
Just about everyone concludes that the child, in both cases should be saved, that the sacrifice asked, is the only ethical response. And of course, both you and I would, in fact, save the child and pay the price, whether it be shoes and clothes or a car. Certainly, to save life is worth some sacrifice to do it. There is not a religion in the world that teaches otherwise. Really?
Well, let's just look at some facts: 60% of the world population is currently malnourished. There are almost 10 million young children dying every year from AVOIDABLE, poverty-related causes, and another 8 million older children and adults. This raises two separate dilemmas. How do we stop this runaway population growth? And, what do we do about those 10 million young children dying from AVOIDABLE poverty related causes?
The ethical question is this: if ethics requires that we as an ethical person save the child about to drown or get hit by a train, what about saving a child about to die from a poverty-related cause? Relief agencies state, on the average, a child about to die, from a poverty-related cause, can be saved for about $200. Are any of these distant children any less deserving to be saved than the girl in the pond on on the railroad tracks? Clearly not. The only difference is that none of these children are in our face. It seems odd that few, if any, of the abortion fanatics ever show even the slightest concern about these 10 million children about to die, or one I guess could even say be killed. The sanctity of life seems awfully narrow for these people. Hardly any of us, myself included, are willing to address the obvious need to stop these 10 million children from dying.
If pushed, we then respond that Americans are very generous and do what we can to help others across the world. Of course we neglect the fact that no country in the world comes close to us in number of humans killed in military adventures, or wounded, or displaced from their homes in these 'necessary' adventures. But let us ignore all this or assume these really are 'necessary' adventures. On a comparative basis, charitable giving in the United States is around 2.2 percent of gross national income. That is considerably more than any other country. Gold star deserved. On the other hand we lag behind other European countries in giving time for volunteer work. So the two kind of balance out and we are right there in the mix compared to other European countries.
BUT, when it comes to saving any of these 10 million children, all this charity is quite deceiving. A third of charity in the U.S. is given in the form of money to religious institutions. Almost all of this money is used for salaries, building and maintaining buildings, etc. Less than 10% is passed on as aid to developing countries. And most of this money is used to run international exchange programs, things like that. In the end private philanthropy for foreign aid amounts to .07% of our nations gross national income.
Well, you might say, let's not forget all the aid our government gives from our tax money. The U.S. government does give more in total foreign aid than any other country but not as a percent off gross national income. There we are in 21st place. So, in reality, we and our government do something but nothing very spectacular. I wouldn't embarrass all of us by comparing what we do give to the amount we spend on military matters. Here we spend more than all the other top industrialized nations combined---but not enough to save us a loss in Vietnam and a stalemate in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course there is no stalemate, we've only been there over seven years now.
But I stray, as I always seem to do. Every affluent person in the U.S. spends discretionary money on a bunch of stuff we desire in the illusion that acquiring it will bring happiness. It must bring some happiness because we continue to buy more. The fact is that if we spent a little less we could probably, each of us, save a whole bunch of these 10 million children who would otherwise die. If it is wrong for the guy to save his Bugatti instead of a child---and the Bugatti is an expensive item----then how can it not be wrong for the rest of us to spend a lot less to save some of these 10 million children? We have, by human nature, a warped sense of priorities. 2500 people were killed in the Trade Center Towers. 10 million children die needlessly every year. And we yawn. To 'free' Iraq we have displaced 4.5 million Iraqiis, left 1-2 million widows, 5 million orphans, and 1 million dead. To save any of the 10 million children we spend what? Aside from the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 we made them pay a bit more than tit for tat.
The reason for the ethical imbalance is clear. We actually watched Americans leaping out of the Twin Tower high rises. It was a televised spectacle. We don't see any of these 10 million children die. Maybe we should train cameras on them and broadcast their demise. No doubt, watching this I would probably, cheap as I am, send money to save the child I was watching die. Let's face it, most of us probably would. Now the child would be like the child in the pond or on the railroad tracks---an actual child about to die unless one of us does something. Like others, I recently lost about half of my savings. Too late, but I could have saved a good number of those 10 million children dying, and been none the worse off for it---just as affluent today as I am without having done anything.
I have come to increasingly dislike the strange form of American fascism which seems to be some kind of alliance between radical nationalism and religious purism---this notion that 'my religious beliefs and my country are always right'. It puzzles me that they can be so right and yet so angry all the time. I figure the anger comes from a feeling, deep down, gated away from reality, that they are wrong. The mentality is always the same: "I don't care how sensible or rational or ethical an issue might be---if my beliefs are wrong here then maybe much of what I believe is wrong". I guess that really is scary for anyone.
Sadly, no matter if all of us, collectively, were to sacrifice financially and save all these 10 million children---if we really did this, and of course we could, anything gained is short lived. There are too many people. The more we save, the more the situation is aggravated. Mother Nature will take care of overpopulation like she always has. It won't be pleasant and many parts of the globe already feel the mass destruction via wars, terrorism, homelessness, starvation, genocide, pollution, and all the other crushing forces that are consequences of overpopulation.
With ethical choices in matters like this it is always necessary to see the forest for the sake of the trees. Evolution always does this, humans---at this stage in our evolution---have trouble doing this. Saving these 10 million children from death is not the solution to the basic problem. There are too many people on the earth---we have senselessly and carelessly overpopulated the planet. Evolutionary laws do not tolerate overpopulation. The choice humans have is simple: responsible reproduction or more starvation, homelessness, terrorism, genocides, class warfare, and massive slaughter across the globe as each group fights for a piece of the dwindling pie.
Organized religions need to return to the Golden Rule and change their dogma to fit the times. Religions can't be centuries behind the times with change. Almost all the major problems of today are global. With modern avenues of communication solutions have to be global. We even need a global religion based simply on the Golden Rule. Forget the rest of the tripe. The world is governed by the laws of evolution and it is through this God created process that our fates our governed. Forget all the sectarian illusions, the personal communication with God, the notion that inherited religious dogma is a ticket to heaven, and use as the global ethical commonality the Golden Rule. With the golden rule ethics is stable and on sound footing. Issues can be addressed fairly in a timely fashion and all people, everywhere, at every level of society, can finally address issues rationally and be on the same page. When the common good tops sectarianism, cultural matters, ethnic background, economic divisions, and 'family values', only then can all major problems be tackled with an effective collaborative effort to any successful conclusion. Yes, we should all dig down and help save the 10 million children, but to do this and not bite the bullet of responsible reproduction is to render such an effort useless, even cruel as they will merely live to suffer yet another day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)