(I drafted this post several days ago and decided to "sleep" on it. Did not want to seem too risqué. But as I hear the outcry over the temporary cancellation of the pipeline and GOP candidates arguing about ways to improve our economy, I decided to set my more lady-like airs aside and post it anyway.)
As I headed off to college many years ago my father, a minister, told me the only semi-bawdy joke I ever heard from his lips: A gorgeous young blond woman enters a bar and takes a seat on a stool. Soon, a very elderly gentlemen, bedecked with diamonds, Rolex and in a tux, sidles up to her at the bar. Though clearly very wealthy, this man was perhaps 90+ years old, barely mobile and skin loose with wrinkles. He turns to her and says, "You are beautiful. I will give you $1 million dollars in cash for 30 minutes alone with you in my hotel suite where you will do what I ask of you." The young woman is taken aback. But, she ponders his proposal. "How bad could it be for 30 minutes? I would be set for life with a million dollars in cash." So, she turns to him and says, "OK." The old rich man smiles and says, "Good. How about the same deal for $10?" Horrified, the young woman exclaims, "What do you think I am?" The old man says, "Darlin', we've established that. We're just hagglin' over price."
That joke has stayed with me ever since. I know scripture. I know ethics. I can actually quote the 10 commandments. But that joke is what comes to mind when I face an ethical decision regarding money.
If the basis of our decision making is only what it will gain us financially, then we have already established what we are and are just hagglin' over price. The market, supply and demand, are not moral schemas. They are financial schemas. I will always argue that the morality of the issue carries far more weight than the possible bottom-line. As business men consider whether to lay off people to maintain a bottom line, as top CEO's accept bonuses as they file for bankruptcy or accept government bail outs, as companies calculate ways to manufacture cheaper overseas rather than employ our folks, then each has established what they are and are simply hagglin' over price. I hear the arguments all the time. I watch corporations seek property tax abatements to establish operation within the boundaries of school districts. I see governments leverage masses of cheap labor to improve their trade deals. I see corporations arguing that the environmental cost of operations means nothing compared to the revenue and jobs. I see candidates arguing that what is good for business is good for the USA. We've heard all that before. I would argue that each time we listen and are tempted, we are the blond on the bar stool pondering whether she can sell herself for $1 million or $10.
One of the really nice things about aging, from my point of view, is that the temptations decrease. I am not likely to have a rich old person approach me at a bar with an immoral proposition. I am not likely to make a business decision that will garner money for me at the expense of someone else. Guess I'm just old school. For a moral cause, I'm free, or at least really cheap. For an immoral cause, I cannot be bought.
Listen carefully to the rationales of the presidential candidates as they speak of proposed policies. I hear blonds and rich old men.
Ten bucks, a million bucks, or no way in hell?
Friday, January 20, 2012
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Happy New Year?
Thank goodness Iowans have finally caucused! One more hour of news on the GOP candidates and I will have a visual and auditory gag reflex. If this is what is to come for the remaining primaries, I’m shifting to the BBC.
Meanwhile, there are several things that this old liberal broad finds amazing about all the candidate rhetoric:
First, Rick Perry wrote a book. Second, the theme of Perry’s book is that the federal government should leave the states alone to do as they will. Third, Perry doesn’t like what the state of Virginia decided as an independent state regarding qualifying for their primary so he is suing them. Another “oxy” for this moron. Fourth, I heard Bachman call Obama a “socialist” last night on TV. Really? Fortunately, even the Republicans in Iowa get that she was off target.
I am further amazed that the sliding scale used by candidates to assess each other is the conservative-liberal scale. Perhaps we need to define that scale as I have not seen any candidate in Iowa who walks like, talks like, smells like or looks like a liberal. Least of all my own Congressman, Ron Paul. (Yes, he is my Congressman and Perry is my Governor. Pray for me.)
If you read the standard definitions and descriptions of liberal and conservative you will see that the theme is “who solves problems?” We would be led to believe that if you support individuals solving their own problems you are a conservative, and if you believe government solves problems then you are a liberal. Such delineation was clearly written by conservatives and is not quite right. The real question for me is a moral question, “Who is my brother?” I have a brother, I have children, I have a family and I would do most anything I could do to help them. I believe conservatives think the same way, elsewise, why would they fight so hard to protect the rights of their children to inherit the wealth they have accumulated? (If the definition of welfare is receiving benefits one has not earned, would not inherited wealth be welfare?) But, if one really believes individuals should solve their own problems, then I ask, do wealthy conservatives not share their wealth with their families? I think they do. Do wealthy conservatives require that each member of their family generate their own wealth? I think they do not. Would a wealthy conservative support a family member in need? I think they do. So, the real question is, “who is my brother?” If I view all Americans as brothers, then I am willing to share my wealth, whatever that wealth may be, with all Americans. If any of us are poor, hungry, uneducated, in need of medical treatment, then it is incumbent on all of us to chip in to help, just as we would were the poor/hungry/uneducated/sick person a family member. I think being a liberal is the Christian way. I think being liberal is the rational way.
The telling question to a conservative is, do you share your wealth, and if so, with whom, and why not others? If the answer is “we are all better off in a non-regulated free enterprise economy,” I would beg to differ. The law of supply and demand is not a moral code. The market is by its very nature without ethics. If my goal is to accumulate wealth rather than be a moral person, then my behaviors are very different. I will be willing to fight to keep money as opposed to sharing it. I will fight to make more money no matter whom I may hurt or what laws I may break. Making money is easy, especially if there is no ethical boundary. So yes, I would regulate enterprise and I would tax the profits made on enterprise.
Another clarifying variable on the liberal-conservative scale involves civil liberties. Conservatives would have the government support value-based decision making for individuals at the same time they oppose the government collecting money from some individuals to help others. I think that is backwards. The government should not impose certain values or beliefs or practices on any of us. It is fine to oppose gay marriage. Don’t marry someone of the same sex if that is your view. But do not mandate that all must do as you do. It is fine to oppose abortion. Don’t get an abortion. But do not mandate that all must do as you do. It is fine to oppose euthanasia. Don’t get euthanized. But do not mandate that all must do as you do. It is fine to be a Christian. Go to church and tithe and do good works and love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul. But do not mandate that everyone must do that. (In fact, if you believe in an omnipotent God, why would you mandate what God could clearly have mandated and chose not to?) So, it is really kind of funny that liberals do promote individual responsibility for beliefs, for thinking, for feeling, for choosing life styles, and conservatives do not. Equally kind of funny that liberals do support taxing all to provide for the physical needs of those who suffer and conservatives do not. So liberals support non-government intervention on things internal and conservatives support non-governmental intervention on things external, and vice-versa. Conservatives would not regulate the economy but would regulate beliefs. Liberals would regulate the economy and not regulate beliefs.
The most amazing thing of all to me is that there are poor conservatives! I can only guess they are conservative because of the civil liberties issue as being conservative on the economic issues will only hurt them. Just as I was amazed in Texas when educators supported Tea Party candidates and then were amazed that the government spending that got cut was their salary! I want to scream, “Duh!” (I am not amazed that there are rich liberals because I believe being a liberal is a rational and humanitarian way to be. And, there are rich liberals!)
Being liberal is not a dirty word, is not a slander, though some would use tone and inflection to imply as much. Being liberal is a wonderful, liberating perspective, supportive of human rights and dignity, supportive of support of the poor, the downtrodden, the young, the old, the sick and infirm. Everyone who has ever received my liberal support has thanked me. I am more of a giver than a receiver, and I am proud of that.
Not so proud that I can come out of the closet. I know too many conservatives who would tar and feather me, or seek to have me committed if I did. And that is another liberal attribute: tolerance of diversity in thought and belief, life style and attitude. Our nation was founded on liberal beliefs and the first 10 amendments to our Constitution made it the law of the land. After all, if you had it made and were in the top 1% in Europe in the mid 1700’s, why would you leave it all and come here?
We tend to have short memories. I cannot expect my conservative friends to remember 1776 if they cannot remember the fall of 2008. Our policies and leadership 4 years ago were conservative and we crashed. If we return to the prevailing philosophy we elected in 2004, or 2000, we are not likely to experience much different.
If so, Happy New Year?
Meanwhile, there are several things that this old liberal broad finds amazing about all the candidate rhetoric:
First, Rick Perry wrote a book. Second, the theme of Perry’s book is that the federal government should leave the states alone to do as they will. Third, Perry doesn’t like what the state of Virginia decided as an independent state regarding qualifying for their primary so he is suing them. Another “oxy” for this moron. Fourth, I heard Bachman call Obama a “socialist” last night on TV. Really? Fortunately, even the Republicans in Iowa get that she was off target.
I am further amazed that the sliding scale used by candidates to assess each other is the conservative-liberal scale. Perhaps we need to define that scale as I have not seen any candidate in Iowa who walks like, talks like, smells like or looks like a liberal. Least of all my own Congressman, Ron Paul. (Yes, he is my Congressman and Perry is my Governor. Pray for me.)
If you read the standard definitions and descriptions of liberal and conservative you will see that the theme is “who solves problems?” We would be led to believe that if you support individuals solving their own problems you are a conservative, and if you believe government solves problems then you are a liberal. Such delineation was clearly written by conservatives and is not quite right. The real question for me is a moral question, “Who is my brother?” I have a brother, I have children, I have a family and I would do most anything I could do to help them. I believe conservatives think the same way, elsewise, why would they fight so hard to protect the rights of their children to inherit the wealth they have accumulated? (If the definition of welfare is receiving benefits one has not earned, would not inherited wealth be welfare?) But, if one really believes individuals should solve their own problems, then I ask, do wealthy conservatives not share their wealth with their families? I think they do. Do wealthy conservatives require that each member of their family generate their own wealth? I think they do not. Would a wealthy conservative support a family member in need? I think they do. So, the real question is, “who is my brother?” If I view all Americans as brothers, then I am willing to share my wealth, whatever that wealth may be, with all Americans. If any of us are poor, hungry, uneducated, in need of medical treatment, then it is incumbent on all of us to chip in to help, just as we would were the poor/hungry/uneducated/sick person a family member. I think being a liberal is the Christian way. I think being liberal is the rational way.
The telling question to a conservative is, do you share your wealth, and if so, with whom, and why not others? If the answer is “we are all better off in a non-regulated free enterprise economy,” I would beg to differ. The law of supply and demand is not a moral code. The market is by its very nature without ethics. If my goal is to accumulate wealth rather than be a moral person, then my behaviors are very different. I will be willing to fight to keep money as opposed to sharing it. I will fight to make more money no matter whom I may hurt or what laws I may break. Making money is easy, especially if there is no ethical boundary. So yes, I would regulate enterprise and I would tax the profits made on enterprise.
Another clarifying variable on the liberal-conservative scale involves civil liberties. Conservatives would have the government support value-based decision making for individuals at the same time they oppose the government collecting money from some individuals to help others. I think that is backwards. The government should not impose certain values or beliefs or practices on any of us. It is fine to oppose gay marriage. Don’t marry someone of the same sex if that is your view. But do not mandate that all must do as you do. It is fine to oppose abortion. Don’t get an abortion. But do not mandate that all must do as you do. It is fine to oppose euthanasia. Don’t get euthanized. But do not mandate that all must do as you do. It is fine to be a Christian. Go to church and tithe and do good works and love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul. But do not mandate that everyone must do that. (In fact, if you believe in an omnipotent God, why would you mandate what God could clearly have mandated and chose not to?) So, it is really kind of funny that liberals do promote individual responsibility for beliefs, for thinking, for feeling, for choosing life styles, and conservatives do not. Equally kind of funny that liberals do support taxing all to provide for the physical needs of those who suffer and conservatives do not. So liberals support non-government intervention on things internal and conservatives support non-governmental intervention on things external, and vice-versa. Conservatives would not regulate the economy but would regulate beliefs. Liberals would regulate the economy and not regulate beliefs.
The most amazing thing of all to me is that there are poor conservatives! I can only guess they are conservative because of the civil liberties issue as being conservative on the economic issues will only hurt them. Just as I was amazed in Texas when educators supported Tea Party candidates and then were amazed that the government spending that got cut was their salary! I want to scream, “Duh!” (I am not amazed that there are rich liberals because I believe being a liberal is a rational and humanitarian way to be. And, there are rich liberals!)
Being liberal is not a dirty word, is not a slander, though some would use tone and inflection to imply as much. Being liberal is a wonderful, liberating perspective, supportive of human rights and dignity, supportive of support of the poor, the downtrodden, the young, the old, the sick and infirm. Everyone who has ever received my liberal support has thanked me. I am more of a giver than a receiver, and I am proud of that.
Not so proud that I can come out of the closet. I know too many conservatives who would tar and feather me, or seek to have me committed if I did. And that is another liberal attribute: tolerance of diversity in thought and belief, life style and attitude. Our nation was founded on liberal beliefs and the first 10 amendments to our Constitution made it the law of the land. After all, if you had it made and were in the top 1% in Europe in the mid 1700’s, why would you leave it all and come here?
We tend to have short memories. I cannot expect my conservative friends to remember 1776 if they cannot remember the fall of 2008. Our policies and leadership 4 years ago were conservative and we crashed. If we return to the prevailing philosophy we elected in 2004, or 2000, we are not likely to experience much different.
If so, Happy New Year?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
