Surviving on Little

Learning Faith and Love in a Box of Sunshine

By Victor L. Midyett

Recently Shirley made the comment to me that, “We know how to survive on little.” I got to thinking about that and realized that it was mostly my missionary upbringing [see “Missionary Kid” stories] that taught me how to survive on little.

Correspondence: From the King James Bible, to Shakespeare, to composing behind the wheel

Edited by Moristotle

[Items of correspondence are not attributed; they remain anonymous. They have been chosen for their inherent interest as journalism, story, or provocative opinion, which may or may not be shared by the editor or other members of the staff of Moristotle & Co.]

Is vast inequality necessary?

Paul Krugman says no

By Rolf Dumke

Economist Paul Krugman’s January 15 piece in the NY Times, “Is Vast Inequality Necessary?” is a very readable argument explaining the rise of inequality in the US since the 1960s as a combination of forces:

Thor's Day: Socialism and the Christian Right

How can anyone be a Conservative and follow Jesus?

By Ed Rogers

Most Christians, if asked, will tell you that Socialism is anti-religion. Some non-believers call themselves socialist without other beliefs contradicting it, but almost any conservative Christian who calls himself a socialist is snared in a dilemma.

Freedom is not perfect

I speak of freedom in all its grand imperfection, constrained by many variables, including our genomic inheritance, our early environment, how we were indoctrinated, traumatic experiences we have suffered, the weight of our habits.

And we are hedged in by constraints of available means. We must exercise our freedom in the places we occupy (or in other places to which we have the means to move). A rich man in America (where rich men are becoming richer and poor men are becoming poorer) has more latitude to exercise his freedom than a poor man has.

Or he seems to. For when I speak of freedom, I am mindful of the context of the responsibility it entails. Another “actual constraint of means” is the array of consequences that may follow from our acts. Clearly, when we act consciously and with as much knowledge as we can bring to bear, we must take into account what is likely to flow from acting (or from not acting). And we are responsible for consequences. In fact, if we aren’t responsible for consequences, what could the “responsibility of freedom” even mean?

A rich man can cause a lot more havoc than a poor man can. (This is also true of rich nations in relation to poor. The United States and Western Europe contribute about two-thirds of the Earth’s greenhouse emissions. The poor people of Africa, who will be among those most affected by the disastrous results of atmospheric warming, contribute only about three percent.) The rich therefore have more responsibility for using their freedom wisely.

I do not mean this observation as an apologia for inequality of wealth in American (or in the world). I deplore the widening divide between the “haves” and the “have nots.” In fact, one reason the divide between rich and poor is widening seems to be that many of the rich, rather than live up to their responsibility, are instead greedily exploiting their economic advantage (for short-term gain and long-term catastrophe). And the rich includes us who choose to drive when we could walk or take a bus.

Nevertheless, I speak of freedom as a fact, however constrained it may be by means (including consequences) and the various contributing causes (congenital, environmental, educational, habitual). For if freedom isn’t even possible in this time/space continuum, then what are we even talking about here? And why are we talking at all? And how could you choose to walk today?

"Class warfare" seems to have survived the Old Year

One of my born-again, Bush-approving cousins sent me a newspaper letter to the editor by a guy out in Oregon who says he has a job, gets paid, pays his taxes, "and the government distributes my taxes as they see fit." He doesn't say what his job is, but:

In order for me to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test, which I have no problem with.

What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check, because I have to pass one to go earn it for them?

My cousin asked,

Pretty good idea, don’t you think???

I replied:

You mean, because the guy works in a nuclear reactor or somewhere and has to undergo random drug tests, everyone who receives the benefit of taxes should also undergo them? Well, YOU receive the benefit of taxes. Do you think YOU should undergo random drug tests? <smile>

She replied:

The point is not for "all who receive the benefit of taxes," just for the welfare/drug addict bunch who could get a job but won't.

Have a Happy New Year.

I replied:

Ah, right, they are a worthless lot.

But I think that maybe I should have said that we all need someone who we're not and are a lot better than. That may be the common demoninator of all class warfare, even the "warfare" of most of We the People's wanting the superwealthy to pay more in taxes. After all, do they think they're better than Us just because they have a million times more money than we do?