Nothing wrong with a simple life

Neil Alan Smith garnered no real fame in his life. But really, who does? Most of us pursue our lives largely unnoticed, well out of the limelight. What is important to us seems mundane, at best, to others. And we rarely take notice of each other in the simplicity of day-to-day life.

How many of us ever give a thought to the person washing the dishes when we go out to eat? I like to think that I'm mindful of everyone in the chain of services that provide me with what I have come to think of as a pretty comfortable life. I like to think that, because I too have been the one toiling quietly and unnoticed in my past, not unlike Neil Alan Smith. And I am fortunate to have called men much like him my friends.

And so, I found it deeply offensive when, in response to his obituary, someone chose to comment in the St. Petersburg Times,

A man who is working as a dishwasher at the Crab Shack at the age of 48 is surely better off dead.

How sad. To think that someone could be so callous to feel ok about posting this for anyone to see is really disheartening. To their credit, the paper wrote a wonderful article in response to this remark, and removed the post as well. But it made me think that maybe I haven't been as appreciative lately of folks who labor harder with their bodies than I, and for less money, and in doing so, make my life simpler, better, and more comfortable.

And I was also reminded of a coworker from several years ago. He was a dishwasher at the restaurant I worked at in NC. Before coming to the US, he had a series of far more "respectable" jobs in Mexico, but as an immigrant worker, his choices were far fewer here. I recall how one New Year's Eve, he cut his hand on a knife in the sink, and he needed to get stitches. My roommate and I were hosting a party, and had guests already at our apartment, but this coworker needed help. We took him to the ER, but with questions about both his ability to pay and his residency status looming, the wait was growing longer and longer. In the end, I wound up at a convenience store buying first aid supplies, with which I managed to get his hand patched up.

While I'm no longer in touch with him, that coworker became a friend that night, and he opened my eyes to a reality I'd not have had the benefit of seeing without his friendship. Among many other things, I learned about how he sent most of his earnings back home to help support his family (and in hopes of them joining him some day). He is now a citizen, and the last time I saw him he was working in another restaurant (owned by a  member of his family, also an immigrant and naturalized citizen). We shared many beers together after long, difficult nights at work. We shot pool. He taught me a litany of bawdy words in Spanish (and enriched my Spanish vocabulary in more productive ways as well).

So, the next time I pop open a beer, I think I'll drink a toast to dishwashers everywhere. And then one to my old friend. And finally, I'll drink a toast to Neil Alan Smith. To a quiet man who did what he needed to do, lived a simple life, and who made it possible for people like me to be just a bit more comfortable. Cheers to you, Mr. Smith!

Short and sweet - right on!

I have little to add to this, and just wanted to share John Stossel's take on the failure of the "war on drugs."

Yes, the arguments presented are tried and true, but they all bear repeating. Prohibition failed and led to criminal activity far worse than drinking did, much as our current policies are doing little more than fueling the increased violence in Mexico, which in turns makes our own streets less safe. Stossel is spot on in connecting these dots.

I'm particularly glad that there is recognition that the real skulduggery is the increasingly militant stance of police forces. The near-terrorist tactics of SWAT teams in raiding homes has been an increasing concern, and one that is certain to erode civil liberty (and even civil society) if allowed to continue.

Thanks, John.

Conflict of interest

Ethical people can have conflicts of interest and still make good choices. They can have conflicts of interest and make bad choices, too. Unethical people can do the same. But we have, as a nation, tried to avoid allowing the appearance of conflict of interest from muddying our legal system. I do not object to allowing everyone the opportunity to invest in markets. But when traders do so, they are subject to rigorous review to insure that conflict of interest does not end up leading to undue profit (you know, that whole insider trading thing).

So when we are faced with the most disastrous oil spill in our nation's history, and the oil companies pose a legal challenge to the temporary ban while clean-up is ongoing, it seems reasonable to hold the judge hearing the case to a similar standard.

Judge Martin Feldman should have stepped aside. The appearance of fairness matters as much as actual fairness, and in a high profile case, all the more. In ruling against the Obama administration ban, Feldman claimed that the ban was not justified because there is no evidence that all deep-water drilling is as flawed as BPs. The problem is, Judge Feldman, that there is no evidence that it is safe. The prudent course of action is to wait until we have clarity on this disaster before allowing another to happen.

But when Transocean is putting dividends into your portfolio, I guess you don't wait for such evidence.

Obama is racist?

Iowa Republican Congressman Steve King thinks our president and attorney general are racists. It really does not get more plain than this. Mr. King feels that President Obama has a "default mechanism" that makes him take the side of blacks over whites. I will grant Mr. King one small point in favor of his argument. A reasonable person could assume, based on one or two incidents, that the president might be inclined to side with black people. The incident involving the black professor and white police officer is the instance he refers to, and I do appreciate that the congressman's "default mechanism" probably made him understand the conflict in this way.

But Mr. King goes a bit too far when he decides to argue his point in reference to Eric Holder. He states:

But it looks like Eric Holder said that we were, that white people in America are cowards when it comes to race and I don’t know what the basis of that is, but I’m not a coward when it comes to that and I’m happy to talk about these things and I think we should.

Eric Holder did make a comment about cowardice and race in America, but he did not refer to whites at all in his remarks. His was a sweeping criticism of the dialog around race in our country. And Mr. Holder has a valid point. On the whole, we are mostly cowardly when it comes to serious dialog about the lingering racism that persists in America. Sadly, it is folks like Congressman King who are scratching the underbelly of race dialog, and in reality pandering to the extremest of the right in the process.

If you doubt this, note that even a Tea Party-favorite candidate in Colorado, Rep. Cory Gardner, went so far as to cancel an appearance by King at a Colorado fundraiser. Perhaps the folks in the Tea Party movement (at least those in the public eye and in positions of leadership) are catching on the the fact that bald-faced racism is not appealing to a majority of Americans. We may not want to talk seriously about race, but still, most people do not want to be perceived as racist, and that, at least, is a measure of progress.

It is rare that I find any common ground with Tea-Partiers, and while I'm not sure I agree with everything they have offered up on this particular issue, I must grudgingly credit them with taking a stance in response to King's comments.

And I suppose it should really come as no surprise that King made his remarks on G. Gordon Liddy's radio show.
Conservative radio, it seems, is becoming the new bastion of racism in America.

Really, Rand?

Rand Paul, the Kentucky Republican candidate for senate, has already stirred up rancor with is comments on civil rights legislation. Simply put, I find his stance distasteful at best, and I think that a reasonable person could interpret his statements as plainly racist. But that isn't the only controversy he's facing right now.

It seems Mr. Paul - or is it Dr. Paul - has run afoul of a Louisville paper that uncovered what I think is a far greater cause for concern. The candidate has an eye surgery practice in Bowling Green. And he's board certified. Seems fine, right?

Not so fast, say the folks at USA Today (not my leading source for news, but I'm glad they covered this). Yes, he does have a certification from the National Board of Ophthalmology. But this is only because Rand Paul had some sort of dispute with the legitimate, AMA-recognized American Board of Ophthalmology. Again, fine.

But the National Board of Ophthalmology's board consists of - you guessed it - Rand Paul (president), his wife (vice-president) and father-in-law (secretary). When questioned about this, Paul dismissed the issue at first, stating that re-certification was not needed. He then claimed to be certified by both. When that was shown to be false, this was the response:

A spokesman subsequently said that Paul misspoke because the question was unclear and he acknowledged his certification by the American Board had lapsed.

If nothing else, Rand Paul is creative. Evasive, to be sure. The problem I have is that with someone this inclined to moral relativism about something as important as a professional medical certification, how can he be trusted to provide leadership in the senate? Paul claims that these news stories are an attack on his livelihood. Really, Rand? You are running for one of the highest offices in the land. You are doing so at one of the more politically divisive times in our history. What's more, you are making statements public that are controversial at best. Do you seriously believe that having reporters question your professional ethics is an attack?

Yes, we all err. Yes, even the best among us sometimes takes a more expedient pathway, even if it isn't the best pathway. But if you are running for public office, you need to expect questions about your character. And with health care reform still fresh in the minds of many Americans, seeing a candidate trying to beat the system from the inside does not install confidence that he or she is the right person for the job, certainly not right now.

It will be an interesting election year, to say the least.

Tax me!

Imagine wanting to pay higher taxes. Willingly wanting to pay higher taxes.

It seems like a stretch, right? Pretty unlikely that anyone would want to do this, huh? And yet, CNBC is reporting that a group of 51 German millionaires are proposing to do just that. Germany, for the record, has the most millionaires in Europe both proportionally and numerically. I cannot imagine that all of the EU's financial issues would magically vanish because this small group is willing to kick in a little extra. Far from it. But the larger concept is worth examination.

Most industrialized countries (or is that term now obsolete, since industry no longer is the engine of economic growth?) are facing difficult times right now. Deficit spending is the order of the day, as it often is when the global economy slumps. As long as free market economies are in the lead on the international stage, the rise and fall of fortunes are likely to remain the norm. There is little good that comes from lean economic times for most people, beyond the stereotypical "character building" and "bootstrap pulling" that are nothing more than mental and verbal exercises in taking the edge off the pain and hardship that average people endure (or the mantra that those not impacted repeat to themselves as they ignore the cries of the suffering).

But there is a real good in taking advantage of the reflective necessity that generally accompanies hardship. In this downturn, it is perhaps worth thinking about my first statement, the seemingly absurd idea that anyone would want to pay higher taxes. It is an unpopular idea, sure, and if I ever decide to run for office, I'm sure what I am about to say will likely become fodder for an opponent, but it is worth articulating. If we expect services from our governmental entities, we need to pay for them. Period. And if there isn't enough money to pay for what we want, need, and/or expect as a people, we have only a few choices. We can choose to cut services. We can choose to borrow and hope to pay for our spending later. Or we can raise taxes.

I think the mistake we make is not taxing when times are good, when revenues are up, and the mood of the public is on the whole more positive. The previous administration, when there was some modest positive economic growth still afoot, opted to cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans, for example. I think we make the mistake of not following the advice of good financial planners - as a nation, we do not save for lean times. We have no cushion to fall back on. We carry too much debt. All of this is a formula for fiscal failure. As households, many of us set aside money for retirement, for our kids' college funds, in HSAs, or for unexpected (or even expected) expenses of all sorts. Wise planners take the riches in times of bounty and set them aside, so why can't we ask for that on local, state-wide, and national levels? The pain is lesser when the wallet is fatter, no?

What's more, many (even most) of us are insured in some way. We pay into a system designed to spread risk (that is, when insurance companies aren't simply trying to make excessive profits, but that's another rant). As much as folks would like to think otherwise, that's a bit of a socialist idea and at the core, what these German millionaires are proposing is a bit of a socialist idea as well. Americans sadly fear the implications of that word - socialism. Germans, as the article points out, are not as uncomfortable with it.

Post-war Germany created its very own brand of capitalism — the “Soziale Marktwirtschaft”, which literally translated means “social market economy”, but in essence it understands itself as capitalism with a strong social conscience; an economic blueprint that is built on a consensus society, rather than one of social conflict.

I like to think that, at heart, most people want what is best not only for themselves, but also for those around them, their families, friends, and neighbors. While we may not always consciously strive to thrive together, most of us are at least not interested in building ourselves up at the expense of others. And yet, when a slim percentage of any nation holds an overabundance of that nation's wealth, and that group sits back and watches as the larger group endures the pain of economic hardship, it is hard to think that market capitalism is a humane and logical choice for a civilized people.

Even many of America's wealthiest citizens understand their obligation to the society that allows them to become so wealthy. Bill and Melinda Gates, for example, give away incredible sums every year, and they are far from alone. We are a charitable people, we Americans. Perhaps, in spite of all the rhetoric surrounding the Arizona immigration laws, we still understand that we are a nation of immigrants whose families lived the cliches, pulled themselves up by the bootstraps, if you will, and we still know that you need a fair playing field, and sometimes even a little help, to get those boots on.

I am certainly no millionaire. I make a good living, and feel remarkably fortunate to have all I have; a nice home, a great TV, plenty of food, and a few good bottles of wine in the cooler. I may not have a whole lot more to give than I already do when paying my taxes, but I certainly have enough to give to charitable and political causes, to go out or order in dinner more than occasionally, and to spend on those bottles of wine and the cable and other services that feed content to that TV of mine. I see the point these 51 individuals are making. Maybe it isn't easy to see if you don't have the luxury of a little extra, but when we don't have 10% unemployment, an imploded housing market, and financial institutions up to all sorts of shenanigans, most of us in the US have at least a little bit of that luxury, no?

I want to see tax revenues spent wisely. I want to see a solid plan for the future, prudent spending now, and tangible payoff for the monies spent. I see my taxes as investment, on the one hand, and as a charitable gift on the other, and I hold those accountable for managing that money. I make sure I vote, I contact my elected officials, and I stay informed.

And I guess I'm a bit odd here - I suppose what I'm saying is that, like these German millionaires, I'm willing to pay more taxes.

More on the Firing Squad

I came across another article relating to the impending firing squad in Utah, and I bristled at this quote:

"It was anti-climactic," he says. "Another day at the office."

This was stated by an unnamed officer who was part of the last firing squad in Utah, one who is likely to take part in this one as well. Just a normal day, huh? I find it hard to imagine that someone can be this cavalier in speaking about killing someone, that anyone can, with a straight face, decry the horror of the crime committed by the condemned and speak about taking their life, in turn, with such a cold statement. Later, another officer who was at the earlier execution states that the process was "not gruesomely bloody, nor was it slow." A bullet ripping through a human body isn't gruesome? Do we need special effects folks from Hollywood to step in to make it bloody for it to register? And does it really matter how fast or how slow it is when we are talking about killing someone intentionally?

This officer claims that, if a police officer had shot and killed the offender as he was running away from the crime scene, he would have been considered a hero, and that this is really no different. I suppose there is a kernel of truth in that statement, that the two aren't all that different. Had he been running away it would have been equally unjustified. Now, had the officer been threatened with imminent harm (or had there been a clear danger to others in the moment), I could understand his point. But shooting a fleeing criminal, particularly shooting to kill, is a concept I cannot rationalize.

I should also point out that this officer outright dismisses any logical arguments against the death penalty with such gems as this one:

"The death penalty...is nothing more than sending a defective
product back to the manufacturer. Let him fix it."

Knowing that we err in killing folks on death row - that we have, in fact, killed innocent people in this way - I find this simplistic mindset all the more disturbing. What's more, if we really are dealing with someone who is defective, isn't treatment of some sort more in order than murder? Following this officer's logic, we should kill everyone with cancer, no? If we send defective products back, as he proposes, where does it end?

And for those who think that we are taking some particularly moral high road on this front, let's examine the other countries mentioned as having carried out executions by firing squad just 3 years ago (in 2007). Belarus, Ethiopia, Indonesia, and North Korea each carried out one. Somalia added 3. Yemen - eight. And the country with the most executions that year - Afghanistan - which killed 15 people by firing squad. That's some company. In nearly every other way, we try to distance ourselves from the kinds of civilizations represented by most (if not all) of these nations.

The argument that this officer, and many others, offer up to justify death penalties is that polls show a majority of Americans favor capital punishment. There are many injustices carried out in the name of majority rule in our past and in our present. But as a nation, we have a long and storied record of, ultimately, coming to our collective senses and doing what is right even if it isn't what the majority would like to see. I hold out hope that this is an issue that we will come to our collective senses about before too long.