I have a mystery. And, since it is self-evident that all readers of this blog are intelligent, well-read, perceptive, and helpful, I am betting that at least one of you can solve this.

Let me set the stage for you:

Outside my back door is a small patio, with several pots of flowers. To one side of the patio is a little landscaped area covered in crushed rock, with an ornamental pear tree, a birdbath, a hanging bird feeder, a good-sized ornamental rock, and some hostas. There is a downspout on the corner of the house between the patio and the landscaped area, and the splash block under the downspout lies atop the crushed rock. The bird feeder hangs directly above the splash block. The crushed rock is in the marble-to-golf-ball-size range.

I live in a condominium. (Or is it a town home? I don’t know the difference.) So, while the front of my house faces the street, the back opens into the “common area.” It is fenced.

This is a suburban residential area of a small city, so wildlife consists of birds, squirrels, a fair number of rabbits, and a couple of cats from across the street. And me, I guess.

More than once, I have found one or two of the pieces of crushed rock lying in the splash block under the downspout. I toss them out, and a few days later they’re back. There are four of them out there as I write. Now, these mystery rocks are not the marble-sized ones. Often they are as big as the palm of my hand, too heavy to be blown anywhere by the wind, and too large to be carried by any bird smaller than a raven or hawk.

Yesterday I was watering the pots of flowers, and there was a piece of lava rock in one. I KNOW it wasn’t there before, because I planted those flowers myself not very long ago, and I tend to them daily. Had it been there on Monday or Tuesday, I would have seen it. That particular rock, being porous lava rock, is light enough to have been carried by a smaller bird. Or a rabbit, or a squirrel.

But why?

Posted by Sharon under Observations | No Comments »

Grant Cushinberry has died at the age of 86.

Mr. Cushinberry was born in Nicodemus, an all-black town founded in 1877 in northwest Kansas by former slaves fleeing the south.  He came to Topeka after WW II to attend the Kansas Vocational School.  That means he was here during the Brown v. Topeka Board of Education turmoil and decision.

His nephew Dale is now the principal at Highland Park High School.

He owned a trash-hauling business, and the first I remember being aware of him was seeing the brightly-painted truck lumbering down the street.  It was a moving billboard, mobile graffiti.  Every message, every word painted there was positive.  It was his blog before there was an internet.  And splayed across the front was, “Here Comes Cush!”

He founded, and for almost 30 years spent most of each November organizing, the Topeka Community Thanksgiving Dinner.  The food is donated (with, I’m sure, some arm-twisting) by local businesses and is prepared by volunteers.  Anyone can come eat, no questions asked.  Most years, 3,000 people show up.

Mr. Cushinberry also operated what he called “God’s Little Half Acre.”  He grew vegetables there, and distributed food, clothing, furniture, and who-knows-what-else to those who needed them.  Again, the goods he gave away were donated, solicited from local businesses and individuals.

Mr. Cushinberry probably wouldn’t have called himself a libertarian, but on a fundamental level, that was exactly what he was.  I’m proud to have lived in the same town with him.

Mayor Bunten is quoted in this morning’s paper as saying, “I think there will be a little celebration in heaven tonight because a guy like Grant is coming home.”

I don’t doubt it for a minute.

Posted by Sharon under Observations | No Comments »

I believe in charity. I believe that helping those who truly cannot help themselves benefits everyone involved, donor and recipient.

I do not, however, believe in legally mandated charity, and for many reasons.

For one thing, it’s too easy. Ideally, real charity should involve face-to-face contact between donor and recipient. Each person involved in the transaction should be able to get a good look at the other, to see the need and the compassion, and to see the effect the exchange has on the other. Alternatively, a private and volunteer organization whose judgment and screening process we trust can distribute our donations to good effect.

But when our donations are wrested from us by law and redistributed without our input, it becomes way too easy to believe we’ve done our share with no cost to us except money.

My main objection to coerced charity, however, is that when I choose to (or am forced to) donate money or food or clothing to someone in need, I have the right, even the responsibility, to check and see whether the recipient is a scam artist. I want to have a say in who receives my charitable donations. I want to be able to question the people who are divvying up the money I give. I want to find out what the criteria are for receiving help. I want to be sure that the recipients of my dollars are, first of all, making the best use of their own resources before they ask for mine. I want to know if they’re working at all, and just need some help at the end of the month, or refusing to work. Or maybe unable to work. I want to be able to withhold my contributions from any agency that seems careless or overly lax in doling out my gifts, and give it instead to another group whose policies I agree with.

Do I have the right to that information? Darn tootin’ I do.

I know someone who is really struggling right now. There is illness in her family, minimal support from other family members, not enough money, confrontations with insurance providers, more than one job (which leaves even less time for the other obligations), and her own health is not the best.

I mentioned to a mutual friend that maybe some of us could help her out. There are a number of things we could do, but money seems to be the overwhelming lack, and many of the other problems could be eased with just a little more cash.

The mutual friend spent several minutes telling me why that wouldn’t be a good idea. She had a lot of information that I didn’t know about – wasted opportunities, unnecessary alienation of other family members, wasted resources, lack of understanding of basic information about social services, and a host of other stories that made it pretty clear that the person I wanted to help had brought a lot of her troubles on herself. It was new information for me, and my mind’s (and heart’s) jury is still out on the subject.

And that brings us to what I found so astonishing about the conversation I had with the mutual friend: The person who chose not to help a close acquaintance because she knew that the person in need was not making good decisions and could therefore do more to help herself — this same person predictably and consistently advocates legislation to raise taxes to increase social programs to funnel money to virtually anyone who asks for help.

And I’m pretty sure our needy friend would qualify for those same social programs if she applied.

My liberal friend is willing to pay higher taxes to fund government programs that take away from her the right to direct her charitable contributions, yet insists on exercising that right when presented with the opportunity to help someone close.

I, on the other hand, am willing to help a friend who would probably not be entitled to help from the more stringent private charitable organizations I advocate.

Does all this mean anything?

Honestly, I don’t know.

KsSmallBiz.com, March 14, 2007

Posted by Sharon under Libertarianism | No Comments »