How is This Still a Thing?

Posted: October 26, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Culture, Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

I’m going to go out on a limb and assume I’m going to offend some folks with this post, most likely some of the same people I offended when I addressed my issues with feminism, but I’d like to state for the record that I am not blaming feminism for this one. I am blaming cowardice and stupidity. If you are offended by anything I have to say in this post, I will gladly address your concerns, but I wanted to get that out there first.

So I recently found out that the University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill has removed the word “freshmen” from official documents to adopt more “gender inclusive language”. Point of fact, according to the linked article the policy change occurred in 2009, but then I don’t stay abreast of every action I find idiotic in the world, just the ones that come knocking on my doorstep. It’s not even that I find this terribly shocking in and of itself, since this isn’t the first time I’ve heard of something like this happening, it’s the fact that something like this is still happening in 2009.

Look, I love the English language, and I get as much as anyone that words have power. I use them every day, in my job and in my hobby (you’re reading the latter right now, if I haven’t offended you too much already). But there has to be a point at which we say that while words have meaning, there is such a thing as reading too much meaning into words. I realize the deconstructionists out there will disagree with me, as will certain others, but where do we draw the line?

I cite as an example, and the reason I say “why is this still a thing?” the exact same joke I made when this whole question of language use first came to my attention… back in 1993. That’s right, about twenty years ago. At the time I was joking about the word “humankind”. Obviously this word is offensive, as it contains the word “man” and is meant to refer to all homo sapiens. Therefore we should change it to hupersonkind. However even this is offensive, as it contains the word “son”, which is still gender discriminative, as well as making assumptions about family roles. That simply won’t do. We should therefore make it into “huperchildkind”. The word “kind” may remain as it is an affirmation, and something we should all strive toward being.

Ridiculous? I should say so. And that was my point. Any attempt to change a word simply because it contains within it a masculine form which, within the established rules of the English language is the gender-neutral form, is just that: ridiculous. I’m not aware of attempts to change European languages that default to masculine and feminine forms for inanimate objects, although if those exist I would consider them equally silly. The rules of language may be arbitrary, but they exist and we follow them because they work. Taking offense where none is intended or necessary is just looking for excuses to be angry at the whole damn world for not bending to your whims, and frankly there are better windmills to tilt at.

This is not to say I oppose all attempts to make language gender-neutral. While I abhor such ludicrous neologisms as “actron”, I freely accept the interchangeable use of the gender-neutral term “actor” being applied to men and women who ply the same trade, and a magician is equally as talented (or not) regardless of gender. There are also times and places where gender differences are useful in one’s title; or perhaps you are one of the folks who don’t care if you are served by a masseur or a masseuse. None of these, however, are relevant to the issue above; that is simply a matter of cowardice and stupidity, blindly flailing about in a craven attempt to please all and offend none. The end result is often the exact opposite.

Words matter. They have power. They have meaning. They can be used for so many things, to create joy or sorrow, to enlighten or spread ignorance and fear. So long as we give in to the forces who would take away our words in the name of cowardice and stupidity, all we have left is

 

 

 

Anarchy X: The Fifth Commandment

Posted: October 24, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Anarchy X, Culture, Politics | Tags: , , , , , , | 1 Comment

“Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.”

To what extent does this Commandment inform our policy making, or should it? If your answer was “it shouldn’t”, congratulations, you’re as much a heathen as I am. If your answer instead was Medicare and Social Security, you’re more like the vast majority of Americans. (If your answer was “transfer payments from the young to the elderly in order to ensure votes”, you’re a politician.)

While the driving forces behind Social Security and Medicare are not solely or even predominantly religious, the sentiment encapsulated in this Commandment is a strong element of what drives the so-called “social safety net” in American politics. The great fear of poor Mom and Dad being cast out into the street by a cruel and unforgiving world after working for so long to raise us, nurture us, and support us, despite everything they have done, due to the vagaries of fate and unforgiving and impersonal market forces. Surely we as a society care enough to step in and make sure that doesn’t happen?

What I find most perplexing about that viewpoint is that it seems to me to completely miss the point of what is being said here. Setting aside my own personal beliefs about “the vagaries of fate” and market forces, I would like to take a moment to consider two possible scenarios of someone who follows the maxim of “Honour thy father and thy mother”, one with a “social safety net” and one without. While I would not presume to suggest that these are archetypical cases, I think they can at least be illustrative.

First let us take Mr. and Mrs. Smith. They have worked hard all their lives, have a decent 401(k), and a modest savings. They own their own home with a small mortgage, and have retired just a few years ago. They are not yet old enough to collect Social Security or go on Medicare, but in a few years they will be. The tragedy strikes; Mr. Smith falls gravely ill. His illness wipes out their savings, and they lose their home as well; even if he recovers, what then? They still can’t collect Social Security, and getting a job is unlikely. Fortunately for them they have loving children who will take them in, because their children believe they should “honour thy father and thy mother”. Of course they only have a small apartment, since it’s all they can afford, but something is better than nothing, and maybe in a few years when Mr. and Mrs. Smith finally get SSI they can try to get something a little roomier.

Now let’s consider the same scenario without the social safety net. Having not paid into it over the years, Mr. and Mrs. Smith have more money in savings, and maybe even invested in catastrophic health insurance. While they are still hurting from Mr. Smith’s illness, they aren’t wiped out; perhaps they have to ask their children for some help to get by, but they don’t have to lose the home. The kids, having not paid into the system either, have more money to lend to Mr. and Mrs. Smith, and of course they will, because they believe they should “honour thy father and thy mother”. It’s still not ideal, but everyone is better off.

Is this likely? No. It’s not the most likely situation because there is no “most likely” situation. Everyone’s situation is unique. But the idea that everyone’s situation in unique is not an argument in favor of a one-size-fits-all solution, it is an argument against it.

So what is the right choice? Simply abandon people to whatever may come? No, but a system that creates need in the young as much as it resolves it in the old is no answer either. Finding ways to encourage families to support each other, and encouraging communities to do the same, giving people the tools to build better lives all the length of their lives rather than hope there will be a magical government net to catch them when they fall; these are the solutions we should strive toward.

It would seem to me that if you want to honor your parents, the best way to do so would be to understand them. Talk to them, preserve what they have learned, and if possible, build on it. Give due consideration to their advice, knowing that they have been around the block more times than you have, but also recognizing that they imparted on you the tools to think critically, to reason, to analyze and not take things at face value. Live well, be well, and treat others with the dignity and respect you would ask for yourself: that’s as much honor as anyone can ask.

A Vote for Me is a Vote for America

Posted: October 22, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Culture, Humor, Politics, Satire | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Early voting has begun, and so I have decided it’s time to announce my candidacy for President of the United States. I was considering explaining my positions on various key issues, but after studying my opponents’ campaigns in depth I realized that was the wrong strategy. Instead I have decided to emulate their approach and connect with you, the voters. I’m going to explain why you should vote for me, because I’m one of you.

If you’re young, hey, I was young once. I get you. If you’re old, I plan to be old someday. And if you’re somewhere in between, that’s where I’m at right now.

If you’re a man, what a coincidence! So am I. And if you’re a woman, hey, let’s hear it for the X chromosome! You’ve got one, I’ve got one, you’ve got another one. It’s like we’re half-sisters!

If you’re poor, I’ve been there. I know what it’s like. If you’re rich, I want to know what it’s like. And if you’re in the middle class, I probably live next door to you.

For the white people out there, nothing to worry about, I’m as white as Mitt Romney. And if you’re a minority, I spent a whole half-hour in Southeast D.C. once, so I can relate.

If you’re a college graduate, I’ve been to college. If you’re not a college graduate, neither am I! I’m the middle of the road candidate America has been crying out for.

Hablo español.

If there’s a cause you support, let me assure you that there’s twelve months and 365 days in a year. Depending on the number of votes you can deliver, I can hook you up with an Awareness Month or a federal holiday. Trust me, I’m good for it.

I have voted Republican, Democrat, and Libertarian. No matter what you are for or against, I am both for and against it.

I believe in the same God you do, which is to say I worship the Almighty Dollar.

I’ve been crushed by student debt, I’ve been crushed by credit card debt, and I was crushed when Bella chose Edward over Jacob.

I will never pander for your vote unless you want me to.

I promise to cut taxes, cut the deficit, save Social Security, and save you a bunch of money on your car insurance.

I vow I will not bail out Wall Street, I will bail out Main Street, and I always buy American.

I am The Boy Who Lived.

I believe in climate change, and I’m all for it.

I support the right for any loving couple, no matter their gender, to get a divorce.

I believe America needs to get back to work, and America works best when we all pull together towards a common goal. That’s why I’m asking you, my fellow Americans, to work to support me in my campaign to be President of the United States.

Thank you, and Almighty Dollar bless.

A Cure Slightly Better Than the Disease

Posted: October 19, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Politics | Tags: , , | 1 Comment

I have to admit, I’m more than a little confused these days by the apparent complacency among most people towards the failures in government that seem to be coming more fast and furious than ever. It’s not like these are small mistakes or minor rounding errors that are occurring; these are major, ongoing issues, and it’s not just in our own country. If private companies were to make mistakes or (worse) engage in cover-ups of this magnitude, there would be an immediate outcry for investigations and government oversight. But who watches the watchmen? (Well, okay, I did. Great film. But that’s beside the point.)

The counter I usually get from friends and colleagues when I bring these issues up is that “there are other branches of government that are investigating.” Oh, good. That makes me feel ever so much better. Because I certainly would have trusted BP to investigate after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and if there were any doubts about private contractors in Iraq I feel quite confident that Halliburton would have gotten to the bottom of it and let us all know the facts right away. They both have internal divisions for checking into that sort of stuff. All major companies do. And they have nothing to gain from gaming the system, right?

The source of my doubt and cynicism is the logical fallacy of it all. Even granting for the sake of argument that each branch of government is independent, that each department is independent, and there’s no amount of favor-trading or back scratching going on, there are still problems. Fact: the cause for the investigation is corruption or ineptitude in a government agency. Fact: the investigators are coming from a government agency. Assertion: we have nothing to be concerned about, because the government will fix it. Does anyone else see the problem here?

The worst violators of this, and I am not pointing at either the left or the right because they both do it, are the ones who demand the most government “oversight” of the free market. Whether it is in manufacturing, finance, or any other field, it seems there is no limit to the amount of regulations, restrictions, and controls they want to impose. And to what purpose? To ensure that nobody does anything wrong. But something always goes wrong, bad things happen, and people always find a way to game the system, for three simple reasons.

The first is that criminals are creative, and where there is money to be made they will find a way to make it. Too hard to import drugs? They’ll start cooking their own. Make it too difficult to get the common stuff they need, they’ll find other ways. Meanwhile, the companies that are being regulated are lobbying Capitol Hill to make sure that the laws are as generous as possible for them and as hard as possible on their current competition as well as any new entrants. The people who end up getting hurt most by these laws are usually the ones inconvenienced by them day in and day out, paying more in money and time for law abiding activities. But hey, anything to prevent 1% of the population from doing something bad, right?

The second reason is that technology marches on. Laws move at the speed of legislation, which (thankfully) is not nearly so fast as the speed of innovation. Every time a new technology hits the market, it has the potential to change the way we live our lives and make existing laws obsolete. This is most often a good thing, but it has its downsides. Fifty years ago nobody ever heard of computer crime, and “identity theft” was when somebody forged your name on a check. But legislators try to make new laws that keep up with the times, rather than understanding that for the most part, the existing laws still work just fine; identity theft is fraud, computer crime usually involves some kind of theft, and we really don’t need new powers to delineate what can or should be done about it.

Finally, sometimes people get hurt because of the law of unintended consequences. Whether it’s because somebody thought they found a new way to make money that everybody bought into with good faith and it turned out the market wasn’t there for it, or maybe there was a government program that was meant to alleviate poverty and instead it perpetuated it for generations (hypothetically). We have imperfect knowledge, and we cannot know the results or far-ranging ramifications of our actions until after they occur; to assume otherwise is the height of hubris. To press on without acknowledging this is simple folly.

So what is the nature of government that sets it apart from other human institutions? In the private sector, if there is corruption, or bad judgment, or even a simple failure to deliver on enough of the promises that have been made to your audience, the price that is paid is that your company loses value, and eventually will go under. In government, the price of these things is… more government. That would make as much sense as rewarding bad management at companies with more money to continue their bad management.

I’m not advocating for a complete absence of government. There needs to be some outside force that does punish the wicked, but there needs to be an understanding as well that government is not always the answer, and not even the first answer. Government should be the answer of last resort, the cure that is only slightly better than the disease. Approached that way, perhaps then we will see a little less of the rampant growth of government, as well as fewer attempts to buy the government we have.

Anarchy X: The Fourth Commandment

Posted: October 17, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Anarchy X | Tags: , , , , , | 2 Comments

“Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”

I remember when I was a kid, you pretty much couldn’t go anywhere on Sunday because everything was closed. Not just shorter hours mind you, but closed. I’m not sure if this was because of blue laws or just tradition, but I do remember my dad being put out about it more than once. Everybody rushed to the grocery store on Saturday because you weren’t going shopping on Sunday. The idea that the Supreme Court could get behind a government mandated day of rest boggles my mind, but then, I guess I figured I left being told when to take a nap behind when I graduated from kindergarten.

So what does all of this have to do with the Fourth Commandment? Surprisingly, not much. Maybe it’s just my libertarian prejudices peeking through again, but I don’t see anything to object to in this Commandment, so long as those who are believers read it the same way I do. Yes, it’s quite clear about mandating a day of rest, and I am always a fan of taking a day off, but a careful reading shows that there are lines as to exactly just how far that prohibition on work extends.

I see a lot there about “thou shalt not do any work” (the believer), “nor thy son, nor thy daughter” (the believer’s immediate household), “thy manservant, nor thy maidservant” (any hired laborers you have around), ” nor thy cattle” (any beasts of burden you own), ” nor thy stranger that is within thy gates” (any guests or outsiders in your home). Pretty much to me this reads as “don’t try to weasel out of this on a technicality, just accept that you won’t be getting any work done today and set the day aside”. That doesn’t extend to “everyone in the world, whether they believe in your religion or not, has to set the day aside”, especially since it specifically denotes the stranger “within thy gates”, not “the stranger who lives down the street”.

Something even more positive I can take out of this is an argument for property rights. It might be seen by some as a bit of a stretch, but follow me on this one. That one clause about “nor thy stranger that is within thy gates” is an assertion of the supremacy of a person’s beliefs within the domain of their home. If I enter a person’s home, I’m not converting to their religion, but I am giving tacit acceptance to the social norms they live by. If I’m not comfortable with those norms, I’m free to leave at any time, but by no means do I have a right to try to force my views on them.

I’ve always been a big believer in the idea of “my house, my rules”, and that knife cuts both ways. Come Sunday, if I visit the home of someone who holds the Sabbath holy, I’ll abide by the conventions they consider appropriate, and if they decide to come over to my place, I’ll expect them to do the same. Of course there is a certain give and take in a polite society, and if I am aware that they are prohibited by their beliefs from engaging in work on the Sabbath I won’t ask them to pick up a hammer and help me out with a project, but by the same token I’ll expect them to respect my belief that there’s nothing wrong with me going ahead with what I’m doing (although anyone who knows me knows that’s unlikely on any day, but you get my point).

UPDATE: By special request, my thoughts on mandated rest – I’m a big fan of taking a break every now and then (as my wife will gladly attest to). However, I’m also a big believer in personal responsibility, and it just rubs me the wrong way to think that people would need to be told, or even forced by their beliefs, to take a day off. There have been times in my life, particularly when I was younger and still acting, when I was working seven days a week, ten to twelve hours a day. It was exhausting but exhilarating. Was it the right choice to make? I don’t honestly know. I certainly wouldn’t do it now. But there are times now when I have to work every day of the week to keep up with my job and school, and if one considers writing for this blog to be work (which by the definitions of this Commandment I believe it would be) I work every day of the week, and if I didn’t I would never have enough time to get everything done. Even if I did get everything done, my six days of working every week would be miserable, and I would prefer to just spread some of that work into the extra day.

As far as mandating a rest for one’s servants and animals, I believe that in a proper libertarian system, the problem would take care of itself. First, slavery would not be an issue, as it would be outlawed. People would have the right to make whatever contracts they felt were appropriate, as noted above. And if you work your animals to death, eventually you won’t have animals at all. I know that sounds rather cold blooded, but there is an alternative: the principle of shame. Shame is a powerful motivator, and if a community finds the actions of one person to be outside the bounds of acceptable behavior, but within the bounds of legal behavior (the grey zone, if you will), simply refusing to associate with them and letting them know why can often change their behavior very quickly. It works very well in those societies that practice shunning and the like. It also preserves the element of free will; if you really think you’re in the right, keep doing what you’re doing, just don’t expect me to agree.

Why Not Everybody Should Go To College (And How to Do It)

Posted: October 15, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Culture | Tags: , , | 1 Comment

I know it’s the popular thing these days to wax poetic about the value of a college degree, and at the same time complain about the cost of a college education. I’d like to step back a moment and question both of those, if for no other reason than the logical fallacy of holding both of those positions. I mean, if we value something, isn’t it supposed to cost more? Maybe I got that wrong, but then, I’m still working on my expensive college education. Which is why I’d like to offer some helpful tips to those young enough to still use them (or the parents of those young enough to still use them).

I made most of my mistakes regarding college twenty years ago. The world was a much different place then; it was much more forgiving, at least from what I can tell. Tuition was lower, admission requirements were less stringent, the Mafia couldn’t trace you by your cell phone if you didn’t make your loan payments – well, you get the idea. What was even more glorious was that we still believed the idea that a college degree was worth an extra million dollars or so in lifetime earnings, and that was in 1990 dollars (which actually meant something).

At least, that’s the line we were sold. According to this article by James Harrigan and Antony Davies, that $1,000,000 bonus only comes from the STEM fields – Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. So I guess switching from Theater to English didn’t get me the big pay raise I was expecting. But that doesn’t mean there’s no point in getting a college degree at all, because I’ll be the first to admit, when I hire people I still look at the education line (especially when your work experience basically consists of “Babysitter – Burgerflipper – Senior Burgerflipper” – in that order). It’s just that there’s good reasons to do it, bad reasons to do it, and good and bad ways to go about it.

Before you even decide to go to college, think about what you want to do. Is it something you actually need a degree for? If you plan to be in a rock band, just go start one. I know, lots of people will pan me for this, but hear me out. Chances are you will fail, but a degree isn’t going to change that. Either you can play/sing/whatever you intend to do or you can’t. Define what success will look like in five years, give it five years, and if you aren’t succeeding, re-evaluate your options. “Success” doesn’t have to equate to “superstar”, it can equate to “living off the money we make playing as a band”. But at least you tried.

The same can be said for a lot of other fields. Even if you need some sort of technical knowledge, maybe a trade school is a better (and far less expensive) option than college. If you want to start a business, determine what knowledge you really think you need and see if you can’t get that knowledge through community college classes. Yes, I know everyone makes fun of community college; I did too, but guess what? The people who spend the last six to eight years getting an MBA don’t have a business, they have a mountain of debt.

Speaking of community college, even if you decide you do need a full Bachelor’s degree, why not start at community college and then transfer? Most schools have an arrangement with their local community college network so you can even find out exactly which classes to take to transfer directly over, and you won’t miss a step. Plan it out right and you can even pick up an Associate’s degree along the way just in case anything happens before you finish the Bachelor’s.

Here’s another tip: speaking as an employer, I really don’t care what school you went to unless it’s Harvard or Yale. Now while that’s not 100% true, it’s pretty damn close. There are a handful of schools that are just so good that they are simply known. There’s a few others that have been at the top of their field for long enough that they are known for it. If you are going to one of those schools, they are worth paying a premium price for (in the latter case, you better be getting a degree in that field or you’re throwing your money away). Anywhere else is not worth more than a public university, because no employer will give a damn, but you will have paid more anyway.

Here’s something else to think about: are you ready for school? I mean seriously ready? Because I’ve known plenty of people, myself included, who screwed around their first year or two in college and just wasted lots of money. If I had gotten a job instead I could have screwed around ’til they fired me and had a little money in my pocket. If I had just screwed around in my parents’ house doing nothing I’d at least have broken even. Going to school a year or two later is better than graduating a year or two later anyway but having two extra years of debt.

One final thought: there are jobs out there that will pay for your school. If you think you can handle not having a life for a while, there’s nothing wrong with going to school part-time and working full-time while you let someone else pick up the tab. Even if you just get a part-time job that helps cover the bills, anything to stay out from under those big bills is a help, and there’s nothing wrong with applying for every scholarship under the sun. The best money is free money.

I hope you take my advice, and I hope it does some good. If you can learn from my mistakes, at least they have some value. If you can’t learn from my mistakes, you won’t learn a thing in college.

The Market Won’t Provide: How Libertarians Get It Wrong

Posted: October 12, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Politics | Tags: , , , | 3 Comments

Ever since I was a kid, I wanted a flying car. I know I’m not alone in this, since roughly everyone since ever has wanted a flying car. Cars have been around for over a hundred years, and people have been talking about delivering a flying car for at least half that time, so if as I hear so often “the market will provide”, where’s my damn flying car?

1.       The market can’t defy the laws of physics. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not the kind of naysayer who looks at an airplane and says “that thing will never fly”. Of course I understand that man will continue to push past the boundaries of the present, and I fully believe the free market is the best motivator to allow the best ideas to flourish and make their way to the top. But I too often hear libertarians make impossible (for today) wishes, and when you call them on it, they just say, “the market will provide” as if that’s some kind of answer. Yeah, maybe it will someday, but today’s not the day, and tomorrow doesn’t look too good either.

2.       The market might provide, but not in the way you think. Actually, my father-in-law has been behind the wheel of a flying car more than once. He has a pilot’s license. I’m not even talking about those big, giant private jets (which are the stretch limos of flying cars), I’m talking a Piper Cub and the ilk. It may not be the flying car everyone envisions, but that’s how I’ve been taught markets work: when you can’t get exactly what you want, they provide a more reasonable alternative. But when most libertarians say “the market will provide” they usually mean it as a blind faith assumption that they can get what they want – somewhere. Which leads to…

3.       The market might provide, but not at a price you want to pay. There’s a term I’ve become very familiar with of late: “market clearing price.” It goes like this: say someone actually does invent a flying car. And say they start selling them for, oh, one million dollars. Guess what I won’t be buying anytime soon? And neither will anyone I know, despite the fact that we all want a flying car. The demand is there! It’s there, I tell you! In fact, I’m demanding a flying car right now. And yet I can demand it all day and I still won’t get one until I pony up the cash, because there will be enough people who do.

That’s what a market clearing price is. Even if they could make them cheaper, there’s no incentive to. Same with anything else; as long as people will buy at the price they set, there’s no incentive to lower the price. “But wait!” cry the libertarians, “the free market means someone else can make another flying car at a lower price! Competition, that’s the answer!” Fair enough. But competition will only bring the cost down just so low before it’s no longer the best use of their time and money before they have another, better way to make money. That’s how free markets work, remember?

4.       The market only provides to meet demand. Yes, I want a flying car. Yes, I know a lot of other people who want flying cars too. I also know a lot of people who want adult-sized Underoos (no, I am not one of them, no matter what my sister tells you). That doesn’t mean the market will start providing them tomorrow, even if it could meet the engineering feat, and considering the size of some of these people I really hope it can’t. Why? Because there’s just not enough money to be made. Money is just a proxy for demand, which tells us the best use of resources, and quite frankly I don’t ever see adult size Underoos being a good use of resources. For anyone. Ever. And just because everyone I know wants a flying car, or claims they do, doesn’t mean there is enough real market demand for them, because I don’t know everyone. That’s what economists call a knowledge problem. That’s kind of what markets are there to solve, and sometimes the solution is you don’t get your flying car (or Underoos).

It’s time to think in new ways, and hopefully some of the libertarians I know will think about some of the things I’ve written here and lose some of the utopian idealism they have about markets. Markets aren’t perfect. They are the best system we have in an imperfect world to achieve very specific objectives, but there are some things they can’t do. They can’t provide the perfect product at the perfect price in the perfect time frame. More often markets are about finding the best compromise with the resources at hand in the time you have. Or as my mechanic used to say, “we have three options: good, fast and cheap. Pick two.”

So what am I driving at here? Am I trying to tell libertarians to throw in the towel, stop worrying and learn to love the government? Far from it. What I am saying is that faith-based arguments only work when you are preaching to the choir. For everybody else, a little humility can go a long way. Acknowledge the weaknesses of the market, and then point out a few things. Things like the government can’t defy physics either, that government services often cost more than private solutions, and that government options are often more limited than free market solutions when they exist at all.

The false dichotomy of “perfect government solution” vs. “pie in the sky by and by” is a loser every time. But once you start putting real world options next to each other, admitting that each has something to offer but each has inherent weaknesses, you start a meaningful dialogue. The result of that dialogue, hopefully, is that by treating the person you are speaking with as an intelligent person they will offer you the same courtesy, and you can give them a new perspective and something to think on. You may not make a convert out of them, but you won’t make an enemy either, and you might at least get them thinking in new ways.

Anarchy X: The Third Commandment

Posted: October 10, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Anarchy X, Culture | Tags: , , , , | Leave a comment

“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.”

Okay, even I can’t misinterpret or twist this one. It’s pretty much straightforward. I’m not even going to demand a strict interpretation of “JHVH” as the name of God being the only thing that can’t be taken in vain, because that’s just being silly. So in what ways does the Third Commandment affect the broader tapestry of our society? I see it as being in three ways. First, in those who embrace the ideology of the Judeo-Christian framework but then don’t live up to it in the laws they support; second, in those who make any sort of oath using a Torah, Bible, or other holy book derived from the Commandments and then violating that oath; and third in potential conflicts between the Third Commandment and the First Amendment.

For those who subscribe to this particular set of ideals, even without looking more broadly than the Commandments themselves I think there’s a fair bit of potential for conflict. Setting aside any jokes about politicians and adultery, there’s still plenty of arguments to be made. The weakest is regarding taxation, which some have argued is equivalent to theft. I’m not looking to make that argument here (although I may when I get to the Eighth Commandment), but I am putting it out there for consideration. More importantly there’s the question of all the people and politicians who make a big show of their faith and yet also make a big show of support for the death penalty. I’m not sure exactly how they square that with the Sixth Commandment, but that’s another one I’ll discuss further when I get to it. For now, I’m just asking questions.

As far as the taking of oaths, I know it was a requirement at some point to swear on the Bible when taking the stand or taking office, although I’m not sure if that was law or tradition with the force of law, nor am I sure if that is the case anymore. If a non-believer were to take an oath using the Bible, is that a violation of the Third Commandment? What about the many, many times that people have taken oaths, whether it be of office or simply when taking the stand in court proceedings, and then broken those oaths, but they were believers? I assume those are cases where the Commandment was broken. But what if they had no intention of breaking the oath at the time they took it?

Or what if they didn’t want to use the holy book because they felt it was in some way disrespectful? I mean no disrespect to anyone when I say invoking the Bible, the Torah, or the Quran would not influence my feelings about an oath, except perhaps to make me uncomfortable taking it in the first place since I see no reason to mix religion with public matters. But for believers, if there is a stigma, does it attach to the person who took an oath under duress or to the person who created the duress?

Finally, on the subject of non-believers, duress, and taking the lord’s name in vain, we have the issue of the First Amendment and how it intersects with the Third Amendment. Please note that I didn’t just say “free speech”, I very deliberately said “the First Amendment”. The issue here is one of freedom of religion as much as it is one of free speech and of the press. When we still censor the use of the phrase “god damn” on the chance that someone might be offended, and even more extreme forms of language and self-expression are suppressed with a ruthlessness that some third-world dictators might admire, there can be no question that there is an intersection between free speech and freedom of religion. But where do we draw the line? The presumption of “public airwaves” is that they are owned by the public as a whole, and not by any one segment of the public. So the question then becomes, do we appeal to the lowest common denominator of lasciviousness or the lowest common denominator of righteousness? Think carefully before you answer, because while your answer may be rooted in a desire not to hear someone use “Jesus Christ” as a curse, it may also mean not allowing someone to display an image of Mohammad either. “Freedom of religion” does not equate to “freedom of YOUR religion”.

Midlife (Health) Crisis

Posted: October 8, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Culture | Tags: , , , | 1 Comment

As I become a grouchy middle age man, I’m slowly coming to realize I’m not quite the svelte, dynamic Adonis I once was. In particular I’m noticing that this year my waist measurement and my age will match for the first time in a decade, and that’s not the thrill that it once was. I also notice I get winded walking up a single flight of stairs, and I have trouble doing the sorts of things I used to enjoy, like yelling at kids to get off my lawn (what can I say; I was born a cranky old man). Looking back on the past twenty years, I think about how I got from there to here, and I have some advice to offer to those of you who may still be on the right side of thirty, or even some thoughts of what to do if, like me, you’re staring down the barrel of your high school reunion and a suit that doesn’t quite fit the way you hoped it would.

First, find some sort of physical activity you actually enjoy. I’m not talking about exercise here, I’m talking about fun. I differentiate between these two because, like almost everything else that was inflicted on most of us in school when we were young, we’ve come to associate the word “exercise” with awful things that we do because we have to and not because we want to. It was different when you were a little kid, running around for the joy of it, riding your bike just to see where you could go, and playing pick-up sports because you wanted to. Find something, anything like that and go with it. Don’t “get in a routine”, don’t time yourself, just get used to being active and enjoying being active.

Next, try one new food every month. You’d be amazed how easy this is to do, and you’ll also be amazed at how many of them you’re going to hate. Yeah, you read that right. I’m not going to sell you on how many wonderful foods there are out there, because the truth is most food tastes terrible to me, and you’re probably going to feel the same way. But I have no idea what foods you’re going to hate, and neither do you, and there’s something else: you have no idea what foods you’re going to love. What’s even better, chances are at least some of those foods are a lot healthier than what you’re eating now. My favorite new discovery was wheat bread. Tasted just fine and it was better for me. Believe it or not, it came as a big shock to me. You could have an “ah-hah” moment like that waiting for you.

Learn how to cook if you don’t already know. This has more benefits than I can easily list, but here’s a few: it’s cheaper than eating out, it’s generally healthier than eating out, it gets made the way you want it, and it can often be done faster (when you take into account travel time, wait time, etc.) Oh, and there’s just one more thing: if you really want to impress someone on a date, cook them a meal. Guys or girls, either way a well-cooked meal is a total turn on. Even a sincere attempt (as long as it’s edible) will score you points.

Pick one bad habit a year to work on. I’m not saying you have to get rid of it completely, but at least work on it. You’ll feel better about yourself as a person and you might even look better too. Don’t fault yourself for not being successful in completely eliminating that habit, and don’t feel like you have to work on the same one each time.

Don’t pick up smoking, and if you have, try to quit. I have nothing but sympathy for my smokers out there. I’ve quit (seriously) at least three times now. My record is one year. It’s a nasty, expensive habit, and one of the toughest to break I’ve ever had. Caffeine is the only one I’ve had more trouble with.

I will make one plea on behalf of all my smokers out there: if you are one of those anti-smoking crusaders who go around hassling them to quit, please stop. It’s just annoying. Especially when you pull out those little nuggets of wisdom about how smoking is bad for our health. Really?!? Are you sure? Wow. I wish someone had mentioned that to me in the eighteen years BEFORE I STARTED SMOKING. Or in the twenty years since. Oh wait, they have. At least once a week. Didn’t do a damn bit of good.

What you are doing is reminiscent of the old adage about trying to teach a pig to whistle: you’re just wasting your time and making the pig want to shove a carton of cigarettes down your throat. Or something like that. The reality is smokers will quit when they quit, and all you can do is give them the support they ask for when they ask for it. By the way, constantly bringing it up with “So are you still not smoking?” Counterproductive. This is as helpful as asking a recovering alcoholic “So, still not drinking?” You are simply reminding them of what they are missing. “How are you?” works fine.

Speaking of drinking, I suggest moderation. I’ve done the whole binge drinking thing, and to be honest I still don’t see what’s fun about it. It basically seems to me to be an excuse to do stupid shit and get others to also do stupid shit, in the hopes that someone will get injured, arrested, or sing karaoke. Maybe all three. If you want to go out and do stuff, do stuff. I’ve done all kinds of things that I dare not write about on the off chance that the statute of limitations hasn’t run out/my mother will read this, and I don’t have the excuse of having been drunk at the time. I cherish those memories, and I was sober enough at the time to have them.

So there you have it: my basic guide to life. No guarantees, no promises, but hopefully something of value.

A Not So Modest Proposal

Posted: October 5, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Politics, Satire | Tags: , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

It has recently come to my attention that the kidney transplantation committee of the United Network for Organ Sharing has issued a proposal to change the way in which donated kidneys are distributed to those who are currently waiting for kidneys. Apparently the current system is as much of a lottery as… well, the lottery, only the winners in this lottery receive a few more years of life, while the losers receive a lovely floral arrangement. The new system looks to improve this by extending the total number of years of life saved, and perhaps even reduce the number of lost donations.

While I understand this is an admirable goal, I feel it is incumbent upon myself, your humble public servant, to point out the logical fallacy in this plan. While they are at least considering improving the efficient use of the resources at hand, they are not in fact addressing the core issue: the scarcity of viable kidneys, and by extension the further scarcity of other organs, tissues, and various donations that up to this point have only been left behind by that handful of Good Samaritans who are willing to sacrifice for the greater good.

Now, far be it from me to suggest something so vulgar as to taint the system by introducing monetary recompense for the donors. Certainly the doctors, the hospitals, and others involved along the way need to have their palms greased with filthy lucre in order to entice them to participate in what would otherwise be a noble calling, but the very idea of incentivizing people to participate in organ donation after they pass on is so far beyond the pale as to not deserve further mention. Even if it would relieve the burden on the system and enrich some few souls along the way, life itself is far too precious a commodity to put a price tag on, unlike something common like food, shelter, or health insurance.

No, I believe the answer is instead to appeal to the better nature of our fellow citizens, and instead follow in the path of our recent Supreme Court decision regarding health care. If it is mandatory that we all participate in the health care of our nation by carrying health insurance, surely it is no great leap to suggest that we make it compulsory to participate in organ donation? Just think of the benefits! No more long waiting lists, no more years desperately hoping for a match; just one bad pile-up on the highway and everyone is a winner (well, except maybe the poor souls on the highway, but you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs).

I understand there may be a few initial objections to my plan, but they can all be easily addressed. After all, our country has a long and distinguished history of compulsory service in the military for young men, and that’s hardly ever given us any trouble. For those who may have religious objections, while I can understand their hesitation, I’m afraid we simply cannot oblige. In days of yore when a corpse was no more than the husk of a departed soul the disposition of such was irrelevant, but science moves ever forward, and while there may have been a time when we could indulge quaint flights of fancy and superstitious notions, those days are long gone. For those who would claim a “right to privacy”, I say the body public has a use for the body private and it must not be denied.

If you think my solution unjust, if you believe my methods unfair, I ask you: is it just to leave people on machines for years on end, hoping against hope to beat the odds? Is their suffering worth nothing? Do we, as a society, not care? What other alternative do we have? A few extra years is not enough; why save one when we can save them all?

In summary, I leave you with a paraphrase of the great John F. Kennedy: “Think not what your country can do for you, think what your organs can do for your country.”

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →