Nation needs call to service, not shopping

In last Sunday's Sun Chronicle (Nov. 23), Ned Bristol wrote that "the sooner people go shopping the sooner the world will pull out of the recession." He reminded us that President Bush has urged us to keep shopping in the past and suggested that we would soon be hearing the same message from President-elect Obama.

Well, Obama has been very visible in the last week. He's done three press conferences. He appeared on 60 Minutes. He did an interview with Barbara Walters. He did a radio address to the nation that was also carried on YouTube. I haven't heard him bring up shopping. What I have heard him say is that "the renewal of our economy won't come from policies and plans alone – it will take the hard work, innovation, service, and strength of the American people." He praised those who give of their time and resources to aid their communities and said that is the spirit that will get us through this crisis.

In his comments, Obama recognized a huge and productive part of our economy that is usually ignored by policy makers: the work we do for free. Unpaid labor is not included in the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) which is used to measure the nation's economic well-being. Some of the largest categories of unpaid labor are household work, care of children, and volunteer work done through churches, service organizations, and other non-profits. It's important to consider how citizens can work to help each other get through hard times without any money changing hands, and I'm glad this is a part of Obama's thinking.

Bristol is correct in pointing out that shopping is a big part of our economy. But, in my opinion, the country has become too dependent for its economic vitality on retail consumption, as more productive activities like research, manufacturing, and investments in public infrastructure (like roads and bridges) have declined. For many of us, economic prosperity has already resulted in more material possessions than we really need, and more shopping is not the answer. For others, easy credit has enticed them to shop beyond their ability to pay. More shopping is not the answer for them, either. For some, the urge to shop verges on an addiction, encouraged by stores which have morphed into Disney-like entertainment centers.

In this crisis, many of us want and need to hear a call to service and are ready to make some sacrifices for the greater good. We have heard that call from leaders in the past, such as Lincoln, FDR, and Kennedy, and that is what we want to hear from our leaders now. A call for indiscriminate shopping does not fill that expectation. While more shopping might provide a temporary shot in the arm to retailers, it is not a prescription for the long-term health of our economy.

We will get through this crisis by managing our personal finances prudently, using our labor (whether paid or unpaid) in beneficial ways, and by using our resources more efficiently.

In the Barbara Walters interview, Obama was asked "Are there sacrifices that Americans as individuals can do?" Obama seized this opportunity to begin to challenge us, saying that "each of us have a role to play, in not being wasteful when it comes to energy." He went on to name specific things that citizens could do in this area. I am hopeful that the Obama administration will continue to challenge us to re-tune our economic thinking as individuals and as a nation.

--Published in the Attleboro Sun Chronicle, 6 December 2008

Climate thinking change overdue for United States

US EPA Administrator William D. Ruckelshaus wrote in a 1984 report on climate change and sea level rise that "Our system of government has traditionally been biased toward a sort of institutional inertia, which eventually is broken by development of a massive consensus that sweeps through remaining barriers and ensures that the policies finally adopted will have lasting constituencies."

For those of us who have been concerned for years about the threat of climate change, the lack of interest in this problem among the electorate, and the ability of politicians to use diversionary tactics to avoid the issue, have been agonizing. Over the past year, though, the weight of scientific evidence that global warming is real, and that it is caused chiefly by human activity, has become overwhelming. The issue has finally captured the attention of the public, forcing a stubborn U.S. administration to at least acknowledge the threat. The tide has turned in Australia, as their newly-elected president moves to endorse the Kyoto Treaty, but the U.S. under George Bush continues to claim that our economy cannot afford to address global warming, despite the fact that we are the most prosperous nation ever to exist on the face of the Earth.

Ever since the oil shortage of 1973, we as a nation have sat passively by, letting the cost of energy rise and fall (mostly rise) according to the laws of supply and demand--laws which laissez-faire economists hold sacred. The main beneficiaries of this inertia have been the oil industry and the nations from which we buy our oil. Over the past three decades, we have been told that efforts to curb gasoline consumption through a carbon tax--raising gasoline $1 or $2 per gallon--would wreck our economy. Proponents of a carbon tax, myself included, pointed out that the revenue could have been used to develop renewable energy sources, improve energy efficiency, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, improve air quality, and lower the income tax.

Well, now we're paying $3 per gallon, and that extra revenue is pouring into oil-rich Saudi Arabia and other Middle East oil-producing countries. Our dependence on Middle East oil hurts U.S. interests in many ways. First, it has tilted our foreign policy toward costly military intervention in the area; second, our oil dollars flow mainly into the pockets of the wealthy, stirring unrest among the poor; and, third, as wealthy Arabs spend their dollars on Western products and services, they are seen as abandoning traditional religious values, further increasing tensions between rich and poor, and fueling support for anti-American terrorism. Global warming or not, a change in U.S. energy policy is long overdue.

For years, U.S. participation in the Kyoto Treaty was blocked by opponents who wanted more evidence that the Earth was warming and humans were to blame. A tiny, but vocal minority, still refuses to face the facts.

Anyone involved in business knows that decisions are often made with imperfect knowledge--in a process called risk assessment. The best course of action is chosen after weighing the costs and benefits of the available options. In the GOP Presidential debate in Iowa on December 12, John McCain wisely provided us with his risk assessment on global warming: "I know that climate change is real," he said, "but let me put it to you this way. Suppose that climate change is not real and all we do is adopt green technologies, which our economy and our technology is perfectly capable of. Then all we've done is given our kids a cleaner world." In other words, the risk of action is low, the risk of inaction or delay is great.

The failure of our government to take meaningful steps to combat global warming is frustrating, but there is reason to hope that the massive consensus spoken of by William Ruckelhaus 23 years ago is finally emerging. Let's hope it's not too late.

--Published in the Attleboro Sun Chronicle, 19 December 2007

Income gap a threat to the American Dream

The American Dream is a story we tell ourselves, how anyone--with determination and hard work--can rise from humble circumstances to achieve material success. It's a powerful story that has been repeated in many forms. In the stories of the countless pioneers, many of them immigrants, who settled the American West. In Horatio Alger's 19th century tale of Ragged Dick, a honest youth who rises out of poverty by seizing every opportunity for advancement. And in the stories of the many famous inventors and entrepreneurs--Thomas Edison, Sam Walton, and Bill Gates, to name a few--who rose to the top in an economic system that rewards enterprise and innovation.

It was a fortuitous moment in 1776 when the founding fathers, influenced by the European Enlightenment, planted the seeds of democracy and economic freedom on our shores. The abundant natural resources of the North American continent provided a fertile ground for economic growth and prosperity. The vast frontier bred a spirit of self-reliance that still endures. Capitalism flourished here like nowhere else on earth, making the American Dream possible.

But there is another side to the story. The success of the American way of life is not just due to our market economy. The free market forces of capitalism have been balanced by the prudent intervention of government to prevent wealth from being too concentrated at the top of the economic ladder. Inheritance taxes were first proposed by Republican President Theodore Roosevelt and later enacted into law. The emergence of labor unions in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries helped to expand the middle class, creating an achievable American Dream for millions.

How is the American Dream faring today? It depends on where you look. Our country is still seen as the land of opportunity by millions of people around the world who are living in extreme poverty and seeking a better life. Some of them find their way here, legally or illegally, and take jobs at the bottom of the economic ladder. Perhaps these immigrants are the current embodiment of the American Dream.

At the middle rung of the economic ladder is the American middle class, which has been in economic stagnation for decades. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the median income for male workers in the U.S. after adjusting for inflation only rose from $28,892 in 1973 to $29,931 in 2003. Middle class families have made economic gains only because two adults are working now, where only one might have been working in the past.

At the top of the economic ladder are the 400 richest Americans in the annual tally conducted by Forbes magazine. This year, for the first time, you had to be a billionaire to make the list. Thirty years ago the top 100 CEOs in America were paid salaries averaging $1.3 million, or 39 times the pay of the average worker. Today they are paid $37.5 million, over 1,000 times the pay of the average worker.

The economic gap between rich and poor in America is growing ever wider. In addition, a study by sociologist Earl Wysong at Indiana University suggests that upward mobility isn't what it used to be. In other words, it's getting harder to move up the economic ladder to a position above the one you were born into. This is an indication that the American Dream--our national story--is in trouble.

Stories are important. They help to define cultural values and pass them on from one generation to the next. Implicit in the American Dream are the values of honesty, self-reliance, and hard work that are part of the American character. Let's not let go of the dream. But let's fix those deficiencies in our economic system that are undermining that dream, by finding ways to redistribute some of our country's wealth, so that those who do an honest day's work will be paid a decent wage.

--Published in the Attleboro Sun Chronicle, 8 October 2006

Dr. Bragg and the Categorical Imperative

With the death this past summer of Dr. Ernest Bragg, Attleboro lost an exemplary humanitarian. Dr. Bragg was both driving force and benefactor in the founding of Beta Community Services, a local organization that provides support for individuals with disabilities. This and other good works were manifestations of a life spent observing human behavior, agonizing over the misfortunes that befall us, and searching for ways to address the root causes of those misfortunes.

In his search for answers, Dr. Bragg studied many religious and philosophical texts, and he arrived at a personal code of ethics which consisted of five principles:

• The Golden Rule as taught by all world religions
• "Moderation in All Things" as taught by Aristotle
• The Categorical Imperative as formulated by philosopher Immanuel Kant
• Reverence for life as taught by Albert Schweitzer
• Nonviolence as taught by Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and others

"Fine," you might say, "I'm familiar with most of those principles, but what the heck is the Categorical Imperative?" I will attempt to answer that question, but only because I had the privilege of learning about it from Dr. Bragg himself.

Before deciding on a course of action, ask yourself, "Would I like everyone to behave as I do?" If you can say "Yes," then your action is ethical, according to the Categorical Imperative. If "No," then it's not.

If, for instance, I was tempted to tear a page out of a library book, I would only have to ask myself "What if everybody did that?" to realize the ethical choice. The same rule would apply if I was considering leaving a bag of trash on the side of the road.

The Categorical Imperative might be summed up in the expression, "What goes around, comes around." Kant's philosophy suggests that the wellbeing of society is something that we are all responsible for. Dr. Bragg took this responsibility seriously. He not only tried to do the right thing, he also tried to repair the damage done when his fellow humans acted irresponsibly. When he and his wife Harriet took their daily walk, they collected litter left by others.

The Categorical Imperative can serve as a guide, not only to ethical personal behavior, but also to an ethical standard of behavior for members of the community of nations. For decades our country has been emitting more than its share of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Although we have less than 5% of the Earth's population, we account for 26% of global energy use and 24% of carbon dioxide emissions. Yet, we have refused to join with other nations to acknowledge the threat of global warming, sign the Kyoto Treaty, and begin to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases.

We must ask "What if every country behaved as we do?" For example, what if China expanded its economy to resemble ours? Earth Policy Institute founder Lester Brown warns that the Chinese standard of living could catch up with ours in about 25 years. According to Brown, "If oil consumption per person reaches the U.S. level by 2031, China will use 99 million barrels of oil a day. The world is currently producing 84 million barrels a day and may never produce much more... Or consider cars. If China one day should have three cars for every four people, as the United States now does, its fleet would total 1.1 billion vehicles, well beyond the current world fleet of 800 million."

I think the most important export of the United States is the example we set. For decades we have dangled our high-consumption model of prosperity like a carrot before the rest of the world. Some call it the American Dream. Now China, India, and other developing nations seem poised to copy our example, even though it is unsustainable. What goes around, comes around. It's time to re-think the American Dream before it turns into a global nightmare. I'm sure Dr. Bragg would agree. The first time I saw a hybrid, he was behind the wheel.

--Published in the Attleboro Sun Chronicle, 21 September 2006

Plant seeds of sustainability

My home is located on a small shaded lot, so I'm fortunate to be able to grow vegetables in the sunny Attleboro Community Garden on Hayward Street. The return on investment for my hours of labor is not great, but, like my father and grandfather before me, I get a sense of satisfaction from coaxing edible food from the Earth.

But gardening for me is not just a pleasurable pasttime. I'm also driven by a sense of insecurity. I fear the day when energy prices rise to the point where it is no longer economical to refrigerate and ship fresh food over great distances. If that day comes, I hope that local farmland will not have entirely disappeared, although it is shrinking fast as a result of distant market forces that seem beyond our control.

If we are ever forced by rising energy prices or other calamity to rely on local food production, it won't just be a matter of restoring land to agricultural use. We'll also need the seeds of heirloom crops traditionally grown here. And we'll need the knowledge of those who have traditionally farmed here.

The term "sustainability" recently entered our vocabulary in a big way. Corporate executives have been quick to latch on to the term and dilute its meaning, using it as a synonym for "profitability." What sustainability really means is living in harmony with the Earth. Our own communities are a good place to start practicing sustainability, and growing food locally is something that we can all support in one way or another.

If you are interested in gardening yourself, sign up early next year for a plot at the Attleboro Community Garden. This year's plots are all taken.

Another way to support local food production is to join a CSA, which stands for community-supported agriculture. A CSA is a cooperative organization in which members share the costs of paying a farmer to grow food for an entire five-month growing season. During that time you are entitled to pick up your share of the harvest on a weekly basis.

A CSA is a wonderful new kind of economic institution that brings people together in the pursuit of healthy diets and a healthy planet. There are three CSAs in the area: two with pick-up locations in Providence and one with a pick-up location in Plainville. All three are fully-subscribed for this season. Again, my advice is to sign up early for next year.

Yet another option is to take advantage of local farmers markets. The one in downtown Attleboro will begin on Saturday, July 15, from 8:00 am to noon, and it will continue each Saturday through October. Of course, it also wouldn't hurt to let your local supermarket know that you would like to see it offering locally grown food.

Buying locally grown food may seem like an inconsequential act, but it is a positive act, and there is strength in numbers. It also sets off a chain reaction of other beneficial effects. It puts you in touch with the place where you live and its seasonal variations. It puts fresh, tasty food on your table. It supports the local economy. It helps to protect open space. It requires less energy (supermarket produce travels an average of 1500 miles to get to your table.) It helps maintain the genetic diversity of local heirloom crop varieties. And it's a good insurance policy in an uncertain world.

Consuming locally grown food is on my top ten list of Things You Can Do to Save the Planet. As one slogan puts it, "Vote with your fork."

Links:

• Attleboro Community Garden


• Heirloom Harvest CSA


• Ledge Ends Produce CSA


• Urban Edge Farm CSA


• Farmers Markets in the Attleboro Area


• Southeastern Massachusetts Buy Local Campaign


• Massachusetts Grown Farm Products


• Farm Fresh Rhode Island


• Local Harvest


• Community Supported Agriculture


• 10 Reasons to Eat Local

--Published in the Attleboro Sun Chronicle, 6 July 2006

Earning the name of hero

Letters published recently in this newspaper differed over the use of the word "hero." Apparently, the word means different things to different people. Perhaps we need different words for different degrees of heroism. But we only have the one word, and we sometimes bestow the accolade of heroism on those who don't really deserve it.

The ancient Greeks worshipped an assortment of heroes who possessed superhuman powers, much like today's pantheon of comic book superheroes. Greek heroes starred in myths of epic proportions, told in story and verse, that stirred the imaginations of mere mortals. In a similar vein, we are captivated by the entertainers, athletic champions, and other assorted celebrities who animate our popular culture. Well, they may be talented, they may be strong, their exploits may be entertaining...but they aren't hero material in my opinion.

If I could have my way, I would reserve the word hero for someone who risks life or limb in service of a humane purpose or principle. Wars inevitably produce heroes. So do disasters like Katrina. Our firefighters and police officers often perform heroic acts--putting themselves in harm's way to rescue us from danger and protect us from criminal threats.

Few set out to become heroes. But when circumstances call for heroic action, there are those who step forward. Their courage earns our admiration.

And let's not overlook the history of nonviolent conflict, which has also produced heroes. In 1930, followers of Mohandas Gandhi, in a show of civil disobedience, marched on the Dharasana salt works in protest of British rule--as exemplified by an unfair salt tax. The unarmed marchers were brutally clubbed by police in a scene that drew worldwide attention and ultimately led to Indian independence. In 1957, nine teenagers in Little Rock, Arkansas, braved taunts and death threats to become the first black students to enroll in the city's all-white Central High School.

In 1973, a crew of Greenpeace activists were attacked by French commandoes as they attempted to sail into a French nuclear testing zone in the South Pacific. And in 1997, Julia Butterfly Hill climbed a 180-foot redwood to begin what would become a two-year vigil to save a stand of the ancient trees from destruction.

It is with this historical thread of nonviolent action that I link Jesse Perry, an Attleboro youth who recently opposed plans to cut down two old maple trees to make room for a lacrosse field. On the morning that the trees were scheduled to be cut down, rather than going to school, Jesse climbed one of the trees and made his position known to city authorities and a police officer. I wouldn't say that Jesse's actions rose to the level of heroism, since he was not at great physical risk. But it was an act of civil disobedience in service of a noble cause. For a 14-year old to commit such an act is commendable, to say the least.

While he disobeyed the rules, he was willing to take the consequences, and so he earned the respect even of those who disagreed with his position. By risking punishment and perhaps humiliation to protect the environmental assets of his neighborhood, Jesse showed moral courage.

If there is a place of honor below that of true heroism, let's reserve it for those who follow Jesse's example. If we could all strive for moral courage, we might avoid many calamities, large and small.

Gambling and morality

Our state legislature may soon be voting on whether to allow up to 2000 slot machines at each of the state’s four race tracks. If permitted, the slot machines would turn each race track into what is called a “racino”, thus giving casino gambling a foothold in Massachusetts.

Proponents of the slot machine describe it as a harmless form of entertainment whose time has come. Some lawmakers, seeking new revenue, see the device as a goose whose golden eggs will help to balance the state budget.

However, a federal study in 1999 found that people living within 50 miles of a casino were twice as likely to be problem or pathological gamblers. According to the study, these gamblers burden their communities with social costs that include unemployment benefits, welfare benefits, physical and mental health problems, theft, embezzlement, bankruptcy, suicide, domestic violence, and child abuse and neglect. Everyone in the Sun Chronicle circulation area lives within a 50-mile radius of at least two of the proposed racinos.

I read recently that the leading opponent of more gambling in Massachusetts, Rep. Daniel Bosley, had said that his opposition was based on the economic and social costs of gambling, but not on moral arguments. While I agreed with his position, I thought he should not have given up the moral high ground, and began to look for moral justification for my opposition to slot machines.

I looked first to the clergy and found that the Roman Catholic bishops of Massachusetts oppose the slot machine bill. Cardinal-elect O’Malley once said that he would rather see church bingo banned than have casinos allowed in Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Council of Churches, speaking for seventeen Orthodox and Protestant denominations with more than 1700 affiliated congregations, also opposes slot machines. However, when I looked closely at the arguments of the clergy, I found that they, like Rep. Bosley, focused mainly on the social costs of problem gambling.

Continuing my search for a moral argument against slot machines, I turned to the Greek philosopher Aristotle, who said that the secret to living a virtuous life was moderation in all things. According to Aristotle, I would have to conclude that there is nothing wrong with gambling, as long as it is not taken to an extreme.

Then I came across two news items that gave me more to think about:

Item #1: In December 2005 it was reported in the Sun Chronicle that a woman with a gambling addiction had pleaded guilty to stealing over $13,000 from the Attleboro High School Band Parents Association while serving as its treasurer.

Item #2: In May 2003, William Bennett, a former Cabinet member and author of the bestseller The Book of Virtues, acknowledged that he was a high-stakes gambler who liked to play slot machines. Bennett denied that his gambling was a moral issue, that he had put his family at risk, or that he had a gambling addiction, despite press reports that he had lost $8 million over a ten year period.

While both stories troubled me, I still could not put my finger on what it was about expanded gambling that I found morally objectionable. Then I realized it was not just one thing, it was everything. Morality for me is not a set of rules etched in stone by sage or deity. It’s a nagging inner voice that asks, “What is fair? What is just? What is best for the common good?”

Massachusetts residents already have many choices if they want to gamble: the lottery, scratch tickets, Keno, simulcast betting. To go beyond that would be excessive, and immoral in my opinion, because of the additional social and economic harm we would inflict upon ourselves and our communities. Let Connecticut and Rhode Island choose a self-destructive path. We don’t have to follow.

--Published in the Attleboro Sun Chronicle, 19 March 2006