Stabbed in the Back by a Blade

In full disclosure, I did not think it was right that Oscar Pistorius, the "blade runner," was allowed to compete in the Olympics.  Two forces combined to permit his inclusion.  One was the Olympic Committee's decision not to exclude him.  Clearly, I have no idea what argument was made to them, but I suspect that whatever it was, part of their accession was based on some sense of political correctness.  It would be wrong to exclude Pistorius just because he was at a disadvantage, and he did what he could to compensate himself for it.  After all, he only wound up with two lower extremities, as everyone else has, and there was no proof that his two lower extremities were any better than anyone else's.  And wasn't he at some sort of disadvantage anyway, because of the unnaturalness of his condition?  I think the Committee was wrong, but I imagine this was part of what influenced them.  On the other hand, since no one knows for sure what prostheses like Pistorius' do, there was also the concern that they created an advantage for him.

The other force was Pistorius himself, and the fact that he had Olympic ambition, and decided he had an argument to make.  He's had quite an athletic life, and has been a multi-sport athlete.  So he's very competitive.  Sadly, as we learn more and more from many arenas, and not at all just sport-related, competition is not always fair.  Some competitors cheat.  Athletes who take performance-enhancing drugs are trying consciously to arrange for themselves an unfair competitive advantage.  And if they don't reveal the fact, or try actively to conceal it, they're dishonest about it.  Did Pistorius himself think he had an unfair competitive advantage, in having his "flex-foot Cheetah" prostheses?  (Not exactly an unassuming name for these appliances.)  Frankly, it's a hell of an act of self-promotion to want to be in the Olympics, and to press actively for it, against standard regulations, securing legal representation, takes a very good deal of competitiveness, even cockiness.  Never mind the question of whether Pistorius was cheating.  The question is, did he think he was cheating.

For the same reasons that moved the Olympic Committee, it may have been hard to see cheating in Pistorius, or to think of him as a cheater.  We only had to look at him, with the orthopedic version of puppy dog eyes, to see what a sympathetic character he was.  He could easily have looked more heroic than sociopathic.

But do we have to reconsider how honest and honorable, how decent and hard-working, are people whose greatest attribute is their fierce competitiveness?  There's almost a reflex tendency to assume the worst about Barry Bonds or Ray Lewis.  Should that skepticism be held back when it comes to Pistorius?  Or is Pistorius, with those glaring and pathetic (or are they intimidating?) appliances, just as bad an actor as those we are more comfortable loving to hate?  His competitiveness isn't in his prostheses.  It's in his head, just like the competitiveness of Rodney Harrison, and James Harrison, and Ron Artest, and pitchers who roughen baseballs, and hockey players who are prone to fighting with their opponents, or sticking them in the face.  If these people were ruthlessly competitive in another direction, they'd be cheating on tests.

So now, Pistorius has murdered his girlfriend.  He shot her to death.  There are also separate incidents of domestic violence perpetrated by Pistorius.  Not exactly the picture of the honest and hard-working competitor some wanted to imagine.  And whatever was behind his decision to murder her, he reportedly tried to excuse himself with some tale of having mistaken her for an intruder.  If this scenario seemed weak at the outset, it got a lot weaker when neighbors reported having heard shouting and arguing before they heard gunshots.

Political correctness can be a good thing.  It can keep citizens honest.  It can also be dangerous, like an opiate.

Putting Your Money Where Your Mouth Is, or Personal Pork

It's mid-February, in the quarter of the year between New Year's resolutions and Tax Day.  Tax Day being that balancing act where the exposure created by income is mitigated by the protections of our deductible expenses.

No one likes to pay taxes.  Even liberals, who claim to understand why the public sector is important, and appreciate the supports and benefits it provides, don't like to pay taxes.  The guy in the booth next to mine at breakfast this morning was explaining to his companion how he "plays the system" and "flies under the radar."  It seems he's paid by check, with no withholding, and he essentially invents an income and expenses, allowing him to take advantage of all possible tax benefits, and avoid any changes from one year to the next, changes that might trigger the dreaded tax audit.

Most people aren't quite as sociopathic as that, but there is, as they say, a little larceny in everyone.  We all tend to cut a corner here or there, or direct money so as to shelter it if we can.  It's not quite as simple as wanting to avoid taxes, so we can keep the money ourselves.  Some people give money away, to avoid paying taxes on it.  And this is the crux of a problem.

Our system, of society, government, and taxes, is set up so that the government spends money on what we're all supposed to agree is in the common interest, whether it's paying for government itself, constructing a system of highways, providing support for the poor and impaired, declaring war on Iraq, or anything else.  We're all supposed to pay a fair share of taxes to support those aims.  But we're welcome to pursue other interests, which are not necessarily agreed for the common good.  These are our private and personal interests, and can include anything "charitable," as long as it doesn't lobby.  Our taxes are deductible, and so are these other contributions.

If there is anything most people dislike more than they dislike taxes, it is "pork," or pork-barrel legislation.  Absolutely everyone complains about it.  Pork is those narrow interests that are forced upon others, who must support them, despite the fact that the vast majority of supporters gain no advantage at all from the narrow interests.  In fact, sometimes it seems that no one at all gains any advantage from them.  Alaska's "bridge to nowhere" is a recently discussed example.  These cuts of pork do nothing except funnel money into an area that could not independently attract the money, because few Americans would be interested, and the projects do not provide anything representing the general welfare.  Except in the very local area of the project.

Aren't charitable and related contributions precisely like that?  If I'm not a member of your church or synagogue, and I don't favor the ACLU, and I think the national park service provides protection enough, so conservation groups are superfluous and might have narrow agendas that are beyond what is of value to the public, why should I have to pay for part of your interests in these things?

I think I shouldn't.  And I think you shouldn't have to pay for part of my devotions.  So I have made a resolution from now on.  I no longer take tax deductions for donations I make to anyone for anything.  The only exception I make is for donations I make to the public sector.  The municipality where I live has an extremely limited ability to raise revenue.  I make extra "contributions," of one kind or another, and for one excuse or another.  I will deduct those "contributions," because I intend them as extra and voluntary taxes.  I will not deduct contributions to public radio, Feeding America, Amnesty International, Southern Poverty Law Center, or any of the several other organizations to which I choose to give some of my money.  That's on me, not on you.  And if you choose to give some of your money to a religious organization (I'm atheist and anti-religious) or anyone else of interest to you, I would appreciate your making that your own business.  You shouldn't have to eat my pork, and I shouldn't have to eat yours.