 |
|
|
 |
|
Dam it, damn it, or go with the flow? Many (including me at times, I admit) are unable to countenance "reality" (which I'll define here as the pragmatic truth that we should finally accept, even though we may sometimes hold our nose in its presence) when "reality" seems to stray from an ideal that we hold, or to be unfair, or to challenge conventional thinking.
Granting amnesty to illegal immigrants appears to some to be wrong because it rewards illegal behavior, encourages further illegal behavior, insults legal immigrants who have played by the rules, and strains a state's social services. "What part of illegal do you not understand?" ask those with an animosity to amnesty. "The part that makes enforecement impractical" is an appropriate reply. The "reality" is that it is too expensive and time-consuming and damaging to immigrant families to search for and deport illegals. Prevent as many border crossings as possible, build a fence if need be, but once illegals are here let them stay unless they are arrested for a felony. They do jobs that Americans themselves don't seem to want to do; they pay sales and excise taxes; they pay property taxes indirectly (landlords price their rent high enough to cover their tax assessments); and, in at least a few instances, those with phony Social Security numbers contribute to the government, in payroll and income taxes, money which they will never get back. Such contributions offset what it costs states to provide them with services like emergency-room care and classroom education for their children.
Pulling American troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan before local forces can guarantee security appears to some to be equivalent to losing the wars we have waged in those countries. Pulling out means either that chaos will ensue or that parties hostile to America's interests will take power, either of which result means that America's sacrifices of people and money have been in vain. Sadly, such a conclusion is valid, as far as it goes. We may very well have wasted trillions of dollars and thousands of lives in those countries. However, continuing to invest money and lose lives indefinitely would only compound the misery. The "reality" is that it is best to cut our losses and get out now.
Shortening jail sentences because of the cost of incarceration or because of uncertaintly about whether punishment reforms criminals appears to some to be wrong. If you do the crime, you must do the time. People must pay in full for their offenses against society. Anything less is coddling and sets a bad precedent. However, America has five percent of the world's population and a whopping 25% of the world's prisoners. The cost of imprisonment is $77 billion annually. Prison serves as a warehouse for alcohol and drug addicts and the mentally ill. Prison offers little in the way of rehab programs. Prisoners have anti-social attitudes reinforced when they commingle with other prisoners, which contributes to recidivism. Crime rates in the past few years are down, and experts attribute only 10 to 25% of the drop to an increase in incarcerations and longer sentences. The "reality" is that much of the money spent on incarcerations could be better spent on other social services. Give violent offenders long sentences and keep them off the streets, but reduce the terms for others.
In regard to interpreting the Constitution, there appears to some to be a contrast between the strict constructionists who believe in taking it literally word for word (supposedly the approach of the "conservatives") and those who regard it as a growing, living document with blanks that must be filled in to accomodate modernity (supposedly the approach of the "liberals"). However, the "reality" is that the approach taken to the Constitution depends less on methodological strictures and more on what the interpreter wishes to find in it. Thus "conservatives" somehow find in the Constitution that money is speech and that corporations and unions are people who have the right to speak freely. "Liberals" have looked high and low but cannot find those ideas in the First Amendment. "Liberals" do, however, find somewhere a right to privacy that permits abortion. "Conservative" deny that the document provides for any such thing.
The wealthiest one percent of our capitalist American economy merit their wealth because they are the job creators, and therefore their income tax rates should not be raised, it appears to some. But who are the wealthiest one percent? Forty-five percent of them are CEOs and other execs and Wall Street bankers and other financiers; 15.7% are medical professionals; 8.4% are computer experts, mathematicians, engineers, and technical workers; 4.2% are salespeople; 3.8% are blue collar service workers; 3% are business operations workers; 3.2% sell real estate; 2.3% are entrepreneurs; 1.8% are professors and scientists.; 1.6% are in the arts, the media, and sports. Who among these are truly job creators in the sense that they don't just help to move money around but produce ideas or inventions and/or the means to sell new ideas and inventions? Only the entrepreneurs, computer experts, mathematicians, engineers, professors and scientists. That's 8.7% of the wealthiest one percent, or .0087 of the population. The "reality" is that increased taxes on the wealthiest one percent would have only a minuscule deleterious effect on job creation.
On the other hand, Elizabeth Warren, special advisor for the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, says that it appears that the rich should pay more in taxes because they didn't become rich on their own. Business owners move their goods on taxpayer-funded roads, their employees are educated in taxpayer-funded schools, and they are protected by taxpayer-funded policemen and firemen, she points out. True as far as it goes, but we must note that the poor also move on taxpayer-funded roads, have or had an opportunity for taxpayer-funded education, and are protected by taxpayer-funded policemen and firemen. The "reality" is that the poor often fail to take advantage of the opportunities available to them.
Terrorism, terrorists, and terrorist countries and organizations are deplorable, we Americans appear to believe. However, we and some of our allies frequently conduct special-ops assassinations and drone attacks and engage in cyber warfare like the recent use of the Stuxnet "worm" to disrupt Iranian computer programs. The "reality" is that we deplore terrorist acts committed against us or our allies but approve as a necessary evil terrorist acts committed against our enemies.
As many as 30% of Americans appear to some to live in poverty. From 1979-2007, average real after-tax income rose 275% for the top one percent. It rose 65% for the top 20%. It rose "just" 18% for the bottom 20%. The average income of the richest 10% has risen 14 times that of the poorest 10%. It appears that the increasing gap between rich and poor threatens the well-being of many Americans. But the "reality" could be that an 18% increase is still pretty good. Aren't the U.S. "poor" better off than most of the "poor" in the rest of the world? Don't many have multiple bedrooms, bathrooms, TVs, and cars? (When I was growing up, my middle class family of four never had a dwelling with more than two bedrooms, one bathroom, and one TV; we never had more than one car.) Today nine out of 10 American households subscribe to satellite or cable services. Many of the "poor" have cell phones and computers. Statistics show that most people eat meals in restaurants three times per week. The income gap is "real," but is it not also "real" that the poor have more amenities than ever before and that, indeed, over the long boom-and-bust haul, a rising tide has lifted many boats?
The Supreme Court ruling that corporations and unions have free speech, just as individual people do, leads to the creation of Super PACs which produce anonymous attack ads against political candidates. It appears to some that those with the most money unfairly influence elections. But why should it matter that we know who put out the ad? If we decide whether the ad is valid or not primarily on the basis of who paid for it, we commit either the logical fallacy of ad hominem (rejecting the substance of the ad because we don't respect the people who paid for it) or ad vericundiam (accepting the substance of the ad because we do respect the people who paid for it). It doesn't matter if one side has the money to produce more ads than the other; we must examine all ads on their own merits. Certainly Rush Limbaugh has no problem in "seeing through" Democratic attack ads; certainly Paul Krugman has no problem in "seeing through" Republican attack ads. If we believe in democracy, we must believe that independents and undecideds are equally capable of analyzing the claims of the ads and drawing their own conclusions. The "reality" is that those who favor strict regulations on campaign financing are elitists with a low opinion of the thought processes of the very common man that they say they are standing up for.
Statistics indicate that during the recent housing boom-and-bust cycle, a disporportionate number of blacks ended up losing their houses because they signed on for mortgages with adjustable rates that balooned after two years and that had prepayment penalties that made refinancing difficult. Were, as has been charged by some. predatory lenders (most of them white, presumably) guilty of racial discrimination by steering blacks into such loans? Did they, in sales meetings, say "Let's take advantage of our black clients"? Were they targeting blacks as opposed to whites, Native Americans, Arabs, Asians, et al? Or is the "reality" rather that they were only too happy to take advantage of naive clients of all races and more of the naive ones happened to be black?
The U.S. Transportation Department has established new transparency regulations on airlines. They are now required to make sure that advertised fares show all taxes and fees, all bag-check fees, and allow 24 hours to change reservations without paying rebooking fees. Many airlines object to the new rules. They argue that providing more information could result in less transparency about what a flight will cost. They claim that the full-fare rule will have the effect of confusing customers and suppressing ticket sales. This is possibly the first time in history that any corporation or government has argued against transparency on the grounds that it will lead to confusion. The"reality" is that the only thing confusing about transparency is the airlines' apparent belief that its customers are too stupid to understand how to take advantage of it.
A video showing American Marines urinating on dead Taliban fighters prompted outrage in Afghanistan, but Taliban spokesmen say it will not hamper efforts to establish peace talks with the Americans and with the Afghan government. The "reality" is that if offended factions feel a need or desire to talk, they will ignore offenses against them. If they do not feel that need, the offenses become monumental in their minds and may provoke retaliation.
Want to have a long life, men? Become President of the United States, one recent newspaper article concludes, for statistics show that Presidents average eight more years of life than other men born in the same year. Or is the "reality" that they were just hardier people to begin with?
*****
Other news-related observations:
A University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine study showed that eating baked or broiled fish once a week can keep the brain healthy and protect against Alzheimer's disease. The gray matter of the brain, responsible for memory and learning, was significantly larger for those who consumed fish regularly and showed a reduced risk for Alzheimer's over a five-year span. (Would eating grayling be most effective of all, one wonders?) Downing fried fish, however, showed no benefits. Not a problem for me--I have a fear of frying anyway. Taking this study to heart, I ate tuna every day last year. Thanks to my fish regimen, I now have a vivid memory of the day I got mercury poisoning.
A study published in the Journal of Pain concludes that swearing can be an effective pain reliever when done in moderation. People who don't ordinarily swear a lot experience a calming, stress-induced analgesia when they shoot out a few choice words. Wouldn't you know it, however, those who swear often get no pain relief from their outbursts because the emotional push for swearing--anger or stress--has become a habitual feeling. @#$%!
Even in the deserts of Arizona, those with Seasonal Affective Disorder can suffer from the shorter days and increased clouds of winter. The Society for Light Treatment and Biological Rhythms (who knew?) says that using a light box 15 minutes to two hours daily can improve one's spirits. A SAD case myself, I usually just turn on all the lights and TVs and the electric fireplace and then swear in moderation.
|
|
|