The Message of the Parable of the Good Samaritan

I have never been completely satisfied with the text of the parable of the good samaritan. Luke 10:25–37 reads as follows in the New Revised Standard Version:

Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he said, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” He said to him, “What is written in the law? What do you read there?” He answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” And he said to him, “You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live.”

But wanting to justify himself, he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan while traveling came near him; and when he saw him, he was moved with pity. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said, ‘Take care of him; and when I come back, I will repay you whatever more you spend.’ Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?” He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”

A minor complaint is that this text has far too many pronouns and too few nouns. That said, it is not difficult to figure out the referents of the various “he”s and “him”s of the text.

Likewise, the lesson of the parable is clear: We are to treat our neighbors as we ourselves want to be treated, and our neighbors are not only those with whom we are familiar, but everyone. All the characters in the story are Jews except the Samaritan. Samaritans were foreigners not on the best of terms with Jews. The surprise of the story is that the Jews did not help a fellow Jew in distress, but a Samaritan did.

My problem with this story concerns the question Jesus is supposed to have asked. We cannot know what he did ask, of course, for the author of The Gospel According to Luke was assuredly not around to have heard the question. 

 In the story, Jesus asks who “was a neighbor” to the robbery victim. To make the obvious point of the parable, however, Jesus should have asked something to the effect of “who understood the robbery victim to be his neighbor?” The victim is in no condition to be neighborly to anyone and, in this story, is not asked to be. Of the three passersby, only the Samaritan saw the injured man as his neighbor, thereby providing an example of how we should treat our fellow human beings whatever their station. Since the “neighborly relation” is not intrinsically symmetric, Jesus’s question should properly identify who is the active person in the relationship he is seeking to elucidate.

It is unfortunate that the parable has come down to us as it has. Preachers should explain that Jesus probably did not ask the precise question he is reported to have asked.

Schroeder

From time to time, a cat will show up under my bird feeders. I’ve seen a calico a couple of times, and a black cat came by once. For the past few weeks, I have had a more frequent visitor, a male tabby. Whereas other cats have run away as soon as I opened the back door, this one didn’t. I threw some cat treats on the ground in his direction, and he eagerly found and ate them. Since then, whenever my visitor has shown up, I have put out a bowl of dry cat food for him.

The photo below is from September 28. The bowl rests on a stepping stone just outside the back door.

This cat has come by at irregular intervals, occasionally on successive days, though not usually. During an extended absence, I wondered if I would see him again, but he has continued to show up.

Our encounters have been somewhat fortuitous. I have not stood by the door all day looking for the cat, though I have taken to looking out the door more regularly than usual. The cat typically shows up not on my doorstep but in a little clearing about a dozen feet away. He has come to me when called. Occasionally, I have been alerted to his presence by my own cats staring out the glass in the door.

When I first called the cat, I just said “hello.” It seemed to make more sense to call the cat by his name, however. Since it was unknown whether anyone had given him a name, I decided that I had to invent one. My cats, Charlie and Linus, are named after Peanuts characters, so I decided to call my visitor by another Peanuts name, Schroeder. 

Schroeder is an intact male, so I doubt that he is someone’s pet, but I have arranged to have him checked for a chip if I can catch him. I am not much of a cat catcher—read about my latest adventures getting my own cats to the vet here and here—but the behavior of Schroeder has given me hope that I might be able to entice him into a carrier. He has actually tried to walk through the doorway, though I have not let him come into the house. I have been able to touch Schroeder, but he has not acted like a socialized animal. I want to have him neutered and released if he is not a candidate for adoption. As you can see below, he looks like a young version of Charlie.

Schroeder came by yesterday, and I put out a bowl of food for him as usual. Charlie and Linus were nearby and took an intense interest in the visitor. In the photo below, Charlie is standing on his hind legs trying to get a good look at Schroeder, who is eating just outside the door. Linus is also watching Schroeder from his usual lower perch on the cat tree.

I will keep everyone posted on future interactions with my occasional feline visitor.

Note: Schroeder’s story to date can be followed here.

CPKC

Although both stockholder and regulatory approval remain to be obtained, it appears that Canadian Pacific Railway will be allowed to acquire Kansas City Southern Railway Company. The merger will be the first marriage of Class I railroads in decades and, according to pundits, likely the last. Two facts make this merger particularly interesting:

1. The two railroads have no parallel routes, which is unusual for railroad mergers. The only place where the two roads meet is in Kansas City. This makes regulatory approval easier, though other railroads will register objections because that’s what railroads do in such cases.
2. The combined railroad will be a true North American railroad, with major routes in Canada, the United States, and Mexico. In principle, a single train could travel on the combined railroad, which will be called Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC), from Mexico City to Vancouver.

Each railroad traces its origins to the nineteenth century. Canadian Pacific dates from 1881; Kansas City Southern to 1887.

Canadian Pacific CEO Keith Creel was interviewed by Bill Stephens for Trains. He indicated that the combined road will honor the histories both of CP and KCS. His chosen name for it is indicative of that intention. He did not speculate as to what livery CPKS locomotives will wear. CP locomotives have lately been red with white lettering, with “CP” on the nose. The traditional KCS livery sported a striped pattern of red, yellow, and Brunswick green (a very dark green) or black. Some recent locomotives have been monochromatic with “KCS” painted in large red capitals. Not so long ago, CP locomotives and rolling stock sported a “CP Rail” legend, along with a design of a black triangle within a white semicircle.

According to the Trains, Creel restored the traditional CP logo on his first day on the job as CEO. (See image at right. The logo has had a number of variants over the years and appears on some locomotives.) Creel called the beaver “near and dear to our hearts.” (It wasn’t clear to whose hearts he was referring.) Creel had this to say about a new logo: “The beaver will be part of that when it’s finalized, there’s no doubt in my mind. So it won’t be a huge retooling of our logo. It will be an enhancement that will honor the KCS team, and I think we’ll make them proud to be a part of it.”

Creel’s fondness for the beaver is a bit hard to understand. The current logo—the red “CP” is a recent addition—has a definite nineteenth-century air about it.

The KCS logo (See image at left) hardly seems like a twenty-first-century design, but neither does it seem ancient. I fear that Creel might simply affix “KC” to the existing “CP” add-on and re-center the resulting text. This would hardly suggest a forward-looking, expanded Class I railroad. Nor would it “honor the KCS team” very much.

Retaining the beaver would heavily emphasize the Canadian heritage of the merged road, failing to acknowledge as significantly its United States and Mexican appendages. Creel was not asked if he intends to keep the maple leaf as well.

If CPKC really has to retain the Canadian rodent, I have a suggestion to offer, a suggestion that would afford recognition to all three countries through which CPKC runs and honors both CP and KCS heritages. Put a sombrero on the beaver and portray him eating a steak.

Likely, Creel will not take my suggestion. If we must have a beaver, a more stylized, modernized beaver could be part of the new logo. (Think of the Morton Salt, umbrella-carrying girl who was significantly modernized some years ago.) The circle, ribbon, and shield have to go, along with “Canadian Pacific.” Not retooling the CP logo is a terrible idea. Creel needs to leave the logo design to professional designers.

Planning for the Worst Case

I am sick and tired of the obstructionism of Senators Manchin and Sinema. Speaker Pelosi is apparently going ahead with a vote on the Build Back Better bill, though it isn't clear that it will get 50 votes in the Senate. If it doesn’t and only the hard infrastructure bill goes to President Biden’s desk, he should veto it.

New Phone

I purchased a new cell phone recently. Happily, most of what lived on my old phone was ported seamlessly to the new one. The transition was not as smooth as one might like, however, and I am still re-entering passwords and configuring applications. I am nonetheless satisfied with the new phone and likely will be especially pleased when I begin taking pictures with the new and improved camera that is part of it.

In many ways, I am risk-averse. In particular, I cannot imagine carrying around an expensive cellphone without a protective case or putting a naked phone, as some people do, in my back pocket. My old phone was protected by an OtterBox Defender case, which comes with a holster that can attach to your belt. I wanted to get another Defender case for the new phone. It is a very secure case.

My old phone was put into its Defender case by the person who sold me the phone.  I did not carefully observe the process, which, after all, was performed years ago. Where I purchased the new phone, there were few cases to buy for Android phones but plenty cases for iPhones. I therefore had to buy my new case on the Web and fit my phone into it myself.

Once I had my new case in hand, I assumed that putting my phone into it would be simple. There seemed to be only two parts—the case proper and the holster. The case came with the following (and only the following) instructions:

 

That was it, The only words of instruction were found at the top of the above card. None of the objects portrayed on the card were labeled. In particular, I couldn’t figure out what object was supposed to be the cellphone. I suspected from the pictures that the case came apart, but I feared that trying to pry it apart might break something.

After what seemed like an eternity of frustration, I turned to the World Wide Web. Sure enough, YouTube had more than one instructional video showing how to install a phone inside a Defender case. The videos gave me the confidence to break open the case, insert the phone, and put it all back together.

I have to say that OtterBox makes a fantastic case. But could they please spare a few English words to tell their customers how to use their product?

A Proposal to Replace the Income Tax

No, you never get any fun
Out of things you haven’t done.
                           —Ogden Nash

Objection to changing tax law is one of the roadblocks to the passage of President Biden’s Build Back Better legislation. The president wants to finance much of his social agenda and national efforts to forestall climate change by extracting more revenue from rich individuals and corporations. Discussion of new taxation has caused me to rethink our current system of taxation, a baroque tangle of laws and regulations that efficiently extract money from the non-wealthy yet is maddingly ineffective at doing so from large corporations and the actually wealthy.

If we began from scratch, could we create a simpler and fairer tax scheme? In a desirable system, most people should incur some tax liability, The very poor may pay little or no tax or even benefit from a negative tax. Well-off persons and entities should be levied a higher percentage tax than others. This increases revenue and tends to decrease wealth inequality, which has been growing in recent decades. In other words, the tax system should be graduated.

Policy exists within a context of other social arrangements. To reduce wealth inequality, unions should be strengthened, training for trades should be improved, health care should be guaranteed, and inheritance taxes should be steep. I won’t try to deal with all these issues in this modest proposal, however.

The government’s main source of revenue is the income tax. Though this system wasn’t designed by Rube Goldberg, it might as well have been. It is complicated, incorporates many questionable preferences, and fails adequately to tax those who live well with little or no conventional “income.”

Senator Elizabeth Warren has promoted a wealth tax. This is an attractive concept, but I think it unworkable. How do you evaluate the wealth of someone who owns a few Picassos, a garage full of classic cars, and a large part of a private corporation? How do you deal with the inevitable changes to the values of such assets over time? And should you be taxed over and over for the same asset? (Real estate taxes, which do recur, exist to provide local services; that Picasso doesn’t need them.) But Warren does have a point. Wealthy persons can live off loans collateralized by their belongings while having no conventional income or tax liability.

Expenditure Tax

Ogden Nash had a very useful insight. Notwithstanding the questionable notion that the best things in life are free, a corollary to Nash’s lines is that to have fun (or whatever you desire), you have to spend money. Uncle Scrooge’s money bin may have offered some psychological satisfaction, but Scrooge McDuck couldn’t eat or travel or do much else unless he was able to spend some of his bin’s contents. However we obtain money, having money confers only intangible benefits. Only spending yields material benefit. It makes sense, therefore, to tax not wealth (as Senator Warren would do) but expenditures. I propose, therefore, a kind of sales tax on everything. For want of a better term, call it an expenditure tax. This tax is superficially similar to a value-added tax, but it is different in a number of respects. 

The expenditure tax would tax both individuals and organizations on what they spend each year. As is now the case, returns could be filed on April 15 covering the previous year. To generate substantial revenue and to be fair to everyone, greater expenditures would be taxed at a higher rate. The low end of the rate scale might exempt some people from the tax completely or might give them money to maintain a morally acceptable standard of living. Families could be treated as a unit. In some circumstances, a spouse or even a child would need to file separately. In any case, this tax is not intended to replace the whole of the social safety net.

An expenditure tax would be indifferent as to where one’s money has come from. No source is treated preferentially. Policies that do so distort economic decisions anyway. Likewise, there are no preferred expenditures. People are expected to spend funds however they feel is most beneficial. In principle, taxable expenditures would be calculated by adding income to cash and cash equivalents on hand on January 1 and subtracting cash and cash equivalents on hand on December 31. There should be no exemptions for medical expenses, business expenses, charitable giving, or anything else. People should spend their treasure however they like without regard for legislated preferences. This freedom from arbitrary incentives has the potential to make everyone wiser and more rational spenders.

Implementation Details

There are, I think, two kinds of objections to the expenditure tax. There are administration issues, on one hand, and issues related to particular kinds of transactions, on the other. I will offer preliminary thoughts on these matters, but I do not claim to have worked out all the difficulties. I would hope that an implementation would not result in the sort of byzantine rules and regulations that infect our current income tax system.

For most people and corporations, figuring out the annual expenditure for tax purposes is not complicated, though individuals might need to do some bookkeeping they are not now doing. The inevitable movement away from cash to credit and debit cards makes calculations easier. The ability of the government to collect taxes and verify their amounts is a bit tricky. Withholding taxes from wages has guaranteed that most workers will not only pay their required taxes but also will not be faced with an impossible bill at tax time. Since income is not being taxed, withholding funds from paychecks is inappropriate (and doesn’t work for everyone anyway). A value-added tax could be imposed, of course, but that is complicated and, in its usual form, tends to be regressive. Lacking a better scheme, perhaps everyone should simply pay a quarterly estimated tax. I leave it to others to figure out how the IRS is to verify compliance. Paying estimated taxes would not be excessively onerous; many people are already required to file estimated taxes. Organizations such as corporations already track expenses. Accounting for them would actually become easier.

I now want to consider particular types of transactions. In general, any time one parts with one’s money, a taxable expense is incurred. No one gets a special deal. The bus driver, the church, the foundation, and the Silicon Valley corporation play by largely the same rules. I envision doing away with charitable organizations so far as taxation is concerned. People should contribute to what are now nonprofits to advance what those organizations do, not simply to avoid taxes. The government is a poor judge of an organization’s ability to advance the public good rather than private interests and probably should not be in the business of conferring nonprofit status. Doing so has become controversial of late. Anyway, if an organization believes it can do something worthwhile, it should do so irrespective of the tax consequences and should be taxed like everyone else. (This will not be a popular idea.)

Expenditures for an individual would include purchases of food, clothing, health care, furnishings, insurance, utilities, charitable contributions, personal luxuries of whatever sort, and state and local taxes. It might be desirable to exempt state and local taxes to avoid the noxious concept of taxing taxes. Or maybe not.

Organizations of all kinds would pay tax on salaries, fringe benefits—there may need to be some rethinking about the notion of fringe benefits once they are taxable—rent, advertising, lobbying, research and development, capital improvements, loan payments, dividend payments, fines, and legal expenses and judgments. As for individuals (or families), we could choose to exempt state and local taxes.

Financial transactions present a special problem. Clearly, putting money into a checking account is not really an expenditure, even if the account pays interest (and might theoretically be deemed an investment). A deposit does not mean one has lost the use of one’s money. Purchasing certificates of deposit, treasury bills, and the like would simply be considered mechanisms for parking one’s money. Purchasing stocks, which have no guaranteed value, would be taxable expenditures. A distinction need perhaps be made between relative secure bonds and junk (or near junk) bonds. The latter are more of an investment (and a risky one). A bank making a loan is not making an expenditure by this reasoning, though a particularly risky loan perhaps is.  Even with this system of taxation, certain regulations may be unavoidable.

Other objections could be raised against the expenditure tax, of course. For example, does the system remove from Congress the ability through taxes to advance certain social goals? Yes, it does, though that may not be a bad thing. In any case, other kinds of taxes may still be levied, such as taxes on polluters. The lack of a depreciation provision means that capital expenses are taxed all at once. If desired, leasing arrangements could ease this problem (if it really is a problem).

Whatever objections may be offered against the proposed system, its greatest advantage is that no one can escape paying taxes. Not even the richest industrialist or financier can live without spending money. And large transactions—think corporate buy-outs, for example—would be subject to taxation. This could even discourage transactions that are not completely rational.

The expenditure tax is surely not perfect, but no tax scheme can be perfect. Nonetheless, there is something to be said for scrapping the current income tax and starting over from scratch. 

Congressman Glenn Thompson on Medicare

I was cleaning my cats’ litter box when I got a call from an unknown number in a nearby area code. I was expecting calls from HVAC contractors in my role as junior warden of my church. Thinking the call might be important, I answered it. The call was from my congressman, Republican Glenn Thompson, who was in the process of conducting a telephone town hall on Medicare/Medicaid. Because I am considering a change in my Medicare plan, I chose to finish cleaning the litter box later and listen to the call.

A few minutes into the call, participants were told that we could submit a question by entering *3. I pressed *3 almost immediately. I was asked my name and my question. I replied, “The Build Back Better legislation will likely expand Medicare benefits. Will you [the congressman] vote for it?” The question was certainly relevant, as became clearer with each constituent question. Not suprisingly, my question was never presented to the congressman.

Near the end of the call, Congressman Thompson admitted that he would like to eliminate the penalty for late selection of Medicare. He suggested that he would support other changes but wanted to see them in a separate bill and not in the big bill currently being considered in the House of Representatives. I had my answer without my question’s having been asked. Alas, I didn’t get the chance to embarrass Congressman Thompson in front of his constituents.

Of course, a Republican would not vote for expanded Medicare benefits, benefits for children, measures to protect the planet from environmental disaster, and new taxes to pay for it all.

I will never vote for another Republican and advise others to take the same pledge. This resolved was unaffected by today’s telephone call.

Pittsburgh Diocese Passes Resolutions

The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh conducted its annual convention yesterday via Zoom. We have used Zoom for conventions before, and we’re almost getting good at it. There were a few problems, but I won’t get into that here. What I do want to highlight is what the diocese declared through resolutions that are of interest to the wider church and society.

Four resolutions of wider interest were passed, all with no discussion and with only modest opposition. The resolutions can be read in full here.

Resolution 1 was titled “Resolution to Include the name Bishop Barbara Clementine Harris in the Lesser Feasts & Fasts Calendar.” Barbara C. Harris (1930–2020) was the first woman to be consecrated as a bishop in the Episcopal Church and, in fact, in the entire Anglican Communion. She was elected bishop suffragan of the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts in 1988 and was consecrated the next year. She fought for civil rights and opposed racism and sexism both within the church and without. The resolution proposes legislation for consideration by the next General Convention. It also invites the Provincial Synod of District III to consider Pittsburgh’s resolution.

Resolution 2 exhibits a character opposite that of the first resolution. Its title is “Resolution to Direct the Removal of the name of the Rev. William Porcher Dubose from the Lesser Feasts and Fasts Calendar.” Thus, Pittsburgh wants to honor Bishop Harris and retract the honor afforded the Rev. Dubose (1836–1918). Like the above resolution, this one is to be sent both to the General Convention and to the District III Provincial Synod. It goes further than the Harris action, however, asking that the church examine the lives of all those honored on the Lesser Feasts & Fasts calendar, presumably to discover other notables with skeletons in their closets. Although the Rev. Dubose is celebrated as a noted theologian on August 18, his connections to slavery and to the Confederate States of America are problematic. He grew up on a southern plantation and served in the Confederate army, first as an adjutant and later as a chaplain. It is not recorded that he ever renounced slavery or his role in defending it.

Resolution 3 is titled “Resolution to Address the Issue of Voter Suppression.” Like the other resolutions, this one proposes action to be considered by the General Convention and by Province III. It also requests that the church’s Office of Governmental Relations do what it can to address the issues raised. This resolution is perhaps more pressing than the two preceding. The resolution “directs and encourages the adoption, on a state-by-state basis” of voting reforms, specifically:

• Implementing automatic voter registration
• Enabling same-day voter registration 
• Preparing for natural disasters
• Allowing online registration
• Expanding the circle of people who are eligible to vote
• Making it easier to vote by mail
• Enabling no-excuse absentee voting
• Creating long-term mailing lists for absentee voters
• Making it easier for people to vote early in person
• Enabling weekend voting and extended hours
• Guaranteeing an adequate number of voting locations

The resolution also calls for the elimination of statewide Voter ID laws.

Surely, I need not describe the justification offered for this resolution.

Resolution 4 is titled “Climate Action Resolution.” Noting ongoing climate change and the church’s concern for Creation Care, parishes are encouraged to “achieve maximum energy efficiency,” a task for which the diocese may, in some cases, provide financial assistance.

Promoting Abortion Access

I’ve been thinking about the current fight to protect access to abortions in this country. I frankly cannot understand why one’s pregnancy is anyone else’s business prior to the fetus’s being able to survive and become an actual human being outside the womb. On the other hand, I fully appreciate that trying to convince a rabidly “pro-life” partisan of this position is a bit like trying to list all the digits of pi. It is not obvious that the fight over abortion half a century after Roe v. Wade is ever going to end.

There is, however, hope. Not so very long ago, it was unclear that homosexuality would ever gain mainstream acceptance. Certainly, the approval of same-sex marriage seemed a vain hope. And yet, same-sex marriage is the law of the land, and homosexual persons are out and accepted in all walks of life. How did this come about? The answer is that homosexuals came out of the closet in large numbers, and people realized that those they loved and cared about were gay.

The general acceptance of homosexuality offers a compelling lesson to proponents of unconstrained access to abortion services. The statistic that one in four women will have an abortion in her lifetime suggests that abortions are not uncommon, but it is a fact that changes no minds among abortion opponents. The statistic becomes more compelling when actual people, not simply numbers, are revealed as abortion patients.

We have seen a trickle of prominent women, including congresswomen, declaring that they have had abortions. This is a start. If more women came forward with their abortion stories, women known and loved by abortion opponents, I believe that opposition to freely available abortions would weaken, eventually becoming an obsession with a tiny, radical minority, like proponents of a return to the gold standard.

How can we get abortion clients out of the closet? Doing so will be hard for some women. They first have to overcome the shame that society has attributed to their reproductive choice. And, in many cases, their abortions have been kept secret to avoid disclosing embarrassing liaisons. Some, however, will be willing to overcome embarrassment to promote the right to and access to an abortion.

Not every woman can go on television to tell her abortion story. On the other hand, everyone with a concern about abortion access and a little courage (maybe a lot of courage in some cases) can wear a button like the prototype shown below. What if, in any large gathering of women, many were wearing such a button? If friends and loved ones sported such a button, wouldn’t opposing abortion be harder (and somewhat itself embarrassing) to do?

Could this button change minds?

A Small Step toward Building a Better Sandwich

 I love sandwiches. I have always loved sandwiches. I make sandwiches for myself often.

My constructing a typical sandwich goes something like this: On a bun or on two slices of bread, I first apply dressing. This could be mayonnaise, ketchup, mustard, or something more exotic, such as Russian dressing. What is important is that both the top and bottom of the sandwich receive some dressing, not necessarily the same dressing. This helps prevent the sandwich from being too dry. Next, internal elements of the sandwich are piled atop the bottom bread or bun—meat, cheese, pickles, tomato, and lettuce. Everything is topped off with salt and pepper and the top slice of bread or bun.

Following this process, lots of salt and pepper ends up surrounding the sandwich because it slides off the lettuce. It could be applied in the construction earlier, but it is difficult to distribute the salt and petter uniformly. To achieve uniformity across the sandwich, it would be helpful to apply them to a flat, sticky substrate.

Beef and cheese sandwich showing pepper applied over
mayonnaise. Salt was applied over chili sauce on the
half of the bun not visible.

This observation gave me an idea. Rather than seasoning the sandwich filling, why not apply the salt and pepper to the bread or bun. Their surfaces are sticky and reasonably flat. Not only can the salt and pepper be applied uniformly, but that uniformity can be verified visually. Pepper shows up especially well on mayonnaise; salt can be seen on mayonnaise but shows up better on ketchup or mustard.

One might object that salt is best applied to the meat or tomato, where it can attract moisture and enhance flavor. Perhaps, but in the time between constructing a sandwich and eating it, I suspect that any such effect is minimal. In any case, if properly applied, my technique assures that every bite includes salt and pepper.

The picture at the right illustrates my seasoning technique. I was more concerned with photography than applying that technique perfectly, but you can easily get the idea.

Oatmeal with a Bite

 I have always thought of myself as a morning person, but I have either been deluding myself or my body’s preferences have changed with age. These days, I arise reluctantly and perform morning rituals in a light fog. These include feeding the cats, taking my medications and, of course, preparing breakfast.

More often than not, breakfast involves cereal of some sort, either hot or cold. Occasionally, I will fix eggs or, if available, I may have a bagel or pastry. (Breakfast consisted of an apple fritter and coffee the other day. I recommend this menu.) 

Today, I decided to have oatmeal. This choice has both advantages and disadvantages. Quick-cooking oatmeal is ready in no time, but adding ingredients to it to make it palatable is time-consuming, and it takes more time to eat my bowl of oatmeal than it does other breakfast selections.

On a good day, the first item into my oatmeal bowl is sliced banana. I had no bananas today (insert song here), so I skipped that step. The other standard items to include in my oatmeal are salt—this is added as the oatmeal cooks—light brown sugar, nuts (pecans today), raisins, vanilla extract, cinnamon, and nutmeg.

After preparing my oatmeal, I brought it to the table along with my morning coffee and began the slow process of eating. (One can eat hot cereal only so fast.) I also brought my phone and phone stand to the table and began perusing The New York Times while I ate. Somehow, oatmeal seemed less satisfying today, although it was not clear why. Surely, the lack of banana could not account for its seeming more bitter than usual.

As I neared the bottom of the bowl, I had a sudden realization. My nutmeg is dispensed from a nutmeg mill that grinds whole nutmegs. The nutmeg mill resides in a cabinet next to my pepper mill. Apparently, I used the pepper mill this morning instead of the nutmeg mill.

Thinking about breakfast, I would not recommend using large amounts of pepper in oatmeal. Adding just a little, however, along with nutmeg and other ingredients, might add just a little bite to offset the sweetness of sugar, vanilla, and raisins. I may try that next time. Perhaps I should have a few slugs of coffee before I prepare breakfast.

Saving the Planet

 

A New Prayer for Our Time

The ongoing pandemic offers Christians a number of objectives to pray for. I’m sure we all want to pray for the pandemic to simply go away, but, of course, that cannot happen in one fell swoop. Vaccinations are working miracles, but those refusing to be vaccinated, encouraged by malicious or ignorant influencers, are preventing us from getting safely past our current struggles. Those influencers are actually few and operate from a variety of less-than-pure motives. But the vaccine-hesitant who have been subject to malign influence are legion. Praying for these people seems a proper thing to do.

These thoughts led me to create a prayer, in the form of a collect. (You can read a number of collects I have written here.) Frequently, though not invariably, I have invited others to help me improve my prayers. In preparing a prayer petitioning for a change of heart among the vaccine-hesitant, I enlisted the help of fellow Episcopalians with whom I regularly interact on Facebook. The collect below is the product of that interaction.

 I first wrote a rough draft of the prayer, then offered it to friends for improvement. My initial cut wasn’t bad—I had thought a good deal about the order of the ideas I wanted to present—but I could see it needed improvement. My collaborators identified some of the wording I was uncomfortable with, and they uncovered other problems of which I had been unaware. Someone described the text as convoluted, but the standard collect form makes a certain complexity inevitable. Having collectively developed a text that was acceptable to everyone, we struggled to put a caption on the prayer. I hope the one I selected seems reasonable.

Here is the final version of the prayer:

For the Misguided 

Merciful Creator, God of wisdom and truth, soften the hearts of those swayed by purveyors of falsehood to value their own desires above the needs of others, so that we may live more fully into the call to love our neighbors as ourselves commanded by our Lord Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

I would like to acknowledge the assistance of the Rev. David Green, the Rev. Christopher D. Hofer, the Rev. Lisa Keppeler, the Rev. Leilani McCurdy, Mary Prine, Sophia Twaddell, and Tamara West.

Comments are welcome. Feel free to use this prayer. I would appreciate your letting me know of your use, however.

Make a Deal with Joe Manchin

Facebook Needs an Antitrust Makeover

The New York Times reported this afternoon: “Facebook and some of its apps, including Instagram and WhatsApp, appeared to go down at the same time on Monday for many users, who turned to Twitter and other social media platforms to lament the outage.” As of this posting, Facebook (and probably the whole lot of apps) is still down.

Do I have to point out that Facebook is too big and has too much influence? We need new antitrust tools to break up such behemoths.

Note: Another New York Times story today reports the Facebook is trying to squash a Federal Trade Commission antitrust suit against the company.

A Letter to the President Concerning January 6

 Dear President Biden:

I am distressed that the insurrectionists (not tourists, demonstrators, or terrorists) who attacked the U.S. Capitol on January 6 are mostly being charged with low-level offenses and being given light sentences. In many countries, people participating in such an assault would have been executed by now.

Although I surely am not advocating capital punishment, the storming of the Capitol on January 6 was, and must be seen to have been, a serious disruption of civil order. Many in the January 6 mob even declared their intention to murder elected officials. Threatening the president has always been viewed as a very serious matter. Threatening the vice president or the speaker of the House is similarly reprehensible. If most perpetrators receive little or no punishment, the Biden Justice Department will be encouraging future political violence.

Admittedly, some of the insurrectionists are more culpable than others. Those who planned violence and wielded weapons against both persons and property should be charged with serious crimes and sent to prison. No one who broke through police lines or who entered the Capitol through broken windows, however, can credibly argue that they did not know that what they were doing was illegal. Even were they genuinely naïve, their punishment must be made an object lesson for other politically motivated malcontents.

It is my hope that your Justice Department will defend civil order and democratic values through more aggressive prosecution of the January 6 insurrectionists. Doing so will subject the government to charges of political partisanship. That is an indignity that must be endured for the sake of the Republic.

Very truly yours,
Lionel Deimel, Ph.D.

Eliminate the Debt Ceiling

There seems to be general agreement in Congress that the nation should pay its bills. At the moment, this requires raising the dysfunctional mechanism called the debt ceiling. (The debt ceiling was created in 1917 as a kind of public relations mechanism aimed at citizen concerns about the cost of entering World War I.) If the debt ceiling is not raised, the government could, for the first time, default on its financial obligations, an event that would have disastrous consequences for both public and private borrowers.

Democrats are prepared to do what is necessary and responsible; Republicans, although they acknowledge the need to raise the debt ceiling, are refusing to help the Democrats do it. Senator Mitch McConnell has told Democrats that they must do it themselves, but he and his Repubican Senate colleagues have blocked accomplishing this necessary task in any straightforward way.

I offer a proposal to the Democrats. It gets the job done, raises a finger to McConnell and his band of hypocritical cronies, and it rids the country of a self-inflicted wound that refuses to heal.

The problem, as usual, is in the Senate. The Democratic House majority could easily pass a bill to raise the debt ceiling, but the filabuster in the Senate allows Republicans to block a similar action. By a simple majority, however, the Senate can change the filabuster rules to allow simple majority votes on bills directly affecting the full faith and credit of the United States. With the slightest bit of arm twisting, I suspect that the two Democrats who have refused to eliminate the filabuster would agree to this critical carve-out. Once the filabuster rules are changed, the Democrats should pass a bill that eliminates the whole notion of a debt limit. A House vote and signature of the president can then follow. We lived without a debt ceiling for more than a century; we can live without it again.

Well, Democrats, are you going to save the fiscal health of the nation or not? If you don’t, Republicans will blame you. If you do, they will blame you anyway, but you can still put the real blame on them.

A Manifesto

What follows was composed rather quickly once I began contemplating the notion of white supremacy. Perhaps it is inspiring, but perhaps not. What do people think? If you feel so inclined, comment below or on my Facebook page.

I am not fundamentally a white person; I am a human person. Like others of my kind, I need to live peaceably among other human persons. My neighbors have come from six continents, but we share a common ancestry. All humans evolved from more primitive animals in Africa. Some of our forebears chose to leave the land of their origin; others did not. In that process, we built diverse civilizations, adopting different customs. Our bodies, however varied they may seem on the outside, are largely identical within. We all share the need for food, clothing, and shelter; for love and respect; for accomplishment and self-fulfillment. Alas, we also share selfishness, a desire to harm those who have treated us badly, and an inherent wariness of other humans who seem different.

We humans have created great literature, built inspiring edifices and public works, written and performed music that excites and inspires, made extraordinary advances in science and medicine. We have built societies that encourage such accomplishments and celebrate human liberty. We have also built societies that discourage individual excellence and exist for the benefit of only a few.

We humans arose from a world of scarcity and self-preservation. We have built a world of abundance and safety for many of us. We have also built a world that threatens both us and the non-human living creatures with which we share this planet. If we are truly Homo sapiens, our wisdom surely should lead us to protect our environment and to extend the benefits we have accrued to ourselves to our fellow human persons, wherever they may be. War, plunder, rapaciousness, and disregard for fellow creatures of whatever kind can only lead to the end of human accomplishment.

Human persons of the world, unite!

Kill the Cult

It is increasingly obvious that Donald Trump and his supporters—really his cult—is intent on subverting our democracy by making it easy for Republicans to win elections and making it nearly impossible for Democrats to do so.

I won’t try to justify the above statement here—its truth will already be obvious to many readers—but I will direct you to an excellent, though frightening, opinion piece that recently appeared in The Washington Post. The essay is “Our constitutional crisis is already here” by Robert Kagan. Kagan’s piece has caused quite a stir, and justifiably so.

I have been saying for a long time that I will never vote again for a Republican. In my ignorant youth, I was a registered Republican, but, of course, the Republican party back then was not demented. Nevertheless, I regret at least some of my past votes.

In any case, the Republican Party is now the party of Trump, and it deserves no support for its anti-democratic activities. Local elected Republicans have a way of becoming state or national elected Republicans or members of a Republican cabinet. (May there never be another Republican cabinet!) We should nip this process in the bud.

It is my sincerest hope that the Republican party meets its demise as soon as possible. A new center-right, democratic, reasonable party should take its place. If you are a center-right, democratic, reasonable Republican, leave your cult and work toward its eventual replacement. Uncle Sam wants you! Uncle Sam needs you!

The Kagan essay inspired me to create the graphic below. Feel free to put it to your own use in the battle against the Trump cult. Click on the graphic for a larger version.

National Priorities

 I like Joe Biden; I don’t love Joe Biden. His policy record is checkered, and his interpersonal interactions are sometimes creepy. But he is a Democrat, he loves trains, and I believe his heart is in the right place. Most significantly, he is not Donald Trump.

The Democratic platform in 2020 was strongly influenced not only by Joe Biden but by Senator Bernie Sanders. That platform, or parts of it, was attractive to many voters, and President Biden is endeavoring to deliver on his campaign promises.

When we consider the most pressing needs of the nation, campaign promises, and the apparent priorities of the current administration, it is not clear that the country’s most urgent needs have been given the priority they deserve. Most notably, the task of protecting our democracy by assuring voting rights for all is, remarkably, not the number one goal of the president and of Democratic legislators.

What, then, should be the priorities of the federal government in 2021? I will offer my own list, with the understanding that the items on it cannot be addressed in a strictly sequential manner. Moreover, certain matters must be dealt with in parallel to these most urgent priorities. For the immediate future, for example, the administration (and perhaps even the Congress) must deal with the ongoing pandemic.

I am convinced that my first issue should indeed be at the top of my list. I am less sure about the exact ordering of what follows—this is meant to be an ordered list—but I think I am in the right ballpark.

Here is my list of national priorities:

1. Voting Rights: Federal action is needed to assure that all citizens have the right to vote The exercise of that right must be as easy and as straightforward as possible. Gerrymandering to favor one party, race, or interest should be banned; and the fair administration of elections and tabulations should be assured. Republicans are doing their best to guarantee their ability to rule irrespective of the will of the electorate. If they are successful in thereby destroying our democratic republic, most of what follows will not matter.
2. Climate Change. Life on this planet will become difficult and will severely strain our democratic republic if we do not do everything possible to halt climate change. We must do what we can domestically and encourage other nations to do their part as well. Not everything we try will be successful, and it is impossible to lay out a complete program in advance. Most especially, we must curb the burning of fossil fuels and fund research to find new solutions to the climate problem. “Adapting” to climate change is a losing proposition.
3. Wealth Inequality. For decades, we have been reducing the tax burden on wealthy persons and corporations. This has not resulted in wealth “trickling down.” We are building a stratified nation of the wealthy, a thinning, technologically-oriented middle class, and an increasingly impoverished and demoralized underclass. We should be grateful that this has not yet led to revolution. Taxes need to be more progressive and difficult to avoid. Inheritance taxes should be steep, and the preference for capital gains should be eliminated. (All income should be treated the same.) Legislation should encourage unionization; a cap should be placed on executive pay; and existing and improved antitrust law should be vigorously applied. The minimum wage, including for workers working for tips, should be increased and indexed to inflation. (Ideally, the notion of giving tips for anything other than extraordinary services should be discouraged.) The taxing of churches and other nonprofits should be considered.
4. Campaign Finance. Corporations can neither speak nor hold religious views and should be denied “personhood” except in limited, specified respects. Political contributions by individuals and organizations, including contributions by candidates themselves, should be strictly limited. All contributions to political causes greater than $1,000 and their source must be publicly disclosed within 30 days. There should be severe penalties for failure to do so. A constitutional amendment may be required to effect these changes. Federal financing at least of presidential elections should be considered.
5. Housing. The nation needs more housing. The federal government has largely been indifferent to this need, and the not-in-my-backyard attitude of too many people has made increasing the stock of affordable housing virtually impossible. The growing homeless population in a country as rich as the United States is a national disgrace. Increasing population density will not only address homelessness but also will save energy and fight climate change. Until our efforts in this area bear fruit, we must house the homeless as best we can.
6. Reproductive Rights. The fight over abortion is more than just about women’s choices. It is about injecting minority-held religious views into public policy. It is about interfering in the practice of medicine. And it is about controlling women and keeping them second-class citizens. Congress should assure the right of women to be free of restrictions concerning their reproductive lives. Women, with their doctors, should be able to decide what is right for them. This is not a free country as long as women are not free.
7. Gun Control. There are more guns than people in this country, and many of them are weapons of war that do not belong in the hands of civilians. Assault weapons should be outlawed and surrendered for compensation. All guns should be registered, and the registration should be valid for no more than two years. The penalty for possession of an unregistered gun should be severe. All transfers should be subject to a mandatory background check and safety training.
8. Immigration. Our immigration system is wildly dysfunctional. The easy reform is giving so-called dreamers a straightforward way to gain citizenship in the only country they have ever known. Allowing or denying entry to foreigners who want to come to the U.S. needs to be, if nothing else, speedy. Asylum seekers should be afforded humane and prompt treatment. We must decide how we are to treat long-term residents who have not come to this country legally. Much of the dysfunction of Central American nations that are sending waves of refugees to the U.S. is of our doing. We must try to help these countries rather than promoting the interests of American corporations intent on pillaging them.
9. Infrastructure. Yes, the country does need to spend money on its decaying infrastructure. Roads, bridges, tunnels, electrical distribution systems, water systems, and sewer systems need to be put in good repair. In the 21st century, high-speed Internet access needs to be universally available. We should be wary of created new structures that are not absolutely necessary and that will require ongoing maintenance. Expanding the low-speed passenger rail system may not be a good investment.

There are other matters that need attention to strengthen democracy but do not easily fit into a list of legislative priorities. This list includes some long-term issues and issues not resolvable at the federal level. This list is in no particular order, though the first item may indeed need to be addressed first.

1. Senate Filibuster. This undemocratic rule has racist origins and often racist effects. Eliminating or modifying it will be necessary for the Congress to get much done.
2. D.C. Statehood. The District of Columbia has a population larger than several states. It is governed in large measure by the whims of Congress. This should be changed. Additionally, two D.C. senators are likely to nudge the Senate in a more progressive direction. I don’t think that Puerto Rico should be made a state. (I would give Puerto Rico a pile of money, give residents two years to decide if they want to come to the United States, and make Puerto Rico an independent nation.)
3. Police. Police often protect and serve their own interests rather than those of the citizenry. It is unclear just how reform should look. In any case, police should be relieved of some jobs for which they are unqualified and untrained.
4. Judiciary. The Supreme Court, with its lifetime appointments and capricious replacement procedures, is wildly out-of-touch with the population over which it holds great power. To a degree, lower federal courts share these problems. Ideally, Supreme Court justices should have limited terms, and each president should be guaranteed two appointments. If such a change is politically impossible, additional justices should be added to the court.
5. Justice System. Cash bail should be eliminated for low-level offenses reputedly committed by people who pose a low flight risk. Private prisons should be phased out. Other prisons should be provided with larger, better-trained staff. Imprisonment should be about isolation from the wider society only, not an introduction into an inmate-run hell.
6. Education. Making community college may simply have the result of attracting students who ought to be doing something else than going to school. We would do well to develop more opportunities to learn useful trades and participate in apprentice programs. For-profit schools of all kinds should be discouraged, and public funding for all schools, including public colleges should be increased. In pre-college education, greater emphasis should be placed on civics, geography, and history. History should include all of U.S. history: economic history, labor history, women’s history, slave and black history. We should tell truth to our youth. (Hum, maybe there’s a useful slogan there.) We should also teach children about climate change. Non-public elementary and secondary education should receive no public subsidies. In any case, education is traditionally a state concern. The federal government cannot always demand, but it can encourage.
   
7. Constitution. Our Constitution, as amended, is a marvelous document, but it is not a perfect one. A number of changes could be helpful. For example, if we elected members to the House of Representatives for four, rather than two, years, members could spend more of their time legislating and less time pursuing re-election. Campaign finance reform may require a constitutional amendment. The Second Amendment could be clarified to be more restrictive than desired by the NRA and the Supreme Court. Although doing so does not require a change to the Constitution, enlarging the membership of the House would reduce the number of constituents of each member, resulting in better representation. Of course, the change that would do most to make our nation more democratic would be amending the Constitution to elect the president and vice president by popular vote.
8. Health Care. Our mostly for-profit health care system works better for providers, pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers, for-profit hospitals, and insurance companies than it does for the general population. Congress has focused on health insurance rather than health care. That focus needs to change. We should be working toward a single-payer system and reduced for-profit elements of that system. Increasing Medicare benefits may be a step toward a more comprehensive health care system, though it benefits those most who already are receiving substantial assistance.
9. Other Matters. There are other areas of concern, of course. We need to be concerned about wildlife and our national parks. Native Americans and blacks have been treated badly by our nation. It is unclear whether compensation for our past depredations is possible, Future actions should be informed by past injuries. It is widely believed that government provides less assistance to parents and children than do other Western nations. We likely should do more, but I’m not sure what that should look like or what we can afford. We should spend more on basic scientific research and, perhaps, on the space program.

This post is one person’s opinion. I invite comments either below or on Facebook.

Update, 9/24/2021. Somehow, when I first wrote this essay, I forgot to mention the need to elect the president and vice president by popular vote, rather than by the arcane and mischief-prone Electoral College system we now use. This, of course, would require a constitutional change. Today, I added that item under “Constitution.”