The Gymnasium as a Capitalist Conspiracy

I got my membership to a local gymnasium yesterday.

It’s time to work off some Christmas turkey (from 2 years ago) and get serious about my health.

I often think about my grandma’s comments about people who workout. For the life of her, she could not understand them. She would get so outraged when bikers and joggers would pass by in front of her house. She’d go out into the street to call them back in—if they have that much energy to waste, she would be glad to put them to work on the farm! There’s work to do! That made perfect sense to her.

I was afraid to tell her I bought a workout bench in high school with my money from mowing her lawn. She didn’t say much, but we knew she didn’t like it.

I have to admit, looking at the gymnasium through those eyes changes things a bit. There are roomfuls of people expending boundless energy . . . on absolutely nothing. They go round and round on their exercycles, sweat themselves silly, as if somehow those activities are even remotely interesting. Nowadays, of course, they plug you into various TV and radio channels to entertain you during your workout. Why can’t they at the very least route their energy into some sort of power generator for the building? I’m sure those cyclists can at least keep the lights on. Maybe that would even be a good incentive for them, too!

Sure, there are health and fitness goals! Many of us do not use our bodies in well-rounded enough ways in our days jobs and we have to fulfill that elsewhere. I get that. But it still baffles me when there are so many good things that need doing in this world—and then to walk into this gigantic room where people are exerting ridiculous amounts of effort just going around in circles like some hamsters in a cage, I have to scratch my head. You see powerful men, lifting thousands of pounds, and they are rendered totally ineffective in society because all this activity and strength is contained in this little gymnasium—it never gets out there where it can be a force for positive movement in our society. All they do is lift the weights . . . and then proceed to put them right back down where they found them.

I’m all for a little bit of sport and recreation, but most of the men in our society have been totally pacified and rendered useless by it.

Our arms are made for lifting. What about lifting babies in an orphanage, lifting food for the poor, or planting flowers to beautify our world? You can get a workout and do something with yourselves, too! I’m not trying to steer people into some sort of obsession with productivity, either. Society has gone through those phases and we have had to re-learn how to have fun. But where is the balance? Our bodies are part and parcel of our vocation in life. They are meant to be used on behalf of our life’s mission. What are we put on this world to do?

You may go to the gym and see family connections, friendships developing, and people focusing on health and well-being. I go and see various science fiction scenarios playing out, not to mention a whole host of political conspiracies: Keep them busy so they don’t get into the business of world affairs.

It is any accident that the gymnasium was a favorite place in Ancient Greece and Rome—our two favorite models of Imperial Overlords? Something to think about while I'm on the exercycle!

Which Way Does It Trickle, George?

If George W. Bush was a such a true believer in supply-side, trickle down economics, why is it that any time the economy was in trouble he got on TV and urged people to keep spending?

His actions seemed to show a confidence in demand-side, trickle up economics, no?

The Forgotten Piece of the American Dream

It is often said that if you work hard in America, you can pull yourself up by the bootstraps and make something of yourself. This belief has been handed down to us from generations of pioneers, pilgrims, farmers and factory workers However, there is one very important detail we have forgotten from their stories: This is the American Dream. In other words, it is not the European Dream or some other dream. This has been possible primarily in America, and there are reasons for that.

As my immigrant grandmother used to tell me time and time again, hard work did not equal prosperity in 1920s Eastern Europe. In that time and place, you worked your fingers to the bone in the hopes of just barely scraping by, assuming some famine, war or repressive government did not completely wipe away your gains or even your very chances of survival. In America, by contrast, you worked your fingers to the bone in the hopes of building a better life for yourself as well as for your children and community. That was unprecedented in history, and the immigrants knew it.

The bottom line is that hard work is not all that is needed for prosperity. It is a combination of hard work and good economic and political policies that make prosperity possible. Most of our ancestors lived in absolute poverty through century after century of life as peasants in Europe, Asia, the Middle East or elsewhere. They worked hard but had little hopes of moving up in the world.

There are complex reasons why most of the population of Europe lived in perpetual poverty for century after century. All too often, we probably just unconsciously assume that civilization and technology had just not developed to the point where a better life were possible. I would suggest that the causes were actually the near-constant wars, political instability and third-world-type exploitation that robbed the poor and glutted the rich.

America was no walk in the park, either. 1890s America was a brutal place for most people. We hear some of the success stories, but there were many folks ground under the wheels of the industrial revolution who did not survive, and neither did their stories. Still, there was enough opportunity in America to make a critical difference. Most importantly, when the system got too oppressive, we changed it. There were always people trying to undermine the American Dream, and we have had to work hard and use our democratic voices to keep the window of opportunity open for as many as possible.

This is something to keep in mind as we think about the current budgets that are being proposed at the state and national levels. For the first time in the history of America, the younger generation is not doing better than their parents. Wages for middle class and the poor have been stagnant since the early 1980s, but the price of everything has gone up, as it naturally does. The middle class—which helped defined this country and make it what it is and was—is clearly shrinking. There is a tendency to blame the poor for their own problems: “They are poor because they don’t work hard enough.” That may be true for some, but it is not true for most. The amount of people in poverty is growing in just the last couple of years, and it would be silly to suggest that those people are simply not willing to work as hard as they did just a short while before. People say we do not need collective bargaining, that if we just work hard enough the rest will fall into place, as if multi-national corporations will just seek our best interests without any of us at the table to speak for ourselves.

Hard work does not solve all problems. However, hard work--in an environment that supports it--can be golden.

I visited the homes on Millionaire's Row in Rhode Island years ago with my family. You can tour the mansions of the Vanderbilts and Rockefellers. The tenements and shacks in which many of their workers lived have not survived to be viewed. 1890s America was a time when a few had unbelievable wealth and power, while most lived an impoverished existence with a lifestyle of malnutrition, 16-hour work days and child labor. When I read statistics that right now 400 individual Americans have more wealth than 155 million Americans combined, it is not hard to see that we are making an uncomfortable parallel to an age we should not revisit.

It makes no sense to me that in an effort to balance our state and national budgets, we are further cutting taxes on the very wealthy while demanding that the growing segment of poor and what's-left-of-the-middle-class pay for it. Right now, the rich are under-taxed compared to other periods of time, and their level of taxation is not preventing them from reaching unprecedented levels of wealth. However, the poor and middle class are struggling just to make ends meet.

What do we want our country to be like? Senator Bernie Sanders used the word "oligarchy" to describe this kind of nation we are heading toward--a small group of people controlling vast resources. We may already be there.

"Unions Got Too Greedy," They Say

People blame the unions whenever a company packs up its operation and moves it overseas. The classic Reagan-era excuse was that greedy and demanding unions got too big for their britches and forced otherwise benevolent companies to move away. But have you noticed that entire industries that have never had any experience with unions are also making a mad dash for the third world? Cases in point: the tech industry or the customer service call centers for any industry.

While the rank and file engage in a heated debate as to whether or not unions are justified, the CEOs have been running to the bank unabated. Regardless of which side you are on, if you are fighting that fight, then you (like me and many others) fell for the diversion tactic.

I propose another explanation: I believe companies packed up and moved overseas simply because they could. Advances in transportation, communication, as well as advances in the third world nations themselves, made it easier for multi-national corporations to set up shop in places like Indonesia, Vietnam, etc. The businesses themselves also matured to the point where they were ready for such a change. A lot of industries started off as mom & pop shops, quickly growing to a larger operation, then multiple operations, etc.

Whether Americans are unionized or not, there is no way we can compete with people willing to work for mere cents a day. Even factoring in the large transportation expenses and set-up costs, businesses have been exuberantly clear that the savings in labor more than make up for any additional costs for having a split operation (management in America, manufacturing in the third world). I have no doubt that the demands of unions were a factor that irritated businesses—no question. But unions were not the foundational reason that prompted this seismic shift that has been going on the last 30 years. Industries that have no experience with unions are following the same trends.

You could argue that multi-national corporation are no strangers to the developing world: sugarcane plantations and diamond mines have been around for 500 years, if not more. In those cases, though, I would argue that they had to be there. The businesses themselves would invest in the nation’s infrastructure since there was nowhere else to harvest that produce or mine those minerals. There is more flexibility with a modern sweatshop. It is an employer’s market, if you will. They can set up their factory anywhere, so they can put more pressures on the local governments to put in that infrastructure for them. They can wait until conditions are favorable.

Statistics are clear that there is no less wealth in America. It is just concentrated among an increasingly smaller and smaller group of people. Real wages for the lower and middle class have been stagnant for 30 years. I know this from personal experience: A union factory worker could make $10-12 per hour in the early 80s. He could support a family on a single income and do it quite well. I have meandered around factories, warehouses and other industries, and even in the year 2011 one would be lucky to work for $10-12 per hour. What kind of lifestyle can you have today making $10 per hour (roughly 20 grand annually)? The price of everything has increased sharply, yet wages have not kept up with inflation. The result: the standard of living has gone down for most Americans. We are in a 30-year slow cook, and the boil is coming on just gradually enough for us to not realize it until it is too late. I have heard that frogs will leap out if thrown into a pot of hot water, but they are unable to respond if placed in a pot of cool water that heats up slowly.

Unions raised the standard of living for the lower and middle classes of America. There is no question about that: Advances that were won by the unions were directly the same advances that increased the standard of living for workers: Higher wages, better safety conditions, child safety laws, the 40-hour work week—these were the achievements that improved the standard of living of the lower and middle classes and they were fought for and won in large part by the unions. The existence of unions was not a mere correlation to advances in the standard of living in America. They were absolutely causational.

Most Americans today probably would not have liked living in the America of 100 years ago. The “home of the free” was not much different than a modern third world nation—our forefathers worked 16-hour days in often deadly conditions “for peanuts,” as they would say. They lived in tenements and shacks. Maternity leave consisted of an afternoon off, if you were lucky. Have we forgotten Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle? The increasing gap between rich and poor is not an empty political talking point. It is the grim reality of daily life. Businesses and politicians capitalize (literally) on the fact that most people either do not know or remember what it was like just 30 years ago.

All of this does not bode well for those of us in America. Our labor is competing with third world labor. It does not look promising to imagine where this will lead when followed to its logical conclusion. I have a sinking feeling that we are going to find out up close and personal where it leads, though.

I definitely urge America and especially Ohio (which is right now fighting for the life of collective bargaining in the public sector) not to vote against the interests of organized labor. Like any human operation, you can point to some faults and flaws among unions, but I would argue that it is dangerous to conclude that we would be better off without any unions. "The unions once served their purpose, but now they more problem than they are worth," you may hear. But just as the rise in the standard of living corresponds to the rise in organized labor, so too does the decline in that standard of living correspond to the decline in organized labor.

Regardless of how we vote, my worry is that organized labor may not be as effective as it once was in securing a more even distribution of the wealth. The tools and methods it has used historically are harder to apply in the modern marketplace. Workers acting as a group were able to control the supply of labor into an economy and make demands as a result. That was very effective when the supply of labor was limited to a small region. Now that advances in communications and transportation have made almost the entire 6 billion people of the world as potentially a part of the labor supply of many industries, the kind of global solidarity that would be required to use the same union methods as before seems far outside of the range of possibilities right now. Companies can pick up and move so easily now.

The industries that have been able to maintain their collective bargaining power have been those where outsourcing is simply not possible—such as teachers, for instance. Still, every industry that maintains collective bargaining provides a "bump" in the standard of living for all of us. There is a positive spillover effect as even non-union workers demand better terms in their employment. Likewise, every industry that loses that right will most likely also be knock to other industries, too.

Here is the bottom line, and it affects your bottom line: Whether lower and middle class workers act collectively or not, the results will be felt collectively.

Sympathy for Insurance Companies

I can sympathize with the plight of insurance companies. In a purely capitalist system, there isn't much incentive not to be total assholes. As soon as you have one do-gooder business insuring people with cancer (like me), the sooner they'll be out-competed by the assholes on the block who aren't doing that and be put out of business.

One rotten apple spoils the whole barrel. Capitalism left unchecked tends toward the lowest common denominator.

That is why that argument is so clear for universal health care. If we all just get together and decide to share the burden and get 'er done, we can do it. Companies acting alone with no reward for taking on a financial burden won't insure the people who actually need it. They will sit up late at night trying to figure out ways to exclude people, which isn't a very good exercise for any human being to be involved in. Nobody should put themselves in a position where their job is to figure out ways to deny coverage for the people who most urgently need it.

The government shouldn't run health care, it just needs to remove barriers for people who need access to it and/or increase incentives for companies to do so. The government can help level the playing field so that business people who want to do good are not penalized for doing so. Let's help create a society where it is easier to be good, as Peter Maurin suggested.

I'm not saying capitalism is all bad. I'm just saying that there are some decisions that are best left to individuals to fend for themselves against market forces, and then some decisions are better left to large groups (like nations) to decide and enact en masse. Few people are trying to bring about socialism in America, and few are truly trying to bring pure capitalism (which is really another word for anarchy). The only question in American politics is agreeing on what we do individually and what we do collectively--either way it is still capitalism. Nobody is forcing the government on anybody if we all democratically decide that we would rather do something as a group than as individuals.

I'm glad we don't leave it up to the free market to determine how to drive on roads. I'm reasonably happy to know that when I drive on the road that anyone coming in the opposite direction is going to stay on the other side. Laws like this just make life easier, not more difficult. All these people spouting about how the "least government is the best" haven't seen how the business world works when left unchecked.

However, opponents like to throw out words like "socialism!" to scare people. Few people will do the relevant research to unpack all that loaded language. This is especially true in a nation where technical training is up but we have very little stock in educating people about logic and rhetoric (once pillars of higher education).

* * *

There's another argument for universal health care that few people are talking about: Entrepreneurism. How are we gonna dig our way out of this economic malaise? One surefire way is through innovation. Innovation is proven growth element in any economy. Any economist will tell you that the best way to encourage that is to reduce risk. Let's support an environment where people have fewer barriers to trying new things and let them take us to the next level.

I'm an entrepreneur. I'm ready to start my own business. I'm a director of a nonprofit organization. However, we need some time before we can turn it into an operation that can support salaries and insurance packages. The jump from a standard, off-the-shelf job into this is too steep right now. I'd have to fly without health coverage for a while. That's simply not an option. So instead of boldly going where no one has gone before, I'm looking into being a barista just for the health care. The availability of health care coverage is the biggest governor slowing down the whole process. Here I am, an excited and motivated citizen, ready to bring innovation into the economy, and I'm halted by a flawed health care coverage system.

The biggest problem is that our health care is all tangled up with employment. That needs to be unravelled. Perhaps it made more sense 40 years ago as many folks worked for large corporations like the Big 3 Auto and job transitions were more rare. Nowadays, there are many self-employed and other entrepreneurs, but the current health care infrastructure does not support their occupation choice.

Decades ago, companies found that they instead of paying higher wages, they could offer "wages plus benefits" to employees as part of their compensation package. It was a win-win: Companies could negotiate lower group rates so in a sense the employees were getting more bang for the bucks that the companies were spending on them. The problem is that we ended up with this convoluted system where health care is tied to employment. In our modern world where job transitions are higher than they ever used to be, the current system does not support our current work culture.

I Built Your Skyscraper, Now Where's My Dime?

I've always been sympathetic to some of the folk songs from the labor movements of decades gone by. However, I have to admit that sometimes I found their arguments to be less-than- convincing.

I never thought I'd be singing (for real) Brother Can You Spare a Dime? by E.Y. Harburg & Jay Gorney. The Weavers had a great version.

I used to think the song was well-intentioned, but still corny and melodramatic. Now I realize it is the cold, hard truth. Some realities in life we don't fully understand until we go through them ourselves. That is why Dorothy Day and many others have advocated for a lifestyle of intentional poverty, because if we are ourselves poor, vulnerable and at risk we will react differently to injustice. We'll be more urgent and more passionate.

In our current society, many have reasonably-solid health care coverage (or at least think they do), many don't. This divide makes it hard for one side to understand the other.

These words really ring true to me now in a way they didn't, before:

They used to tell me I was building a dream,
and so I followed the mob,
When there was earth to plow, or guns to bear,
I was always there right on the job.

They used to tell me I was building a dream,
with peace and glory ahead,
Why should I be standing in line,
just waiting for bread?

Once I built a railroad, made it run,
Made it race against time;
Once I build a railroad -- now it's done.
Brother, can you spare a dime?

Once I built a tower to the sun,
Brick and rivet and lime;
Once I build a tower -- now it's done.
Brother, can you spare a dime?

Once, in khaki suits, gee, we looked swell,
Full of that Yankee Doodle de-dum;
Half a million boots went sloggin' through Hell --
I was the kid with the drum.

Say, don't you remember, they called me Al?
It was Al all the time.
Say, don't you remember? I'm your pal.
Buddy can you spare a dime?

Aetna used to call me "Frank." It was "Frank" all the time. When I applied, they told me they couldn't wait until I joined their family! Anthem wanted to be my friend. Now it's "Dear Mister."

My own current insurance company (Aetna) has already refused me once when I attempted to go off the group policy into an individual policy. I'm in the process of applying again. I helped build their skyscraper. The only thing I did "wrong" was get laid off.

It's amazing how we as a nation don't honor the debts of those who have contributed. We take their earnest and naives contributions and leave them out in the cold on some technicality when they are no longer useful.

We do it to our troops. We do it to our laborers.

Insurance companies were glad to take my money when I didn't have a "pre-existing condition." Folks are scared not to have coverage if some tragedy strikes, so they pay in even when they aren't getting paid back. Now they are looking for loopholes to turn me away.

The song may have been crafted to make an argument for social security. Indeed, how do we as a society take care of each other? Are people only worth anything if they are fit and able to contribute? What happens when they grow old, sick or disabled, do we just turn them away? People deplete themselves working to build up our society. Yes, they got their paycheck, but we all benefit from their contributions. Are they only good when they can contribute then left to be cast aside later?

What about soldiers who are done with their service who find their needs still remain? What about laborers who worked to build up our nation who are now too old, sick or disabled to work? Right now, we just provide health insurance for those lucky enough to fall into a sweet benefits package and disregard those who fall through the cracks.

Not only are they our sisters and brothers, but they also helped build up the wealth and the world we live in. We are living off the sweat of their backs. But they're out in the cold, asking for a dime.

So many people try to denounce universal health care and social security as some kind of government "handout." This song helps illustrate the fact that we are inter-connected. If I'm going to risk my life and future in your army, if I'm going to risk my health building your skyscraper, then that demands that we have a longer-term relationship than just paycheck-to-paycheck.

Homeowners: It's Time

Homeowners can start contacting their lenders to see if they qualify for mortgage assistance or refinancing from the new Obama plan. You usually have to meet the following criteria, taken from this site:

• have obtained their mortgage before Jan. 1, 2009;
• have a primary mortgage of less than $729,500;
• live in the property;
• fully document their income by providing tax returns and pay stubs;
• sign a statement of financial hardship; and
• go for counseling if their total household debt - including auto loans, credit cards and alimony - totals more than 55% of their income.

Republicans and Democrats

You hear a lot about the differences between Republican and Democrats. There are extreme points of view and exaggerated ones. People claim there are differences in everything from morality to intelligence level to their attitude toward life. It can seem like a mess. However, the differences can actually be boiled down to one simple belief.

From an economic standpoint, both of them are capitalistic. However, both of them favor a form of capitalism with restrictions. The part that makes them different is simply a different approach about how those restrictions are to be applied and under what circumstances. In a broad sense, Republicans believe in the individual. In their view, if every individual acts as freely as possible, we will end up with the best system. The Democrats, on the other hand, favor a collective approach—they lean on making decisions together as a group. Both parties believe in freedom, even though that is often the charge they level against each other.

People jump on their bandwagons and demonize the other side, but in reality we do use both approaches and that is probably why America has survived how it has. Both approaches have flaws and benefits.

The Soviet Union was an example of a nation that relied on collective decision making. A technocrat in Moscow would tell farmers who lived 10,000 miles away when to plant their crops. This generated some huge inefficiencies. No matter how smart the brain trust was in Moscow, there is no way they would be better able to respond to local weather changes nor would they have the intimate knowledge of local climate and land compared to the people who have been farming that land for thousands of years. They rarely did a good job--telling farmers to plant in the worst of conditions or farmers losing the best days waiting for approval from the central authorities. Even if the central authorities did a good job, though, they were simply an unnecessary step. There is no need for that to be a collective decision--farming on the Russian steppes works best when individuals make those decisions on their own.

The Soviet Union was not the best example of true collective decision making. What really ended up happening was that it was a totalitarian regime. Nevertheless, the example still does a good job of showing the flaws in appointing the government to manage more than it should.

Yet, pure individualism has some serious problems, as well. We tend to demonize businesspeople in America, but most of them would like to maintain strong ethics. The problem is that capitalism is competitive. You can maintain all the ethics you want, but all you need is one competitor who is willing to bend those rules and you will be out of business. That one competitor will make cheaper products (since they don't care about the people or environment they take advantage of) and end up out-competing everyone else. In unrestricted capitalism, the rotten apple spoils the barrel. That lowest common denominator sets the tone for everyone else. All the other businesses are either forced to water down their ethics or simply go out of business.

In the above scenario, a good solution is collective decision making: We all get together and legislate our morality. We make our ethics the law. As a result, all businesses have to pay a minimum wage, follow child labor laws and have safety standards. Businesses then don’t have to break their own code of ethics in order to keep their doors open. We have collectively decided to follow these principles and it works better than letting the one who plays the dirtiest set the rules of engagement for everyone else.

Take tax cuts, for example. The Republicans will tell you that lowering taxes is good for the economy, since individuals will have more of their money and will make the best use of it. The Democrats may argue for higher taxes so we can band together and pay for things we never could pay for as individuals--such as an alternative energy infrastructure. That way, we can try to plan so that we can realize our values rather than being isolated individuals making the best decisions for ourselves but not thinking of the larger context. People criticize the Democrats and say that they think that government knows how to run our lives the best. That is not the goal. The goal is that we the people are the government and there are some decisions best made collectively rather than as individuals. It may turn into a blubbering bureaucracy, and that may be a weakness of this approach, but it is not the goal.

The Wal-Mart Effect is an example of Republican principles in action. People shop at Wal- Mart because it is cheaper and convenient. However, we all know that Wal-Mart ruins good towns and cities, but it is hard to be the one person who refuses to shop there. As an individual, why should I pay higher prices just to shop somewhere else? My protest means little, and it is easier just to buy the cheapest items since I am unlikely to hurt Wal-Mart by not shopping there. This is how Wal-Mart takes over--it is the sum effect of individuals making decisions based on their own short-term interests. If everyone bands together and refuses to shop at Wal-Mart, then collectively this protest now carries more weight. Sometimes individuals acting in their own interests leads us all down a path we don't want to go, even if all the little decisions we made to get there seemed good. Sometimes, we need to just get together and put the brakes on.

* * * *

This is what I have gathered to be the biggest difference between the parties. Everything else stems from that (unless you want to talk about social issues, but that's another story). People can rant and rave about how "Republicans are selfish" or "Democrats want the government to take care of us." There may be some merit to those charges, but all too often people jump to those conclusions before knowing the full story about what is motivating these parties. Don't believe the hype--Democrats are not going to turn us into pure collectivists (like the socialists) any more than the Republican are going to try to turn us into an anarchy (pure individualism). They do lean those ways, respectively, but they are both firmly rooted in capitalism and aren't going anywhere.

Ear to the Ground

Keep your ear to the ground. The masive spending bill that Obama just signed may have something in it for you, and it is too early to tell how easy it will be to get access to those benefits.

* Refinancing home mortages to get a lower monthly payment

* Extension of unemployment benefits (and food stamps)

The unemployment may just kick in automatically if you are already receiving it, but you may have to contact your bank directly to find out about the refinancing.

Big 3 Bailout: Anti-Trust Perspective

I don't care if the Big 3 auto makers go down. They lack vision, they are inefficient businesses, and their sales are proving it. I have worked with GM and Ford in my professional life, and the former especially is one of the least progressive businesses I have seen.

They were trying to push SUV's when the Japanese years ago saw that the future was in fuel-efficient cars and hybrids. It didn't take a genius to realize that. Just the other day I read that Ford is still holding out hope for a resurgence in SUV sales in the wake of current low gas prices. They just don't get it.

SUV's were a temporary fad that would not last when gas prices inevitably go up. The consensus of experts out there clearly says that gas prices will rise sharply as oil reserves become more scarce and most costly to extract from. We can call the Japanese "visionary" but it was more common sense. I don't say that to slight their achievement, only that it should not have been that difficult for US automakers to get on the fuel efficient bandwagon when the evidence was pointing that way.

The SUV/hybrid divide is only one example of why the US Big 3 are collapsing in competition with Japense automakers. It is easy to say we should let them fail on their own and let more successful busineses take their place.

However, the question of the bailout still lingers. Does the country want to go through a painful transition period if they go under? There are plenty of other car manufacturers out there who are more successful businesses. However, it won't be a smooth transition if millions of Americans are suddenly unemployed. They aren't going to simply start buying more Japanese cars--what will happen is that millions of Americans aren't going to buy any cars. It is too much of a shock to an economy that is already reeling. As a result, I'm on the fence when it comes to a bailout. But if we're going to do one, I do support Obama's idea that a bailout should come with strings attached to re-tool the US automakers to transition toward more fuel efficient cars.

It makes me wonder why our entire economy is so dependent on a handful of large corporations and banks so much that if they go under our entire economy goes under. These recent bailouts are all based on this idea--these entities are simply too big to fail without forcing the rest of us into economic hardship. It makes me wonder if our anti-trust laws are as strong as they should be. We should never be in a situation where the fate of a few large corporations determines the fate of our entire economy! We aren't diversified enough.

It our entire economy is so entirely dependent on such a small number of businesses, then I think they fit the definition of a "monopoly" and should have been broken up years ago.

Election Commentary

Now let's celebrate the face of America!

There are many people who look back at the words of FDR, the Kennedy's or MLK Jr as being pivotal moments that help shaped the course of their lives. They were inspired into politics, science, civil rights, the Peace Corps or just a positive vision for this country. I think Obama's election yesterday is in league with that. I got a sense of this while reading about the public celebrations in Harlem that happened last night. There are people who are going to remember yesterday vividly for the rest of their lives--if not all of us.

I think it is a wonderful moment of reconciliation between white people and black people. This is a moment of deeper integration of black people into the fabric of mainstream culture. They are not just the voice on the outside, but a true inside voice. That will no doubt be an awkward transition, even though it is longed for. I hope black people feel like a part of America in every way possible now--if they aren't there yet, they will be soon.

As Erin pointed out, many black folks haven't trusted the system--why vote, when your vote doesn't count? The system or "the man" will certainly subvert any attempts at a black person gaining power in America, right? Those worries were not unfounded.

Yesterday, we saw it turn around. Something happened last night. Something deep, and we may not see the full flowering of it for a while. Something happened in the relationship between black people and America that will forever change things.

I can't pretend to know what the average black guy is thinking as I pass him on the street. I am sure there is a wide variety of thoughts based on the person. But now when a black guy looks at me, he might--just might--look at me and think, "he's probably one of the people who voted for Obama, since the majority of voters picked him." Maybe when black people see me they won't see an enemy but realize that the odds are I'm a friend.

This isn't to say that McCain supporters were racist! Your vote yesterday was not a vote for or against racism. But what an Obama win does say is that America is ready, willing and able to elect a black man and enthusiastically stand behind him. This isn't the first time that America has rallied behind civil rights, but it is a huge step into a new ballpark. We are not just acknowledging basic rights, but sharing the helm itself.

The presidency in America is more than just a job. Americans want to feel a sense of connection to the president--someone they can relate to or imagine themselves having a beer with. This mentality has caused us some grief. But what it means is that if America is willing to elect a black man as president that means that America is willing to accept black people into the soul of America. That black guy there--he's one of us. He's taking his fair turn at the mantle. Of course, black people were already a part of the soul of America in a major way, but the difference is that now it is fully acknowledged and wholeheartedly welcomed.

The Freedom of Restrictions: In Economics, In Relationships

We often distinguish between two types of "freedom" in theology. The first is called the freedom from. This refers to freedom from oppression, from rules, from any kind of limitation. This is what most people have on their minds when they talk about freedom. They want to be un-tethered.

The second kind of freedom is freedom for. This describes the kind of freedom whereby you have the time, resources and capacity for a particular goal.

Going to school can limit freedom by having to take classes, do homework and pay tuition. But in the long-run, it can give you the freedom for a wide open future that you wouldn't have otherwise had.

This plays out in a committed relationship. You do lose the first type of freedom in a long-term relationship. You aren't free to date other people and there are bills to pay, diapers to change and school supplies to buy. However--here is what most people forget--you have the second freedom in abundance: The freedom to take that long-term relationship to the limit, something you would never have the freedom to do sitting on the sidelines going from one date to the other. It's the freedom to be a parent and a spouse and to grow in love.

Kris Kristoffersen understood this when he wrote, "freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose." A freedom from limitations by itself gives you nothing, unless it also provides the freedom for something.

The biggest mistake people make is spending a lot of energy securing the first kind of freedom while giving the second freedom only an afterthought. Yet, the second freedom is the most important one. Are we free to do what we want to do? Every decision we make is going to have limitations. The focus should not be about which limitations we can live with, but most importantly what opportunities we have.

A perfect example is my beloved stoplight scenario. At its most basic level, it is very true that stoplights limit our freedom. They tell us when to stop and when to go. However, a traffic light system keeps everyone moving like a well-oiled machine. The end result of this "restriction" is that we can drive where we want to more safely and quickly. This restriction increases freedom!

This is a simple lesson we all learned in elementary school fire drills: If we line up single file, we can all exit smoothly and safely. If everyone runs screaming for the door, we're going to have a pile-up and nobody's going to get out very easily at all.

Restrictions in the Economy

Capitalists usually freak out when they hear about restrictions. In theory, capitalism espouses a system of anarchy where the market should be kept totally free. The theory stresses that the fewer limitations the market has, the better the economy will function. Capitalists immediately assume that restrictions limit the ability of commerce to flow.

In reality, smart restrictions function like a traffic light system.

The more safeguards to protect people and institutions, the smoother it runs. I don't want to drive through a city without stoplights, nor do I want to work in a job market where I can be fired without provocation or be subjected to life threatening physical danger at any moment.

Businesses raged against regulations such as minimum wage, child labor laws, health insurance, unions, 40-hour workweek, the environment, you name it. But all of those things actually made their workforce more stable, healthy and happy. People were more productive and in turn spent their money back into the economy. Businesses did not lose productivity due to employees quitting or getting injured. By investing in safety, good wages and safeguards for workers, businesses prospered. Granted, these businesses did it kicking and screaming, as if they were in a hurry and held up at a red light. But they were not thinking about how everything would grind to a halt if there were not the occassional red light.

But then why are so many business people politically conservative? For a single business, it seems great to lower restrictions. Every law seems to hurt their ability to make money. In their minds, it makes all the sense in the world to unshackle them as much as possible.

What they don't take into account is the net effect of an entire system of people who have agreed to abide by a certain regulations. It does negatively impact an individual business in the short run if the government makes them pay their workers more through minimum wage laws or overtime requirements. All things being equal, now the business has to pay their workers more and they get nothing in return. However, if every business out there were doing this, the situation changes dramatically. Suddenly, all workers out there are making more money. And what do they do with their money? They spend it right back into those businesses!

In the above scenario, all businesses are taking a hit by paying their workers more. Since all businesses are doing it equally, there is no loss of competition in the market. This is why the government is the ideal body to mandate these changes--a single business would lose their competitive edge if they enacted these changes on their own, because other businesses would undercut them.

Businesses tend to support a conservative agenda because it speaks to these short terms fears, but you need to look at this with a prophetic eye to see where it's all going. Frankly speaking, the conservative agenda is not good for business. Too much unfettered capitalism just creates an unstable marketplace that is bad for business.

The Bottom Line

I've never forget a comic I saw on the office door of a college professor. It had four panels, each showcasing a different crisis in business: The application of Child Labor Laws, Minimum Wage, Safety Regulations, 40-Hour Workweek, etc. In each panel there was also a businessman screaming at the top of his lungs that these regulations would ruin his business! And in each instance, business not only did well but continued to prosper. We need to keep this in mind every time the business community tells us that some new regulation is going to ruin business.

In the year 2008, it is often those "environmental regulations" that are the scapegoat. Or universal health care. But look deeper: These programs may costs a lot, either to the government or business. But in the end, they will stabilize our society which lowers risks and will support the economy. Universal health care would give you the freedom to start new ventures, knowing your family is protected. Good environmental practices will improve our health and enable a future.

The Economics of Tax and Spend

In the closing days of the presidential campaign, it is a good time to sort through the piles of rhetoric that get shoveled our way. You hear a lot of talk about taxes and expenses. Some candidates complain about cutting taxes--how will the government pay its bills? Other candidates talk about raising taxes--how will people afford it?

It just doesn't work that way. We need to talk about how taxes and expenses are going to either stimulate or deflate the economy. That is the better way to look at it. You can have a situation where you lower taxes but the government actually ends up with more revenue in taxes--the lower taxes stimulate the economy enough to pay for itself. Raising taxes can also do the same! What's the right thing to do? The key is to figure out where the money is being invested, as I'll show below.

The Police Effect

Let's say the government raises taxes to hire more police officers. As a result, your city puts in a new precinct in a rough part of town. Folks are a little grouchy, since taxes went up to pay for it, but more jobs are created. The cops are spending their money in that neighborhood. The gas stations and donut shops are doing better business. Eventually, some enterprising people notice that there is a safe neighborhood where there used to be a rough one. They decide to open a business right across the street from the new police station. Soon enough, a second person opens another shop right next to them. Suddenly, a neighborhood that was once lacking in resources has new businesses, increased stability and a more vibrant economy.

Having the police around reduces risk in a neighborhood. Businesses are not as worried about break-in's or theft, anymore. People don't have to spend so much money buying bars for the windows or limiting their operations. Risk is one of those key indicators in an economy. When risk goes down, productivity goes up. Other folks who are less enterprising take the jobs that these folks left vacant, and some people come off of unemployment.

All this happened because we put a few more cops in a neighborhood? Yes! Sure, we paid more money for more police, but if it plays out right, you could have a small renaissance where we all benefit. All of this increased activity just turns into more tax revenue for the government.

You could follow all the possible ripple effects even further: There is more supervision for kids so they can be productive members of society rather than rotting away in a cell somewhere. If folks feel safer they might spend more money on their yard or their cars, knowing they will be protected. People might take more pride in their neighborhood which could be a boost of morale for everyone. Cops have special training, so that means there is a more educated workforce out there. The ripples keep going on and on.

The Teacher Effect

Let's say we raise taxes to put more teachers in the classrooms. All the same applies: There is an immediate boost as new jobs are created, and those teachers spend their money back into the economy. It also means that universities increase enrollment to train new teachers. More teachers also means that schools can hire art and gym instructors, hire more counselors and host more extra-curricular activities. All of these just turn into more opportunities for students to learn more and get more support. They also provide ways for kids to be connected who may not get that connection in a pure classroom setting. It also provides more mentors in different capacities, who may encourage kids to stay in school, stay out of crime and be successful. Violence should go down in schools, as well.

The result? Not only did we boost the economy by hiring more teachers, but through their work they help foster a smarter, safer, more stable population. Not only are teachers an immediate benefit to the economy, but the product of their work keeps reaping benefits as the years go on.

Just like lowering risk in the police example, innovation in the market is also another key indicator of growth. New ideas, education and technology are reliable factors for growth. We can expect long-term economic growth with a smarter, more experienced population.

The Military Effect?

Some say we should spend more on the military because it will stimulate the economy. At the outset, this is true. It follows the same initial pattern as if you hired more cops or teachers. The government will hire people to work in the weapons factories and in research and development. These people, in turn, will support the gas stations and convenient stores. Eventually, real estate agents start selling again so they feel comfortable enough taking their family out to dinner at a fancy restaurant, for example. It goes on and on, just like the previous examples.

The problem with military spending is that it doesn't create anything with a life of its own. If you make a bomb, then that bomb sits somewhere in a warehouse. You stimulated the economy in the short term by making the bomb, but once that money is spent, it is gone. The bomb has no further use to society, other than to blow up someone else's country--which you may rebuild but I wouldn't count on that, nor would I want an economic strategy based on bombing and rebuilding other countries! Admittedly, some innovation has come through military engineers, but I would rather have that innovation enter the economy directly and not in a small way as an after-thought of military research.

People: The Real Deal

So as you can see from the above examples, the real deal is not just a simple statement of who is raising or lowering taxes. There are good and better ways to stimulate the economy. Pay a guy to build a bomb, and the bomb sits in a warehouse and the guy sits in a factory. Pay a guy to teach our children, and not only do you have an active, vital teacher but he is also hard at work sculpting the next generation of innovators and productive members of society. That is the kind of investment that pays out for years and years.

So my advice: It is good to know how the government is taxing and spending. But look deeper: Think of all the expenses as investments. Are we spending our money on projects that are going to pay out dividends for years to come? Or are we throwing our money into things that have a limited impact? The government can stimulate the economy by hiring all sorts of people--we should be hiring people who, in turn, also perform a service that betters society.

Investing in people is the way to go: Police, education, social work, these are the kinds of things that build up the infrastructure of a society. These people all work to improve on key macroeconomic factors: reducing risk and increasing innovation. One person out of jail and into the workforce makes us all happier, smarter, safer and richer. This is really an extension of FDR's New Deal: building roads, bridges and dams not only puts people to work in the short run, but it also creates a transportation system which increases commerce and cuts cost, thereby continuing to support business in the years to come. It's a double pay-off.

These Democratic policies are not anti-capitalistic at all--in fact, they are entirely capitalistic. They support the system of capitalism so that it can run more smoothly. They function like the traffic light system: Businesses are more profitable when there is a well-policed environment. Businesses can innovate with a more educated workforce. Good social work can help people develop the social skills to work through difficult circumstances in their life--circumstances which keep people from being productive in society. A good counselor can help an angry teen find healthy ways to channel his feelings--instead of one more kid in jail, you have a potential role model in the making.

So not only should we ask our politicians how they are going to tax and spend--we need to ask them how they are going to invest in the future of this country. Some ways of investing can have an exponential impact while others just a linear one.

There are still scientists around today who were inspired and put to work by John F. Kennedy's science initiatives. For the last 40+ years, our nation has benefited from his prophetic investments into our future. Just think how another leader may set in motion the next generation of leaders and innovators who will continue to help us long after the job of that leader is done.

Tomorrow Morning, 9:00 AM

Wouldn't it be wonderful if everyone woke up tomorrow morning and decided unanimously not to do anything until all the suffering of the world were taken care of?

Some people say they are called to help the needy, like some kind of religious vocation. Some don't feel called. But do you feel called when your mother gets sick? Do you feel called when your best friend is in trouble? No, you respond out of a deep impulse within you. Instinctively, you jump into action, as if the whole world stopped right then and there. If your mother needed you, there would be no hill or mountain that could stand in your way.

I think this is what Jesus is getting at when he wants us to rethink our family relations. All people are your brothers and sisters. The same instinctive, immediate response to the suffering of one of your blood family members should be the same response you feel whenever anyone is suffering. All people are your family.

Our ancestors who lived several thousand years ago had an edge on us. Living in isolated villages, many of them probably lived out their entire lives without knowing that there is extensive suffering in the world. They went to sleep at night not realizing there were hungry people they could have helped.

If a neighbor fell on some catastrophe in one of those ancient villages, I would imagine people would have helped out. House burned down? Just stay with the folks next door. Food supply went bad? The town will pull together to cover the difference. How could you go to bed at night knowing the folks in the next hut are literally starving to death while you have plenty of food? You wouldn't let that happen. Human nature being what it is, I'm sure it was a few steps removed from utopia, but I think it is quite possible that basic needs were met in one way or another in a lot of these places.

We don't have that luxury today. We know that there are millions upon millions of desperately suffering people--from sickness, famine, war, drought, homelessness, emotional anguish, you name it. This is one of the most shocking changes in human culture over the last 100 years: We hear statistics like 'so many thousands of people die of hunger every minute.' People who lived previously saw suffering, for sure, but they didn't have quite that same information in front of them. What that does to our souls is something I don't want to consider.

I just wish all people expressed a collective "No!" one day. Let's not do a single thing until every person goes to bed with a full belly. Let's all stop everything we're doing and hit this hard--with the same fervor as if it were our very mother who were hungry, with the same immediacy as if it were our own levees that were about to fail. Let's take to the streets, boldly go where no one has gone before, and get 'er done!

To Pro-Life Voters

I sympathize with you. But let me clarify where I stand, as there can be some miscommunication with the terminology. I have what you could call a consistently pro-life position. I find myself not just against abortion, but also the death penalty, war, and anything that impedes and restricts love and life to grow, mature and develop. I find my pro-life expression in supporting the arts, in appreciating nature and beauty and education. It is just about the most unpopular stance to take in modern American politics.

In fact, "life" is the benchmark upon which I make all my moral decisions. Does something support life? Does something oppose life? That which supports life is that which I support. And so on. I see education as a pro-life stance. I see the environment as a pro-life stance. I see the arts, community building, peace making and war stopping to be pro-life.

In the Catholic world, we call this the "seamless garment" (John 19:23). All life is a single garment interwoven together, but without a seam or any sort of natural place where it would be logical to separate or tear it. It belongs together as one piece. The young, the old, the infirm, the unborn, the injured, the mentally retarded, the brainiacs, the soldiers, the saints--we're all woven into the fabric of life.

However, to advocate and support life at every stage means you run out of politicians to vote for.
Some people don't vote, as a result.

Some try to pick and choose--they are against abortion but can tolerate war and the death penalty, because in those cases at least you are getting the "bad people." Well, wars often involve carpet bombing civilians and many innocents go to death row. Not so simple. Some vote against war and the death penalty but shrug their shoulders over abortion--they figure it is already a law and there are some claims to womens' equality--claims they don't believe in, but it is easy to look the other way on this issue. We all find ways to justify our vote. You may find me doing it in this post, as well.

A Pro-life stance is not just about your relation to other people. It is about your relationship to yourself. What does it do to you when you justify killing another person? What has become of your own humanity when you find yourself finding excuses why this or that person or group is not worthy of life? Darth Vader didn't start off as a machine. As you can see from Luke Skywalker, it happened slowly--first his hand was replaced with a mechanical one. Then his heart was in play, and Luke had to choose: Life or machine.

The Betrayal of the Pro-Life Movement

I will say this to all the people against abortion out there: You have been betrayed. The Republicans have given you a lot of lip service and gladly took your money, but they have done NOTHING against abortion. NOTHING. Ronald Reagan took office in 1980, and there has been a strong pro-life Republican presence in Washington since. There have even been times when there has been both a Republican Congress and Presidency. Still, what have they done against abortion over the last 28 years? These were such "strong anti-abortion" people. Surely the powerful Ronald Reagan would have stood up to Congress to push some pro-life legislation through. Where was he?

They have led you to believe that somehow they "can't" do anything. They succeeding in convincing you that all they can do is slowly nominate Supreme Court justices, and that over time maybe just maybe they will be able to do something about abortion. But don't believe it. Congress or the President could have introduced, advocated for and supported all sorts of policies and legislation if they really wanted to do something about abortion. They could have let the Supreme Court fight it out. You could have seen these politicians talking about these issues when it comes time to make a law and not just when it comes time to get your vote.

In business terms, the pro-life movement didn't get much for the millions and millions of dollars it has invested. And I realize this is something that can't be looked at purely as a business investment. If nothing else, it is good some politicians are at least giving it lip service, even if that is all they are giving it. It keeps the conversation on the table and there are pro-life role models out there--sort of. But let's face it: Both the Democratic and Republican policies are not very pro-life at all--they just pick and choose some issues to support and others not to support, but they aren't driven out of an innate support for life itself. It is hard to see how George W. Bush values unborn babies when he seemed willing to go to war and blow some babies up for . . . what reason was that war for, again?

Right in line with that, John McCain is willing to use your pro-life sympathies to get your vote and your dollars. He says he will work against abortion as president. What has he done against abortion the last 26 years in Congress? Why is he waiting until now? In the meantime, he sees no sign of stopping a war that is killing lots of born and unborn children in another part of the world. I don't know what he'd do about abortion, but judging by his record I'd say it would be very little. But I do know what he'll do about the children in Iraq, as he has been very clear and consistent on that one.

I can't claim to know every bit of legislation ever attempted in the last 28 years. Perhaps I'm missing something. But you would think with all the talk around election time and the massive campaign machinery of the anti-abortion movement you would see a little more action than you do. I don't see anyone fighting this out on the streets of Capital Hill. And I believe there is a reason for it: They don't really plan to do anything at all about abortion.

If the Democrats were smart, they would take a softer stance on abortion which would undermine the Republican base. Had the Dems taken a more inclusive position when it comes to abortion, I am a firm believer they would have won the Presidency under both Gore and Kerry for sure, and possibly Dukakis and Mondale. The Democratic Party--a party supposedly of diversity--has taken a hard line stance on abortion and it probably lost them their edge in American politics. Who do you think those Reagan Democrats, Southerners and Catholics were who left the Democratic Party in droves in the 80s? That's right: The Pro-Life movement.

But pro-life is bigger than abortion.

I ask the pro-life voters to consider this as you vote. Are you getting what you think you are getting with the Republicans? Are they valuing and respecting your money and your vote? You already know my answers to those questions.

Bailout Follow-Up Post

There was crazy moving weekend last year. We got a group together from the Columbus Catholic Worker and the Newman Center. In addition to helping Erin move to her new house, we transported massive amounts of furniture to and from several locations, much of it going to the Catholic Worker's Emmanuel House. It took two full days to get it all done. It was truly a moving experience, in more ways than one.

During that weekend, Erin had been hinting that she knew someone else who could use some help: A single mom who had gotten a much-deserved break in life and was moving from graffiti-laced tenements to a much nicer home. We were exhausted from all the work, but many of us decided to help out. How much stuff could a poor woman like that have? We figured we'd throw a few items onto the truck and quickly wrap it up.

I had rented a 26' Penske truck for the weekend--the largest moving vehicle I could have gotten without a CDL license. I mention this because it took us two full loads with this vehicle to transport all the items of this impoverished woman.

Now, I want to be very careful here before we are tempted to jump to any conclusions about this woman's poverty. None of these items were worth much--we're talking about smoke-soaked, urine-stained mattresses and furniture that practically fell apart when you touched it. Everything was broken, and you would be lucky to get a nickel for any of it.

I also don't want to jump to any conclusions about how she acquired all this stuff. Maybe it was all donations or picked up by the side of the road. It could have been left by previous tenants in the apartments she has lived in It is possible she didn't spend a cent for any of it in the first place.

But I would be lying if I said that the thought never crossed my mind that a part of this woman's poverty could involve decisions she was making about these items. If she were actually spending money for this stuff, maybe she could be doing it differently. The stuff she had was barely even usable, by middle-class standards. If she were spending money on it, even if it were the most low-cost church rummage sale, what she was getting was hardly doing the job. Maybe instead of buying several extremely low-cost beds, for example, she could instead have bought one or two nicer ones.

Again, I don't want to create an impression that poor people are all living with mountains of valuable possessions and have loads of resources they just need to shift from one place to another and then all their problems are solved. I'd invite anyone to take a tour with me of some of these homes before you think that poor people are running away with highway robbery of government support.

But it is also no secret to say that many of us--including the very poor--just don't have good resource management skills. We don't spend our money wisely or accumulate items in the most forward-thinking way. In poverty, people deal with violence, fear, long periods of unemployment--they are immersed in a culture of substance abuse, multi-generational depression and a constant state of emergency. People don't always have the time or resources to cut coupons or do smart shopping. Still, if they were somehow able to do this, I wonder what kind of possibilities would exist.

And while many of us are living paycheck-to-paycheck without a retirement plan in sight, how many trucks would it take to haul away all of your stuff? You see, I write this post not to criticize the very poor and certainly not this woman in particular, whose life story would chill your blood. I describe this as as an example for middle-class America: Those truckloads of useless junk lining the walls of your basement or attic are your future. That stuff could be your retirement plan, heirloom furniture, trips to Jamaica, donations to the poor or literally anything else. Those boxes of stuff you bought for a dollar here and a dollar there add up to hundreds and even thousands of dollars squandered away.

This poor woman probably didn't even buy the stuff she had--what's your excuse?

Bailout

With all the depressing talk about the economy lately, there are some rays of hope. Some folks are saying that if it becomes harder to get credit it may actually have a positive effect on our culture. People may invest more wisely and save up for things. Imagine that!

We feel so entitled to have things right now in our culture. We feel entitled to buy a house--even though we don't have a blessed cent to put up for it. We feel entitled to have the latest flashy thing in the store window, whether we truly need it or even if we'll still want it when we wake up the next day. We think getting that TV for "zero money down" is an amazing deal--at least, it seems that way. But looks can be deceiving.

Erin told me about someone who did not buy a dining room set until she had the money saved up. Until then, she and her family ate dinner on the floor. Pondering this, I realized there isn't any furniture that you actually need right now. Sure, 30 years eating on the wood floor would be difficult. But a few days? Weeks?

The grim reality in our culture is that our need for things right now has actually made us have less! We think we are ahead of the game, when in reality we are far behind. Let's say you found a dining room set for $500. It seems like a good deal, so you buy it on credit. But how much do you actually pay for it? By the time you pay the interest, fees, delivery (because you couldn't wait until you were able to borrow a truck or double-up with somebody else) you might be paying $600... $700... more?

You would have paid $500 if you saved up for the dining set. Your need to have it right now made you pay an extra $200--money you could have spent on something else. That's a nice lamp you're not going to have. What would have been the harm in waiting? 6 months eating dinner Indian-style on the floor is not torture. It may actually be a cute story to tell your kids in the years to come. God forbid--it may actually be a fun adventure!

I should also mention that the woman who waited for her dining set is a wealthy woman. It is smart decisions like this that got her where she's at. The rest of us have an addiction to stuff. We need stuff and we need it now. The paradox is that we end up with less while the woman who severed her unhealthy attachment to stuff ends up with more.

Credit is a wonderful thing, but it should only be used if the situation meets one of these criteria:

A. Will the benefits outweigh the costs? Let's say you run a gardening service, but you do not have money to buy a rotor tiller. Instead, you have to dig gardens with a shovel by hand. You end up digging up 2 gardens by hand instead of rotor tilling 10. In this case, it would be totally worth it to buy a rotor tiller on credit. You can increase your revenue by 5 times with this one smart investment which would no doubt cover the interest and them some. In the case of the dining room furniture, there is no real benefit to having it right now.

B. When emergency dictates it. There are times when you just gotta have something and it's for real. You may need fly to Bolivia to investigate your son and the commune of "happy, loving people" he joined. However, this point is really an extension of the point above: The benefits need to outweigh the costs. In this case, the benefits are not material but still valuable.

People can be richer if they just slow down a bit. Every time you use your credit card, you are actually taking out a loan. You will pay for it eventually. If you don't have enough money to buy it now, what makes you think you are going to have enough money to pay for it in the future with interest on top of that? You will have to severely restrict your lifestyle to accomodate these unwise investments.

The rotor tiller investment is wise because it will enable you to increase your income so that you will more than compensate for the interest. You should only go into debt when it will enable you to expand your resources enough to cover the extra cost of having it now. If you use this criteria every time you swipe yourcredit card, you may find yourself swiping it less.

One person can have a dining room set and a lamp. The other person has just a dining room set. Just think how these people are going to differe after 10 years of these kinds of decisions! One may have a house decked out with exquisite furniture (all paid for), while the other is scrambling to pay interest on the few simple items they got on their so-called amazing zero money down deal. They first person gets two items for every one the other gets.

Most Americans live in a fog where we think they can have it all and never have to pay. As Al Gore says, America may be entering into a period of consequences--in the environment, in foreign policy and in personal finance. The loans become due whether we pull the covers over our head or not.

Take it from me as someone who is living much humbler than I should. For the past few years, not only have I been paying back all my credit debt but also paying a couple hundred dollars each month in interest (thankfully I'm near the end of it). I am living like I'm making half the money I'm making. I believe in simple living so I'm not too upset, but that is money I could have spent for charities or else to save up for a house or retirement.

For most of us, there is no bailout. We end up paying it all back. With interest. All for junk you can live without.

Gas Prices and the Well of Human Ingenuity

You can count me among the people who are happy that gas prices have gone up. Change is a difficult thing for many of us, and often we need a good push. And here's the thing: A lot of people may not be as screwed as they think they are.

Some people want to drill more oil wells, but we are neglecting the most promising well there is: Human Ingenuity.

A friend of mine has decided to carpool with a co-worker in light of skyrocketing gas prices. As a result, she is now saving about 40% on gas (assuming she still runs errands on her own and has to go slightly out of her way to pick up her co-worker, so she won't reduce her gas bill quite by half). Over the past year, gas prices have risen about 30%. So putting it all together, she's saving 40% while the price has gone up 30%--she's actually better off now than she was a year ago! Add a 2nd or 3rd person to that carpool, and you have a tremendous cost savings, not to mention less emissions into the environment.

I know that some people will slip through the cracks no matter what, but the environment is taking a beating, and that is not acceptable, either. A change is needed. People have options. I really don't want to hear any bitching until people have tried the following:

• Use public transportation
• Drive more fuel efficient cars
• Carpool
• Drive less overall (consolidate your trips, walk, bicycle)
• Drive more efficiently. From the link: "Speeding, rapid acceleration and braking" can impact your fuel efficiency by as much as 33% (you can potentially offset the rising cost of fuel just by this one change alone!) Also: "You can assume that each 5 mph you drive over 60 mph is like paying an additional $0.30 per gallon for gas. "
• Don't run the a/c or carry unnecessary cargo.
• Keep your vehicle well-tuned and in good condition (see the above link, as well)

In a longer term view, people can consider these things when they choose a place to live: Can you walk to the grocery store? Is the commute to work short? Is there public transportation available? Is there a movement to bring public transportation to your neighborhood in the near future (and can you support that movement)?

You may improve your health, improve relationships with people, save the environment and reduce fuel expenditures. You may even end up--as my friend above--better off than you are now. She would never have considered carpooling if prices had remained low, but now that she has, she is better off financially and actually has more time to spend with someone rather than driving alone.

Many of the great things we can do for the environment do not even involve significant changes to our lives. We are so inefficient that it is actually quite easy to dramatically reduce our energy consumption with a few small but substantial changes.

On Pushing Rivers--Let's Review

If you've been following this blog, you may have seen a trend that I have seen as well: I'm convinced that many of the problems with America stem from a pervasive attitude that we can force the world to be what we want it to be. We expend countless resources to do this, when it would be more effective, efficient and gentle to work with our surrounding and bend with them.

The following is a snapshot of ideas that have been discussed in previous posts. While they may seem to encompass varied topics, I am hoping the following shows a common theme among them:

Instead of finding a nice shade tree to relax under, we would rather rev up an engine and sit in houses and cars with air conditioning. People don't think of wearing lighter clothing or working at a slower pace in the heat. The term "climate control" sums it up. There is tremendous irony there, as people who live this way are not in control, but actually trapped in their homes and cars, powerless to thrive as the environment changes (they could if they just gave themselves a chance to adapt). A lot of people don't know that you can really thrive in the heat, but you have to give it a chance.

Instead of practicing a lifestyle of health and working with the body when it falters, our medical community is much more geared toward invasive drugs and surgeries. Do whatever you want, and our doctors will "fix" you when you get "broken." It is oriented toward forcing a cure rather than enabling health. Diet and exercise are considered as an afterthought, almost like extra credit or when all else fails. Any doctor will tell you that the best cures work with the body rather than against, but people often think (and act) otherwise.

Instead of appreciating rocky landscapes or desert foliage, Midwesterners who move to the southwest instead try to force a green lawn onto the arid landscape--even though water is scarce and introducing foreign species may upset the local ecosystems. They move all the way to the desert, but want to recreate Ohio.

Instead of trying to work with other nations, the USA instead follows the imperial model of using military force to get our way. The "War on Terrorism" is a perfect example. The notion that we can simply end terrorism by military force is actually impossible, if you consider the definition of terrorism--the last ditch efforts of a group of people with little to lose, who aren't afraid of dying, willing to commit acts of destruction to make up for their small political or economic power, all in an effort to disrupt the imperial power. Reducing communication and the political power of others leads to terrorism, it does not fight it.

When Senator Obama stresses the importance of maintaining dialogue with other nations, that simple and common sense attitude is just too radical for many Americans. Yet dialogue breeds negotiation which breed compromise and commitment. Sure beats the current model, which is "I'm not talking to you, but I'm gonna bomb you." I realize that negotiating with people who are already terrorists may be hard to do, but the idea here is that terrorists come out of a context. If there were more opportunity, if their culture had more of a voice, terrorists probably would not exist at all--and if they did, they would not have the popular support they depend on.

It is for reasons such as the above that America as a whole is often considered spiritually immature--still convinced that strength in isolation is the way to approach the world and solve problems. We're like a strapping young teenager who hasn't fallen flat on his face yet, only to discover later in life that you can't go through life forcing it to be what you want or "taking it on" yourself. Health, happiness and yes--responsibility--comes by being in relationship--with yourself, your surroundings, your community.

You don't pull no punches,

and you don't push the river.

-Van Morrison

How to Memorialize?

Regardless of your feelings about war, it usually doesn't seem to be asking too much to grieve those who died as a result of war. Even many anti-war activists I know don't hesitate to participate in parades, a moment of silence, a "final salute" or 21-gun commemoration.

However, when you consider honoring America's fallen soldiers on Memorial Day, I ask you to think of your audience (this post is late, but we have a number of other holidays to commemorate soldiers coming up).

When you heap praise on fallen soldiers, think of the 18 year old in small town America. He has hormones bursting through his veins and a desire for meaning and to be part of something powerful that matches the energy he has. He also has little other than low-paying fast food or factory jobs to look forward to, assuming he doesn't go to college. Kids in small town America are BORED out of their minds.

Then suddenly someone talks in reverence about the "ultimate sacrifice" of soldiers. The kid doesn't hear the word "sacrifice," but he wants to be part of something that you can describe as "ultimate." I know no one has that intention when you use those words, but you gotta put yourself in their shoes.

Military recruiters know that bloody and gruesome movies about war help recruiting just as much as the sanitized John Wayne films. Young kids want to be part of something important, and the grit and talk of death is not a turn-off for them.

I want to figure out a way to honor the fallen soldiers without creating the next generation of them. War is too serious, people get chewed up. Those raging energies and a quest for meaning and drama can be better channeled other ways--saving the environment, improving society, mentoring young people. That same competitive spirit and thirst for adventure can be satisfied in other ways. We need to support that.