Compassion and Socialism

About a year ago I was in a law school class discussing intellectual property rights. The professor posed an ethical question about licensing for patented pharmaceuticals. Should there be compulsory licensing to provide more convenient drugs when very sick people have to take a combination of several pills? My economical, Republican, property-rights-centric response was that if people are sick, they should be grateful for having any drugs at all instead of complaining that they have to take 4 pills instead of 1 because Bristol-Myers-Squibb has a patent. My professor's response was "Miss Woodhouse, maybe you should consider compassion." Ouch. True. Touche. Point for Professor Thomas.

So then a couple weeks ago, I was thinking about health care reform as I fell asleep. No surprise, I'm anti-public option. So naturally, I was anti-health reform. I don't think Congress does a very good job, and I think administrative agencies do an even worse job, and the courts are pretty messed up too. So, I cringe at the word "reform." But I was laying there thinking about being unemployed. A lot of my classmates will be graduating in May without jobs, without an income, and without health care. A lot of them have kids. These people have worked hard to get degrees and are very smart, but they have no money. They don't mean to be a drain on the system, but eventually options run out. I remembered Professor Thomas' comment about compassion and thought, maybe we do need reform. Maybe I shouldn't be so concerned about socialism after all.

THEN I read this article. And I saw this chart from 2007:


And I thought, whoa! In a Republican administration the top 1% of earners are paying 40% of the income taxes. We're practically socialists already! It's not that I think charity and giving to those in need is a bad thing. I think it is not only a good thing, but an essential personal choice. What concerns me is the four months I spent working in a federal government agency and all of the waste that I saw there. When those tax dollars are going to support facebook browsing, yapping on the phone, and other time-wasting activities, I feel my concern is justified. The problem is, I don't have a solution. Can a government really be effective in balancing the need for compassion while combatting the evils and inefficiencies of socialism? Comments? Thoughts?

A Lump of Coal and Lot's Wife

Dear Readers: Yes, all four of you. This is my first crack at poetry since junior high, so bear with me.

A sometimes mischevious Idaho farm boy
Feeling his stocking one Great Depression winter
A lump of coal?
Surely, it must be.
Oh, to have been better in the weeks leading up to Christmas!

Lot's wife
Longing
Not just for Sodom and Gomorrah and their sins
For home
For friends
For family
For familiarity
Longing

A job? Where? Move?
But I'm happy
When? A year? The irony of knowing change is coming

A journal entry two and a half years ago
Six months before my last big move
"Once again I feel like I have to give up everything that is constant and happy in my life and start all over again."
The past two and a half years have been better than anything prior

Lot's wife looked back
Longingly
"Perrenially dissatisfied with present circumstances"
"Only dismal views of the future"
Salt

The farm boy
Maybe an orange
Maybe not a lump of coal
Anticipation

New city, new job
Maybe like the girl scout song
"Make new friends, but keep the old
One is silver and the other's gold"
Maybe silver and gold

Christmas morning
The farm boy opens his stocking
Not coal
Not an orange
A special toy
A great surprise
A spinning top!

Maybe the next city will be good too
Maybe the next Christmas will bring a surprise
Not like Lot's wife
Instead like Joshua
"Be strong and of good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee withersoever thou goest."

References: Talk by Elder Jeffery R. Holland on Remember Lot's Wife, see Ensign, January 2010; Joshua 1:9

Active Liking

The internet has revolutionized our language. Text used to be a noun, and you used to chat with someone rather than chatting them. My mom is sometimes perplexed at all the code names my siblings use. My nine-year-old brother calls the pet store the quilt store to try to trick her into driving him to look at bearded dragons and parakeets. My college-aged sister went through a phase where all of her roommates' crushes had code names.

Sister: Jacob called Annelle.
Mom: Wait, I thought Annelle liked Edward.
Sister: Well she does. We just call Edward Jacob so no one will know who we are talking about.

And now all of the sudden Facebook has distorted "liking" from some sort of passive feeling verb to an action verb.

Missy: Am I allowed to like my own quote?
Thought in my head: Of course you can like your own quote, but if you "like" your own quote then you may look narcissistic. Of course, I have few problems with narcissism as long as one acknowledges he or she is being narcissistic.

See it used to be that you could like something without the whole world knowing. But now you don't really like something until you click that "Like" button on Facebook and tell the whole world about it. To like something is no longer to have a subjective feeling in favor of something, but rather to click a button on the internet.

Not only does the internet have the capacity to significantly alter the meaning of our language, but it dehumanizes us by distorting the things that make us most human. Never before was it necessary to tell someone you liked something in order to validate that feeling. Telling someone was telling someone and liking was liking. But now meaning has been distorted to the point that liking something means telling someone about it. And not just someone, everyone on Facebook!

The author of this blog is seriously considering yet another Facebook sebatical, but currently favors remaining on Facebook in order to facilitate a higher number of social invitations. It's called FOMO (Fear of Missing Out).

A little privacy please...

So, how 'bout that Tiger Woods scandal? Not that the media has ever been a group to act decently, but this is all a bit much. I'm not defending Tiger Woods, or what he did, or anyone else who cheats on their spouse, but really, isn't there a vote on health care going on or something?

Because I don't want to be a hypocrite, I will refrain from evaluating the Tiger Woods situation further. But let me just say, the President of the United States having sexual relations with a young intern and lying under oath is one thing, but a pro-golfer's affair is none of my business. I'm not voting for him and I'm never going to talk to him, so let's just let these people live their lives and work things out without 280 million Americans and the rest of the world giving their opinion.