Who are you?

If you thought a Hispanic is a person of Latino orign, an African-American is an American with some Negro racial lineage, or a woman is a human with two x chromosomes, you would be sorely mistaken in America. You may only claim these characteristics if you are a democrat.

If you happen to have any of these characteristics and are a republican, you are a sell-out. You are not part of La Raza; not a Brother; not a real woman. Alberto Gonzales, Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice and Sarah Palin all learned this the hard way. Colin Powell is a slow, but steady learner.

If you happen to be Jewish, you are pitiful if you side with the republicans. You have no conscience, you do not care about those who are "disadvantaged". You are selfish and self centered. You are not a mensch.

If you are a white, Christian male and democrat, you are compassionate and not part of the hateful majority. If you are a republican, you are warmongering and hatemongering, part of the group that has oppressed minorities for centuries.

Only in America can republicans worry about appearing sexist and racist by opposing a woman of Latino origin for becoming a Supreme Court justice after we have just had prominent examples of both groups holding high office in the past administration and as potential vice president. Only in America can democrats trash a Latino (Gonzales), a woman (Palin), and an African-American (Thomas) and be seen as nonbiased and inclusive.

Remember this:

Republicans freed the slaves. Democrats maintained Jim Crow.
Anyone can open a business. Until recently, labor unions (mainly Democrat) excluded African-Americans.
Pittsburgh, a strongly Democrat city, has never been able to field an African-American Mayor.

Stranger in a strange land

We had been monitoring this civilization for some time from afar. We knew they looked like us and we were able to learn their language by monitoring some of their transmissions. This was the moment of truth. Could we infiltrate their society, live among them without their noticing our being different? We beamed JANNRO to the surface. He would be our first explorer on this strange planet.

When we returned 5 years later and retrived JANNRO, he had many strange and wonderful stories to tell.

He told us about a land, vast and plentiful. However, the people in this land had strange ideas. They gave legal preference to those of certain dark skin color and racial origin. They imprisoned young women whose decision about what was best for their children did not meet the accepted views of society, but celebrated those who killed their fetuses in the womb as having chosen the best course of action. They celebrated the vows of monogamy between those of the same sex and accepted a 50% separation rate among those of opposite sexes. They rewarded those who were unemployed with more wealth if they were separated from their spouses. They had so many laws, so many that even our great leader KJUR could not know them all. Everyone could be a criminal and not know it. Those who passed laws upon the heads of the people did not even read the laws before passing them, because these laws were so large and complex. Success and failure were believed to be marks of luck, not talent. This allowed these people to believe that the successful owed the failures, not that the failures should learn from the successful. People were viewed as inherently evil, to be controlled by a large, intrusive government. Being friendly to the head of a peaceful country that supplied energy fluids to this country but had strange religious beliefs was considered wrong, but showing deference to the heads of war-like countries who spread hate was considered right. It was a place where the average person on the street was more honest than the average person of power.

Could JANNRO have made all this up? His mind seems to be damaged. He keeps saying over and over again "Yes, we can" and "Change".

The government giveth...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-05-22-chemotherapy-vanished_N.htm

While the above case is one of dispute between parents about the treatment of their child, and it clearly is within the realm of our government to help this discussion to continue by reuniting the family in a setting where this can be fairly decided (ie, in a family meeting, or failing that, in a court of law). As is apparent in this case, a failure in communication/understanding of the nature of the problem was at the root of the apparent conflict. Often, this boils down to a difference in communication techniques, a different set of priorities, or different loci of trust. A third party who can bridge the gap is often part of the solution. However, this case has sparked discussions of when is it right for the government to tell parents how to raise their children.

Q. When should the government act in loco parentis?

A. When the parents are "choosing poorly".

The problem with this answer is that the devil is in the details. How significant does that "poor choice" have to be? Does the "poor choice" have to impact others or just the child?

A parent refusing diabetic care or cancer therapy for their child that is potentially life sustaining somehow seems wrong. And yet, the impact of this choice is only upon the child and the family. Why should the government get involved?

More disturbing are public health issues. When I was an intern in St. Louis, we had a small child with active tuberculosis in the hospital. He was quite ill and quite contagious. His mother spirited him from the hospital because she did not want him treated. We alerted the state police, who found them 2 days later over 200 miles away. In this case, the public was at risk. I believe that the decision in this event was correct, protecting the public welfare.

What about abuse? When a child is physically, sexually or psychologically abused by a parent, should the government act? Since the child is a citizen, the answer is yes. We need also to make it easier for parents who feel incapable or unwilling to raise their children to have an alternative where the child can go. This can be done with or without government intervention, can be for short or long periods, without stigma, to allow the parents to get their act together and to allow a safe environment for the child. The current system is perhaps too permanent, too bureaucratic, and too public. To avoid embarassment, inadequate parents keep their children and continue to harm them. It does take a village, but people now live isolated lives. Increased community spirit is one solution. Increased parental networking.

Does time of the impact matter? What about raising children in a way that harms them as well as harming others, but perhaps a little more slowly? 25% of US prisoners are illiterate. The daughter of a friend was murdered by an illiterate teen. What about parents who do not work with teachers to foster literacy in their children? Should teachers have the duty to report parents who do not "get with the program" in helping their children to succeed in school? What about parents who send their children to school less prepared than others? For example, in dirty clothes, unfed? What about parents who are poor role models, such as drug addicts, alcoholics, prostitutes, or even bank/auto industry CEOs?

DocBrain believes that the use of power to intervene in people's lives should be reserved for specific situations where the public is at risk. Poor parental choice is too slippery a slope for the government to exert its power. As the great Jeremiah Wright said, perhaps we just need to let the chickens come home to roost. Or perhaps Darwinism is acting here. Allowing people to experience consequences of poor decisions serves as object lessons for the rest of us. The invisible hand of right and wrong will lead us in the correct direction. As hard as it is to accept, the sacrifice of one child for the right of all of us to be free may be the best approach. There are opportunities to help children at risk, parents who are not up to the task. This is an area where more research, more options, and more innovation will lead to less parental stress, less child abuse. Yet, there will always be the hard core antisocial. True criminals, those who intentionally inflict harm, need to be prosecuted. The rules for this need to be very narrow to prevent a situation where an honest difference of opinion is not criminalized.

Once, starving people who stole a loaf of bread were placed in prison for years. Now, we have improved farming so that bread is less expensive; we have created enough wealth that we can freely give food (via food stamps, soup kitchens, etc) to those in need. Our society has stepped up to the plate and solved this problem except for the person who really just wants to commit a crime. This is the answer. A problem indicates the need for a solution, and that solution hardly ever should be more government.

They can afford it

Recently, a relative commented on a public servant taking a voluntary pay cut by saying "He can afford it." This relative did not know the personal circumstances of this public servant. Her reaction was similar when addressing people who lost money in the stock market, and is similar in considering the concept of high taxes on those defined as rich.

I wonder how prevalent the attitude of "they can afford it" is in America. When addressing voluntary sacrifice, this attitude diminishes the act of altruism. When inadvertent due to risk taking, this attitude shows a lack of compassion. When forced (ie, increased taxation), the attitude shows a belief in the unfairness of the world and a need to "get even".

On the other hand, voluntary sacrifice done without fanfare is more noble. Fanfare should be reserved for situations where you want to encourage others to follow in your footsteps.

Inadvertent loss due to risk taking should be kept limited by a good investment plan, although in exceptional times, even sound strategies can fail.

However, it is quite another matter to try to "get even". This is never right. Retribution is almost always the ultimate evil and should be reserved for special circumstances. This is an intentional infliction of harm and in DocBrain's opinion, is even more unethical than greed, envy or lust. The addressing of unfairness should never include "getting even" either as a defense of actions or policy. If a person is of a circumstance that makes "getting even" seem reasonable, it is more important and certainly more ethical to prevent further wrong than to "get even".

The ethics of a graduated income tax is very problematic. Most defenses of the graduated tax system have "getting even" and "they can afford it" as part of the justification. This is just ethically wrong, solves nothing but the short term greed and desires of those who take. Using the concept of need is also problematic and the concept of want makes it purely unethical.

"They can afford it" is just plain wrong.

Is there a doctor in the house?

http://www.slate.com/id/2217146/?Gt1=38001

This article attributes the lack of enough physicians to economic factors, and the supply of physicians to government intervention. I always wonder why those who write articles about health care seem to never ask practicing physicians.

Why there are not enough doctors:

• The increased overhead associated with malpractice and paperwork make it impossible for a physician to work part-time, a situation that has been true for the past 20 years. Prior to that time it was common for aging physicians to cut back their hours.
• Medical practice can be very stressful, leading to burnout. Dealing with regulations, fears of arbitrary and expensive audits, malpractice fears, low profit margins, and constantly having to fight with the patient's managed care provider to get the patient what is best are all wearing.
• Working long hours used to be the badge of courage of physicians. Now, working more than 40 hours per week is looked at as leading to fatigue and error.
• The doctor patient relationship has been eroded by managed care, leading to less personal involvement with patients and more doctor shopping.
• Health care information grows quickly, requiring a constant commitment to keeping up to date.
• Physicians cannot see patients as fast as before due to regulations, paperwork requirements for reimbursement, and yet physicians actually spend less quality time with patients for this very reason. The patient gets less direct physician time, the physician spends more time on each patient mainly doing paperwork, and the system is less satisfying to physician and patient alike and is more inefficient. Thank managed care and CMS for that!

As in all things, market forces will determine the supply and demand. Part of the market forces are regulations and other activities that slow up the process.

Fear and loathing

When we decide who to support with our vote, it is said that we mainly look to find those who we believe we can trust and those we like. There is a dark side of this as well. I wonder how many vote based upon the negative emotions.

One friend confided in me that she would never vote for Bush because she had a son of military age and was very afraid that he might be drafted. And how many of us have heard people say how much they hated Bush?

Lately, we get the same sentiments directed towards Obama and the Democrats, of course by different people. Now the fear is about the economy and racing towards socialism.

Many feared that McCain would be too old to be president. I think that many in PA who felt that way will paradoxically feel that Specter is young enough for another term.

Recently I learned that Jews voted heavily for Reagan against Carter, the only time Jews turned out in large numbers for a Republican presidential candidate. Was it love of Reagan, identification with him or perhaps a latent fear of the white southern Christian man? Remember the outrage over Palin being so Christian?

To beat the other candidate, you must cast the other fellow as one worthy of fear or loathing. Find a good issue that resonates with people and take it from there.

Have you ever tried to write a decision tree that takes every possible contingency into account? If you ever have, you know how impossible it is, even when the problem seems at first simple.

I believe in people. I believe that most people are trying hard to do the right thing. Unintended consequences prevents the clumsy hand of law from sculpting the nuances of right and wrong. This should be left up to individuals. If there is one thing to loathe and fear, it is the co-opting of the individual by the group. For this reason, laws should be clear, well enforced and few.