Next

It was a Tuesday, and I called to make a medical appointment. I was told that one was available "next Thursday". Being a literalist by nature, my first thought was "an opening in just two days time?". Something about the unlikelihood of this made me check. It was "Thursday next week" that was being offered to me. My guess is that most Americans consider "next" in the context of dates to mean "next week". Within the week, the next occurrence of a given day of the week is referred to simply as (e.g.) "on Thursday". Well, I got that right, and set up my appointment for Thursday of the following week.

Alms

I use the word "alms" here in a broader sense than is usual, not only for small handouts given to suppliants or in response to church collections, but also for gifts to assorted "good causes." From early childhood, I was trained to put some of my modest pocket money in the collection at church, and I have always felt that I should donate some funds to charity. My wife & I share that belief, I'm happy to say. We live in a Community Property state, and in over 40 years of marriage I have never had any qualms about sharing my earnings with Barbara. We do each have relatively modest amounts of Separate Property, which gives us flexibility when one of us has a favorite cause, not shared by the other. Over the years we have increased the number of causes we support. A few years ago, I suggested that we eliminate one charity for every new charity we supported. The problem is that generous Barbara suggests all the new causes, mainly environmental funds, and her suggestions for discontinuance tend to be church-related charities that appeal to me. We use Donor-advised funds held by the San Francisco Foundation. There's a modest fee for this, which we do not begrudge. The two advantages of this arrangement are that we receive an immediate tax deduction in the years in which we add to these funds, and that we don't need to keep additional records for tax purposes of each individual "grant" we request. The one disadvantage is that the minimum grant is $250, so that we still need to keep records for smaller gifts of (say) $50 or $100. One of our favorite alternative ways of giving away money has been to purchase deferred Gift Annuities. When I was in business, still earning, this allowed us to take an immediate tax deduction, and add to our retirement income. Barbara's pension from her teaching is modest, as is her Social Security income. My Social Security is greater, but I have no pension. Those annuities and some dividend income enable us to be "comfortably off", and continue to give "alms". If I sound smug about this, I apologize. We do believe in sharing our worldly goods, but please don't call us "wealthy" or describe us as "philanthropists". We are certainly not in the "1%". Our way of life is determinedly "Middle Class".

Whistle-blowers?

I have written before about the harsh treatment given to the young soldier who "leaked" classified information. Again, we hear nothing of any disciplinary action against those who "unlocked the gate", allowing an immature young man to have access to some of our country's diplomatic and other secrets. Manning has spent long months in a Marine "brig", often in solitary confinement and deprived of clothing. A judge has reduced the future sentence because of his mistreatment/ He has already pled guilty to certain lesser charges. He is being tried this month on charges that he aided the enemy. It will be a long trial. There are people who have formed "Free Bradley Manning" groups. LGBT folk in particular have made this a major issue. A little common sense would call for dropping the remaining charges, for which it seems unlikely that he'll be found guilty. He should then be sentenced to "time served" for his guilty pleas, and released, IMO. The administration's insistence on a trial while he still suffers in jail.seems vindictive, and leads to speculation that this gay soldier has been the victim of prejudice because of his sexual orientation. J do not consider those who betray our nation's secrets as heroes. There are proper (though not always comfortable) ways to express opposition to secrecy. The saga of Edward Snowden is still ongoing. I am not impressed by his frantic efforts to stay out of custody. I hope he is arrested and brought to trial for his disloyalty. In my "old fashioned" view of morality, it is totally acceptable to disobey a law if so doing (a) does not endanger others, and (b) if one is prepared to accept the consequences. This can be accomplished without endangering National Security. Those who take that course---even if I disagree with them--may be considered "heroes" by many, as they are acting on principle. Edward Snowden does not appear to meet either test.

The "F word"

When I was 16, I wrote an essay for my favorite English teacher, and at one point I wrote "copulating" as a substitute for the word that was needed in that particular place. My teacher was not amused. I took care never to trespass in that way thereafter. Times have certainly changed. Until quite recently, it was rare to see the "F word" in print, and it is still not my style to use it in speech or in writing. That was just the way I was brought up. We also see "freaking", "flipping", etc. I have recently read two books by favorite authors. The first was Our Kind of Traitor, by John Le Carré. The leading character in the story is a Russian oligarch, who wants to defect to the UK with his family. It's a clever story, as are most novels by that author, but my point here is not the plot, rather the Russian's constant use of the once- forbidden word. It was cleverly used, and seemed totally authentic, but my reaction can best be described as mentally wincing at the word's constant use. I have also long enjoyed the Scarpetta series by Patricia Cornwell. It has been a few years since she wrote The Book of the Dead, but once again there is very liberal use of that word. Not that I am shocked, but a little surprised. O, wtf!

RSVP

These are familiar initials in the US, where French speakers are fairly rare. There's a general grasp of the meaning: "Please Reply". A literal translation of the French is "Respond if it pleases you". Those initials have been adapted here to often become a verb, giving birth to such monstrosities as "Please RSVP" and "Have you RSVP'd?" I was brought up to believe that good manners called for a response to all communications containing "RSVP". I'm a bit more selective now. If it's (say) a wedding or dinner invitation, of course a response is needed. If it's a commercial or institutional inquiry, I recognize that it is just a matter of the hosting entity wanting to know how many places to set, I don't choose to waste time and maybe a stamp in replying that I won't be there. (I know I'll be in good company when ignoring the request.) In recent times I've noticed a helpful variant. If the invitation says "Acceptances Only" I don't have the least twinge of confidence in taking a pass on the event and the need to make a negative response.

Altar Rail

My parish church (St. Mark's Episcopal Church, Berkeley) was sensibly designed so that the Sanctuary area in front of the stone altar, (no longer used as such) is raised about four feet above the level of the rows of pews. This enables the congregation to observe the action of the liturgy. When it is time to proceed towards the beautiful wooden altar to receive communion, there are stairs and a handrail on each side of the sanctuary. I would have no problem climbing up the stairs, but walking to the foot of the stairs would be difficult for me, even with a cane. The presider and the deacon or Eucharistic Minister always come down to the main level, and offer the bread and wine to the infirm. I began taking advantage of this some three years ago. There is one elderly and very infirm woman who prefers to have two supporters, one on each side, to assist her up to the rail. I wonder why this is important to her. I don't criticize her for her preference, of course. I do wonder if she thinks her struggles to the rail bring greater benefit. More likely, she is just doing what she has always done to receive communion.

The IRS Blunder

I can well understand the furor created by the reports that the Cleveland office of the IRS "targeted" entities with "Tea Party" or "Patriots" in the title. I am certainly not surprised that the Republican Party is making such an issue of this news. After the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court, it is not surprising that a flood of money was then dispatched for political causes. It is also not surprising that a flood of applications for 501(c)(4) status were then received by the IRS, which has the duty of determining if the applicant qualifies for the preferred status (gifts made to entities that undertake political work are not deductible to the donor, but those that receive the 501(c)(4) status may use the funds for "social welfare", although not for direct political purposes.) It is the responsibility of the IRS to determine whether the applicant qualifies for a 501(c)(4) exemption. Joe Klein in Time describes what happened as a "lunkheaded effort by mid-level IRS employees to use an ideological shortcut". I have some sympathy for the IRS employees, faced with a massive influx of applications, who decided to identify some applications which were suspicious, since the entities submitting them obviously exist for political purposes. Some of these applications were "shelved", essentially. Perhaps if I had been working in that IRS department, I would also have tried to weed out blatant attempts by purely political organizations to claim that any of their funds were used for the required "social welfare" purposes. That sympathetic point of view I am expressing may be shared by many. However, a more sophisticated management would have realized that by "flagging" right-wing groups they were setting themselves up to be accused of political bias.