Can the People be Trusted?

At their best, liberals make it possible for people to achieve what they want. At their best, conservatives make it possible for people to choose what they want. Unfortunately, they are rarely at are rarely at their best. Conservatives can be clumsy in their attempts to encourage people and often rely too heavily on enticing people through incentives and tax relief. Liberals tend to be impatient and too quick to resort to regulation and coercion out of frustration. Neither are very good at discerning what people want. It is hard enough to figure out what your spouse wants, yet we are inclined to believe we can know what the nation wants - and how to get it.

There is a difference between trusting people to do the right thing and compelling them do the right thing. Foremost is determining what the right thing is. Conservatives (as opposed to Republicans) tend to trust people to know the right thing, and are optimistic that, if allowed the room, people will do it. They seek to maintain the liberty necessary for people to pursue goals of their own choosing and live their lives in a manner that makes sense to them. They trust that people will act decently and with restraint in the pursuit of those goals. Liberals, despite their professions of looking out for the people and championing their interests (or perhaps because of it), are sceptical of the people's ability to recognize the right thing and pessimistic about people's inclination to do it. They are predisposed to mistrust the willingness of people to act with decency and restraint, and doubt the people's ability to discern beyond their own interests and do what should be done. They prod, bribe, exhort, manipulate, legislate, and if all else fails, threaten in an attempt to overcome what they see as the failings and shortsightedness of the citizens. Moreover, liberals believe people, unsupervised, cannot be relied upon to acquire and maintain the proper sentiments and "values" necessary to the harmonious society they envision. In their unceasing vigilance, liberals constantly meddle with society by monitoring speech, text books, curriculum, opinions, beliefs; virtually everything said, done, and believed, lest people stumble into intolerance and error.

Liberals do not trust the efficacy of tax breaks or deregulation because they do not trust people to behave or spend appropriately, i.e. not to behave and spend in a manner contrary to their own best interests as those interests are understood by liberals. Simply put, liberals do not trust people. They fear that without the constant guidance and restraint of government, people would act, believe, and spend their way into misery and oppression. Conservatives do not trust government. They resist attempts by the government to encroach upon concerns and issues more properly left to individuals and trust that people will act appropriately in their own interest. Clearly, not all Republicans are conservative, nor are all Democrats liberals.

The risk of liberty is that others might act in ways and pursue goals that you disapprove of. The benefit of liberty is that you can act in ways and pursue goals that others disapprove of. The question is whether the risk is worth the benefit.

The Time has Come

Evidently, Obama has come to disdain the legislative process. The difficult and complex process of drafting law, and the negotiations necessary for it's passage, were condemned by Obama in his health care speech as "games" and "bickering." He demands action, and he demands results. Not just any results though; but the results he wants. His strategy seems to be to set himself apart from, and perhaps even above the government and pose as some sort of champion fighting on behalf of the beleaguered populace suffering under the indifference of petty and selfish rulers. The suffering of the people grows as burghers, councils, and princes haggle and contest prerogatives, jurisdictions, and perks. A champion is sought and finally found to relieve the suffering and do what needs be done. Obama would be that champion.

Opposition to Obama's health care plan is frequently portrayed as motivated by pettiness, partisanship and ideology carried out under spite. What compassionate, reasoned person would possibly oppose such a good and noble plan as to extend health care to those who need it? Only the wicked and the ignorant could oppose the laudable plan of providing health care to those unable (and in some cases, unwilling) to obtain it. While Obama seeks to enlighten those who oppose his plan out of ignorance through his many speeches and press releases, he lashes out at those who oppose him out of "partisanship." He scolds and harangues those who oppose his plan for political reasons, but demonstrates his nobility and high mindedness by asserting his patience and willingness to work with those willing to work with him.

But his patience has limits. If Congress will not give him what he wants, or rather, as he claims, what the people want, he will seek to bully it in the eyes of the public until it yields. It has been argued that the obeisance of congress to "special interests" should not be allowed to frustrate the great calling of national health care. Under the rhetoric of those clamoring for national health care, Congress is increasingly being portrayed as weak and venial. This serves to enhance the view of the president as the one person who can be trusted to do what is right and necessary for the country.

I am concerned as to what lengths Obama is willing to go to achieve his ambition. Many times in history, kings and consuls have been frustrated by the limits to their powers presented by legislatures and laws. And many times in history have those kings and consuls, when their ambitions were thwarted by senates or councils, taken their frustration to the public where the pettiness and lack of vision on the part of those that opposed them was condemned. I do not mean to compare Obama to a king or an emperor. The problem lay more with the office and what people have come to demand of it than whomever happens to be in it. The more that is demanded from the office, the more power it will assume to meet those demands. The more ambitious the man in that office, the more readily will power be accumulated. The more power that is accumulated, the greater the demands made upon the office. The greater the demands, the more power that will be needed to satisfy those demands; and on and on it goes until the office becomes the lodestar of government.

If Obama truly sees the legislative process as a "game," we should all be troubled. Drafting and enacting law is not a game. It is a difficult and complex process in which many interests and objectives must be weighed and balanced. Enacting a law is not supposed to be easy. It is supposed to be difficult and we should be thankful it is. The more difficult it is to pass a law, and more time required for it's passage, the more confident we can be that that law has been thought through and has a reasonable chance of accomplishing what it was enacted to do. Perhaps more importantly, we can be a little more confident that the need which engendered the law is a truly a need that can be redressed by law.

Health Care Hammer

It is turning out that national health care may not be the bargain many are hoping for. Despite the common view that a national health plan would be a low cost option available to those who need health care insurance but cannot afford it, it is in danger of becoming a mandatory obligation that would cost many Americans thousands of dollars a year. A plan has been proposed in Congress that would fine people up to $3,800 for failing to buy health insurance. Plans have already been proposed that would coerce money from employers, drug and medical manufacturers, and labs to pay for the government's proposals to help those without insurance, as well as those struggling to keep their insurance. But every tax on business is ultimately a tax on consumers.

Fearing that squeezing the health industry might not be enough to provide the funds needed for national health care, some in Washington are exploring the need to squeeze the public. While there is the veneer of legitimacy in the idea of making the public pay for a public benefit (I have always understood health as a private benefit, despite the casuistry of health care advocates), it is unclear what that benefit will be, and whether the public will be willing to pay for it after they know what it is. Naturally, there is talk of offsetting some of the cost to taxpayers through manipulating the tax code, but giving some people back some of their money at the end of the year is unlikely to ease the burden of regular payments to their insurers. The real cost of a national health plan to the American taxpayer will be staggering. Merely trying to obscure those costs within the massive federal budget by legislative slights of hand will do nothing to reduce those costs.

There are many factors that make up the cost of health care. The addition of a new federal bureaucracy to handle health care will do nothing to diminish those costs. Perhaps even worse, to the economic considerations that must be made by private insurers, will be added the social and political considerations demanded by activists and and imposed by government underwriters. Procedures and treatments will inevitably acquire a political component as different groups and interests jockey for attention and coverage.

National health insurance will be another hammer to beat the market, and society, into compliance with the vision held by liberal idealists. At least the hope is that the market can be beat into compliance, rather than beat to death. If the public can be led to believe that they are getting an essential good at a bargain, they will take it. No doubt, once the public comes to rely upon the government for health care, the program will become a juggernaut; unstoppable and invulnerable. My fear it that if liberals achieve their vision of a public dependent upon the charity, beneficence, and supervision of government, it will be impossible to wean them.

Democracy in Afghanistan

It was reported this morning that there were significant irregularities in the recent presidential elections in Afghanistan. Voting fraud and intimidation were evident in abundance. Why is it taking so long for democracy and free and fair elections to take hold in Afghanistan? Afghanistan has already had eight years. Just because it took us here in the U.S. over two hundred years to work out the kinks and irregularities in our electoral system; even with a head start, doesn't mean that Afghanistan shouldn't be able to sort it out in eight.

Government Still at Work

In an article printed this morning, it was reported that a disabled Vietnam veteran in Houston received a service dog to help him in his disability. But he did not receive it from the government, even though he applied to the government nearly eight years ago.

The Department of Veteran's Affairs Web site states that they "routinely" provide dogs to veterans who need them. What the Web site does not say is that it takes years after applying for the dog for the veterans receive them. The reason for this delay, according to the Department, is that they must "conduct studies on the dog's benefits and the problems promoting the service." One might think that studies regarding the benefits of providing service dogs, (I assume they were speaking of the benefits to the veteran, rather than the dog), and how the program would be promoted, would have been completed before the program was initiated. But one would be wrong.

After waiting nearly eight years for the government to provide him a dog, despite his undisputed need and eligibility, the veteran turned in frustration to a private group, which was able to provide him with a dog. Even though the government program to provide disabled veterans with dogs was initiated eight years ago, they are evidently still working out the procedures and rules. One can envision the office where these rules are being studied as bureaucrats read files and studies, craft memos, establish rules and procedures, and hold meetings to discuss the implementation of those rules and procedures - and then hold more meetings to discuss any changes that might need to be made.

It should be kept in mind that providing disabled veterans with dogs is a small program with a simple and uncontroversial objective. The motives behind it are good and the need is unchallenged. Yet, even with this going for it, the government is still unable to effectively administer this program. But I suppose the government will do a much better job administering health care since it will be a larger program with broader goals, a much greater budget, and many more people working on it.

Patriotism and Health

It was inevitable that the discussion concerning the social and economic costs of illness, injury and disease would become a political one. Under the economic casuistry now in fashion, virtually every aspect of personal and social behavior is quantified in terms of its costs and benefits to society. While smoking was initially the most salient behavior subject to this new economic calculus, it was only the first. Obesity soon was added to a growing list of behaviors and lifestyles found to be contrary to good health, and so harmful to the economy.

If health care becomes national policy, then keeping people in good health, and thereby controlling costs, would become a matter of national policy. Once the taxpayers become responsible for providing health care to the public, the obsession over healthy habits and lifestyles would only increase. The issue of public health would no longer be simply a medical matter, but a political and economic one as well. Every group with a health care axe to grind would seek to grind it in Congress. Reports concerning the costs and benefits of different "lifestyles" and "habits" would proliferate. There would arise a whole new industry dedicated to a new health care casuistry that would determine the economic costs and benefits of various habits and lifestyles. Habits and lifestyles that would save money; good. Those that cost money; bad.

There was a letter to the editor in this morning's "Dallas Morning News" that I fear presages the inevitable result of this new health care casuistry: that maintaining one's health is patriotic. Those whose behaviors and lifestyles would increase the costs of health care, or undermine productivity, would be considered as acting against the public good, ergo unpatriotically. True patriots would live lifestyles that saved the government money and increased productivity. Perhaps the day might even come when tribunals exist to evaluate the health habits of individuals to determine who was contributing, and who was detracting, from the public health and thereby decide who was acting patriotically, and who wasn't. Those found to exhibit counterrevolutionary lifestyles and behaviors would be consigned to ill health and public scorn.

Obama in the Classroom

It is conventional wisdom that children are impressionable and caution should be exercised as to what they are allowed to see, read, hear and listen to. They are also easily awed. Most parents are aware of the awe a policeman, a fireman, or even a lion tamer, can inspire in schoolchildren. Imagine the awe that the President of the United States will inspire. It is unlikely the children will even listen to the president, but rather will sit in rapt fascination - as no doubt will many of the parents and teachers.

Children lack the power of critical thought and objectivity. The president is no doubt is aware of this and so will condescend to speak in terms the children will understand. What is it that is hoped children will take away from this? That they will devote themselves to reading and paying attention in school? Do they really expect the enthusiasm of these children to last over the entire course of their trip into adulthood? The awe will remain long after the details of Obama's talk are forgotten.

When a fireman speaks to children, the children want to become firemen. If an astronaut speaks to children, they want to be astronauts. My hunch is that after Obama speaks to the children, they will all want to grow up to be president. The corollary to this is that these children will gain an enthusiasm for government and an interest in "public service" and help ensure a new generation enthusiastic about government and aspiring to "serve their country."

It is argued by some that what the president has to say is important, even to children. But what can the President of the United States possibly have to say about education and "values" that teachers, parents, coaches, and clergy cannot say better? Perhaps the president's real motives lie beyond the children that will ostensibly make up his audience. It is likely that Obama's real audience will be the reporters and cameras that will be there in abundance.

Everything the President of the United States does is political. From ribbon cuttings to planting trees, there is an unavoidable political component. In today's environment of constant media coverage and scrutiny, everything from the president's choice of ties, to the gesture of his hands, is evaluated in terms of how it might add or subtract from the message, and how that message will be perceived. Despite the portrayal of Obama's talk as a genuine, unpolitical, and sincere attempt to encourage academic achievement and perseverance on the part of school children, there will be an unavoidable political component to his speach. Regardless of the press releases, it is likely that Obama's real message will be that he cares deeply about all Americans, even the children, and that he wants nothing but to help us, therefore we should trust him.

Clearly, nothing human is foreign to Obama. There is no suffering that is not felt by him; no struggle that is unknown to him; no dream that is not shared by him. His compassion and concern know no limits and therefore he deserves nothing less than our support, our enthusiasm, and our trust in his noble struggle for a better America; and indeed, a better world. But it will take more than a talk to children to persuade me.

Federal Health Care vs. Charity

Imagine, for a moment, if some of the untold millions of dollars and countless hours being spent on the behalf of the federal health care proposals were spent instead on some of the many charities and private foundations that exist to help the poor and those in need of medical care. Imagine what the Shriners or Habitat for Humanity could do with only a fraction of the money being spent to lobby the government on health care, let alone the money that would be spent should a federal health care plan be passed. Why are so many concerned by the state of health care and the plight of the poor willing to overlook what could be achieved by supporting private charities and foundations with the same zeal that they support federal health care? No doubt for the same reason politicians are.

My guess is that the those involved in lobbying for health care reform are strongly disinclined to support any plan that might deny them the influence and control over policy they seek. Meeting a need is not enough for those "concerned" over health care in the U.S. They demand influence as well. And, why spend millions if one cannot get the credit, not to mention the thanks of a grateful public?

The great advantage of shifting the responsibility for the poor, the suffering, and the ill to the government is that it allows the rest of us to go on about our lives without the burden of having to do anything ourselves other than pay our taxes.

Power of Legislation

Just because a law is passed to address a problem, does not mean the problem is addressed. Passing a law against racism does not end racism. Passing a law to address hunger does not end hunger. Unfortunately, many in Washington seem to believe that once they pass a law or adopt a new regulation, their work is done. It doesn't matter if the issue has been properly or effectively addressed. They pass legislation, allott funds, delegate responsibility, then move on to the next issue. If they are pressed about the issue, they state that they have "taken action" and so demonstrated their resolve. If the issue at hand is unemployment, they will avow their determination to draft or enact legislation or point to the steps they have already taken to address it. If the legislation is enacted, they claim victory, point to the merits of their actions, and consider their duty done and conscience clean.

Similarly, many advocacy groups will demand legislation to address some issue they find of concern. They insist that a law be passed to discourage or limit an objectionable behavior or that new regulations and laws be passed to encourage more helpful activities or address some pressing issue. If those laws are passed, and the regulations are enacted, they too will consider their mission accomplished, at least for the time being, and claim victory in their newsletters.

After the laws are passed, the regulations enacted, and the policies adopted, it is left to the bureaucrats to administer and enforce those regulations and policies, which they do with a numbing disinterest and inefficiency. This is of little concern to Congress or the lobbyists who labored for the adoption of those laws and policies however, since their job was to get them enacted, not to see if they are helpful or effective.

Liberal Paradise

I used to live in Washington, D.C. As anyone familiar with the social and economic make up of Washington knows, the distance between neighborhoods in Washington is small, but the difference between them is great. Not far from the Capitol and the swank neighborhood of Capitol Hill, is the liberal paradise of Anacostia. I suspect very few of those who work or lobby on Capital Hill would ever consider visiting, let alone living, in Anacostia or any of the other, less trendy parts of D.C. All the wonders and bountiful fruits of liberal compassion and beneficence are on display in Washington. The clear and powerful examples of liberal government at work can be viewed on the street corners and amidst the litter, graffiti, broken windows, and decrepit buildings that not only make up much of Washington, but many other cities as well.

To the noble and beautiful souls in the liberal bastion of Washington that believe so sincerely in the blessings offered by government, and work so hard to extend those blessings to the unfortunate and mistreated, I would suggest that they venture out from their bourgeois cocoons and spend time in the communities and neighborhoods they are trying so hard to serve and see how well their noble intentions and sentiments are being translated into reality.

Why All the Bitterness?

There recently have been statements and editorials critical of the strident and sometimes hostile outbursts occurring on the web and at public rallies across the nation. Many have expressed dismay at the growing animosity in public debates. Recent harsh comments concerning Ted Kennedy and his legacy are a case in point.

It is my opinion that one reason for the rising hostility in political discourse is the centralization of power in Washington. When major policy decisions are made by people far removed from those affected by them, it can often be a source of resentment to those who must live by those policies. Insofar as those decisions are seen as made by others (which is usually the case), there is a natural resentment on the part of those burdened by those policies. This resentment is exacerbated by the sense that there is little, if any, chance that those policies can be affected by those unhappy with them.

If one is unhappy with a decision made by their city council, it is easy enough to go down to city hall and protest, or hold a rally in the park. There is a greater sense of efficacy on the part of the citizens because they feel they can have an impact on local policy. However, the further one travels from local government, the more difficult it becomes for citizens to affect policy. And, the less affect citizens can have on policy, the greater the potential for frustration and bitterness.

The chance that a dissatisfied or disgruntled citizen can have any impact on federal policy is infinitesimal. This frustration can be offset somewhat if the unhappy citizen is able to find a group that shares his dissatisfaction and so add his ire to theirs. Often though, the frustration borne by the unhappy citizen is shared by the interest group. This is because the same obstacle that frustrates the citizen can frustrate the interest group. Only a large, well funded interest group, such as the AMA or the Urban League can have any hope of affecting policy. And, when the individual throws his lot in with a large interest group, he soon finds that he has as little ability to affect the policy of that interest group as he did with the government. If, on the other hand, the individual chooses to throw his lot in with a smaller interest group better tailored to his grievance, he soon finds to his dismay that his voice is linked to a group with only minimal ability to affect policy beyond holding rallies and issuing press releases.

I believe that the frustration, bitterness, and sometimes plain petulance on display in various rallies and protests across the nation is a result of the growing sense of powerlessness on the part of communities and individuals to influence policy decisions that affect them. People have come to believe that they must yell louder and display greater outrage to have any chance of being noticed. One does not have to yell or wave his arms in a small room to be listened to. Like the fan who dresses and acts outrageously at a game hoping that, if he does so, the camera might be more inclined to focus on him, if only for a moment, protesters hope that if they yell loudly enough, or behave shockingly enough, their voices might be heard; if only for a moment. The impotence of individuals and small groups to affect national policy is a major source of the bitterness on display at many rallies. This bitterness, and the hostility borne by it, is something the federal government, by it's very nature, cannot address.

Miracles and Parlour Tricks

A conservative blog site asked readers to submit their suggestions for the top ten conservative movies of all time. Many of the movies nominated were were not surprising; Patton, Ben Hur, Forrest Gump, even Batman. I nominated one myself. The post got me thinking about some movies I have enjoyed over the years. One in particular came to mind; "The Ruling Class" starring Peter O'Toole. "Ruling Class" is about the scion of a wealthy, aristocratic family in England. After the scandalous death of the Earl, the family is desperate to keep the estate in the family. The problem is that the only heir to the estate (Peter O'Toole) is in a lunatic asylum for believing he is Jesus Christ. Desperate, the family calls in a prominent psychiatrist (the local "Master of Lunacy") to cure O'Toole so he can assume control over the estate.

The psychiatrist confronts O'Toole and asks him that, if he is truly Christ, would he mind showing him a miracle. O'Toole obliges and asks the doctor to hold out his hand. The doctor does so. "There is your miracle" pronounces O'Toole, "the miracle of the human hand." The doctor sneers at O'Toole's offering and demands a "real" miracle and asks O'Toole to levitate the sofa. O'Toole sighs; "every day you see a thousand miracles, and yet you insist on cheap parlour tricks." How many of us, surrounded as we are by countless wonders and miracles, still demand that God prove himself by performing some cheap parlour trick?

It is of note that after he is "cured", O'Toole's character takes his place in the House of Lords, and becomes a murderer.

Government Stimulus Package?

After reading an article this morning, I wish I could say I was surprised at reading that much of the "federal stimulus" money is to be distributed, not to the people, but to government. Federal funding is to be used to pay for a great variety of projects such as repaving streets, repairing seismic, volcano, and stream gages, changing light fixtures, and planting trees. Cities and states all around the country are compiling lists of projects and programs to be resuscitated and implemented with federal funds. The federal government can't seem to give money away fast enough. $199 million for a border checkpoint in Nevada, $15 million for another checkpoint in North Dakota (none for Laredo. Politics?). The government seems unable to give the money away fast enough. In its rush to distribute money, the government even sent checks to 200 prison inmates in Texas.

From what I have read, under the stimulus package nearly one trillion dollars is going to be spent, and most of it by the federal government. While some of it is being spent by non-government agencies, most is not. We are simply witnessing the phenomenon of government giving money to itself while telling us that they are spending it for our benefit. My impression is that what the Obama administration is most interested in stimulating is the federal government. It is not called a federal stimulus package for nothing. The objective seems to be to invigorate government as a catalyst for economic activity and further entrench it in the economic, political, and social life of the nation. As they say, to a man with a hammer, every problem is a nail; and Obama has a hammer.

Federal money is like heroin; once you become addicted to it you cannot imagine living without it. And the federal government is determined to keep us hooked. One result of the Obama administration pushing money on state and local governments is that it will increase their dependence on federal government. This is a sound strategy if what you're selling is federal government.

What torture?

From what I have read, there is still debate concerning whether "torture" is a useful or necessary tool in our war on terror. I have placed quotation marks around the word "torture" because it is a subject of debate. Methods that some consider torture are embraced by others as legitimate interrogation techniques. The higher the stakes, the more blurred the line becomes. It has been argued that the nation's security is at stake and so aggressive interrogation, if not torture, is warranted. While torture for torture's sake has often occurred, it has seldom reached the scale of torture in behalf of a grand or noble cause such as the salvation of the soul or the security of the state.

The word "torture" has been parsed and debated. The presence or lack of of physical disability or maiming, the length and degree of pain inflicted, the degree of psychological stress applied, the extent of horror threatened, all weigh in the debate over what constitutes torture. I would suggest that the measure of torture be whether we would tolerate such methods to be used against our soldiers and citizens. If we would not, we should reassess our use of those methods.

The necessity of torture has often been argued in cases where the stakes are high. Soviet torture of peasants suspected of hoarding grain was claimed necessary to prevent starvation. Torture of heretics was claimed necessary for the salvation of their souls. Torture of prisoners has often been claimed necessary to prevent an outrage or calamity from occurring. Threats to the security of the state or realm have often fallen into this category, as well as the fear of imminent attack. It is unclear how effective torture has been in these instances since those being tortured are often inclined to spill their guts, so to speak, to satisfy their tormentor, whether their confession is truthful or not.

What is clear is that the diminution of torture over time, with some notable exceptions, indicates that its usefulness as a method or instrument of gathering information and preserving public order and safety has fallen into disfavor. Perhaps this is in part due to the phenomenon that the fear of torture is often more effective than the torture itself. So why torture? In order to instill the fear of torture, some have to be tortured so as to demonstrate the resolve of the interrogators. In this case, those tortured are not tormented for the sake of information, but to intimidate other prisoners and potential trouble makers into compliance. This is a motive that civilized people ought to find reprehensible.

Torture, as a practice, is evidence of cruelty and sadism more often than resolve. Those who are intrigued, rather than appalled, by accounts of torture are the ones likely to torture pets and become serial killers; or aspire to work for the CIA. Those who tolerate torture display a numbness toward humanity troubling for its absence of compassion. Those who support torture exhibit a callous indifference and a cold cruelty out of step with civilization.

It is worth noting that torture of suspects is just that, torture of suspects. We are not just torturing terrorists, but those only suspected of being terrorists. Presumably, the determination of whether they are terrorists or not is only made after they are tortured. I fear that if I was tortured, I might even confess to being a terrorist.

Vanishing Work Ethic

There was an editorial in this morning's "Dallas Morning News" by Steven Malanga regarding the vanishing Protestant ethic in the U.S. Malanga attributes the erosion of the traditional protestant ethic of hard work, responsibility, and restraint to the decline of the social and ethical principals on which this nation was founded. He also convincingly makes the argument that the decline of thrift and modesty lay beneath the rise of consumerism and avarice. I would only add covetousness to his list as a factor in undermining the principals on which this nation was founded.

I found the article to be well written, thorough, persuasive, and vaguely familiar.

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?