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.