Death and Taxes

Let’s talk about estate taxes because I am really steaming. Bush tried to eliminate estate taxes. The Bush logic was why on earth should people be taxed merely because they died on money that has already been taxed at least once. The deceased and her heirs are being punished for the poor person dying. Makes sense to me, but I’m not Warren Buffet, George Soros, Bill Gates, or Ted Turner, all of them billionaires and all of them outspoken critics of the estate tax elimination. In brief, their argument is that just because somebody is wealthy should not give that person the right to pass on all of her money to whomever she pleases. Buffet and Gates and the rest of these kooks think that the government should get the money. Why, did the government earn it? No. Then why does the government deserve any of it?

Their argument has a special appeal to people who believe that just because your parents or grandparents are wealthy does not mean that you should be entitled to this wealth. It smacks of royalty and dynasties, perpetuating legendary family names like Rockefeller and Kennedy. We Americans are not Europeans, we don’t believe in royalty and that stuff. Now look, I’m just as repulsed , and “O.K.” jealous, of the trust fund baby who never has had to work a day in his life, never did, and waltzs between his haunts in Monte Carlo and Aspen, looking down on us working blokes from his Gulfstream IV. But, you know, life is unfair and some people are simply luckier than others. What about the guy who worked 60 hours a week for 50 years, but just kept making the wrong decisions and/or was unlucky, verses the 25 year old .com idiot who got thousands of people like the first guy to invest in his idea, sold out in two years for 50 million and left the rest of us with shattered dreams and empty bank accounts. Should this 2nd guy be forced to give the first poor schmuck some of his .com millions if he did nothing illegal? I don’t think reasonable people would say so. It’s just another example of life that is unfair.

In addition, Soros, Buffet, Gates and others come across as pretty disingenuous about this whole matter. Remember, these guys are billionaires. What do they care if the government gets a billion or two, as long as they can pass the rest on to their chosen heirs? Now, if anyone of these guys were to leave all of his money to charities and not one penny to spouse,children, grandchildren, or friends, and never gifted one penny to them when he was alive, I would say that they are not disingenuous—however they are still dead wrong.

Depression and Homicide

A Texas woman admittedly drowned her five children a few years ago. She was being treated for depression and psychosis. As someone who has fought dark depression for most of my life, though not psychosis, it’s difficult for me to see how depression alone could cause such an atrocity.

Those who are severely depressed and not psychotic typically do not have the energy to wash their hands let alone drown five children. And then call the police? It doesn’t make sense. Depressed people don’t want to get off the couch. Picking up the phone and talking to anyone is exhausting.

No, this woman is or was psychotic. The amazing thing to me is that her husband seemed to have no clue. Even though he knew his wife had severe trouble with postpartum depression this guy kept having kids. If he was not depressed and/or psychotic, you think he would have slowed down the progeny thing for the sake of his wife and his other children. How anyone can be this clueless or insensitive is remarkable. I can only conclude that he is crazier than his wife, because he exhibited no signs of craziness. The profoundly crazy are sneaky; they never give us any clues until it is too late. Think Ted Bundy. Or Scott Peterson.

Killing your own children in a methodical fashion has to be the definition of insanity. Mothers do not eat their young. They protect them from the promiscuous father who may eat them. I am, frankly, and this will be most disturbing to the majority of you, most concerned about this case because it gives depression a bad rap. People will think that severely depressed people are not just weak-minded and of a defective character, but that they are dangerous as well. Let’s lock them up like we did in the 1st half of the 20th century. In truth, depressed people are too lethargic to pick up a gun and too confused to plot mayhem against anyone but them self. This woman may have been suffering from depression, but there were other demons at work here, and it was those demons that were responsible for this ineffable tragedy, not melancholy. Depressed people steel themselves to block out the nothingness, the hopelessness, the bulky weight of life. They don’t kill others. This poor woman was nuts in addition to being depressed.

I know what you’re thinking. What about the depressed ex-boyfriend who kills his ex-girlfriend and their only child, and then turns the gun on himself? That’s not depression folks, that’s anger and revenge and lunacy too. Depressed people hide under the covers, afraid of the light of tomorrow and the pain that it will bring. No, depressed people are not more prone to violence than other people, and they don’t kill other people more than normal people; they only kill themselves to obliterate the incessant shroud of darkness.

Souless Politicians

I live in Redondo Beach, California and people are constantly encouraging me to run for mayor. “O.K.” one or two of my drinking buddies mentioned it. Frankly, I am sprinting away from this idea. It’s not that I hate politics, but I think that reasonable people should do something useful with their lives.

If I was confused about what life is about, if I had no useful skills, if I changed my positions like my bedroom linen, if I had no philosophical underpinnings for my beliefs, or, most importantly, if I was a war hero, of course I would enter politics. What else could I do?

Look, there are many decent politicians who are smart and caring, just like many members of the NRA. The big problem that I have is that I would feel compelled to listen to the majority of my constituents all of the time, and that I find revolting. I can barely listen to myself or my dentist most of the time, let alone thousands of other people. You see, it’s damn hard to be a politician if you are an independent, thoughtful thinker. It’s hard, but not impossible. See John McCain or the late, great Daniel Patrick Moynihan. But, it’s truly rare. No matter how wide-eyed idealistic you are the office seems to wear you out.

I am originally from Minnesota, and we had many years back a terrific congressperson in a guy named Tim Penny. He was wildly popular but he abruptly decided not to run for re-election not because he had lost his way but because he could no longer handle the partisan bickering that goes on in Washington. He thought it was a waste of his time and was repulsed by what he saw. Politicians, he said, were more concerned about getting re-elected than in doing what needed to be done. How McCain and Moynihan made it through so many terms is unbelievable. Maybe because their names both start with M and end in N, I don’t know. There must be something mystical going on here.

Good people will say that I am the one who is jaded, that politicians make major contributions to our society and our way of life. I suppose so, but at what cost to their beliefs and to their souls? They have to salute their party and vote accordingly or campaign funds from the party will dry up. Who wants to live this way unless you’re former Senator Hillary Clinton? You give me any political issue and I guarantee you that I will tell you Hillary’s position 100% of the time. This valedictorian from Wellesley has lost her ability to think on her own. Come on, Hillary, do you really believe every position of your party? If so, just mail in your vote since there is no reason to make an argument. She thinks she is idealistic, but this is its opposite. The word “idealistic” comes from the Greek word meaning “Ideas”, which in Plato’s Republic meant those real truths achieved after vigorous argument and yes, wisdom. Following Hillary’s course you just need the most recent Democratic newsletter. Hell, she became a member of Obama’s team after lambasting him for years!

No, politics is not for me. It would beat me to death. I would rather be crucified. And, if you have seen The Passion of the Christ, that is most unpleasant business, even worse than politics.

Illegal Drugs Made Legal

Should we legalize illegal drugs? I say illegal drugs because already drugs such as alcohol and nicotine are legal and can be purchased by regular people of proper age and these two drugs combined cause many more deaths, family problems, divorce, lost work days, increased medical costs and other havoc than all of the illegal drugs combined. We Americans like our legal drugs like alcohol and nicotine. They are socially acceptable for the most part, although smoking is getting akin to pedophilia in many places, like California where I live.

A majority of folks would probably like to ban alcohol and nicotine and make it illegal. But, we tried it once with alcohol with disastrous consequences. We have never tried it with smoking but reasonable people would have to conclude that the same result would obtain. There would be a huge black market for cigarettes, prices would at least double, and shady characters would reap the benefits. Somehow, and I don’t think that I am alone, I would rather have Philip Morris and their ilk reap the benefits from their habit forming, dangerous products than the shady characters.

Now, the shady characters, of course, control the illegal drug business. One may argue that if the illegal drugs were legal, the shady characters and all of their trappings, influence, and crime would go away. This is probably right. After all, why should certain drugs of choice like alcohol and nicotine be legal, and not heroin and cocaine? Nicotine is more addictive than either heroin or cocaine, and together with alcohol kills more people than heroin and cocaine combined and ruins more lives and families.

Let’s be logical though. Just because we screwed up with alcohol and nicotine doesn’t mean that we should let all of the horses out of the corral. We tried to bring alcohol back to the corral and it didn’t work. It won’t work with nicotine either.

What are we afraid of by making illegal drugs legal? That we will become a nation of drug addicts? Perhaps. But, that doesn’t say much about us, does it? Is the only reason that we’re not all screwed up on drugs is because they are illegal, expensive, and we can’t buy them easily at a 7-11? I hope not, and I seriously doubt it. If you want illegal drugs, they are just around the corner.

Here’s my solution to this mess. Let’s make illegal drugs legal by prescription at age 18. In other words, you can’t buy them over the counter like nicotine or alcohol; you need to see a physician. Yes, I know, this is easy to get around, you shop around for the right doctor, and then you give them to minors anyway, just like is done today with cigarettes and alcohol. But at least it puts a doctor in between the purchase. Look, education is the only thing that is going to work with alcohol and nicotine, and the same is true for illegal drugs. The war will not be won by banning them, because they will still be prevalent and shady characters will benefit.

Moderation, of course, is the key. Two or three drinks a day or five cigarettes a day are probably not going to harm anyone or society at large. Just like taking cocaine one day a week or heroin once a month would probably yield the same innocuous results. The problem is the constant, habitual taking of the drugs. This is what ruins lives and families and costs the U.S. so much money. If a person had to go to a doctor to get the drugs there would at least be a mediating effect on the user. Maybe, just maybe, the user will finally get the message. I just don’t see any other way that makes sense.

Is Email Destroying Mankind?

Now that the tech stocks have taken a bath, and the Old Economy doesn’t look so bad anymore, I now have the courage to weigh-in on something that most people think is the best new thing since the pony express: E-Mail.

I just don’t get it, and never have. Sure, I have an e-mail address. I don’t want one, but I need it because there are a few people I know who communicate these days only by e-mail. Here’s my question. What’s wrong with the telephone, voicemail, and answering machines? Old Economy, antiquated stuff is the answer you’ll get from the e-mail junkies. “O.K.,” let’s compare the two. COST - Granted that e-mail is only a local call away and you can send something to Istanbul from Reno for a few cents. Long distance overseas has come down, but it is still more expensive. Advantage: E-mail. Calling within the U.S. though, even long distance, has come down so sharply and will continue to come down that this cost advantage in the U.S. is quickly eroding. Still, to be fair, Advantage: E-mail. SPEED - Maybe one out of a million people can type as fast as they can talk. So, to type an e-mail, particularly a three or four-pager, is far slower than picking up the phone and actually conversing with a live person who can instantly respond to your remarks. Even if the person is not there, we have wonderful things like voicemail and answering machines that accomplish much more quickly the same thing that e-mail does laboriously. I thought that technology was supposed to simplify my life. How is this an advancement over the telephone and voicemail? It seems to me to be a retrogression. With the ubiquitous cell phone, it’s far more convenient than lugging your lap-top around. Advantage: Phone. EFFECTIVENESS - Is it more convenient to send an e-mail, get a reply a day later, send a counter back, get another reply, and this may go on for days, or pick up the phone and hash it out in 15 or 20 minutes complete with passion, emphasis, and nuance that only the voice can do, not the written word? E-mail to me is akin to going back to the telegraph and trashing the phone. The only advantage I can see for e-mail is that you can do it from your home as opposed to going to a Western Union office. Otherwise, what’s the advantage? Advantage: Phone. Culture - It seems to me that a lot of people hide behind e-mail because it is much less confrontational than actually speaking to someone. Is this a good thing, though? We are gregarious, garrulous beings by nature and social interaction with others is a positive thing both physically and emotionally, not to mention spiritually. Why retrograde into a more cloistered, isolated setting with e-mail? How is this an advance? Why do you think they put people into solitary confinement? It’s a punishment. Think of that the next time you are by yourself, haven’t spoken to anyone in several hours, but you’re typing out those e-mails till your carpels start tunneling into a syndrome. How many prisoners would choose solitary confinement with e-mail versus staying in the general population without it? Maybe one in a million, and that person I guarantee you would need a few years on a shrink’s couch. Advantage: Phone.

Oral communication and social interaction is who we are, why go back to the cave? Think about the people who developed all of this. Let’s be charitable and say that it was not the captain of the basketball team or the captain of the softball team, or the person who plays the lead in Grease. It was geeky, socially awkward nerds who instead of going to the dance Friday night were writing code alone in their room until 3 AM. Amazingly, these people have changed our culture. Are these the people we want changing our culture? I think not. Look, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs seem like good guys, but I don’t think they would score very highly on any test judging sociability and extroversion. Now, introverts are people too. But, do we want a nation of them? Do we want them as our sociologists changing the way we behave and interact? Of course, not. Advantage: Phone BUSINESS - I was dismayed to read a few months ago that Jack Welch, the legendary CEO and former Chairman of GE, was now sending his own e-mails when he was at GE. He was finally bullied into it by Scott McNealy, CEO and Chairman of Sun Microsystems who sits on the GE board. Now, as a shareholder of GE, I do not want my CEO wasting his valuable time doing this. I want him dictating letters much more quickly to his secretary just like in the old days, or better yet, dictating it into a hand-held machine and leaving the tapes for the secretary. How is e-mail more convenient for Jack Welch, how does it free up his valuable time, when he spends 30-60 minutes depending on his typing ability sending a seven page memo? Dictate it in 10-15 minutes, let the secretary type it up and mail it or fax it or even e-mail it!

In my last real job, my boss, the President of the Company, took great pride in predicting that several years from now there would be no secretaries because they wouldn’t be needed. He was proud of the fact that he could type 50-60 words a minute and did all of his own memos by e-mail. I often times would walk into his office and catch him in the middle of a three to five-pager. Why wasn’t he talking to customers, why wasn’t he out visiting the plants and the employees? He was holed up in his office just like the sophomore nerd on a Friday night. Look, before you think I’m a Luddite, I am for every technological change that either enhances life or frees up our time to do things we enjoy. ATM’s and fax machines are wondrous. No more bank visits and fewer trips to the mail box or post office. But, this e-mail thing is just not a big advance except for cost and that is fading away.

Next time you have a big presentation to a potential customer in New York, forget the plane ride and the hotel costs and dinner with them the night before, and tell them you’ll e-mail them the presentation since that is the most cost effective, modern way of doing things - and watch your competitor establish a relationship with this customer and get the business. Advantage: Phone.

E-mail has its place. Sending a memo to all 35,000 employees in an instant or “communicating” at 3 AM with someone in Singapore. But, please, revolutionary? “Come here, Watson, I need you.” Now that was revolutionary. Try e-mailing 911 the next time you need help.

Casey Anthony Fair Trial?

Casey Anthony is going to go on trial shortly. She cannot get a fair trial because of all of the publicity. But, who cares? Her lawyers do, but their cries will go unheeded. Think of Hitler. Let’s say that he did not kill himself in that bunker with his mistress but instead was captured and tried by the Allies. He would not get a fair trial either for his slaughter of 6 MM Jews. Who cares?

Some people are so notorious, so loathsome, so beyond the pale of evil, that their nefarious actions are chronicled by many responsible recorders of news. Any prospective juror will be prejudiced by all of these outrageous commentaries. But, what’s the alternative? Claim that Anthony cannot get a “fair, unbiased” trial and let her go? Of course not. In cases of Anthony and Hitler and Eichman fair trials are irrelevant. We know the bastards did what they purportedly have done and we judge them accordingly. To claim that the jury is prejudiced because of all the publicity is akin to the child who killed his parents begging the court for mercy because he is an orphan.

But, let’s not mislead anyone. The jury is still prejudiced. The jury has still predetermined a verdict. But, the hell with it, it’s “O.K.”, this time.

Corporate Greed & Corruption

It’s now fairly clear that corporate corruption will continue in this country. Steven Scrushy, former CEO of HealthSouth, was found innocent by a moronic jury a few years ago, similar to the moronic jury that let Michael Jackson go free a while back. Five, that’s five, former CFO’s testified that Scrushy was well aware of phony numbers reporting and directed the CFO’s to report the phony numbers anyway.

The jury didn’t seem to care. They did not believe the former CFO’s. The defense claimed that there were no documents that demonstrated that Scrushy knew or gave such orders. As a former executive, let me clue in the moronic jury on how it works when hanky-panky is going on in a company.

The CEO is not stupid enough to put illegal activity in writing. Instead, they walk into the CFO’s office and orally tell them what to do. There will be no smoking gun. But, why would five former CFO’s all lie? Scrushy, of course, did not take the witness stand in his own defense.

Is it just me or are other people losing confidence in the jury system? The government believed that it had an extremely strong case. It certainly appeared so. But, the moronic jury probably did not understand most of the testimony and let the guy go free. In complicated business cases we should probably change the law and mandate that a jury trial is not available to a defendant. Or, in the alternative only have a jury pool that truly is a pool of the defendant’s peers, i.e., business executives who understand what the hell is going on. Some out of work truck driver is simply incapable of understanding complex business litigation. Justice is not being served here, it is being subverted, and the crimes will continue unabated to the detriment of shareholders throughout America and to our economy at large.

Obama Boycotted

I am a 1973 graduate of Notre Dame. My commencement speaker at graduation was Malcolm Moos. Ya, a real household name. the only reason I ever heard of the guy is that I'm from Minneapolis and he was the President of the University of Minnesota. He should have been boycotted. He was so boring even he fell asleep.

this year President Obama will deliver the commencement address. Notre Dame always gets all the Presidents. They come to get the Catholic vote when they run for re-election.

However, Obama is the subject of a boycott because he is pro-choice and recently reversed a Bush executive order banning embryonic stem cell research. Both of these positions are contrary to Catholic dogma, hence the boycott by the Cardinal Newman Society which is the right wing of Catholicism.

I am certain that past speakers supported birth control. this is also a no-no in the religion. But, no boycott. In fact the current Pope said in Africa this week that the use of condoms actually contributed to the spread of AIDS in that continent. This ridiculously, stupid remark was roundly criticized by everyone except Santa Claus.

the point is this: Notre Dame should be a University first, and a Catholic University second. It accepts Jews, Protestants, and Muslims and even atheists who do not condone many or any of the Catholic Church's teachings. This is the right thing to do. This boycott is contrary to what a University is all about: a vigorous debate and unfettered censorship of even unpopular views. If Notre Dame bows to the bigoted pressure and rescinds its offer to the president, I am canceling my 50 billion dollars in bailout money I recently pledged to them.

The AIG Fiasco and GM Too

O.K., let's all take a collective deep, furious breath and see what should have been done by the government to prevent these 165 million bonuses that were paid out to the division, ironically, that caused AIG's failure.

It's really very simple. The government should have let AIG go into Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The Federal Bankruptcy judge would almost certainly have canceled the contracts that mandated the payouts. Remember, federal bankruptcy judges can do anything. They can trow out contracts, modify contracts, etc. and nobody can voice a peep.

After that was done the judge could then go to the government and say, "Hey, unless AIG gets 170 billion dollars soon it will have to go into liquidation, Chapter 7. "The government then could do what it has done and give AIG the 170 billion without all this angst, and the unbelievable, unconstitutional bill in the House of Representatives taxing 90% of the recipients bonuses. You see, this action is called a Bill of Attainder. A Bill of Attainder targets a group of people because the government doesn't like them. This has been illegal for roughly 200 years but apparently there are no lawyers in the House that have read or understand our Constitution. We as Americans should even be more outraged by this Bill than we are with Nancy Pelosi's plastic surgeon.

O.K., so the government screwed up. why did AIG go ahead with the payments? First, it was bound by contract. Secondly, it is my understanding that the contract said that if the specified bonus was not paid on a date certain that the bonus amount would triple by the terms of the contract. Actually, if I were AIG's lawyers I would have advised the company to pay them too. AIG's other argument that it could not lose these valuable idiots who ruined the company is less compelling. Where are they going to go? Lehman Brothers? Bear Stearns? Merrill-Lynch?

If you are a fancy derivative trader on Wall Street today you are about as needed as a three legged race horse. A lot of these people are physicists who can't even spell business. what the hell are they even doing there in the first place? they should be explaining string theory and nano technology to nerds at MIT and not running or ruining our economy.

Much of what I have said above applies to GM. Rick Wagoner, CEO and Chairman, doesn't want the company to go into Chapter 11 because he believes no one will want a GM car if the company is in Chapter 11. Rick, let me tell ya something buddy, no one wants your cars anyway! Besides, after Rick told Congress this nonsense a USA Today poll a couple of days later said that more than 60% of Americans would not consider GM's bankruptcy a factor in purchasing an auto from GM.

Why Wagoner doesn't want to go Chapter 11 is pretty simple. Why go chapter 11 when you can scare the hell out of Congress with the loss of 4 million jobs and Congress keeps giving you taxpayer's money!

If Congress had the guts to say "No", Gm would go into chapter 11 and the UAW workers and the retirees would finally stop making what an M.D. General Practitioner makes when he graduates with $100,000 in debt. A bankruptcy court judge would put an end to this largesse which has gone on for at least 35 years. I am sorry Union guys but putting a bumper on a car correctly just doesn't equate with diagnosing cancer in the minds of most thinking Americans.

The American car industry will die if it doesn't become competitive with the Japanese car makers who manufacture cars in this country regardless of the bailout money. Rick Wagoner must have a brother-in-law making $100,000 working in the plant putting int the spark plugs on a GM truck.

Just like AIG let the Federal Courts make the tough decisions that these cowards, yes cowards, are incapable of making to preserve value for the shareholders which should be the ultimate goal, and this clearly is not the goal of Liddy, CEO of AIG, or Wagoner of GM. Their goals remain a mystery to everyone but them.

Smiling Layoffs

Lay offs. It’s impossible to pick up the paper these days and not read about at least one major company laying off thousands of people. Now, I’m not a business basher and I understand that the purpose of a company is to make money. I also believe that shareholders come first, even before employees.

What bothers me about all of this is the euphemisms that are constantly used. In the Old Economy days of yesteryear, people were “fired” or “laid off”. But in the 90’s the H.R. people became more involved and couched the firings or lay-offs in more gentle terms: “downsizing,” “right-sizing,” and the most misleading of all “re-engineering.”

So, what’s wrong with putting a better spin on unpleasant business? Nothing, except that it seems dishonest. It’s like calling children with mental retardation “gifted.” They are not gifted. They are unfortunate, tragic results of the wrong DNA. Who among us would want this “gift?”

Getting fired or laid off is miserable stuff. To launder it in deceptive jargon doesn’t make it any easier on those affected. When your cheese moves, it still hurts regardless of what name you put on it. I would rather be told, “Look Tom, we’re laying you off because market conditions have changed and we can’t afford you anymore.” It’s more direct and it’s more honest. And I don’t want it said in an upbeat, smiley way either. The employer should be morose with a hint of scotch on her breath to brace her for what should be the most difficult thing that she does. The mood should be as somber as a Requiem High Mass and not happy like a retirement party. The person is not voluntarily leaving, he is being told he is no longer wanted regardless of the reason. The H.R. types tell employers to emphasize it’s not personal, it’s only business. But as Michael Correlone taught us years ago, it’s always personal. So, next time you have to fire someone, pretend that you’re at a funeral, because the person you’re firing just felt like he died.

God and Evil

Let’s get spiritual today and talk about the problem with the Judeo-Christian God and the problem of Evil. Why would an all-good, all-powerful God allow evil? The only conclusions I see are: (1) God is not all-good; (2) God is not all-powerful and or; (3) What we diminished mortals perceive as evil is not actually evil as the all-knowing God sees it.

Let’s forget about (1) because almost any definition of God includes that she is all-good. Hence, if God is not all-good, she really isn’t God. (2) is more interesting. Maybe God can’t do anything about evil. Maybe evil was not created by God but chosen by beings of free will, whether they be Angels or humans, and man’s God is stuck with it. This isn’t as silly as it may first appear. Maybe there are certain attributes of nature that were not created by God but evolved from less perfect beings exerting the choices that we all make with free will. Or, maybe there is a deity that represents evil or created evil and God and the deity are peers when it comes to power so God can’t overthrow this thing called evil.

Let’s examine (3). While we participate to some degree in God’s divinity since he created us, we obviously are less perfect than God in every way and we cannot as mortals perceive his Divine plan and thus we call things evil that if we were God we would not perceive as evil. This is basically the Roman Catholic position that I was weaned on. It made some sense to me in Sister Marie Francis’s 2nd grade class but threw me straight into agnosticism by the time I was in college. Nobody can explain to me how the maiming and killing of innocent children somehow works in God’s overall plan. Again, how can God be all-good with this kind of macabre plan? But this argument is not so easily dismissed. If you believe in Heaven, and if you believe that these children who are killed go there immediately after death because they are innocent, are they not luckier than we miserable bastards who are left on earth to constantly struggle? You know the old saying, “he or she is in a better place”. It’s a plausible argument. How about this one, though. What about the five year old who contracts cancer and lives in constant pain for the next five years before succumbing? How is this suffering in any way a good for God, the person writhing, or those of us mourning who are left behind? Maybe evil is at work here and God can’t do anything about it. Certainly the five year old did not choose the fate or earn the fate, unless you are a Hindu or a Buddhist, or believe in karma, and certainly the parents didn’t choose or earn this fate for their child, unless you believe that the sins of parents are somehow visited on their children.

No, the only thing that makes sense to me is (2) above. God either screwed up in the creation process and Evil somehow came out of this mishap, and now he can’t fix it, or God has nothing to do with Evil and is powerless to stop it. In either event, the conclusion reached is that God is not all-powerful. Any other suggestions?

Stealing Magazines

What’s wrong with people who read magazines and newspapers at the airport or drug stores without buying them? First of all, they block the other impatient people who are in a hurry from grabbing the stuff that they want and paying for it. Secondly, it’s more than a little sneaky, it’s dishonest. People publish magazines and newspapers at great expense so we will buy them. Standing and reading them is not just cheap it is stealing from the publishers. Let’s get philosophical and employ Kant’s Categorical Imperative to this behavior. Kant said that one should only behave in a fashion that one would wish that everyone would behave the same way in a like circumstance. If everybody did this, nothing would get sold at vending counters and at the minimum one would not be able to buy this stuff at counters but only through subscription.

The publishers over the years have tried to thwart this behavior with plastic over wraps, but I have even seen people remove the wraps right there and start reading.

I’m always tempted to offer these people some money, not to be kind, but to humiliate them in front of others. We lack good humiliation these days. I’ll bet someone would stop doing this if he were so humiliated.

So, come on, knock this off. It’s disgusting and beneath you.

Return Policy for Adopting A Child?

We keep reading about cases where a birth mother chooses to arrange for the adoption of her child upon birth and then one week, one month, or one year after the birth states that she has changed her mind and wants the baby back.

Should the birth mother get the kid back?

This is a tough question with only tough answers. The courts have generally sided with the birth mother as long as the request for the return of the child was made within a reasonable period of time, one week is “O.K.,” three years is normally too long.

Extreme advocates for the birth mother usually state that there should be no time limit, that it basically is “Let the buyer beware.” After all, it’s her baby stupid. It can happen at any time and should be upheld at any time. On the other side, those in favor of the adoptive parents rights state that once a deal is made it is irrevocable whether it is pre-birth or at any time post-birth. This whole mess may become a bit unseemly because in many cases there is actually an exchange of cash from the adoptive parents to the birth mother which flirts dangerously, I think, with treating babies as property. But that’s another column.

The courts always are caught in the conundrum between maintaining the sanctity of the relationship between the birth mother and her child, and doing what’s best for the child regardless of the time that has elapsed. For example, if it’s one week after the request the belief typically is that the baby and the adoptive parents have not bonded and that the primacy of the relationship between mother and child overrides the interest of the adoptive parents. If the request is made five years after the birth, the opposite result usually occurs based on the same reasoning.

All of this is nonsense. I don’t give a damn about the birth mother’s rights or the adoptive parents’ rights. I think the only issue should be who would be better parents. Now, I know that this is subjective. It probably seems unduly harsh to the birth mother advocates. But, parenting and raising a child is more important than who the actual mother of the kid might be. It ought to be done by the best people for the sake of the child.

Look, the kid didn’t ask to be born, and those responsible for its birth need to do the best thing for that child regardless of their own feelings. That is why I admire many women who choose to have their child adopted because they are broke, or addicts, or are 14, or feel that they are simply unfit to raise their biological child at that time in their lives.

Often times it would seem to me that it takes great courage and selflessness. See, if you look at it this way, time is irrelevant, whether it’s one day or one year. If a third party, the courts, believe that after 15 years the child should be returned to the birth mother because she wants the child, and the courts believe that it would be in the best interest of the child, the child should go back. This example is pretty extreme, and would probably only be granted once in a thousand times, but it illustrates my point. I don’t care about the feelings of either the mother or the adoptive parents. I care only about the needs and feelings of the baby or child. Once the mother places her baby for adoption, she needs to know that all bets are off from now until eternity. The adoptive parents also need to know that the baby could go at any time, so they better do a good job. In fact, one would think that they would be inclined to do as good job as possible or their baby might be gone. This would make for better adoptive parents, benefiting the baby at all times, which should be the goal and not the “parents” feelings or biological sanctity.