Safety in the Workplace

On Thursday it was reported that a complaint was filed against porn companies accusing them of "unsafe behavior" in the workplace. What prompted this complaint was that unprotected sex is practiced in porn movies and so constitutes an unsafe work environment. This complaint was filed by Micheal Weinstein, the head of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, an AIDS advocacy group. Weinstein filed the complaint with the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health. I am curious whether Weinstein made this discovery through research or by accident. It is of note that the complaint was not filed by the workers in the porn industry, but by a group that evidently considers it part of its job to watch porn movies. Weinstein added that he will not stop "until there is a policy of requiring condoms to be used in porn." He threatens to keep watching porn movies until he is satisfied that safe sex is being practiced. And, if the policy is adopted by the porn industry, presumably he will keep watching porn movies to verify compliance. Good work if you can get it. The article did not say whether the AIDS Healthcare Foundation receives any federal funds for its operation. If it does, it is likely that taxpayers might be uncomfortable with knowing that some of their money was being used to "monitor" the porn industry.

The discovery that safe sex is rarely practiced in porn movies brings to mind the scene in "Casablanca" where Renault is "shocked" to find out that there has been illegal activity going on in Rick's Cafe.

Economics of Vice

After watching T.V. one evening, I was struck by a recurring theme; the appeal to vice. Every cardinal vice has become a marketing tool. Lincoln Town Cars, gated communities, swank jewelers all appeal to our vanity. Sofa recliners appeal to our sloth. Stock brokers and investment companies appeal to our avarice. Beer adds and singles lines cater to our lust. Talk shows and social progressives urge us to "take pride" in ourselves. "Gourmet" foods and exotic chocolates appeal to our appetites. It seems as though a large part of our economy caters to habits and behaviors once identified as sin. There are profits to be made off sin. The hallmarks of virtue are restraint, humility, and modesty, and there is little money to be made off of them - no one would get rich off the Amish.

I suspect this may be one reason why many in the United States have so little patience with traditional, religious beliefs; even to the point of mockery. Beliefs that discourage vice are an obstacle to American consumerism. How does one persuade a pious and humble family that they need a new car, a vacation to Las Vegas, or that Miller is the beer for them? How can one persuade a devout Catholic that he needs a new bedroom set or cosmetic surgery? Sincere religious beliefs often interfere with commerce and profits. The virtues of capitalism are the virtues of wealth. And the rewards of wealth are vice; or at least what used to be understood as vice.

Religious faith can also be an obstacle to political ambition and social "progress." Since faith transcends society and politics, it provides a context within which society can be measured and judged. Faith is a point of reference outside the reach of the ambitious, the mundane and acrimonious, and so is scorned and mocked by the ambitious, the mundane, and the acrimonious. Whatever bits and pieces of religion that cannot be crammed inside the secular world of politics, economics, and values, are dismissed as eccentricities, or prejudices.

If there is one thing social progressives cannot abide, it is the ethical and moral standards of right and wrong that under girds religion. It seems that liberals and progressives live in fear of judgement and would rather change the rules than change their behavior: which would explain why those liberals and progressives reluctant to abandon religion are in constant search for a religion that will suit their beliefs and lifestyles.

I am not arguing that we should abandon democracy, capitalism and free markets in favor of puritanism. Nor am I arguing for law based on scripture. I am simply suggesting that progressives and liberals recognize that not everyone is as hostile or ambivalent toward faith and morality as they are, and that room should be allowed in society for traditional faith and religion; even if it cuts into profits.

It was once said the the wage of sin is death. Even if that is true, for many the profits of sin are worth it.

How Much for Your Virtue?

A man once propositioned a woman. "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?" he asked. "Yes I would", replied the woman. "Would you sleep with me for $10?" "No sir. I would not! What kind of woman do you think I am?" "I think we have already determined that," he answered. "We are simply haggling over the price." There is a lesson here. One does not preserve one's virtue by demanding a higher price for it. Neither does one preserve one's political principles by demanding a higher price for their abandonment.

Health Care Camel

What seems to be lost in the debate over health care reform is the politicization of health care that would inevitably result from a government run health care plan. We should keep in mind the old adage that once a camel gets his nose under the tent, the rest of him will soon follow. Once politics is introduced into health care, political pressure would soon be brought to bear. Would national health care cover abortion? Cosmetic surgery? Sex change operations? If so, there would be pressure from the right. If not, there would be pressure from the left. There would be debates over which diseases would have priority and which conditions required more federal coverage. Some diseases and conditions no doubt would be more politically fashionable than others.

Like every other federal program and entitlement, pressure will be applied as each disease, condition, and injury would generate lobby groups to advocate on its behalf for more federal coverage, and treatment. It is unlikely that the federal government would be able to withstand the pressure brought against it by drug manufacturers, health care organizations, and advocacy groups. AIDS groups would find themselves in a political contest with breast cancer groups for federal coverage and treatment. A bureaucratic jungle would be created to manage and distribute federal dollars to this or that region, and treatment for this or that disease or injury. Whose disease, condition, or injury would be more important and worthy of federal coverage and treatment? Mine or yours?

Every federal bureau and agency is replete with horror stories regarding mismanagement, incompetence, and red tape. (One only need look at the federal response to hurricane Katrina.) With all the complexities regarding medicine and pharmacology, do we really believe the government is competent to manage health care? Moreover, it is extraordinarily unlikely that the government would able to resist the lobbying efforts of health care groups, patient rights groups, and the different health advocacy groups for more or better coverage; let alone master the intricacies of medical treatment and care. The result would inevitably be a federal behemoth under which all would suffer, from taxpayers to those sick or injured. That is, for all but those able afford private insurance. While Obama might try to reassure the public that the government would not involve itself in health care beyond underwriting and supervising, this is extraordinarily unlikely. Welfare, medicaid, and medicare, despite the beneficence and altruism of their motives, all have political components and are regularly subject to political debate and posturing.

It is the nature of bureaucracy to expand. What's worse is that where government goes, politics follows. Why would health care be any different? I am reluctant to take the assurances of the administration that the health care plan it proposes will be limited and no threat to existing health care insurance. Like many, I fear that once the camel gets his nose under the health care tent, the rest of him will soon follow.

Political Values

I would like to comment on the fashionable belief that personal “values” can, and should be distinguished from political “values”. Leaving aside for the moment the questionable distinction of morality (or values if you prefer) and ethics from political values, it seems to me personal indiscretions and marital infidelity on the part of elected officials should be considered in the light of judgment. In these days of near omniscient media surveillance and scrutiny, any politician who would cheat on his or her spouse, surreptitiously sneak away for personal reasons,or otherwise deceive or mislead the public, exhibits, if nothing else, poor judgment. Judgment is an integral part of leadership. It is key in deciding what should be done, what can be done, and how it should be done. The risks for a politician carrying on such behavior demonstrates an irresponsible, if not reckless, sense of judgment. Morality and ethics aside, poor judgment is a legitimate basis for evaluating the fitness of an elected official. In regard to ethics, why should a person who is willing to deceive and betray the person closest to him; the person to whom he made a solemn vow of fidelity and honor, be trusted not to deceive and betray that great group of strangers known as the public?

Let's All Read the Constitution

There was an editorial in this morning's paper lamenting the aristocratic nature of the Senate and the rules and procedures that shield that institution from the electorate. The issue that seemed to be irritating the author this morning was how the public is shut out of the process of choosing replacements for those senators who leave their seats during the course of their terms. The fact that governors choose the replacement rather than an election being called, strikes the author of the editorial as "undemocratic." I have news for that author, not only is it "undemocratic", it is supposed to be. In fact, the senate itself was supposed to be undemocratic.

Under the Constitution, a profoundly undemocratic document, three interests were to be represented by the new government in Washington: the people, the states, and the nation. It was the job of the president to represent the nation. The presidency was never intended to be a "democratic" institution. Indeed, to this day the president is not elected by the public, but by the electoral college. Senators, up until the adoption of the 17th Amendment in 1913, were elected by state legislatures, not the people. This was because the job of the senate was to represent the states; not the people of the states, but the states. It was only the House of Representatives that existed to represent the people - which is why it holds the preponderance of legislative power. Because it was the job of senators to represent the states, it was left to the governors of the states (elected by the people of those states) to fill any vacancies in the senate that might occur.

The reason for the numerous barriers to popular rule placed in the Constitution is that the Founders were men that knew history. The Founders knew that every democracy that had ever existed, from the ancient Greeks to the Italian city states, had ended in tyranny and disaster. Being educated men, they knew there was little reason to believe democracy would do any better here in the United States than it had done elsewhere. Therefore, they decided to apply the lessons they had learned to create a republic - a form of government that had a much better track record in history. A republic differs from a democracy in that power rests in the hands of those appointed by the public, rather than the public itself. The distance between the public and the government provided by a republic allows a greater measure of objectivity by the government in assessing and addressing the needs of society and buffers it against the passions and desires of the electorate. The lessons the Founders had learned they sought to apply in the Constitution. The Constitution does simply protect the people from government, it also protects the government from the people. Government can be bended to serve interests that may, or may not be, in the interests of the public. A government that seizes your property, restricts your liberties, and levies taxes is no less onerous simply because it is a popularly elected government. Many of the provisions established to limit the scope and authority of government were enacted with an eye towards preventing government from being co-opted by powerful interests and factions.

The only reason we had to believe that we would not suffer the fate that befell earlier democracies is the one thing we have that they didn't: a constitution. If the Constitution finally falls before the populist onslaught, the one thing that was designed to keep us from falling into tyranny and license will be gone, and with it, the hope that we will not suffer the fate of every other democracy. Too many Americans and, more disturbingly, their representatives, often seem surprised, or worse, indignant at what is written in the Constitution. I fear if I hear one more college student or editorialist rail against a constitutional provision because they believe they know more than Jefferson and Hamilton did, I will spit.

Political Dialogue in the Arena

I read a blog recently listing (and explaining) the different types of conservatives. This list included "cultural" conservatives, "fiscal" conservatives, "social" conservatives, etc. What I found interesting was that all of the types listed were defined by their different policy objectives. Some were defined by their stand on issues of immigration, some by fiscal policies they preferred, still others by their cultural objectives. Presumably, the different types of liberals could be categorized similarly; "social" liberals, "economic" liberals, etc. This is exactly the sort of thing that I believe is wrong with political discourse in this country. When political discourse begins with conclusions, e.g. abortion should be legal, or taxes should be cut, there is little room for discussion. Discussion should result in conclusions, not begin with them. When was the last time anyone heard a thoughtful, rational discussion over abortion? I cannot recall ever hearing one; unless one considers the absence of shouting and insults a thoughtful, rational discussion. This is because when people enter the discussion, their minds are already made up and they are determined to hold on to their conclusions at all costs.

If anyone has watched a political discussion on a Sunday morning talk show, it is evident that only rarely, if ever, do the participants enter the discussion with an open mind. Their objective, more often than not, is to "win" the discussion over their opponents, rather than explore or elucidate and issue. "Winning" in this context means persuading the listener that they are right and their opponent is wrong. However polite the conversation might be, it always comes down to who is right and who is wrong. Has any of the panelists ever changed their mind as a result of these discussions?

I believe this is why people are so reluctant to publicly discuss controversial issues and would rather yell and posture. The fear is that their message might be lost against the clamor and indignation of their opponent, or that their calmness and rationality might be construed as a lack of conviction. Calm, deliberative discussions do still occur. I have even had a few of them. But they occur outside the glare of of the media. Like gladiators who might share a laugh or express friendship for one another while waiting their turn to fight in the arena, once they enter the arena, their objective is to win.

It's Not Raining in Texas

Every night I watch the news hoping to hear that there might be some rain in the forecast for central Texas. Every night I am disappointed. The drought has gone from a "severe" one, to an "exceptional" one - the highest and driest rating we have for a drought. If the drought continues, I fear we will soon approach a whole, new category; "Biblical" drought.

Governor Perry and the Bible

Governor Rick Perry was designated a "Defender of Jerusalem" this week, a title that, no doubt unintentionally, places him in the company of those noble and valiant knights that fought so hard, so many years ago to defend and protect Jerusalem from the Muslim infidels. Granted, this an obscure award from an obscure group. Nevertheless, this is the sort of recognition Perry was seeking as he explores running for president in 2012. In his praise of Israel, Perry stated his biblical belief that God had given Israel exclusively and eternally to the Jews. I hope this does not mean that Perry also believes that the world was created in six days, Jonah was really swallowed by a whale, and Noah and his family, along with all flora and fauna, were preserved amidst a great flood aboard the Ark. As an avowed devout, and pious protestant, Perry presumably believes that one should not pick and choose which accounts in the Bible to accept literally and which to reject; which makes his statement all the more troubling. Unless Perry is seriously considering running for president as a fundamentalist Protestant, he should find some other basis for his support of Israel: unless he believes God was in cahoots with the U.N. That might be another idea which could cost him in the election.

The Understandable vs. The Reasonable

Usually, after incidents like the one recently, where a gunman (why are they never referred to as "gunperson"?) kills people in a gym, a shopping mall, school, etc., there is clamor for more gun control and restrictions. Outrage is an understandable response in the wake of a terrible shooting, but seldom a reasonable one. Why is it that after reading a report about a traffic pile up that kills several people on a highway, or an errant truck driver killing a family, there is no clamor for restricting or banning cars and trucks? Because this would be an unreasonable outrage. If a truck driver falls asleep and runs his truck into a school bus and kills twenty children, there will be horror and shock, but no calls to ban trucks; toughen restrictions and tighten regulations perhaps, but not to ban them. This is because trucks are necessary and useful and banning them (or cars for that matter) would do more harm than good. Therefore, the question of whether to ban trucks is an understandable one, but not a reasonable one.

The argument to ban guns after some outrage is an understandable one. But the debate to tighten gun control laws, or simply ban them entirely, should be a reasonable one. A reasoned discussion over firearms and their regulation or prohibition would not be a bad thing. Reasonable discussion is never bad thing.

But reasonable discussions are difficult to hold in the wake of an outrage or tragedy. This is inevitable. As are the demands of the outraged and aggrieved that something be done to prevent similar tragedies from ever happening again. There are calls that the offending product or activity or be banned or severely restricted. This is understandable. But something being understandable does not make it reasonable. The desire to ban guns in the wake of a terrible shooting is an understandable response. But the belief that banning guns would stop violent crimes and murders is unreasonable. It might reduce them as those criminals who decide to obey guns laws search for alternative weapons and methods, and upset spouses mull over their choices, but it will not stop them.

The understandable might be reasonable, but then again, it might not.

He's the President, not our father.

I recall years ago reading an anecdote about Eisenhower. After giving a speech not long after he was reelected, a young man asked Eisenhower that, as president, what was he going to do to help him get a job. Eisenhower gave the man a puzzled look and said, "Nothing son. I am the president. I am not your father." Not satisfied with that answer, I imagine the young man voted for JFK in the next election.

Tony Soprano for president?

I agree that there is a dire problem in the health care industry. I have had to rely upon the charity of hospital emergency rooms. I am simply unsure that national health care is the best, or even a good solution to this problem. I am inclined to prefer some sort of plan where the government would subsidize private insurers so as to make it easier for them to expand coverage beyond those who can generate profits. But, this would limit government control over health care; and government never does anything for free. In this regard, the government is not unlike the Mafia. You have a problem and the Mafia says it can help, but, there will be strings attached; and they will want a piece. Faced with a problem, you approach the government. The government says it can help, but there will be strings attached; they too, demand a piece. In each case you will get help, but at a price you are likely to regret.

If we are going to rely on the government to help us with our problems, I would like to nominate Tony Soprano for president. Who better than Tony to get us a job, get a us a car, negotiate better terms on our loans, and get us the best health care benefits? (Imagine how our negotiations with foreign nations would improve.) If we have to pay someone to fix our problems, why not pay someone who can deliver? If Tony can't fix our problems, they can't be fixed. Who would say no to Tony?

The Rich are Different

I have heard, as I am sure many have, complaints made about health care that the rich get better health care and treatment than the rest of us. Evidently, many people resent the idea that the health care they receive, or would receive under a national health care plan, would be inferior to the health care available to the rich (and members of Congress I might add). I do not understand why this is an issue. Everything the rich have is better than what we have. They live in bigger houses in nicer neighborhoods. They drive nicer cars and take better vacations. Their husbands and wives are better looking than ours. The reason for this is that they are rich. If the rich can't have better things, including better health care, what is the point of being rich?

Suspects and Citizens

The White House has proposed easing restrictions on tracking those who visit federal Internet sights. While most restrictions on tracking visitors to those sights remain in place, the restrictions lifted can be reinstated if the government determines a "compelling interest" to do so. Who decides which interests are compelling? The government of course. The technology available to monitor the public has been improving for some time. It is claimed that it is in the interest of businesses to know who buys or uses their products and services, and where and how often those products and services are used or purchased. The reason given is that this tracking is helpful to businesses to better meet the needs and desires of the consumer. Cameras have been installed at intersections and along roads to monitor traffic flows and catch scofflaws; also for our benefit. Schools, airports, malls, federal buildings, and countless others, use cameras to monitor who enters, who leaves, and when. We are told this for our safety (and no doubt theirs as well.) Private companies monitor who uses the Internet, when they use the Internet, and which sites they visit. This is done for the benefit of the users, and of course, by web sites that want to know who visits their websites, how often and when and to make it easier to visit their site - often whether we want to or not. Unless one uses cash, tints his car windows (border line illegal), and obscures his licence plate(definitely illegal), does not use a phone or the Internet, does not enter shopping malls, public buildings, or travel further than they are willing to walk, someone is going to know what you are doing, where you are and have been, and, most likely, how and when you got there. In the future, that someone might just be the government.

Such monitoring usually has been ignored or tolerated, and in the cases where it is done to "protect us", embraced. Now, the federal government wants in on the action. The technologies developed by the private sector to "better serve" the public are proving irresistible to the government. We are told that this monitoring is increasing so the government can better serve and protect the public. But who knows what technologies will be available tomorrow, who will be using them, and for what purpose? I find cameras in airports and public buildings reasonable, but still irritating. I am troubled by cameras at intersections, and in public places. I am apprehensive about phone taps and tracking Internet use. I am downright scared of GPS monitoring chips and developing technologies that would allow police to see and hear through walls.

The police dramas where the criminal is caught because of a traffic camera, a credit card, or a phone call, serve the reinforce notion that tracking and monitoring are in the interests of public safety. Some people have already installed security cameras in private homes so as to better protect against child abusers, burglars, and thieves. Is it possible the government might take a cue from this? After all, isn't catching rapists, molesters, and terrorists more worthy of government surveillance than catching red light runners and scofflaws?

Who knows what security concerns in the future will be claimed to require surveillance? Who decides which people will be the targets of that surveillance? And who will decide which interests will be "compelling" and why? The government, of course. This is why the Constitution was written; because you cannot predict what the government will want or do tomorrow. Surveillance and monitoring were once restricted only to those suspected of committing or plotting a crime. Cameras do not, and cannot, distinguish between the innocent and the guilty. They watch everyone, all the time. Neither will software monitoring government sites distinguish between innocent and suspicious visits. It will track everyone who visits a site. Do they suppose only criminals and terrorists will visit those sites or enter public buildings? Apparently, we are all suspects. Now, where did I leave my tinfoil hat?

Tax Breaks

Just a brief comment on "tax breaks." Tax breaks are not gifts. Giving someone back what was theirs to begin with is not a gift. When the government gives us a tax break, what they are doing is simply taking less of our money. They are not giving us anything that wasn't ours to begin with. They are just taking less of it. While there is some room for gratitude at the gesture, it is hardly cause for thanks. Moreover, breaks are not permanent, they are merely a pause or respite. At any time, the government can simply take back its gift. A mugger giving you back part of what he stole is not a gift. Neither is the government giving you back some of what it took.

Climate Change and the Last, Great Dinosaur War

There was an article in this morning's paper concerning the dire consequences that can be expected from continued global warming. Aside from the environmental challenges expected, there is concern that there might be serious economic and social consequences, perhaps even violence and war. As nations and populations struggle with growing food and water shortages, it is feared that the resulting rise of tensions could provoke conflict between nations and people in the struggle over dwindling resources. I have a different theory. War is not just a potential result of climate change, but, more importantly, it is a source as well. Let me explain.

After studying the evidence, I have concluded that dinosaurs did not die off due to climate change brought about by an asteroid or meteor. What killed the dinosaurs was the fallout and nuclear winter that followed a terrible war fought between the different dinosaur nations. That war was the result of the great struggle between dinosaurs for markets and resources. It was the total destruction brought about by that war which wiped out the dinosaurs and destroyed their civilization. The lack of any evidence of dinosaur civilization is testimony to the violence of that war.

The scale and ferocity of the war drastically altered the environment and ushered in the Ice Age. Many of the few remaining dinosaurs found the new climate inhospitable for large reptiles and so decided to evolve into mammals. In time, some of the more restless mammals decided to evolve into apes. And so the apes ruled the world. After awhile, some apes grew dissatisfied with their lives and decided to evolve once again, this time into cavemen. Time passed and eventually some of the more ambitious cavemen decided to evolve into what we know as modern man. The rest is history. Had the dinosaurs never fought that last, horrible war, the climate never would have changed and they would still be running the world. There is a lesson here, but I'm not quite sure what it is.

Which Do We Want?

So, the government is going to help us get a new car. They are also going to help us get a job and, with the help of Justice Sotomayor, they will make sure no one picks on us or calls us bad names. They are going to be the sort of parents every kid wants growing up. Imagine if everyone could vote for the sort of parents they wanted. You could choose parents that told you had to get a job and buy your own car. Parents that told you that you had to mow the lawn and pull your own weight around the house. Or, you could choose parents that would get you a car, that would pick up after you, and let you sleep late on the weekends. Parents that would protect you from bullies and people who would call you bad names. Which parents do you think would get more votes? The grumpy old conservatives who tell us we have to get a job, buy our own stuff, and pull our own weight? Or the loving liberals, who tell us that we are special, and that if we ever need help with our rent, groceries, car payments, anything at all, we just need to ask? And all they ask for in return is that we vote for them and agree to live by their rules. I suppose the answer would depend on who you asked. Many, if not most children are happy to accept their parents' generosity, even if it means they have to live by their parents' rules. Some, however, come to resent their parents' charity and chafe at the idea of having to live by their rules. Those are the kids that would take a job, save their money, and move out as soon as they were able. Some parents dote on their children and dread the day when their children no longer need them. Other parents take pride in their children's independence and cheer them on as they leave home to begin their own lives.

Of course, we are not children. We do not choose our parents. But we do choose our representatives. Like parents, some politicians dote on their supporters and dread the day they are no longer loved or needed. They are the ones who offer to protect their supporters from bullies, get them jobs and free health care; even to help them buy a new car. Other politicians take pride in an electorate that can manage its own affairs, get their own jobs and buy their own cars. So, are we like children who want the government to take care of us, get us a job, keep us safe, protect us from bullies,and pick up after us so long as we agree to live by their rules? Or do we look forward to the day when we no longer need to rely on the government, and can at last handle our own affairs?

Thanks for the car and the job. Now I need a girlfriend

Evidently, the "cash for clinkers" program is working even better than expected. People are finding it hard to resist the government's offer to help them buy a new car. Now, whenever an American steps outside to admire his new car, he will thank the government, and the Democrats in particular, for their help. I suspect that might have been the true motive all along. If that wasn't the motive, it was at least an incentive. I suppose everyone who gets a job, a car, or a house over the next four years will have Obama and the Democrats to thank. Now, if Obama would just get me a girlfriend.....

Jail: Your Rent is Due

Another anecdote of our government at work: as budgets have been trimmed and pruned over the course of this recession, some states facing budget shortfalls have decided to start charging their prison and jail inmates rent. In New York, a bill has been introduced that would charge "wealthy inmates" $90 a day for "room and board." Arizona now charges prisoners $1.25 per day for meals. In Teney County Missouri, officials want to charge inmates $45 dollars a day to help pay for its new jail in Branson. Several other states are now exploring the possibilities of trying to squeeze income from their prisoners. Aside from the sordidness and desperation evident nationwide as local, and state governments scrounge for funding to keep themselves in the business of governing people, I can only wonder: if the inmates are unwilling or unable to pay their rent, will they be evicted? Or will they be sent to jail?

Educational Commodities

In the ongoing, and seemingly endless discussions over the quality of education, there seems to be a fundamenatlal flaw in the debate. All too frequently, education is discussed as if it were a commodity, i.e. something to be produced and distributed; bought and sold. Poor grades are understood to be the results of a poor product and/or poor distribution. There was once a time when education was understood as an activity, i.e., something one did. The teacher engaged in the activity of teaching; the student in the activity of learning. Somewhere, somehow, education became a noun. Education became something the teacher gives and the student receives. Thus, education reform has come to revolve around making a better product and improving its distibution. Distributing education would seem to be a dead end. It has become simply a body of facts to be retained and retrieved if and when they become useful or necessary. Traditional basics of education, e.g. history, philosphy, and literature, have become largely useless in our modern economy since they are of limited efficacy in the creation or distribution of wealth. The result is a population adept at creating wealth and commodities, but clumsy in its accumulation and appreciation of art and culture. Without art and culture, economic activity becomes a near mindless, and endless pursuit of wealth and comfort.