Why do I disagree with and even fear the effects of this new health plan? There are two general reasons, philosophical and economical.
First, the philosophical. All-encompassing government entitlements pervert the relationship between government and governed, and at their worst can corrupt individual dignity and lead to authoritarian tendencies in government. Am I expecting a knock on the door in the next few weeks from the IRS empowered proctologist? No. Do I think the president is sacrificing kittens and communing with the ghost of Lenin? No. Do I think that the government giving itself a managerial role in everyone’s health care will lead to innumerable, small encroachments of a softly tyrannical nature? Absolutely. The term that most accurately and succinctly captures the stance of this bill is paternalistic. In other words, it treats citizens like children; they are generally defenseless, vulnerable, and need to be taken care of, and in return for this care, the pater civitas assumes an authority over more and more of the concerns of the people. I reject this view. Forgive the boorish cliché, but not only is it truly better to teach a man to fish than to shower him with chum at regular monthly intervals, it is better for both the man and the chum thrower. Entitlements breed dependence. The broader and more all-encompassing the entitlement, the more debilitating the dependence. I find it odd that so many people look to Europe and lament that we have been behind them for so long in terms of government controlled benefits. I cannot think of a single Western European country that does not have a serious problem with economic dependence and an unshakable sense of personal entitlement among its citizenry. The obvious example right now would be Greece, in which citizens have, among other things, taken to the streets in fits of rage that their 14 month per year, government pay schedule will be trimmed to match the solar reality that there are twelve months in a year. Did government run/guaranteed health care cause this? No, not on its own. But the idea that governments exist, not to secure the conditions for a free and responsible life, but instead to provide for the every need of its citizens most assuredly did, and will do the same to us if it continues to develop along its current vector. This is especially problematic in democracies because, under the paternalistic view, the children elect the parents.
The economical. As I said, it is also better for the fish thrower if the poor man can catch his own fish, because if individuals can’t or won’t feed themselves, there is no way that ‘the government’ can do it for all of them, all of the time. The economic problems with this bill are manifold, but let me just mention a few things. First, the two biggest domestic, economic threats to our future prosperity (and much of the world, as our economic interdependence is clear at this point) are Social Security and Medicare. The unfunded commitments of these three programs top 100 trillion dollars. As Joe Biden would say, “this is a big, f***ing deal”. When countries can’t pay debts of this magnitude, they eventually collapse or are ‘collapsed’ by others. When this might happed is unimportant at the moment. My point is, why are we adding strain and cost to these programs when we can’t fund them now? Now, you might say, “There is no new, government-run plan right now, so we’re not increasing these programs, we’re just moving money form the rich to the less-rich so they can get insurance”. Here’s the problem. You can never tax the rich enough to pay for all the needs, health related or otherwise, of the non-rich. Even if you could, at some point taxation levels reach the point of bold-faced theft. How can one defend theft as a governmental policy? Moreover, the economy is a mess, and raising taxes during a faltering, sputtering economy is insane. Why the hell would employers take on new workers when they either have to cover them or pay a fine if they get any government help in order to purchase their own? This applies to companies with 50 or more employees. That includes an awful lot of companies that have a very clear incentive to not hire anyone else. So, we can expect very high unemployment as a fact of life (like much of our supposed ideal, Western Europe).
But even all of these aren’t the main problem. The bill has created a mandate that everyone must have insurance (soft tyranny? kicks in at 2014, I believe). You either get insurance at work (see high unemployment), or you buy it yourself (CBO says that individual rates will rise substantially under the plan), or you are poor/pseudo poor and get added to Medicaid which has been expanded. If you decide to ignore the mandate, you will pay a fine collected by one of the additional 16,000 IRS agents that this bill provides for. The fine is less than the cost of insurance, so it actually makes sense to opt for the fine BECAUSE insurers can no longer turn anyone away for pre-existing conditions. Therefore, more and more healthy people will opt for the fine instead of insurance, and only get insurance once they are seriously ill. Ergo, private insurance, which is supposed to be formed out of a risk pool of mostly healthy people/non-car crashed cars/non-burglarized homes, will now be composed, in the health care arena, of the long term sick, and the newly sick who cost way more, yet can’t be charged anymore to compensate for their higher cost. Company costs go up, premiums go up, more people eschew paying until they get sick, vicious circle = yet another “big f***ing deal” (I’m starting to like our vice president).
Long story less long, private insurance will be largely destroyed because it can’t maintain basic profitability, the government will demonize them even more, proclaiming that the only solution will be a bonafide government run system for all, thus increasing our unsustainable debt load which already tops 100 trillion if you add everything we’re on the hook for. The debt load will either continue to rise, or else the government will cut costs in the only ways that it can: arbitrarily cutting compensation rates, which push healthcare providers into other lines of work, and rationing of care, in which the rubber finally meets the road and the paternalistic state, which has been infantilizing the citizen for his or her entire life, now turns around and tells the suffering dependent f*** off. This heady brew is evident, once again in Western Europe, where government health care is popular with the young, who are healthy, under-employed, and don’t make enough yet to really feel the tickle of that government proctologist I mentioned earlier. As the Euros get older (especially the Brits) the dissatisfaction and horrific anecdotes of institutional neglect, and the movement toward euthanasia as standard government-funded health policy (not hyperbole, see the Netherlands, Sweden, and others) becomes more and more common.
All of these problems don’t include all sorts of specific oddities and conflicts, and more important things such as the fact that many citizens will be forced to fund, in some roundabout way, practices they find morally abhorrent. If only a portion of what I have outlined comes to pass, woe to you still alive to clean up the mess. If nothing else, I hope this will clarify why people on the right are angry and scared, and why this is not some paranoid delusion without any rational basis. For the record, I have read no defense of the health care plan as thorough as this incomplete little screed. All I have heard are blank assertions, plays on emotion, sad stories, and minor arguments that this little chunk of cost here and that one there might drop a little bit. Already things are being said that were conveniently left out during the actual debate, such as Sen Baucus coming right out and saying that a big reason for this bill is to correct the “maldistribution” of income. This is a basic tenant of socialism, that economic outcomes ought to be equalized regardless of merit (here).
That’s more thought than I’ve sustained in a long time, so I’m going to have a very strong cocktail. Be good.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Monday, November 2, 2009
The Material Girl goes the way of all flesh; everybody point and laugh!
This is a bit outdated, but I never sent it where I was planning on sending it, so the legions of readers here can enjoy.
“I told you so” is an obnoxious phrase, simultaneously self-righteous and petty. By the time one is actually justified in saying it, it is usually inappropriate, as when the unheeded guidance of a mother results in her child being hit by a truck. There are, however, moments when the phrase is both appropriate and satisfying, and Madonna, the pop culture icon, has managed to provide just such a moment. For the uninterested, Madonna has recently been traveling that well beaten path through middle-agedom, with a stop along the way at hotel divorce. One might think it a bit rude to wag fingers at a 50 year-old woman with marital problems. However, given that Madonna and her various cultural offspring have been all too ready to wag, shake, and exhibit much more than fingers for over 25 years, often in laughably self-important and faux artistic tones, she deserves it.
Amidst the hullabaloo over Madonna’s divorce from film director Guy Ritchie, there were a number of odd and embarrassing details released about their relationship. Granted that the market may be a bit saturated with the exploits of the Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, and Amy Winehouse set, I for one remain surprised that, apart from the initial reporting, no one seemed inclined to comment upon the rich ironies and moral punchline of the Madonna chronicles. I suppose that’s to be expected in a culture where everyone likes to look, but few bother to reflect. But in addition to indulging in a bit of schadenfreude, there are some serious things to be said. First, let’s review:
Madonna is the queen of the modern pop culture canon. The numbers speak for themselves: over 63 million albums sold in the U.S.alone, second only to Barbara Streisand (duet album anyone?); 130 million sold worldwide; and a personal fortune in excess of 350 million dollars. One could argue that she was the most controversial and at the same time successful figure in pop music for over 15 years, from the arrival of her first album in 1983, to the mid 90s when grunge rockers began offing themselves and hip-hop became background music in places like Simi Valley. No one else from that time period seemed to have the combination of unflagging commercial viability and truly envelope-pushing charisma to such a combined degree. Her status as an assertive woman, uncanny spotter and exploiter of trends, savvy business person, and flaunter of social mores has made her a heroine among feminists, pop trend devotees, folks in the music business, and adolescents. She is one of the few musicians who get played on Top 40 radio and get discussed in women’s studies college courses.
In addition to being pop royalty, she has also managed to anger a respectable number of parents over the years with her philosophy of the physical, while encouraging an equally large number of their children, anxious for some way to stick to mom and dad, to be as uninhibited as she (without the 350 million dollar safety net, of course).. She did this by playing the role of the sexually defiant, utterly unencumbered woman; a role that has been played to death by the aforementioned pop princesses and whose societal value in a time of rampant venereal disease among teenage girls is questionable at best. But lest it be thought that this piece is an attempt to rehash the parental battles of yesteryear, fear not. No, the point of this little summary is simply to compare the international pop star, business mogul, and transgressive sex symbol we all knew and loved, with the whiny, neurotic, fitness-obsessed harpy that Madonna has evidently become.
There seem to be, understandably, two views of her recent divorce, and Madonna, in true groundbreaking fashion, looks equally pathetic from both. Let’s take her side of the story first (chivalry and all that). Madonna, according to the Daily Mail, was made to feel “feel worthless, unattractive, unfeminine, insecure and isolated”, by Guy’s calling her “a granny”, his “eyeing up a waitress”, and his laughing “sarcastically” at her jokes. I don’t know Guy Ritchie, and maybe he’s a jerk. I don’t know Madonna either, but she has spent a considerable amount of time and energy creating a persona that reflected independence, power, and a dismissive attitude towards convention. The belittled, unsupported wife bit seems to clash with the S&M clad, ambitious purveyor of pearls like this : “Straight men need to be emasculated. I'm sorry. They all need to be slapped around. Women have been kept down for too long. Every straight guy should have a man's tongue in his mouth at least once.” I wonder what Guy thought of that.
Guy’s take (also from the Daily Mail), paints a contrasting picture of a crazed health nut, struggling mightily against the dying of the thighs. The family menu abounded in culinary discrimination: no sugar, cheese, cream, salt, processed meats, or preservatives. She was so selective about what she eats that she would often refuse to order anything at even the nicest restaurants. Her exercise regimen of 2 hours a day, 6 days a week has beginning to wear down her knees and back, but that didn’t keep her from a 4 hour marathon session the day her adopted son David arrived from Malawi, as well as on Christmas. Most intriguing is the plastic body suit that she apparently sleeps in, marinating in expensive anti-aging cream. There was a time when Madonna doing such a thing would have seemed kinky. Now it’s just a confusing, oddly oppressive outfit for a former sex goddess.
In sum, the defiant iconoclast and transvaluator of traditional morality, the bane of dominant patriarchy and destroyer of stale gender roles, the most powerful woman in the music industry has, after a lifetime of rule breaking and image creation, become either a domestic fascist, a wilted pushover, or some unholy hybrid of both. You’re probably thinking, “who cares?” right about now, but the upshot is this. Those who lament the degradation of our culture and who rail against the most obvious architects of the downward spiral often suffer from the same emotivism that moves the hedonists the do battle with. How many times have social conservatives justifiably protested against the latest mockery or misrepresentation of their beliefs, only to let the issue pass as soon as their own anger has dissipated. What is needed is less petulance and more patience, less moral shock and more humorous mockery, less “how dare you!” and more “I told you so”. It turns out that the best argument against what Madonna et al have been selling all these years is that it turns you into a selfish loser who everyone ought to laugh at, and maybe pity.
People have always done scandalous things and celebrities have always been adored. What is different with the current deification of the famous is that now it is specifically the scandalous choices that receive adoration. When Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn carried on their adulterous affair, they didn’t appear on the tabloid covers talking about their fertility problems. Now, every starlet trying to get knocked up by their latest non-husband shares the intimate details of their ovulation trials. It doesn’t matter who anymore; people are much more interested in the plots than the actors. Consequently, with the problem of production and dissemination of information essentially eliminated from modern society, moral shock as an effective response to offensive behavior is at best ineffective and at worst counterproductive. The strategy that social and cultural conservatives should employ, be they parents, critics, or grumpy old men, should be reasonable, humorous, merciless derision.
Again, take the Madonna example. For 25 years she has successfully peddled a lifestyle based on a philosophy of hyper-individualistic hedonism. How many parents, knowing there was something dangerous about this over-sexed pied piperess railed against her image and music and drew little more than eye-rolls from their children? If they had been more subtle and humorous in their criticisms, then it is at least possible that a few of the kids who were sucked in by Madonna’s black hole of a lifestyle, might have seen the train wreck incubating within the outwardly glamorous presentation. Perhaps those young people would have made a more skeptical judgment regarding her artistic and moral worth. Who knows what would have happened then. But the Madonnas have not stopped marching through the popular spotlight. They make the same hedonistic pitch with their personas and their products. And there is always a new crop of kids looking for idols. Instead of parents pushing the big, red, shock button, maybe it would be more effective to offer some deflating pokes in the eye. So often these prurient stars collapse under the weight of their own profligacy; maybe the way to help the young avoid being fooled is to let them know what’s coming and find a seat with a good view.
“I told you so” is an obnoxious phrase, simultaneously self-righteous and petty. By the time one is actually justified in saying it, it is usually inappropriate, as when the unheeded guidance of a mother results in her child being hit by a truck. There are, however, moments when the phrase is both appropriate and satisfying, and Madonna, the pop culture icon, has managed to provide just such a moment. For the uninterested, Madonna has recently been traveling that well beaten path through middle-agedom, with a stop along the way at hotel divorce. One might think it a bit rude to wag fingers at a 50 year-old woman with marital problems. However, given that Madonna and her various cultural offspring have been all too ready to wag, shake, and exhibit much more than fingers for over 25 years, often in laughably self-important and faux artistic tones, she deserves it.
Amidst the hullabaloo over Madonna’s divorce from film director Guy Ritchie, there were a number of odd and embarrassing details released about their relationship. Granted that the market may be a bit saturated with the exploits of the Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, and Amy Winehouse set, I for one remain surprised that, apart from the initial reporting, no one seemed inclined to comment upon the rich ironies and moral punchline of the Madonna chronicles. I suppose that’s to be expected in a culture where everyone likes to look, but few bother to reflect. But in addition to indulging in a bit of schadenfreude, there are some serious things to be said. First, let’s review:
Madonna is the queen of the modern pop culture canon. The numbers speak for themselves: over 63 million albums sold in the U.S.alone, second only to Barbara Streisand (duet album anyone?); 130 million sold worldwide; and a personal fortune in excess of 350 million dollars. One could argue that she was the most controversial and at the same time successful figure in pop music for over 15 years, from the arrival of her first album in 1983, to the mid 90s when grunge rockers began offing themselves and hip-hop became background music in places like Simi Valley. No one else from that time period seemed to have the combination of unflagging commercial viability and truly envelope-pushing charisma to such a combined degree. Her status as an assertive woman, uncanny spotter and exploiter of trends, savvy business person, and flaunter of social mores has made her a heroine among feminists, pop trend devotees, folks in the music business, and adolescents. She is one of the few musicians who get played on Top 40 radio and get discussed in women’s studies college courses.
In addition to being pop royalty, she has also managed to anger a respectable number of parents over the years with her philosophy of the physical, while encouraging an equally large number of their children, anxious for some way to stick to mom and dad, to be as uninhibited as she (without the 350 million dollar safety net, of course).. She did this by playing the role of the sexually defiant, utterly unencumbered woman; a role that has been played to death by the aforementioned pop princesses and whose societal value in a time of rampant venereal disease among teenage girls is questionable at best. But lest it be thought that this piece is an attempt to rehash the parental battles of yesteryear, fear not. No, the point of this little summary is simply to compare the international pop star, business mogul, and transgressive sex symbol we all knew and loved, with the whiny, neurotic, fitness-obsessed harpy that Madonna has evidently become.
There seem to be, understandably, two views of her recent divorce, and Madonna, in true groundbreaking fashion, looks equally pathetic from both. Let’s take her side of the story first (chivalry and all that). Madonna, according to the Daily Mail, was made to feel “feel worthless, unattractive, unfeminine, insecure and isolated”, by Guy’s calling her “a granny”, his “eyeing up a waitress”, and his laughing “sarcastically” at her jokes. I don’t know Guy Ritchie, and maybe he’s a jerk. I don’t know Madonna either, but she has spent a considerable amount of time and energy creating a persona that reflected independence, power, and a dismissive attitude towards convention. The belittled, unsupported wife bit seems to clash with the S&M clad, ambitious purveyor of pearls like this : “Straight men need to be emasculated. I'm sorry. They all need to be slapped around. Women have been kept down for too long. Every straight guy should have a man's tongue in his mouth at least once.” I wonder what Guy thought of that.
Guy’s take (also from the Daily Mail), paints a contrasting picture of a crazed health nut, struggling mightily against the dying of the thighs. The family menu abounded in culinary discrimination: no sugar, cheese, cream, salt, processed meats, or preservatives. She was so selective about what she eats that she would often refuse to order anything at even the nicest restaurants. Her exercise regimen of 2 hours a day, 6 days a week has beginning to wear down her knees and back, but that didn’t keep her from a 4 hour marathon session the day her adopted son David arrived from Malawi, as well as on Christmas. Most intriguing is the plastic body suit that she apparently sleeps in, marinating in expensive anti-aging cream. There was a time when Madonna doing such a thing would have seemed kinky. Now it’s just a confusing, oddly oppressive outfit for a former sex goddess.
In sum, the defiant iconoclast and transvaluator of traditional morality, the bane of dominant patriarchy and destroyer of stale gender roles, the most powerful woman in the music industry has, after a lifetime of rule breaking and image creation, become either a domestic fascist, a wilted pushover, or some unholy hybrid of both. You’re probably thinking, “who cares?” right about now, but the upshot is this. Those who lament the degradation of our culture and who rail against the most obvious architects of the downward spiral often suffer from the same emotivism that moves the hedonists the do battle with. How many times have social conservatives justifiably protested against the latest mockery or misrepresentation of their beliefs, only to let the issue pass as soon as their own anger has dissipated. What is needed is less petulance and more patience, less moral shock and more humorous mockery, less “how dare you!” and more “I told you so”. It turns out that the best argument against what Madonna et al have been selling all these years is that it turns you into a selfish loser who everyone ought to laugh at, and maybe pity.
People have always done scandalous things and celebrities have always been adored. What is different with the current deification of the famous is that now it is specifically the scandalous choices that receive adoration. When Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn carried on their adulterous affair, they didn’t appear on the tabloid covers talking about their fertility problems. Now, every starlet trying to get knocked up by their latest non-husband shares the intimate details of their ovulation trials. It doesn’t matter who anymore; people are much more interested in the plots than the actors. Consequently, with the problem of production and dissemination of information essentially eliminated from modern society, moral shock as an effective response to offensive behavior is at best ineffective and at worst counterproductive. The strategy that social and cultural conservatives should employ, be they parents, critics, or grumpy old men, should be reasonable, humorous, merciless derision.
Again, take the Madonna example. For 25 years she has successfully peddled a lifestyle based on a philosophy of hyper-individualistic hedonism. How many parents, knowing there was something dangerous about this over-sexed pied piperess railed against her image and music and drew little more than eye-rolls from their children? If they had been more subtle and humorous in their criticisms, then it is at least possible that a few of the kids who were sucked in by Madonna’s black hole of a lifestyle, might have seen the train wreck incubating within the outwardly glamorous presentation. Perhaps those young people would have made a more skeptical judgment regarding her artistic and moral worth. Who knows what would have happened then. But the Madonnas have not stopped marching through the popular spotlight. They make the same hedonistic pitch with their personas and their products. And there is always a new crop of kids looking for idols. Instead of parents pushing the big, red, shock button, maybe it would be more effective to offer some deflating pokes in the eye. So often these prurient stars collapse under the weight of their own profligacy; maybe the way to help the young avoid being fooled is to let them know what’s coming and find a seat with a good view.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
A little rough, but you get the point.
The sudden flare up in the debate over aggressive interrogation techniques has shed embarrassing new light on the incoherence of progressive moral philosophy as it exists today. This cognitive dissonance is captured in an unintentionally revealing article by Gary Kamiya from Salon.com. Kamiya contends that there are two philosophical camps in the torture debate: the Kantians who hold that torture is never justifiable, and the “Benthamites or utilitarians” who are willing to accept torture if it can be framed as the lesser of two evils (while the claim that there are a sum total of two valid philosophical approaches to this problem streamlines the discussion, Thomists, Pragmatists, Hedonists, and a few others might consider it a bit glib). By the end of the article, it becomes clear that Kamiya favors the Kantians in their principled stand against torture, asserting “no torture today, no torture tomorrow, no torture ever”. As moving a conclusion as this is, it is more of an emotional imperative than a categorical one. This uncompromising rejection of torture is coherent if one acknowledges along with Kant that people must always be treated as ends and not as means. However, as is so often the case with these passionate denunciations of the interrogation methods used under President Bush, there is such a lack of analytic rigor, prudential judgment, and basic honesty in the fulminations of Kamiya and many others that share his feelings, that is difficult to take their moral outrage seriously.
The first problem is equivocation in the use of the term torture. Kamiya lists the following techniques used by American interrogators as utterly unjustifiable: waterboarding, slapping, sleep deprivation, the withholding of pain medication, slamming prisoners into walls, [and] locking them in boxes with insects (in this case it was a harmless caterpillar). Notice that this list does not include things like finger nail extraction, dismemberment, electric shock, rape, and the brutalization of family members, all of which everyone seems ready to acknowledge should never be permitted. Even those who believe that everything on the former list should never be done would acknowledge a difference in degree from those latter practices. And yet, for many the reaction towards both lists is equally indignant. If an action is intrinsically wrong, then it can never be acceptable. If waterboarding is intrinsically wrong than it is equally unacceptable when done to our own troops as part of their training. Where is the outrage over that common practice? A few commentators have seemed to imply that no physical contact is ever allowable during an interrogation. If so, then any sort of physical parental correction, punitive running at football practice, and a vast array of practices at every jail and prison in our country are similarly morally offensive. If these commentators are serious, then hurrah for the coherence of their naivety; the rest of us are not bound to live by their false, utopian view of the world. This does not discount the legitimate concerns of Kamiya, but it would be nice if someone on the left would be willing to establish some basic principles that everyone can assent to, like the right to self defense of the individual as well as the local and national community. Only then can there be a fruitful debate.
The second problem is the refusal to offer a meaningful alternative to harsh interrogation. Let’s assume that Kamiya is correct and that every method he identified qualifies as torture. What is to be done? As usual, no answer is given. He makes the usual exception for the ticking time bomb scenario, but says that this never actually occurs. In fact, if torture is always wrong than the ticking time bomb scenario is not a justifiable exception. It doesn’t change the nature of the act. In the event that every interrogation method beyond asking a question is wrong, here is my proposal for how to procede:
Islamic terrorists represent the antithesis of an ordered civic life. They prey upon innocents, even those of their own tribes, creeds, and countries; they acknowledge no check upon their brand of violence; they are utilitarians of the purest sort, considering any action that advances their goals as acceptable. The destructive capacity of these qualities is enhanced by their ability to exploit the principles and protections found within Western societies that acknowledge rights stemming from human dignity. Because terrorists do not believe in human dignity, or at least reject the idea that it presents any moral obstacle to their actions, they are able to subvert and destroy societies by perverting their own principles. If we cannot coerce any information from them when captured, then there is only one solution: kill them. Those charged with the defense of society have a grave duty to defend the common good, which is of course predicated on protecting individual rights, most importantly the right to life. There is no question that Jihadist terrorists will kill as many innocent individuals as possible as a means to achieving their theological/political ends. When a terrorist is caught in the act or in the wake of an attack, they should be given an option: tell us everything or face summary execution. This may seem like a dubious moral improvement over waterboarding, but it in fact, it is. If aggressive interrogation techniques are intrinsically wrong because they rely on the repeated infliction of mental, emotional, or physical pain and result in the dehumanization of both captor and victim, then they can never be legitimately employed, not even in the ticking time-bomb scenario. If this is the case, and captured terrorists cannot be coerced in any way, this does not remove the responsibility to defend the common good. As has already been demonstrated, the terrorist does not merit the special legal protections of a society that he or she is actively trying to destroy. It is therefore the case that in virtue of the responsibility to protect the innocent from attack, and the unreformable nature of the terrorist, (proven by the unwillingness to demonstrate remorse by relating any and all information to their captors), it the responsibility of those in power to quickly, without passion, and with as painless a method as possible, execute all terrorists upon a reasonable establishment of guilt. This is the only way to insure that torture does not occur and that the common good is truly protected from the dedicated destroyers of life and society.
This assumes that no interrogation techniques are morally acceptable. If some are allowed, then it does not violate the state’s duty to the common good to incarcerate and interrogate in order to glean information needed to save lives and defeat evil. Human dignity must be essentially respected throughout, but this respect does not demand kind and gentle treatment. These are not innocent people. They retain their essential humanity and cannot be treated as mere instruments, but they do not have a claim to special consideration, politeness, or leniency. They have chosen a life of complete animosity towards Western, Democratic, and Judeo-Christian societal norms. They are not entitled to any rights beyond the most basic protections against truly inhuman treatment. As far as the specifics of what was actually done under President Bush, I am open to the possibility that some things did fall into this inhuman category, but you have to argue the point, not just wring your hands, while breathlessly yelling “torture, torture!”.
The first problem is equivocation in the use of the term torture. Kamiya lists the following techniques used by American interrogators as utterly unjustifiable: waterboarding, slapping, sleep deprivation, the withholding of pain medication, slamming prisoners into walls, [and] locking them in boxes with insects (in this case it was a harmless caterpillar). Notice that this list does not include things like finger nail extraction, dismemberment, electric shock, rape, and the brutalization of family members, all of which everyone seems ready to acknowledge should never be permitted. Even those who believe that everything on the former list should never be done would acknowledge a difference in degree from those latter practices. And yet, for many the reaction towards both lists is equally indignant. If an action is intrinsically wrong, then it can never be acceptable. If waterboarding is intrinsically wrong than it is equally unacceptable when done to our own troops as part of their training. Where is the outrage over that common practice? A few commentators have seemed to imply that no physical contact is ever allowable during an interrogation. If so, then any sort of physical parental correction, punitive running at football practice, and a vast array of practices at every jail and prison in our country are similarly morally offensive. If these commentators are serious, then hurrah for the coherence of their naivety; the rest of us are not bound to live by their false, utopian view of the world. This does not discount the legitimate concerns of Kamiya, but it would be nice if someone on the left would be willing to establish some basic principles that everyone can assent to, like the right to self defense of the individual as well as the local and national community. Only then can there be a fruitful debate.
The second problem is the refusal to offer a meaningful alternative to harsh interrogation. Let’s assume that Kamiya is correct and that every method he identified qualifies as torture. What is to be done? As usual, no answer is given. He makes the usual exception for the ticking time bomb scenario, but says that this never actually occurs. In fact, if torture is always wrong than the ticking time bomb scenario is not a justifiable exception. It doesn’t change the nature of the act. In the event that every interrogation method beyond asking a question is wrong, here is my proposal for how to procede:
Islamic terrorists represent the antithesis of an ordered civic life. They prey upon innocents, even those of their own tribes, creeds, and countries; they acknowledge no check upon their brand of violence; they are utilitarians of the purest sort, considering any action that advances their goals as acceptable. The destructive capacity of these qualities is enhanced by their ability to exploit the principles and protections found within Western societies that acknowledge rights stemming from human dignity. Because terrorists do not believe in human dignity, or at least reject the idea that it presents any moral obstacle to their actions, they are able to subvert and destroy societies by perverting their own principles. If we cannot coerce any information from them when captured, then there is only one solution: kill them. Those charged with the defense of society have a grave duty to defend the common good, which is of course predicated on protecting individual rights, most importantly the right to life. There is no question that Jihadist terrorists will kill as many innocent individuals as possible as a means to achieving their theological/political ends. When a terrorist is caught in the act or in the wake of an attack, they should be given an option: tell us everything or face summary execution. This may seem like a dubious moral improvement over waterboarding, but it in fact, it is. If aggressive interrogation techniques are intrinsically wrong because they rely on the repeated infliction of mental, emotional, or physical pain and result in the dehumanization of both captor and victim, then they can never be legitimately employed, not even in the ticking time-bomb scenario. If this is the case, and captured terrorists cannot be coerced in any way, this does not remove the responsibility to defend the common good. As has already been demonstrated, the terrorist does not merit the special legal protections of a society that he or she is actively trying to destroy. It is therefore the case that in virtue of the responsibility to protect the innocent from attack, and the unreformable nature of the terrorist, (proven by the unwillingness to demonstrate remorse by relating any and all information to their captors), it the responsibility of those in power to quickly, without passion, and with as painless a method as possible, execute all terrorists upon a reasonable establishment of guilt. This is the only way to insure that torture does not occur and that the common good is truly protected from the dedicated destroyers of life and society.
This assumes that no interrogation techniques are morally acceptable. If some are allowed, then it does not violate the state’s duty to the common good to incarcerate and interrogate in order to glean information needed to save lives and defeat evil. Human dignity must be essentially respected throughout, but this respect does not demand kind and gentle treatment. These are not innocent people. They retain their essential humanity and cannot be treated as mere instruments, but they do not have a claim to special consideration, politeness, or leniency. They have chosen a life of complete animosity towards Western, Democratic, and Judeo-Christian societal norms. They are not entitled to any rights beyond the most basic protections against truly inhuman treatment. As far as the specifics of what was actually done under President Bush, I am open to the possibility that some things did fall into this inhuman category, but you have to argue the point, not just wring your hands, while breathlessly yelling “torture, torture!”.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
I'm glad you've noticed a problem, but...
This is a good article from the UK's Daily Mail about the hyper-sexualization of British youth specifically, and Western youth in general. The author, Olivia Lichtenstein (see right, with daughter), makes some very good observations about the various causes of the complete lack of self-respect and inhibition displayed especially by young women. But I think that she, like so many others who have finally seen or heard something that has shocked their "open-minded" sensibilities, is unable or unwilling to go far enough in here criticism.Some of her good points are the following: social networking, obsession with celebrities, and "reality" T.V. have all degraded our culture's sense of the private and the personal. Thus, whereas bad behavior amongst youth is no new thing, its widespread dissemination and online permanence is. The conflation of the private realm with the public is dangerous for a whole host of reasons, and Lichtestein rightly highlights it as a problem. Unfortunately, she seems more concerned with the openness of the new slut chic, than the actual activities which define it. Throughout the article she describes all sorts of lewd and lurid behavior, but her real concern is with the fact that it happens in the open, or is videotaped with the knowledge of the participants, or is being shared with the world via youtube. When it comes to the activities themselves, she begins to show the same cognitive dissonance that has led to the very situation she now laments.
Lichentstein says, in discussing a book called Female Chauvinist Pigs by Ariel Levy, "feminist terms such as liberation and empowerment, that used to describe women's fight for equality, have been perverted. Now the freedom to be sexually provocative or promiscuous is not enough - now it can mean the freedom to be an exhibitionist". I submit that there is almost no difference between being sexually provocative/promiscuous and being an exhibitionist. If there is any difference it is certainly only in degree and not in kind. Lichtenstein asks several times whether young girls today know anything about feminism. They probably couldn't tell you anything explicit, but they clearly have internalized the sexual logic of radical feminism, which I think is what Lichtenstein refers to when she talks about the values (hehehe) of the 60s and 70s.
The sexual narrative goes something like this: Since time immemorial, women have had to put up with the infamous double standard, which says roughly that promiscuous men are studs, or at least normal, while promiscuous women are sluts. Besides being morally incongruous, the double standard had the more subtle effect of strengthening the patriarchal stranglehold over womankind by putting strict limits on feminine sexuality while allowing and even encouraging male adventurism. This meant that the only acceptable roles for women were a virginal childhood, sexually repressive life as a nun, or the faithful and powerless wife/mother. In pre-Christian times there was also the possibility of being a temple prostitute, which was kind of like being a nun and a sex slave all at once. The feminist response to all of this was to demand that women be held to the same (low) standards as men in their sexual activity, thus resulting in sexual liberation/empowerment, which would have advantageous repercussions in every area of male and female interaction.
This is a very quick summary, and no doubt many people would argue with some of the characterizations, but my intent is not to defend the entire synopsis, but only analyze the rationality of the feminist response. If there are two groups of people, and one group is allowed to do something wrong, while the other group is not, how does allowing the the prohibited group to also engage in the wrong behavior make the situation better? It seems to me that it doesn't. The equality that is being aimed at here is of the most superficial sort. It also displays an understanding of freedom as license, as opposed to freedom as the ability to live a good life. In any case, the empirical results of the radical feminist sexual offensive are clear: the weakening of sexual discipline for women has almost destroyed it for men.
This is not to say that there is no truth in the previous narrative. Women have indeed endured oppressive inequalities throughout history, especially in environments in which a cultural premium was placed on aggressive assertion, physical power, and the virtues of war, areas in which men have a natural advantage. The problem with the extension of the radical feminist critique into the area of sexuality is that it essentially cedes the battleground to the men. It's like complaining of gender segregation between men's and women's basketball and then merging the WNBA into the NBA and ending up confused as to why the women lose every game. Moreover, when young women are told that basketball is the only sport that real women play, then we should not be surprised when these girls become more and more obsessed with the game at younger and younger ages.
Unfortunately, this analogy does not capture the full danger of 'postmodern' or more accurately, non-thinking sexuality. To get a sense of the actual dangers, imagine that all the men and women of history are holding a giant boulder, and the half the men are screwing around, not holding their portion of the weight. The boulder represents the physical, emotional, spiritual, and societal responsibilities and consequences inherent in sexuality. Half of the women, instead of finding someway to make the wayward men take up their share of the load, decide to join the losers, a move which then prompts some of the previously dependable men to also join the non-supporters. The result is that a much smaller proportion of men and women are left holding back the boulder that affects everyone equally.
Radical feminism has essentially advocated this abandonment of responsibility for sexual discipline that men and women must share, and it has done so in an attempt to get back at men for the historical sins of their sex. Olivia Lichtenstein is right that the manifestations of this policy have become more and more upsetting, shocking, and public. However, it makes little sense to bewail the effects of first principles and not commit to a serious reconsideration of those first principles themselves. Instead, Lichenstein seems to remain committed to the supposed liberation of sexuality that the 'good' feminism provided, which supposedly showed men that they couldn't treat women as less than equal anymore. Unfortunately, as her own article attests to, "according to a sample group of 17-year-olds [she] spoke to, there is an enormous double standard between the sexes. Boys treat sex as being a sign of ‘laddishness’ and masculinity, they say; promiscuous behaviour on their part is an achievement. Girls, on the other hand, are caught between a rock and a hard place". So basically nothing has changed from the pre-liberation times except for today's vastly higher rate of unexpected pregnancy, abortion, STDs, sexual abuse, and broken families. Some solution...
At heart, the problem is that Lichtenstein wants to treat feminism, in all of its complexity, as an unalloyed good, and that is simply impossible. A rational society would view the legion of problems lurking in the sexual realm as overwhelming evidence that something has gone wrong. I submit that the entire sexual program of the radical feminists has been a disastrous and surprisingly childish version of pulling the hair of the kid who pulled yours. Many men have treated many women abominably throughout history, and have demanded higher standards for them then for themselves. The radical feminist answer was for women to become as brutish, disrespectful, and sexually cavalier towards men as the worst men had been towards women. Unfortunately, they seemed to have forgotten even the most basic the cliche of playground morality: two wrongs don't make a right.
Friday, January 23, 2009
This poor, stupid girl...
This poor girl is such a fool. If you haven't heard, she is auctioning off her virginity. The bid is currently in excess of 3.8 million. How wonderful that she's going into Marriage and Family Therapy. I'm sure she'll have wonderful insights to offer. This article is full of gems, but this one here is especially idiotic:"At the university level, I was given permission to think differently and form a moral code of my own design."
Hmmmm. So, you were given permission to form your own moral code (at the university level, no less)? Well, that was nice of the overlords of academia to allow you that latitude. You are clearly an icon of freedom.
Actually, I am surprised that the bidding is that high, since we're clearly dealing with pure hedonistic utilitarianism (pure pleasure principle). Evidently, she's hoping for "a combination of a great time with a good connection and a financial agreement the she is happy with". Assuming that she is willing to provide the same, isn't the price a bit steep? I'm guessing most of the bidding 'gentlemen' would pay extra if the "good connection" option could be left out. Moreover, why the hell would anyone pay that kind of money for an inexperienced stranger who has "her own requirements"? I'm guessing this means the if the Marquis de Sade shows up, she'll have veto power over his more exploitive tastes. Hopefully the highest bidder will have retained at least some basic notions of politeness, such as "no means no", and "it is wrong to beat a woman in order to get off". But then again, maybe Mr. Right will have also been given permission by his Biology 101 professor to "think differently and form a moral code of [his] own design".
Another point is that when one commercializes sex in a culture such as ours, you implicitly agree to the full gamut of business protections. Ergo, since this young woman is so eager to parlay her virginity into a capitalistic windfall, then she should logically be open to a medical examination to ascertain the legitimacy of her virginity, liability insurance for causing any disease (you don't need to have had full intercourse to have a whole range of bugs), warranty (what if the service is unsatisfactory?), taxation, and of course government oversight. Hell, she should apply for some bail out money and skip the sex altogether.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Maladroit Public Servant of the Week/Decade
This is Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA 30th District), patron saint of hall monitors, nagging wives, tattle tales, and whiny scolds everywhere. His rise to power, which is now exemplified in his chairmanship of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, is a depressing example of triumph of the bureaucratic warrior. For most of human history, a man like this would have been little more than Viking fodder. When Nietzsche laments the appearance of the last man, he was probably thinking of someone just like Hank here. Now, I'm not an advocate of barbarism, nor am I awaiting the coming the UberMensch who will transvaluate all values. But I am a big fan of a robust national character distinguished by a noble masculinity (and femininity for that matter). Mr. Waxy represents the polar opposite of this ideal. Pretty much any situation which should fall within the purview of personal responsibility and self-discipline, Waxman treats as territory for government (aka Waxman's) control. Smoking? The government will protect you and yours from Joe Camel. Abstinence only education? Are you crazy? If the government doesn't provide your children with condoms, banannas, and the Planned Parenthood 24 hour service desk number, they might get pregnant after only a few sexual encounters instead of dozens. Own any property with a potentially endangered species (let alone an actually endangered on)? Back of the line, bub. Furry things are cute and they come before you. Global warming? It's so obviously true that we're already dead, so stop talking before I mandate cremation and throw you in the kiln. In sum, Waxman is a liberal's liberal. He peddles the sort of soft fascism that hugs you to death like Lennie from Of Mice and Men, except that you're supposed to be sad when Lennie dies. He has a 0% conservative voting record, which is pretty impressive given that you'd figure an accidental Republican vote might slip in on occasion. Even his own party members seem afraid of him. All in all, a thoroughly maladroit public servant. And in order to keep this post from being too fair and/or intelligent, I submit the following scientific hypothesis as to Rep. Waxman's ancestral origination.Likely parentage:
Friday, January 9, 2009
Really? Really?
Sacha Baron Cohen's black Jesus to shock America
Is this really necessary? I can't believe that these sorts of headlines still get written. Maybe its because it's a British publication commenting on their idea of what Americans are all about, but give me a break. Shock art will always be strongly tied to the law of diminishing utility. It is ultimately self-defeating; people eventually become inured to its effects. Why does anyone think that Americans still have some untapped reservoir of prudishness to be drained? Madonna made out with a black Jesus 25 years ago on MTV. Kevin Smith had Alanis Morrisette play God, Selma Hayek depict the Holy Spirit/Grecian Muse as a stripper, and Andres Serrano immersed a crucifix in urine. Let's get something straight: anger is not shock. Americans are not shocked nearly as often as the press assumes. They are, instead, angry at having their deepest beliefs and commitments mocked by fools and infantile provocateurs. Cohen is free to live his double and triple lives; Andy Kaufman did much the same thing. But it would be refreshing if reporters could simply comment on the quality of his work, and not dumbly speculate on the expected reactions of his audience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)