Green Is Not Always Good

When we hear “green” these days, most of us get a good feeling. We think of lovely vegetation, green building standards, the Green New Deal. But then, there is “green with envy.” I wondered why envy has always been associated with a pleasant color like green. Thanks to Google, I didn’t have to wonder very long. In ancient medicine, green was associated with illness – in particular, the accumulation of excess bile.

I admire Elizabeth’s Warren’s passion for fairness, but when she starts in on wanting to slam more taxes on the wealthy just for having stuff, she starts to lose me. I’m not a fan of luxury taxes. Unlike a house, a Rembrandt on the wall doesn’t consume public services (and no, I don’t have one on my wall). Anyway, Senator Warren doesn’t strike me as an envious person, but she is tapping into people out there who feel that the wealthy only got that way because of some unfair advantage. I think luck has a lot more to do with it than most of us want to admit.

Were you born in the United States? Are you able-bodied? Is your skin white? Did daddy and/or mommy leave you something? Did a billion-dollar idea come to you? As for the last, why did it come to YOU?

You may say, I deserve my wealth, it was my idea, and I worked hard for every penny. Congratulations. But even then, there are circumstances. The value of what you had to offer still had to come to people’s attention or get to market, and the timing had to be right. I had a relative who had great ideas and worked hard for them, but his timing was often not so great. Decades ago, he opened a nightclub in San Diego. Business was promising the first week. Then Pearl Harbor was attacked. There was a war on, and the Navy needed his building.

I thought God was supposed to be fair. But maybe he or she (and pardon me for this binary gender thing) is more like a dealer in Vegas who gives you a little house money to play with and says, “Here, kid, see what you can do with this.” Yup, some are given more than others.

Let me be clear: I don’t have a problem with taxing the wealthy more on their income. We used to tax rich people’s income at a much higher rate a long time ago, and they survived. True, some wealthy people are so consumed by greed that there is never such a thing as enough. That usually undoes them.

The key is humility. If you are wealthy and you understand that good fortune itself played a part in you acquiring your good fortune, then sharing some of it may not be as much of a problem. If you’re not wealthy right now, you can either choose to be a permanent victim of circumstances, including difficult ancestry, or, like the dealer said, see what you can do with what you have. I’m an optimist – I like to think that if we look through our cards, we can all find at least one we can play.

Unfair Game

The college admissions scandal that ensnared wealthy parents who used deception to get their children admitted to prestigious universities is certainly shocking, but hardly surprising. For decades, parents have fought  to get their kids into the right pre-school, let alone prep school or college. The motivation? Creating what they believe  is the best future for their children, and yeah,  getting to say they have a kid at Yale. In the recent case, the parents have done no favors for their offspring, putting the kids’ college careers under a dark cloud.

But now, the spotlight beam is taking in the broader relationship between money and college admissions. What has happened for years is a situation like the following: Worthington Gotrocks III gives the university he went to a zillion dollars for a new robotics center, in part hoping to get young Worthington IV (or daughter Worthingtonia) into the school. Suppose the son or daughter is actually qualified to do so, and his or her application and that of an equally qualified disadvantaged or minority kid land on the admission officer’s desk. Who do you think might get a second look?

It’s not fair, but like it or not, it has been part of the business model, especially for private institutions, for a long time. But the donations of the wealthy may actually have helped make them the places that students are clamoring to get into now. In the case of the Gotrocks Robotics Center, all interested students at the school will have access to it, regardless of gender, race, or socioeconomic status. So there is actually a cost-benefit ratio to consider here.

OK, full disclosure: I went to an Ivy League university myself, but for what it’s worth, I was pleased to see a 60 Minutes story recently about how the school is affirmatively recruiting disadvantaged and minority young people to create a more diverse student body. The good news is my alma mater is not alone in such efforts.

That said, universities will be under intense pressure now to keep the development office as far away as possible from the admissions office, and will likely have to match the FBI in application fact-checking. Will that produce an even playing field? Chances are the field is already named after somebody who donated the money to pay for it. 

At the end of the day, though, the message for young people is this: Going to Yale or USC doesn’t guarantee anyone a successful life, nor does going to Podunk State deny anyone such a life. Fairness is elusive, and in the end, most of us are forced to play with the cards we are dealt. And we are probably not going to stop money from talking. It’s all about what the wealthy make it say, and who is listening.

Keep It Simple, AOC

By now you may recognize the acronym for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the youngest new member of Congress, who has burst upon the scene not only with her shocking upset election victory in New York, but with her current role as the face of the Green New Deal. Of course it’s not just her face – she is sharing the spotlight, at least technically, with a fellow Democrat, veteran Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts -- and hey, don’t say, “Ed Who?”

So what is the Green New Deal? At its core, it seems to be about emergency measures related to climate change, such as getting the US completely off of fossil fuels within 10 years. But wait, there’s more, including digitizing the country’s power grid, creating a high-speed rail network, changing farming practices to minimize…er…cow emissions (is that still in there?) and did I mention eliminating air travel? GND supporters have been tossing other stuff in the stew, like reducing income inequality, providing affordable health care for all, jobs at fair wages, and perhaps making higher education free. I’m not sure about what’s in and what’s out at the moment.

If I sound a little skeptical, though, it’s only because I think focus is important. When it comes to multiple goals, we can walk and chew gum at the same time, but THAT many pieces of gum? Success will mean prioritizing a few of the most doable and impactful things and making the same kind of commitment that JFK made to putting a man on the moon within a decade. That was an easy one to sell to the public. There was competition and romance in it – a lot more than in keeping Earth’s average temperature down. But when you propose drastic changes in lifestyles and business models, sales will indeed be your first job.

Remember the Occupy movement? It made a lot of noise but didn’t really change things. Perhaps one of the reasons was that every protester in the Occupy crowds seemed to have a separate agenda, There’s merit in picking one or two key goals and beating them absolutely to death. The Republicans have been much better at this than the Democrats.

Also, this is America, there is a need for a snappy slogan. What does our history tell us? Don’t Tread on Me. 54-40 or Fight. Remember the Maine. A Chicken in Every Pot. Loose Lips Sink Ships. Whip Inflation Now. Just Say No. Mission Accomplished (OK, well, not all of them work, but you get the idea).

Dominus Vobiscum

Child sexual abuse is the earthquake that has shaken the Catholic Church to its foundations, but will the Church collapse  – and should it? Pope Francis recently held a summit on the abuse issue at the Vatican. While the result is essentially a series of promises to deal with this problem, it is not enough for  abuse victims, who feel there are no real specifics for action. Is the Pope trying to lead the Church forward, or is he simply playing catch-up?

I was raised in Catholicism, and though I no longer practice it, I believe the pontiff to be genuine in his intentions. Like many large organizations, including corporations and public agencies, the Catholic Church, for decades, and even for centuries, has kept  its dark side hidden within the family. There are plenty of bad priests, and plenty of higher-ups in the Church who have known full well what’s been going on. Yes, the sins must be revealed, the bad eggs thrown out, and the victims compensated. Then what?

Perhaps the required pastoral vow of celibacy is the problem. Those who vow to be celibate are shutting off part of their humanity for a higher purpose. That may be admirable for those who can keep such a commitment, but the level of abuse shows that there are a great many who can’t.

The question arises, would the abuse of children stop, or at least decrease, if Catholic priests were allowed to marry? The worry for Catholicism is, would the Church still be the Church if the current practice were changed? This is above my pay grade, so to speak, so I’m not going to debate that here, except to say that I am old enough to remember that the Masses I attended as a child were delivered almost entirely in Latin. The Church gave that one up and still managed to survive. In the case of sexual abuses committed by those in clerical authority, we are learning that this problem is by no means confined to the Catholic Church.

As for Pope Francis, it may appear that he is coming at this too little too late, and we may well ask, over his long service in various Church posts, what he knew and when he knew it. The necessary reforms may not happen with the speed that some are insisting on, but they have to start someplace, and Francis is trying to turn a really big ship around in the middle of the ocean. We must also remember that there are millions more involved here than just abusers and victims: the many millions of Catholics in the middle who have a say in what happens, too.

A Small Lenten Sacrifice

It didn’t quite work as a New Year’s resolution, but I have another shot. I’m giving up Facebook for Lent. Not that I’m especially religious, but it seems like a good opportunity.

Just so you understand, it will be far from a hard FBexit. No plugs are being pulled, no account suspended, and I won’t be silent in groups I belong to. I will see all notifications and respond to PMs – I never turn down a chat or a heads-up. I will also continue to post these weekly blogs and podcasts. But general posting, commenting and news feed browsing will be kept to a minimum, and I won’t be checking the phone all day in idle moments (of which there are far too many). The goal is to restore an FB/life balance. It’s a personal experiment.

I had considered an account cancellation earlier because of all the stories about what Mr. Z. was doing with our data. But I’m a bit of a performer and need a certain amount of attention, so I’m staying.

On Facebook, I have relatively few friends, but the quality is very high. Some are sweet. Some are angry. Others are a little profane. Still others go overboard on memes And there are some really brilliant writers and artists.  But nobody is trivial!

I have found myself living in others’ lives a little too much, envying those who seem to have made better choices than I, and being frustrated that I can’t do more for  people in worse circumstances than mine (but believe me, if I come into great wealth, I know exactly which friends to help financially, at least as much as the IRS permits).

So we’ll see what happens here. BTW, I did think about just taking a break with no announcement, because who really cares anyway? That said, now that it’s out, I have a commitment to live up to to. I will be proud of myself if I make it to April Fool’s Day, and I’ll certainly look like one if I don’t, right?

But hey, if Lent is too heavy a concept, let’s just call it Spring Break.