The Ethical Society of Boston

What This Cruel War Was Over
by Brian King

George Santayana famously said: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”  If my daughter’s classmates’ papers on the Civil War are any indication, look out! Now I don’t want to turn this into an “in my day” rant. I will say up front that absolutely the only thing I remember about my ninth grade American History class is that the students called Mr. Hill, the teacher, “Bunker Hill” and that he was rumored to have a metal plate in his bald head that made him short-tempered and that he may have killed a student from a previous grade but the school board had to cover it up.

I have no complaints about the amount of class work or the depth of the material. Each student is required to write an 8-12 page thesis paper on the Civil War. The teacher’s intention to read and grade those papers shows remarkable dedication, and his enthusiasm and love of history is obvious. What gives me pause is the content, particularly the question of why the war was fought. While understanding that in a war with millions of participants motivations are many and varied, today’s students seem to have been given a muddled and vague storyline. Textbook publishers may get a large share of the blame, but the problem goes beyond high school students. A recent Pew Research poll showed 48% of Americans said states rights were the main cause of the Civil War while only 38% said slavery.

Southern politicians championed states rights in the years before the war, but it is hard to ignore the fact that the right they were talking about was the right to own slaves. A recent book by Chandra Manning “What This Cruel War was Over” looks at letters and diaries written by Civil War soldiers and makes it clear that southern soldiers were primarily fighting to preserve slavery. Even non-slaveholding whites were motivated by the fear of what would happen to their homes and families if blacks became free.

The story of northern soldiers is a little more complicated. Abolitionists and northern blacks were always certain that the war was being fought over slavery, but the majority of Northerners went into the war to preserve the Union. Remember that at the time America was still an experiment. The flame of democracy had yet to catch on in the other major nations of the world. The concern was that if the country split over even a significant issue like slavery, the idea of democracy would be shown to have a fatal flaw. The words of Lincoln in the Gettysburg address reflect the resolve “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

During the course of the war, Union soldiers soon became exposed to the realities of southern slavery and their views changed. Soon they were writing home to say that they were fighting to bring an end to slavery and to avoid the need for another war. Those letters influenced their families and eventually northern politicians.

The cost of the war was devastating. One soldier died for every six slaves that were freed. Later historians tried to explain away this apparent disparity by finding larger issues such as economic, cultural, or even religious differences that could better explain the root of the war. Historian James Ford Rhodes attempted to quash such foolishness at the turn of the last century:
“The question may be isolated by the incontrovertible statement that if the Negro had never been brought to America, our Civil War could not have occurred.”

Other historians argued that slavery had become uneconomic and that the institution would have died on its own in a matter of 25 to 50 years. I think the hundred years between the end of the war and the civil rights act has shown this to be an overly optimistic. That still leaves unanswered the question of whether extending slavery for even that period of time would have been too large a cost to pay to avoid a war.

If you spend any time thinking about these issues, you can’t help but realize that race and racism play a huge role in how Americans have interpreted their history. I think history has a lot to teach us about the role racism has played in our society, but seeing that clearly, and helping others to see it, may be harder than we realize.

Reframing the Conversation on Race: An Issue of Ethics and Humanity
by Natalie Klavans

On Sunday, 1 May 2011, the Ethical Society presented a panel of community activists, each of whom presented their particular perspective of what it may take to change the social and political dynamics of race in our country. Jennifer Yanco has been teaching a course, “White People Challenging Racism,” in the Cambridge Center for Adult Education since 1999. She pointed out that the conventional way of viewing racism is as an Afro-American problem. Poor Afro-Americans have not been able to raise themselves out of poverty because of all of their disadvantages in terms of education, job opportunities and support for their advancement.

Her definition of racism is not based on what Afro-Americans lack, but on what the white society has and controls. Racism is based on a system of how the dominant white group controls the mechanisms for the distribution of society’s goods. This control effects the laws and their implementation; opportunities for education, employment, and housing. In order to seriously
address these issues people need to examine what constitutes “white privilege.” Most white Americans do not see themselves in terms of their advantages, which are derived from their race. Is it possible to re-distribute these advantages? Jennifer expressed her view that in order for change to take place white people needed to examine how “white privilege” affects all areas of our society. If our social system is ever to be based on equality of opportunity, the system needs to change. She concluded that effective change requires collective action by a wide variety of people.

Our second presenter, Eva Martin Blythe is the Executive Director of the YWCA in Cambridge. The purpose of her program is to empower women, which she feels has been successful, and to eliminate racism, which remains a challenge. She spoke of the great challenges faced by Afro-Americans. In order to succeed they had to work harder and be smarter than their white peers. They constantly needed to be aware of the threats in society that were directed against them, such as driving in an all white neighborhood.

She stated that what they needed was to be treated fairly and with respect. She touched upon the issue of reparations, which she concluded should include funding and endowments for black colleges and universities.

Paul Marcus of Community Change, an organization whose mission is to promote racial justice and equity by challenging systemic racism and acting as a catalyst for anti-racist learning and actions, also saw racism as a white problem. He asked the audience to think about their relationship with race. White people often define it in a relationship with “the other.” Race  shapes who we are and the lenses through which we see the world. Community Change focuses particularly on involving white people in understanding and confronting systemic racism and white privilege. Race is not biologically determined. There is not a genetic basis for categories that we have created. The category of race arose as a by-product of slavery.

To divide people by race led to creating a sense of superiority and inferiority which helped to justify the enslavement of Africans. Today white people have a disproportionate power to benefit from laws and regulations in many areas in society. Transforming society will require a large number of white people to recognize the injustice of the system and to be willing to give up some of their privileges and power.

Horace Smalls represented the Union of Minority Neighborhoods, an organization committed to confronting threats to civil liberties and human rights by working to ensure skilled, committed, grassroots leaders of color can effectively organize on issues of concern in their communities. Their overall goal is for full civic engagement of people of color. In his presentation, Horace emphasized the importance of empowering black people to speak for themselves about their issues of concern. This necessitates bringing all elements of the black community together and training people for leadership. People in the community have to learn how to talk to each other and how to build a base for community action.

The issues raised by the presenters were provocative for many of the participants in the audience. On the whole, they posed a new way to frame the dialogue on race, raising far more questions than answers.

by Andrea Perrault

The National Conference on Media Reform was held in Boston on April 7, 8, and 9 at the Seaport Hotel and World Trade Center. The event brought over 2,500 representatives of media outlets and general news junkies to our city for a three day marathon of panels, keynote presentations, and strategy sessions to address the significant need for more balanced media coverage of world events to support a more informed public. I attended portions of the event on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.

Conference sessions were organized by four strands: Policy and Politics, Social Justice and Movement Building, Journalism and Public Media, and Media Makers, Culture, and the Arts. My sessions choices fell in the Social Justice and Movement Building category: “Media and Corporate Power: Beating Back the K Street Juggernaut,” “On Wisconsin: Taking the Pulse of the Labor Beat,” “News for All: The Epic Story of Race and the American Media.” I also attended the opening Plenary to hear House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi call for more engaged and civil dialogue, as well as substantive media coverage to counter the voices of Tea Party and ultra conservatives that often dominate mainstream media.

Carole Simpson, formerly a national reporter and anchorperson shared stories from her career as a ground-breaking journalist (the first female, African-American to anchor a major network newscast). She documented the difficulties of breaking racial and gender barriers and her struggles to ensure that black communities were not portrayed in negative stereotypes. Juan Gonzalez of contributed accounts of racism in the news media and his attempts to counter them. Most enlightening to me (as I was most unaware of the information she shared) was the presentation of Native American Loris Ann Taylor of whose slide presentation highlighted the almost complete media denial of Indian American history and experience.

“Media and Corporate Power: Beating Back the K Street Juggernaut” focused on two issues: the recent FCC ruling against Net Neutrality, and the Supreme Court’s Citizens’ United decision. Speakers included Bob Edgar of , Jay Harris of We the People Project, Katrina van Heuvel of , and John Bonifaz of . Particularly compelling was John Bonifaz who presented the new initiative undertaken by his organization to build public support to fight the Citizens United decision which conferred citizenship rights to corporations. Given the fact that overwhelming numbers of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents believe that this should be reversed, he believes that this campaign can be effective. John has agreed to address ESB in the fall.

On Sunday morning, an important panel presentation focused on the labor movement after Wisconsin. In initial conference planning stages, the labor panel was expected to bring in fewer attendees, but after Wisconsin, conference organizers realized that this needed to have a more central focus, and the session was moved to the largest auditorium in the World Trade Center (over 300 people attended). Speakers addressed the phenomenon of Wisconsin and the current dilemmas in the labor movement that has lead to its diminished influence in the United States. While the numbers of union members have been significantly reduced, the civil action at the Wisconsin State House to oppose the Governor’s attack against public worker unions and their bargaining rights has given new life to union activism. Steve Early, Boston labor reporter from Labor Notes, was a panelist and agreed to be an ESB guest speaker (May 15th).

To view plenaries, panels, and sessions from this terrific conference, please go to . It may inspire you to attend their next event.

by Peter Denison

Humpty Dumpty famously said, “When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more, nor less.” When Alice objected he added, “The question is, which is to be master, that’s all.” Right wing ideologues have taken that lesson to heart with remarkable success. Here are some examples of their exploits.

SPECIAL INTERESTS:

This term used to refer to Wall Street investors and business groups like the National Association of Manufacturers. Liberals and populists would often campaign against these special interests, always composed of relatively small groups of people who had more power than should have been appropriate for their size, or, for that matter, for the amount of interest they showed for the common good. Ronald Reagan in a stroke of genius changed the definition. Suddenly the special interests became organized labor, the women’s movement, or the NAACP, which had been thought of as a civil rights organization dedicated to equality for all. Suddenly it was turned into just a pressure group supporting exclusively African-American interests. Civil rights movements for gays were also merely special interests. Now populists could be manipulated to forget about bankers and Wall Street tycoons, and turn their wrath on these groups which represented millions instead. More power to the Right.

REFORM:

I guess we have to credit George W. Bush for this change in a word meaning. Once reform meant to eliminate corruption from federal, state, or local governments by making structural changes. The Federal work force was put on civil service so that most jobs would not be subject to the spoils system. Later the Clayton Act of 1914 and the Wagner Act of 1935 helped labor  unions to have more bargaining power. There were reforms in voting by outlawing the poll tax, ending White primaries in the Southern States, and making registration much less cumbersome. Now what is called “reform” includes such acts as eliminating union bargaining rights, changing pension systems from defined benefits to defined contributions (and at the mercy of the stock exchange), raising the retirement age, or ending tenure which had been a protection for free speech. This type of “reform” should be spelled with a D, not only because it does deform our democratic system, but because the government entities that enacted them have failed in their duty to serve all the American people. All that said, using the word “reform” that way was a brilliant stroke for those who wanted to increase corporate domination.

CONSERVATIVE:

The change in meaning of this word is more complex. The word used to mean being suspicious of any change, and at least needing to be convinced the  change was a good idea. When dealing with changes in the status quo this attitude would benefit the wealthy classes as they could hang on to their privileges. However, workers who resisted technological changes as threatening their jobs could also be called conservatives. Aside from politics and the economy, however, the word had no class connotations. Conservative medical treatment means avoiding invasive surgery except when deemed absolutely necessary to help the patient as much as possible. Thus we employ the term “radical mastectomy” for the most comprehensive surgery. At that time no one was ever accused of not being a “true  conservative”. Now the situation is different. If you want to be known as a “true Conservative” (Notice that the word is capitalized now.), there are certain litmus tests of a truly Orthodox Conservative. One must oppose abortion, gay rights, higher taxes, deficits (but only when we have a Democratic president), and believe that all the ills of our nation are due to labor unions, and incompetent government workers. (Apparently there is no other kind except probably in our armed forces.) It is still allowable for a Conservative to oppose a war either if no oil is involved, or if it is initiated by a Democratic president. One must give allegiance to nuclear power and “clean” coal and be very skeptical of wind power especially if it is near the mansions of the wealthy. When a truly Conservative Republican is president we must “think outside the box,” and be willing to make radical changes that will increase the power and wealth of the upper classes. Finally the true Conservative must support encroachments on the separation of church and state even if his personal philosophy is closer to Ayn Rand.

This change in meaning is not as inconsistent as one might think. Resistance to change once preserved the interests of the wealthy. Now radical change such as destroying the Roosevelt New Deal serves the same goal. Yet this is hardly conservatism as we knew it. Would reactionary be a better term? Very likely. How about fascist? Not yet, but maybe later.

May Dates
by Marvin Miller

Some dates in May worth remembering:

May 1, 1886:
When some labor leaders in Chicago called for a demonstration in support of their demand for the eight-hour work day. May 1 is celebrated as Labor Day almost everywhere in the world except in the country where it originated.

May 4, 1970:
The day on which four students at Kent State University, Ohio, were shot and killed by the Ohio National Guard at a demonstration against the Vietnam war.

May 5, 1862:
Commemorated by Mexicans and Mexican-Americans as the day of the battle of Puebla, won by Mexican forces against a French army sent by Napoleon III to try to make Mexico a French colony.

May 30 1937:
When ten people were killed and thirty wounded, nine permanently disabled, by Chicago police. The victims were strikers at the Republic steel Co., who were seeking a union contract, and members of their families.

Mothers’ Day:
The original idea for a Mothers’ Day came from the poet Julia Ward Howe. I found an article about her and Mothers’ Day by Jone Johnson Lewis, the Leader of the . Howe’s call for Mothers’ Day was not for greeting cards, flowers, and restaurant dinners, but for a day when mothers in all countries would come together to call for an end to all wars. Here is her proclamation:
Arise then women of this day!
Arise all women who have hearts,
Whether your baptism be of water or of tears.
Say firmly:
“We will not have questions answered by irrelevant agencies.
Our husbands will not come to us reeking with carnage
For caresses and applause.
Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn
All that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy, and patience.
We the women of one country
Will be too tender of those of another country
To allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs.”
From the bosom of a devastated Earth a voice goes up with our own.
It says “Disarm! Disarm! The sword of murder is not the balance of justice.”
Blood does not wipe out dishonor nor violence indicate possession.
As men have often forsaken the plough and the anvil
At the summons of war,
Let women now leave all that may be left of home
For a great and earnest day of counsel.
Let them meet first, as women, to bewail and commemorate the dead.
Let them solemnly take counsel with each other as to the means
Whereby the great human family can live in peace,
Each bearing after his own time the sacred impress, not of Caesar, but of God.
In the name of womanhood and humanity I earnestly ask
That a general congress of women without limit of nationality
May be appointed and held at some place deemed most convenient
And the earliest period consistent with its objects
To promote the alliance of the different nationalities,
The amicable settlement of international questions,
The great and general interest of peace.

by Peter Denison

Many writers have claimed that there is really no conflict between science and religion. In a sense they are correct: certainly humanistic religions, small in size as they are, have no conflict with science. Nor is religion the only ideology which conflicts with certain branches of science. The Marxist concept of the overwhelming influence of environment as opposed to heredity led to the Soviet embrace of Lysenko’s basically Lamarckian theory with disastrous effects on their agriculture. When E. O. Wilson developed sociobiology, a radical feminist was sufficiently enraged to march up to the speaker’s platform and pour water over his head.

Marxism is not the only economic ideology that has tried to deny certain findings. Many conservatives believe strongly in our so-called free market global economy which will work well with little or no government supervision. To them free enterprise becomes a form of fundamentalism. They regard warnings of global warming and other environmental angers as either untrue or at least greatly exaggerated, and thus they strongly resist any collective attempts to deal with these problems. Some even call the warnings a total fraud. Eventually scientific evidence will win out, but  victory in this case may come too late, as it may come after the “tipping point” has passed and warming will get out of control. Thus free enterprise fundamentalism is probably the most dangerous form of fundamentalism currently on this planet.

There seems to be a built in fear and distrust of science. The world is changing so fast that many people feel unsettled. Many scientific conclusions or facts can be understood only if
one has some basic understanding of statistics and their proper use. Under these circumstances many people are prone to believe in some “scientific establishment” that is trying to control our lives and will not listen to us. The “establishment” refused to pay attention to the benefits of laetrile in combating cancer. Later people blamed dentists for using amalgam fillings which were supposedly causing all kinds of ills. Recently, based on one fraudulent study, people were induced to believe that vaccinations caused autism. There have even been some successful lawsuits by parents who blamed their child’s autism on vaccination. Even definitive exposure of the fraud has not completely  succeeded in ending this suspicion. Some supposedly intelligent pundits have written as if the question was still open. Perhaps keeping people distrustful of science seems like a good idea to them.

Humanists should work to improve the way science is taught in our schools. Children don’t have to memorize a lot of facts such as the names of different dinosaurs. What they need to learn is about the methods used by science. These methods can begin to be taught even in the elementary grades. It is not too hard to devise an experiment, ask the children how they think it will turn out, and let them find out that it often turns out differently. There will be resistance to an approach like this. Teaching children scientific skepticism can spill over into skepticism about other things too, even religion. Then also teachers may feel more comfortable, especially in this present atmosphere, if they can teach things which can be easily tested by an “objective” multiple-choice test. So we do have our work cut out for us.

by Natalie Klavans

As we attract new members and new participants to our Sunday Platforms I thought that this might be an appropriate time to discuss some of our core values and  beliefs. I don’t believe that anyone does it better than Edward L. Ericson, former leader of the Ethical Societies in Washington, D.C. and New York City. He also held such positions as Humanist Minister in the Unitarian Universalist church, President of the American Ethical Union and a member of the American Humanist Association. In addition, he is the author of a variety of books on Humanism.

Edward Ericson’s Views on Ethical Humanism

Ethical Humanism is primarily an attitude about human beings, their worth, and the significance of their lives. It is concerned with the nature and quality of living, the character and creativity of our relationships. Because of this concern, humanism spontaneously flowers into a spiritual movement in its own right. Whether one professes it formally as a new conception of religion, without theology or scripture, or considers it simply as a personal approach to  living, humanism has become a powerful moral faith. The convinced ethical humanist can no more be indifferent to his or her moral vision than a devout Catholic or a dedicated Hindu can be indifferent to theirs. Such is the nature of a moral faith that it demands our best. It claims the very center of our lives. Or it is nothing.

The humanist believes:

• with Bertrand Russell that the good life is inspired by love and guided by knowledge; that the great use of a life is to spend it for something that outlasts it;
• with Thoreau that one is rich whose needs are few;
• with the author of Leviticus that you shall not seek vengeance or bear a grudge against your neighbor, but that you shall love your neighbor as yourself,
• with Benjamin Franklin that where liberty is — there is my country;
• with Thomas Paine that the world is my country and to do good is my religion.

The humanist affirms:

• with the Moslem that those are blessed whose wealth is the joy of giving and who, though deprived of goods are not lacking in uprightness;
• with the Jew to guard above all things your inner self, for so you live and prosper,
• with the Christian that it is more blessed to give than to receive,
• with the Buddhist that hatred is not diminished by hatred, but hatred is diminished by love.
• with Gandhi that if we have no love for our neighbor, no change however revolutionary can do us any good;
• and again with Gandhi that in violence, truth is the greatest sufferer.

I admire Ericson because his vision is inclusive and he recognizes that no one group has the monopoly on ethics and morals. The more we know the greater our choices and the freer we can be. But, as we all recognize, freedom has an enormous price. It is called personal responsibility.

Collapse, Crisis, and Change in the U.S. Economy (Part IV)

John Miller, Economics Professor at Wheaton College and Member of the Dollars and Sense Collective addressed the Society on 14 November 2010. His address came from Collapse, Crisis, Change: Inequality, Power, and Ideology in the U.S. Economy, a book that he has just finished writing with Arthur MacEwan, a founder of Dollars & Sense and Professor of Economics at the University of Massachusetts, Boston. It will be published by May 2011. Below is Part VI in a four-part series of his remarks that described how extreme inequality and free-market ideology brought about the continuing crisis of the U.S. and global economies and how reducing inequality and combating free-market ideology would help to get the economy moving in a positive direction.

PART IV – Fixing Inequality and Elite Power and
Countering Free Market Ideology Is the Cure

The economic crisis generated significant changes in government policy. Government actions — the bailout of the banks, the economic stimulus package, and the Dodd-Frank Bill, enacted to regulate the financial industry — all involved a high degree of direct involvement in economic affairs, dropping even the façade of “leaving things to the market.” They were inadequate responses to the crisis, but they do suggest that the economic crisis of recent years has
created opportunities for extensive — perhaps more meaningful — change.

The Economic Stimulus Package

Surely the government could have done and still could do much more to stimulate demand. This is not the time to be chopping down government, but to be expanding government spending.

By our estimation, the 2009 economic stimulus package provided about half the boost needed to jump-start the economy. The $787 billion stimulus package also relied too heavily on tax reductions, which are often saved instead of spent. If more of the package had been directed to state and local governments and to direct aid for the most vulnerable,
its effect could have been larger and more rapidly achieved.

The Dodd-Frank bill enacted over the summer promised to institute new regulations that would prevent future crises in financial institutions. The Dodd-Frank bill is another small but nonetheless real change in the direction of  government regulatory policy. But while the legislation contains some useful gains, Dodd-Frank is an inadequate response to the crisis.

The most clearly positive feature of Dodd-Frank is its establishment of a consumer protection agency that may be able to restrict some of the particular abuses of borrowers that became so common in the decades leading up to and contributing to the crisis.

In other areas, however, the new legislation is either weak or virtually non-existent. The bill does set up a procedure for dealing with large financial firms that become insolvent (resolution authority) and creates a high level commission to monitor financial risk, but the effectiveness of these provisions of the bill is open to question. There are some new restraints on financial institutions trading in high-risk “derivatives.” These restraints, however, are not likely to alter substantially the operations of those institutions or to prevent the sorts of risky activities that led to the crisis. In addition, the Bill did nothing to:

• Limit the size of financial institutions — dealing with the too-big-to-fail problem.
• Change the practices of the rating agencies.
• Change the salary and bonus practices in financial firms.

But More Fundamental Changes are Possible that could go a long way toward converting the vicious cycle of  inequality, elite power, and free-market ideology into a virtuous cycle. We focus on two effective responses to the crisis:

1. Expanding social programs, especially universal social programs
2. Redeveloping the labor movement

Universal social programs — best exemplified by universal availability of child care (daycare) or a universal health care program (what has come to be called “Medicare for all” or a “single payer” system) — are good things in themselves. But these programs can also alter the structures of inequality, power and ideology that brought on the crisis. For example, providing everyone with health care through a public program has a direct and profound impact on the distribution of income by directly assuring people of this real benefit and by indirectly protecting people against the huge income losses that can accompany serious illness. Also, such a universal program tends to redistribute power in society because it provides people with options that would otherwise be lacking — for example, the option of switching jobs  without risking the loss of health care. Furthermore, a universal health program that operates largely outside of the market helps to develop the acceptance of solving problems through shared responsibility rather than through “ability to pay.”

Revitalizing the Labor Movement

Likewise, labor unions have the potential of making a major contribution to a favorable shift in income distribution, power, and ideology. The labor movement has played a major role in providing working people with direct income improvements, better social programs, and greater political power. Labor unions have also contributed to an ideology that favors collective social action, rather than a simplistic reliance on the market, as a means of social progress.  Therefore, restoring the role of labor unions is important in counteracting the forces that brought on the crisis and an important element in creating a stable and sustainable
economy.

Exploring the Impacts of, and Insights into, Women’s Liberation in America Over the Last 50 Years

by Peter Ames

My motivation in choosing this topic is threefold. First, I am interested in topics that are affecting human life and have not gotten much attention, and I think women’s liberation has been one of the biggest influences on human life in our country in my lifetime, and there are not many publications focused on it. Secondly, I am the only child of a single mother who was an immigrant, got three graduate degree on both sides of the ocean, and worked full-time till she was 76 at the NY Public Library, Metropolitan Museum, American Academy of Science, United Nations, and Federal Reserve Bank in New York, so I was interested in women’s liberation early and saw it in action in its early years. Lastly, I have no sisters or daughters, so I feel I need to make an extra effort to understand the female world.

My sources include The Ladies of Seneca Falls: The Birth of the Woman’s Rights Movement, 1987, by Miriam Gurko, Male and Female, 1948, by Margaret Mead: The Second Sex, 1952, by Simone de Beauvoir; and Women and Madness, 1972, 1989, by Phyllis Chesler. Also helpful were an August, 2010 issue of the Atlantic Monthly with a cover story “The End of Men;” the cover story of an October, 2009 issue of Time Magazine called “The State of the American Woman,” and a November, 2010 issue of Time with the cover story “Who Needs Marriage?” Other sources include conversations with around a hundred women on the topic, and random comments and facts from a variety of publications. I tried to break the study into categories like, Economy, Careers, Family Life, Social Mores/Trends, but found that many of the facts and observations affect more than one category, so I settled for a long list of interesting facts and observations.

• Attire is becoming more gender neutral. Women wear skirts and dresses much less, and boots and cowboy boots much more.
• Women get 60% of all college degrees and are the majority gender in law, medicine and three other graduate school fields. They are also the majority in the workforce.
• Because so many women are so busy, there
• has been a loss of community “glue.”
• More women serve in the armed forces.
• Physical evolution has not kept up with social evolution. Due to a Title 9 law, women got much more access to athletic activities in the 1970s, and a higher percentage of women are having knee/hip replacements etc.
• Women are contributing much more to philanthropy. A recent Boston Foundation study reported that the number of nonprofits in Massachusetts doubled in the last 30 years, and 70% were started by women.
• There is substantial agreement that chivalry has declined.
• In the economy, there has been a huge influx of female workers, so salary growth has slowed. One parent working used to be enough; does not seem to be now.
• Increase in the percentage of lesbians.
• Later births: in 2000, 9% of births were to women over 35. In 2010, 14% were to women over 35.
• More single mothers: in 1959, 5% of babies were born to an unmarried mother; in 2009, it was 41%.
• There has also been a significant increase in the percentage of women in their 30s who are single. Between 1990 and 2008, the percentage of births to women over 35 rose 64%.

There has been a continuous increase over the last two decades of the percentage of people institutionalized for depression who are women, and there has been a continuous increase in the number of attempted suicides.

After two decades of growth in brides choosing to keep their maiden names, there is now a growth in those choosing to adopt their husbands’ names.

Clearly women’s liberation does not account for all of the above trends/changes, and is not even the key factor in some, but it certainly is a factor in all. I took an informal poll of around 100 women and found that 50-60% wanted to keep “provide/protect” as part of their expectations of a husband, 60-70% wanted to see chivalry sustained, and 90-95% agreed with the customized proverb: “Power Corrupts, and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, Regardless of Gender.” The most touching moments for me were the 50+ times the response to my last question promptly was “Yes, Peter, we are all humans.” This is a lifelong learning curve, so I would be grateful for any feedback.

Taxes

by Marvin Miller

We think more about taxes in April than in other months.

Leona Helmsley, the hotel owner, was quoted as saying something like “Only little people pay taxes.” There’s a lot of truth in that. Investor Warren Buffett said his tax rate is lower than his secretary’s. That’s because the monumental U.S. tax code consists mostly of loopholes for various kinds of investors.

Last December the President said that he, and by implication the country, was being held hostage by the minority in the Senate. The demand of the minority concerned taxes. They wanted the tax cut, enacted years earlier, with an expiration date of 2010 to make the deficit forecast smaller (dishonestly, because Congress knew when enacting it that when the expiration date approached the pressure to extend the cut would be irresistible), to be extended not only for the 98% of the people who need the money, but also for the top 2% who don’t. The minority got their way. The legislation that passed kept the tax cut for the top 2%. It also increased taxes for some people at the low end of the income distribution by eliminating the “Making Work Pay” credit. Meanwhile the Medicare tax (“premium”) for people on Medicare who don’t get their Medicare tax withheld from Social Security checks went up from $110.50 to $115.40 per month. The legislation also reduced the estate tax rate, allowing vast fortunes to build up over generations.

Here’s a quote from the book Family of Secrets, a book about the Bush family which shows some of the connections between business, politics, the CIA, and educational institutions:

According to the in-house history of Dresser (a company in which George H. W. Bush’s father Senator Prescott Bush was involved–MM) one of the company’s bolder moves was a then-innovative tax strategy that involved a separate company in the tiny European principality of Liechtenstein. “A considerable (benefit) was the fact that no American taxes had to be paid on international earnings until the money was returned to the United States.” That is, if the money was ever returned to the United States.

Currently capital gains, money that people get by buying something and selling it later for more than they paid for it, are taxed at a lower rate than wages, money that people get in exchange for work that they do. The ethics of such a difference deserves critical consideration, though it doesn’t get it. In addition, managers of hedge funds, enterprises whose business is gambling on various kinds of financial paper, benefit from a special rule which taxes their income at the lower capital gains rate rather than as ordinary income like wages and Social Security benefits.

The 2010 Form 1040 instruction book tells us that 4% of the Federal government’s income comes from the corporation tax. In 2000 it was 10%, and it was still more in earlier years. Now the President wants to reduce the corparate tax rate, in exchange for elimination of some loopholes. If history predicts the future, there will be a “compromise” which lowers the corporate tax rate and leaves the loopholes present, or removes some while others are enacted.

Like all legislation, tax laws are made by legislators. It’s no surprise that they favor those who finance elections. The tax structure raises questions about how democratic our supposed democracy is.

Read the rest of this entry »