Unacceptable Discourse Lends to My Charm

"Relax -- This won't hurt."

2010-01-27T09:51:00.000-08:00

I am a man

I am self-aware

Everywhere I go

You’re always right there with me

I’ve flirted with you all my life

Even kissed you once or twice

And to this day I swear it was nice

But clearly I was not ready

Oh death, I’m not ready

--Vic Chesnutt

I am at a loss for giving anyone else answers that have eluded me for so long. My life has not been horrible. I felt I needed more to make it meaningful and endurable. I have been unhappy for some time; I could not seem to get the disparate parts of my personality to align in my favor; I have been planning this for some time; and, I have considered it likely, given my natural disposition. While there is nothing in particular that has brought me to this place, my disillusionment with life can be found somewhere between what I perceived to be employment that lacked prestige or value; the slow loss of friends and community, some of which self-imposed; and, repeated unrequited love.

From my perspective, I spared those around me the misery of being around me. Part of me chose to isolate myself because I was becoming an insufferable bore, another part chose because I was finding my ability to tolerate others diminishing, and finally I wanted to see how many people would try to knock down the walls I had erected around myself. I spent the last several months doing what I wanted; it was not unpleasant. I didn’t want to get married for fear of burdening another person with my depression, and I most certainly did not want to pass along my genetic material; and, if I’m not going to have a family or have a gainful, meaningful employment (both scenarios seemed unlikely), why live at all? Life was painful and boring. There was simply nothing else I wanted, and those things I would have enjoyed (Vienna, sex) are no great losses. I have relatively recently seen or spoken to most of my inner circle, a number of which on my vacation out east. I have seen enough.

I have some final people to address. I would have said this in life, but people would have tried to stop me. Try keeping a secret like this for several months: it’s not as easy as you imagine. First, I have a request. The next year, and beyond, will be horrible for my mother and maternal grandparents. If my friendship has purchased anything, account it to them and call her my mother to make sure she’s as well as can be expected.

To all the girls I loved who didn’t love me back: Desperately I wanted to make one of you feel like a queen. Until I became a woman hater not too long ago, it was my deepest desire to show you how beautiful you were. For all my flaws and missed opportunities, I would have done anything to make you happy. Rightly or wrongly, I treated you as my salvation. And now I have a gun in my mouth.

My greatest fear is that people rejected me not because they didn’t see the real me, but because they did, because they couldn’t bring themselves to hire or date or hang out with someone as ugly as me. What if my boss really did see my potential? What if girls did see what I had to offer and found me wanting. If so, then I guess this is a reasonable decision. If not, then that’s just unfortunate, like much of life. I have made poor choices in life and I own them completely. I have simply chosen not to live with them.

I hope this gives no one fodder for taking away guns rights or rights in general. I believe it’s a person’s right to commit suicide. I also don’t believe that all life is sacred – some people need to just get out of the way. I don’t believe in making that decision for someone else, but over time nature skims off the dross. I believe most of us just fear death more than living life as a loser. I would like to clarify that paragraph for any who misunderstand where I’m coming from, but obviously that is out of the question.

I suppose that’s enough. If you wish to memorialize me, I hope it’s not too pretentious of me to say I always felt an affinity for Don McLean’s “Vincent.”

Let my epitaph read: “the world has no room for another third-rate philosopher” (I’m serious).

Supreme Court Decision on Campaign Reform

2010-01-23T07:07:00.001-08:00

I was going to take a lot of time to put together a well-constructed post on this, but to my shame I do not have the mental stamina for that. Instead, I shall give you the gist of what has happened and my reaction. Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional to limit spending by corporations to political campaigns. Liberals have been making a lot noise on the subject, with one Facebook poster saying, "folks...it's over. the USA is now a wholly owned subsidiary of major corporate interests."

Apocalyptic fearmongering aside, my initial impression is that this will not end up being as scary as we imagine. The loss of liberty and good government in our society tends to come slowly. Libertarian news sources like Reason and the Cato Institute have already voiced their problems with the McCain-Feingold act. In Reason's estimation, and I agree, the good intentions of the bipartisan effort was a failure. Which leads to my first question on those criticizing the decision: do you believe McCain-Feingold was a success? Did it keep money out of politics without intruding on other liberties? If not, then perhaps policing this with legislation is unwise.

I am torn on this issue, and I share the concerns about money in politics. To those things, however, I want to send some words of caution. First, I think money will always be in politics. You know all those banks that got bailed out? You know who gave the most to the Obama campaign? Yeah, same people.

There are also two fallacies that concern me. First, it's that corporations are bad. I don't believe that. I believe they tend to be opportunists, but not inherently bad. I don't believe the motives of Coke are inherently better than that of the ACLU. Money may not make you good, but it is not a bad thing either. I am also not crazy about the government policing speech that criticises government. Government is just like business: it has its own interests at heart. I don't trust business, but I don't trust government either.

One critic said that coporations are neither individuals, nor members of the press, therefore, they are not susceptible to the same rights of freedom of speech as everyone else. What concerns me with that argument is that I'm an inclusivist when it comes to free speech. We have a history of deciding who should not be considered persons, and I would argue it does not play well. Also, what makes a member of the press? I feel like the concept is porous enough that it can't be policed. If Coke sets up a blog, have they become a member of the press? Or what if they support their favorite yellow-journalism news source, like MS-NBC or Fox News?

I believe democracy is strengthened by free speech, and the answer to bad speech is more, better speech. I am also a believer in transparency. I believe our greatest buffer in democracy to tyranny is not law but the will of the people. At this moment, I'm fine with letting anyone say anything they want, as long as we know who is saying it. If the word of corporations is dubious, and they have to put their name on something to say it, or have to file their contributions, then they may think twice about spending money on something that may back fire.

What is most perturbing is the cynicism that is spoken on the issue. President Obama, in the NY Times article mentioned, said the ruling is "a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans." Implicit in that seems to say that all that matters in politics is money and the ability to buy votes. The ability of individuals to see through cronyism and self-interest. But if that's true, if all that ever matters is who has the most money, did we ever really have a democracy? If the wisdom of the voting populace can only be moved by what money can buy, it seems to me we have already lost our government. Me, I have more faith in the wisdom of Americans. I believe America is better than that.

Instead of trying to find ideal legislation to try and maintain equity, I say let everyone with a dollar and a voice speak, and let wise men and women debate and discuss. Admittedly, it's a gamble. The worst nightmares of liberals may be correct: we may be on the short road to being owned subsidiaries of big business. But remember that you have to be an optimist to believe in democracy. You have to believe that liberty and individual choice are stronger than our vices.

Alyssa Rosenberg’s Review of “It’s Complicated”

2010-01-16T00:46:00.000-08:00

While I am a day late and a dollar short, over the holiday season bloggers and gabfest worlds were abuzz over the Meryl Streep rom-com Its Complicated. One of the better reviews was a morality-critiquing post by Alyssa Rosenberg. To Rosenberg’s credit, she was the only person I came across whose movie-going experience was diminished due to the plot’s shallow treatment of the charming but hedonist characters. Alyssa downplays the interiors of their homes and makes much of the interiors of their lives.

To quote Rosenberg, “it is not remotely okay for Streep's character to have an affair with her [remarried] ex-husband.” She goes on to decry the protagonist’s behavior: “Streep's character, despite behaving recklessly and selfishly, gets everything she wants.” Reading this was a paradoxical experience. Repeatedly I had to admit Alyssa was absolutely correct and yet I was uncomfortable with her appraisal.

The movie is fantastic in depicting the outcome as being ideal. Some hurt feelings, a cry and a hug later and all is back to homeostasis. Most unconvincing was the resilience of her carved-from-cream cheese children. With as world-shattering as divorce can be for children, I wish I childhood had been as bad as theirs. The children of the story only go to augment our perception of the earth-mother Jane who can seek her own self-interest at negligible expense to those around her. I think if children were typically so well-adjusted after divorce and affairs we would not find them so upsetting. The fantasy projected is not that adults would have to change their behavior, but that children would change their natures.

The material demands a light touch on the real-life consequences. It’s Complicated reminded me of another movie I have reluctantly accepted my attachment to despite the subject material: Same Time, Next Year, which is about an adulterous pair that meets annually at the same location of their first tryst. It’s one of my favorite movies and more judgment-worthy due to the length of the affair.

For all its flaws, It’s Complicated demonstrates Meryl Streep’s Jane as a certain female ideal of long-suffering. In a post-feminist world, new generations of women are right to both embrace sex while correcting for poor choices in men. In every generation, albeit more pronounced in Streep’s, women can’t kill the hydra of appeal that comes from dangerous men and charming womanizers. To top it off, the divorced two have a history. I can only imagine that there is something magical in coming back to someone when they know every crevice of your – personality. Love is multi-faceted and maybe we can delight in its many forms.

I was watching another Penn Says, and in the most recent that has been inhabiting my conscious thoughts, Penn Jillette (shallowly?) rejected a friendship with a woman who refused to sleep with Elvis Presley and Jimi Hendrix (course language in the link). Penn quotes a friend who believes the purpose of life is to acquire as many great stories as possible. I am inclined to agree, even if that means I am most certainly not fulfilling my purpose in life. Salon published an article in 2004 with an unforgettable title: What French Girls Know -- Young girls in France learn early in life that happiness is not as important as passion. It’s a great article extolling the carpe diem life. I suppose my own dreams parallel the one in It’s Complicated, which is why it is such a fun romp. Alas, I’m Steve Martin and wide awake.

What are Feminists so Afraid of?

2009-12-24T13:28:00.001-08:00

Apparently me.

Contrary to my persona at times, I love a good, thoughtful debate with people who see the world differently. Stick me in a room where I can hash it out with a smart person who contradicts me on every front and I'm a happy guy. Occasionally, I stumble my way onto a feminist blog and feel I have joined Alice in her rabbit hole and find myself in a world full of amazement, beauty and seemingly backwards logic. They spin a world of fantasy (I don't mean that pejoratively) most captivating, as I suppose only a woman can.

What confounds me is that with their bravado of willingness to confront demanding social topics is coupled with a seeming reticence to actually face someone who feels otherwise. This has happened several times to me, including another quick dismissal on Pink Scare's blog, but most recently at a blog by the blogger whose handle is Armed with Vitriol. In a recent discussion I wished to discuss male and female bedroom relations. I will not offer a defense here, and let the reader decide for themselves if I was out of line; if I was, I am willing to concede the point and assume whatever shame is my due. That said, after giving what I thought was a thoughtful and playful response, I was returned with the rather bombastic response that what I had said was, "all kinds of wrong" and that the blogger would not, "bother with a reply because your comment is so ignorant it doesn't deserve one."

Again, what gets me is that someone with such a bold worldview would be so quick to dismiss anyone who would dare view the world differently. She also claimed I didn't read her response. I maintain that while I didn't give it a thorough reading, to say what I said was ignorant goes a bit too far. In a later reply she said I was "annoying (from a feminist perspective)." I'm not quite sure what she means by "a feminist perspective," but remember that she wouldn't "bother to reply" so I don't really know what is the problem.

So, I am left perplexed. The internet can unfortunately cause communication to become opaque, and what might have been a relatively banal conversation where two people might have found a lot of common ground became something else. Too bad. But what I wrestle with is why are feminist so unwilling to engage others? They want to mold public opinion -- a perfectly fine thing -- but seem unwilling to handle criticism. Why?

A Douche By Any Other Name

2009-12-14T08:13:00.000-08:00

Warning: The language below is unsuited for some readers. Also, I had a difficult time formatting this post. If you see any inconsistencies, I may have not been able to fix them.

--

The word douche-bag, or the truncated moniker douche, is a word that has been thrown around with unfocused resolve. Douche usage seems to be more and more frequent, with its application becoming less and less sound. What is a douche bag and douchebaggery?

The quest for the elusive proper-use of this term begins in a strange sort of Shire. Its original understandng was a cleansing agent for feminine hygiene. Not even out of Hobbiton, and the journey is already perplexing, since in its pejorative usage, it also describes a bad man. How does an tool used for female washing end up describing a male tool (also a noun that eludes strict definitional precision.) This is reminiscent of a George Carlin joke: in describing one of the seven words you aren't allowed to use on television, "For some reason 'cocksucker' means bad man; it's a good woman."

Before coming to the subject of the douche bag himself, an examination of the accuser may be in order. In particular, I have read the insult (and similar cold pricklies) at the blog Dating is Miserable. What is most striking is that it is often tied to one of two things: either, is comes as some form of unsolicited dating advice, or a douchy incident had occurred. The first often comes across as patronization; the second, single whinytude. Strangely enough, the d-bomb is almost never uttered from a taken woman's lips.

Both feelings of being patronization and whinytude tend inspire my insolence towards them and never do I feel like I've come away enlightened. Does any single girl in her mid-20s think she can tell me anything I don't already know? Calling a guy you don't like an unqualified douche is often intellectually lazy. It demands nothing of the speaker, whether evaluation of the other person or, God forbid, themselves. What kills me about these girls is their indignation to being hit on by anyone they would rather have just move along. "I just got hit on by this creepy old guy. He was probably over 30 -- eww." When considering women of this species, before appraising their gems of wisdom, I feel it obligatory to ask one question: Is this a judgmental narcissist? This is only fair. A searching single does not a sage make. (As my research revealed to me, there is a term for this kind of person.)

Zack Brown: I've known her since the first grade, you don't fuck someone you met in the first grade.
Delaney: Excuse me, I met my wife in kindergarten, we got married senior year, and she's been the queen of my world ever since.
Zack Brown: But what if you could do it all over again?
Delaney: I would jerk off and live by myself. That woman is the bane of my existence.
~From "Zack and Miri Make a Porno"

Vlogger Bernard Chapin has a wonderful, if not out-of-character, vlog post titled Never Give Up on Women. In it, his logic is simple: women are the only game in town; his advice is likewise as simple: if you want a woman, try harder. I am of two-minds on this. For many people, one of the key struggles in life is the tension between authenticity and acceptance. Speaking as someone who is going to die alone, being true to oneself has its advantages; if nothing else, I say pretty much whatever I want because I have generally accepted my loneliness. The status quo is only one option. Many women are worth falling for but none are worth falling over. My own rule is thus: life is short, the road is long, and anyone who wishes to accompany me along the way is a welcome companion; but, I do not abide people who wish to mold and control me. We are equals or nothing at all.

My shadow's the only one that walks beside me
My shallow heart's the only thing that's beating
Sometimes I wish someone out there will find me
'Til then I walk alone

Back to finding definitional certitude, douche bag runs the gamut from describing actions to apparel (see picture) to attitude. Here are some various definitions and applications of douche bag.

1. Popped Collars
2. Frequently not wearing a shirt (this one makes me giggle for reasons I can't say here)
3. Tanning
4. Liking Dane Cook
5. Overconfidence
6. Low intelligence
7. Having a certain Jersey Shore metro-esque look
8. Given to clubbing, alcohol, violence and sex
9. Hitting on girls he knows are taken
10. A kind of herd mentality that reinforces douche bag ritualism.

At first blush, d-bag seems to only mean 'boo' to odious behavior. But that is unsatisfying verbicide (the act of "killing" a word by removing any sense of distinctive objectivity about it and using it to merely describe one's subjective feelings towards the thing in question.) This is my main objection. In order for douche to mean anything, it must mean something; more to the point, it must mean something we can all get behind. Even if none of the above characteristics are present, one may still find themselves in douche land. One big criticism I have is that it seem to go along with the typical white person disapproval of anything that deviates from the boring norm. I'm as white bread as they come, but is a man wearing jewelry and Abercrombie and Fitch at 30 a truly bad thing? Dane Cook fans are lapping up the dregs of comedic drivel, but certainly they aren't as bad as the guy who hits on engaged women and whose insecurity starts fights over nonsense. Can we agree that there should be different words denoting bad behavior and bad taste?

This has all left me perplexed. I have searched all over the Mordor of the internet to finally nail down what is a douche bag, and find that I am every more stumped. Will we ever be able to come to a consensus?

Immortalizing Yourself in Porn

2009-12-11T08:50:00.000-08:00

My apologies for allowing so many of my posts being about sex, love and relationships. My mind has been preoccupied with other things these days, from politics to existentialism, but my need for catharsis on love having more immediacy. Listening to a Penn Jillette vlog, he discussed an issue that I thought was only in my sex-deprived head. In it, he discusses a conversation with a pornographer who was describing the motivations for the women who are involved in it. Penn rightly isolated this one phrase for women in porn: they wanted to "immortalize their youth."

And here I was brought back to a notion I have had before. I think if I were a beautiful young woman, I would hire a professional photographer and have them take lurid photos of me. I probably wouldn't publish them, I would just like that record. Penn went so far to say that if he could, he would go back to being 18 and perform sexually in front of a camera. I am not so bold; like Mr. Jillette, I have the heart of comedian, but I have no intention to be that humorous.

Which made me think of artists who in various ways (try to) immortalize feminine beauty and what a trip that must be, to be paid to do what every amateur lover longs to go pro at. How do other people feel about immortalizing their youth in such a fashion? Would you like to have a physical record of your sexual apogee?

The Poetry of Philosophy

2009-12-07T04:36:00.000-08:00

I came across these poems and felt like they summed up well a philosophical approach to romance.
--

UTILITARIAN LOVE POEM

alishahnovin

You are aesthetically pleasing,
the reason for which I first noticed in you.
And later I found your personality equally pleasing.
I also noted your chest to waist ratio is suitable for birthing.
Therefore, I think you should live in my house.

EXISTENTIALIST LOVE POEM

Lilian

I saw a cute boy on the street,
It could have been you,
It doesn't matter much if it still is,
You can approach me if you want to,
It doesn't matter if I'm still interested,
Either way we'll still feel alone.

Nihilist Love Poem

By: Alamir

You looked pleasing like girls often do,
Does it matter why I approached you?
It could have been the weather
or just the way I grew up.
But if our personalities can be tolerated
...And you're on the pill
We should both have sex
Before we both end up dead,
and regret not doing so.

Expanding Waistlines and Standards

2009-11-01T02:57:00.001-08:00

While searching for the perfect Halloween costume, I stumbled across two double-take moments. The first was weight-loss advertisement on my Facebook sidebar. It advertises that in a mere four weeks you can go from having a having a soft but relatively healthy physique to being cut. This eye-brow raising commercial struck me odd: in an age of increasing waistlines, have our standards for physical perfection actually increased? It makes sense to me when a promotion that shows an orca losing half its body weight to reveal a person beneath. Sure, if I looked like that, I’d be quick to try any weight-loss program thrown at me by cheap internet marketing. Apparently we’re now feeling self-conscious about being a bit cushy. Surely most men would choose the Brad Pitt figure, but I think many men would also be okay with Michael Buble’, especially if it meant easy maintenance and they had something else to offer, like, you know, personality.

Update: I just added two more pictures demonstrating my befuddlement. Are most men this insecure about their bodies they can't be satisfied with looking like the men in 'before' pictures?

Similarly, I came across a couple online debates over who is hotter: Lucy Pind er or Keeley Hazell (NSFW). I don’t know much about these girls, other than what media needs me to know: they’re smoking hot and I’m never, ever going to end up with anything even remotely as attractive as them – sorry future wife. Why, then, are we arguing about this on the internet? Like a speed of light physics calculation, we are arguing the difference between a 9.999 and a 9.998. This feels a bit like that "Really!?!" segment on SNL. If I thought I had a real chance with either of these women, I would be more than willing to shoot up a theater of New Moon watching tweens (even if it didn’t work out, what have we lost?) And of course, all the people arguing this subject probably look like me. A little self-awareness is in order. Let me simplify: if you’re arguing over the physicality of gorgeous models on internet message boards, you will never have a gorgeous model.

The same goes for those who mock these people on their blogs.

Your Money for the Poor or Your Life – I’m Still Thinking!

2009-10-28T02:14:00.000-07:00

.
Could You Pull the Trigger for Justice?

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. ~George Washington

…we should be clear that the institutions of democracy – free markets, a free press, a strong civil society – cannot be built overnight, and they cannot be built at the end of a barrel of a gun. And so we must realize that the freedoms FDR once spoke of – especially freedom from want and freedom from fear – do not just come from deposing a tyrant and handing out ballots; they are only realized once the personal and material security of a people is ensured as well. ~Barack Obama, speech, Nov. 20, 2006

In a previous blog post I mentioned an academic couple I visited in Philadelphia. They were typical academics, with the standard obligatory disparagements of the former President and so forth. One conversation that stuck with me was the husband’s view of taxation. He said advocates for low taxation believe they will be rich some day, and that’s why they don’t believe in high taxes for the affluent. It was at this point things “got busy” and I was released to ponder his statement on my own. My reaction was that this was an awfully complex line of thought, and seemingly improbable that the majority of poor or middle class people would have such forethought and hope. Assuming he was right, however, I wonder if that’s a bad thing. Is wanting low taxes because a person thinks their industriousness could lead to a prosperous lifestyle a bad trend? Is it perhaps better than the alternative, believing one will never be rich, so let’s take what they can from those that are?

if you want to take shots at people
target Phil Knight and Bill Gates
contemplate
how they own the products
and they got the goods
how they act like they care
but they’re just Robbin’ Hoods. ~Steve Coleman, "I Wanna Hear a Poem"

Recently I’ve become a follower of Penn Jillette's vlog. Penn Jillette is the larger, louder half of Penn and Teller’s magic and comedy show in Las Vegas; they are also the stars of a Showtime television debunking show called Bullshit! It took me some time to come around on Mr. Jillette because he struck me as an off-putting atheist (which is true) with intolerance for religious thinking and worldviews that don’t fall in line with his own paradigms (which is not.) He is a blocky, libertarian, free-market capitalist, an opponent of the War on Drugs, scientifically-inclined bull-in-a-china-closet showman that plays the double bass in a jazz band. Basically, he’s an older version of me with big hair. Penn, in a vlog asking his audience to help pen a message to Glenn Beck (pun intended) on libertarianism, he raised an issue I ask myself; I would greatly appreciate feedback on this.

In the absence of justice, what is sovereignty but organized robbery? ~Saint Augustine

In the aforementioned vlog Penn addresses the issue of justice. The magician begins by equating the government to a gun, that is to say the government operates functionally by threat of force. As he puts it, “government is force.” If government is an extension of the will of the people, in theory this must mean that the government ought to use force only when we would as individuals. Penn goes on to say that if he had the fortitude, he would be willing to kill a man to stop -- and I think by extension this would include killing as punishment -- rape, murder, and to protect private property.

Afterwhich is the crux of Penn’s pondering:

I don’t think I would use a gun to take money from somebody to start a library. I don’t think I’d hold a gun to someone and say, “You need to go to school.” I don’t think I’d hold a gun on someone and say, “We have to get some money for art.” I don’t think I’d hold a gun on someone and say, “We gotta put a man on the moon.”

This leads to a central argument of mine that I’ve never heard anyone give a good response to. What I want to make people wrestle with is the notion that the government we endorse will use violence against its citizens to acquire their property. So, I put it to others, and I want to put it in as demanding a light as I can. If you came across a beggar and Bill Gates at the same time, had a gun, and knew there would be no consequences for your actions, would you rob Bill Gates and give that money to the beggar? Would extenuating circumstances change your mind? For instance, what if the man was homeless because he lost his house to pay for his young daughter’s cancer treatment? Could you pull the trigger to rob Bill Gates to give to another person, even in genuine need?

Could you pull the trigger for justice? If not, what does it say about us that we are willing to let the government do our dirty work? If so, what does that say about you? What does that say about us?

You're Going to Suck Somebody's Blood Out -- When Vampirism Stopped Being Funny

2009-10-15T23:34:00.000-07:00

“I like to think we live forever in some form.”

“What, like a zombie? You want to feast on the flesh of men? Because I hear women do that already.”

“Someone’s bitter.”

I came across the blog I Shoulda Been a Stripper by the pseudonymous Chrissy Starr. Her brain candy blog is a boon for typical comic-book reading fare: you know, lonely overweight guys with poor social skills who spend too much time playing video games and blogging – and, um – people who that doesn’t describe at all, like me. In her latest installment, Chrissy recounts a television program about real-world vampires and their habits. I wanted to share my inner monologue as I was reading Miss Starr's self-reflective vampire post.

Here are some of the characteristics of vampires that I think I might possess.

1) They have inverted circadian rhythms; the internal clock that regulates biological processes in a 24 hour period. They're usually known as "night owls".

Chrissy: Check

Me: I have been known to stay up late and fight insomnia (written at 1:27 a.m.).

2) They are unpredictable, moody, temperamental and overwhelming.

Chrissy: Check.
Check.
Check.
And Check.

Me: So I can get emotional sometimes. Nobody’s perfect.

3) Some real vampires are attracted to blood and find different means for attaining it. Well, I don't like blood, per se, but I'm always up for a Bloody Mary.

Chrissy: Check.

Me: Cheers.

4) They're photosensitive and sunburn easily. Next to Nicole Kidman, I am THE most Caucasian person you will ever meet.

Chrissy: Check.

Me: I am pretty pasty. Sunblock SPF 50 over here, go’vner.

5) Their relationships tend to be disasters because of their self-centered natures. See blog.

Chrissy: CHECK.

Me: If that’s true – and I’m not saying it is – but if that’s true, I think that’s more the fault of being raised an only child.

6) They may go through jobs and lovers like Kleenex.

Chrissy: Check.

Me: Okay, this shit ain’t funny anymore.

7) They have a talent for attracting attention.

Chrissy: Check.

Me: …

So, maybe I need to be a little less critical of Twilight readers in the future.

I’m on a Plane with Bob Costas and We’re All Gonna Die

2009-10-15T19:36:00.000-07:00

Every time I fly I have comedian Ron White’s voice in my head, telling the story of a plane flight he was on.

We had engine trouble and lost some oil pressure…. Everybody on the plane was nervous but I’d been drinking since lunch and I was like, “Take us down, I don’t care.” Hit something hard, I don’t wanna limp away from this thing. The guy sitting next to me is losing his mind – apparently, he had a lot to live for. He said, “Hey man, if one of the engines fail, how far will the other one take us?”
“All the way to the scene of the crash. Which is pretty handy ‘cause that’s where we’re headin’. I bet we beat the paramedics by a half-hour. We’re haulin’ ass.”

Which is pretty much my way of looking at it. The only difference between me and Ron White is a couple of decades and points on a sobriety test. On my August 1 trip to New York City from Chicago, I flew on Jet Blue. The most surprising thing was a crowd gathering around what turned out to be a celebrity. A celebrity? On my flight? How quaint. A woman next to me asked who it was, and though this person’s back was turned by his profile I was able to correctly guess that it was sports commentator Bob Costas. If you don't know, Bob Costas has an adorable, Parkinson's-free Michael J. Fox thing going for him. I’ll say this about the man, if anyone could get me to love the Great American Naptime that is professional baseball, it’s Bob Costas: that man can make golf tolerable. Costas also has one of the best lines in cinema.

It was a strange experience seeing Bob there, because even though I get star struck easily, I had already met him. The only sensation stranger than meeting a celebrity is meeting a celebrity and feeling like it is old hat. I can only imagine that the coolest thing about personally knowing celebrities is being able to talk about them prosily. After seeing him, it struck me that if I had died in a plane crash, I would suddenly claim a tiny modicum of fame by proxy; suddenly, I would have died in the flight Bob Costas died on. My family could even refer to it that way. “When did your son die, Mrs. Minnihan?” “It was a couple years ago…well, you know the flight that famous sports announcer died on?”

But to my chagrin the plane landed just fine, as you could probably ascertain by now. If I ever did die in a crash of some sort, I do hope someone writes a famous song about me. On a related note, I just watched the movie Josie and the Pussycats and loved it! It totally exceeded my expectations. A funny clip can be seen here. If the pilot and crew had decided to ditch the plane, it would be great if they had said the line “take the Chevy to the levy” (5:17).

A Midwestern Hillbilly in Harvard Square: Seeing and Being Unheard

2009-10-15T17:21:00.000-07:00

Last August I took a trip to the East Coast and I wanted to write what I hope will be a series of blog posts on that experience. I’ve been reminded twice now in the past twelve hours of my time in Boston. The first occurred last night in an experience I delight in. I wanted to do some light reading before bed and began reading Tuesdays With Morrie. I have to admit, I’m probably a quarter the way in and it’s already tugging at my heartstrings. The author, Mitch Albom, gave an account of Harvard Square and I was transported back to that beautiful locale. Probably my favorite part of traveling is knowing what an author is talking about when they speak of exotic (to me) places. At the moment, I’m listening to Penny Lane and, while I’ve never been to England, can’t help but imagine there are plenty who know such supple vicarity. The picture provided is my second favorite place in Boston.

How vastly my loneliness was deepened,

How poignant and amplified the world before me seemed…

Pardon the egg salad stain, but I’m in love. ~Billy Collins

Things Left Unsaid

The latest remembrance occurred as I was going through my morning media breakfast and listening to Penn Jillette's vlog. His latest vlog theme seems to be an introspective examination into the effects of technology; today’s topic is cellphone checking in conversation. This topic shot me back to Cambridge and my time spent as a fish-out -of-water. In the video, he talks about his fear of asking rhetorical questions because people will whip out their phones to fact check.

While in Boston I was lucky enough to be put up by some very nice Bostonians who were friends of a friend. They were incredibly generous people and it made my experience richer and me less poor. Maybe it was the aura of Boston itself, but I also felt I was in the presence of very accomplished people in early middle age. When in that part of the country, I was puzzled by a certain aspect of conversation. While speaking, if there was some kind of interrupting sound or moment, the people I was with would take note of it, and return to the conversation without letting me finish my point. This was probably the most off-putting of my experiences in New England and I wanted to know if others had noticed this as a trend in their own lives?

City of Brotherly and Self Love

A similar experience occurred in Philadelphia. I stayed with an academic couple who were magnanimous in their hospitality, to say nothing of their intellects, with a combined I.Q. of probably close to 300. I was looking forward most to staying with them in many ways, since professors are my rock stars. Food and accommodation were not spared and for that I am utterly grateful. And yet, a similar conversational emerged, but this time, one of them would pontificate a point and then suddenly “become busy” and I was left feeling like the front wall of racquetball room.

My eastern odyssey left me to reflect on the difference between there and here. In the Midwest, we have plenty of food, but not a lot of entertainment; on the East Coast, they have lots of entertainment and culture, but things people typically need, like parking spots and restrooms, are scarce. So, in the Heartland, people have lots of what they need and little in terms of wants; in the East, they have lots of museums and leisure activities but a good hearty meal and a spot to relieve oneself can be a trek to find. This played out in the hospitality of others: they gave me the things I needed (a bed, bathroom, and sometimes food), but extended little in the way of social exchange. This lead to the first several stops of my excursion quite lonely, a bitter experience which made the end of my trip so much the sweeter – which I will discuss later.

American Royalty Flush

2009-10-14T14:11:00.001-07:00

Ivanka Trump, daughter of billionaire Donald Trump, says of her book Trump Card, "I try to impart to readers that 'We've all been dealt a winning hand and it is up to each of us to play it right and smart." An excerpt from the book can be read at the Huffington Post.

In the article, she says entrepreneurs often have a certain arrogance and bluster. "I'd been at the Trump Organization for about two years when I came upon an unexpected opportunity to exercise some of these impulses--in an area I hadn't thought to consider." Keep that in mind the next time you get an unexpected opportunity when you're working at the top levels of management at the Trump Organization – these are keys to success.

She goes on to say, "Over the years, my father had made successful forays into what were at the time completely new territories for him--beauty pageants, books, modeling agencies--and I could see the adrenaline rush he'd get from taking a calculated risk and pushing the envelope of his own experience." I think we can all draw from our fathers' successful ventures into fashion and literature to help us steer the waters of life.

Speaking of a business deal with a man named Moshe Lax, she said she "hit it off" with Moshe, principal of Dynamic Diamond Corp. "My new associate was an entrepreneur through and through. I admired that about him. He also wasn't willing to rest on his father's accomplishments or the success of the family business. I admired that as well." Ergo, look for people who share your common interests the way Ivanka did, because getting ahead in business and life involves relationships with people who share, say, your love of reality television and Dan Brown. Even more important, admire those you meet who are ambitious business people just like you--don't rest on the previous success of your wealthy and powerful parents. Remember always: nepotism is always an ugly quality to see in fellow elites.

I'm glad Ivanka Trump is getting the message out that we all have a winning hand. Don't believe it? Just listen to the wisdom of a real estate heiress, an heiress we can all identify with, with her time spent at two private schools; her degree in economics from the Wharton School of Business (arguably the best in the world); her rich, famous, and connected family; and, her model good looks. I think when we see her, we see ourselves. And that's an inspiring thing.

Still not inspired? Here are some photos of her to remind you of your track to success. Remember, even you can be rich and famous at 27—all you have to do is see and believe.

Puncture

2009-10-13T13:14:00.000-07:00

Originally written August 6, 2009.

--

Shh. They rouse easily with tin ear to mercy and platitude

They see the real you.

Quickened by passion and pain

Stay.

Unanswerable, surrealistic chimeras screech and caterwaul for duped curiosity

That's why you've been dismissed.

Cold-cocking ankle-biters

You are the sum of your choices.

Their mad yawp heard before the release of sleep and dream, after preoccupying activity

Go home.

Why beasts crack their skulls on rocks

A constant reminder my dreams won't come true.

Turned, warped and trasmuted: our heads held high in the gallows

What if God...

Can a mite shake the whole world?

only accepts beautiful souls...

Nauseous conflations unbound by honor, feckless dialectic, humanity untried, unknown

the way men choose beautiful faces?

The Empty Life and the Full Stomach: Why Sports Suck (Part 3)

2009-10-13T13:12:00.000-07:00

Written July 4, 2009.

--

“Underneath this flabby exterior is an enormous lack of character.” ~Oscar Levant

My former pastor, a sports fan, recalled a time when he saw his son playing basketball in a sports coliseum. He remarked that in the building there were 10,000 people who needed exercise watching ten people who don’t. Such is the condition of American sportsdom. Having addressed the soul and heart of the game, I now wish to diagnose the body, namely, the spectator, those many plump, proud, self-righteous armchair quarterbacks who mutate private endeavor into public display and adore the objects of their affection as they did the dolls (ahem, action figures) of their youth.

The festival of Superbowl Sunday is where such religious celebrations find their zenith. We bless the Pepsi and Tostitos to our bodies and celebrate our bounty, a cornucopia of processed foods to aid the warriors of Vicarity into battle. Of course, sports is hardly a required license for Americans: if we must eat, let us eat boldly. The modern soul now “tantalized,” ever reaching and never satisfied. On any given Sunday we imbibe mettle and mirth, perpetually suckling sea water for our souls.

J.P. Moreland describes the “empty self” in seven talking points of his book “Loving God With All Your Mind.” Two properties of the empty soul include the soul being passive and sensate. “We let other people do our living and thinking for us…we let our favorite sports team exercise, struggle, and win for us” (p. 90). Moreland goes on, tracing the roots of our words ‘holiday’ (holy day) and ‘vacation’ (to vacate, to leave). “Even the language is passive.” For Aristotle, leisure lead to the highest good, for leisure time was “free time” to ponder the good (philosophize). Such pensiveness was active: men put demands upon their mental faculties for the yield of wisdom. Television and spectator sports are often facilitators of a life unlived, a life lived “on the sidelines.”

Prior to this I mentioned lookism and the glorification of the physical in athletics. I see a growing trend to value the sensate in our society. I can only speculate how much sports feeds into how much we value the physical aspects of our world, or if we are drawn to athletics because we are drawn to the superficial. Do we enjoy watching men hitting fast moving objects with sticks because we lack a cultivated inner life? Is the shallowness of our endeavors equaled only by a dearth of soul?

To put our souls on the dock, I press the sports junkie to ask of their soul the most pertinent question of their leisure time: For what purpose do I seek this thing? In my own life I fear, far more than an uncrafted physique, a mind easily pleased with distraction, spectacle, and the vacuous. Souls awash in wisdom and love, may my heart seek and my eyes find. Two areas where Greek philosophy and Christian love find common ground are these: to corral the passions so they may not enslave but serve the soul; and, to properly order the soul’s loves, that is, learning to love each thing according to how meritorious each thing is, starting with God/The Good, and working our way down. To the degree we fail in this task is the degree to which we have failed as human beings.

How Shall We Now Play?: Why Sports Suck (Part 2)

2009-10-13T13:11:00.000-07:00

Written June 29, 2009.

“I see [men] coming into the stadium and they're all wearing the [football] jersey of their favorite player. They think they're so macho. Hey, you're wearing another man's shirt.” ~Bill Maher

Eleanor Roosevelt said “great minds discuss great ideas; Average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.” To inject balance to my message, I contend that sports falls in the middle of this continuum. Sports are ideal for minds too great for celebrity gossip and too small for philosophical discourse. Perhaps this is why sports pervades so much workplace chatter: the intellectually endowed can perform a cognitive kenosis that makes them reachable to the unsophisticated. Few activities like the hunt and the enemy inspire conversational conjugation.

Examining this phenomenon, I taken by the bestowal of honor in athletics. So much conversation is spilled over who, when and why gets certain accolades and awards, perhaps the greatest being the admittance into the Hall of Fame. Honor, like sports itself, is a human construct and a microcosm of human interaction. Games limit the full scope of human endeavor by various restrictions. By operating within these parameters, analysts and spectators can appraise achievement in a constructive manner. Sports glory is a funny thing; athletes push their bodies to their limits, in large degree, just to be liked. The silver lining is this discourages sports being functionally masturbatory: athletes play for an audience.

What do we honor? This is my greatest point of criticism. We laud and lavish gold and girls on the strongest and most violent in football, and those who can powerfully swing a bat in baseball. One is destructive, the other inane. All of these activities exist in a zero sum game; there are only winners and losers (at least in manly sports played in America—no pansy-ass tying like in soccer.) Finally, all these things are showered upon those with talent and physicality in youth. Can this be any less of a perfect storm for the mis-education of a nation? In the flower of youth young men realize they can get the world, and then it is snatched away with the speed of an ace-serve when they become injured or outplayed. I cannot imagine a worse time to reward a man in his life.

Sports glory can only be held by few—and that with transience. Something rarely commented on is the almost blatant body-worship. Anna Kournikova didn't become famous for her talent on a tennis court. Lookism is rampant and unchecked. Beauty once permeating through girly magazines has now found its way onto the court, field and diamond.

We make much of Jackie Robinson, noting stats and life story, but how many of us have read Langston Hughes? Scientists, artists, even factory workers give things to the human race, things that others can use. They move worlds and change the course of history. Athletes play a game. Does anyone doubt that we honor athletes far too greatly?

This past year I spent time with a teacher whose son is in little league. He is a sports cynic and was turned off the sport when he found that coaches would encourage basemen to push base runners of the plate. It was defended because these boys need to learn that to survive you have to cheat when you can. Sporting events should curb, not bolster this narcissistic behavior. What happens when these boys become men with wives and jobs and, perish the thought, political clout? What kind of men are we making?

Bread and Circuses: Why Sports Suck (Part 1)

2009-10-13T13:09:00.000-07:00

In the Name of God, Stop [Sports]!
Originally written June 28, 2009.

Legend tells us, perhaps apocryphally, of an early fifth century Christian named Tetramachus. Upon viewing the horrors of the Coliseum, he began shouting to the crowds and the emperor, “In the Name of God, stop!” Tetramachus, in a sanctuary stained with the blood of Christians, slaves and wild beasts, was killed that day in 404 A.D.

A friend spurned me to pen my thoughts on athletics. (See here: http://theologicalnaturalist.blogspot.com/2009/06/sports-tribalism.html) Calling himself a Theological Naturalist, he writes on sports tribalism. As far as I read him, he wants to treat sports tribalism as a relatively innocuous thing. In discussing the matter with him personally, he has also praised the virtues that accompanies sports while at their best; e.g., discipline, cooperation, sacrifice. Let me say I admire what athletes do and what they forfeit to accomplish them.

While on the subject of sports tribalism, let me focus on my friend’s blog post. He correctly demonstrates that sports inhabits the communal sphere and fosters community. Quite healthy to the human spirit is being involved something bigger than the self. Our word ‘integral’ is related to the word ‘integer.’ An integer is a whole number; thus, to be integrated is to be “part of a whole.” Since the eating of the apple, the sexes have sought to be reconciled; likewise, man has desperately chased fraternal harmony since Cain. Solidarity is the snipe hunt of the soul.

The Theological Naturalist writes that a sport’s rivalry is “a battle for pride, spirit, and stronger identity.” And I pose this question to the reader: Pride in what? Spirit in what? Identity in what? Striking is adherents almost cult-like devotion (the word “fan” comes from the word “fancy,” the way English men may fancy an attractive young woman. It does not come from the word fanatic, meaning an insane person, but it carries a similar connotation: a person who loves an object and is insanely devoted to it.) I’m four paragraphs in and I’m describing feelings for what could easily described, instead of “football” or “baseball,” ball worship.

Comedian and social commentator Bill Maher echoes my sentiments on the subject: “men in America are living lives of quiet desperation…anesthetizing themselves with sports and pornography.” Going back to the Cain/Abel mythos, in our modern society pornography is our sex-ersatz. But what is sports then? I would argue it’s our war substitute. The thumb has determined winners and losers with the discovery of the big stick, in the coliseum, and now demonstrates our sense of oneness with our favorite player. Of course, we use a different finger to gently remind our opponents our feelings towards them.

The question comes down to whether athletic events are an outlet for our primal instincts or, which I put forth to the reader’s consideration, if it continues to foster our oblongotal rages. The aforementioned blog post considers the sports rituals and atheletic ceremonialism mostly harmless. At it’s most superficial, the jerseys and jeering and jocularity all seem a-virulent. Yet, what if this feeds into our baser natures, a venom in the collective bloodstream of society and history? What if these are communal buttresses for the psychic structuralism inside us all? And what if these are just the accompanying shadows of truly darker impulses like racism and bigotry?

That is what is most greatly at stake: the virtue of a people. I will leave this as the heaviest part to weigh on the souls of sports acolytes. To steal from my master, you may feel I have cast a spell on you. But remember your fairy tales: there are spells to disenchant as well as to enchant. You have been told a story since you first began your education of the glories of sports, for there are old men who wish to visit upon you their dreams of victory and glory, and they lavish their riches upon those willing to succumb themselves to the rigors and pains of athletic training. Caveat emptor, for many a bone broken and many scars earned for the entertainment of spectators.

Patient, Heal Thyself: A New Vision for Self-Directed Healthcare

2009-10-13T13:08:00.001-07:00

Originally written July 16, 2009.

--

The Current State of Healthcare

I have a prosaic admiration for medical science, but a secret love in my heart for nursing science. Few things warm my heart as the sound of hearing an ambitious young person say that they are pursuant of a Practical Nursing degree. This laudable profession demand so holistically from the practitioner and provide so holistically for the recipient. The quintessential nurse has within an unfettered appetence to serve, an ameliorated mental alloy of theory and practical knowledge, and an Empathetic Unmoved Mover, divvying out apportioned doses of clemency while measuredly developing an iocane powder-like immunity to the harsh vicissitudes of a healer’s daily work. The medical provider is the physical counter-point to a priest: they are midwives to life and witness at death—humanity’s Janus-like gatekeepers. Adept with evolving technologies and keepers of the old magic, with eyes trained to find bedsores, ears to detect death rattles, noses for accidents and hands for the terrified.

Almost without doubt, the 20th century brought more advancement in medical science than all the centuries before it, and one may portend the same will be said of the 21st. Knowledge appears to be growing at an exponential rate, and the future of science will not only make Man healthier, but perhaps a New Man; doubtless, science will continue to revise our conception of him. When the future unveils this new ubermensch with a vociferate ecce homo, we may scarcely recognize him. Dystopia upon dystopia predict a Frankenstein—a monster we cannot contain. Perhaps our greater, unspoken fear is creating an angel that with which we cannot contend.

Man may be at a scientific and spiritual crossroads, but the current state of medicine has meandered onto an economic cul-de-sac. Medicine has, not unlike modern food production, given us too much of a good thing. A thousand years ago, a man could expect to live to the ripe old age of 24; a hundred years ago, 49. President Calvin Coolidge, who in 1924 had the best medical services one could buy, lost a son due to an infection after playing a game of tennis. If someone was born in 2000 and lives a healthy lifestyle, they can expect to live to be over 100. We are seeing a perfect storm of an increasing elderly population, increasing medical care costs, and the prolonging of life spans. In short, we’re going broke and we don’t know how to pay for all the things we want.

Yesterday an article written by Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer came out in the New York Times. In it, he puts about as fine a point on it as a person can: How do you measure the value of a life of young and old persons? I will not discuss Singer’s piece, but I highly recommend it because this is going to be a major concern for all of us. If we go along as we are now (we won’t), Social Security will be in the red by 2025; and, if I were to live to be 100 (I won’t) Medicare and Medicaid alone would be approximately 18% of GDP. “Do not fear, for the worst is yet to come.” We used to fantasize about jet packs, flying to Mars and a cure for cancer: now most of us dream about a future with 401Ks.

The Plan

Nevertheless, I’m not a doomsayer: I believe most problems have solutions and all we need is the right one. This solution is not so much to get at or past the monolithic costs of healthcare per se, but to recast the vision of medical intervention. Bringing me to this issue was a Cato podcast I listened to called The Politics and Science of Medical Marijuana. In the podcast, two physicians discussed the issue of medical marijuana with a pro-marijuana advocate. The person I want to highlight is the second speaker, Robert Dupont, M.D. He spoke with passion as a doctor who wants to address health issue along the lines that the medical gemeinschaft has done for the past several decades. I must admit, I was at first taken by his sincerity; at first blush, he seems like a man who went into medicine for the right reasons and I don’t doubt he has his patients' best interests at heart. But as he spoke I felt my appreciation turning. As he went along, he sounded more and more like a person who felt he ought to be in control, and that he not only felt an obligation to foster health in his patients (which he should), but he would in fact use his authority as far as he could to ensure that his patients did live healthy lives, regardless of how it might impinge upon their lifestyles.

We have taken it axiomatically that a physician’s job to his patient is to prescribe a lifestyle of health to the best of their abilities. My change is simple: the physician’s job would not direct their patients’ healthcare, but empower the patient to make informed decisions about the lifestyle they wish to have. What I propose is that drugs and other therapies would not require a medical doctor’s prescription (or “permission”), but any substance, for any reason, would be available to anyone of legal age if they could afford it. Under my system, there would in fact be no “controlled substances.”

Where does this leave the physician? Does he now just go home and find another profession? No, because people would still wish to have a certified physician to guide their healthcare. We would still need trained professionals to diagnose our pains and aches and wounds. One particularly valuable service doctors provide is making sure drugs don’t counteract each other or have other unintended consequences. But, the physician would no longer be the sentry of healthcare.

Why should we change the system? Is not the medical industry, for all its failures, a relatively successful and well-working engine? I would argue yes and no. I am not an enemy of the American medical system, but my criticism of them is both pragmatic and ideological in nature. Let me give three groups of people whose lives would potentially be greatly improved upon if my plan was enacted.

Who Benefits and Disputations

I have seen in my own family that there are people who cannot get the pain killers they need to manage their pain. This is not so much a problem my plan needs to solve: I believe a more liberal policy on narcotic prescriptions would quickly deal with this occurrence. Currently, if a doctor prescribes too much pain medication, they can be brought up for review and risk losing their medical license. This means that many people who live with chronic pain often turn to alcohol or illicit drug use to handle their suffering. This is unacceptable. I believe at the heart of this is that we live in a post-Victorian society, and we fear that people will over use drugs for their euphoric effects. I have two things to say to that—so what? We all have something that helps us cope in this life: television, sports, overeating, sex—who is to say which mind-altering activity is acceptable? (On the latter two, I recommend this column by George Will: Prudes at Dinner, Gluttons in Bed.)

When discussing the issue of healthcare on the national stage, we often hear about the millions who are uninsured. In cases where they need surgery, this change would not affect them. But, in cases where a poor person needs, for instance, an antibiotic for their sick child, they won’t need to go into an expensive doctor’s office to get a prescription for penicillin. Here is a good place to interject one common counterpoint to my plan: People would buy these drugs and live self-destructive lives. Some would. The biggest concern with my idea is that there will be a sharp spike in drug abuse. While I don’t think it’s as dangerous a notion as these crepehangers might purport, I can’t prove them otherwise. My rebuttal would be that we can already live self-destructive lives with drugs and alcohol if we so choose. Alcohol is legal and drugs are not that hard to come by, if one wants to find them. If we can, as a society, manage alcohol abuse with enough success that the buses and trains run on time, why not marijuana and opium?

The last group that would be helped is the desperately ill. One problem with the FDA, according to Nobel-winning economist Milton Friedman, is their tendency to overregulated medications. Estimates on how much it costs to get a drug approved range between $200 million and $2 billion, a process that takes about 10 years to accomplish. To put it in perspective, if a drug has the ability to save 10,000 people a year, and it is ready to go in 8 years, if it takes 10 years to get on the market, 20,000 people died in vain. Instead, is it not more respectful of a patient and their rights to give them the knowledge that they may be taking a drug that hasn’t been fully tested and to let them decide? Currently, that’s not how our system works. We would rather let desperate people who want to live die or continue being sicker than they need to be than let them take a chance with their own lives. Of course, with this would have to come an implicit understanding or an explicit law passed that made litigation against unintended effects prohibited.

A final point I'd like to make and a contention to answer. In considering the poor and reckless, what should be done about information on drugs? While I have not fully fleshed this out in my own conception, the internet is now a powerful tool for self-directed medicine. It is now within a person with average intelligence to find the relevant knowledge of many diseases for little or no cost online. Much of our medical care could be scaled back with people who learn to self-educate themselves on their own diseases. Another argument against my plan would be on how we handle people who take a drug, say a pain pill, and they commit a crime while under the influences of that drug. My argument would be we should treat it like any other chemically induced crime and punish it under our legal system.

Conclusion; or, My Libertarian Spiel

Going back to my first criticism, what if people just go crazy and become drugged-out junkies? Ought not society to curb that behavior? I can’t help but ask, Do you not feel a bit like a child when that’s government’s role in our lives? Do you really want to say no to everyone because a few people will abuse something, to hurt only themselves? I’m sure that most doctors want to help their patients and have their best interests at heart. But remember that physicians and politicians share one thing in common: they delight themselves on controlling you. They want to tell you how to live, and will gladly take a pound of flesh and say “you’re welcome” for the service. Doctors want to tell you what to eat, how long to exercise, and what you should and should not put in your body, in large part “advised” by a well-paid representative from the “drug-pusher” of the pharmaceutical industry. Lord Acton was right, and the only thing a doctor likes more than helping people and getting paid six-figures is having their thumb over your day-to-day affairs. It’s not called “playing God” for nothing.

Freedom is not empowerment. Empowerment is what the Serbs have in Bosnia. Anybody can grab a gun and be empowered. It's not entitlement. An entitlement is what people on welfare get, and how free are they? It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights — the "right" to education, the "right" to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery — hay and a barn for human cattle. ~P.J. O’Rourke

Torquemadas and the Totalitarianism Over Tonnage: The Skinny on Obesity

2009-10-13T13:03:00.000-07:00

Originally written August 12, 2009.

--

This is Maple Street on a late Saturday afternoon. Maple Street, in the last calm and reflective moments...before the monsters came.

Every epidemic causes panic. In the Twilight Zone episode The Monsters are Due on Maple Street, aliens tamper with the electrical system of a small town. The ensuing paranoia and intolerance causes the townspeople to turn on themselves, allowing the aliens to conquer the planet with ease. The current contagion appears to be weight-gain in industrialized countries. Our species has run for millennia trying to find enough calories to survive—and boy are we out of breath!

A few weeks ago another Facebooker brought to my attention that Obama’s pick for Surgeon General, the leading spokesperson on public health, was Regina Benjamin, a 52-year-old obese African-American woman who has overseen the reconstruction of her clinic after two natural disasters, Hurricanes Georges and Katrina. This person went on to say this was a bad choice for Obama, the argument against her being that weight statistically contributes to poor health and that as a symbol of good health she ought not to serve in this position. To avoid setting up a straw man, let me reiterate the argument.

* Major premise: The Office of Surgeon General is a symbol of public health, and ought to be occupied by a person whose body is indicative of a healthy lifestyle.

* Minor premise: Regina Benjamin is overweight.

* Conclusion: Therefore, Regina Benjamin ought not to be Surgeon General.

Going on, the question was posed rhetorically if a person would have their car repaired by a mechanic with a broken down car; or, who would go to an overweight doctor? Here I question both the major premise and analogies. The confusion, I would argue, comes from a fallacy called equivocation. Equivocation means you are arguing from two different definitions. The problem with the word ‘health’ is it connotes two different things: the status of the biological condition and the science that examines it. From here on, I will differentiate between health as the biological condition of humans and medicine as the study of that condition.

Now the question becomes more articulated: Is the position of the Surgeon General the nation’s chief promoter of human health, an expert in the science of human medical care (to say nothing of the political savvy and economic expertise the job requires), or both? I would argue the job of health promotion, as I’ve defined it, belongs more to Denise Austin than C. Everett Koop. Put another way, the Surgeon General is not the mechanic of the medical profession: it’s the CEO of a major car company—and he or she doesn’t need to know how to change the oil in their car to do their job well.

Of course, in a perfect world, the person with the best resume would also be a world-class tri-athlete with three well-adjusted children and a Doberman. Barring that, however, if and when America is hit by plague or medical services have to be rendered to a tragedy-hit emergency disaster area, perhaps we could do worse than a corpulent medical doctor with an MBA who at times didn’t take a salary or moonlighted to keep her clinic open. We might want to be thankful this angel’s wings can’t get her off the ground because she’s desperately needed here.

Meme Roth Pointing at Out the Elephant in the Room

A similar case arose from National Action Against Obesity (NAAO) front-woman Meme Roth. Pariah of the “fat, fab and happy” club, she has repeatedly gotten scorn for her excoriations against the horizontally challenged. Back in 2007 she said Jordin Sparks was too fat to win American Idol, because her weight makes her a poor role model to young children. The argument the same: We ought not to give people prestigious jobs and awards because they are portly. Notice we are not talking credentials: Benjamin is a competent doctor and Sparks a proficient vocalist.

Yet, this would under no circumstances be tolerated for any other group. If someone was calling for Sparks’ crown or Benjamin’s withdrawal because they are black, or women, America would call for their heads—rightfully so. What an awful precedent we could send if we start if we deny people careers when they are living less than idyllic lives already. Shall we next make them enter through separate entrances, double-wide doors saying “fatties only”?

And here is where my cynicism kicks in. To the rotund, justice will always be relative. Pop singers won’t sing you tributes and sexual opportunities will be fewer. People don’t feel compassion for the corpulent, so don’t bother asking. Make sure you’ve got thick skin for those thick thighs. Life is a series of trade-offs--make yours without apology or whining. Why can't it be that simple? Bill Maher used to have a quasi-libertarian schtick that sums up my feelings on food and life. "Please stop assuming that longevity and perfect health is always the correct option. No. Sometimes fun costs ya. It just does, you know? And that's OK, you're willing to make that purchase. Sammy Davis, Jr. was 64 when he died. Give me 64 Sammy-years, I'll be happy." Finally, look on the bright side: even Michael Jackson wasn’t happy with his looks.

At the heart of this conversation, I believe, is a deeper conviction: the conviction of the justice of life. If you believe the world is fundamentally just, that the bulge battles we fight are all relatively the same, and those that are fit and trim are simply more disciplined, then the world is binary. The self-controlled is fit; the saint heaven-bound. For these people, output is simply the sum of inputs. Some of us, I think, know otherwise. A world where the gears of our cars and minds stick, of broken homes and ill-working nerves, dashed dreams, toyed-with emotions, used, misplaced trust, and belied hope.

It's the Caveman's Fault I Can't Put Down the Twinkie

We are in the midst of an evolutionary shift. Most people think “health food” is what humans are “supposed” to eat. Whole grains are touted as the ideal staple for human consumption. But, do you not know this is a manufactured food, even in its purest form? Where in nature do you find a loaf of bread? When humans went from hunter-gatherer societies to agrarian ones, people got sick. Once our ancestors ate things we wouldn’t even classify as foods today. Currently, we are taking the next step. Those whose bodies best adapt to the new foods will reproduce with better results. The rest will die off. Is it really so inconceivable that the healthy thing to eat in a few thousand years will be McDonald’s? If so, then either your sense of history or imagination is lacking.

Hence, this is all an explanation for the world, and why it’s not fair. Those that can better process processed foods are blessed. Those that burn calories in excess and eat heartily so they may gain weight, they have been smiled upon by the gods. Some call obesity terrible: I call it unfortunate.

I recall a moment during undergrad, where an attractive woman told me I was “trying too hard” with women. She was probably right, but I remember thinking to myself she didn’t really get it, because she didn’t have to try. She could be stupid (she isn’t) and boring (she is) and men will still want to sleep with her. I learned early on if I ever wanted girls, I wasn’t going to get them with my looks and would have to develop a personality. Most women are uninteresting: there is simply no need to become fascinating. Their story is a dull one -- they traded sex for security. Even the Bible tells mostly of heroic women cleverly using their bodies to get what they want: Tamar, Salome, Ruth. It’s the only charming thing about them.

(To the reader: some of this is to be understood as tongue-in-cheek.)

Health gurus and exercise enthusiasts are the new Torquemadas: their will is to control yours. They care not for your health, but to make you in their image, and have you thank them for it. They will torture you without reprieve or respite, for they claim your soul with conscience clear. They make you holy and whole. I leave you parting with the words of Meme Roth being interviewed by Gaby Wood and I ask if this woman has a healthy relationship with food and herself. Is this the life we want and do the ends justify the means?

I try to pin her down to something more specific. Let's just do a sample day, I say. What about breakfast? Roth grimaces. "I hate to say this, because I think it's counter to what most people should do, but I never in my whole life have enjoyed breakfast. For me, it doesn't work as well as other things."

Right, I say. So how about lunch?

She squirms visibly. "You're taking me where I don't want to go ... What works for me doesn't work for a lot of people."

Well, you've said that, I insist, so taking that into account: lunch? Roth hesitates. "I discovered when I was in college that I work best when I get a workout in and eat after that. Sometimes I'll delay when I eat until I get a workout in. But I don't let a whole day go by without running four miles."

OK, I go on, but supposing you couldn't work out until four o'clock in the afternoon - would you not eat until after that?

"I might."

I look at my watch. It's 3.30pm. Alarm bells start to ring in my head. How about today, I ask. Have you eaten at all today?

Roth is a little quiet.

"No," she says.

There is a pause.

"But I feel great!"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/may/24/meme-roth-obesity-nutrition

Peter Singer & Michael Sandel on Cosmetic Genetic Engineering

2009-10-13T12:59:00.000-07:00

Originally written June 12, 2009

--

I came across this debate between Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel and Peter Singer. You will need to at least listen to the Sandel's portions of the debate in order to fully appreciate what I'm arguing against.

The debate was on cosmetic genetic engineering. While both men agree that genetic therapies should be used to cure things like Huntington's Disease, Marfan syndrome, etc. But Sandel argues that it is at least ethically problematic to alter the genetic structure to improve a person’s “lifestyle” (e.g., sex, height, I.Q.)

I actually think, to my own chagrin, I come out more on Singer’s side. Or, at least I think I disagree on every point of Sandel’s, though I’m sympathetic to his argumentation. I have 7 bullet points, most all addressed in some way by Sandel. I present my opposition to the class.

Reasons to accept cosmetic genetic engineering.

1.The genie is already out of the bottle. No matter how much we argue on the subject, people will use genetic technology to improve their children’s chances in life. Dr. Sandel weaves a convincing mythic tale, but people will still choose self-interest over good morals.

2.“Hyper-parenting” is just a low-tech form of biotechnology. How truly different is genetic engineering from putting a child through the rigors of violin lessons, summer football camps and rote memorization in school? It’s a difference in form but not in type. Isn’t genetic engineering simply making the job easier (and in some cases, attainable at all)? We hire tutors to help kids get higher SAT scores, why would it be immoral to tweak their DNA so that they can now do the same with fewer hours of study (or, give them enough “mental firepower” to do things they might not otherwise be able to do, such as calculus or physical chemistry).

3.Don’t we already, albeit unconsciously, attempt to change our children’s genes by our choice of mates? Don’t men select pretty women, and women intelligent and powerful men, to gain genetic advantage with their offspring? Isn’t genetic engineering just going pro with a game we’ve been playing since time immemorial?

4.Dr. Sandel makes much of being humble and admitting to ourselves that there are things we cannot control. But, isn’t the human story one of incrementally controlling our individual and communal destinies? Isn’t the moment the caveman chose to plant a seed of corn instead of hoping the deer would turn left instead of right the Promethean beginning of man’s attempt to conquer dumb chance with technology? Doesn’t it attest more, not less, to humanity’s glory that we “fight against the dying of the light” and take up arms against Nature’s victimization? Maybe it will make us less holy—perhaps even costing us our souls—but it seems improving our chances or even just making things more convenient is a human good. I doubt very little we are less virtuous than Spartan warriors, but isn’t it a good thing we don’t need to be so virtuous just to survive?

5.The objection I didn’t hear from Sandel but concerns most laypeople I know is the availability of genetic engineering to the poor (or even middle class). I would argue even in the “worst possible scenario” that only the rich could afford to would still be a radical improvement. Now, we live in a world where simple dumb luck determines a person’s intellect and attractiveness. In our Brave New World, now it will be opened up not only to the genetically blessed, but to those who can afford it. Have we not already made progress, all things being equal?

6.Taken point #5 a step further, we can imagine an even worse possible scenario where those who are born with, say, profound physical or mental handicaps live substantially more difficult lives: they receive considerably more ridicule in school, even fewer job opportunities, and less public funding for their welfare. Let’s imagine that the lives of the disable are twice and bad as they are now. But, let’s also assume we reduce the incidents of such disability to 10% of what they are now? Have we not, on a whole, improved the situation five-fold? Even if those unlucky few live profoundly difficult lives, isn’t making it 90% less likely a vast improvement?

7.Sandel says it would fundamentally change our relationship to our children: it would make them a “commodity” like a car. Yes, it might. Not ideal, but is that really an awful outcome? Could not love exist even when chance does not? Why must we assume that the “blind luck” of having children with or without talents would play into our affection for them? Not only that, but how much of our personality are things like I.Q. or physical attributes? When I think of myself, while I happen to like my mental powers (and am not particular fond of my physical ones), I don’t know if I consider either category being “me.” If suddenly tomorrow I became unable to read and write, or go jogging, while my lifestyle would be diminished, I doubt my self-concept would be. Would I be any less “me” when I had less of those things?

The Audacity of Educators

2009-10-13T12:55:00.000-07:00

Originally written on Valentines Day, 2009.

--

Yesterday was the 200th birthdays of Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln. Both are men identified with kinds of liberation, be that physical liberation from slavery or ideological freedom not bound by tradition and authority. Yesterday I spent the day celebrating Darwin Day with professors of science. Naturally, evolution in the classroom was a topic, which was little more than an inevitability. Playing the gadfly, I attempted a dialectic that might reveal a solution to our problem. Our problem, of course, is the merit or merits of -- I would argue forced -- teaching of evolution in public schools. It was already axiomatically understood there are two opposing sides to the issue and it appears to be a zero-sum prospect: If we teach evolution as true, and don't give credence to alternative views of the origins of life, theists will be unrepresented. On the other hand, to not teach evolution as true would undermine the overwhelming convergence of opinion by experts in the field. My solution to the problem was received with the incredulity of a wet-nurse reading A Modest Proposal.

My plan was simple: privatize education and let parents decide. If there is such political disagreement on the matter, why, in this matter, should one group hold sway over the whole? I know where I stand on the issue, but just as I wish not to impose my views on others, I see it as quid pro quo that others should do the same. Perhaps we can call it radical freedom, a liberty whose foundation is on ground that says if we don't have to take power or money from others to maintain a stable society (which sometimes must occur), we don't. At the heart of my thoughts lay the belief that we should tailor society not to its political winners, but vie for a system we can all be satisfied with. In this regard, I am a advocate of Rawlsian's Veil of Ignorance liberalism.

To not set up a strawman, I must admit several of their reasons were quite meritorious and worthy of thoughtful response. I will lay out their arguments, my response to them, and hopefully convince my readers why my views are the best. The arguments they made were against privatized education and did not really address the secondary issue that inspired it which was evolution in education.

1. The education of the poor. If education was privatized, the poor would likely not have access to education or sub-standard education. Here I will simply cede the point that I am in favor of having education for all and that even the poorest should be educated at the expense of the tax-payer.

2. Types of education. One of the interlocutors noted that the students most likely to have the highest scholastic achievement in things like spellings bees are often homeschooled. He went on to say that the majority do not homeschool for this reason, but strongly implied it was for religious reasons. Even though the statistics don't pan out with that conclusion (http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/homeschool/TableDisplay.asp?TablePath=TablesHTML/table_4.asp), let's assume they do. Who is anyone to say that's not legitimate? I'm no great champion of religion, but if a family feels a child grows up healthier and happier in the presence of a spiritual community, as long as their children are being well-educated in all other forms (assuming they aren't learning evolution), I think it best if people who have no personal investment (the state and society) remain neutral on the issue; or, put more bluntly, stay out.

The attitude that parents are unsuited to make good decisions is distressing. The group noted, for instance, parents putting a high premium on athletics. From this followed the notion that if given the choice parents would send their children to institutions that emphasized sports. Again, while no great proponent of physical achievement in youth, my previous argument still seems to hold, that is, as long as they are not deficient academically sports is hardly a vice in society.

One person said, and I'm paraphrasing, that all these parents care about is getting their child through school so they can go work in a factory and start making money as soon as possible. First, I don't know if I've ever met a parent who wants their child to aspire to this, though some may come to this conclusion after accessing their child's abilities. Personally, I believe many children are overeducated for most of the jobs available for them. But, isn't it part of the American ethos that every child can be a doctor or a lawyer if they want to be (a profoundly cruel lie we tell far too many)? As if the point of life is to obtain a doctorate; as if the only satisfying lives are lived by those with graduate degrees.

Over and over, I was struck with the intellectual nausea that a group of self-appointed people would find it so casual a notion that they knew the best way to raise not only their own children (a fair notion for a parent) or the best way to teach a subject in their own field (a fair notion for an educator), but the best way to raise other people's children and that their academic priorities should be forced upon all. It smells of a soft totalitarianism. And to think we were celebrating a man who ostensibly stood against academic authoritarianism.

3. Diversity. The subject we spent the most time discussing was at once pertinent but reguarly slipped its own argument in as a red herring. The argument went as such: if given the opportunity, the freedom of academic choice would inevitably lead to racial and ideological segregation. In full disclosure, I am not very sympathetic to the notion that a diverse society is automatically good for both individuals and society, and I'm even less sympathetic to the idea that the goal of diversity (which is itself a problematic, loaded and shibboleth-styled term) is so infinitely valuable that it should come at any cost to personal freedom.

I doubt here that any of my arguments will be a slam dunk and be especially ineffective against those who are in fact believers that diversity is the crown jewel of public education. I attempted, and failed, to try and steer the conversation at this point to examine the purpose of formal education. At this point, I think it imperative to have a thoughtful understanding of what education is meant to accomplish. To argue that public education should be the norm so that diversity and understanding be provoked and encouraged seems to assume certain principles, all of which I have varied measures of disagreement on. It assumes:

A. Every school has the ability to teach diversity by having a diverse student body (teaching by having a multi-racial, multi-gender-minded population is assumed in this, for we are discussing the students themselves, and not, for instance, teaching methods). Many times, they can't, for at least two reasons: the student population is usually representative of its location; and, students tend to form cliques or social groups of people like themselves. True diversity, and appreciation of those unlike ourselves, can, under reasonable scenarios, only be encouraged, not enforced.

B. That school is the best, or only, place this kind of education can be acquired.

C. That this is a necessary life-skill in all places. It may not be a societal necessity for an ideologically and racially homogenous group of people to exert great effort in trying to cope with xenophobia. Perhaps the greater concerns of a multi-racial, poly-idealogical city are not the same as those found in rural communities.

D. A government beauracracy like the education system is best equipped to do the job.

For me, I assume none of these things. Yesterday, I found it insulting and elitist to assume that most parents are bigoted, simple-minded Puritans that only want their own perspective taught to children and it would be ruin to give the most fundamental of rights: the right to self-governance. I know of no parents who are so glib and flippant about their children's education. Typically, who is more interested in education than a parent? Who wants success of youth than those that sire and raise their own? And all discussed on the 200th birthday of an (mostly) uneducated Kentucky-born hick that went on to be one of our best presidents.

Speaking for myself, it was disheartening: they are brilliant people who champion the importance of diversity of ideas and academic freedom, but wish to withold it from others when their ideas differed from their own. I find it an insult to treat parents like children; it's insulting to give people the freedom to choose which flavors of ice cream to pick from (you have 31 choices people!), but when it comes to really important matters, we hand that over to people who tell us they know better. 1 school, 2 presidential candidates, 3 kinds of gasoline, and 500 stations on cable.

When Empathy and Money Aren't Enough; or, More than You Ever Wanted to Know About Health Care and Were Afraid to Ask

2009-10-13T11:05:00.001-07:00

Over the past several weeks, I have gotten into a handful of discussions on health care. A number of which have been relative hard-liners and believe one thing implicitly: in a country as rich as ours, it is a moral imperative that all persons have health coverage. Along with this is often the belief that health care should not operate for profit. The thrust of this post is to challenge those assumptions, explore an alternate viewpoint and deal with how the issue of health care has consequences for our souls as well as bodies. There is a lot of ground to cover on this issue and my goals are probably more than I can handle. First, I want to establish certain economic principles and policies that will hopefully make what is happening on the evening news more clear. Second, I wish to discuss the circumstances surrounding health care as Americans know it. Finally, I want to contextualize health care in such a way that will help us answer a far deeper question: What is the relationship between medicine and the Good? The first two sections will be information I have collected that is available to anyone with a television set and a broadband connection; I am providing my summation for those who feel they have not fully grasped the situation. These sections can be skipped at one's discretion. The final section will be the only thing I have of originality to the conversation.

Basic Principles in Economics

I have a passionate layman's understanding of economic theory and humbly submit anything on the subject to the scrutiny of those with more formal educations on the subject. I do believe, however, that much in the health care debate is lost when parties lack a foundation in the subject. I don't believe it's exaggeration to say that one can't understand a newspaper if they do not understand statistics. Statistics came late for me for the same reason it has not reach many of my friends – the math is intimidating. For those brave souls out there, let me calm your heart by telling you that the math in statistics is easier than calculus and not as scary as you imagine. While I cannot help anyone understand statistics, most economic principles can be apprehended with conceptualization.

Economists, according to Timothy Taylor, ask 3 questions:

What should be produced?
How should it be produced?
Who gets to consume what is produced?

Answers to these questions fall within a spectrum, with complete individual autonomy at one end and complete government oversight on the other. Most of us are somewhere in between.

Lately I've become convinced that if there is there is a God, modern economic theory is his greatest providential gift. By providential I mean something quite specific, that is, a system that functions by human virtue and practical human reason. Like the great physicists, I cannot help but be amazed at how the order of our economy arises out of the chaos of markets; it is as awe-inspiring as how our bodies. I say all this because I want to dispel a notion that runs throughout our society and has gotten quite an ear with our current recession greed is a problem, but not the problem. Some people (e.g., Bill Maher, Michael Moore) blame our unregulated banking for the economic downturn. Unfortunately, I'm not comfortable enough in my opinion to say regulation and government intervention are the culpable ones. The principle I want to urge upon you is that for democratic republics, we are prosperous because individuals pursue their own self-interest. What is the difference between self-interest and greed? Not a whole lot. We are all greedy and we are grasping at the wind if we hope to build a government on the holiness of its citizens. As long as we live in a world with finite resources, we will have to contend with desire.

The good news is that smart people have anticipated these concerns. This all goes back to all that supply and demand talk we had in school. The cost of something is not magic – price is simply a market signal that tells us how much people will pay for something. Even things that aren't "things" (i.e., commodities) tend to come with costs. Water is free, but pipes and reservoirs must be built to get water to our homes; books and computer programs have worth from their specific organization of words and electrons. Services, such as house cleaning, a theatrical performance, and parts of medicine are paid for without a physical object to be claimed for exchange. The people mentioned in the beginning often want to make a clear distinction between a 1. Service and a commodity, and 2. A "necessary" service (that is, a service without which, a person may die, such as health care) and a luxury service, like hotel room service.

Here is the beginning of what I will call the "liberal/conservative divide." Part of the debate on this subject hinges on how health care is perceived. If health care is considered a specialized service, it can be subjected to normal market forces (this is my view). On the other hand, if health care is something special, something to be orchestrated by forces other than the market, I believe the onus of proof as to why this should be is upon those in favor of universal health care.

Before leaving the issue of greed, I want to also iterate that there are other forces that curb the nastiness of greed. The most common and powerful is competition. Competition turns the destructive desire for inordinate accumulation against itself and like a fission reaction creates an energy and wealth that we all profit from. One caveat comes when a single entity becomes so large that competition is ipso facto removed. This can happen for various reasons and in different ways. Cartels are a type of monopoly that forms when all the businesses in an industry agree to fix prices and effectively not compete with each other. It may also come about when a company simply does business so well it outpaces its competition, as in the case of Alcoa. To guard against these things we have antitrust laws.

The power of competition can extend beyond a typical market. Examples include the 1998 home run chase, the 1974 November Revolution in physics, and probably countless others. My belief in the power of competition plays into my preferences in other policies, such as education. What I want to impart to my readers is the idea that there are other forces in our economy besides abundance and need. Good management of these things can increase the former and decrease the latter. Bad news: it takes time and effort to understand them. Good news: most of us can, with less time and effort than might be imagined.

Unknotting the Gordian knot of Health Coverage

But I contend that if we're providing total medical coverage for every man, woman, and child in Iraq, shouldn't we at least be doing the same thing for every man, woman, and child in the United States? ~Tony Campolo

To switch gears a bit, a person will begin to butt up against the conservative/liberal divide. Unfortunately, there is no one right way to organize a system of medicine. Preliminarily speaking, however, a basic understanding will be laid out. Most confusingly, the word health care and health insurance are used synonymously, which is utterly precarious. It behooves everyone to be clear in the difference between the two. Insurance, traditionally speaking, is when coverage for catastrophic events (e.g., car wrecks, house fire, natural disasters) is paid by the person covered on a regular basis; in return, a large payout would be returned on the unlikely chance something major would befall the insured.

Health care, by contrast, is by its nature much like the opposite of insurance. Health care, ideally, could be acquired regularly; and, in theory it could be budgeted like any expected cost, such as food and housing. Marrying insurance and health care is the start of our problems. Instead of going into details, I'll let you go here.

There is a strange fetish I have seen with people who want government to step in and handle health care. With a sympathetic heart, I want to tell these people that government bureaucrats are not special: they are not endowed with any special knowledge or ability (sometimes I fear it's because a person lacks these qualities that they work for the government, but I digress.) There are only three ways I can see to pay for most anything. A third-party can pay, such as an employer (how most of us get our health care now); a government can tax and redistribute the money or service; or, an individual can pay.

Returning to the Gordian knot of health coverage, this is likely where people can get twisted up, and in order to consider a system where individuals pay for their own regular check-ups and basic health care, most people have to imagine a completely different state of affairs. Because a third-party pays for coverage, it skews market costs. Most people haven't a clue what it costs to go to the doctor. In most people's minds, there is only one question: Am I covered? It is the golden ticket that grants access.

If we could imagine a world where health care is just another service, we might begin to see why things are so opaque and why that ought not be. First, if health care why like any other service, why not have a list of services when you walk into a hospital or clinic with prices? Provide transparency. This transparency would have one powerful effect: it would create competition. Second, it would not matter where (or if) a person worked. If people simply paid out of pocket, switching jobs and "losing coverage" in between would be a moot problem.

This is all fraught with complications, however, because there is a group of people who think the government is better at solving problems with other people's money. By and large, this is why, at a fundamental level, Democrats and Republicans are encountering friction with each other. The liberal view, in many ways, "just wants everyone covered." It is "A brief, simplistic, response…" Don't weigh people down with the complexities of all this political wonkiness. The real danger of government control is that government is a type of monopoly, the most powerful monopoly on our country. It has no limit to its influence, which is why it should be feared, because power corrupts.

My heart is devoted to self-governance, which leads into the next section. But, before we make the argument all about "making sure everyone is covered," let me provide a handful of solutions that I think many of us can get behind. The best part about them is that they would all be relatively low cost and they aren't a huge economic gamble like what's being tossed about in Washington.

In some fashion, separate health insurance and health care.
Separate health coverage from employers. Have people invest in HSA (Health Savings Accounts).
Make health care utterly transparent, including prices on surgeries, doctor's visits, etc.
Allow insurance companies to cross state lines.

Policies to consider:

Contestable but set returns on physician malfeasance and malpractice. The intention of this would be to lower court fees and, ideally, lower their incidence.
Give every person a medical voucher (of, say, $1500 per annum) that they can put towards their coverage. This would provide a level of health coverage for everyone and they could use this money however they saw fit. This could be rolled over into the next year and anything saved at death could be passed on as inheritance. This should provide a minimum level of care for most and no one should have to go without basic health care, though some still would due to poor choices. I consider this a much more sensible solution than the dreaded "public option."

Everyone Should Be Covered – Finding the Good Life in Good Medicine

Most people would agree that everyone having medical coverage is the goal. My goals are not as lofty, but I think by tweaking the system, we can get pretty close to the majority opinion. A fair question is, Why not? Why not cover everyone? My rationale on the issue is a bit abstract, but at core, I think there is something vital in our lives with being able to fail, because only with the option of failing can we succeed.

Let me give an example to illustrate my vision. In Africa, there is an area where people pay out of pocket for their children's education. The average daily salary is $1 to $2. The monthly cost for an education is $1. So, in this part of the world, an African has to work one day out of the month to educate their child. Already they are talking about getting the government involved in financing children's educations. Again, remember the government has no special powers. They can tax and reallocate. Even more, though, I want people to think about what is being lost when government is involved. In this African community, a parent can take pride that one day out of the month they work to give their children a better life. The same thing happened with the immigrants at the turn of the 20^th century coming here to America. Over and over the story is that of a family that worked hard for their children, and their grandchildren ended up doctors and lawyers.

There is a motherly instinct that might say, who cares? Children are hungry, they need to learn, and they need to be taken care of when they get sick. Who cares where this support comes from? Ought we to get tied up over things like individual pride and sense of having sacrificed for a noble cause? I would respond that there are few areas in life left where we can find those virtues. Jobs have more and more lost a sense of craftsmanship; we are now laborers and not tradesmen. A parent's educative opportunities are diminished with the rise of single parent households and a large portion of women in the workforce. One thing we may be able to hold onto, or get back, is a sense that we provide for our own. And we provide for our own because we love them. Not because a government takes from our paychecks without request or will come with guns if we do not pay our taxes. We provide for our own because it's the noblest thing we can do with our vocations.

Charles Murray is critical of this, one symptom of which he chronicles in Thank God America Isn't Like Europe -- yet. These are two different visions. The European vision is that all will be taken care of. But there is an American vision and we have become myopic to it. It's a vision that says government will try and clear the land and make the pursuit of happiness as good an opportunity as possible. Murray makes much of the idea that there is such a thing as "a life well lived." In the American vision it is quite possible to fail – not just financially, but in a deeper, moral sense. Murray's book In Pursuit of Happiness and Good Government, says happiness is "lasting and justified satisfaction with one's life as a whole." For as laudable a goal as universal healthcare is, lasting and justified satisfaction in one's life is a far better thing to have. Let that be our goal, in life, in work, in politics, and health care will only be a means to that end.

Here are some resources that I drew from to educate myself on the subjects addressed in this post.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/models.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEXFUbSbg1I

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=283359-1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0VHiONkot8

http://www.aei.org/article/100181

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mCDZMWVWuc

We Built This City on Peace, Love, and Understanding: Why I Am Not a Liberal

2009-09-23T03:09:00.001-07:00

Many months ago I had a discussion with a liberal-minded man I shall simply refer to, in homage to Aquinas' Aristotle, The Professor. In this discussion, we proposed different aims of government. I was passionately defending wisdom as the chief virtue of government officials, appealing to the likes of Plato and Aristotle. I took my time, pressing the point to its fullest, and as I did, The Professor slowly gathered a glimmer in his eye like a power-hitter about to slug one out of the ballpark. As I was wrapping up my plea to sophia, I was offset by a feeling that my argument was going to receive a mortal blow. As I finished my breath, asking – I thought rhetorically – is anything superior to wisdom, with unflappable gravitas he responded he could think of something better: love. This brilliant move of disputative judo left me winded and contentedly acquiescent: the master had landed his pedagogical blow and the only way to win is not to play.

I want to revisit the idea of a government that seeks to love its citizens and persuade my readers that this is perhaps the most fundamental proposition put forth by liberal political theory. To begin, I use the term liberalism as shorthand for 'Social liberalism' and thus distinguish it from classical liberal thought. Expanding on this notion, my working definition of liberal will tacitly assume that liberal proponents have favorable notions of Positive Rights. A definition of love also deserves to be raised. By love, I take The Professor to mean a government which wants the best for its citizens (and thus, does not seek its own self interest). This love is best expressed in the political philosophy of John Rawls, most specifically in his Veil of Ignorance thought experiment. As simply as I can put it, the Veil of Ignorance states that we ought to build a society that all people would agree upon if we had no idea beforehand what station we would have in life.

Ostensibly, a government wanting the best for its citizenry is a noble thing. Jonah Goldberg summed up modern liberal thought by saying on Fora.tv

At the philosophical level, at the level of Rawls…the fundamental dogma is…government should do good where it can, when it can, whatever it can. That's liberalism. The only principled restraint on liberalism is the pragmatic judgment of really smart liberals. And if really smart liberals think they can make the country better, or fix the country, or improve the lot of people, then there's no reason the government shouldn't do it. (1:09:00)

Here, I become sympathetic to their cause. Liberals are in favor of things that sound really great: universal healthcare, education and welfare sound like pretty great things to me. But Goldberg goes on to say that liberals provide a false dichotomy and like Goldberg, I have a different vision for the role of government contra The Professor.

Earlier in the Goldberg/Beinart Debate, Jonah elucidates on how, during the 2008 Presidential Campaign, John McCain wanted to fix the government, while Barack Obama wanted to fix America's soul – [which are] "two different things." Implicit in the notion of a "loving government" is the idea that there is no limit in which the government ought not to extend its caritas. (One caveat: liberals say, as did Beinart, government ought to stay out of people's bedrooms, which as far as I can ascertain, is because the greatest good a liberal can imagine in sexual relationships is one unencumbered by the regulations of the state. I would argue that this cannot sustain itself if the government introduces itself into the health of its citizens, but I won't address that unless asked.) If the government really loves you, like a mother it will want to keep you healthy with medicare; if the government really loves you, like a father it will want to keep you safe and away from guns; if the government really loves you, like a church and a friend it will give you a bed to sleep on and food to eat when you fall on hard times.

My problem with all of this is that we have some pretty dark words in our language for love that is forced and unrequested. What I want to impress upon my readers is that liberalism has an ends and means problem. The end is uncomfortable: There is no free lunch. All this love comes at the cost of the taxpayer. We have become quite docile with the idea of government taking money from its citizens without their approval. This leads to the means problem: they do this at the end of a gun barrel. Contrary to what Harry Reid might have you believe, taxes are coercive. There's an old joke told at my family's dinner table that says that if you don't believe the government cares about you, try not paying your taxes and see how quickly they take notice. The government loves you so much they will take from the rich and give to the poor. Don't forget to tip them for the service. This all assumes that the government is both less corrupt and more efficient than the efforts of private citizens – it is not.

I want the government works on the opposite principle: I want a government to fear its citizens, not love them. Keep people safe, enforce contracts, and I'll find my own love. If the government wants to love me, I want a restraining order. Returning to my beginning argument, the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and in politics the people ought to be Lord God Almighty.

Occasionally when having this discussion with Christians, they justify government taxation and wealth redistribution by saying the Old Testament concerns itself with the poor, allowing them to glean the fields for leftovers (Lev 19:9-10;23:22; Deut 24:19-22) so they might have something. Yet, they never discuss something much more fundamental: the Tenth Commandment.

You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

Why, when God was presumably short on space and wanted to keep things concise, mention the neighbor's donkey? I think the answer is quite obvious: if you want your neighbor's donkey, get one of your own!

You'll Shoot Your Eye Out: A Political Philosophy Unto Death

The Professor had another comment for me. He said I would not do well in my "ideal" world, that is, a sink or swim world where the losers of society are dependent on the goodwill of other individuals and winners are not determined by governments. He's correct, I would not do well in that system – which is why I'm right. Tertullian said of Christianity that he believed because it was absurd. Likewise, I am not a liberal because it appeals to my disposition. Robert Nozick predicted in Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism? that "intellectuals who were 'late bloomers' in school would not have developed the same sense of entitlement to the very highest rewards; therefore, a lower percentage of the late-bloomer intellectuals will be anti-capitalist than of the early bloomers." I won't claim I am an intellectual, but I will claim this is true for me.

Houstonian Philosophy: Seeking Wisdom in Pop Music

2009-09-09T00:04:00.000-07:00

Deep philosophical insight taken from Whitney Houston’s How Will I Know

There’s a boy I know, he’s the one I dream of

At the start of the song, Whitney introduces us to the Cartesian dilemma. She is contrasting knowledge with the dream state. As the Chinese philosopher Zhuangzi pondered a dream, he could not be sure if he was a man dreaming he was a butterfly, or if he was a butterfly dreaming he was a man. The song, at its core, is an epistemological exploration. It also foreshadows a Kafkaesque metamorphosis, but perhaps a transformation into a butterfly instead of an Ungeziefer.

Looks into my eyes, takes me to the clouds above

Esse est percipi. By being perceived by another, realization was found. Ms. Houston is also evoking the notion of the Observer Effect, whereby the mere act of observing an act changes the phenomenon being perceived. By relating this experience to a transcendental effect may either be an epiphenomenon, by which she cannot relay the experience back to its first cause; or, she is invoking an application of the Heisenberg Principle, perhaps going so far as to say she exists in two places, akin to Young’s double-slit experiment. There are, in fact, “more thing in heaven and earth than are dreamed up” in our philosophies, insofar as Whitney Houston is concerned.

Ooh I lose control, can’t seem to get enough

Like much of her verse, this is a clever nod to the importance of mastering one’s passions. The Chariot Allegory of Plato demonstrates to all those seeking the Good that a balance must be found between reason and appetite. When this balance is not achieved, one may achieve a kind of gluttony of vice. Such a nod is also reminiscent of Achilles, who lacked such mastering “the accursed rage, which brought pain to thousands of the Achaeans,” or Helen, who compelled others to such debasement, whose “face launched a thousand ships. And burnt the topless towers of Ilium.”

When I wake from dreaming, tell me is it really love

This is a reflection of the comparative mythology of Joseph Campbell, where she is obviously a poor actor in the monomyth of Sleeping Beauty, waiting for her prince to wake her from her slumber. She also seems to be dealing with the somewhat taboo of incest, because not only is her “love” the waking agent, but is the one imposing the definition of love upon the “beloved.” This stems from a Nietzschean slave morality or Freud’s Electra Complex.

How will I know (dont trust your feelings)
How will I know
How will I know (love can be deceiving)
How will I know
How will I know if he really loves me

The Greek Chorus come into play, employing a theatrical convention to introduce the citizens of the polis and what might be termed “communal” or “common” folk wisdom, a layover from Puritanical or Victorian social mores. Whitney Houston must now try to reconcile, via Hegelian synthesis, internal predilections all the while navigating external prohibitions and superstitions.

I say a prayer with every heart beat

As Benedick would say, “there’s a double meaning in that.” The beating is not merely the repetitious beating of a living heart, but a prayer to be released from this Sisyphean struggle of seeking and not obtaining knowledge or control over passions. There are no atheists in foxholes, and the last refuge of a sinner’s flagellations of the world is to face God in prayer. This seeming “skyhook” turn may also be a sleight against God, for it’s well known that drug users can often feel their own heartbeat due to increased bloodflow to the circulatory system: therefore, Marxian rejection of religion as being the “opiate of the masses” may also be in play here.

I fall in love whenever we meet

The darkest part of the song occurs here, describing her plight as a fall, or descent into the unknown. God, the “Hound of Heaven” is now on her coattails, and she now has encountered Kierkegaard’s abyss. This of course requires a leap, but a leap into what? Now she is “condemned to be free” depicting a profound and deep-seated spiritual condition of insecurity and despair in the individual. By “meeting” this person, she also must confront her “being-in-the-world” and must choose for others. This emotion has the dual demand of facing her choice being alone in the universe, and immediately acknowledging there is no subject-object division: there is no “Other.”

I’m asking you what you know about these things

Finally, we see a turn towards the light. She is now, however imperfectly, seeking wisdom. She realizes she must ask another, perhaps employing a Socratic dialectic to achieve knowledge. Now Whitney Houston has found wisdom by “admitting she is not wise” and put herself under the tutelage of someone with a superior soul.

How will I know if he’s thinking of me

Feminist philosopher Simone de Beauvoir would be most disappointed with this turn of events. Not only has Houston turned to the old Patristic values of authoritarian, top-down hierarchy, but willfully accepts the role as object in relationship to the man. Now she has become defined by his “thinking” of her, taking on a secondary, dependent role. She also implies that she is now “mysterious” so as to merit a demanding degree of thought to the man. Is she now to make him meals, bear his children and give up on her dreams of a career?

I try to phone but I’m too shy (can’t speak)

Phone technology is a simple metaphor for our desire to contact the gods. Now that we have no oracles to consult, we must invent objects that will transfer messages from the immortal ones. Of course, anytime we approach divinity, it often brings a terror, causing physical manifestations such as muteness. The phone is also a modern technology, therefore this is a commentary on futurism and how much science has progressed, we are shy and silent to know both the future of science and ourselves. Dare she stick her tongue out at the Crystal Ediface? Finally, this mimics the blush of Thrasymachus. She has been reckless until now, but has, after encountering wisdom, found the ability to blush and find humility.

Falling in love is all bitter sweet

This love is strong why do I feel weak

Nearing the climax of her journey, she sees the paradox of her intellectual travails. Does she want to be sugar or taste sugar? Does she want to be strong and independent, or submissive and supportive? She has a kind of Taoist enlightening: she has found herself emptied, and this the source of her fullness. She goes about looking for her beloved, examining doubt, questioning the crowds, seeking wisdom of a sage, and finds truth in the non-action (wu wei) of self. Like Dorothy, she finds there is no place like home, that is, the home of her Atman.

Oh, wake me, I’m shaking, wish I had you near me now
Said there’s no mistaking, what I feel is really love

At last, the epiphany has been found and knowledge of self and the world has been found. Full circle, like Descartes she knows what she feels is love just as Rene Descartes knew that he doubts. Shaking, she knows she must deal with the reality of returning to the Cave, apart from the nearness she had to the Form that brought self-realization. She says, “wake me” for now she must return to the Cave, but not with the slumber of soul she once had, but must fight against the dimness of the Cave. But, she can hold one thing for sure: she has seen the Good and “there’s no mistaking” after the fact. Like Edna Pontellier, her shaking is a shaking off the chains of oppression.