178. Taxes must be the same for everyone

Starting with the Tea Party and then with Occupy Wall Street, there has been a movement to consider both the economic distribution of wealth and the amount of taxes that are paid. The Tea Party wants to lessen the amount of taxes that Americans pay, which would subsequently result in a smaller government, while Occupy Wall Street is looking for a more equitable distribution of wealth and protests the excessive economic control and earnings of corporations and their stockholders.

The two issues have collided on Mitt Romney, as his wealth, and taxes he pays on that wealth, has come into question by Republicans and Democrats alike. The consensus, if there is a non-partisan one, is that it is fundamentally unfair for the country's wealthiest individuals to pay a smaller percentage of taxes than most middle class Americans.

In some ways, many of us have Romney to thank for this debate, as we have been complaining about it for years.

The argument has always been that we are anti-capitalists or envious or that we are attacking success-calling it "class warfare." It has never been about any of those things. The issue has always been about fairness. In addition, it is bad for our economic and democratic system to have so much wealth in the hands of so few people. For some reason, people excuse great wealth and inequality, but it drives them absolutely crazy to see someone on welfare.

Romney has finally brought the discussion main street, and across party lines. Unfortunately, we really cannot expect wealthy legislators to create laws that increase their tax burden without significant pressure from the populist. Those in Congress, particularly the Republicans, spend a considerable amount of energy on keeping taxes on the wealthy as low as possible-but this time it is Republican presidential candidates making an issue of Romney's low tax rate.

It seems to be ignored that the very wealthy often earn their money exponentially-and with significant tax advantages. They often earn more in a day than many middle class Americans make in a year. They do not work harder than middle class Americans-they just have more opportunity and advantages in the creation of their wealth.

Edward Kleinbard, a law professor at the University of Southern California, agrees, "The most affluent Americans in recent years have pulled away from the rest of us, and the reason is at least in part that they are able to compound their wealth at very, very low tax rates."

Warren Buffett, who has challenged Congress on the low tax rate for the wealthy, commented on the way Romney makes his money, "He makes his money the same way I make my money. He makes money by moving around big bucks, not by straining his back and going to work cleaning the toilets or whatever it may be. He makes it shoving around money. I make it shoving around money."

And, there is the misconception. While the very rich have obtained their wealth in different ways--some have worked hard for their success, while others simply inherited it--they usually earn a disproportional amount through investment.

Buffet makes a similar point, "If you look at the 400 highest incomes in the United States, they average $220 million. Something like 90 of them are effectively unemployed. They have no earned income, and that number has gone up over the years."

Buffett does not blame Romney but rather the system, "It's the wrong policy to have. Nothing wrong about [Romney] doing that. He will not pay more than the law requires. I don't fault him for that in the least, but I do fault the law that allows him and me, earning enormous sums to pay over all federal taxes at a rate that is about half what the average person in my office pays."

Kleinbard also commented on how the wealthy, like Romney, can use the current system to avoid other taxes. "The returns also demonstrate how, using sophisticated estate planning, Romney has been able to give millions of dollars to his children free of estate and gift taxes, because of a legal structure known as a ‘grantor trust.'"

The numbers are staggering and I have presented them often in this column. It is time to move to a more equitable system of wealth distribution. That is not socialism-I am not advocating the creation of a single class. What I am advocating is that the disparity between the very wealthy, the one percent, and the middle class and poor be reduced a bit. People who do not work hard do not deserve the same success or financial rewards as those that work hard and made the sacrifices of their success.

However, at the same time, the people who are very successful should never pay a smaller percentage of taxes than those who are modestly or less successful. That is just ridiculous.

I have never favored a flat tax, but considering the tax advantages of the wealthy, maybe it is time to tax everyone the same-and that includes all forms of income. This would include employment income, investments, gifts, estates, inheritance-everything. No more loopholes. If someone even finds a dollar in the street, it should be reported as income and taxed.

I'm kidding, sort of.

177. Seculars know good, evil, too

I was disappointed to read syndicated columnist Cal Thomas' attack on not only the late Christopher Hitchens, but also on non-theists in general.

While Thomas acknowledges that Hitchens was smart and witty, he seems to take joy in suggesting that he has now realized the errors of his ways-engulfed in the ultimate punishment for a secular belief. "Hitchens now knows the truth and that can only be the worst possible news for him," Thomas writes.

Then Thomas lays out his case against non-believers.

Thomas criticizes the celebration of life and implies selfishness. He writes, "Some people exist, however nervously, believing that this life is all there is." He quotes the late singer Peggy Lee as proof who said, "Is that all there is? If that's all there is to life, then let's break out the booze and have a ball, if that's all there is."

It is true that non-believers believe in life. We believe that we all share this moment in time on this planet. This philosophy often embraces all life as precious, not to be needlessly wasted or suffered or destroyed. Many non-theists are vegetarian and vegan--unable to even kill an animal. And, Hitchens himself took some criticism from secular humanists when he embraced the Iraq war-since many of us rarely support the idea of war.

Next, Thomas proceeds to present many tired clichés and amateur philosophical arguments about morality and belief--none less convincing than using the Bible, and religious quotes, to prove the foolishness of one's non-belief. It must not occur to Thomas that a Muslim, through Koranic verse, could easily prove Thomas' foolishness in not believing in Islam. And so on.

Thomas writes on the metaphysical burden of evidence, "I have always found atheists to be interesting people because they just may be the world's smallest minority group, one that gets smaller still as its members pass on and meet God face to face. Still, atheists demand physical proof of God's existence, as if they could bring God down and make Him into their image. What kind of God would that be? He would be their equal and, thus, not God at all."

For atheists, it is not about demanding physical proof; it is about rejecting the probability that God exists. For agnostics, they are comfortable admitting that the existence of God is unknowable. Neither atheists nor agnostics wish to make God, if he exists, to be their equal-only to tip the balance of reason about his existence in is his favor.

Furthermore, and from a comparative perspective, atheists and agnostics wonder how people know their religion is the "right" religion. People from many different religions seem to be pretty certain that they have found the one and only true God. Certainly, the odds are that if I grow up in America, I will be a Christian; in Iran a Muslim.

Thomas insults atheists and agnostics when he reasons that they have no reason to engage in charity, "Why contribute to charity, or perform other good deeds?" He further reasons that only God can motivate the true purpose of charity, "Without a source to inspire charity, such acts are sentimental affectations, devoid of meaning and purpose."

To me, charity is inspired by the benefit it delivers. I could perhaps argue that when non-theists act kindly or charitably, it comes with genuineness and without the hope of eternal reward. In 2006, I was the president of a secular humanist group, which is comprised of mostly agnostics and atheists. Not only was this group highly educated and well read, they were among the nicest, kindest and most generous people I have worked with. They often donated anonymously-not seeking the recognition, in this life or the next.

Secular humanists believe that moral principles are tested by their consequences. In many religious moral perspectives-bad acts do not necessarily preclude eternal consideration; they can be redeemed through confession and forgiveness. However, it is rather unconvincing to suggest that only religion may define good and evil. Secular Humanists, although diverse, have a doctrine of their own entitled, "The Affirmations of Humanism." I doubt many people would take issue with more than a couple of these assertions-as kindness, consideration and responsibility are a vibrant theme.

Of course, there are non-theists who have acted immorally or unethically. But that list is certainly not limited to non-theists. For Thomas, his generalizations about non-theists, based on prejudice and obliviousness, fails miserably.

176. Nature answers own questions

One blistery day last winter, sometime in early January, I ran up to the store to get some things for dinner. When I returned, I came into the house to find my wife consumed in tears. Obviously I was concerned; now what happened I wondered?

Her voice was barely audible through her trembling, but she told me that the deer out by the feeder had a broken leg. She was crying because she thought the deer was in pain and suffering.

She was right; the deer's leg was severely broken at the knee. Watching her struggle to walk and eat brought tears to my eyes as well. It was pathetic-she had obviously been hit by a car, or brutally injured in some other way.

I had actually heard about this deer from my neighbor-he told me he saw her over the holidays. He said he called the authorities for help, as he also believed her to be suffering. I did not immediately tell my wife, as I knew it would break her heart. Part of me hoped something happened to her and the suffering ended--and my wife would be none the wiser.

But nothing happened to her and she often returned to our feeder. Usually by herself, but not always, she limped to our feeder for food. While her walk was hobbling, it is interesting that she could run on three legs when frightened.

We watched her when she came, week after week. Both inspiring and difficult, we wanted to make sure there was food out there when she came by. We get lots of deer, sometimes as many as twenty at a time. They tear up the far back yard, creating a muddy oasis, but we do not care--the grass, or something green, comes back each spring.

Last year was particularly awful-mud, rain, ice and snow. My wife pays the animals particular attention in the bad weather, "I feel so sorry for them," she repeats with each snow or ice storm. To ensure that our injured deer got food, we often made several trips to the feeders each evening. The other deer would come eat all the food, and nothing was worse than watching our injured deer stumble up the long path only to have her realize that there was no food for her. By then, it was too late--if we tried to take out food, she would scurry off on her three good legs.

However, the other deer eventually uncovered our prejudicial intentions-and used it against us. After they ate all the food, they would move into the brush--camouflaged from our vision-and wait for us to take out more food. We would no sooner be back in the house when they would return to eat again. Eventually, the deer grew arrogant, or tired, or smart, and would simply lay in the back yard, in the snow and mud, and wait for their feeders to be refilled. We care about them too, and their hunger, but nothing made us feel better than when our injured deer showed up with a full share of corn waiting for her.

Eventually spring came, then summer, and we did not see our injured deer anymore. While the deer come in the summer, it is not as frequent. This past summer, we often saw three young deer pillaging with four male turkeys in our backyard. We still feed them, but less frequently.

The absence of our injured deer led us to speculate what happened. Did she die, or was she taking a different path--as many of the other summer deer seem to do? One reflection, however, was consistent: Animals are amazingly tough, resilient and enduring. No matter the situation, they struggle to persevere. They do not complain--for who would listen? They live in a world that humans can no longer imagine--where survival is a daily endeavor. They exist cautiously, ready to run, or fight, at any moment. The search for food is exhausting, competitive and tenuous.

A couple of weeks ago, as the cold weather moved in, I believe I saw our injured deer--she graciously returned, wobbling to our feeders once again. This time the tears were that of joy. Her leg is still badly broken, irreparable, and still hard to watch, but perhaps a bit improved. She has a distinctive kneel when she eats. What a tough girl we thought!

As humans, it is difficult to know what an animal is thinking or feeling. Is she suffering, would she rather be humanly euthanized? It is not necessarily humane to put an animal down simply because it is difficult for us to watch-to remedy our suffering. Does she simply accept the broken leg and live her life the only way she now knows? Is she just happy to be alive? Only our injured deer knows the answers to these questions.

But ultimately, without human intervention, her fate is for nature to decide. The only thing we can do is buy more corn--hopefully a lot more corn.

175. Documentaries tell it like it is

One of my favorite things about the holiday season is the time to watch a few movies. My wife and I watch a wide variety of movies-save perhaps the action and science fiction films. However, my favorite genre is documentaries. Whether I agree or not with the premise of the writer/producer, I almost always admire the principle and passion. They offer a point of view, and unlike the thirty-second sound bites we see on the "news" channels, they make an effort to prove their case.

Documentaries are often controversial and rarely shown on network television-probably because they often offend network sponsors. Documentaries are "behind the scene" accounts of powerful institutions, systems and corporations. They inform and inspire.

Here are twelve of my favorite documentaries. They are not ranked in any particular order, but I did attempt to cover a spectrum of subjects. I would consider these to be "must see" documentaries, as they provide perspective and present injustice. I also added some others that I enjoyed that are similar to my favorite.


1. The Corporation. This classic documentary tackles the legal and historical aspect of American corporations. It presents ideas about corporate influence, constitutional standing and, of course, corporate power. Others: Roger and Me, Who Killed the Electric Car?

2. Food Inc. This film tackles the world of agribusiness. It is a behind the scene look at how food is produced, those that produce it and the money at stake. It looks at genetically modified food, the ownership of seeds, and the lengths that agribusiness will go in order to protect their financial interests. Finally it presents the deceit offered to the American public-from advertising to perception-of what food production is really like. The family farms featuring red barns, rolling hills of pasture, and happy cows are a thing of the past. Others: Processed People, King Corn, Got the Facts on Milk?

3. The God Who Wasn't There. A controversial look at the historic Jesus. The documentary makes the argument that the birth of Jesus is strikingly similar to other previous mythological figures, such as Dionysus. It also provides a historic timeline, which notes that the Gospels were written considerably after the purported life and death of Jesus. Others: Religulous


4. Sicko. Michael Moore's attack on the healthcare system was the vicious target of the healthcare industry. They were terrified that this movie would inspire the American public to rise up against the financial interest of the healthcare industry. If you do not know what a "dead peasant" insurance policy is, you should see this movie.


5. Forks over Knives. The latest in a series of documentaries to promote the healthy lifestyle of a whole food, plant-based diet. It received mainstream attention and has inspired many to drop meat and dairy from their diet-for not only personal health, but also to reduce the cost of healthcare. Others: Fat Sick and Nearly Dead, Eating, Supersize Me, Killer at Large: Why Obesity is America's Greatest Threat.


6. War on Democracy. This political film suggested that the United States has participated-either directly or indirectly-in 50 government overthrows, many of them democracies, since 1945. A ranting and defiant CIA leader claimed it was all in "national security interest." What he meant was the financial interest of the United States and its major corporations. Others: Capitalism: A Love Story, Darfur Now.


7. Fahrenheit 9/11. Another Michael Moore movie makes the list. This movie attacked President Bush, the Iraq War and the War on Terrorism. Although considered very partisan, it is the highest grossing documentary of all time. Not only was it the only movie I watched in a packed theater, it was also the only time I have ever seen a movie get a standing ovation. Others: Manufacturing Dissent: Noam Chomsky

8. Inconvenient Truth. Al Gore famously takes on climate change in this documentary. While I have criticized Gore for neglecting to mention the biggest cause of global warming-eating meat-Gore did bring a lot of information about climate change to the general public. Others: The 11th Hour, Mann v. Ford.


9. Waiting for Superman. This recent film tackles the American educational system. It looks at the power of the teacher's union and the difficulty of initiating change from a system's perspective. It notes the success of some charter schools and the desperation of some families, in economically depressed areas, to get their children admitted. It is enlightening, even if it ignores the failure of many charter schools. Others: Declining by Degrees: Higher Education at Risk, College Inc.


10. The End of Poverty? One of any number of socio-economic films that notes the disparity between the world's richest and those living in poverty. While people are often aware of these disparities, it is uncomfortable to watch just how poor some cultures are. Equally appalling is the political and corporate abuse of these cultures. For many, just clean drinking water is a luxury. Others: Maxed Out.


11. The Cove. A horrifying and tearful look at the Japanese hunting of Dolphins. It's difficult to even write a couple of sentences in review of this film without experiencing despair and anger. It represents the worst in human treatment toward these beautiful and intelligent animals. Others: Peaceable Kingdom, Fowl Play.


12. Inside Job. Academy Award winning film on the global economic crisis of 2008. It is as disgusting as it is infuriating. Largely non-partisan, it outlines the financial crisis in a way that is easy for everyone to understand. Maintaining a Wall Street v. Main Street perspective, it's a must see.

Each of these films, in their own way, challenges the status quo. The institutions they protest are large and powerful. They exist because either people do not know what it going on, do not care what is going on, or feel powerless to stop it.

In Food Inc., they remind viewers that people can make a difference-"we vote with our wallet." Whether it is the food industry, our education system or the current healthcare crisis, we can inspire change by refusing to support that which is driven by greed or corruption rather than principle. It is on us.