It seems to me that 'facts' are being tossed about very loosely these days. By one definition, facts are those things that theoretically can be proven true or false, but they aren't necessarily true, no matter how often you repeat them.
Emotion seems to allow (cause?) people, myself included, to create fictions to support our belief systems. And those belief systems tend to immobilize our ability to differentiate between truths and untruths. (OK, some things are hard to know, but some things - say the existence of Idaho or death panels - are easier to prove.) Some people can be more objective about these things than others. I say emotion - which isn't a bad thing - but I probably mean two particular emotion that seems to be wide spread these days: anger and fear.
I'd like to see us move to less reliance on emotions and more on rational thought. I'm not saying emotion shouldn't play a role in our decision making, but the pendulum has swung far to the side of emotion. We need some balance. Here's a letter to the editor that demonstrates what I mean. It's from the
November 15 Anchorage Daily News.
Assembly, hands off my cash
Every mature person understands there is a difference between "wants" and "needs" and knows that "needs" must come before "wants," especially when there is a shortage of money. Grown-ups also understand that life is not fair and that we are guaranteed equal opportunities to succeed but never promised equality.
People who work hard and live responsibly will always have more than those who do not. It is the right and responsibility of those who have to help those who have not, but government does not have the authority to take anything from one person to give to another. Redistribution of wealth is robbery, and robbery is wrong whether it be at the barrel of a gun or by taxes.
Anchorage Assembly, stop trying to right all the wrongs in the city and just do your job!
-- DD
Anchorage
Let's look line by line:
Assembly, hands off my cash
Well, that's the work of the person who puts headlines on the letters, not the letter writer, so let's skip that.
Every mature person understands there is a difference between "wants" and "needs" and knows that "needs" must come before "wants," especially when there is a shortage of money.
This sounds like something a kid hears over and over again from a parent to the point where it's an unquestioned truth. While I'm leery of blanket statements like 'every,' in a general sense, I can understand and agree with the sentiment. Though sometimes we can't get big 'needs' but we can get small 'wants.' Is it wrong, when you've been scrimping for years to pay the mortgage and the other bills, to once in a while buy a fancy soap, a chocolate bar, or some flowers?
People who work hard and live responsibly will always have more than those who do not.
This sounds like another parental mantra. But this seems like is a giant leap. "Always" always causes my crap detector to quiver. So the poor legal immigrant woman who works three minimum wage jobs so she can feed and clothe her children and help them do well in school has more than the playboy son of a wealthy family who parties on his allowance and thinks putting his dishes in the dishwasher is work? (In terms of emotional satisfaction probably, but I don't think that's what the letter writer had in mind.)
I'm guessing this 'law of human behavior" is based on this letter writer's belief that in America if you work hard you can get ahead. And it may even be true in her own case. Apparently this belief is what keeps poor people supporting rich politicians and celebrities - the hope that they too can be rich one day
(see number 3.) I'm not saying that there isn't a general correspondence to working hard and living responsibly and having more. But it's not a universal truth, even in the US. Really, are raunchy pop stars harder working or more responsible than dedicated high school teachers?
It is the right and responsibility of those who have to help those who have not, but government does not have the authority to take anything from one person to give to another.
Where does this right come from? She does acknowledge responsibility of individual people to help the poor, but tells us that government does not have the right to help some using the wealth of others. I wonder if this writer has read the US Constitution lately? From
Article I, Section 8: The Powers of Congress:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
It seems pretty clear that on a national level, Congress has the authority to tax (which would be taking from one person) and to use that money to pay others for various purposes including providing defense and general welfare. General welfare is pretty broad. It probably includes helping the destitute.
Redistribution of wealth is robbery, and robbery is wrong whether it be at the barrel of a gun or by taxes.
What exactly does 'redistribution of wealth' mean? When you and I buy gasoline, wealth is being redistributed from auto owners to oil companies. Is she saying that's robbery? When we pay our phone bills, it's being redistributed from us to ACS or GCI or AT&T.
The government has the explicit Constitutional authority to levy and collect taxes. Explain to me how you can NOT redistribute wealth when you use tax money. If taxes are used to pay people to build roads, the laborers are getting the money that once belonged to the tax payers. If you decide to contract out such work, the money is then going to the companies who win the contracts.
Perhaps the writer means it shouldn't be taken from people who work hard and given to people who don't work. Let private charity take care of those people. People do make that case. But there is an assumption here that the people who are not working are 1) physically and/or mentally capable of working; and
2) can find work; which
3) pays them enough to meet their, dare I say it, needs.
But the letter writer has already assumed that if you work hard, you can take care of yourself. I guess this includes young children of alcoholics, people with physical or mental ailments that make it difficult to get a job (either because they can't perform the work or because employers assume they can't).
Ready now for the last sentence.
Anchorage Assembly, stop trying to right all the wrongs in the city and just do your job!
Here she seems to acknowledge that things can go wrong. Good.
But what exactly is the assembly's job? The Municipal Charter is pretty vague compared to the US Constitution. Or at least it isn't as well organized. Section 3.01 for example:
Section 3.01. Powers of the municipality.
The municipality may exercise all legislative powers not prohibited by law or by this Charter.
I'm not trying to be cute here. The 'duties' of the assembly aren't all neatly in one place - they are scattered around the Charter. But
Section 5.06 (note: the link to the Charter and Code just gets to the main page, you can use the index in the sidebar to find specifics) does say:
Section 5.06. Administrative code.
The assembly by ordinance shall adopt an administrative code providing for:
(a) The identity, function, and responsibility of each executive department and agency;
The charter was written to unite the former City of Anchorage and Borough of Anchorage, so much of the attention was focused on how to unite the two, both of which already had ordinances. But we can look at some of the sections of the ordinances to see what sort of functions the assembly is expected to carry out. Each of those bullets opens and lists more detailed functions.
So, the assembly is responsible for quite a bit. Perhaps the letter writer should be more specific about which things the assembly shouldn't be doing and which things they should be doing.
I can understand that people have a lot of frustration. Most people who had worked hard and saved up lost a lot of value when stocks crashed.
This letter mainly tells me the letter writer was angry. Instead of being specific about what set her off, she offers us a rant in which inaccurate statements are pronounced as truths. How much of this does she really believe literally? How much is just venting? But I do hear loud and clear something like, "I work hard for my money and I don't want you Assembly members giving it away to deadbeats." Or am I reading in something that isn't there?
On the other hand, there's enough in there to suggest that she and I could find a lot of common ground. I work hard and I'm responsible, so she'd probably approve of how I've lived my life. Maybe if we found some things we had in common - maybe she likes to garden, or to bike, or birds, or Thai food - and we got together over a good meal, we could talk about our children or our parents and we could soften some of the edges. Maybe we could share our prouder moments and some of our disappointments. We won't change each other's minds on the issues, but we will change our assessments of each other as "fill in with an appropriate derogatory term".
We all need to start seeing each other as human beings, not as liberals or conservatives. We need to respect each other, to talk to each other, to ask questions about their beliefs and about our own.
I generally dislike statements that start with "We need to..." But each of you reading this can be more mindful in your interactions with others. Are you being respectful of the other person as a person, or is she 'just' a cashier? Are you assuming what he's like, what he believes, whether he's a good or bad person, because of the bumper sticker on his car, or the kind of clothes he's wearing? Check yourself. Imagine that inside every human body is a complete human being - just like you - who needs some positive attention. Just try that with one or two people you meet each day. We need to get the emotions to neutral before we can start engaging reason too. So help those around you calm down by treating them like human beings.
Snow Plow-Out Plans
b
l
