what if?

Looking at America

The end of a year is always a time to reflect.  Where have we just been?  Where are we now?  What lies ahead?

This New York Times editorial looks at America on the last day of 2007.  Using the language we too often have come to expect from the Times, they see our country in grim, dark terms.  "Contempt for the Constitution," sorrowful sense of estrangement," "lawless behavior."  While I would be the last to defend all that our nation has done, and while I am by no means supportive of everything this administration has done (and not done) - I, nevertheless, see quite a different America.

I see an America where all things are possible.  Irrespective of the color of your skin, your nation of origin, your religion, your sex, the class into which you were born - you can achieve greatness in this country.  I see a woman, overweight and black, who is now a billionaire and one of the most powerful, famous and beloved people on the planet.  I see candidates for President:  male, female, black, Hispanic, Mormon, Catholic, born again, from all parts of the country.  While we now have no idea which one will represent the Republicans and the Democrats, we know that they are not immediately out of the running, as they surely would have been a generation ago.

As a Realtor, I see many families "up close and personal."  I see loads of "mixed marriages" - white and black, Hispanic and Jewish, Russian and Irish - all thriving, some with babies and toddlers who will lead the way into this new century.  I see individuals who were immigrants, children of those who came here with nothing, now gloriously successful and thriving.  On my own block, an upscale area of the 'burbs, I see a wealth of diversity.  My neighbors are Indian, white, black, Jew, gentile, older and younger. 

I see a country where innovative ideas and entrepreneurship can lead to mind-boggling success - a place where time and stronger civil rights laws have led to opportunities and advances for all of us.  While our society still struggles with the changes that such advances cause, for the most part, we are moving in the right direction.

Two For One

With this link, you'll have the URL's for two of my favorite blogs.  Let your brain welcome the new year with critical thinking from two thoughtful and smart fellows!

What You Know?

Is what you know how we ought to value you?  Or - is what you don't know more critical?

Many among us tout an individual's credentials:  degrees, experience and expertise are king.  Yet, at times I have argued that the beginner, the neophyte among us, can sometimes produce more creative, radical and wildly successful concepts and results than our so-called "experts."  The newcomer is not prejudiced by his years of education and "brainwashing."  He can see what others have been taught to reject out of hand.

Some of my friends laughed at me for these beliefs.  But, now it seems that perhaps I wasn't as ridiculous as they thought.....

IT’S a pickle of a paradox: As our knowledge and expertise increase, our creativity and ability to innovate tend to taper off. Why? Because the walls of the proverbial box in which we think are thickening along with our experience.

Andrew S. Grove, the co-founder of Intel, put it well in 2005 when he told an interviewer from Fortune, “When everybody knows that something is so, it means that nobody knows nothin’.” In other words, it becomes nearly impossible to look beyond what you know and think outside the box you’ve built around yourself.

-------

“Look for people with renaissance-thinker tendencies, who’ve done work in a related area but not in your specific field,” she says. “Make it possible for someone who doesn’t report directly to that area to come in and say the emperor has no clothes.”

The Tough Ones

Some moral issues seem fairly straightforward.  Hard to argue with precepts like "Do not murder" and "Treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself."

Others, however, are complex and deep.  While the surface may seem obvious, they are the onions of ethics.  Peel back the layers, and answers do not come easily. 

One of those many compelling topics is torture.

Pretty much without exception, I subscribe to the belief that torture is wrong - always, everywhere, and by everyone.  Still, as I do on most issues, I attempt to keep an open mind and continue to read the opinions of others.

One individuals with a thoughtful - and intriguing - viewpoint on torture is Mark Bowden.  Bowden is of the opinion that yes, torture is wrong . . . however, in rare circumstances, the ends do justify the means.  Committing one wrong, torture, is justified by the good that will occur, and the evil avoided, by that particular act of torture.

Here are Bowden's thoughts in detail.

There is ample historical precedence for this tendency, and even fascinating psychological experiments that have demonstrated it. The only practical way to curb abuses in prisons is for guards and interrogators to have strict, clear, rigorously enforced limits. That's why I believe that any interrogator who employs coercive methods ought to be mindful that his actions are crossing a serious line, and that he had better have compelling reasons for doing so.

One of the best arguments against mine did not fault either my reasoning or my blackened soul. It questioned the wisdom of allowing any exceptions, even defensible ones, because of the impact it has on the moral stature of the United States.

There is no question that something important is lost when we as a nation accede to tactics considered reprehensible. One correspondent asked: "What is the harm done to the citizens of the country whose agents have a policy that allows torture?" This correspondent argued that we ought to accept impending tragedy in the name of honoring a high-minded policy.

In my column, I raised the example of the German police chief who threatened a captured kidnapper with torture because he refused to reveal where he had buried alive his 12-year-old victim. The kidnapper promptly gave the location. The German police chief lost his job for making the threat.

It may well have been more noble on some level for him not to have made the threat, but I prefer a less rigid concept of morality. I would not have fired the police chief, or prosecuted him. I agree completely with his actions, even though torture is repulsive. The boy's life matters more than my rectitude or peace of mind.

Non-Denominational

  Alcoholism and addiction know no race, creed, nationality, sex, class or anything else.  With New Year's Eve fast approaching, please, please do not drink and drive.

This should be no one's story.

No matter what day of the year, if you need help, do get it.

Talking and Listening

We all know humans are ongeshtopt with flaws.  One in particular which causes more difficulties that we sometimes appreciate is this:  failures in talking and listening.  Many of us love to run on and on - yet spend little or no time actually listening to others.  I don't mean hearing what other people are saying.  I mean listening to their words - and then ruminating on what they actually mean and the import of what they are saying.

I will give you one example from long ago.  As a Realtor, part of my job is to listen to my clients, then do my best to heed what they tell me and meet their needs.  A couple with whom I was working told me that they wished to live in Minneapolis, but they wanted to purchase a newer home.  A bit of a tough assignment; most of the homes within the city limits had been constructed no later than the 1950's.  I would search out what I could, and we'd go look - but, nothing captured their imagination.

One day, I happened upon a house from the turn of the century.  "Turn of the century" you are thinking?  That surely doesn't sound like a newer home!  And - you'd be correct .... Except that in many ways, it was just like a newer home.  Though the original property had been built prior to 1910, virtually the entire house had been gutting and restored.  The kitchen was a gourmand's dream.  The bathrooms were fresh and updated.  Mechanicals were pristine - and so forth. 

I asked my couple if they would have an interest in seeing the home - and they acquiesced.  Well, to make a long story short, they loved the home, purchased it, and they were delighted afterwards with their selection.  Yay!

The key was that not only did I hear the words of my clients "We want a newer home" - I thought about what those words meant.  They wanted a home that didn't need lots of upkeep and restoration.  They wanted a home with a modern kitchen, decent closet space and functioning bathrooms.  Had I focused solely on when a house was originally built, we surely never would have found this beauty.  But, because I thought about their real needs and wishes, we were able to find a gem that fit the bill wonderfully, despite the 80-something year age of the home.

Been There; Done That

In the Sixties, I hit my teenage years.  The fashions of those days featured dresses with empire waists, baby doll clothes, neon colored prints that went way beyond "splashy."  While none of it appealed to me forty years ago, at least I could wear it.  When your skin is as close to perfect as it's going to get, your figure is still flirty and you don't look much older than a baby doll yourself, you can don such outfits and not look ridiculous.

Fast forward to the Middle Ages - and I am not talking Beowulf.  No one would mistake me nor any of my contemporaries for anything than what we are:  women with a little road tred on us.  Don't get me wrong; no one need run screaming from the room when we walk in.  A dash of make-up, a bit of hair color ... we do clean up quite nicely.  Yet, we are women.  And we have the bodies and faces of women.  Thus - most of us like to dress in age appropriate outfits.

Too bad for us.

I rarely link to anything at Instapundit.  With Glenn getting ten gajillion hits a day to my forty to one hundred, I figure that virtually no one sees me that hasn't seen Glenn.  Nevertheless, when I read this post today, it surely hit a nerve.

Time's Up

An issue that is unlikely to die soon - unlike some people.

In 2006, the Terry Schiavo case attracted national attention in the United States, with a conflict between a woman's parents (who wanted to care for their daughter and keep her alive) and the woman's ex-husband (who wanted her feeding tubes removes so that she would die of dehydration, and who said that he was acting according to her wishes). Right now in Canada, a similar case is playing out, with one crucial difference: all of the man's family wants him to live, while his doctors want him terminated.

Samuel Golubchuk is an 84-year-old Orthodox Jew in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Hospitalized since October 26, he is believed by his doctors to be terminally ill, and to have suffered brain injuries which leave him unconscious. The doctors want him removed from his respirator and feedng tube. His family strongly objects on religious grounds, argues that where there's life there's hope, and says that he holds their hands during visits. It appears that Mr. Golubchuk has not been examined by a neurologist, or had tests performed which might confirm the Winnipeg doctors' belief about his brain function status.

Philosopher Peter Singer, a strong advocate of animal rights, and of the rightfulness of killing humans with low degrees of self-consciousness, writes that forcing the doctors to continue to provide care for Mr. Golubchuk violates the doctors' rights. He argues that the family should be given time to find another hospital willing to care for Mr. Golubchuk, and if they cannot, then the family should accept his death.

Over the forceful objections of the Canadian Medical Association, a Winnipeg judge has issued a temporary injunction forbidding Grace Hospital from euthanizing Mr. Golubchuck. The doctors point to their own ethical standards against providing what they believe to be "futile" treatment, and claim that end-of-life decisions should be made by physicians, who have the patient's best interests at heart. Supporters of the family reply that doctors should not have the authority to over-ride a family's religious beliefs, liken the proposed euthanasia to Nazi tactics, and point to a recent case in Calgary, where a man believed by physicians to be irreversibly brain-damaged made an unexpected recovery.

My prediction is that this debate will continue - irrespective of George W. Bush being President, or not.

An Elmo Christmas

My profession as a Realtor has a number of benefits.  Without a doubt, however, the finest is the most special people that I have met over the decades.

This year, kismet introduced me to a lovely young couple with an almost two year old.  To my delight, they invited me to their Christmas morning brunch.  Many gifts were exchanged, including some for yours truly!

The best, though, were enjoyed by their little daughter.  I pass these photos on to you, so you may appreciate the splendor of an Elmo Christmas!

Hope that your holiday was as fun as mine!

A Christmas Story

Christmas is a story of miracles. 

In reality, though, we can find miracles on December 25th - or on any other day of the year.  We simply need to know where to look - and to be able to see when they are found.

Here is one of those stories.

Capt. Scott Southworth knew he'd face violence, political strife and blistering heat when he was deployed to one of Baghdad's most dangerous areas. But he didn't expect Ala'a Eddeen.

Ala'a was 9 years old, strong of will but weak of body; he suffered from cerebral palsy and weighed just 55 pounds. He lived among about 20 kids with physical or mental disabilities at the Mother Teresa orphanage, under the care of nuns who preserved this small oasis in a dangerous place.

On Sept. 6, 2003, halfway through his 13-month deployment, Southworth and his military police unit paid a visit to the orphanage. They played and chatted with the children; Southworth was talking with one little girl when Ala'a dragged his body to the soldier's side.

Black haired and brown eyed, Ala'a spoke to the 31-year-old American in the limited English he had learned from the sisters. He recalled the bombs that struck government buildings across the Tigris River.

"Bomb-Bing! Bomb-Bing!" Ala'a said, raising and lowering his fist.

"I'm here now. You're fine," the captain said.

Over the next 10 months, the unit returned to the orphanage again and again. The soldiers would race kids in their wheelchairs, sit them in Humvees and help the sisters feed them.

To Southworth, Ala'a was like a little brother. But Ala'a, who had longed for a soldier to rescue him, secretly began referring to Southworth as "Baba," Arabic for "Daddy."

Then, around Christmas, a sister told Southworth that Ala'a was getting too big. He would have to move to a government-run facility within a year.

"Best case scenario was that he would stare at a blank wall for the rest of his life," Southworth said.

To this day, he recalls the moment when he resolved that that would not happen.

"I'll adopt him," he said.

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Maharajah of the Keyboard

My childhood was filled with music.  But, most of it was not Mozart, Bach and Beethoven.

Nope - my dad loved jazz piano, and he passed on his preferences to the rest of us.  One of the greats was Oscar Peterson. 

Fortunately for me, I got to hear the master play in downtown Chicago as a teenager.  Watching his fingers was almost impossible; they moved so quickly!

Unfortunately, no one will watch those fingers live any longer:  Oscar Peterson died today.

If your folks were not jazz piano aficionados - then here you go.  Enjoy.

Wonder, Wonder Why

Much about the universe remains a mystery to me.

Does God really exist?

What causes men to do evil?

Why are most of the foods I adore fattening, greasy and/ or laden with sugar?

And, this:

When health coverage was developed, why did teeth get excluded from the rest of the body?

The ramifications of this dilemma in Kentucky.

When Rights Collide

As my readers know, last month found me in San Francisco for a national bridge tournament.  There, I was appalled to see city streets, in a posh part of town, littered with human beings literally living on the sidewalk.

Today, we should all be even more enraged to learn of a man's death in Iowa.  Was this man murdered by a thief?  Killed in an accidental street fight?  Shot by a jealous husband?

No, try none of the above.  This man was killed by indifference and adherence to ridiculous rules.  This man was killed by a society that somehow thinks it is moral to "fight for civil rights" when a person is incapable of finding food and shelter for himself.

Civil libertarians seem more concerned with a patient's civil rights than his very survival. For example, despite a study released in 2005 by the New York State Office of Mental Health showing a marked decline in arrests, hospitalizations, incarcerations, homelessness, and threats of violence and suicide for patients under that state's "Kendra's Law," the New York Civil Liberties Union lobbied against the law's renewal that same year.

Put me down as someone who vigorously defends the civil rights of individuals.  Still, we must learn to differentiate between people who have the capacity to rationally choose from various options, and ones who are so mentally ill that this ability is nonexistent.

Sometimes the rights we have collide.  Judging which ones should take precedence over others isn't always easy.  Somehow, though, we must do better than we did with Sonny Iovino in Iowa, and with the many others who live in their own waste, endanger other citizens and sometimes die on the streets.

"A Terrible, Terrible Law"

And that is an understatement!

See why.

Cure Worse than the Disease

I am not a Katherine Kersten fan. 

For those of my readers who do not know who Kersten is, she is a conservative columnist for the Star Tribune.  While I do welcome more diversity in the Star Tribune, and a change from the too constant far left drumbeat of its editorial pages, Kersten would not be my choice.  Her views on homosexuality and religion, just for starters, have deep dissimilarities with my opinions.  Also; her tone too often rubs me the wrong way. 

Nevertheless, if you are one of those who thinks that Kersten is small minded and parochial in her beliefs, try this woman on for size.  Talk about the cure being worse than the disease; rarely have I read a column so vituperative as this one! 

Your God is too small. If the lost child of Minnesota's famous Mayo family (Star Tribune, Dec. 9) had not been attending a church-tied private academy but, instead, was a student at the Minnesota State Academy for the Blind just down the road, you would never have written that column. I find abhorrent your use of this child and this school to further your personal agenda. I cannot find any column in recent months — and you are spinning them out at the rate of twice a week — that does not take the reader back to your one-note theme of better days in conservative Christianity.

Katherine, your God is too small. Where my God seeks to be everywhere, in all beings, in all ways, for all time, your God has rules and lines drawn in the sand, accusations and retributions and punishment for the unworthy. The Rabbi Jesus who received the devotion of the Magdalene, the Fallen Woman, and appeared to her first in the Garden of Gethsemane, first among all his disciples, would not approve of your chosen role. "You who are without blame, you cast the first stone."

Listen up.

And lest you presume that to be patriotic is to be Christian, and to be Christian is surely the essence of American patriotism, revisit Thomas Jefferson's words, written to stave off the very hope that you cherish, that your God truly does come with a sword.

Wow.  If you read the actual column to which Deborah Morse-Kahn is protesting, you will be flabbergasted.  Not only are there no comments about how Christianity is superior or more "right" than any other religions - there actually are no references whatsoever to any religion whatsoever!  The column is truly only a reflection on how a life, shortened way way too early, was enhanced and turned around by a private school.

Know Your Limits!

If you bust a gut watching this, do not blame me!

Hillary Takes the High Road

Pro-Abortion

Way too many Democrats and Republicans are pro-abortion.

No; I'm not talking about the procedure to end a pregnancy.  I'm talking about this abortion.

So what is it about farm bills that turns Republicans into socialists and Democrats into defenders of welfare for the rich? One answer was offered by Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group: "Democrats are so reliant on their ability to compete with Republicans for the farm vote that many are reluctant to push any income limits at all. It's very hypocritical."

Democrats got a chance to prove him wrong when the $290 billion farm bill comes to the Senate floor last week. Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar got a vote on her amendment to stop payments for farm households with incomes above $750,000. This is a far cry from the $200,000 cap proposed by Mr. Bush, whom Democrats decry as a "protector of the rich." Yet Ms. Klobuchar's superrich income cap, which required 60 votes to pass, failed when 47 Senators of both parties opposed it. Meanwhile, in the House, the farm bill passed with a $2 million income cap. It seems only yesterday that Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Democrats would end policies that benefit the rich over the middle class.

Farm bills come around every five years, so this is the best chance in years for reforms that reserve farm payments for the truly needy. That this is proving so hard to accomplish tells us a lot about how this Congress puts politics over principle. About 65 cents of every farm payment dollar goes to the wealthiest 10% of farmers. Where is that Democratic devotion to class warfare when we really need it?

What else do you call welfare for the wealthy?

White Christmas

I think I posted this before.

Definitely worth a second look, though! 

The Difference

A blog that I recently discovered and most appreciate is that of Greg Mankiw, a Harvard professor of economics.  Yes, Virginia; Harvard really does have some profs who are not far to the left!

This recent post of Professor Mankiw seems a cogent and accurate description of the variance in belief between right and left on economics and the role of government.

Mankiw believes that this distinction might be most key:

There is one last issue that divides the right and the left—perhaps the most important one. That concerns the issue of income distribution. Is the market-based distribution of income fair or unfair, and if unfair, what should the government do about it?

Surely it is a major difference.  My friends on the left consistently rail about the vast wealth of those on top - and how limited the resources and options are of those on the bottom or near.  In addition to the questions that Mankiw raises, one might also ask this:  "Is it ultimately even possible, long term, to consistently achieve 'income equity' in any society?" 

My personal belief is that the answer is:  "No."  As a very successful businessman I knew once said, you could confiscate the wealth of all those on top, and redistribute it among the poor.  After a time, many of those at the top would have re-earned wealth, and many on the bottom would have squandered theirs.  Those who changed habits, and those who were only wealthy due to the "lottery of life" would not find this to be true.  Yet, many who are successful - and many who are not - are where they are due to their principles and behavior; not because of dumb luck.