At age 18, back in Medieval Times, I started college as a commuter freshman. And I discovered the sweet mysteries of college registration.
The process took days, literally. I attended LSUNO, as it was known then. (Now simply UNO.) Anyway, there was a formidable set of meetings/convocations/hoops/hurdles to jump through. My Good Sport Quotient, being an 18-year-old smartass was running on fumes. The final straw was filling out a bulky pack of file cards.
When I got to one, the Religious Preference Card, the card did not have the exaustive "M/F" dichotomy for sex; but listed:
Sex: ____________________.
So I answered.
Sex: Hopeful!
Religion: Pagan
Other answers could have been used; all other than the one requested on the Religious Prefence Card.
In December, I got a call from the Dean's Office. He called me in to bawl me out for having "a bad attitude." In other words, a normal 18-year-old.
It took four months before they noticed my answer in those pre-computer days.
Didn't they teach Deans adolescent psychology back then even in those in loco parentis days?
Incidentally, I never heard from the Pagan Student Union.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Gardening in Alabama, Circa 1973
When my wife and I moved to northern Alabama, we lived in a two bedroom house and got a dog. We lived next to an older couple,Ray and Catherine, who was very heavily into gardening.
Except on Sunday. That being the LORD'S day, Catherine insisted that they didn't garden on Sunday, saying that nothing would grow if it was planted or tended then. She affirmed, moreover, that she would allow no liquor in her house.
She also had a habit of taking a mid-afternoon nap. I noticed that while she was apparently napping, her husband sneaked out in the yard to enjoy gardening!
Ray had a really neat storage shed in his yard. One afternoon he invited me into his shed. I thought it was a strange invitation, but I went because he was so proud of it!
And I found out why h was proud: He had a nice quart of Jack Daniel in it; and he poured each of us a stiff one!
That drink tasted damned fine! And it convinced me that when Baptists go off the straight and narrow, they do it in style!
Except on Sunday. That being the LORD'S day, Catherine insisted that they didn't garden on Sunday, saying that nothing would grow if it was planted or tended then. She affirmed, moreover, that she would allow no liquor in her house.
She also had a habit of taking a mid-afternoon nap. I noticed that while she was apparently napping, her husband sneaked out in the yard to enjoy gardening!
Ray had a really neat storage shed in his yard. One afternoon he invited me into his shed. I thought it was a strange invitation, but I went because he was so proud of it!
And I found out why h was proud: He had a nice quart of Jack Daniel in it; and he poured each of us a stiff one!
That drink tasted damned fine! And it convinced me that when Baptists go off the straight and narrow, they do it in style!
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Historic Downtown Farragut
My wife and I puzzled over this recurrent caption on the signs of Farragut, Tennessee located somewhat to the southeast of Knoxville. When provided with the information, we were intrigued:
1) What made it historical?
2) Where is this Downtown? We were familiar with bustling Kingston Pike and with Turkey Creek shopping; but where was this downtown?
As near as we could determine, Farragut was named after Admiral David Farragut, a Yankee admiral and I won't say more!
But as for the downtown: it wasn't built yet. It was a concept yet to be realized. This planned development combined what looks like a typical small southern downtown with residences in the general area.
It wasn't built yet.
I remember Muscle Shoals. Back in the 1930's it was projected that Ford would move in big-time, and grow into an urban area with a population of 100,000. The clock's still ticking on that one.
Friday, August 12, 2011
John L. Sullivan
For quite some time a fight had been brewing between Jake Kilrain and John L. Sullivan (the Boston Strong Boy), but due to Sullivan's lack of training and drinking habits, the fight was repeatedly postponed by the Sullivan camp. It was because of this that Kilrain was crowned Champion in 1889.
On July 7th, an estimated 3,000 spectators boarded special trains from New Orleans for the secret location, which turned out to be Richburg, Mississippi, a community just south of Hattiesburg. In the woods, near the railroad track, a boxing ring and stands were set up. On the 8th of July 1889, the final professional bare knuckle fight in the USA took place. The fight began at 10:30 that morning, and it looked as if Sullivan was going to lose, especially after he threw up during the 44th round, but the champion got his second wind after that and came on strong.
Sullivan had been attended in his corner by his trainer Muldoon, who had supplied Sullivan with tea laced with whisky, and when asked how long he could keep up the pace Sullivan told him "until tomorrow if necessary". Whiskey will do that for a Hibernian.
After two hours and sixteen minutes, Kilrain's manager and corner finally threw in the towel after the 75th round of a scheduled 80 round bout. John Lawrence Sullivan was re-crowned as the World Heavyweight Champion.
This brought rage from the people of Boston, and money started pouring in, which in turn switched the fight back into the public eye. This eventually succeeded in arranging a fight date. In 1889, Sullivan finally accepted Kilrain's challenge for the last professional bare-knuckle championship boxing match in America.
For the first time, newspapers carried extensive pre-fight coverage, reporting on the fighters' training and speculating on where the bout would take place. The center of activity was New Orleans, but the governor of Louisiana had forbidden the fight. As a matter of fact, boxing was illegal in most states, including both Louisiana and Mississippi.
On July 7th, an estimated 3,000 spectators boarded special trains from New Orleans for the secret location, which turned out to be Richburg, Mississippi, a community just south of Hattiesburg. In the woods, near the railroad track, a boxing ring and stands were set up. On the 8th of July 1889, the final professional bare knuckle fight in the USA took place. The fight began at 10:30 that morning, and it looked as if Sullivan was going to lose, especially after he threw up during the 44th round, but the champion got his second wind after that and came on strong.
Sullivan had been attended in his corner by his trainer Muldoon, who had supplied Sullivan with tea laced with whisky, and when asked how long he could keep up the pace Sullivan told him "until tomorrow if necessary". Whiskey will do that for a Hibernian.
After two hours and sixteen minutes, Kilrain's manager and corner finally threw in the towel after the 75th round of a scheduled 80 round bout. John Lawrence Sullivan was re-crowned as the World Heavyweight Champion.
Just as the fight ended, the local sheriff conveniently arrived to arrest the promotors and boxers. All of the major players got away. That was good timing!
Monday, August 1, 2011
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Sin Taxes and Fines
The use of sin taxes or fines represent a possible area for problems in the use of aversive control. Obviously, the person performing the action that is intended to be discouraged experiences a monetary loss; but the taxing or fining municipality, state, or federal government usually experiences an augmentation in the revenue stream as a by-product. This obviously provides the taxing or governing body with a stronger incentive for stricter enforcement of ordinances that are fined.
The philosophical justification for the use of fines or sin taxes is that certain actions are in se malus; and the intent in their use is to discourage those behaviors. Using that perspective, it would seem to be fitting to adopt a schedule of heavy taxation or fines to maximally discourage performing the unwanted behavior. In short, fine the Hell out of them for doing those no-no actions! Make them quit their crappy behavior!
Some examples of activities in these categories include “sin” taxes on tobacco products and alcohol and fines such as for illegal parking, prostitution, speeding or drunken driving. Late fees for paying bills and even the fines for having overdue library books are other minor examples.
It is my contention that in a few cases municipalities might become unwittingly caught on the horns of a dilemma: having to balance two possible consequences:
By levying heavy, severely punitive fines, the agency (a) maximizes the likelihood that an undesired will be seen less often, and become less of a problem. However, the agency may in a few cases be dependent on the collection of fines as part of its revenue stream. This will increasingly motivate the agency towards stringent enforcement; however, if the likelihood of being caught and the severity of punishment are both very high, (b) the potential miscreants will be less likely to offend. And the fine revenues will diminish pretty soon.
Let's take a simple example: Suppose the present tax on a package of cigarettes went from 62 cents (rate for Tennessee; national average:$1.46) to $10 a pack. This would price licit cigarettes beyond what a heavy smoker could afford: a two pack per day person would forfeit $7300 per year in taxes! The chronic smoker would thus be confronted between the legal option, abstinence, and the unlawful ones: theft or bootleg cigarettes. The law-abiding smoker would have to stop.
Therefore, any official imposition of fines should at least be implicitly accompanied by an understanding of which goal has become more important: Is the fine or tax now still seen as primarily to discourage the action, or has it become primarily a means to generate revenue? If the former, then it would be appropriate to use very heavy fines or taxes accompanied by very intensive enforcement. However, if the goal is primarily to enhance revenue, then calibrate the fine or taxes against the possible revenue produced. In short, the agency is now put in the position of not completely discouraging the behavior, but maximizing its pecuniary gains that might come from it.
While it may sound cynical at first, we must remember that the motives that provide the impetus for human decision-making are not static: humans are very adept in picking up new tastes and de-emphasizing more familiar ones.
The money from tax and fine revenues are like chocolate for governing bodies.
The philosophical justification for the use of fines or sin taxes is that certain actions are in se malus; and the intent in their use is to discourage those behaviors. Using that perspective, it would seem to be fitting to adopt a schedule of heavy taxation or fines to maximally discourage performing the unwanted behavior. In short, fine the Hell out of them for doing those no-no actions! Make them quit their crappy behavior!
Some examples of activities in these categories include “sin” taxes on tobacco products and alcohol and fines such as for illegal parking, prostitution, speeding or drunken driving. Late fees for paying bills and even the fines for having overdue library books are other minor examples.
It is my contention that in a few cases municipalities might become unwittingly caught on the horns of a dilemma: having to balance two possible consequences:
By levying heavy, severely punitive fines, the agency (a) maximizes the likelihood that an undesired will be seen less often, and become less of a problem. However, the agency may in a few cases be dependent on the collection of fines as part of its revenue stream. This will increasingly motivate the agency towards stringent enforcement; however, if the likelihood of being caught and the severity of punishment are both very high, (b) the potential miscreants will be less likely to offend. And the fine revenues will diminish pretty soon.
Let's take a simple example: Suppose the present tax on a package of cigarettes went from 62 cents (rate for Tennessee; national average:$1.46) to $10 a pack. This would price licit cigarettes beyond what a heavy smoker could afford: a two pack per day person would forfeit $7300 per year in taxes! The chronic smoker would thus be confronted between the legal option, abstinence, and the unlawful ones: theft or bootleg cigarettes. The law-abiding smoker would have to stop.
Therefore, any official imposition of fines should at least be implicitly accompanied by an understanding of which goal has become more important: Is the fine or tax now still seen as primarily to discourage the action, or has it become primarily a means to generate revenue? If the former, then it would be appropriate to use very heavy fines or taxes accompanied by very intensive enforcement. However, if the goal is primarily to enhance revenue, then calibrate the fine or taxes against the possible revenue produced. In short, the agency is now put in the position of not completely discouraging the behavior, but maximizing its pecuniary gains that might come from it.
While it may sound cynical at first, we must remember that the motives that provide the impetus for human decision-making are not static: humans are very adept in picking up new tastes and de-emphasizing more familiar ones.
The money from tax and fine revenues are like chocolate for governing bodies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)