The Musings of a Magyar

Heard a great one at work today that I’m sure a certain friend would appreciate.

Swine flu.  Is that the past tense of ‘When Pigs Fly”?

I’ll wait for you to stop groaning before I go on.  Ready?  Good.

Here’s the kicker though.  I’m wondering if it’s actually happened.  Pigs may actually have flown.  Witness:

• America has elected a Black President.
• Bishops are actually taking a certain “Catholic” University to task for honoring a horribly pro-abortion president with an honorary degree.
• The U.S. government, which fought Socialism for the better part of the 20th centry, now owns the better part of several financial institutions and major corporations.
• Arlen Specter has finally stopped pretending to be a Republican.

I don’t know, it just seems like 5 years ago, if you would have asked any American if any of the above — or any of a number of other current events – would ever happen, the response would be “when pigs fly.”

Swine flu.  And here we are.  Wonder what’ll happen when  Hell freezes.

The mass media has found its newest hobby horse.  Every newscast I saw yesterday led with the swine flu.  Not just that there’s a new strain of influenza out there that could be deadly, but that this could potentially swell to a plague of pandemic proportions.  And ever-intent on keeping us safe from the threat, we’re offered the common-sense suggestions of avoiding intimate contact with anyone with flu-like symptoms and frequent hand-washing.  Oh, and avoiding travel into Mexico, since as of this writing, there might have been around 150 deaths in Mexico from the swine flu, but so far only around 80 confirmed cases worldwide.

I wonder how many Mexicans die annually from the plain old flu.  Let’s face it, most of Mexico is in extreme poverty, and I’m sure access to quality medical care is lacking for most, as is access to things like clean water and soap.  So until some real lab tests are done on the deceased, let’s not claim that they all died of swine flu, okay?

That being said, I think this is just the latest attempt by the mass media to get us all in panic that we’re gonna die.  They seem to do this every year at some point with some disease that is threatening to rise to a global epidemic, and then after a few weeks we never hear from it again.

Anyone remember MRSA?  Last I heard that was spreading like wildfire.  Haven’t heard a peep out of it since.  Speaking of peeps, how about the bird flu from a while ago?  We were all going to die from that according to our news media.  Before that, I seem to recall SARS was going around and poised to do some major population control.

Except it didn’t.

Maybe it’s because people were on hightened alert and various governments stepped up containment and preventive efforts.  Maybe it’s because people avoided coming into contact with others who were showing some sort of symptoms of sickness (even if it was just a cold).  Maybe people were more vigilant about hand washing and proper sanitation.

And perhaps there’s some value to things like closing the border to people who have any kind of symptoms…of anything.  Depending on the country, you can’t so much as bring a banana across the border because it might have some disease on it.  Yet you can get on a plane while hacking your lungs out and bring whatever virus you’ve got, and unless we’re in pandemic mode, you’ll probably pass through Immigration and Customs without incident.  The scene from the Godfather Part II comes to mind where young Vito is quarrantined at Ellis Island.  Maybe it’s time to put up some more restrictions on who we let come in, even if only to visit.

Either way, I expect that in six months we’ll never again hear of swine flu.

A fictional corporate memo.

On this Earth Day, I wanted to take the opportunity to remind you all of our deep committment to environmental awareness here at XYZ Corp.  We are committed to being as green as possible in the interest of preserving our fragile Earth for generations to come.  No doubt you have all been thoroughly immersed in all of our efforts, but I thought I’d remind you of the following, just to once again pound home the idea that we care about the Earth.

• All of our printers are set to print double sided as a default, in the name of saving the environment.  We also highly recommend that you change your printer settings to not print cover pages, to again save our trees.  Trees are important to save.  As an added bonus, we cut our paper budget in half by being green here.
• The majority of the conference rooms and office have motion-activated light switches.  Lights turn on when motion is detected, and turn off after a few minutes of inactivity.  We can save lots of energy by having the lights go out when nobody is using them, which saves valuable natural resources.  Oh yeah, it saves on the electric bill too.
• All employees have been issued canvas sacks to take to the cafeteria to hold our food instead of having to get a tray. This saves water and electricity by not having to wash and sanitize a bunch of trays, which shows just how much XYZ cares about conservation of precious resources like water.  (And, we don’t need to hire someone to collect trays and wash them.)  That we serve all food in plastic or stryofoam plates and containers that pile up in landfills also helps us save our water.
• Paystubs, medical explanations of benefits, annual shareholder reports, W2’s, etc. are all conveniently available for electronic delivery instead of via postal mail.  This saves hundreds of thousands of trees every year.  As I mentioned before, saving trees is important.  By not actually mailing out all these papers, we help to eliminate dangerous global warming.  And hey, we’ve got an additional perk in the hundreds of thousands of dollars we save by not having to pay for postage.
• Our Facilities Department is also concerned about our natural resources as well.  We’ve made changes in all our buildings to keep them at 55 degrees in the winter, and 83 degrees in the summer.  Yes, some people are quite uncomfortable, especially the gentlemen who wear neckties in the summer and the ladies who wear miniskirts and sleeveless tops in winter, but in doing this we are saving tons of oil and natural gas so that our great-grandchildren will be able to enjoy these important fossil fuels.  There’s a rumor going around that this move was done to save on the HVAC bill.  I assure you this is not the case.  We’re all about being good environmental stewards here.

We care about our planet, and will anything we can to help save it, provided it is fiscally feasible.

Thanks for all your support of our green initiatives.

News is out that the Holy See has decided to launch a doctrinal investigation into a variety of women’s religious orders.  This is in addition to a quality of life investigation to be undertaken as well.

Sisters around the world are shaking in their orthotic shoes.  It’s possible that Rome is finally realizing what a whacked-out group of tired old hippie feminazis so many of them have become.

We have learned exclusively that the leaders of several dozen larger communities are organizing a convention to discuss the impact these visitations to have, and to get together in solidarity for what may be trying times.  As part of the convention, whose working title is “Standing up for Vatican II: It’s Spirit May Be Fading, but Ours Isn’t,” someone composed an anthem, which will be sung each day during various gatherings.

A copy of this anthem has been leaked, and is presented below the fold. (more…)

It’s Income Tax day, so it seems like a tax related blog post is appropriate.

It seems as though our government has increased the tax on cigarettes and other tobacco products.  According to the article, the increased tax revenue will go to help fund children’s health insurance programs nationwide, and it was a law enacted by President Obama (who, I seem to recall, pledged to cut taxes for the majority of Americans).   The federal tax on a pack of smokes will go from 39 cents to $1.01.  On top of that is any state taxes which may be levied, which range from 7 cents to $2.58 a pack.  It seems as though pretty soon most of the retail cost of a pack of cigarettes will be made up of taxes, rather than the actual cost of the product itself.

I have mixed feelings on this.  Why do we target cigarettes when we need to throw a little extra money into the coffers?  Why not alcohol, firearms, jewelry, or any of a number of other luxury items?  I guess smokers are easy targets.  They are, after all, held captive by a nasty addiction and by habit.

On the other hand, the health risks of cigarettes are well-documented as are the benefits of quitting smoking.  So, if higher taxes are what it takes to get people to stop smoking, then it may be worth it.  Make it super-expensive to light up, and people will think twice.  Or, to put it another way, if you want to destroy your life by smoking, it’s going to cost you.

But I think there are flaws in that argument. 

The fact is, lower income and less educated individuals are more likely to smoke.  These individuals are also most likely to be the ones who are unable to get extra help to quit (e.g. by getting nicotine patches or joining support groups). While some of these folks will see the tax hike as straw to break the camel’s back and force them to quit, others will simply go on paying.

We saw the same thing with gasoline prices. Pundits said the American people wouldn’t stand for it when gas prices hit $2 per gallon and would simply stop driving.  Then $2.50.  Then $3.00.  Etc.  Eventually we topped out well north of $4 a gallon, and I didn’t see any major boycotts of fuel.  Yes, people cut back some and maybe made wiser use of their car trips.  But despite the high prices, I sure had a lot of company as I was stuck repeatedly in traffic jams.

Likewise with smokers.  Those held captive to the addiction aren’t likely to quit.  They’ll simply cut back on other things.  Like possibly food.  Or clothing.  Or heat.  Or car insurance.  They’ll find ways to keep their smokes.  (I can’t tell you how many customers I dealt with when I worked in the supermarket who would be buying their food on public assistance money and then fork over half a paycheck for two cartons of cigarettes.)  Just like we all found ways to keep driving our cars even though gas prices were high. 

In other words, I don’t think that you can get the majority of smokers to quit by pricing them out of their addiction.  For that to work, make the tax on cigarettes $50 or $100 per pack.  Of course, that’lll never fly, since the tobacco industry has too much lobbying clout. 

I also think it borders on the absurd to levy a tax to fund a specific need(children’s health insurane) while at the same time hoping that the higher taxes will drive fewer people to use the product being taxed.  In short, you’re eliminating your tax base, so where are you going to get your money from?  Why not follow this logic, make marijuana, meth, cocaine, and other drugs legal, and just tax them heavily to fund anti-drug campaigns?   (Though this idea has some merit.  Perhaps we could convince some congresspeople to enact an abortion tax.  Say $10,000 per abortion.  Tax proceeds would be used for reproductive health education in public schools.)

Then again, the after-effects of smoking put tremendous strain on our health care system, so I can see forcing smokers to pay a higher share of those costs.  And using a tax on cigarettes to fund public healthcare initiatives is one way to do that.

By this logic, though, we can also say that diabetics put a strain on our health care system as well.  By reducing obesity, we can also cut back on our health care costs.  Why not put a tax on unhealthy foods and drinks?  For example, prepared items that have more than x calories, y grams of fat, and/or z grams of sugar per serving could have an excise tax of 1 cent per extra calorie or gram of nasty stuff.  That would get the fatsos like me to think twice before reaching for those doughnuts.

So, mulitple arguments can be made pro and con.  What’s the solution?  I’m glad I’m not in politics, so I don’t have to decide one way or another.

Today is Good Friday.  I spent some time today watching the celebration of the Good Friday liturgy from St. Peter’s in Rome.  His Holiness looked a little tired, and I’m assuming that part of it is simply that he’s nearing 82 years of age, and this is the busiest week of the year. 

Then it also occurred to me that he might also be fasting, which would probably have an effect too.  Of course, once you turn 60, fasting on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday is no longer obligatory, but somehow I think His Holiness is one to go beyond the minimums.

Then I got to wondering.  One can get a dispensation for just about anything if one presents a justifiably sufficient reason.  (For instance, during Lent, there’s the ever-popular corned-beef indult when St. Patrick’s Day is on a Friday.  Or one can be dispensed from one’s Sunday obligation if one has a serious reason.)  For us layfolk, the normal way to do this is to request it from our pastor, or whoever may have the necessary jurisdiction.

Now, some things require approval of the bishop, and some things require the approval of the pope.  I also think that a pastor would have to go to some higher authority to get a dispensation for himself (in the same way as a priest can’t confess to and absolve himself).

Obviously, the pope has a lot of power, as the final earthly authority of the Church.  But who can dispense him from any of his obligations?  Or can he dispense himself?  I know that popes make their confessions to other priests/bishops.  But what if there’s some really important Bavarian holiday that falls on a Friday during Lent, and it’s usually celebrated with lots of sausage and beer.   Who does the pope go to to get the okey-dokey for him to have some knockwurst that day?

I mean, he’s the pope.  Suppose on a fast day he really wants a snack.  Can he just say “By my apostolic authority I dispense myself from the requirements of fasting today?  Oh and since I’m pope and have the authority to grant indulgences, I hereby grant a plenary indulgence to anyone who eats sausage and drinks a beer in the Apostolic Dining room today between 3:00 and 3:05 p.m.”

Not that it’s likely B16 would do such a thing.  But when one spends too much time thinking, this is what he can get on his mind.

Reader’s Digest published the results of a survey on the prayer habits of people around the world.

From Mumbai to Madrid, where you live likely influences how much you pray. Or so shows our latest global survey, which reveals significantly more devotion in parts East than West. At least 66 percent of people in Malaysia, the Philippines, and India say they pray every day. It’s the opposite in Europe: 65 percent of respondents in the Czech Republic never do, followed by those in the Netherlands, France, Spain, and the U.K. The trend stops across the Atlantic, where 55 percent of Americans pray daily.

The results are scary.  In the Czech Republic, only 35% of the people have some sort of prayer life (only 8% pray daily).  In France, 24% of the people pray daily, Germany came in at 28%, while Italy tops out at only 20%. 

Is there any doubt that Europe is in desperate need of a re-evangelization?