UNCIVIL WARS
Most courteous people try to respect the personal opinions of others on subjects such as religion, politics, economics, foreign policy, welfare, family planning, music, art -- matters involving different tastes and the different lenses through which others view the world. Recently we have seen a trend toward more venomous disagreements between civilized Americans. Poster children are President Obama and his close friends Rev. Jeremiah Wright , Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. People who do not agree with their opinions are called racist, if not greedy and stupid. But the public also seems to be more opinionated and vocal, less respectful of different opinions, probably because of Obama's divisive rhetoric and policies.
The word "hate" and its sentiment seem more common in recent years, and not just among politicians and journalists. Years ago, when Franklin Roosevelt aroused strong sentiments in most Americans, both for and against his radical changes in the role of government, the tone of the disagreements was different, for example, from the opposition to Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. The anti-Roosevelt people mostly opposed his policies and proposals, while the anti-Clinton people tended to attack him personally as a contemptible liar and schemer, a scofflaw who disgraced the highest office in the country, and many also were angered by the political involvement of his non-elected wife and her “I don’t recall” answers in hearings questioning her financial and political actions.
Bush 43 may have incited more hatred than any politician in recent history except Obama. While Bush's policies and actions deserved extensive debate and disagreement, it is difficult to see him and his family as anything but decent, honest people. Then why was there so much passionate dislike of a man whose conduct in office was free from the Clintons' irresponsible conduct? It may have been a lingering bitterness over Bush’s close victory in 2000, his involvement in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, or perhaps it was Democrats frustrated by their inability to maintain a House majority in 2010, with their friends in the mainstream media spreading the criticism.
Now hate and divisiveness have soared to new heights, with Obama’s arrogant blame-America apologies and his revolutionary attempts to change drastically our 230 years as a free-enterprise, limited-government nation. Obama’s spending trillions of dollars on his quixotic schemes has produced a groundswell of animosity toward him and his gang. Our decreasing civility also relates to increased regulatory harassment, Eric Holder's increasingly arrogant Justice Department, IRS, EPA and NSA politically motivated attacks on citizens and businesses. Political disagreements are no longer occasions to reason together to seek solutions but are battles to be fought, won or lost, with no courtesy and no respect. Similarly, our criminal justice system seems less involved in seeking justice than engaging in contests to determine who has the most money to buy the cleverest lawyers.
Politics is a game of politicians extracting the most feathers with the least possible squawking from the goose, attacking personally those who object to being plucked and distributing the feathers to friends. Disagreements are not matters for civil discussion and compromise or acceptance of an agreement to disagree. Now they often result in anger and belligerence. Often the angriest political disagreements involve unconstitutional political actions, which the offending politicians and liberal courts refuse to correct.
We also see surprisingly uncivil behavior from such bigoted anti-bigot groups as the American (Un)Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), going as far as to attack Christmas. Even those who are not religious are appalled at the attacks by liberals on celebrating Christmas. It does not harm the liberals and it has great significance to Christians, but to almost everyone it is a cherished time to reunite with friends and family, to think of others, to count our blessings and remember what is really important in life. Most Christians don’t realize that celebrating Christmas on December 25th mostly started in the mid-19th Century, promoted by merchants. In earlier times late December was often considered anti-Christian, a time of pagan rituals celebrating the December 21st winter solstice, with Christian celebrations more likely to be held on January 6th, the Twelfth Night.
Decisions about celebrating Christmas, or Hanukkah, Ramadan or the full moon should be made by the people involved, not Congress, not bureaucrats, not politicians or lawyers or judges. It seems that people increasingly want to start a fight if they disagree with a rule or a different opinion or belief. It is not sensible to run to a lawyer to start a fight. It is sensible for people on all sides of such arguments to grow up, and for people who see that kind of conduct to speak up. The silent majority is often jerked around by a gaggle of lawsuit-happy bigots.
When we hear our politicians and buttinskys making personal attacks instead of having civil disagreements, we should consider offering a polite "Please, be civil or shut up."
IT TAKES TWO JUST TO MAKE IT
Only a few protests are heard when the boomers chant one of their mantras, “It takes two just to make it,” but economists say that is nonsense. Adjusted for inflation, real income is about three times what it was 70 years ago, and median U.S. household income has more than doubled since 1955, when few mothers of school-age children had full time jobs. So, why the complaints? Yuppies see extravagance as an entitlement. Their definition of “making it” means living a life of luxury compared with 1955. That doesn’t make it wrong for both parents to work; it’s just not true that they have to.
Some boomers now are examining net costs and benefits, comparing the second income with the additional costs of child care, “office” clothing and care, restaurant and take-out meal costs, additional cars and other transportation costs, expensive vacations and entertainment to reduce stress and compensate, paying others to do home maintenance and other services, and income and other taxes on the additional income and spending. As a result a few are questioning and ending the two full-time incomes game. Some parents are concerned about their children not really having a whole mother during their critical early years, and others are realizing how very brief and precious their children’s close, parent-dependent years are.
The boomers probably didn’t notice it when they were young, but working mothers of young children were rare then but are considered normal now. Part of the difference is the job availability and pay weren’t so good then for married women and particularly for young mothers. But mostly, it was simply normal for young mothers to be homemakers and for fathers to earn the family’s support. The Heritage Foundation reports that now the majority of women in the U.S. are living without a husband, taking on the roles of both father and mother when she has children.
A Wall Street Journal article reported that the proportion of working families with children under six years old, with a father working and a mother at home, has gone up from 35 percent to 39 percent in the last eight years, so the trend has reversed slightly, for the moment. The article also said, “The sacrifices involved in giving up the second income are daunting. . . .Women who work full time bring in 40 percent of household income.”
To those who grew up in a world where normal families had a working father and a mother who kept the family glued together, it seems strange to agonize over the possibility of giving up a second income. Many of today’s problems appear to have resulted from families coming unglued, with overloaded career mothers, children with too little supervision, not enough responsibilities, too much money, too much television and video games, not enough studying, too many cars and too little discipline and self-discipline. Those things are all worth giving up if doing it results in better individuals and families.
Humans adapt to change slowly. Changing families from having mothers at home with children to having absentee career mothers in one generation ain’t slowly.
TIPPING 401
This course is open to all majors. To be eligible, students must have taken these prerequisite courses:
Tipping 101 An introductory course for freshmen. Discusses the rationale for tipping and its evolution. Originally, guests in European manor houses ga
ve a few coins to staff members who had provided special services such as bringing up food at 11 p.m., answering a 3 a.m. call to empty a smelly waste bucket, or perhaps to warm the bed of a chilly guest of the opposite sex.
Tipping 201 Covers the evolution of tipping into more common small gifts of money for particularly good or extra services. The practice and amounts varied widely according to the nature and quality of the extra services, and the rapport of the persons involved. Prerequisite, Tipping 101.
Tipping 301 Covers the gradual transition of tipping, mostly in the United States, from random payments to standardized formulas for additional payments to a wide variety of service persons. Some consider restaurant bills to require the payment of at least a 15 percent extra payment to the waiter; 18 percent is common when a group of women is served and they often bring calculators for precise computations. Eighteen percent typically is also the minimum among men for waitresses with impressive chests and loose shirts. The practice progressed to include an array of headwaiters, doormen, coat-checkers, nail polishers, hairdressers, car parkers, bellmen, door openers, cab drivers and a slew of other hungry persons with long right arms. Discusses the causes of the transition – cheap employers who had been able to legalize and standardize paying their employees practically nothing while forcing their customers to pay their employees’ wages directly. Discusses the diplomatic problems involving tourists from Europe, where employers pay adequate wages to professional waiters and bartenders; those tourists do not follow the U.S. tipping “rules.” Prerequisite, Tipping 201.
Tipping 401 Discusses the ultimate rip-off by service employers, adding a “service charge” of 15 percent or so to bills “as a convenience,” to make sure their customers pay their employees’ wages and to extract a little more money for themselves. Most of the semester will be spent with the class divided into four groups who will compete for the best plan to eliminate tipping and force service employers to pay adequate wages to their employees. Class will develop a public relations and marketing plan, and establish a plan for a tipping boycott. Dr. Anti Ripov, who will teach the course, suggests a starting date of next January 2nd for T-Day and proposes that security personnel be instructed to watch for tipping violators and beat them severely about the head and shoulders. Field research will be arranged at the Ritz-Carlton, Daphne's Tea Room and Hooters.