Good grief

Someday, I will make a list of the people in the world who need some sense shaken into them. There are too many for me to address right now. I might get fired if I spend the next month blogging a list of names and descriptions of people who need help (e.g. the guy who pushed the "door close" button and shut me in an elevator door yesterday). Once again, I am irritated by litigious Americans: No damages for student who said 'That's so gay' - CNN.com

I am wholeheartedly glad that this girl was not awarded any damages. This is not to say that I think the points made in the lawsuit were wrong: it is kind of dumb for her to be punished for what she said when the other students were making fun of her for being Mormon. But that isn't the point. The point is that the damage did not in any way warrant monetary compensation. I mean really - if every person in this world who was unfairly treated or had their feelings hurt deserved to be paid for it, we would all spend our entire lives in court trying to get what we deserve. It is just a stupid idea. I think there should be some sort of punishment for bringing frivolous lawsuit, but of course that would then run up against who defines something as frivolous. There are some valid first amendment cases that absolutely should be brought to help stem the onset of fascism. This is not one of those cases.

It is kind of fun how many times the article says "That's so gay", even including a helpful explanation for those living under a rock who don't know what the kids mean.

Some people are such jerks

In classic style, the CNN story represents all that is bad in the American legal system (and society). Judge's missing pants lead to big suit - CNN.com The just is just being a total jerk and is clearly in it for the money. I hope he loses and is forced to pay back the legal costs of the small business owners he is suing. I also kind of hope he loses his position as a judge and that someone kicks him in the shin. Hard.

The sad part was that this made BBC News this morning. The story intro went something like "What would you do if the cleaner's lost your pants? Well, if you are in America than you would probably sue the pants off them." That's something to be proud of right there.

Overreact much?

Sometimes, I read news stories and I can't tell if people in news stories are genuinely crazy or if their reactions are driven by a desire for notoriety and/or profit (from the inevitable lawsuits). This is one example: Chinese translation error blamed for slur on sofa label - CNN.com. In this article, a woman of color in Canada purchased a brown couch that turned out to have the n-word on the label. The label had been made in China using an outdated translation program.

Now, of course it is an offensive word and appalling that her 7-year-old daughter read it. But, she has now used and is demanding compensation. She says a personal apology is not enough. Also, she said she had guests who refused to sit on the couch.

What is wrong with these people? This was a mistake - a simple mistake. The people who wrote the label had no idea it was offensive. It was not a personal attack on her or anyone else. The appropriate reaction would be to bring this to the attention of the store so that they can prevent it happening again, cut off the label, and get on with life. But no. These people decided to sue. It is absolutely ridiculous.

Child's death raises concerns about psychiatric drugs - CNN.com

Child's death raises concerns about psychiatric drugs - CNN.com

How did the doctors, the teachers and everyone else involved in this child's life let this get so far? The parents are clearly guilty of neglect at the very least, if not their daughter's murder. This is an appalling situation. I am just disgusted.

The "excuse" that the lawyers have given that the parents were simply not smart enough to understand what was wrong with their child or how to appropriately administer her medication tells me that maybe they should not have been able to care for their child. If they admit they were not capable, why was there not someone there to help them?

It sort of makes the idea that people should be licensed to have children sound almost plausible. If not, then there should be a much more solid framework in place to protect children if we will let them stay with parents who are admittedly unfit. I just don't know what the right solution is. There must be something that can be done to prevent this kind of situation.

Taxes and Social Policy

Today, I found two interesting articles on AlterNet about what some consider a dreaded topic: Of course, I am not one who dreads taxes. They are where my bread is buttered, so to speak. I am fascinated with how taxes are used as a tool in social policy and development. I find it more interesting that I would care to share at parties (except perhaps parties with other CPAs). But really, it is an important topic. One aspect of politics that hits everyone right in the pocketbook.



The first article in question is "Why All Tax Credits Should Be Refundable". The basic premise is that because those who have less tend to pay little or no taxes, the wealthy disproportionately benefit from tax deductions or credits. Although the author's heart is in the right place, his theory is based on the idea that all tax incentives are designed to benefit the poor. While it is true that certain incentives, including the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit, are geared specifically at the working poor, these credits are already refundable. Personally, I would advocate increasing the amount of the EITC but that is a separate discussion.



There are a vast array of other credits and deductions designed to encourage individuals and businesses to behave in ways that were considered positive for society when the particular law was passed. Some of them do provide disproportionate benefits for the wealthy, but the answer is not to make credits refundable but to do away with incentives that encourage activities that are generally out of reach for the poor or middle class (for example, reduced tax rates on dividend income that is not in a retirement or education savings account).



The author asserts that it would be better to give a 30% government matching contribution rather than reduce taxable income for contributions to a 401(k) or IRA. Although the article indicates that this has been proposed by Brookings and MIT, it does not address what the potential incentive would be or how this would benefit society. First of all, 401(k) are specifically designed to be a deferred compensation plan - that is, you are encouraged to forgo earnings now (and reap the benefit of reduced taxes) so that you can have this income available in the future. The incentive for employees to participate is the immediate benefit of reduced taxes, which results in the societal benefit of increased savings rates and a lower burden on government support in the future. Although a government matching contribution may increase the future benefits to individuals, it would provide no immediate benefit and thus reduce the incentive for participating in the plan, particularly for younger workers who view retirement as an extremely distant and hazy concept rather than an immediate reality. Secondly, changes to 401(k) or IRA plans will not and are not generally designed to benefit the working poor. The working poor are not generally in a position to put away 15% of their income or drop $4,000 a year into an IRA - they are working to pay for food, housing and medical care. They are simply not the target market for these tax breaks.



I do agree with the first paragraph of the article that argues that tax deductions are not the way to increase health insurance to the many uninsured American. When your target audience are one of the lowest income groups in society, it is important to acknowledge that they are not paying taxes and therefore do not in fact benefit from tax deductions. From their own statistics, it is clear that the White House is aware of this. So, in my somewhat cynical view it seems that this is a proposal to make it look like they are trying to expand the availability of health insurance without actually putting any money where their mouths are. So much more needs to be done to fix the debacle that is the American health care system.



The article does not address credits for businesses that benefit society as a whole. Certain incentives for businesses indirectly benefit low-income or minority groups by giving employers credits for hiring certain employees, such as the Indian employment credit or the welfare-to-work credit. There are also a wide variety of credits and deductions that seek to move capital to areas that would otherwise be considered inefficient, such as alternative fuels and orphan drugs (drugs for rare diseases and conditions). But I digress. My point is that our tax policy is designed to promote a wide variety of benefits to society as a whole and are not completely focused on the poor and low-income families. Although this article takes too narrow a view, it is an important reminder that tax policy cannot be made in a vacuum and that if issues are worth government assistance then we should reason through the most logical and best way to achieve the goal. There is never going to be one single answer.





The next article on taxes highlights the misalignment of priorities that is endemic in the Bush administration. [Note: some language in the article may be offensive.] I find it infuriating the the Bush tax cuts so disproportionately favor the wealthy. In the current budget proposal, the tax cuts for the wealthy are balanced with cuts to social service programs. Although the traditional Republican philosophy has been for a small federal government, they are dramatically increasing spending, primarily for defense. It is hypocrisy and I find it sickening. I could go on, but if you have stuck it through this long I guess it is only fair to let you off the hook now. I will save more of my ranting for another time.

We're #1?

Americans often have the perception that the United States is the best country in the world. We are the richest, the smartest, the most powerful...just generally better than everyone else. After all, we are the only nation blessed by God, aren't we? Few ever stop to question what the actual statistics are. Those that do can often tell you that American students are somewhere in the remedial section of most rankings and they may know that we have the infant mortality rates of a third world country. But, let's take a look and how the numbers really look.

We really ARE #1:

• World Competitiveness Yearbook - #1 out of 60. Proof that American capitalism is alive and well in America, at least relative to the rest of the world.
• Military Size - #1 out of everyone. That's one to be proud of.

Where we aren't #1, but still in the top 10

• Index of Economic Freedom - #7 of 155
• Save the Children: Best and Worst Countries to be a Mother - Tied for #10 of 125.
• Human Development Index - #8 of 177
• Program for International Student Assessment - #9 of 38 in science and #7 of 38 in reading. Not as bad as you might have expected.
• United Nations Study: #2 (after Brazil) in number of deaths from firearms. We would have been number one, but the 1995 Brazil numbers were particularly bad. Just missed it!

Where we are less impressive

• Worldwide Press Freedom Index - #44 of 167. Behind such bastions of freedom as Hungary, Namibia and Bosnia.
• Worldwide Quality of Life Index (the Economist 2005) - #13 of 111
• Environmental Sustainability Index - #35 of 146
• Corruption Perceptions Index - #20 of 163. Tied with Chile.
• Program for International Student Assessment - #24 of 38 in math and #20 of 38 in reading.
• Infant Mortality - #42 of 226. The rates are better in Cuba, Slovenia and the Czech Republic. The US came in between Taiwan and Croatia.
• UNICEF: State of the World's Children - #40 of 192 in Under 5 mortality rate. This time Croatia edged us out.
• Murder Rate per Capita: #24 of 62. It is true that South Africa and Kyrgyzstan are deadlier. We rebound to #8 of 62 in murder with firearms.

Obviously, there are probably hundreds of other rankings that we could find for the US. I highlight these because they highlight our priorities. We excel economically and militarily. We fall flat on our faces when it comes to caring for the youngest and most vulnerable among us and for our environment. Even the shining idea of American freedom seems to have been tarnished in the current day and age.

The Hypocrisy of Shrub & Co

Imagine this...a certain country [Country A] holds weapons of mass destruction (the infamous WMD), its leaders are openly hostile to another country [Country B] and they (the leaders) have a history of violence. Though once an elected leader, the head of state in Country A ignores the will of a majority of the population and has left a large portion of the population in poverty to fuel his war machine.

In this situation, some would argue that Country B has every right to attack Country A in an effort to prevent an attack by Country A on Country B. Some would say that this act of aggression, though seemingly against all international laws of war, was justified. Country A has it coming. Country B may argue that the potential results of the use of a weapon of mass destruction are so grave that preemption is warranted. In fact, Country B may argue that "military preemption" is legitimate when the threat is "emerging" or "sufficient," "even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack." After all, the posture and rhetoric of Country A make it clear that they have Country B in their sights. Why should Country B just wait around to be attacked?

At this point, you may think that I am talking about the US war with Iraq. After all, this clearly illustrates a situation in which the Bush Doctrine would be applicable. This was the argument our government made in convincing the country to go to war with Iraq. It also seems to be the argument that they are starting to build against Iran.

I didn't buy it then and I don't buy it now. But, that is beside the point. The example I gave above was not a theoretical justification for the US to attack Iraq or Iran or any other nation. Rather, it was an illustration of the flip side of the argument - in this case, the US is Country A and the threatened nation is Iran. Could they not use our own logic against us? Not likely. Clearly, there is no chance of the Iranian army invading the US to preempt a US attack on Iran. But, under the Bush Doctrine such an attack would theoretically be justified. That is the great flaw of the doctrine. However, there is another aspect of the Bush Doctrine that is more subtle, making it less applicable to other nations: that is, only the US has the right to preemptive attacks and preventive wars. We would not tolerate any other nation trying to use this justification to invade another sovereign nation. And yet, we find ourselves again in a situation where the government has started to put together a story about a country bringing harm to US soldiers in Iraq. The writing is on the wall - the next step will be showing Iran as an "emerging" threat. I expect talk of nuclear capabilities will soon enter the fray if it has not already. I only hope that Congress and the American people can be stronger this time. We went to war based on flawed logic and bad intelligence once, I hope it does not happen again.

As our great leader would say, "Fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again."

Ashamed of Pat Robertson

It has been quite some time since my last post. A few things have happened in the meantime - got married, moved to Hong Kong. Today I was shocked back to action by the comments of the ever-entertaining (if somewhat embarrassing to the name of Christ) televangelist Pat Robertson.

According to Reuters, Robertson had the following words for the residents of Dover, PA: "I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city," Robertson said on his daily television show broadcast from Virginia, "The 700 Club."
"And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help because he might not be there," he said.

These harsh words were in response to the election results in Dover where 8 members of the school board who supported introducing intelligent design into high school science class were voted out.

First of all, I agree with the results in Dover. Intelligent design is a blatant effort to get religion into science class where it does not belong. I believe God created everything, but I do not believe it is something meant to be learned in a Biology class. But, enough on that. My bigger problem is how Robertson has chosen to portray God.

Based on his quotes, it would seem that God might punish them or withhold his mercy from them for making this one decision to keep creationism out of science class. As far as I know, Dover has not shut down its churches. There is no indication that the city is so depraved that God would turn his back as he did to Sodom and Gomorrah. So why, I would ask Robertson, would anyone in their right mind suppose that God would forsake an entire community because of one vote? What right does he have to make these pronouncements? The god he is describing is cold and vindictive. This is a god of no mercy and no love. This is not the God of Christianity and it is downright irresponsible for Robertson to be out spouting this nonsense and making all Christians look bad.

Perhaps Robertson should be the one worrying about God's wrath and not the citizens of Dover.

The Obesity Epidemic

CNN.com - Report: Obesity will reverse life expectancy gains - Mar 16, 2005: "U.S. life expectancy will fall dramatically in coming years because of obesity, a startling shift in a long-running trend toward longer lives, researchers contend in a report published Thursday."

You may have seen this report in the news lately. It is no surprise that obesity is not good for you, but the alarming trends of increasing obesity may finally tip the scale (no pun intended) and actually lower our average life span. Although the critics of this report may be correct that it does not present the whole story, the increased rates of obesity in adults and particularly in children reflect a disturbing trend in our culture and something should be done to stop it.

CNN.com - Report: Obesity will reverse life expectancy gains - Mar 16, 2005: "Dr. David Ludwig of Children's Hospital Boston, a study co-author, cited sobering obesity statistics:
Two-thirds of U.S. adults are overweight or obese; one-third of adults qualify as obese.
Up to 30 percent of U.S. children are overweight, and childhood obesity has more than doubled in the past 25 years.
Childhood diabetes has increased 10-fold in the past 20 years."

These statistics are simply unacceptable. Often I have heard the argument that obesity is simple genetic and nothing can be done for it. However, the rise in obesity in children over the past 25 years indicates to me that this is not the case. Unless, of course, someone would like to argue that the obesity gene is dominant and those carrying it are just having lots of babies? As that does not seem plausible, it would seem that the environment and personal behaviors are to blame. People are not teaching their children to be healthy or encouraging good behaviors. It is the responsibility of the parents to keep their children healthy. Sadly, with the number of overweight adults, there seems to be a lack of adequate role models for personal responsibility and healthy living. [My Thoughts on Personal responsibility to come soon!]

On the other hand, the NAAFA has the following thoughts on physical fitness:

NAAFA Policy on PHYSICAL FITNESS: "The National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance asserts that individual fitness can be achieved despite a relatively high ratio of fat-to-lean body mass and affirms that fitness is a desirable and attainable goal for most fat people. Different physiques and levels of fitness are appropriate for different people. NAAFA demands that fat people have the opportunity to become fit in an environment safe from prejudice and harassment."

While I agree wholeheartedly that fat people should have the opportunity to become fit in an environment safe from prejudice and harassment, there are several points in the NAAFA policy with which I do not agree. First, their website indicates that they resolve to "encourage fat people to strive for optimum fitness levels in accordance with their health goals". There is no indication of what health goals should be. In addition, the statement implies that people are incapable of becoming fit because people make fun of them. To me, this seems like a flimsy excuse. I am not particularly coordinated and there are people who ridicule me when I go to an aerobics or yoga class. I do not consider this a reason to not go. I continue to go in hopes that I will improve (so far, not much luck). Now, this does not make it alright for people to ridicule fat people or clumsy people.

Now, you may be asking yourself why I care so much about fat people. Why don't I just mind my own business? Well, I will tell you. First, there is the cost to society. The costs for health care, insurance, and lost productivity cannot even be adequately computed. But, they are no doubt considerable. I am not addressing here the small portion of the population who truly have a health problem which prevents them from losing weight. I am talking about the overwhelming majority of the overweight/obese population where is a matter of self control. Our society should not have to pay because they feel like eating a cheeseburger everyday. Second, it is my concern for the children. It is not fair for a child to never learn healthy habits and be stuck in a cycle the rest of their life. It simply isn't right.

To summarize my thoughts on this issues: (1) People should raise their children to be healthy. (2) Genetics and ridicule are not good enough excuses to account for the large number of large people in our nation. (3) It is bad for society as a whole for such a large portion to not take responsibility for their own health or the health of their children.

Joel Osteen is a bad man

Recently, I was watching television on Sunday morning and came across Joel Osteen. Living in Houston, I had heard of Lakewood Church before but had never really paid much attention. Well, it has my attention now. To get started, here is a little bit about Joel:

Joel Osteen Ministries: About Us: "Joel Osteen has quickly become a leading voice for a new generation of ministers. After becoming Senior Pastor in October of 1999, Lakewood Church has more than quadrupled its weekly attendance and is one of America's most diverse churches. According to Forbes.com and Outreach magazine Lakewood is the largest and fastest growing congregation in America with over 28,000 in attendance each weekend."

To be clear, I do not doubt Joel's ability to inspire people with his message of positive thinking and hard work. These are, in themselves, not bad messages. They are, however, not the message of the Bible or the message of Christianity. I have chosen to take my thoughts on Joel Osteen to the internet (and finally start the blog I have been thinking about) based on the challenge from Michael Spencer:

Michael Spencer: Outing Joel Osteen: A Challenge to the Evangelical Blogosphere: "I want to challenge the Christian Blogosphere to devote at least one substantial post to outing Joel Osteen. Why is a man who doesn't preach the gospel the most popular preacher in America? Are we going to take note of what kind of message is going to be identified as building the largest church in America? In short, who in the blogosphere is willing to stand up and say 'Joel Osteen's message of positive thinking as a way to God's favor isn't the Christian Gospel.'"

Since my first exposure to the teachings of Joel Osteen, I have found myself watching every Sunday morning. My reaction is twofold - first, I am angry; then, I am sad. My anger is stirred by the flagrant misuse of Scripture to support a doctrine which disregards the heart of Christianity. I am appalled to hear half a verse, taken out of context, used to support the belief that if you try hard enough or want it bad enough, God will reward you. There is no mention of Christ's sacrifice or our sin and need for salvation. In this church, God is merely a tool to help us become happier, wealthier, healthier. There is talk of overcoming addictions, improving your marriage, and overcoming illness. So far, I have not heard talk of salvation, heaven, or any reward beyond this life. There is certainly nothing to be heard of the reality that sacrifices may be necessary to follow Christ.

At the end of each program, my anger turns to sadness. This is the time for the call to salvation. Joel has viewers pray a two line prayer and then tells them that they are born again. I ask myself - how could someone truly come to know Christ if the Gospel is diluted into a simple prayer? How could you truly be born again without learning of Christ's sacrifice or what it means to be His disciple? The false hope that this could give to someone who as never heard the Truth breaks my heart. I feel for those who believe what Joel teaches - I wonder how many have fallen away from any sort of faith when they feel they have tried as hard as they could and wanted as much as they could, and yet the promised rewards do not come.

In thinking of the disappointment that would result and the despair that comes from not truly knowing God, my sadness quickly turns back to anger and outrage. How can this man hold himself out as a preacher of God's Word? How can this pep rally be called church? I guess some answers will have to be left for God to sort out.