Gay Marriage

Gay Marriage

So let's jump in.  Here's an easy target to rile people up emotionally.  How did we get here?  What does it all mean?

First we had to change the definition of marriage.  For years, it was commonly understood to represent a union between one man and one woman.  But if you use a word in a different context often enough, the definition changes.  Language is dynamic.  I am not entirely opposed to this.  I like the word smarky, a combination of smirk and smarmy.  It is the superior smile that makes you instantly hate a person who has a self satisfied demeanor, a face that you see on most MSNBC commentators. 

Next, we had to argue that marriage between homosexuals is essentially the same as heterosexual marriage.  That's like figuring out if two shapes are identical in pre school. Some are better at this than others. 

Thirdly, after leaping to the conclusion that there is really no difference, we argue we should give the benefits previously reserved to married heterosexuals to all marriage. Wait a minute! I pay for these benefits, and I want something in return, like social utility.  We've  gone a long time without homosexual marriage, and frankly I didn't notice. The natural consequence of heterosexual unions are little buggers that need care, education, and socialization.  I have an interest in fostering this union. So does society as a whole.  But what do I care about the personal relationship of two same sex partners?

Now you might argue that gay couples raise kids too.  And you have a point.  I am not opposed to figuring out something here.  But a childless gay couple should have no more right to assign social security benefits to a partner, than a single person to a family member or close friend. Discrimination!

Let's face it.  We wouldn't be talking about "gay marriage" if unions between same sex couples and straight couples were the same. There is a distinction.  If we want another institution called gay marriage or civil union, so be it.  But it is different and the rights and benefits should be separately constructed.

I think all this is obvious.  The real underlying issue is acceptance. But, this cannot be decreed by laws. Unless you change the definition of normal, or natural, the gay union lies outside of these bounds. But most of us probably have some traits, conditions, proclivities, that are "not normal" or usual.  We live with these and they are part of  us. I don't think the word proud applies to our feelings about these parts of our nature, but we can expect others to accept us.  I think that is reasonable.

  

Taxes Anybody

Taxes Anybody?


A lot of controversy whirls around the fact that the "rich" don't pay their "fair share" of taxes. The fact that Warren Buffet ( not exactly your average rich guy) paid a lower rate than his secretary did is all the proof needed. The actual facts don't matter. Anybody able to read a chart can see the majority of income taxes are paid by the top earners.  Also, the rates are progressive so that the more one earns, the higher the tax bracket.  Except for the relatively few exceptions that seem to make the press, the graduated rates apply. 

Most of those that are complaining the rich need to pay more, have no concept of how much they are currently paying.  To give you an idea, I earned  my income through professional services.  If I did not provide the service, I recieved no money.  I did not earn the income supervising others to do the work.  In those good years, where I approached the upper one or two percent, the taxes I paid could purchase a new luxury car for the government with cash every year.  Imagine that. Uncle Sam told me I should buy him a new car each year with cash.   And for what? Excluding entitlements, which are paid separately, the Federal Government provides defense and some other services, many of which duplicate services provided by the state and are frankly unnecessary at the federal level.

When can we ask the government to budget our money as carefully as we would?  Why should the majority be able to vote taxes on others, with no consequence to themselves?  Perhaps we should adopt the "equal pain" rule.  If taxes go up, everybody's taxes rise.  Those who earn more could pay more, but there should be equal pain for all income groups.  Instead of dividing us, we would be united in setting standards for government.

Getting a Job

Getting a Job

If you ask me, its too darn hard to get a job.  We've gone from eyeball to eyeball applications, to online resumes, phone interviews, and computer screening.  Does anybody really know if this leads to better decisions?  Or are we creating barriers to otherwise qualified people?

I don't know if I could get hired in today's world.  Luckily I am on the retirement side of the equation.  I have no resume. I was too busy doing things to write down what I had done. Maybe that's why there are twins.  One person does things and the other keeps the records.  Unfortunately, my memory isn't good enough to recall in detail all those things I might have done that would impress a prospective employer. But I must have done something.  Along the way I graduated from college and medical school and raised a family.

But if someone asked me what I did, I would say I got up and went to work.   I could get some help.  A young dynamic 20 something business school graduate from Stanford offered to help me put a resume together.  I guess they are taught this skill early now.

I feel sorry for young people. What if you interview poorly? What if you are in need of a second chance due to youthful indiscretions or other personal issues? Can a computer deal with this? How does a resume show that you are likely to be more loyal and appreciative of your job because you now truly recognize the value of the job?

I am told by business friends that they have trouble finding "qualified" people, as if their jobs are terribly difficult. Yet I look around and see what these employees do, and I do not find many jobs that can't be learned by a reasonably articulate person who is willing to work.  The job hunting process more closely resembles rush at college, than a true screen of abilities.

Sure your past history is important. But I think it's best to consider the resume as a supplement to personal interaction than vice versa.

Introduction

For some reason, I like to stir the pot. Who knows why.  Maybe it keeps the boredom away.  Maybe I like to find out what other people think, or how they react.  I am a scientist in my own way. Poke it with a stick and see what happens.  I've always been like that.  In high school I used to argue issues with my friend for the fun of it.  He was a bright guy (Stanford eventually, then Harvard). He could generally back me into a corner.  It didn't matter, because I enjoyed the  banter, and I learned things. Saw the issues in a different light.

I'm still like that.  It can drive you crazy. You say this, but I ask what about that and that?  Most people like to keep their beliefs.  Maybe they feel secure that way.  Why be challenged?  A common reaction is to laugh me off, because they know I am a pot stirrer.  Some will get angry, because they are very serious about their convictions. 

Sometimes if you engage me, we both will see something in a different light.  Who knows, we may even reach a compromise, or at least give each space to accept different points of view.  We can certainly finally arrive at the roadblocks.  Sometimes their is no agreement.  I find the journey fascinating not so much for the outcome, but for what I learn about humanity along the way. 

In this blog I will take a stance, and hopefully receive some comments to begin a dialogue.  Name calling will not be an adequate response ( although I will learn something about you). My favorite quote is attributed the the Kennedy's or Shaw:  "Some people see the world as it is and ask why? I dream of things that never were and ask why not?"  Try to be unconventional.  Look at it this way.