A couple of different strands of thought going on.
First - do you ever look at the warning labels on product and think "I guess someone must have tried doing that"? Like "Do not eat toner" on a toner ink cartridge.
I feel that way about laws, as well. When people say 'there oughta be a law', it's because something went wrong...and legally there was nothing you could say or do about it. Is making something a law necessarily the best way of handling the problem? Maybe not. Yet I don't think we should repeal a law unless we're willing to address the underlying concern behind it. (i.e. environmental protections were created because people would carelessly release toxic chemicals in places - like drinking water - that were harmful to others. If you want to eliminate the EPA, show me how you are going to address problems like that without them.)
I am not a fan of people who obey the letter of the law while trying to maneuver around the spirit of it. That applies to any number of things, though more recently I would say it applies to Hillary (and any other politician) who tries to conduct public business through their own private e-mails. Why? Because most of us have work e-mail and personal e-mail, and the only reason I can think of for conducting work via personal e-mail is if you're trying to avoid leaving a record.
In other news - I read and liked this article, though I'm skeptical of whether it will lead to real results. It reminds me of the problem with 'pay it forward' logic. That is - on the face of it, it makes perfect sense that if we all did something nice to others and paid it forward when someone else is nice to us than we could live in an amazingly wonderful world. Yet even though various people have 'paid it forward', they never seem to result in this sort of transformation. I think there are a couple of primary reasons for this.
First - it's easy to 'pay it forward' with something cheap, something that doesn't really require a lot of effort on our part. Just to show how easy it was, I decided to pay for an extra mocha when I was at a coffee shop. It was really kind of fun - a lady came in after I'd ordered, and I got to hear the cashier explain that her drink was paid for...see how surprised and happy it made her. And see her decide to carry it on by paying for the next one. And then a man came in to get his coffee, and went through the whole process again...buying a drink for the next person. (I haven't had a chance to follow up with the barista. He's the owner/manager of that store and I think he's on vacation? I wanted to know how long it lasted.) Btw, I didn't expect it to last forever. While I knew that most recipients would choose to pay for the next person, eventually you'd run into someone who wouldn't. And that's fine...the point is not to put an obligation on them to keep paying.
Anyways. Pay it forward works for something simple and easy, like coffee. It's less likely to happen when it entails a real hardship. Like paying for someone's college. Or house. Or car.
The second thing is that most people are waiting for someone else to start the chain. If they benefit, they are more than happy to pass it along...but they're waiting for someone else to benefit them first. (If you want to feel like you really made a difference, try starting one of these yourself. Imagine all the smiles and happy faces you make in a day, the little jolt out of the ordinary that you give them. Think of what ripples that can have...that little bit of happiness leading to a slightly happier entrance to work, a cheerful conversation with a co-worker, etc.)
So to bring this back to the article above - I think government involvement is the sign of failure in the system. I think inequality is a huge problem, one of the biggest threats to the American way of life today, and I would absolutely love to see it addressed the way the author suggests. Yet I'm skeptical that the business leaders he is addressing are willing to take the steps he is calling for.
And finally - I've decided to re-read Robert Alter's pretty awesome translation of the first five books of the bible. I think he does a pretty amazing job of explaining the context (lost in translation from Hebrew to English) and capturing what little we know about the cultures of those times. I'm also going to look for some of his other works.
First - do you ever look at the warning labels on product and think "I guess someone must have tried doing that"? Like "Do not eat toner" on a toner ink cartridge.
I feel that way about laws, as well. When people say 'there oughta be a law', it's because something went wrong...and legally there was nothing you could say or do about it. Is making something a law necessarily the best way of handling the problem? Maybe not. Yet I don't think we should repeal a law unless we're willing to address the underlying concern behind it. (i.e. environmental protections were created because people would carelessly release toxic chemicals in places - like drinking water - that were harmful to others. If you want to eliminate the EPA, show me how you are going to address problems like that without them.)
I am not a fan of people who obey the letter of the law while trying to maneuver around the spirit of it. That applies to any number of things, though more recently I would say it applies to Hillary (and any other politician) who tries to conduct public business through their own private e-mails. Why? Because most of us have work e-mail and personal e-mail, and the only reason I can think of for conducting work via personal e-mail is if you're trying to avoid leaving a record.
In other news - I read and liked this article, though I'm skeptical of whether it will lead to real results. It reminds me of the problem with 'pay it forward' logic. That is - on the face of it, it makes perfect sense that if we all did something nice to others and paid it forward when someone else is nice to us than we could live in an amazingly wonderful world. Yet even though various people have 'paid it forward', they never seem to result in this sort of transformation. I think there are a couple of primary reasons for this.
First - it's easy to 'pay it forward' with something cheap, something that doesn't really require a lot of effort on our part. Just to show how easy it was, I decided to pay for an extra mocha when I was at a coffee shop. It was really kind of fun - a lady came in after I'd ordered, and I got to hear the cashier explain that her drink was paid for...see how surprised and happy it made her. And see her decide to carry it on by paying for the next one. And then a man came in to get his coffee, and went through the whole process again...buying a drink for the next person. (I haven't had a chance to follow up with the barista. He's the owner/manager of that store and I think he's on vacation? I wanted to know how long it lasted.) Btw, I didn't expect it to last forever. While I knew that most recipients would choose to pay for the next person, eventually you'd run into someone who wouldn't. And that's fine...the point is not to put an obligation on them to keep paying.
Anyways. Pay it forward works for something simple and easy, like coffee. It's less likely to happen when it entails a real hardship. Like paying for someone's college. Or house. Or car.
The second thing is that most people are waiting for someone else to start the chain. If they benefit, they are more than happy to pass it along...but they're waiting for someone else to benefit them first. (If you want to feel like you really made a difference, try starting one of these yourself. Imagine all the smiles and happy faces you make in a day, the little jolt out of the ordinary that you give them. Think of what ripples that can have...that little bit of happiness leading to a slightly happier entrance to work, a cheerful conversation with a co-worker, etc.)
So to bring this back to the article above - I think government involvement is the sign of failure in the system. I think inequality is a huge problem, one of the biggest threats to the American way of life today, and I would absolutely love to see it addressed the way the author suggests. Yet I'm skeptical that the business leaders he is addressing are willing to take the steps he is calling for.
And finally - I've decided to re-read Robert Alter's pretty awesome translation of the first five books of the bible. I think he does a pretty amazing job of explaining the context (lost in translation from Hebrew to English) and capturing what little we know about the cultures of those times. I'm also going to look for some of his other works.
No comments:
Post a Comment