Hi, Tom! A pleasure, as always.

I don't think any of us have been this simplistic, have we?

Ummm... The free market always works.

Do you honestly think that the main reason I complain about half my income being ripped from me is because I'm worried it will be used to train or educate someone who might take my job??? Do you honestly believe that the government is the only source of opportunity for the struggling people in this world?

First, I defy you to find a place where I ever said the latter. Second, as to the former, no I don't. My observation is that this is how it happens, not that this is what you wish. People stay poor because they lack opportunities to learn not only calculus, but table manners. I refer you to "Pygmalion" by G.B. Shaw. And it is so true that the room at the top is limited. Someone has to collect the garbage, and we need more garbage collectors than CEOs. I haven't noticed that CEOs encourage their children to honest work in that direction.

Your average CEO would be tickled pink if every last person on the planet was middle class or better.

Nonsense. Who would mow his lawn? Who would wait tables at his club?

And I'm sorry, but taxing the money away from corporate America and giving it to the street person so he can buy a TV is missing the point entirely.

And I'm sorry, but suggesting that someone purchase a TV for a family living in a car is ridiculous. How about a decent place to live? How about someplace to cook a decent meal? It's very difficult for a child to learn on an empty stomach. So we have a choice: help them learn now, or step over them on the streets (and pay to incarcerate a good many) later.

Conversely, there is little political hay to be made by hiring five more people with that money. Think about it.

Oh, I don't have to. I have seen all the name plaques all over the building. And it really is a wonderful place to work, if only there were enough people to do the job well. The patrons are for the most part very understanding -- they see we're hoppin'. But we know how much better we could do the job with just a few more people, and the frustration is making us a little toasty around the edges. It's that way with a lot of front-line public service, and some jobs don't have the benefit of polite customers. This is why "going postal" is part of the modern American lexicon.

Now, I know that "social worker" and "government employee" don't have to be the same thing. The problem is price. Private organizations can and do limit their case load, and can and do raise the price of help. I have a neighbor who's a foster parent, and she vastly prefers dealing with private organizations because they have more time for her. They also place far fewer children than the government agency. I have no doubt that those children receive superior attention, but what happens to the ones that they reject? Is some attention from the government better than no attention at all?

Obviously, from your own work and the work of people you know, one individual can help another, or many others, without having to command billions of dollars.

That's true. But there are not enough. Some people are unattractive and therefore difficult to help. Their experiences have made them belligerent, and they have no manners because they haven't seen any demonstrated to them. Do we write them off? You say people would give if they had not the money taken from them. I say -- because I see and hear quite well -- that people tend to help those who resemble themselves, and that it takes great effort to see beyond that. Government services are far from perfect, but they do respond to the ballot box, which means that at least in theory they respond to all the people. Private charities are under no such constraints.

And what exactly is "collective" patriotism? I view patriotism as many individual actions combined, which I don't think is the same thing.

Collective patriotism is individual actions which are all the same and performed in public where we can all see how patriotic we are. I like singing "The Star-Spangled Banner" because it's pretty and stirring, but if singing it in public is the definition of a patriot, and someone who prefers not to be openly demonstrative is considered not to be one, I think that's for the birds. But I'm not a conformist by nature. Patriotism, to me, is devotion to your community and the ideals of your nation, which is done quietly, day by day, in deeds rather than display. Display is windowdressing, comforting and comfortable, but it doesn't make a patriot any more than a Christmas tree makes a Christian.

The outpouring of private support in the wake of September 11 is typical of what can be done "collectively" without having to point a gun at anyone.

Yes, a gallant effort, but the blood banks are running low again. The problem with this kind of giving is that it is unsustained. We forget and assume it's someone else's job to remember, because tragedy and poverty are unpleasant to think about.

[Y]our town might have two small libraries, or three.

We do. Our small museum has a historical collection and geneological records going back to the 1700s, and the liberal arts college in town has opened its library to the community for a yearly fee of $20/person. Plus there are the collections in the public schools, which the public is free to use, though they must visit during school hours. None of these four collections substantially duplicates any other.

The whole public library movement has been about free access. There have been limited access and subscription libraries in the world since libraries began. To charge a subscription fee is to place those without the money to pay in the position of hoping that someone will front them a membership. Suppose times are tight. Suppose some people or groups of people are deemed unworthy or incapable of using the library for a reason that seems good enough to the local community. They can be cut off if they don't have a membership. That's why we have public libraries. In this information age, in which knowledge is power and access is crucial, this is more important from an egalitarian viewpoint than ever. Your maybes are far too tenuous for me.

One could make a similar argument for public schools, but actually the traditional role of the public school in America has been to absorb immigrants and develop a common culture. That's another whole discussion.

And don't you go talking trash about Ronald McDonald. McDonald's furnished the preschool area of our new building, including the children's computers. They are very interested in the welfare of children. And of course, they got a lot of publicity mileage out of the donation, and a tax write-off to boot. I don't begrudge them either.

Regards--
Mary Anne