Are we too stupid?

The highway signs informing us that "Texting" while driving is illegal made me smile. I can see it now:

Judge: "Mr. Jones, you have been charged with texting while driving. How do you plead?"

Accused: "Not guilty, your honor."

Judge: "Officer Smith says he watched you texting on your cell phone for several minutes before stopping you"

Accused: "Officer Smith was mistaken. I was not texting. I had just filled up with gas and was using my phone's calculator to figure out how much mileage I was getting. That's not texting, your honor. "

Judge: "Case dismissed".

Maybe we just need a few more laws, like "Crocheting while driving is against the law" or "Spreading mayonnaise on a tuna sandwich while driving is against the law".

A police officer should use his or her judgement to determine if one is not driving with appropriate skill, attention and equipment. This is beyond silly.

We're Too Lazy

Facts can be deceiving at times. Recently the Providence Journal had a front page article about Rhode Island's high property taxes. Being fourth highest in the country isn't anything to be proud of . But what if our student performance were the best in the nation? Those property taxes would be a real bargain and a source of pride, as I see it.

The point is that spending (or any one single thing) in itself is not the only consideration when we form our opinions about our taxes or government or anything for that matter. There are often other, equally or even more important considerations which should be considered.

It's so easy to be lazy when we read the headlines and form our opinions and we pay a terrible price for this laziness.

Maybe it's just me.

Are you with us?

Laura Lederer, adjunct professor at Georgetown Law Center should know better. In her letter in the Providence Journal, November 16, "Defeat for prostitution" she writes, "while others (more than one might think) are anti-trafficking and pro-prostitution". She characterizes those who would legalize indoor prostitution as PRO prostitution.

Ms. Lederer makes the same mistake that so many of us make, that everything can be viewed as an either-or position. "You're either with us or against us" might have done more harm to our society than we will ever know. Can she not see that one could favor legalization of an activity between consenting adults and not therefor advocate or promote it?

Might I prefer that a woman have the legal right to decide on an abortion and still prefer that she make a different choice? Is it too hard to imagine that I could favor equal treatment for homosexuals and not, at the same time, personally prefer heterosexual relationships? Can I not personally avoid alcohol yet allow others to legally indulge?

The legislators who voted against the recent anti-prostitution law did not do so because they advocate prostitution and to suggest otherwise is an example of the same old canard, "You're either with us or against us". A law professor should know better. We all should know better.

3 Questions

One would have to have been asleep for the past few years not to know that Rhode Island has a money problem - we spend too much and receive too little. It is laudable therefore that the General Assembly will have a conversation in December to talk about these problems.

With regard to the high property tax issue (5th highest in the nation) I would urge the legislators to consider the following questions:

1. Do changes in one's property taxes always reflect the changes in the tax levy of their community?

2. Do new owners always pay taxes based on the value of the property they have purchased?

3. Do all owners always receive a limit on their tax increases the way S3050 limits the growth in the tax levy?

The answer to these questions should be a solid "yes" but sadly, the answers are "no".

Until this is addressed, controlling local spending alone will not produce the beneficial results for the taxpayer that it should.

Replace the property tax with an Owners' Tax and we will be able to answer "yes" to all the above questions and save some money too.

Read more at http://righttax.org

Still Crazy?

"Gang leader gets lengthy prison sentence" read the headline on Saturday, October 24, in the Providence Journal. A federal judge sentenced a Laotian gang leader to more than 18 years in prison for agreeing to participate in an armed home invasion. And just who will emerge from prison in 18 years (or maybe sooner with parole)?

You can make a good guess from the fact that he just completed a four year prison term for .... a home invasion!

One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.

On a more positive note, someone isn't crazy. An educational practice that doesn't work for the welfare of the students needs to be ended. Education Commissioner Deborah Gist wants to stop using seniority as a basis for teacher assignment and promotion. Bravo and congratulations to her.

Maybe it's just me.

Don't Forget

There were times during my forty years practicing dentistry that patients could be demanding, late for appointments, and sometimes even rude. Those, especially, were the times that I had to remind myself, and my staff, that people don't exist for us to have someone to practice on. We are there for them. That is not to say that we had no right to expect certain levels of behavior. We do. But without the people, we have no purpose.

The corporate world, those exalted executives, those "too big to fail" banks, other financial institutions, especially the largest ones, corporate lobbyists, union leaders, politicians, all seem to have forgotten something; that without the people, us, they would cease to be. They are there for us, not the other way around. On the other hand, if they ceased to be, we would replace them. We should not let them forget it. Unless we too, forgot.

The Right Tax

Today's Providence Journal carried a story about a Barrington couple who "say that town officials knowingly withheld public records in violation of the state Access to Public Records Act" and have lodged a complaint with the state attorney general. People must have easy access to public records particularly if they directly effect the person making the request. We wish them well.

Sadly, even if they are vindicated they will achieve little more than a moral victory. Their complaint deals with the accuracy of house appraisals which determine one's tax bill, the assumption being that a fair appraisal will produce a fair tax, a right tax.

But is the right tax the one resulting from an accurate assessment? Traditional thinking says yes and people often appeal their assessments when they think they're too high after revaluation.

Now imagine Barrington resident, Mr. David B., sitting before the assessment review board having been shocked that his new tax bill is 42% higher than the prior year while the tax levy increased just 3.96%.

He felt that his property value increase of 30% was far too much. The board listened patiently and agree to a reduction in value of $35,000 bringing the increase to only 15%. David, happy with the board's decision, left satisfied.

In the afterglow of his victory David didn't realize that his new tax bill, while less than before, is still 25% higher than the year before. So, is David now paying the right tax? My concept of fairness says that David, and every other Barrington resident, should be paying 3.96% more to fund the 3.96% tax levy increase. That is the right tax but no existing owners will receive it because of the revaluation itself, which is fair only to new owners who choose the price of the house they buy and are correctly taxed on that market assessment, at that time.

It's wrong for everyone else.

Read more at the Righttax website link to the right.

Learning From History

In the ongoing conversations about American involvement in wars across the globe reference is often made to what is arguably our most important war, World War II.

In a recent article in the Providence Journal the writer referred to Japan's attack of the United States at Pearl Harbor in 1941. He drew a parallel to our current involvement in Afghanistan suggesting that we need to apply the same resolve now as we did then, when we fought the Japanese.

I would like to ask what might have been different if, as we fought and killed Japanese soldiers (and civilians, as happens in all war) there were created more and more Japanese soldiers? I know this is a silly question to ask about fighting Japan or Germany back then.

But it isn't so silly now. The number of terrorists and terrorist attacks appear to be increasing rather than decreasing according to every survey in an internet search. So one has to ask, should we change our strategy in the face of this evidence or continue to apply the World War II model to the present "war on terror"?

Maybe It's Just Me

There's a black man in the White House

With that pronouncement many feel really proud about how far we've come in our fight against racism and discrimination. Yet the statement itself shows how much farther we have to go.

President Barack Obama's genetic racial background is more white than black yet he still is described as a "black man". I guess it's better than being called black for one drop of African American blood but it's a far cry from where we need to be.

We have a long way yet to go.

Maybe It's Just Me.

Just Who Are They?

You know those folks that show up at the town hall meetings with those "We want our country back" signs?

I'd like to ask them, "Back from whom?" When they say 'our country' just who is the 'our'?

Do they want the country for white Christians? to get it back from blacks and foreigners? to take it back from the poor and needy? the unemployed and sick?

So just who is America anyway? And who is it for?