Anarchy X: The Sixth Commandment

Posted: November 7, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Anarchy X, Culture, Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

“Thou shalt not kill.”

Of all the Commandments, I personally would have put this one at the top. Maybe I’m funny that way, or maybe I’m just not quite the omniscient being and there are other factors in play I’m not aware of, but it does seem to be a rather important one. Setting all of that aside however, it is at least straightforward. “Thou shalt not kill.” It has also been translated as “Thou shall not commit murder”, which is a very different thing entirely, and it makes a big difference which is the correct statement when looking at this from a public policy perspective. There are two distinct yet equally important reasons for this, one of which I can come down in agreement with the “not commit murder” version, and the other I come down on the “shalt not kill” side, so I’m a bit torn.

For the first reason, there’s the question of “what exactly is murder?” I know that sounds like a silly question to some, maybe most, but it is an important question, not just in jurisprudence but in society. Is murder any time you shorten another person’s time on Earth? If so, I can’t agree with that definition. Put bluntly, if you threaten me or mine, I will not hesitate to use any and all necessary force to affect our defense and escape. That’s not to say I prefer to use force nor do I look forward to the day, but I reserve the right, and while I may regret the necessity of the act I will never regret the act itself.

Likewise, I am a great proponent of the idea that a person’s life is their own, to live as they see fit and only so long as they wish to. If they require assistance in leaving a life they no longer find tolerable, I will not hold someone liable for providing that assistance. Maybe that makes me a bad person in the eyes of some, but that’s what I believe and I stand by it.

So having ruled out those definitive cases, what about the questionable ones? What about the issues of negligence, unintentional action, and incitement? Those I am comfortable at least putting in the custody of the judicial system, as they are questionable, and are worthy of being weighed by a jury. While I can see in each one of those without stretching a case of either vindication or at least a far lesser crime, I can also easily see a case of murder. That is why we have an adversarial judicial system, to sort out such murky cases, and to (ideally) ensure the innocent are not punished along with the guilty.

But the truth is that the judicial system is also something we have to look at when we consider this Commandment, because it is a part of the government, and at least in America the government represents us all. The actions the government takes are, if not literally than at least symbolically, the actions we all take, and if we do not at least raise our voices against the immoral actions than we are equally culpable of them.

I have made my feelings on the death penalty clear before, but here we have another consideration to make. If the State is, collectively speaking, all of us, then every action taken by the State is an action taken by us. That includes every execution carried out by the State. If you believe that the proper interpretation of this Commandment is “Thou shall not commit murder”, you cannot in good conscience ever question any execution carried out, or else you must oppose all of them, and as I have pointed out before the inherent imperfection of man is such that the latter is inevitable. Even if you believe the death penalty is just and can be (and is) applied justly, and therefore it is not murder, do you believe the proper translation is “thou shalt not kill”? If so, you must oppose the death penalty on those grounds alone. As a wise man once wrote, “you can’t eat meat and look down your nose at the butcher.”

It may seem odd that I would have no problem with killing in my own person, or even with someone ending their own life, and I have as much as said I would help someone to end theirs if asked, yet I am opposed to the State taking life in the form of the death penalty. Like most things, it is contextual. I would not kill except as a last resort; I believe that a person has a right to make their own choices about their own life, including when to end it; and if it came down to it, I am willing to assist someone I care about to do what they feel they must even when they don’t have the strength to do it themselves. That does not mean I enjoy it, nor does that mean I prefer it. And when there is another option, I will always take it. For me, that is the heart and soul of this Commandment. There is almost always another option, and it is incumbent upon us to find it.

My Ideal Candidate

Posted: November 2, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Politics | Tags: , , | Leave a comment

I spend a lot of time complaining about politics on this blog, and I would argue it is with good reason (there are those who know me that would say I would argue anything, but they’re just jealous). I thought in the interest of balance I would take a little time to lay out what I would like to see in a candidate for office, not just president, but any office really. Seeing this sort of thing would warm my heart, and maybe even get me to reconsider my assertion that there is no such thing as a good politician. While it would be easy to say “a libertarian”, that wouldn’t be entirely true, or completely fair. Even libertarian leaning politicians have been known to fall prey to some of the worst habits that bother me, and so I give you the following guidelines; feel free to offer your own.

First, don’t claim to be an “outsider candidate”. If you are running as one of the two major party candidates, surprise! You are by definition an insider. We have a two-party system that has been made all but exclusive, so trying to claim you are somehow running as an “outsider” with an “R” or a “D” next to your name is disingenuous at best. Likewise if you are running as an independent or third party candidate, chances are I can figure out for myself that you don’t have a chance in hell – excuse me, that you are an outsider without being told (unless you’re really just a major party candidate in disguise and want to pretend you’ve left your party – paging Joseph Lieberman, Senator Lieberman please pick up the white hypocrisy phone in the lobby).

Second, for the love of all that’s holy, please hire a proper fact checker and listen to them. I realize that the pundits and the spinsters will still be playing gotcha politics with everything you say, but when every five year old is saying “liar liar pants on fire” while you walk down the street and I don’t even have to do an internet search to call you out on your least blatant untruths, you’ve hit a new low. Telling the truth has never been fashionable in politics, but who knows, it might be refreshing enough to garner a few votes.

Third, be logically consistent in your policies. I realize this will turn off 95% of the electorate, but I’m discussing my ideal candidate, not theirs. In particular, when you say things like “we’re going to eliminate the deficit, lower taxes, and keep Social Security intact” all in the same breath, I start to wonder if you are either (a) not listening to yourself or (b) high on drugs. Individually these might be laudable goals, but you simply can’t achieve all of them at once. In the same vein, do me the favor of assuming that I have a memory that extends beyond the speech you’re currently giving, because even if I don’t I assure you that there is someone else out there who does, they work in the media, and they are just waiting for the chance to call you on it.

Finally, and this is related to the last point, please develop a political philosophy that is internally consistent and stick with it. Being able to elucidate that philosophy in a way that the average person finds approachable would be a nice plus. By this I mean when I hear Republicans talking about Big Government doing Too Much and being Too Involved In Our Lives and then they turn around and demand that we continue to prosecute the War on Drugs, ban pornography and gambling, and deny homosexuals the right to marry, and meanwhile I hear Democrats talk about how we have every civil right under the sun, but they go out of their way to ban smoking, doughnuts, and sugary sodas, because they know what’s good for you. Come again? I am not demanding that the philosophy in question be one I agree with; if someone wants to come out and say they believe that people make bad choices when left to their own devices and so we have to make these decisions as a community, and then lays out how they believe that based on “the values of our community as a whole” they believe we should ban X, Y, and Z, fine. I disagree, but at least it’s approachable and consistent.

I realize I am asking a lot of politicians, but that is only because they are asking a lot of me. They are asking that I entrust them, literally, with the power of life and death, and more importantly with the power to make decisions about how I am allowed to live my life. That being the case, I don’t think it’s too much to ask that they be upfront and honest with me about how they would use – or abuse – that power.

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.

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.

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.”

Campaign Silence Reform

Posted: September 28, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Politics | Tags: , , , , | 5 Comments

This has been a particularly loud year for the “get money out of politics” crowd. Certainly the Citizens United decision didn’t do much for them, but I have to admit I’ve never understood the big push to get money out of politics in the first place. Setting aside jokes about an honest politician being one who stays bought, the reasoning behind trying to get money out of politics seems to be, as I understand it, that rich people will simply buy influence and we lesser folk will simply be ignored.

I’d like to explore how that works two ways. First, let’s consider a world in which we don’t allow anyone to donate at all to political campaigns. After all, money doesn’t equal speech, right? So no need to let anyone donate to any candidate. But then does that mean candidates only get to spend their own money? How does that stop rich people from just buying elections directly? Unless we want to stop them from spending their own money to express their own personal views, and that’s a case where I don’t think I’m conflating money with speech, I’m conflating “speech” with “speech”.

And what about the newspapers? Do we silence them as well? Do the editorial boards get to keep endorsing the candidates of their choice? Or do they have to rely on silly work-arounds, perhaps offering “report cards” for each candidate on the issues, making it clear that one candidate gets straight “A”s and another nothing but failing marks, but we’re not endorsing anyone! Either way, what’s to stop the wealthy or corporations from buying the newspapers and TV networks (like they haven’t already) and pushing the agenda of their choice (sounds like a pretty foxy idea, wish I had thought of that…)?

So if we can’t shut out the rich and the news, do we only shut out “the lower classes”? That’s what we’ve been trying to avoid, isn’t it? Then perhaps the alternative is to simply allow anyone who wants to donate to contribute as much money as they want, but we put it all into one big pot of money, and then the money gets distributed evenly to anyone who wants some. Aside from the question of “who’s a legitimate candidate” (that’s like defining legitimate rape), even if you managed to answer that you’d end up with money from a dedicated feminist supporting Todd Akin and money from a neo-Nazi going to support Al Sharpton. Public financing of campaigns is basically the same idea only worse: people don’t even get to decide if they want to play (or pay) at all.

The other problem with the “big pot o’ money” approach is the issue of bundling for impact. Sure politicians care what you say, as long as your opinion comes wrapped in a check, and the bigger the check the bigger your opinion, which is what started us down the whole path in the first place. If you don’t believe that, then you should have no problem with rich people and corporations donating as much as they want to any politician at any time, because it doesn’t matter. If you do believe it, then you are faced with the issue of lots and lots of little people trying to get their voices heard individually… or gathering together as one to have some real impact. Sure, the rich people can do the same thing, but they don’t need to, or at least, they don’t have as much need to. So what you end up with is a classic Catch-22: either money doesn’t influence politics, in which case we don’t need laws to stop money from being in politics, or money does influence politics… in which case we don’t need laws to stop money from being in politics. When you hear a politician calling for “getting money out of politics”, it’s usually one of two major choices: an incumbent who benefits over challengers from “campaign finance reform”, or some “outsider candidate” who is having trouble raising money. Like anything else, check the incentives before you go thinking this is altruism or any sense of “for the public good”.

Ever since I can remember, money and politics have gone together like sex and teenagers: “it’s a problem”, “it’s an epidemic”, “it’s ruining our society”, and as far as I can tell from my own limited experience, it’s a non-issue. As best as I can tell the real fear isn’t that people will make a choice they didn’t want to make, or (like this never happened) an uniformed choice, the real concern is that people will make the wrong choice. By what standard? Well, that’s really a matter of opinion, isn’t it? When I hear someone calling for campaign finance reform, what I most often hear them really saying is “other people are idiots but I’m not.”

Don’t Tell Me Not To Not Vote

Posted: September 21, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Culture, Politics, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , | 5 Comments

It’s that time again. Once every four years we see millions, nay, billions of dollars wasted on pageantry, spectacle, and foolishness. It’s not just the direct participants who throw their money away either, as every big corporation in the world wants in on this gravy train, even though the truth is most of them will never make their money back. But what the heck, the people do love their bread and circuses.

Oh wait, they made the Olympics every two years, didn’t they?

Well that’s okay, the people still get their Leap Year frivolity in the form of our presidential elections. Once again I am hard pressed to find much if any difference in the offerings on the left and the right, and I am astounded by the fervor with which others are approaching the coming election. I could sooner see for getting worked up over a table tennis match (that is still an Olympic event, isn’t it?) But that’s not what bothers me the most. What bothers me is when people find out I have no intention of voting and then they say something offensive like “if you don’t vote you can’t complain about the way things turn out.” Yeah, I said that’s offensive. Not just idiotic, but actually offensive, and I’ll explain why.

Consider what the average voter turnout is in our country these days, or even over the last twenty years (about as long as I’ve been voting.) Does it still hover in the mid-thirty percentile range? So roughly one-third of eligible voters are actually ready, willing, and motivated enough to go to the polls and let their voices be heard. And is it the responsibility of our civic leaders to inspire us to want to vote? Is it the duty of our elected officials and candidates to office to give us reasons to invest the time and effort, as little as it might seem to some? Is it perhaps the obligation of those who hold the power in the land to find a way to cut through the malaise and disillusionment and reach to the best part of each of us?

No. It seems that the fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our politicians but in ourselves. If we don’t pull the switch and vote for either A or B, we don’t get to complain there was no option C. And even if there was an option C, if we aren’t satisfied with that one, we don’t get to complain about that unless we pull the handle for one of the above. And that’s the problem with the whole system and those who give that simplistic response. There is no option for “none of the above” (a la Brewster’s Millions). In this “damned if you do/damned if you don’t” scenario, you’re either part of the problem or you’re part of the problem.

The message that these people, and our Most Beloved Leaders in both parties, aren’t getting is that there’s a lot of people who are dissatisfied with the entire system. I don’t mean to say they’re dissatisfied in the same way I am (that would be its own brand of hubris); rather they are, each and every one of them, dissatisfied in their own unique way. The only thing we all have in common is that we don’t like any of the options we’re being presented with well enough to vote for them, nor do we dislike them significantly less than the other options. Given a choice between a shit sandwich and shit soufflé, I’ll just go hungry, thanks.

But the system is rigged. There’s no way to step in the booth and say “a plague on both your houses.” The only options available both suck. The first is the one that is hinted at ever so obliquely by the people above, who don’t want to come out and say what they really mean because even they realize how terrible the truth sounds: “If you don’t vote you’re powerless. You don’t have a voice of any kind. Nobody in power takes you seriously. You may only get crumbs of what you want when you vote for the guys they offer, but if you don’t vote at all you get nothing.”

Option number two is to be out in the cold, ignored except as part of a statistic that is used by the nightly news and each party to bash each other over the head, when they’re not busy trying to shame all of America one generation at a time. “Why aren’t Americans voting? It’s a travesty! It’s a tragedy! It’s somebody’s fault who isn’t me!” “The young aren’t voting! The old aren’t voting! The [insert group that is more likely to vote for politician who is currently speaking] vote is being suppressed!”

Here’s a crazy idea. How about next time we decide to elect anyone for anything, we just have one election. One person, one vote. And we have it open for a week, twenty-four hours a day, so there’s plenty of time for voting. Only here’s the catch: there’s no pre-filled voting cards. No letters next to names. You step up and write down the name of the person you want to vote for. Get rid of the parties and see what happens.

I wonder.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →