Thoughts on Conservative Reactions to Health Care Bill

I was listening to the Dennis Miller radio show the other night and he was wringing his hands over the passage of the health care bill. He was of the opinion that this was a sign that the US would be going the way of the Roman Empire and would essentially be the end of civilization as we know it.

I admit to being completely puzzled by this attitude -- is allowing countless numbers of people to die in one of the richest nations on Earth simply because of a lack of funds to get adequate health care the mark of a civilized society? Is valuing money over people's very lives the mark of an enlightened and advanced society? I think not.

Miller went on to say that he believed guaranteed health care for all citizens was a bad thing because it would make people "lose their motivation to 'hustle'".

Again, I don't understand this reasoning. For one thing, all citizens deserve access to adequate health care simply because they are human beings, not because they work to "earn" it. Secondly, access to medical care is one of the basic tools that allows people to work hard in whatever endeavors they choose. It's hard to work up the motivation to "hustle" when you're sick and exhausted. Thirdly, having one's basic survival needs guaranteed will not kill people's desires to achieve and get ahead in life; as long as there are cars, electronic gadgets, luxury homes, season tickets to ball games, and so on to work for, people will be motivated to work. And for some lucky people in meaningful, creative jobs, work is its own reward well beyond the financial remuneration.

Another right-winger, Neal Boortz, said that he thought it was "too bad" for people who did not have health insurance, especially those who were denied because of pre-existing conditions, but that it wasn't his problem and that he considered having to pay taxes to help such people to be "stealing" his money. He also think it's an insurance company's right to deny such people as they don't make money off such people. Obviously, the making of money is the most important concern to him. I don't know how the man sleeps at night, knowing that people are needlessly dying, but that's not how I was raised.

Boortz not only is against the current health care reform; he also thinks that the current system is too lenient. He believes that all preventive and routine care, including pre-natal care, should not be covered by insurance; that it should be reserved only for catastrophic care. He has stated that those people who cannot afford to pay for pre-natal care out of their own pockets shouldn't be having children, anyway.

Never mind that access to preventive care is cheaper in the long run, as it often helps to prevent more serious and expensive problems down the line.

The new health care bill isn't perfect; far from it. But it's a start in the right direction.

Thoughts?

The Right to Adultery

In an opinion piece, columnist and president of the National Organization for Marriage Maggie Gallagher questions whether Americans should have the "right to adultery".

Going against the commonly held opinion of many in the legal community, Gallagher takes a dim view of tolerating marital infidelity.

Citing that "adultery involves twin offenses: (1) the violation by a married person of his or her vows; and (2) a third party's decision to invade another person's marriage, to seek their own personal satisfaction at the expense of the unknowing and unconsenting spouse", she is especially intolerant of using this common phenomenon as "a pathway to commercial success, " citing websites that help straying spouses to find sex partners, Rielle Hunter capitalizing on her status as "the other woman", and prostitute Ashley Dupre making money as a sex columnist on the New York Post. Gallagher states that she would like to see commercially soliciting for adultery be legally classified the same way as soliciting for prostitution.

Waving aside the truth that one cannot legislate morality, she believes that we need to "come up with a way to encourage a little common decency."

Gallagher insists that she doesn't want to persecute "every man or woman who has sinned," but rather that "people who commit this moral trespass to have the decency not to attempt to profit from it in the national media".

OK, where to begin?

First of all, the right for any adult to have sovereignty over their own bodies; the free choice to engage in any sort of sexual behavior they see fit, provided that their partner(s) are consenting adults, should be beyond question. Even when people have willingly agreed to restrict some of that freedom when entering a monogamous marriage, any departures from this agreement should be an entirely private matter between those involved and not something for the government to meddle in. The injured party should retain the right to sue for breach of contract as a practical matter, but the government has no business meddling in the private affairs of adults as a moral matter. Better yet, the government should drop sexual exclusivity as a necessary component of a legal marriage

Secondly, notions of what is moral and decent are highly subjective matters. Who gets to decide what is moral or decent and what should such ideas be based on? Gallagher openly states that adultery is a "sin", which is a purely religious idea and should have absolutely no place whatsoever in secular law that governs the actions of all citizens of all religions and of no religion.

My suggestion to Gallagher and others like her who are offended by those making money off of adultery would be to vote with their wallets and their feet. Don't patronize businesses that match married people with new sex partners, don't tune into TV shows or read magazine articles that feature Rielle Hunter, don't read newspaper columns by prostitutes, and so on. But don't restrict the freedom of others to do so, either.

Thoughts?

Study Claims That Liberalism, Atheism, and Sexual Exclusivity in Men Correlate With Higher IQs

A new study, which will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly, has claimed that higher IQs, on average, are correlated with liberalism, atheism, and sexual exclusivity in men (but not in women!).

I buy the first two correlations, as I'm liberal and agnostic bordering on atheist, but I strongly beg to differ on the last correlation. I have never been sexually exclusive with anyone in the 30+ years I've been sexually active, yet I had the highest IQ in my high school graduating class (140). I know this because the guidance counselor made a point of telling me so shortly before I graduated.

The reasoning given was that sexual exclusivity in men, liberalism and atheism all go against what would be expected given humans' evolutionary past.

Sexual exclusivity goes against the grain evolutionarily. With a goal of spreading genes, early men had multiple mates, which helped the human species survive

George Washington University leadership professor James Bailey said that these preferences may stem from a desire to show superiority or elitism, which also has to do with IQ. In fact, aligning oneself with "unconventional" philosophies such as liberalism or atheism may be "ways to communicate to everyone that you're pretty smart."

I see several things wrong with the inclusion of sexual exclusivity as a factor involved in higher intelligence. First of all, sexual activity and reproduction are no longer inextricably linked; thus promiscuity no longer necessarily means that a man will sire large amounts of children. Secondly, no libertine worth his salt, myself included, sleeps with a large variety of women with the desire to "spread our genes around." I've had hundreds of partners in my lifetime, yet I've managed to sire only one child.

Considering that every male celebrity who strays from his marriage now garners widespread societal disapproval and extensive publicity, I'd hardly say that sexual exclusivity is no longer an "unconventional" idea for men. Sexual exclusivity for both sexes has been one of our society's most sacred of cows for quite some time now, regardless of human nature.

Indeed, to be openly and unashamedly non-monogamous is now an unconventional philosophy in our current society.

And in light of the fact that it was religion that imposed monogamy on society in the first place and a large part of being religious today is to accept and adhere to the idea of sexual exclusivity with a single mate, it would seem as if intentionally non-monogamous lifestyles would be more accepted among liberals and atheists.

An interesting study to be sure, but one with a lot of holes in it.

Thoughts?

Why I Hate "Live" Albums

Over the years, when buying recorded music: LP albums, and later, CDs, I've always avoided buying "Live" albums. That is, music recorded live at a concert. There are several reasons why I hate "Live" albums in general, though there are a few exceptions:

1. The songs are generally rushed, as the musicians desire to cram in as many songs during a concert as possible.

2. The songs are often stripped down as well as being rushed: fewer instruments, simpler arrangements, etc.

3. Live albums are always marred by the sound of morons in the audience who feel they must accompany the musicians by emitting frequent and lengthy high-pitched whistles. I prefer to hear my favorite musicians unaccompanied by the sound of "FWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!" every few seconds, tyvm.

I can only think of one live album that I like and that is Eric Clapton's "Just One Night", recorded at Tokyo's Budokan Theatre in December, 1979, which happens to be my favorite Clapton album.

Thoughts?