Losing the Gray

I received a forwarded email a few days ago. I don’t care for forwards and rarely pay them much attention. This particular piece caught my eye, though, and after reading it I was strongly moved to respond. But why limit my wrath to the select few that were on the mailing list when I could share it with many more? Here is the first portion of the message:

Although some may feel this is political in nature, I am more inclined to see it as good old fashioned common sense, and that is the spirit in which I share it.

 A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be very liberal, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs.

The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"

She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the conservative side of the fence."

I was dumbstruck at how dumb this girl’s father was. Didn’t he know the difference between charity and taxation? His example clearly falls in to the former category, not the latter, because his daughter is giving up an individually acquired product to another individual for their personal use. Taxation does, indeed, provide for those less fortunate, but it also provides many things we all use: highways, defense, clean air and water. The list goes on...


What if Audrey had a 2.0 GPA because her mother suffered from Alzheimer's and she was forced to miss many classes. And what if both girls were seeking admittance to a graduate program that mandated a 3.0 GPA? Would it be wrong to donate one point off of the 4.0 so both could continue their education? Regardless, the act would have been one of charity and one to proud of.

The email went on to finish thusly (I added the numbers for clarity):

If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!

1. If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

2. If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

3. If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him..

4. If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.

5. If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and Jesus silenced.

6. If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it..
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

7. If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A liberal will delete it because he's "offended."

Well, I forwarded it to you.

And the author claims to represent “good old fashioned common sense” instead of politics? Conservative vs Liberal is nothing but political and serves only to pigeonhole and divide us further. As for common sense, how about this:

1. Whoever wants or needs a gun can have one. But assault weapons are not needed for sport or home protection. They are needed solely to inflict maximum carnage in a short period of time before the shooter is wrestled to the ground.

2. Eating meat is not necessarily bad. Eating too much meat, among many other things, is bad on many fronts. Disseminating the harmful effects of meat, or any other substance, serves to create a better awareness in us all as we make our daily life-style choices.

3. Some are down-and-out due to their own poor choices. Others are not. To treat both equally is shortsighted, serves no good purpose and costs us all in many ways.

4. Snarky, vehement statements on television and radio are made for ratings and offer nothing good to a debate on issues between thinking participants.

5. The separation of church and state is a good thing for many reasons. To expect it would make our forefathers proud.

6. The lack of health care costs us and our society dearly in lost time, money, and opportunity.

7. There is nothing funny when attempting to turn one against another based on some cockamamie black and white position when, in fact, the real solutions lie somewhere in the middle. You know: that gray area where no one wants to tread. Sadly, that’s where we should all be if we’re serious about finding a reasonable way out of our present-day problems.

Are there folks who are black or white, one side or the other, with no ability to grasp the concept of compromise? I’m sure of it, but that is no reason to encourage their position born of narrow-minded, brainless, sound-bite samplings that over-simplify while making it harder to find common ground, let alone common sense.

(And no, I didn’t forward it.)

The American Dream with a Twist

No, I'm not suggesting a new cocktail. Rather, a 21st century slant on a recurring fantasy: hitting the lottery...striking oil. In other words, realizing the American dream. Come on, admit it. You've thought about it just like the rest of us.

As one moves up the economic ladder there is a general interest in sharing the wealth with other, less fortunate souls. Most of us achieve our goals (and the just rewards) through further education, training, and determination. So this interest in sharing comes slowly over time. No one wants to give their hard-earned dollars away, but a portion to worthy causes seems to be a way of paying it forward, if you will, to those that are still striving toward a richer tomorrow.

Few of us are afforded a lifestyle in which money plays no role in our decisions. Why is it, then. that there is such a resistance to restoring tax rates to those earning more than $250,000 a year. It seems that most would be unaffected by this roll-back of tax cuts, but still the hue and cry against such revenue enhancement can be heard from every rung on the ladder. And the cries become louder at the lower reaches instead of the other way around. This makes no sense without the twist that I've referred to in the title.

We've established that most still believe in the American dream and in achieving fortune (and fame, perhaps). The training and striving, though, have been replaced by a more contemporary version where the riches flow immediately from some sort of instant windfall. These dreamers, if you will, have dwelled at the bottom of the money tree and have come to see themselves as quasi-victims of those farther up.

"Some day", they muse, "when my boat comes in, it'll be my turn to stick it to someone else." No sense of obligation to the programs and opportunities that created the environment for financial success. Just a greed-based desire to keep it all. Now, it makes more sense that higher taxes for the "rich" are so opposed when you factor in the ever-present dream of attaining the same level of wealth.

It also paints a sad portrait of the modern American dream. No longer are we willing to recognize that which made us what we are. No longer do we want to re-invest. No, we want to become "the Man" and stick it those that we used to be. While one person refusing to spread the wealth may not pose a problem for our society, a mentality shared by many does.

It means that the "me" generation has finally come home to roost. Society takes a back seat to the individual to the detriment of various publicly and privately funded organizations that seek to create opportunities leading to more dollars in one's pocket. The irony lies in the fact that fewer folks will now be able to realize that dream. True, lottery winners and the like may still be seen on the front page, but, by and large, the American dream slips further away for more deserving souls.

Reinvestment, be it on a personal or community level, is essential in maintaining any real hope of climbing to a higher rung on that money ladder. You may have heard about a tide raising all boats. If so, you know where I'm headed. And if not, you're probably dreaming of how you will spend all of your money. That's sad, but it seems to be the new reality. How else can one explain opposing higher taxes on an income level that few of us will ever attain? Doubly sad is the fact that politicos supporting such tax cuts know full well that those they claim to represent will be harmed the most by such policies.

Fault Lines

If we were somehow able to map out the differences that currently exist within our society I think it would closely resemble a depiction of California's seismic faults. Economic, religious, ethnic, and political differences have turned into divisions. What was once "us against them" is now "me against you" with "you" representing the rest of society. Our sense of community has devolved into a survival of the fittest mentality and that is bad for everyone.

While there's plenty of blame to go around, let's start with the individuals within our society. That's right: you and me. Regular readers know how I abhor labels as they tend to encourage us to draw premature conclusions. So, in lieu of Republican or Democrat, I'm going to use "left leaning" and "right leaning" (LL or RL). LL's tend to believe in a government, be it local, state or federal, providing a framework within which the public good is served. From law enforcement to infrastructure to programs that provide for the elderly, infirm, or needy, these entities rely on a tax structure so as to fund the various programs needed to carry out their respective missions. RL's, on the other hand, prefer to rely on their own wits, talent, and good fortune to make their own way in the world. Small government, low taxes, and few public assistance programs are their picture of a perfect world. And, as one moves from the middle of the political highway, the more strident and resistant to compromise they both become.

Economic standing, likewise creates division between the haves and have-nots. The haves are more often RL's as they are in little or no need of assistance from their government. They embrace the "if I made it, why can't you" ideology and use it to rationalize their reluctance to part with anything but the smallest possible portion of their accumulated wealth. LL's tend to be more sympathetic to those that have yet to find their way and accept the premise that blind luck sometimes plays a more important role than talent in eventual success. As such, they recognize society's need for a safety net.

Religious tenets add to the mix that serve only to divide us further. Christians, jews, muslims, or whatever: each promotes the notion that their way is the only way and others must be converted or treated as pariahs. No other cause has spilled as much blood throughout time and the world as religion. Yet, without it, we further lose sight of doing the right thing for all regardless of whether it is the right thing for us individually.

Much to divide us, wouldn't you say? So we look to our elected leaders to sort everything out and lead us to a tomorrow that is sunnier and more hopeful. Why? Our form of government is referred to as "representative". As such, our legislative bodies are but a reflection of the society as a whole. So, what with our deep divisions, how can we be surprised that our state and federal legislators are just as polarized? As if that wasn't enough, these folks seek a career out of their political aspirations and are pulled in diametrically opposed directions: doing what's best for the country may not be best for their constituents and that puts successful re-election at risk. Closing a military base, for instance, may be good for budget trimming, but closing the base in my district is terrible for my voters. Go close somebody else's base.

I think we can all agree that times are tough for most of us and perhaps that is why we, as a society, are seeking instant solutions from our political leaders. Polls show that popularity numbers for Congress and the President are all lower as well as our outlook for better days ahead. The problem, it seems to me, lies in this seismic fault line that refuses to budge. Movement, or compromise, in any direction seems out of the question until major forces build up to the point of crisis. The ensuing change is reckless and often cataclysmic in its unintended consequences. Is this a way for intelligent folks to go about solving problems? Apparently so, in light of recent gains by Tea Party politicos who take pride in their refusal to move from a position far on the political right. Combine a society of individuals concerned only about their personal needs and a government comprised of individuals seeking to please their voters by catering to those needs and we are left with a grid lock of seismic proportion.

The other type of fault line is that spoken by many of our elected officials who blame their opposites for the stale-mate. "It's not my fault, you know. If only my distinguished colleagues on the other side of the aisle would budge, we could all move forward." This fault-finding and finger-pointing only exacerbates an already untenable situation.

Should you have a question, I am a LL. While I believe that spending needs to be reined in, I also believe that a more equitable division of the tax burden is in order. But I don't believe the two must be addressed simultaneously. I believe that the tax structure is a priority today and the "readjustment" of social programs can wait until more of us are back on our feet. You don't take one crutch away from a cripple until the time comes when that cripple can manage with one. A slashing of established programs for the less fortunate at a time when they are most needed is inhumane, short-sighted, and caters to the visceral instincts that are all too common today. "Screw them...save me" should not be a goal we strive to attain.