50th Anniversary of The War on Poverty

While fighting "wars" against states of mind (terror) and existence (poverty, obesity, etc...) is patently absurd, the most unfortunate aspect of the thought process that leads to such wars is that it subtly necessitates a belief that the consequences of individual decisions must be borne primarily by society at large and prevented by communal, rather than individual action.  This means that rather than allowing the painful consequences of poor decisions to be shouldered primarily by those who make such decisions, society (i.e. it's 'agent', the government) must bear the costs of poor decisions and prevent future occurrences by curtailing the rights of all, with each failure of the former necessitating increased severity of the latter. The fact that our "caretakers" obtain power in ever increasing degrees as a part of the process and exercise their "duty" with increasing measures of glee is, of course, just a happy coincidence.

Still, the most tragic irony isn't the aforementioned "big brother" syndrome or the fact that a middle class person somewhere has a higher tax bill as a result; it is that a lack of consequences robs us (I'm really good at making bad decisions, mind you) of the opportunity to learn.  It might seem terrific at first to be unable to feel the pain of being burned, but such pain is ultimately healthy - it keeps us from injuring ourselves further or even irreparably. It may seem compassionate to shield a person from the consequences of his or her decision (and in some cases it is), but in many cases it retards one's growth as a human being and ultimately produces greater suffering in the end.

Crotchety Comment of the Day

I realize how INCREDIBLY important and busy you are, dear sender of email, but unless we've been sending several emails back and forth in the span of a few minutes, please use an Opening containing my name and a Closing containing yours when corresponding via email. FB, Twitter, and text messaging are available for those messages that don't require complete sentences, but let's try to preserve some semblance of courtesy when we correspond with each other.

I knew I didn't like this guy's econimic positions...

As you may know, I’ve never been a Warren Buffet fan (no, not Jimmy Buffet – pay attention, Steve). Than, last week, my honey gave me the low-down on why Mr. B is in favor of the death-tax: he’s built his fortune on it. I did some research and found this blog post http://reachupward.blogspot.com/2007/11/why-warren-buffett-loves-death-tax.html. Read it and the supporting articles for an eye opener.

I started disliking Buffet's economics when he pushed for corporations to expense their employee stock options (he also lost my affection when he encouraged Schwarzenneger to hike CA property taxes). His position was obviously motivated by the desire to keep “the little” guy from owning stock in corporations. I believe his motivations are twofold.

First, issuing stock to employees dilutes the value of each remaining share and thereby dilutes the control that any one investor – particularly a major stockholder - has over a corporation. Ever wonder why Berkshire Hathaway stock has never split? It’s so that Buffet’s hold on the company is never diluted. Checkout the current trading price to get an idea of what this means in the real world: http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=BRKA&d=t. Probably not adding any BKRA to the old 401(k) in the near future, eh?

The second reason I believe Buffet opposes stock in the hands of the little guy is a corollary of the first: if the common man, on average, held stock in corporations, he could band together with other ‘common men’ to influence corporate policies. Here’s what I mean: Corporations can ride out a protest by consumers who oppose the company’s policy on a particular issue (pick your issue: promotion of homosexuality, funding of planned parenthood, hiring illegal immigrants, etc…). They just crank up the marketing machine, do some damage control PR, lower prices, etc… until the flap-up subsides. What they can’t ride out as easily, is a shareholder protest. Shareholders can literally cost executives their jobs. You might be familiar with what CalPERS is able to do in boardrooms across the country with their massive holdings and influence (the CEO of my old company, EDS, was ousted largely due to pressure from CalPERS). Well, imagine a large group of shareholders who held strong opinions about certain social and political issues; who collectively owned a good chunk of a company and who weren’t willing to compromise their convictions to save their portfolio. They might do something crazy like demand the company *really* verify the legal status of their immigrant workers, or even worse – make decisions based on the long term best interest of the whole company rather than what would drive the share price up as fast as possible this quarter.

Warren Buffet is probably a great guy. I understand he's a big fan of bridge, which seems like a pretty down-to-earth activity. I jsut don't agree with his economic positions and think there's more to them than a desire to keep his kids from becoming billionaire wastrels...

Something I Hate

First off, Aunt Martha always told me I shouldn't use the word "Hate". This was one of her favorite mini-lectures, right up there with the evils of sugar *and* artificial sweeteners (no sweets for the wicked?). That said, I've looked up the word hate, and it means "extreme dislike", and as I won't be applying the term to individuals, but rather to things, I think I'm on pretty solid moral ground with this post (uh, wait, was I just being arrogant?). Anyway....

I hate...Glossy Christianity: I think the production quality of Jesus' ministry was nil. Can you see Jesus scouting out a locale, saying to Himself "Yeah, I think with the dramatic backdrop of this historic place, a few lepers to heal, and a couple of numbskull scribes to throw me some lame questions which I will summarily knock out of the park, I should be able to really do a great work for the Father!"

Yet production quality seems to be the rallying cry of Evangelical Christianity in America. How much energy goes into 'producing' a worship service? Into 'producing' successful (i.e. lots of people in attendance) church programs?

Of course, being thoughtful and deliberate are important, and God wants us to use our minds. Still, there is a thin yet critical line between being thoughtful and considerate and being contriving and manipulative. In the former instance we leave the results to God and seek to honor Him with the means while in the latter we don't trust God with the results and as a result feel licensed to play with the means in order to achieve the "good" results we're after (aka the end justifies the means).

I'm not saying churches shouldn't use modern technology or modern music, I'm just saying I think we've all gone a bit overboard trying to be 'hip' (that means 'dope' for all you millenials) and impressive. I know the generation under 40 is very 'visual' and that they are impressed by high-quality multi-sensory presentations. But as impressive as our powerpoints and videos may be, they will never have the power or impact of God's truth and love, and if we spend too much time tweaking dials to produce a desired effect we might miss the chance to do great things for God.