Dropping the Ball

Dear Reader:

The good professor can't get to posting this week,but the title of this post isn't in reference to his failure to do so, but to the ball that will drop tomorrow night in Time Square when we usher in another year. I'll admit that New Year's Eve is a bit depressing to me. It is one of those holidays rife with expectations that can only be depended upon to disappoint, like Valentine's Day. But then I'm a fan of a really good regular old Thursday, and not days with so much pressure attached.

If you are a regular reader of this blog (thank you!) then you know that we cover a lot of topics. We give a lot of thought to lofty ideas and discussing everything from the current political sex scandal to the fall of the Roman Empire. I thought about rehashing some stories we'd blogged about this year in one of those cliche 2012 story montages. But if you really care what we said all year, it's in the archives.

So instead I thought I'd close out the year in a way that I know my partner will appreciate as well. We wish you the joy of living your authentic life, embracing simplicity, and exuding peace and love in all your actions in the coming year. We hope that you learn continuously so that your mind may stay strong. We hope that you love passionately, that your heart may stay young. We hope that you appreciate and take your health seriously so that your body may be powerful for many years to come. We hope that the coming year treats you kindly and that you do the same to everyone you come in contact with.

Happy New Year.

Theatrical Redemption

From prequels to musicals. We are having an entertaining interlude during the holidays. I saw Les Miserables this evening. My daughter and I had seen the Broadway version many years ago and it was the highlight of our trip to New York. We'd been awaiting this new version eagerly for months.

Much has already been written about the acting and singing in this film version of the much loved classic. I thought Russell Crowe held his own nicely as Javert and his voice was better than what I had expected. (Besides didn't Pierce Brosnan teach us all that we can be entertained by actors with less than stellar singing voices?) Anne Hathoway's portrayal of Fantine is heartbreaking and her rendition of "I Dreamed a Dream" (filmed in one continuous take) will doubtless win her an Oscar nomination if not the little gold statue itself. Unlike most movies where there are song sequences, the musical numbers in this version of the iconic stage production were not added later in studio recordings but are, instead live vocal performances that were captured during shooting. Hugh Jackman is a memorable Jean Valjean in a role that allows him to play on many of his acting strengths.

If you've seen and loved the play, you'll enjoy seeing the story played out against a stunning backdrop with sweeping backgrounds that lend a sense of drama and grandeur to the piece.

Is it the music that keeps people flocking to this story? Is it the complexity of the story? The messages of hope, love, or perseverance? That is how the story is sold on the movie's current website. But to me it has always been a story about the difference between two religious polar opposites: legalism and grace. In Javert we see a Pharisaical character who is obsessed with adherence to obeying the letter of the law. Debts must be paid, in full, with as much attending pain as possible. There is no room for forgiveness.

In Jean Valjean we see the antithesis of that. We see grace. Redemption. Love and forgiveness where punishment could be rightly demanded. In Valjean we see the person we would hope to be. In him, as well as several side characters, we see self sacrifice. One forgiven who is then capable of granting forgiveness. One who having been forgiven much, loves much. (Luke 7)  His depth and understanding of grace seems beyond most of us when finally having his nemesis handed over to him to do with as he would he offers Javert escape. In the end Javert having no grasp of anything but a cruel and heartless legalism kills himself to end his agony of not being able to align his world view with the world offered to him by the man he'd hunted over the years.

The book is most likely my favorite of all the things I've ever read. Victor Hugo could not have imagined what a gift he'd given to the world when he penned it.

A Word For Prequels

Our Good Readers:

I saw the Hobbit this weekend.  Twice.  Some friends of mine and I had a tradition of seeing all of The Lord of the Rings (LOTR) movies together.  So, even though they now live 5 hours away, we kept the tradition of seeing Tolkien come to the big screen by seeing it together.  Saturday evening and late Sunday morning.  Well, we saw it together, technically.  They’re married to each other, and with no babysitter available, it became a situation where I saw it with her on Saturday night and with him on Sunday morning. 

It was worth it to see it twice.   It is a well-made movie, itself one of three films.  Yes, it may have more appeal to Tolkien purists and fantasy fans, but it was a good movie nonetheless.  It has a rich portrayal of dwarven characters, and given that they’re bigger than hobbits, you may forget for a while that dwarves are shorter than humans.  The casting and acting are good, the vistas magnificent, the storyline pretty crisp and follow-able, and it has some new and interesting characters to go along with some favorites from the LOTR movies.

Yes, it has some feel of the Star Wars movies, with these Hobbit movies (this is the first of three), being made after the big events of the LOTR.  However, it hasn’t been SO long that the actors and so forth have to change much (although airbrushing and makeup are needed, no doubt), and the same characters can make their appearances here and it seems natural.  One is excited for these prequels, because even though the general storyline is known, and the ultimate outcomes as well, there are still plenty of mysteries, surprises, and unusual things.

Don’t let critics sway you beforehand or be daunted by its approximately three hour length.  It has a good mix of character interest, action, epic story, and hints of foreshadowing.  We may have become a bit jaded these days with what seems like a glut of fantasy books and games and movies (something lovers of fantasy from 30 or 40 years ago could scarcely have imagined), but set aside any jaded feelings and go watch a good movie!

And for those of you clutching your chests that the “serious professor” is writing about an “escapist movie,” ah, you don’t know then how much I enjoy feeding my hobbyist side, for I have many interests.  It’s not just about saving the world, you know, it’s also about enjoying it! :)

And besides, on Christmas Eve, how many of you were going to be in the mood for a policy/serious post anyway? LOL  Enjoy the holiday everyone!  And nope, I don’t have my shopping done yet.  Must be off to it!

Ubiquitous Weapon Dystopia

Good readers:

Madame is indisposed, so you get me for a special bonus post. 

What are we filling our lives with?  Do we have space?  When do we just BE?

I was thinking of this when I had dinner with a buddy of mine who has a lot of stress in his life: traveling often, doing two jobs and one occasional job on the side.  We went to Cracker Barrel tonight as a storm was scheduled to come in.  My friend said he was content just to sit by the fire there and drink hot tea and talk.  He said it calmed him.  We have both been deployed in the last few years, and know the longings for home.  My longing when I was deployed was to imagine sitting in Panera and drinking hot chocolate from a ceramic mug and revel in the fact that neither I nor anyone around me in Panera was armed.  When I came home, that reality calmed me.

Those who seem to revel in the prospect of many or most people being armed, that it will make people “safe,” should try living it for an extended period.  You will likely find it far less appealing than you think.  Far from feeling safe and secure, the tension will ripple through everything.  The maddening variables take their relentless, stressful toll on you: Who has the more lethal or dangerous weapon or weapons?  Who gets to use it or them first?  What about IEDs, rockets, mortars, explosives, truck bombs, or even gas or biological?  How do you know who the enemy is until the very last second when it is often too late? 

And you have to sleep sometime.  What weapon that you have can guard you when you are asleep?  If you sleep fitfully, half alert, you can feel what that does to you, mentally and physically.  You can feel the years coming off your life and the mental and emotional rearranging you might never be able to put back to what it was before.

And let’s not even mention when weapons are used.

Good people under that kind of stress can snap.   It is so easy to get tired, to draw the strings too tight for too long.  We are not meant to live under that stress.  See how you feel when comrades, people on the same side, have a misunderstanding, when tempers flare from exhausted people whose adrenals have nearly burned out from the stress.  It’s a special kind of tension to be in the midst of armed people of the same side when they point their weapons at each other and no one wants to back down.

And that was with large numbers of people forced to work together, with minimal distractions or outside responsibilities, against a common “enemy.”  What would be the case in this hyper-individualistic society, where people are alone or in very small groups? 

A society should be careful not to let its desire to preserve life and security come at the cost of the character of that life.

Blood and Sand

Madame,

Well said about the importance of width and breadth in one’s relationships.  Readers would do well to heed your wise words.

That is not the first time I have said that.

It will likely not be the last.

The tragedy in Connecticut has had many words these past few days.  Words that show we, MAYBE, are FAINTLY beginning to make some connections to the similarities and repetitiveness.  Making us look at ourselves, perhaps.

That will be a good thing.

More barriers, more restrictions, more guards, more surveillance, more guns?  I’m not sure that is the answer, especially because it’s not sustainable fiscally, emotionally, or societally.  If a disconnected culture like ours becomes gun-toting every day, most everyone will eventually be a victim, even if people manage the stress, which is doubtful (and as if this culture needed any more stress).

And we already have enough distance in our relationships, enough disconnection in this society.  Ours is a cultural disease, one born of income disparity, yes, but also from what the culture values in reality—or doesn’t.  It isn’t just that someone is 19 times more likely to die in a mass shooting in the US than anywhere else in the industrialized world, it’s also that the chance doesn’t change, but only gets worse.  It might happen once or twice in a developed country elsewhere, but it happens with horrific regularity here.  Not primarily just because we’re bigger, but because we sensationalize things and make copycats want to one up what’s been done previously.  But more to the point, we breed—and discard—growing legions of loners and semi-loners who are either empty inside or feel that there is no place for them, or even that there is no place worth being.

We sew distrust and despair and lay seeds for mental illness and perpetuate too often a culture of violence and other symptoms of societal breakdown.  We might have wide ranges of social media “connections,” but they are often atomizing and fragile.  The local connections are often missing, and life feels too cheap despite our blustering words.  Instead of being our biggest strength, our biggest fear becomes other people. 

We need expansive discussions about all this,  not simplistic ones about guns/no guns.

As a closing thought for this post, I have a question about the tragedy in Connecticut.  Where were the men? And especially, where were the trained men (ex-military and ex-police)?

Food for thought about the gender silo that elementary education in particular has become.  The teaching career has not only become a poor woman’s path of service, but has become over-feminized along the way.

Connecting more dots.

Assembling Your Tribe

 My dear intrepid Professor J,

Christmas is coming on and this housewife is struggling to put forth anything stimulating for either you or our readers to peruse this week.  But as this is a time for friends and family, I thought that something from my personal blog might suffice until Santa and his elves can come through with the order I've placed for time and inspiration. And peace. Always an appropriate Christmas wish...though this year it is much more of a prayer.


I was at a wedding recently and the bride and groom had written their own vows (Why do people insist on this?) and promised to be each other's "best friend."
 
I cleared my throat and squirmed in my seat. That's kind of a lot of pressure. And there is a gender gap about it. If you ask a married man who his best friend is, he will more often than not (especially if she's standing there) name his wife (Don't even get me started about what that says about the lack of male bonding and support in our culture). Ask a woman the same question and without hesitation, no matter who is there, she will name the woman to whom she most regularly complains about her marriage. She isn't insulting anyone, she just knows the difference.

 Life is long, if you are lucky, and complicated if you are breathing. Among other things you are going to need friends, mentors, confidantes, counselors, travel companions, work out partners, lovers, people to challenge you, people to accept you, inspire you, prod you, hold your hand and kick you in the pants. You are going to drain a single human being, putting all those expectations on them.

Take a deep breath right now and exhale the word "release" into all of your relationships...Release your death grip, release your expectations, release the people you care about from obligation.

There. Doesn't that feel better? 

You don't need one person. You are going to need a tribe. This idea is promoted by Sir Ken Robinson in his book, Element. He is specifically speaking of finding the people who share interests in your creative ventures. Those people who encourage you and share a passion for something with you. Musicians, for example, seek out other musicians to learn from, teach, and share with. It's why people with common interests form associations and clubs. If you are married to someone who has no interest in your passion for SCUBA diving or Star Wars then you already know how important your outside alliances can be.

I'd take it a step further than Sir Ken. Depending on your family circumstances, mobility, etc. you may need to fill family positions with people unrelated to you. If you have a parent who isn't trustworthy or family members who are distant, you should seek out friends for support. A friend of mine is a new mom and fairly new to town. So last year when she was pregnant with twins our coffee group became surrogate sisters dishing up advice. She dubbed us her Village People . Whether you believe it "takes a village to raise a child" or not, it certainly takes a village to keep mothers out of psych wards world wide.

I imagine my friend list as concentric circles narrowing toward the center like a target. The extremely small and carefully guarded center, I call The Inner Sanctum. Remember the ending of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade? Making it to The Inner Sanctum is like that. These are people who have proven they can be counted on to keep confidences, give sound advice, listen, and provide encouragement. I'm also more than happy to do all of those things for them. You know immediately in your own mind who these people are for you.

Are you holding on to a relationship where you are doing all the work or one where you feel emotionally exhausted after spending time with that person? Think of relationships as investments. You are investing your time, interest, and attention in someone. Don't waste your time making big emotional investments in people who don't have your best interest at heart, are unreliable, or untrustworthy. Do a gut check. You know who these people are too. You may not be able to cut them loose completely for a variety of reasons, but you can limit access. It may take a while for some people to reveal their true character. Don't ignore red flags.

People drift in and out of our lives for all kinds of reasons. The game changers come to stay. They make time for you no matter how busy they are. They have a genuine concern for your well being. They refuse to allow distance or any other obstacle to come between you. They are also rare.

Choose wisely.

Tricked-Down Economics

Madame M:

Rear guard actions and coping mechanisms.  How long will they hold up?  Worker burnout is on the rise, as those who remain after cuts feel the stress of more work.

The middle class’s share of total income shrank 17% from 1970 to 2010.  Their share of total assets (including houses) did even worse.  Banks, financial institutions (Wall Street), large corporations—and of course, the executives and boards that profit by them—made sure their lackeys in  Congress wrote the rules and made the changes, including ever lowered tax rates and generous tax rules, to favor them. 

Many well-paying jobs were deliberately killed and sent overseas, not because the manufacturing plants weren’t profitable, but because the kings of greed mentioned in the previous paragraph wanted even more profits.  When a community is hit by the loss of well-paying jobs, it has a negative multiplier effect: teachers, firemen, policemen, and others, not to mention many small businesses, get cut back.  Wages fall far behind the cost of living for the average person, as people spin out of the middle class and into the lower class.  The effects cascade.  Multiply that by thousands of communities, and you have America today.

Ironic that those who fret about “foreign control” are all too willing to vote in “free trade” candidates so multinational corporations can sell America off—and sell them out—and transfer economic control.

Did the executives take the pain and the cuts as well?  On the contrary, they increased to sickening opulence while the Lazaruses waited for scraps.   CEO pay for many European corporations averages no more than 7-10 times the average worker.  Even as recently as 1978 here in America, CEO compensation was “only” 26 times that of the average worker’s wages.  By 2010 (not a very good year, if one will recall), it was 205 times. 

It is one thing to truly globally compete, and comparative advantage certainly has its place.  But this idea that giving more money to people at the top who already have tremendous amounts, who have benefited ultra-tremendously the last 40 years while the middle class has declined, is ludicrous.  They don’t “create jobs,” as 5 minutes worth of serious consideration would tell you; otherwise, we’d be swimming in jobs the last 12 years, and that certainly isn’t the case (as the Congressional Research Service found out, tax cuts for the wealthy DON’T help the economy or create jobs; you don’t hear about the study because Republican congressmen suppressed it).  As Tina Dupuy of Cage Syndicate wrote in an article September 5^th of this year, “Trickle-down economics is a pyramid scheme.  The idea of those at the bottom sacrificing their retirements benefits (pensions, Social Security, Medicare, etc.) so that the top tier can pay even less in taxes” is sold to people that somehow they too will become rich if taxes for the rich just get lower.

Too many of us seem magically ensorcelled by the above mantra.  Even though  signs of decay are all around us: 1) Worst wealth inequality in the industrialized world, 2) poverty rate that has skyrocketed to nearly 16%, 3) top 1% of Americans own almost half of the nation’s wealth and yet only 5% of the nation’s debt.  As Dupuy says, “we’re fatter, sicker, further in debt, and using the most illegal drugs in the world.”

“Don’t punish success”, the men who do the spin for the wealthy say.  “Don’t regulate, that is punishing those who would create jobs in a free market and makes them withhold jobs out of uncertainty.” 

It’s a lie.  While there is at times maddening and excessive regulation (George Will is notorious for fishing up the instances), what the above spin is for is merely to deflect you the people from having your creature—government—do anything to those who are bleeding you slowly to death.

The simple mathematics is that those at the top don’t exist in enough numbers to create demand and stimulate the economy by their spending, even if they wanted to do so.  That can only come from many millions of middle class consumers with spendable money who by that spending create demand for products and services, and with that demand, even more jobs.

That has a proven track record, and it’s also socially stable and long-term sustainable.

Family Therapy for 300 Million

Professor J,

Boy, your opening paragraph is loaded! The last statement is interesting but I'm relaxing this week and hardly in the mood to divert attention to the theological untangling that would require. I might ask "Where's the love?" though.

We are looking more and more like the family who is willing to spend all the inheritance money on lawyers just so our dysfunctional side of the family can win. We may even burn down the old homestead in the process. No matter. We don't even know how we all ended up in the same family together and we are now willing to sacrifice whatever familial relationship and good will that use to exist to be right.  Our ever constantly shell shocked ears are now only attuned to rhetorical explosions in sound bites.

And to draw from an old joke we have in the south about not hiding our crazy relatives in the attic, but bringing them right into the parlor to show them off, each side now not only isn't embarrassed by the bombastic things that are said, but more and more it is proudly embraced. We have sent our crazy uncles to legislate on our behalf. What's worse--we are starting to lose touch with a standard for rational behavior.

Half of the family wants to disown the other half, and we are barely on speaking terms. The Hatfields and McCoys would just be so proud.

We need family therapy. Tough love. A Dr. Phil/ Uncle Sam who would force us to look each other in the eye and listen while we work toward solutions. Of course even with the hardest work and best intentions relationships with people who are truly toxic to us can't be saved. We are all feeling a severe lack of trust and rampant insecurity.  Perfect for an economic nervous breakdown.

The problem is we are all going over the cliff together in the same boat, crazy uncles and all. Kind of a high price to pay to be able to say that "our side" didn't give in. Which is going to sound pretty silly on the way down.

Apathy or Extremism

Do we Americans really peg the meter from either apathy or polarization?

Yes, we have often been rather apolitical, but when exactly did we become so extreme?  The perception of so many is similar to the woman in Nebraska who wrote to her newspaper that “public good” is something that “begins in the womb (not to mention marriage between one man and one woman)…(and that) the Health and Human Services mandate that forces coverage of the intrinsic evil of sterilization and birth control is an abomination.  Therefore, we may come to civil war of a sort, because many of us would rather die in jail than burn in hell.”

I won’t begin to dissect the insinuations and assumptions in all that.  Yet it’s demonstrative of the pressure cooker society where problems escalate and things change—many perhaps not for the better—and views become “my way or no way.”

Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald said on 11/8/12, it’s the anger, the irrational, extreme, blinding anger: “A platform of fear-mongering, xenophobia, demagoguery, and inchoate anger so extreme as to make Ronald Reagan seem almost a hippie in comparison.  It has embraced the politics of pitchforks and bomb-throwing wherein candidates must compete with one another to see who can say the most bizarre and outrageous thing—and where moderation is a sin against orthodoxy....(an orthodoxy) that demonizes the rest of us to appeal to a very few.”  And as Robert Reich said on 11/11/12, many white males, especially those over 40, have become “a tinderbox of frustration and anger, eagerly ignited by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and other peddlers of petulance, including an increasing number of Republicans who have gained political power by fanning the flames.  That hate-mongering and attendant scapegoating—of immigrants, blacks, gays, women seeking abortions, our government itself” diverts us from seeing that we “depend on each other in order to survive.” 

There is lots of barely hidden racism and prejudice of all sorts.  From those watching change and not liking it.  Watching color and ethnic and other “domination” start to slip away (their perception, instead of an alternate perception of becoming “more diverse”).

There is also a gender gap.  The wives aren’t going to let hubby know what’s going on.  And if you think they are going to tell the truth to some phone pollster while hubby is in the next room, well…

All of which makes those white males even angrier, as none of what is happening or results “makes sense.”

Never mind, of course, that “red” states receive, on average, far more federal government money than they pay in federal taxes, and yet traditionally have poor government services.  The situation is opposite in the “blue” states.  There’s two counter-intuitives for us to mull over.  Makes all that talk of “takers” and “moochers” seem a little silly.  As Dana Milbank of the Washington Post put it on 11/15/12: “Those who are most ardent about cutting government spending tend to come from parts of the country that most rely on it.”

As more than one commentator has put it, secession might be a good thing for the rest of the country after those seceding would go.  But such talk, while perhaps natural to feel, merely allows extremists to feed off each other in symbiosis and codependency.  And we let them.

Sitting back apathetically and HOPING some vague “it” will be taken care of, is delusion.  We must stay engaged. 

And we must all feel, when talking with or thinking about our fellow Americans: “If you are truly a patriotic American, I care about what happens to you even if you hate my guts.”

Discerning that is incredibly difficult in this climate, however, for so much seems like marked, almost criminal selfishness and willful blindness.   The kind of blind zealotry that burns all to the ground in its zealousness.

This is going to be a tough period, no doubt about it.

The X, Y, Z Factor

Professor J,

You raise good questions about the Millenials (or as you prefer the more specific Y and Zers). Of course your initial reaction would be a list of questions I don't have the answers to. Which may mean I should break down and read the book on this subject.

While the authors were hopeful, and I have to say in many ways I am as well, We do see lots of negatives as well as positives. Corporations don't quite know what to do with a new generation that is so markedly different from the previous one. Several major companies are hiring consultants to help teach them how to manage this generation. The work ethic for a generation that is use to getting a trophy for just showing up is much different than their parents'. I wonder how many college professors and human resource departments are happy to field calls from parents concerning their "child's" performance.

You made a good point about any generation being called "The Greatest" when the standard for that, in this country anyway, is the founding one. In both of those examples we could point to hardship, sacrifice, and high standards expected for behavior as reasons that they were able to accomplish what they did. I wondered aloud to my kids at the WWII Museum in New Orleans if those fresh young faces staring back at us from display photographs would have been able to go out and save the world if their characters hadn't been forged by the deprivation of the depression. Did they think they and their friends would be up to such selfless sacrifice? An entire generation that has rarely been uncomfortable yet alone, hungry, cold, afraid? I got knowing looks back from them. The 18 year olds in those photos were adults. In contrast it seems we are only being nice today if we call a college freshman a "man." Adolescence edges toward thirty.

So while our offspring and their peers have let all kinds of narrow mindedness drop by the wayside and refused to embrace prejudice, we notice something else. Their connectedness and devotion to friends, which can at times be admirable, also means that we can see them nearly addicted to their gadgets. The number of young mothers I see staring down at I-phones instead of engaging the tiny person across from them bothers me. But if you watch long enough you are likely to see the baby or toddler Instagrammed, so mommy can post to FB. That brings up all kinds of questions about the importance of face to face interaction and speech in early childhood development. But judging from the number of  toddlers and young children I've seen whine for the I Pad or I Phone and then proceed to use it, we may see an even further breakdown of civilizing the next next generation.

They are indeed, as you pointed out, growing up with a very new and very different sense of privacy, or even what should be private, if anything. I am amused however at some of the sour commentary by the older generations. "We wouldn't have thought of putting pictures of ourselves on Facebook." When of course the fact of the matter is that we can never know whether they would have or not. It's possible that society's mores would have curbed some of that behavior, but would those standards have been changed by the technology? Which came first? The exhibitionism or social networking? 

Still, for all their faults (and let's face it most of that can be laid at the feet of parents and pop psychologists) they have enough good traits, I hope, that they may be able to work together, compromise, and share enough to actually tackle some tough problems and bring about much needed change. Only time will tell.

Millennial Buzz

Madame: Please pardon the bunching up of everything, as Chrome is not cooperating this evening. Excellent points you make (and related to my post on The Professor!). Awhile back, you posted some links to scholarly works on the Millennial (who I will call the “M’s” rather than break them out more correctly into their “Y” and “Z” pieces) generation. My initial reactions were: Which part of the millennials? How certain are the researchers that they will not be like the Boomers, who seemed to have a great seed of progressive thought and activity, only to often settle into conventional thought as time went on (and age increased)—and many of whom had never had any thoughts BUT conventional? Are the researchers confident they are not mixing some trends with any wishful thinking? Is it projection of hopes and dreams onto the M’s, or is it analysis of actuality? Is it infatuation with the idea or is it reality? Does the research apply across racial, ethnic, and social groups? We need to ask because as promising as they are, there are a lot of counter-trends as well. The promise they have comes from many things, not least of which is that they grew up in a culture that was the post-result of civil rights battles. Racial, ethnic, gender, generational (at least their own families), etc. divisions come far less naturally to them, even in these economically harder pressed times. And they communicate in ways not just different, but outside the box of conventional expectation, and also with different expectations of privacy. Their irreverence for traditional authority structures and traditional reward and punishment mean they challenge systems (including religious, but perhaps not spiritual, systems) in steep ways. Of course, this also means they are frequently accused of entitlement or narcissism, as well. Much is made of “generational cycles” and comparisons with the so-called “Greatest Generation.” [As an historian, I may have issues with a generation being called greater than the founding/framing generation, but I’ll roll for now. :)] While the M’s have great promise (including as entrepreneurs and employees who confidently meet challenges, with technology and little negative emotion), they also have great challenges in themselves. For instance, more than one detractor has asked: How is this generation not just entertaining and diverting itself (and us) to death? Of course, time and the shapings of historical events will tell, but one thing is virtually certain: One day, the Boomers and the X’ers will be largely gone off the stage, and the M’s (or, more accurately, the Y’s and Z’s) will lead their societies. Regardless of any fawning, fussing, or fuming of their predecessors. :)

Dear Santa, Back Off

Professor J,

Thanks for your analysis of the BP settlement. I see that you addressed JC's questions in the comments, so does that catch you all up? Don't get too comfortable in that. Someone will toss up some more questions for you I'm sure. But today, the day before Thanksgiving I'm giving you a break. :)

Note to the reader: Today's post is meant as a gentle reminder for all of us. It is easy to get caught up in the excitement and hype created around particular events. I am reminding myself along with you, to approach things thoughtfully.

Have you ever noticed how things creep, seep, and edge their way into other things? Things that are shocking the first time you see them, like a high school basketball game on ESPN or a Christmas commercial before Halloween. But we adapt quickly and in just a couple of years, though we may have some issues with it lingering in the back of our minds, we accept that it is "just the way things are."

In the past few years we've seen stores open earlier and earlier on Black Friday. The idea that a store would open at 4:00 AM should make us cognizant of the fact that employees would have to arise a couple of hours before that. Simple logic would tell us that they would have to retire early on Thanksgiving night, thus cutting time with family and friends short, if they were going to survive the retail wars the next day without collapsing. As if that hasn't been bad enough, the past couple of years corporations have added an even more direct assault on Thanksgiving: stores that are open ON the day when we are all supposed to be taking some quiet moments to reflect on and be thankful for what we already have. Surely we can do better than a day of gluttony followed by a day of conspicuous consumerism.

Thanksgiving becoming just another day, when we barely pause at all to think on all our blessings before heading out to the mall, cannot be far behind.  This year, Walmart, Toys R Us, Kmart, and Sears are all opening their doors at 8 pm Thursday. Together with Target, that's two to four hours before they opened last year.

There is a petition being circulated by a Target employee to save Thanksgiving. The company's response through their spokesperson is:

 "Target’s opening time was carefully evaluated with our guests, team and the business in mind. Across the country, team member preferences were considered in creating our store staffing schedules. Thanksgiving weekend is one of the busiest of the year, and we appreciate our Target team’s flexibility on this weekend and throughout the holiday season."

It's a nice touch that they put "business" last. Anyone fooled by that? The company is sure to make known the fact that employees are eager to work these hours and get paid overtime, so eager in fact that more employees volunteered than there were slots to fill. They don't seem to think this might say something about the regular pay of their workers.

Far be it from me to want to ruin anyone's holiday fun. I'm not averse to Black Friday shopping even. But I'd like to encourage it being done in a more thoughtful manner. Local small businesses and restaurants will welcome your patronage on the biggest shopping day of the year. And I doubt corporations like Target and Walmart will miss you. Or you could do something totally radical and plan a post Thanksgiving day that doesn't include shopping at all. I'm thinking it might be a lovely day for a hike to work off those calories consumed the day before.

           Happy Thanksgiving!

The Unsettlement

Madame:

I see you have left it to the readers to imagine just what kind of diagram would be drawn “depicting” sex scandals. :)

BP.  Ah yes, I have SUCH a shortage of things to analyze! :)

Of course, the settlement is better than nothing, and an improvement from previous administrations.  Does it affect the corporation BP much?  Not significantly.  It certainly doesn’t affect the finances of those who made decisions at the executive and board levels.

Even if shareholders and their board of directors somehow wanted to hold management accountable, things are usually stretched out so long that the perpetrators are not even around much anymore, having been given golden parachutes.

Yes, some low and mid-level people (who appear quite guilty, to be sure) were served up by their corporate masters.  The true individual culprits were not held accountable, especially those who fostered the corporate culture of criminal, arrogant disregard for safety or considerations for workers.

When it’s an out of court settlement, a corporation can usually deduct it from their income.  They thus make sure the country’s and world’s taxpayers share in the bill for their criminality.  And even the “settlement” will be stretched out over many years, with excess assets (BP has many) sold off to make the payments and not dent even a quarter’s profits (of which the settlement does not even equal).   And laws are in the works saying individuals cannot sue oil companies, but must sue the state.

A telling reminder happened recently.  Another offshore rig caught fire in the Gulf of Mexico.  Yes, BP didn’t own it, and it wasn’t nearly as serious.  Yet, how many eagerly nodded their heads during the campaign season when Romney blasted the Obama administration for not allowing more offshore drilling?  And a “free” market needs no laws or regulators?  Would a football game work without rules or referees?

How EASY it is to get us off-focus on how polluting, enslaving, impoverishing, and climate changing, fossil fuel addiction is.  We need to be moving like a sprinter toward a truly energy independent, clean, carbon-neutral goal, and yet here we are crawling on the ground like a baby—and most babies don’t crawl fast and are easily diverted.

BP Revisited

Professor J,

What a week in the news! I can't help thinking that Fox canceled Glen Beck's show too soon. He could be putting that blackboard to really good use. Sex scandals are so much more fun to diagram than connections to the Illuminati. ;)

As a matter of fact, it's the kind of thing that is much more fun to think about than things like crashing over the fiscal cliff and what the implications of that might be. The escalating trouble between Israel and Gaza is getting more attention though. Apparently war is a sexier topic than economics.

But there is one piece of news that came full circle from the beginnings of this blog. Our very first postings were about the BP oil spill. You might remember that I asked you what solution it was that you would like to see. Here was your answer:

The solution, maybe a fantasy one, would see corporate law and regulation changed dramatically, primarily in the arena of personal accountability, and the enforcement of existing law and regulation about this. These days, the “corporate veil” (which is not an unsound idea in and of itself) is rarely pierced by the judicial system for criminal liability, and almost never pierced for anything else, to financially or otherwise punish the arrogantly disdainful and near-utterly disconnected managements and boards who inflict the colossal damage we’ve been discussing. It would also be nice if our legislators and executive agents actually held managements and boards truly accountable, but again, that would be a bit like asking a bribed judge to hold Tammany Hall accountable. This idea that corporations should have the same First Amendment protections that individuals have has also made a terrible travesty of true justice.

The reader can read the entire post here.

Can you give us your opinion on the agreement announced today by the Attorney General?

Here's an article from Huffington Post: BP Oil Spill Settlement 

While we are recovering from the election and you are trying to get to answering JC's questions, I  know you'll want something else to analyze! :)

Points, Sharpness Unassured

Well made points Madame.  To them I would add only:

Governor Christie may now hold some belief about climate change other than his party’s.

In reference to AC, your point about silliness evaporating in the event of life and death brings up an interesting point question to those who despise his orientation so much:  If you could for sure have your life be saved by help from a homosexual, would you accept it, or take a chance on a non-homosexual coming by?

Although I am rarely in the mood to give Mr. Mathews too much of the BOTD, perhaps what he meant by that semi-exhausted blurting was (instead of the apparent partisan advantage) that there would be more cooperation and sane political behavior?

Billed by the state for stupidity and obstinate behavior?  Capital idea!  “Freedom of choice” must have its companion with it: “Responsibility.”

A quick post-mortem of the election:

The status quo and potential stalemate was largely preserved.

The Republican Party now has multiple components—plutocrat servers, tea party activists, and religious and pseudo-religious zealots among them—but could not quite come together.  Also, despite rhetoric, not quite enough were truly convinced Obama was the Arch-socialist Antichrist Anarchist.

The Democratic Party has always had multiple components, and the progressive elements within it were ready to withhold their votes—except that the extremist views of the components of the Republican Party made them swallow their distaste for the corporatists and establishment servers of their own party and vote for them by voting against the other side.

Demographics do not appear on the side of the Republicans, and that and the Republicans’ own penchant for breeding distrust among significant numbers of the electorate overcame much efforts by the Republicans and their allies.   What much?  Despite their unenthusiasm for Romney, corporations and the wealthy went near-all out with Super PACs and other spending for him, Senate candidates, etc.  It wasn’t completely for naught, but it did not succeed.  Neither, largely, did the blatant voter suppression in many of the key states. 

With all that, and some fairly anemic Democratic candidates opposing their own candidates (and a weak economy to boot), they still couldn’t pull it off.  Goes to show both the weakness of their own candidates and the out of resonance stances of their own positions, but also that they are failing heavily with African Americans, Asians, Latinos, and even women.

However, those making dire predictions for the future of the Republican Party should remember that a prime vehicle for the possible reinvigoration of the

Republican Party already exists: The Democratic Party, which has proven time and again its consummate skill in squandering advantages, moments, and opportunities.

The Perfect Election Storm

Professor J,

Just as I was breathing a sigh of relief that the election was over, one way or the other, I'll be darned if the pundits and prognosticators didn't start talking about what all this will mean for the NEXT election. No wonder no one can get around to governing, it would mean a break in campaigning. Why can't we stop selling and start solving?

I went to vote with my daughter who has more fun than anyone realizes is possible on election day. There was actually jumping up and down as we entered our precinct. And of course, the requisite photo was made for instagram. While I appreciated her enthusiasm, as a parent, fellow voter, and citizen I felt a pang of sadness that we aren't able to offer up candidates with ideas worthy of her excitement.  But now that the whole thing is over I'm thinking about some things we've learned in the last few days of the election, and from Hurricane Sandy:

Governor Chris Christie is his own man. Known for his brashness and stubbornly sticking to his ideas, he gained a lot of credibility this week for having his priorities in place. An especially interesting explanation of his thinking was given in response to a silly question from Fox's Steve Doocy about whether or not Romney would get a photo-op touring the damage with the N.J. governor: 

“I have no idea, nor am I the least bit concerned or interested, I’ve got a job to do here in New Jersey that’s much bigger than presidential politics and I could [sic] care less about any of that stuff. I have a job to do,” he added. “I’ve got 2.4 million people out of power, I’ve got devastation on the shore, I’ve got floods in the northern part of my state. If you think right now I give a damn about presidential politics then you don’t know me.”

Since Obama's reelection Tuesday night Christie has been taken to task by commentators and radio talk show hosts for praising Obama's handling of the situation. Lou Dobbs referred to it as "slobbering over the president" and insinuated that it was a calculated move toward reelection in his predominately blue state.  He's being referred to by members of his own party as "Judas" and "traitor." Talk show host Laura Ingram said this week that it wouldn't surprise her if he became a democrat. Given how his party is treating him, who could blame him? 

 In the midst of disaster no one cares that Anderson Cooper is gay. Night after night as AC stood out in the cold listening to the stories of residents rendered homeless by the storm I didn't see anyone ask him about his sexual orientation. People just wanted to be heard. They wanted their stories to be told. They wanted some help. They did not want their stories told by a straight anchorman/reporter. They wanted their stories by a human being. In matters of life and death it is striking how quickly silliness gets set aside.

Chris Mathews should not be allowed on air when sleep deprived, okay I'd argue he shouldn't be allowed on air ever, masquerading as an objective journalist. Just before the end of election coverage on MSNBC Mathews said, speaking in reference to the effect Sandy had on the election, “I’m so glad we had that storm last week because I think the storm was one of those things.” After an audible sound from co-anchor Rachel Maddow, who then put her hand on his arm as if to say "Please stop talking," he added,  “No, politically I should say. Not in terms of hurting people. The storm brought in possibilities for good politics.” Oh yes. Because of course loss of life and people's personal suffering is nothing compared to good political theater.

We didn't learn as much as we should have from Katrina. Federal, state, and local officials looked as if they could have had a better plan in place for such a densely populated area. But the main thing that shocked me (again) is the refusal of citizens to heed mandatory evacuation orders making the job of those who are trying to ensure the safety of residents, that much harder. If you don't evacuate after being told and you need to be rescued, I think you should be billed by the state for the cost of your bail out. 

Here's an article about just how much we didn't learn: Sandy Refugees Say Life In Tent City Feels Like Prison

Polar Icing

Madame M:

Hope you’re not too disappointed, but my answer is NOT going to be that comprehensive.

You are correct that we seem to lack the ability to see connections.  Like selfish children, we want, but don’t want to pay, and certainly don’t see our common interest with our fellows.  Yet we scream loud when things aren’t there for us, and go into refusal/denial/scream louder mode when it’s pointed out that that’s the result of what we said we wanted.

Neither party cooperates well anymore, and the in-need-of-reform rules of the Senate don’t help.  But because they are the weaker party (money/power base, etc.), Dems tend to seek compromise more.  The other party, almost never anymore.  Mitt Romney says he will work in a bipartisan fashion if elected by finding “good Democrats.”  Since compromise has not been his party’s forte, doesn’t that just mean Democrats that can be intimidated?  Since they are easier to isolate and make vulnerable, he could probably find some, unlike his own party, who rarely was willing to work out or compromise on anything.

We are a changed people, and these are changed times.  Without a single systemic threat (Axis, Communism) to rally against and focus our energies, we’ve often been a divided people.  And some periods, such as pre-Civil War, are so intensely divided, it almost seems only some system-seismic event can change that.  Moderates usually are pushed out or sickened out by the ever more polarized stances of the parties in an environment that has such room for country bickering.  Rome, when it stood undisputed master of the civilized Western world, soon took to bitter, destructive civil wars.  An ethic of expansion—whether for empire or capitalism—can have the same effect if frustrated.

Our campaigning has transitioned from vetting and informing to one of endless news cycles and spectacle.  It feeds the love my side/ hate the other side phenomenon, and the fracturing of communications channels only shovels it in.

We have certainly had a splintering of issues, and that’s part of it too.  But overall, we don’t have issues, we have political theater.  Spectacle and contention among elites, perhaps, but nothing for or about the average person.

No doubt that we are more selfish and inward looking as a people, with less community.  Even when we don’t (or say we don’t) want to be that way.  But it translates into how easy we segment ourselves, and how comfortable we are with it.    The way we live, the where we live.  Even the process.  Ear buds anyone?  They keep you shut off from the world and people around you, and easy to dismiss them by easy caricatures, rather than know them for who and what they are.

And this mantra of hyper-individualism we have hypnotized ourselves with—do it all yourself, and keep everything yourself, and let others do the same—is unrealistic, foolish, self-destructive, and polarizing.

Gerrymandering may be one of the biggest causes of our polarization, and drives much of the lack of give and take.  With so many seats in Congress “safe” for a party (and all the damage that does to democracy), it becomes easier for those opposite the president to thumb their noses.

We also have classic change, and classic reactionary response, going on in the country.  Demographics are changing, and a large portion of the “traditional” group feels threatened by the change, which they perceive will bring a change of their life and values.  Marry that up with a slight conservative preference for a majority of citizens, and you get the struggle between those who want change (or at least acceptance of certain progressive ideas) and those who are afraid of change (especially the change they can see and feel coming).

By transference we then project all this on to two figures who compete to direct the executive branch, pouring most focus and partially or totally ignoring all the other major players in the equation (Congress, Fed, G-20, Big Business and wealthy, etc.).

This answer went long.  I am very behind on replying to JC’s comments.

Building an Analogy

Professor J,

Thorough answer, as always. I'm amused that you anticipated my question about adjustments and answered it before I even had a chance to think of it. :)

You are right in pointing out that a certain amount (you put it at $30,000) would need to be exempt, thus protecting a base amount of income for people to live on. I was more intrigued though by your concept of a "US occupancy fee." That might help in some small way towards people having a sense of "ownership." I think most people rarely give any thought to their own responsibility as citizens, or how they are or are not contributing to their communities or to the nation as a whole. It also reminded me of something I heard Ben Stein say during a panel discussion once. His Democratic counterpart used the analogy of a building association in reference to taxes used to pay for things we all benefit from and the meetings were likened to elections, where we all decide how we are going to manage the building. Stein stopped the anchor person who was ready to move on to say (I'm paraphrasing), "Can we just stop for a moment? I want to acknowledge an excellent point when I hear one, and that is actually a very good analogy."

The way the Republicans twisted the president's "You didn't build that" comment, when he was trying to make a point about how we all benefit from investments in things like roads and bridges, shows how detached we are from grasping this concept. A dearth of understanding (due to the lack of teaching, and valuing) of basic civics keeps us arguing and divided about things, that in reality, people would certainly agree on if they could be bothered to give it five minutes of rational thought.

Here's a question as the election looms: To what do you attribute the closeness of so many presidential elections? State and local elections seem to have more clear winners and losers.  We seem to be almost divided exactly in half in regards to political ideology. Are we like a divorced couple who agree on little sharing the same house, or is something else at play, like a populace that is wary of either side wielding too much power for too long?

I'd never thought of the fact that just after elections we are all distracted immediately by the holidays. Excellent point. Then it's time for weight loss and organization followed by Valentine's Day. And of course there are always squirrels! ;) We'll give it our somewhat full and temporary attention again when we are on the verge of a full blown crisis. But as you have noted, something may be coming that will demand our total long term focus. 

You just have time to squeeze in a civics lesson before Tuesday! :)

Look, A Squirrel

Madame M:

A completely flat tax might SEEM fair, but it isn’t unless adjustments are built into it, and, assuming no deductions, those adjustments are the same complexity as a progressive system.  But a progressive system without deductions brings in far more revenue on average, and, more importantly, spurs the system to delay and de-emphasize profit taking, and instead reinvest in both workers and the long-term. 

I will anticipate you asking me what adjustments would have to be built if there were a flat tax, and they are primarily these: A certain amount ($30,000?) of each person’s income would need to be exempt from taxation (except for maybe a $100 “US occupancy fee”) to keep a flat rate from falling disproportionally upon the poor.  In effect, this would mean taxation would not begin until one had an income of $30,000, with everything above that amount having the flat tax rate applied to it.  This too has complications, however, among them the determination whether one begins it at that point, or one “pro-rates” it over the whole expectancy period, meaning, the expected tax is deducted bit by bit every “pay period.”

The idea of eliminating deductions has complications where businesses are concerned.  We would have to decide as a society whether to allow businesses to deduct nearly the full range of their present types of deductions (there are both benefits and abuses to this), or to merely allow them to deduct the costs to directly produce the goods or services.  If we allow the full range, expect the number of “businesses” to increase significantly, and that means headaches with auditing and enforcement.  And deciding whether the present types of entrepreneurial businesses, that are treated as flow through individual persons for tax purposes, will get to have the deductions, is a problem too.  Always complications!

Regardless, having present tax rates without deductions can only be kept up for so long without needing to reduce the rates.  A deep and painful recession would be effectively unavoidable, and we would need to get some rate relief within a reasonable time so as not to contract the economy too much or trigger a depression.

Pain.  Serious pain.   Not going to be easy AT ALL.

The election is nine days away.  We Americans, among our many political/civic/historical bad habits, have the particularly bad one of most of us paying SOME attention to the spectacle of electioneering for a while, and then ceasing to pay almost ANY attention afterwards.  Just when the hard business of governing, legislating, and forcing the system to be responsive is needed, most Americans jump instead into shopping, holidays, and diversions of many sorts, and never really get TO, let alone BACK, to the matter of making their creature—government, the instrument Locke and the Framers devised for them—bend to their will, the good of the many.

Leaving the selfish relative few to get what they want instead.

Repeat.

Send in the Adults

Professor J,

Good to hear there was some shinkage of spending and the deficit.(I'll admit that the word shrinkage always makes me think of George Costanza in the pool.) :)

Well, you have a plan better than the ones spouted by actual candidates. And I think at this point when people are tired of the nonsensical platitudes being offered up by both sides that you might get more support for things like pain, shared sacrifice, confronting fear, and confronting fear than you might imagine. I often feel that the populace is in the same mood as the child who has had too many sweets and television over a holiday and longs for someone to rein them in. The child never admits this, of course, but when it is imposed upon them there is a relief in the return to more healthy and productive ways. Not without tears and complaints however.

The question is--are we mature enough to impose those painful, yet healthy limits on ourselves?

I especially like that you  threw in "confronting irrational and excessive fear." We are a people who are conditioned to now be afraid of everything. We are paying a heavy, though often unrecognized, price for that in many areas of life. From bringing up a generation of over scheduled constantly supervised children to the willingness to vote for the Patriot Act. When did we lose our spirit of courage? How might we work to get it back? Sadly, it seems one of those things which once lost, is gone forever.

The tax code is a big part of the problem and needs much correction as you have pointed out. You make several suggestions for tackling what is wrong with it now. Can you explain why you fall short of endorsing a flat/fair tax? Or is it just that a complete overhaul would be too big an endeavor in the current political and economic climate? OR perhaps your  answer is in your post when you said that our political system "doesn't lead it follows. Right now, it follows the selfish plutocrats."

I hear you echoing Hedges in pointing out that we are better off coming up with a plan and demanding that our "leaders" implement it. I'm remembering him saying that we shouldn't expect solutions to come from the top down, but from the bottom up.

Very interesting point you make about the "global stability of the core" and the world being more low risk than is sometimes thought due to the"desire of the non-core countries to join the core." It always strikes me that for most of these seemingly irrational despots and nefarious troublemakers that it is much more fun to run around and talk about blowing the world up than to actually do it. As we saw recently it can gain you a week's worth of attention at the UN no matter how crazy you are.

Confrontation Nation

Madame M:

Thanks for giving readers a peek at what each of our blogs are like!  And now on to today’s topic…

It’s too early to make definitive statements about Fiscal Year 12, which just closed September 30^th for the federal government, but it appears that total spending actually declined about a 100 billion dollars from the year before.  The deficit, while still quite large, appears to have shrunk by at least $200B, and maybe by as much as $500B.  It is on track to shrink further, but it is not going to go away on the present course, because that course has been a dozen years or more in the making.

There IS a way to meet our financial—deficit, debt, and otherwise—crises:

Pain.

Shared sacrifice.

Confronting irrational and excessive fear.

Taxing detrimental things the most and productive the least.

For instance:

Getting rid of deductions simplifies and equalizes the tax code without a flat rate, and generates $1.3T in revenue.  That more than solves the yearly deficit.  It will also mean pain.  And shared sacrifice—from everyone.  And maybe a painful transitioning recession.

Recognizing the global stability of the core, and the desire of non-core countries to join the core, means the world is far more low-risk than sometimes thought.  What risks exist are not of the big-ticket-item (tanks, ships, fighters and bombers) variety, and cost much less to address.  That could save half, maybe even two-thirds, of the present expenditures on “security.”  Savings: $300B to $1T a year.  It will also mean living with some general risk so that the certainty of present-course financial disintegration is averted.

Taxing environmentally damaging things will generate revenue AND steer us into REAL energy independence while we try to stabilize the environment and the climate AND will spur the transition to a clean, renewable energy future without the problems of direct subsidization.

And eventually, working citizens can get a real, sustainable, lowering of their taxes, WHILE the debt is paid down.

And along the way, we can decide how far we want to go in reforming government payments (transfer and otherwise) such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, in addition to all the things that get lumped into “welfare.”

The political system is completely unresponsive to the above, of course.  It doesn’t lead, it follows.  Right now, it follows the selfish plutocrats.  If non-plutocratic Americans take the energy they traditionally fritter on sports watching, shopping, holiday obsession, entertainment, and a number of other distractions and diversions, and instead apply it consistently and continually to the above, the system will respond.  Quite grudgingly at first, as the Great Ship rights itself, but it still is built to respond to the call of its Great People Captains.

We keep asking our politicians to come up with “a plan,” but actually, the plan is better if we come up with it and demand they implement it.

The world has so much promise, probably never more promise at any time in its history, and is set for more common cooperation than ever before. It’s just that right now, that world is largely in the hands of the selfish and the short-sighted, at least in the flagship country still in the lead (that would be US).  To wrest it away from the visionless will take confronting our own selfishness, illusions, and delusions, and the swallowing of painful, bitter medicine.  Medicine that will take a long time to heal our afflictions, but that give us real hope that life can be so much better than we presently imagine.

America, this is your character test.  The great historical pen is out to write either a chapter of renewal or a chapter of disintegration.  And unborn descendants perhaps watch from a spiritual plane whether those they will mortally call their “ancestors” rise to true greatness or just tell themselves they’re great and go back to all their petty diversions, distractions, and denials.   From greatness will come future reverence and present self-pride.  From the other will come future despising—and perhaps present self-loathing.

The Housewife Cheats

Professor J,

Okay, I know right now it's supposed to be all politics all the time as we head into the final stretch of election season. But a vacation and various other factors have conspired against me getting in a very thoughtful post this week. My solution is to offer up a distraction. "Look over there! Forget I haven't written a relevant post this week! And that I'm late! Would you believe the dog ate it?"  :)

So Dear Reader in case you never wander over to our personal blogs, here's what you are missing this week: On mine,                  The Danger of a Bucket List

When the movie came out the term "Bucket List" immediately made it's way into the American lexicon. Suddenly everyone has a list of things they want to accomplish and mark off before they kick the bucket. I actually had such a list written out about 15 years before the movie was released, but I think most everyone has a list of this sort, at least floating around in the back of their mind.

Here's the problem: Life isn't about scratching something off a list. In fact, the danger in seeing it that way is that the place, event, or activity may not be experienced to the fullest. Several years ago I took a trip and when I returned a friend asked it I had seen a couple of particular things. I hadn't, but I'd had a wonderful time and seen interesting different things that were enjoyable to me. Life is full of side streets and unexpected joys. It's best to stay open to those while you are on your quest. It's also full of detours and places you have arrived while the doors are locked. That's okay. Life may have unexpected treasures for you, you know nothing of.

Make sure your bucket has a hole in it. We want life to be full of exciting things. We want to sail around the world or write the great American novel. We see movies and read books about what other people are doing and we get a skewed view of our own lives. The better bucket list may include things like making little kids laugh, or volunteering at a local charity, or tutoring a struggling student. Sharing your experience and knowledge is a practical and rewarding thing to put on your list. Standing water stagnates. Keep what is in the bucket flowing in and out.

Today may have some things worth putting in the bucket. Life isn't actually made up of big moments. It mainly consists of millions of small ordinary moments, thousands of days, strung together to make a life. You don't want to spend so much time making, or dreaming about your list that you miss the simple joy of today.  When was the last time you visited a museum and sat in front of a work of art for half an hour contemplating it? You may want to add something like "See as many sunrises as possible." to your list. Too many people miss today searching for life's few big moments.

Keep filling the bucket. The thing about lists is, that we are eager to get to the end of them and feel a sense of accomplishment. As you learn and grow, the list will both shrink and expand. You may mark things off the list, not because you do them, but because you no longer need to do them. You may need to replace them with other more important or interesting things. Some of them may be released. Some of them may die. It's okay. Keep adding the new things you'd like to accomplish. Life, above everything else is a process.

Put "Keep moving forward." at the top of the list.  Here are some things that are on friends' lists: Travel to Italy, get a Ph.D., run a marathon, repair a broken relationship, write a book that will challenge status quo thinking. All of those goals have something in common. They cannot be accomplished standing still. Being a life long learner, getting and staying fit, and working on improving relationships are worthy of a spot on your list. The more you focus on forward momentum, the more you can tweak that list into something more meaningful than just a list of places to see and things to do.

A lot of things show up on these lists because of what everyone else thinks we should want to do. Your list will be unique and personal to you. It doesn't have to include skydiving or visiting the Taj Mahal. Think about what you really want to accomplish in life and let your list reflect that. Work toward making those things happen, but leave yourself lots of freedom to explore, wander, and dump out the bucket and start over. Just don't let it get rusty. You are only going this way once.

On The Professor's: Doubling Down on a Dose of Double Bull

“Double taxation” is mostly a straw-man argument.  Lots of people and situations are double or triple taxed:  Income taxes, payroll taxes, and sales taxes.  Every time you pay your repairman, or well, practically ANYBODY, you do so with money you have already paid taxes on.  And that repairman will pay taxes on the money you give him or her, and so on.

So capital gains and corporate taxes are not the big deal of disparate treatment they’re made out to be by the right-wing, although the flow of capital and investment PERHAPS needs consideration. 

Lower capital gains don’t create jobs here either.  We’ve had them for many years and few livable wage jobs have been created by it.  They mostly just enrich the rich further, while the secretaries who serve the rich pay a higher rate on an incredibly smaller income.

We have to quit being manipulated by these deflective, deceptive lines of bull.  History is going to record us as self-destructants willingly conned into acting against our interests and for the interests of those doing the conning.  The people of the future will say those words: “How could they let that happen to themselves?”

Unless we start questioning more and accepting less.