Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Mrs. T. and I

(Mrs. T) We have just returned from a vacation in Montana. We have family that live just outside of Bigfork (near Kalispell)--about 40 miles outside of Glacier National Park. We go frequently, because we love the area, but one observable fact that sticks out as obviously as the American flag without its stripes is that there is no one--NO ONE!-- of color. It is as white as Wonder Bread. Even native Americans (mostly Blackfeet) are relatively few. More disturbing than the lack of diversity is that the people I talked to don't see anything abnormal about it, and because of their lack of exposure to other cultures, they become completely bewildered about things that are "different." A major topic of discussion revolved around a family from California that had recently built their retirement home there--and it had a resemblance to Chinese architecture. And they weren't even Chinese! When asked if he doesn't mind that there isn't more diversity in the area, my resident relative replied, "Well, there are already a lot of poor white people here. Why would black people want to live here?" It never occurred to this family member that being black doesn't mean being poor. It seems to me prejudices exist due to lack of exposure to and understanding of cultural diversities.

(JM) Well, you just knew that I could not resist replying to your last email. I still wait, with great anticipation, for a cogent explanation as to reason for the dire need for diversity and specifically why it is so crucial for societies' benefit since many educated people are prejudiced as well (I am reminded of this every time a conservative tries to speak at Bezerkley). Sure, it is interesting, even fascinating, to meet people from other nations and learn about various ways of life. My favorite place on earth is Disney's EPCOT where I walk straight to the portion containing the various countries. Nothing pleases me more, in fact, than to experience a wide array of cultures. Having said that, I must confess a skepticism, and strong concern for the current trend of coerced diversity. There is something artificial and insincere about this new political fad, and even sinister, for forced diversity seems synthetic and pointless. The best diversity is that of a natural sort. Telling people to mingle for their own edification and enlightenment, and stressing to them their bigotry and ignorance for not doing so (i.e., socially pressuring and forcing them) will actually stir resentment and, in the long run, cause them to resist and eventually to dislike one another- the opposite intention. Now that is truly disturbing.


  Why ought we to be disturbed by the existence of homogenous societies? Are they taboo now? Does this same disturbed feeling apply to non-white homogenous nations as well? There are many peoples around the globe who are even more ignorant and hateful of outsiders than those in Montana- no, it’s true! For instance, how accepting are the various tribes in Africa of strangers? Does not a white face appear as strange and unwelcome to them? What of the many Asian societies? Are not interracial marriages frowned upon in China, Japan, Korea, etc.? Are Middle Easterners as accepting of foreigners as we? What would one of these men say if his daughter we to marry a "white devil"? It appears to me that prejudice exists all over the world and always has, yet which culture is the most accepting of outsiders? Answer...western culture. Did not slavery exist in every corner of the earth at some point or another and does it not still exist in many places today? Yet democracy and the abolition of slavery were begun by whom? Answer...white westerners. In point of fact, where does slavery exist most prevalently today? Answer...Africa. And did not the Egyptians and Muslims also engage in slavery in their history? Has anyone studied the origins of Liberia? The Native American fallback response is futile and false because it existed among many of their tribes as well.

  Lastly, if an assumption is made that black equals poor, then who is to blame for this fallacy? Are we not told that programs such as affirmative action (cute name isn't it?) are absolutely necessary for black success, equal opportunity, and diversity? Honestly, who is truly responsible for this misconception? When Halle Berry does commercials for the M.L.K. Foundation, which imply that segregation would return instantly if funds are not given, does she not reinforce these fears through scare tactics? And am I as a white male entitled to be offended by that commercial and for the assumptions it makes? Also, don’t many minority groups voluntarily and willingly segregate themselves? I do not have the benefit of a sheltered life and from viewing things through rose-colored spectacles atop an ivory tower. Down here in the muck of life, things appear very clearly and I realize that those who see things differently often times do not really see at all.
P.S. Is white no longer a color?

Not absurdity as much as money.

 P.S.  I admit to striving to be one of those "over-compassionate, over-understanding" people.
I am glad that we allow people to sue for injustice, have heath care for the elderly and indigent, provide food stamps and assistance for the poor, etc., etc., but there is far too much abuse out there. We are tying the hands of the police, doctors, business owners, etc. and we are removing their incentive. I fear that insistent, nonsensical over-compassion and over-understanding of a major minority of persons (often times despicable persons) is hurting the overwhelming majority of people. Even as an anti-religioso I still feel it is silly to make such a fuss about the pledge. When I was in high school I stood quietly and respectfully did not recite it. It would have never occured to me to sue because the majority of people are religious. If in another country, it would never occur to me to sue because a god different from mine was more popularly worshipped- I would respect the beliefs of those whose country I was in. The majority is not always right, but we are to the point now where the minority rule simply because they are louder and more active. Common sense must rule regardless if it is endorsed by the majority or minority. Absurdity rules in America today. What do you think?
endearingly,
JM 

(Mrs.T.) Im (sic) afraid even incompetent surgeons pass med school.  (Think about some of the students that will graduate with you and get a pharmacy license).  I'm glad you got to witness one of the good ones.

(JM) I was fortunate enough to be able to witness open heart surgery today! It was remarkable. I stood just behind the surgeon watching over his shoulder as he explained to me what he was doing. The patient was getting a CABG done. They pulled a vein from his leg and sewed it onto his heart. I was there for the whole thing- from the time they brought in the sedated and drowsy patient, cutting his chest open, performing all of the surgical intricacies, and sewing him back up again. I was mesmerized. These people are real heroes in my opinion. It is such a shame that, in our society, we idolize athletes and rock stars rather than people of consequence, people who really make a difference. Not only that, but then we sue the pants off of them! I heard on the radio this morning about a doctors strike. Lawyers are just waiting outside of the recovery room hoping for the opportunity to cash in, so to speak. It's sickening. Anyway, I apologize for going off on a rant. I merely wanted to share this unique experience.
ta ta, 
JM

(Mrs. T.) Is this story supposed to make me feel sorry for the 10th man?

(JM) This is the single best tax analogy I've ever seen! I hope this solves the controversy once and for all.
 
FOOD FOR THOUGHT !
 
Sometimes Politicians can exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!", and it is just accepted to be fact. But what does that really mean? Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, we hope the following will help.
 
Tax Cuts - A Simple Lesson In Economics
 
This is how the cookie crumbles. Please read it carefully.
 
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
 
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh $7.
The eighth $12.
The ninth $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
 
So, that's what they decided to do.
 
The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
 
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."
 
So, now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.
 
So, the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free.
But what about the other six, the paying customers?
How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share'?
 
The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being 'PAID' to eat their meal.
 
So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he
proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
 
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
 
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
 
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man "but he got $10!"
 
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"
 
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
 
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
 
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
 
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
 
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.

I know that pity is reserved for those less fortunate (bums, criminals, crack whores, etc.), and never for the hard working and successful. No, the story is meant to convey the preposterous arguments made by those opposed to tax cuts. I think that this analogy is as concise as any I have ever seen. Any tax cut will benefit those who make more money because the more you make the more the govt. takes. Why should the poor (< $30,000/yr) get a tax break if they hardly pay any income taxes in the first place? Sure, we can get into "loopholes" and "write-offs", but the gist of this issue is demonstrated in that brilliant analogy. I have to work until May before I get to keep MY money! And where does it go?! If it were spent more wisely, then that may be something, but it is squandered to a saddening degree. So...miss me?

No comments: