And I ask myself, should I really go here? I have a variety of thoughts on the subject and the knee-jerk reaction to my definition by someone who does not read thoroughly is "my gosh - he's anti-homosexual". So I am not even sure if I should address this topic, but what the hell.
First, I don't care what you do with another consenting adult (or group of consenting adults, for that matter) - within certain parameters of public safety and public decency. One should not, for example, hold an orgy on one's front lawn. The public safety bit is a little more difficult to pin down, but hinges on not trying to kill each other during sexual activity. Beyond that, what you do in the bedroom (or any other room for that matter) is nobody's business but the people involved, and anyone else they want to include in the conversation.
But once the term "marriage" gets involved, everyone gets their panties in a twist. Lets try to look at this from a historical perspective first, then move on from there. Both sides of the gay/traditional marriage try to co-opt the history for their own movement, but I am afraid that the heterosexuals win out on the history angle.
But don't throw your hands up in exasperation (if you are for gay marriage) or exultation (if you are for "traditional" marriage) just yet. While the historical precedent for homosexual marriage is really nowhere in any society, save for a few Roman Emperors and other Roman upper echelon folk (where it was clearly an exception to the norm), there is a lot of precedent for homosexual long-term committed relationships; they were simply never called marriages.
In ancient Greece, particularly, it was common for men to take male lovers, because, though you were expected to marry and have a wife who bore you children, women were thought of in many circles as less than men, and only another man could truly understand love (this was not the position of Socrates, interestingly enough, and the way Plato describes it, he had some issues with Athenian men as a result, but that is for another time).
History is rife with examples of this kind of relationship, but it has never been granted the status of "marriage" in any but those rare Roman cases (in one case a male emperor reputedly married a male eunuch who he forced to impersonate the wife that the emperor had killed - I believe that is how the story goes). Marriage has always been a man and a woman, a man and several women, or more rarely a woman and several men.
And this is where I take a bit of an abrupt turn. In all of this discussion, polygamy has a much stronger history than either gay marriage or "traditional" marriage. And yet this is completely excluded from the discussion. Why is it disallowed? Utah was forced to drop polygamy before it was allowed to become a state. There are laws against bigamy all over the place, and yet there is no hue and cry to undo these, even though they are clearly discriminate solely based on a lifestyle choice.
Of course, were polygamy allowed, it would foul up the tax code something fierce - they would have to have different scales for three and four and five adult person households, etc. There are several fairly easy ways around this, but it would take a pretty significant revision of the tax code to deal with it.
The reason, historically, that marriage has been defined as it has is that the family is intended as a medium for procreation and passing on mores, social norms, and customs. Up until recently, this was outside the purview of the homosexual couple. With artificial insemination and adoption being much more available now, as well as homosexuality no longer being considered a mental illness, this is changing. Marriages and families are no longer solely for the generation of children, and there are a number of modern day issues that are important for married couples. The issue of visiting in a hospital and potentially making life-and-death decisions for a spouse is terribly important. Inheritance and jointly owned property and rights upon the death of a spouse are also crucial issues, as are citizenship issues.
But the real problem comes down to the word. Marriage is a religious ceremony, and has sacramental connotations. A church can and should have its own rules about who can or cannot marry (incidentally, the Catholic Church will probably never allow gay marriage until priests are allowed to marry - the celibate priesthood is the one place a devout gay Catholic male can go, and if gays could marry, you would see a radical decline in men becoming priests). The problem becomes severe when the state issues "marriage licences". Of course, a stable family unit is the basis for any society, and this is why the state has always intermingled itself in the marriage business. Especially as the society gets more complex, the legal ramifications of marriage and divorce become extreme.
But here is the real problem: marriage now implies love, even with the state licence. You aren't supposed to marry for the tax benefit (if there is one), and you certainly are not allowed to marry just to grant someone citizenship (this is illegal, I believe). But why not? The state should be involved in only the contractual obligations involved in a marriage - the so-called "civil union" aspects of it. The issue would get a lot clearer if the state just issues civil union licences and gets out of the whole marriage business. Leave that to the churches - the state does not issue Reconciliation, Anointing of the Sick, or any other Sacrament, Catholic or otherwise (and obviously, I am Catholic, which is why I am using the term "Sacrament"). If people have fiscal reasons for engaging in this contract, let them. Of course, what about polygamy? Liberals are going to duck that one forever, because it makes them way more uncomfortable than gay marriage - gay marriage panders to a voting bloc of theirs, polygamy does not.
Long story short, the state should not be in the marriage business, but it should deal with the appropriate legal ramifications of any union in terms of property rights, etc., and the state should provide equal protection to the citizens that make it up (according to the US Constitution), so there is no reason to oppose the state such licences - the term marriage, however should be reserved for the churches, and if the church of which you are a member does not recognize your relationship, join one that does.
Personally, I need neither the state nor a religious institution to validate my relationship - we do that ourselves (with some help from family and friends).
By the way, while I spent a lot of time on the history of marriage, and the heterosexual nature thereof, history itself is not a sufficient reason to be for or against something. History provides context, but it does not provide answers, and we should have the courage to embrace history when it serves us, and discard it when it does not.
A perfect example are the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. These were codified and written out precisely because there was not much historical precedent for them, and the ratifying states wanted guarantees that the Federal government would not overreach.
Both sides of the gay marriage argument want history to be on their side, but it does not matter a whit. What matters is the rights of the individuals involved, and right now the state does a good job of fouling everything up by inserting itself in a religious matter.
That is enough for now, not like anyone will ever read this.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Why Marijuana Should Not Be Legalized
I believe there are several reasons why pot should not be legalized, least among them is the feeling that we should not legalize another intoxicant, but that is not the reason I have for wanting it to remain illegal. The key reasons it should remain illegal are the lack of a reliable test for driving under the influence, and the length of time one remains under the influence of the drug.
The problem with the test for marijuana is that it shows up in the system for 30+ days after use. A person is not impaired for those 30 days, but the drug shows up nonetheless (principally because it is fat absorbed, rather than water absorbed like alcohol). This is a problem because while studies have shown impaired motor and cognitive skills for up to 3 days after using marijuana, the test has no time signature for impairment. What I mean by this is that if one were to use the drug, get pulled over a week later for impaired driving, you would test positive for marijuana even though you were not under the influence while driving. You would then get convicted of driving under the influence of the drug when you actually weren't. A state supreme court (I don't remember which, but I am pretty sure it was a state supreme court, though it may have been a federal appellate court - do a net search if you care) recently prohibited the use of this test in obtaining convictions for precisely this reason - it cannot accurately tell if you were under the influence during the driving incident. Since there is, to my knowledge, no test out there that can actually ascertain the level of marijuana intoxication (analogous to the BAC from a breathalyzer), legalizing would pose a significant problem for "high driving" enforcement.
Of course, pro-legalization folks say that there is no "high driving" problem, and that alcohol causes way more accidents than pot, etc.; these are not good arguments for legalizing pot, they are better arguments for criminalizing alcohol. As the drug is legalized, its use will become more widespread (virtually inevitable - people who might not have tried it when it was unavailable to them may consider it if it is legal) and we may actually start to keep records of marijuana related driving incidents (I don't believe we currently do keep those records - I may be wrong, but I don't know of any).
I already referenced the second reason for maintaining marijuana's current illegal status - it is a fat-absorbed drug. A person stays under the influence much longer and has impaired motor and cognitive functions up to three days after use. Obviously, the impairments grow less severe the further you get from the use date, but the fact is that you remain under the influence of the drug for much longer than alcohol. This is why marijuana is such a powerful psychologically addictive drug. You are seldom not under the influence of the drug if you use even as infrequently as once a week. It does not flush out of one's system easily like alcohol, and consequently, frequent pot smokers never have the "morning after" regret that many alcohol abusers have.
This is what makes alcohol very addictive, because you use more to avoid the regret, but it also is a mitigating factor against addiction - you feel bad after use when the alcohol is out of your system, and you decide to abstain for a while. It is a factor that allows people who generally don't have addictive/compulsive personalities to avoid falling into chronic use.
Marijuana does not clear the system that rapidly so people generally do not get the same regret feeling they get after a binge with alcohol; since the drug lasts in the system so long, and clears out very gradually, the dividing line between the "high" personality and the "sober" personality is blurred.
I do not know any of this from personal experience; those of you who know me know that I have never had a drink or done pot (or anything else for that matter), and some would say that this invalidates my opinion (pure foolishness - I have never raped anyone, yet I still contend that rape is bad). You do not have to engage in a behavior to condemn it, it is a weird kind of antihypocrasy at work in this argument - you don't know the experience so you can't judge... but if I had done it and then deemed it bad, I would be a hypocrite for having done it.
That notwithstanding, I would like to address a couple of the things that I find irritating in the pro-legalization left (particularly the left because it is incompatible with other views of the California left - the pro-pot right, libertarians mostly, irritate me but are more consistent).
The problem with the test for marijuana is that it shows up in the system for 30+ days after use. A person is not impaired for those 30 days, but the drug shows up nonetheless (principally because it is fat absorbed, rather than water absorbed like alcohol). This is a problem because while studies have shown impaired motor and cognitive skills for up to 3 days after using marijuana, the test has no time signature for impairment. What I mean by this is that if one were to use the drug, get pulled over a week later for impaired driving, you would test positive for marijuana even though you were not under the influence while driving. You would then get convicted of driving under the influence of the drug when you actually weren't. A state supreme court (I don't remember which, but I am pretty sure it was a state supreme court, though it may have been a federal appellate court - do a net search if you care) recently prohibited the use of this test in obtaining convictions for precisely this reason - it cannot accurately tell if you were under the influence during the driving incident. Since there is, to my knowledge, no test out there that can actually ascertain the level of marijuana intoxication (analogous to the BAC from a breathalyzer), legalizing would pose a significant problem for "high driving" enforcement.
Of course, pro-legalization folks say that there is no "high driving" problem, and that alcohol causes way more accidents than pot, etc.; these are not good arguments for legalizing pot, they are better arguments for criminalizing alcohol. As the drug is legalized, its use will become more widespread (virtually inevitable - people who might not have tried it when it was unavailable to them may consider it if it is legal) and we may actually start to keep records of marijuana related driving incidents (I don't believe we currently do keep those records - I may be wrong, but I don't know of any).
I already referenced the second reason for maintaining marijuana's current illegal status - it is a fat-absorbed drug. A person stays under the influence much longer and has impaired motor and cognitive functions up to three days after use. Obviously, the impairments grow less severe the further you get from the use date, but the fact is that you remain under the influence of the drug for much longer than alcohol. This is why marijuana is such a powerful psychologically addictive drug. You are seldom not under the influence of the drug if you use even as infrequently as once a week. It does not flush out of one's system easily like alcohol, and consequently, frequent pot smokers never have the "morning after" regret that many alcohol abusers have.
This is what makes alcohol very addictive, because you use more to avoid the regret, but it also is a mitigating factor against addiction - you feel bad after use when the alcohol is out of your system, and you decide to abstain for a while. It is a factor that allows people who generally don't have addictive/compulsive personalities to avoid falling into chronic use.
Marijuana does not clear the system that rapidly so people generally do not get the same regret feeling they get after a binge with alcohol; since the drug lasts in the system so long, and clears out very gradually, the dividing line between the "high" personality and the "sober" personality is blurred.
I do not know any of this from personal experience; those of you who know me know that I have never had a drink or done pot (or anything else for that matter), and some would say that this invalidates my opinion (pure foolishness - I have never raped anyone, yet I still contend that rape is bad). You do not have to engage in a behavior to condemn it, it is a weird kind of antihypocrasy at work in this argument - you don't know the experience so you can't judge... but if I had done it and then deemed it bad, I would be a hypocrite for having done it.
That notwithstanding, I would like to address a couple of the things that I find irritating in the pro-legalization left (particularly the left because it is incompatible with other views of the California left - the pro-pot right, libertarians mostly, irritate me but are more consistent).
- Legalizing will reduce crime - yeah, I guess, in the same way that legalizing anything reduces crime - that act is no longer criminal. As far as any other impact, drug cartels will still bring in heroin and cocaine, whatever pot they bring in they might still to avoid the taxation, but it is just as likely to be replaced with another drug in the shipment - besides, a lot of pot is grown here (ask anyone in Marin) so it will not impact Mexican or Central American cartels.
- Legalizing is a good revenue source - Again, doubtful - if you make the tax too high, there will be a black market for it (hell, there is for cigarettes already to avoid taxes). Why would anyone pay a tax on it if they can grow it themselves, or buy from someone they know with a growing operation - are we going to licence everyone who grows, or will it be illegal to grow, or illegal to sell what you've grown, etc. You open up a can of worms on creating a bureaucracy to just deal with the fact that it is legal. Don't be surprised if it is legalized if the revenues are not as high as you have hoped.
- Kids will not be able to get it - because it will be more available being legal, underage kids won't get it, the same way they don't get alcohol. If you believe that you must be high. Of course kids will get it - they do already, if it is legal, it becomes more available to them, not less.
- It is natural, so it can't be bad for you - Another high thought. I just checked, cobra venom, opium, belladonna, poison oak, poison sumac, trans fats, and a whole crapload of other things are natural - natural does not mean good or bad, just stop saying that pot is natural, man - it just makes you sound stupid. You like getting high because it is fun, it has nothing to do with it being natural. Fess up and move on - that is a perfectly good reason to like getting high.
- First contradiction for the Left - do you know how much fossil fuels are used for the cultivation of marijuana - grow lights, hot houses, etc. That plant is mainly tropical (native to China and India) - to grow it here requires a big indoor operation that sucks up a lot of power. It is not environmentally friendly, it is generally environmentally horrendous. Even outdoor grow operations tend to be bad because of the combinations of fertilizers and pesticides used to maintain the valuable crop - Marin has severe environmental problems from abandoned grow operations, though this may be mitigated if it is no longer illegal (less people will abandon their operations, leaving less environmental harm). I don't believe in the whole anthropogenic climate change thing, but if you do, Mary Jane ain't helping, and you should stop its use just to save the environment.
- Second contradiction for the Left - The federal government has primacy over state governments. This is a big argument as to why Arizona can't have its own immigration policies, why nationalized mandates for health care purchases are fine, antidiscrimination laws, and a whole host of other things. Of course, Arizona can't make a law that deals with immigration (even if it is remarkably similar to the federal statute), but California can make laws in direct opposition to federal law? At least try to be a little consistent. Personally, I think that the federal government may have overstepped its bounds in criminalizing drugs, but the interstate commerce clause could be used as justification. (interestingly enough, the only president who presided over an administration where more money was spent on treatment rather than on enforcement was Richard Nixon - put that in your pipe and smoke it ;)
- Third contradiction for the Left - the war on drugs and its cost. The general way that this has been put has been akin to "we spend too much money, yet drugs are still a problem, people still use, you are filling the jails with people whose only crime was the drug, etc". The gist of the argument is that we do not get enough bang for our buck - this seems to be the only place where the Left is fiscally conservative. The same argument could be made for Johnson's War on Poverty - we have spent a ton of money on welfare programs, and people are still poor. We should stop trying to make people not poor. Of course that would be ridiculous, but it is the exact same argument used against the War on Drugs. Stop demonizing poverty, allow those people to choose to be poor, the war on poverty is an abject failure, and we shouldn't waste our money on it. The answer the Left sees is -continue spending inefficiently on the war on poverty, even though the ideas haven't worked, stop spending on the war on drugs, even though the ideas haven't worked (obviously, the right is guilty of similar folly, but I would argue that some aspects of the war on drugs have worked, but that is for another time). A similar issue is in the criminalization of firearms - we have strict laws, yet there are still gun crimes. What's the answer - more gun laws - the exact opposite of their conclusion on drug laws. And guns are specifically enumerated as protected in the Constitution.
I could go on, but I am not going to, because I am bored of writing. The last bit is just a tirade against logical inconsistencies I perceive on the Left. Yes, I know that you could point out similar inconsistencies for the Right (but not for me, I would hope), but that does not invalidate the illogical stances of the Left (arguments of "you do it too" are fallacious and do not actually render the point of contention moot, much as people may like them to).
Monday, July 5, 2010
Why Muni Drivers Suck
So, this blog is about a week and a half out of date - I don't know if the issue has been solved yet, but I do know that Muni workers in SF are out of touch with reality. I heard a couple of blurbs on KCBS (FM 106.9, AM 740) talking about contract negotiations with San Francisco, and the Muni drivers refusing to accept a "pay cut". When the radio news went into further detail, it turns out that they were not even being asked to accept a pay cut, they were being asked to relinquish an 8% pay increase that was scheduled to happen in July or August (I think, I don't remember the actual time frame, but the important point is that it was a scheduled raise, not a cut in anyone's actually salary).
According to SF statute, Muni drivers must make at least the second highest wage in the nation for their business. I don't know if the scheduled raise was to make sure that this remained the case, but notwithstanding, they were being asked to forgo a pay increase not accept a wage reduction. I don't know of anyone who budgets based on what they are going to make rather than on what they do make (except the government, of course), so as far as an impact on the drivers lives, it sucks, but at least you get what you got in previous years.
Police and firefighters have accepted actual cuts in salaries, and I sympathize with them far more than with Muni drivers. Police and firefighters provide a service for all members of the community that is completely essential and they agreed to cut their salaries for the good of the community. Muni drivers are non-essential, and they do not serve all of the community (not everyone requires public transportation, but we all have to fund it). I am not saying that public transportation is unimportant, I just feel that other services are more important. Even people in Supergoober's line of work have taken a pay cut, and teachers have been laid off, but Muni - heavens no, we can't take a pay cut...
And that leads me to the two people who were interviewed - the one sound bite that they played of a woman saying "Take a pay cut, how do they expect us to live!" She sounded offended at the notion that she would have to tighten her belt somewhat, and it was then revealed that she makes $84,000 a year. So she would still be making that amount of money, she just wouldn't be getting an 8% raise on top of that (which would put her at $90,720 a year). Her current income is well over the SF median household income of about $65,000, and also a bit over the median family income of about $81,000. (household income includes all income earners in a house even if their is only one member of the household, while family income is restricted to households of 2 or more related by blood or marriage)
Either way, $84,000 a year is enough to live on. You may be forced to make difficult decisions, but it is entirely possible to do in the Bay Area. The outrage that was evident in her tone was ridiculous, especially given the sacrifices other, more essential, city employees have made. Couple that with the benefits package that Muni drivers get, and you have a fairly good living.
The other person who was quoted stated that he received about $68,000 a year, and that he had a $4800 a month mortgage. I don't know how he qualified for that loan, or if he has another income, but if it is only him then his mortgage is approximately 85% of his gross income. Either he was one of the people who should not have bought a house and got sold a bad loan (negatively amortized for three years, then adjustable, or some other such nonsense), or he has another income in the household to help out, or he is lying about his mortgage (which I doubt - $4800 a month would be an unusual number to make up). Whatever the situation is, it is not my responsibility to make up for his overextending himself. He did that of his own free will, and if there were bankers or Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac egging him on, it doesn't matter. He could have actually read the loan documents or asked for help if he needed it. He signed his name a bunch of times in the purchase of a home, and you engage in a contract when you do that. It is nobody's fault but your own if you are stuck in that situation (unless someone lied to him about how the loan worked - a completely different situation). San Franciscans should not have to foot the bill for this guys irresponsible behavior by guaranteeing him a job. That has nothing to do with the salary issue that was being discussed, he just played the pity card of "I live in an expensive city with a high mortgage"; of course, implicit in that statement is "don't make me change my lifestyle - I should be allowed to live past my means with no penalty, and you should make sure I am compensated for my own lack of foresight".
Many people have tried to make this a race issue, and I honestly don't know enough about the racial demographics of the situation to say that it is entirely untrue, but I do know that other city workers have made concessions and the Muni Drivers have refused. Incorporating the pay into the City Charter was supposed to make bargaining about other things easier (I don't know who thought that would actually work, but someone did), and, predictably, the opposite happened. If your wages are guaranteed by law, why would you concede anything else. That kind of guarantee breeds an arrogance in the worker/union, because they know that they are untouchable. If you get to have a pay guarantee even if you are doing a craptastic job, you will eventually get workers who want to be compensated well no matter what they do, and no matter what the situation.
The fact that other city workers have made concessions highlights the main difference between people who go into those lines of work, and people who go into Muni - most other public services require somewhat of a sacrifice. No one becomes a cop, a firefighter, a city mental health worker, etc. because they want to get rich - many do it because they feel they owe something to the community (are there people in these professions who don't have that motivation - certainly, probably quite a few, but I am characterizing the bulk of people in public service). People go into public service because they want to give something back, but Muni has never fostered that attitude. It seems like Muni actually runs counter to the "service attitude" that most idealists have when they embark in a public service career. I do not know how to fix that, but I do believe that the heart of the problem lies right there. It has more to do with attitude than race or socioeconomic status of the drivers. It seems like they have never seen themselves as "public servants", which is the ideal attitude for any public employee.
I am not alleging all Muni drivers suck, that title was just a snapshot of my emotional reaction when I heard the story, and just like not all public servants outside of Muni have what I called the "service attitude", not everyone in Muni has the "you owe me attitude" either. But when the majority in a profession like Muni votes down concessions, my impression of Muni is what counts, because that will be the emotional response of many people besides myself (which is why Muni tried to keep its workers from making any comments).
According to SF statute, Muni drivers must make at least the second highest wage in the nation for their business. I don't know if the scheduled raise was to make sure that this remained the case, but notwithstanding, they were being asked to forgo a pay increase not accept a wage reduction. I don't know of anyone who budgets based on what they are going to make rather than on what they do make (except the government, of course), so as far as an impact on the drivers lives, it sucks, but at least you get what you got in previous years.
Police and firefighters have accepted actual cuts in salaries, and I sympathize with them far more than with Muni drivers. Police and firefighters provide a service for all members of the community that is completely essential and they agreed to cut their salaries for the good of the community. Muni drivers are non-essential, and they do not serve all of the community (not everyone requires public transportation, but we all have to fund it). I am not saying that public transportation is unimportant, I just feel that other services are more important. Even people in Supergoober's line of work have taken a pay cut, and teachers have been laid off, but Muni - heavens no, we can't take a pay cut...
And that leads me to the two people who were interviewed - the one sound bite that they played of a woman saying "Take a pay cut, how do they expect us to live!" She sounded offended at the notion that she would have to tighten her belt somewhat, and it was then revealed that she makes $84,000 a year. So she would still be making that amount of money, she just wouldn't be getting an 8% raise on top of that (which would put her at $90,720 a year). Her current income is well over the SF median household income of about $65,000, and also a bit over the median family income of about $81,000. (household income includes all income earners in a house even if their is only one member of the household, while family income is restricted to households of 2 or more related by blood or marriage)
Either way, $84,000 a year is enough to live on. You may be forced to make difficult decisions, but it is entirely possible to do in the Bay Area. The outrage that was evident in her tone was ridiculous, especially given the sacrifices other, more essential, city employees have made. Couple that with the benefits package that Muni drivers get, and you have a fairly good living.
The other person who was quoted stated that he received about $68,000 a year, and that he had a $4800 a month mortgage. I don't know how he qualified for that loan, or if he has another income, but if it is only him then his mortgage is approximately 85% of his gross income. Either he was one of the people who should not have bought a house and got sold a bad loan (negatively amortized for three years, then adjustable, or some other such nonsense), or he has another income in the household to help out, or he is lying about his mortgage (which I doubt - $4800 a month would be an unusual number to make up). Whatever the situation is, it is not my responsibility to make up for his overextending himself. He did that of his own free will, and if there were bankers or Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac egging him on, it doesn't matter. He could have actually read the loan documents or asked for help if he needed it. He signed his name a bunch of times in the purchase of a home, and you engage in a contract when you do that. It is nobody's fault but your own if you are stuck in that situation (unless someone lied to him about how the loan worked - a completely different situation). San Franciscans should not have to foot the bill for this guys irresponsible behavior by guaranteeing him a job. That has nothing to do with the salary issue that was being discussed, he just played the pity card of "I live in an expensive city with a high mortgage"; of course, implicit in that statement is "don't make me change my lifestyle - I should be allowed to live past my means with no penalty, and you should make sure I am compensated for my own lack of foresight".
Many people have tried to make this a race issue, and I honestly don't know enough about the racial demographics of the situation to say that it is entirely untrue, but I do know that other city workers have made concessions and the Muni Drivers have refused. Incorporating the pay into the City Charter was supposed to make bargaining about other things easier (I don't know who thought that would actually work, but someone did), and, predictably, the opposite happened. If your wages are guaranteed by law, why would you concede anything else. That kind of guarantee breeds an arrogance in the worker/union, because they know that they are untouchable. If you get to have a pay guarantee even if you are doing a craptastic job, you will eventually get workers who want to be compensated well no matter what they do, and no matter what the situation.
The fact that other city workers have made concessions highlights the main difference between people who go into those lines of work, and people who go into Muni - most other public services require somewhat of a sacrifice. No one becomes a cop, a firefighter, a city mental health worker, etc. because they want to get rich - many do it because they feel they owe something to the community (are there people in these professions who don't have that motivation - certainly, probably quite a few, but I am characterizing the bulk of people in public service). People go into public service because they want to give something back, but Muni has never fostered that attitude. It seems like Muni actually runs counter to the "service attitude" that most idealists have when they embark in a public service career. I do not know how to fix that, but I do believe that the heart of the problem lies right there. It has more to do with attitude than race or socioeconomic status of the drivers. It seems like they have never seen themselves as "public servants", which is the ideal attitude for any public employee.
I am not alleging all Muni drivers suck, that title was just a snapshot of my emotional reaction when I heard the story, and just like not all public servants outside of Muni have what I called the "service attitude", not everyone in Muni has the "you owe me attitude" either. But when the majority in a profession like Muni votes down concessions, my impression of Muni is what counts, because that will be the emotional response of many people besides myself (which is why Muni tried to keep its workers from making any comments).
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Back again, but no one is listening
So, on the Johannes Mehserle trial, interestingly enough he testified on my birthday, the anniversary of another "black" man being killed - Michael Jackson. The reason I bring this up is because of the charge of second degree murder.
Murder in the California penal code is defined as follows:
187. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.
Obviously, the statute has been amended to account for lawful termination of a fetus with the "Therapeutic Abortion Act", and that is not part of the discussion.
First and second degrees are differentiated as well. Malice can be expressed or implied, with expressed being the deliberate intention to unlawfully take a life, and implied being without provocation or when circumstances show an "abandoned or malignant heart"
First degree is deliberate and premeditated or done in the pursuit of a number of other felonies. All other murder is second degree. Under this definition, what Mehserle did could be considered 2nd degree murder, but it will be difficult to prove the abandoned or malignant heart. The attorneys should be going for the "without provocation" angle, because he shot the guy in the back when he was no apparent threat. That would be easier to prove, because just proving he was mad is not enough to be "malignant". If it was, spousal abusers would not get manslaughter, nor would people who stabbed someone in a bar fight. Clearly, the weapon in a bar fight can kill and to stab someone while you are angry generally means you want them dead. That is still only manslaughter (heat of passion is how it is generally referred to).
Voluntary manslaughter is the "heat of passion" or in a "quarrel" while involuntary is in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony, or a lawful act that results in an unlawful death or without caution and circumspection.
So while he could be guilty of 2nd degree murder, and depending on the evidence may be convicted thereof, it is more likely that he is guilty of either voluntary or involuntary manslaughter, especially given the tack that the prosecution is taking.
The fact that the judge instructed the jury to consider lesser included charges is probably the best thing. I am sure the defense did not want this, because if they only had 2nd degree murder to choose, they would either acquit or be a hung jury.
Which brings me back to Michael Jackson. Much is being made of a Bart officer shooting an unarmed black man in the back (as much should be made of this - not because of his race but because of his unarmed and non-threatening status at the time), and in large part it is because a "white" officer is shooting a "black" man. The fact that Bart officers are notoriously under-trained and do not deal with stressful situations well is not being taken into account because of the racial undertones.
However, a much more credible case could be made for prosecuting Michael Jackson's doctor for murder - he was supplying him illegally with drugs that he knew were both illegal and life-threatening in the dosages and manner in which he prescribed them. Any reasonable person with the amount of training of a doctor should know exactly what those drugs do, that they are illegal for the purpose which he was prescribing them, and that the loss of life was an inevitable outcome from continued prescription of said drugs. An argument could be made that, since death is a reasonable outcome from these drugs, that injecting Michael Jackson with them amounts to "circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned or malignant heart".
Obviously, this is a bit of a reach, and the charge of manslaughter in this case is also more appropriate, but a trained physician with a syringe and a lust for money from famous people is a dangerous commodity as is an untrained, armed officer. The fact that the Michael Jackson probably requested the shot is what likely makes the difference to most people, and race ceases to be a factor. I would argue that it should not be a factor in either case, as Mehserle, in all likelihood, was so poorly trained that given a similar situation with a white, Hispanic, or Asian offender, it is highly probable that the same thing would have happened.
The real tragedy is that this gives the Oakland community one more reason to not trust the police, and thus makes Oakland, ultimately, a less safe place - if you don't trust the police, you don't report crimes. Gangs and criminals know this and exploit it.
My next two blogs, hopefully soon, will encompass the following topics:
Murder in the California penal code is defined as follows:
187. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.
Obviously, the statute has been amended to account for lawful termination of a fetus with the "Therapeutic Abortion Act", and that is not part of the discussion.
First and second degrees are differentiated as well. Malice can be expressed or implied, with expressed being the deliberate intention to unlawfully take a life, and implied being without provocation or when circumstances show an "abandoned or malignant heart"
First degree is deliberate and premeditated or done in the pursuit of a number of other felonies. All other murder is second degree. Under this definition, what Mehserle did could be considered 2nd degree murder, but it will be difficult to prove the abandoned or malignant heart. The attorneys should be going for the "without provocation" angle, because he shot the guy in the back when he was no apparent threat. That would be easier to prove, because just proving he was mad is not enough to be "malignant". If it was, spousal abusers would not get manslaughter, nor would people who stabbed someone in a bar fight. Clearly, the weapon in a bar fight can kill and to stab someone while you are angry generally means you want them dead. That is still only manslaughter (heat of passion is how it is generally referred to).
Voluntary manslaughter is the "heat of passion" or in a "quarrel" while involuntary is in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony, or a lawful act that results in an unlawful death or without caution and circumspection.
So while he could be guilty of 2nd degree murder, and depending on the evidence may be convicted thereof, it is more likely that he is guilty of either voluntary or involuntary manslaughter, especially given the tack that the prosecution is taking.
The fact that the judge instructed the jury to consider lesser included charges is probably the best thing. I am sure the defense did not want this, because if they only had 2nd degree murder to choose, they would either acquit or be a hung jury.
Which brings me back to Michael Jackson. Much is being made of a Bart officer shooting an unarmed black man in the back (as much should be made of this - not because of his race but because of his unarmed and non-threatening status at the time), and in large part it is because a "white" officer is shooting a "black" man. The fact that Bart officers are notoriously under-trained and do not deal with stressful situations well is not being taken into account because of the racial undertones.
However, a much more credible case could be made for prosecuting Michael Jackson's doctor for murder - he was supplying him illegally with drugs that he knew were both illegal and life-threatening in the dosages and manner in which he prescribed them. Any reasonable person with the amount of training of a doctor should know exactly what those drugs do, that they are illegal for the purpose which he was prescribing them, and that the loss of life was an inevitable outcome from continued prescription of said drugs. An argument could be made that, since death is a reasonable outcome from these drugs, that injecting Michael Jackson with them amounts to "circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned or malignant heart".
Obviously, this is a bit of a reach, and the charge of manslaughter in this case is also more appropriate, but a trained physician with a syringe and a lust for money from famous people is a dangerous commodity as is an untrained, armed officer. The fact that the Michael Jackson probably requested the shot is what likely makes the difference to most people, and race ceases to be a factor. I would argue that it should not be a factor in either case, as Mehserle, in all likelihood, was so poorly trained that given a similar situation with a white, Hispanic, or Asian offender, it is highly probable that the same thing would have happened.
The real tragedy is that this gives the Oakland community one more reason to not trust the police, and thus makes Oakland, ultimately, a less safe place - if you don't trust the police, you don't report crimes. Gangs and criminals know this and exploit it.
My next two blogs, hopefully soon, will encompass the following topics:
- Legalizing marijuana - why I believe it is a bad idea (and, no, it is not a moral argument against intoxicants, marijuana is likely innocuous enough in that regard, nor will I use a "gateway" drug argument)
- A dream that I had the morning of June 20th. I only slept for about 2 hours that night (the 19th, Sunday night) and I had a dream so vivid and memorable it was like watching a movie, or watching one of the GMs game come to life - in fact there were elements of sci-fi and "Star Fleet" from our game involved. This may bore you, but probably no more so than anything else I write. Supergoober and the GM both figured prominently in it for a while, and it was like we were all characters in a game.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
You Can't Legislate Morality... Except Mine
No, I am not referring to MY morality in the title of the blog, but I am referring to a pervasive attitude on the left and right, though, of course, given my own inclinations, I will tend to indict the left a bit more in this blog. What really crystallized this thought in my head was something that theacupuncturist said in our last gaming session, when we started talking about torture. TheGM's response was logical as ever, mine was noncommittal at times, and Devil's advocate at times (big surprise) but tended to agree with the pragmatic view of theGM, while sympathizing and, in many ways, agreeing with, theacupuncturist.
But here is the thing, theacupuncturist stated that it was categorically wrong to torture, and any gain is essentially mitigated by the moral loss (you did not use the word moral, but I can't remember the word you did use, sorry). That is what started my train of thought, and I am not faulting you, acupuncturist. To my knowledge, you have never used the "you can't legislate morality" line, nor do I think you believe it (I don't know for sure, sorry if the attribution is incorrect). But the Left does state that torture is wrong - there are no excuses or mitigating circumstances. I have, in fact, heard this from people who have used the aforementioned quote on morality. This opposition to torture is, in fact, purely a moral stance.
And as I thought more, I was struck by the fallacious reasoning of both the Left and the Right. If a person is "pro-life" they are likely to be attacked as "forcing their morals" on others, "not living in the real world", or "not understanding the plight of women". Of course the pro-life person will stick up for their moral cause, defining their position as morally superior.
Now on the left, someone may be opposed to torture. The right will indict that person as not "understanding the realities of the situation", "not living in the real world", or "not caring about the soldiers at risk". The anti-torture person will, of course, feel morally superior (but in most cases not identify it as such, because the left is largely secularized) and stick up for their moral cause.
And this caused me to think even further. Most of the Left's positions are actually moral stances - in fact, Supergoober, I recall you talking about our moral imperative to assist the poor and downtrodden, and I made a flippant comment about "legislating morality" (around the last presidential election, if you recall). I thought of it then but have given it more thought of late. The left does essentially demonize anyone who does not buy in to their agenda as lacking "compassion" and "not caring". Of course, the agenda is purely a moral one - if there is no moral obligation to help the poor, why should we do it? There are no rational reasons to help the poor; in fact, purely rational thought without regard to human dignity would conclude - "exploit the poor" - something both capitalism and socialism have done (though I would argue that lightly regulated capitalism favors freedom and human dignity far more than socialism, but that is for another blog). Of course the key phrase above is "without regard to human dignity", and the left might counter with the fact that the reason for their stance on poverty and assistance is because of human dignity.
Of course, I would counter with the fact that "human dignity" is a moral concept - try to "prove" it rationally - it is, I think, impossible, because you have to differentiate humanity from nature in order to do this, because the natural order in both plants and animals is "kill or be killed". The lion does not recognize the inherent dignity of the gazelle, or even of the other lions (a pride leader will kill cubs from any other male to ensure only his survive). Yes, there are symbiotic and/or mutualistic relationships in the animal kingdom, but these do not arise out of the "dignity" of any creature. Dignity is a purely moral concept, and therefore, I would argue, most of what the left does is actually legislate morality.
I do not believe this is wrong - you must, on some level, legislate morality, and laws are an attempt to get people to adhere to a certain common moral and legal structure. I just find that the left seems to be very disingenuous about this, probably even with themselves.
The real problem is that not all morality can be legislated, and it is much easier to prohibit bad behavior (murder and rape, for example) that to mandate good behavior or thought (caring and charity, for example). This is where religion is eminently useful in a society. The government can enforce a certain type of morality banning extremes, but cannot make people be good, or even teach them what good is in many cases.
For example, it is understood that it is good to be polite and respectful of ones elders. You cannot pass laws that mandate this, but religion is really useful in passing on these good behaviors. Of course, families are adept at transmitting these values as well, but the underlying structure of a religion serves to reinforce these rules and social mores. The mistake most atheists and atheist philosophers make is that they forget that they and their fellow human beings are raised in societies with these social structures firmly in place - they think that the religion is merely a vestige and that the moral stability of the individual can survive intact without it. And it probably can, for several generations. But without the underlying structure to reinforce this form of morality, it can easily degenerate or pervert to unrecognizable states. Think of how common pressuring a girl into sex is nowadays - it was always something boys tried, but their used to be social regimes in place that discouraged that behavior. Now, I think it is more common for young girls to feel guilty for not "putting out" - an outgrowth of the "sexual revolution". I am not trying to say that promiscuity is evil or that adults engaging is consensual sex should be prohibited, I am just trying to pin down the negative effects some seemingly liberating movements can have.
I have gone rather far afield here, and have probably rambled more than usual - I am on some pain medication right now (cyclobenzaprine), see I was watching the Giants game in my garage, while doing some cleaning. After a disastrous seventh inning that saw the two run lead turn into a one run deficit, I wanted to shut of the game. I left it on, however, and continued to work on cleaning. In a few minutes I heard a crack of the bat, and the announcer shouting - so I looked up and saw a two run homer for the Giants. I was uncharacteristically excited about this and jumped up into the air for some silly reason (those of you who know me know that I seldom get excited about such things). Of course, I was standing right under the metal track for the garage door, the far end of which is quite sharp, and about 6' 5" off of the ground. Since I am about 6' 2" or so, my leap caused me to collide with this rail, cutting my the top of my head open, and snapping my neck back - after a couple of minutes of dealing with the pain and bleeding, my vision started to blur and I got really nauseous - this only lasted about a minute, then my wife (who I had called in the intervening minutes) got there and took me to Kaiser emergency - I was admitted and treated very quickly, the whole thing being over about an hour and a half after I got there, ending with me with a tetanus shot and seven staples in my head.
I am officially an idiot :)
But here is the thing, theacupuncturist stated that it was categorically wrong to torture, and any gain is essentially mitigated by the moral loss (you did not use the word moral, but I can't remember the word you did use, sorry). That is what started my train of thought, and I am not faulting you, acupuncturist. To my knowledge, you have never used the "you can't legislate morality" line, nor do I think you believe it (I don't know for sure, sorry if the attribution is incorrect). But the Left does state that torture is wrong - there are no excuses or mitigating circumstances. I have, in fact, heard this from people who have used the aforementioned quote on morality. This opposition to torture is, in fact, purely a moral stance.
And as I thought more, I was struck by the fallacious reasoning of both the Left and the Right. If a person is "pro-life" they are likely to be attacked as "forcing their morals" on others, "not living in the real world", or "not understanding the plight of women". Of course the pro-life person will stick up for their moral cause, defining their position as morally superior.
Now on the left, someone may be opposed to torture. The right will indict that person as not "understanding the realities of the situation", "not living in the real world", or "not caring about the soldiers at risk". The anti-torture person will, of course, feel morally superior (but in most cases not identify it as such, because the left is largely secularized) and stick up for their moral cause.
And this caused me to think even further. Most of the Left's positions are actually moral stances - in fact, Supergoober, I recall you talking about our moral imperative to assist the poor and downtrodden, and I made a flippant comment about "legislating morality" (around the last presidential election, if you recall). I thought of it then but have given it more thought of late. The left does essentially demonize anyone who does not buy in to their agenda as lacking "compassion" and "not caring". Of course, the agenda is purely a moral one - if there is no moral obligation to help the poor, why should we do it? There are no rational reasons to help the poor; in fact, purely rational thought without regard to human dignity would conclude - "exploit the poor" - something both capitalism and socialism have done (though I would argue that lightly regulated capitalism favors freedom and human dignity far more than socialism, but that is for another blog). Of course the key phrase above is "without regard to human dignity", and the left might counter with the fact that the reason for their stance on poverty and assistance is because of human dignity.
Of course, I would counter with the fact that "human dignity" is a moral concept - try to "prove" it rationally - it is, I think, impossible, because you have to differentiate humanity from nature in order to do this, because the natural order in both plants and animals is "kill or be killed". The lion does not recognize the inherent dignity of the gazelle, or even of the other lions (a pride leader will kill cubs from any other male to ensure only his survive). Yes, there are symbiotic and/or mutualistic relationships in the animal kingdom, but these do not arise out of the "dignity" of any creature. Dignity is a purely moral concept, and therefore, I would argue, most of what the left does is actually legislate morality.
I do not believe this is wrong - you must, on some level, legislate morality, and laws are an attempt to get people to adhere to a certain common moral and legal structure. I just find that the left seems to be very disingenuous about this, probably even with themselves.
The real problem is that not all morality can be legislated, and it is much easier to prohibit bad behavior (murder and rape, for example) that to mandate good behavior or thought (caring and charity, for example). This is where religion is eminently useful in a society. The government can enforce a certain type of morality banning extremes, but cannot make people be good, or even teach them what good is in many cases.
For example, it is understood that it is good to be polite and respectful of ones elders. You cannot pass laws that mandate this, but religion is really useful in passing on these good behaviors. Of course, families are adept at transmitting these values as well, but the underlying structure of a religion serves to reinforce these rules and social mores. The mistake most atheists and atheist philosophers make is that they forget that they and their fellow human beings are raised in societies with these social structures firmly in place - they think that the religion is merely a vestige and that the moral stability of the individual can survive intact without it. And it probably can, for several generations. But without the underlying structure to reinforce this form of morality, it can easily degenerate or pervert to unrecognizable states. Think of how common pressuring a girl into sex is nowadays - it was always something boys tried, but their used to be social regimes in place that discouraged that behavior. Now, I think it is more common for young girls to feel guilty for not "putting out" - an outgrowth of the "sexual revolution". I am not trying to say that promiscuity is evil or that adults engaging is consensual sex should be prohibited, I am just trying to pin down the negative effects some seemingly liberating movements can have.
I have gone rather far afield here, and have probably rambled more than usual - I am on some pain medication right now (cyclobenzaprine), see I was watching the Giants game in my garage, while doing some cleaning. After a disastrous seventh inning that saw the two run lead turn into a one run deficit, I wanted to shut of the game. I left it on, however, and continued to work on cleaning. In a few minutes I heard a crack of the bat, and the announcer shouting - so I looked up and saw a two run homer for the Giants. I was uncharacteristically excited about this and jumped up into the air for some silly reason (those of you who know me know that I seldom get excited about such things). Of course, I was standing right under the metal track for the garage door, the far end of which is quite sharp, and about 6' 5" off of the ground. Since I am about 6' 2" or so, my leap caused me to collide with this rail, cutting my the top of my head open, and snapping my neck back - after a couple of minutes of dealing with the pain and bleeding, my vision started to blur and I got really nauseous - this only lasted about a minute, then my wife (who I had called in the intervening minutes) got there and took me to Kaiser emergency - I was admitted and treated very quickly, the whole thing being over about an hour and a half after I got there, ending with me with a tetanus shot and seven staples in my head.
I am officially an idiot :)
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Just a quick blurb...
...about the new home buyers $6500 tax credit. First and foremost, it shows that the Democrats concede that tax cuts can stimulate an economy, but that notwithstanding, it is not the greatest idea, and it will not stimulate the housing market long term. All you have to do is know how people think and work to understand that.
And this is the downfall of many economic thinkers - they fail to see the ramifications of how people react to changing situations. All economic systems have people at their heart, and people do interesting (and, at times, predictable) things. Having this tax credit for new and repeat home buyers (that was added in the last extension, with some wording to head off people buying investment property) expire on May 1st shifts the dynamics of the real estate market. Of course people are clamoring to buy right now - there is a huge incentive. Remember, this is a tax credit, not a write-off... the $6500 comes off of what you owe, not off of your income to calculate what you owe, which means that many people will be getting $6500 more on their tax returns.
But that sounds great, you say, and I say "Nay, nay". The problem is multifaceted now. You have shifted the buying trend, so don't be shocked if the summer (a traditionally good time in real estate) has a sharp decline in sales - people shifted their buying window forward slightly, this did not mean that more people necessarily are buying homes, and it did not make those homes more affordable. In fact, given the stringent lending requirements now, I would warrant that only upper-middle class to wealthy people can cash in on this credit. It might help some in the middle class, but it certainly does not make the homes more affordable to the poor (this is just an impression - I do not have the stats to back it up, but it seems to make logical sense - not that this program really is targeting the poor, I believe it is intended to help the middle class, but my impression is that it will only help the upper-middle to upper class groups).
Also, this will artificially boost home prices - people are fighting to get into homes and get them closed by the end of May (the closing deadline in the law). All that this will do is artificially inflate home prices and cause a "mini-bubble" in price. Again, don't be surprised to see home values fall (slightly) the two quarters after the program ends. Of course, the government could continue the program, but that still delays the inevitable and tries to artificially prop up home values.
Of course, this ultimately hurts the consumer, the lender, and the market. With values artificially high, more people will get into the homes at an inflated price and be shocked when the value falls. Lenders will have assets that do not match the values (not as big a concern because they are doing less "sub-prime" lending (sub-prime refers to the credit of the borrower, not the type of loan - "sub-prime" borrowers have credit that makes them a risky investment for the bank)), and if someone forecloses, the banks are stuck with a home that does not match the value of the loan that it made. Of course, the market suffers because the manipulations by the government will (and are) cause large fluctuations in the market, leaving investors, buyers, and sellers in a state of shock.
The best thing the government could do is to stay out of housing, let the home values correct on their own (of course, this doesn't account for the other silly program forbidding banks from foreclosing on properties until it is verified that the homeowners don't qualify for federal assistance - that won't hurt a bank's liquidity or willingness to loan money, will it? (note heavy sarcasm)), and allow the consumers who have been smart with their money to benefit, rather than bailing out people who have foolishly flung money down a rat hole.
Of course, this means that some people will be upside-down in their loans, but why is that a problem. Long term the value will go up and correct, but even if it doesn't you ultimately own an asset, free and clear. If you paid too much, too bad. You will be paying far more than the value of the home in interest anyway, and nobody makes noise about that (which is essentially the same phenomenon - paying more than the value of the property). And why isn't anyone up-in-arms about being upside-down in their car loan? You are upside-down in that the moment you drive off the lot. Shouldn't we have a federal program to rectify that? What if I wreck my car and I am not as lucky as Supergoober? Shouldn't the rest of you bail me out?
Of course not, but we have sentimentality (understandably so) attached to home-ownership. The fact is, however, that even with this sentimentality, we can incentivize home-ownership without destroying the market. Give the tax write-off that we currently get and the market will (ultimately) do just fine. If you want lower-middle class (and lower income) people to own property, federal subsidies will work, but you must make sure that the subsidy is not in the form of a loan that the person can never pay back and that there is still the perception that the person is spending a significant amount of his/her own money to purchase the residence (to instill pride in ownership - if that is lacking, well, that is another blog, now isn't it?). trying to get everyone to own is foolish, our system is supposed to guarantee opportunity, not outcome - that can never be guaranteed (see the next blog). And yes, we should work to provide people with opportunities, but people have to fend for themselves and deal with the consequences of being a living agent with free will. Sorry, but life is not perfect, nor will it ever be.
And this is the downfall of many economic thinkers - they fail to see the ramifications of how people react to changing situations. All economic systems have people at their heart, and people do interesting (and, at times, predictable) things. Having this tax credit for new and repeat home buyers (that was added in the last extension, with some wording to head off people buying investment property) expire on May 1st shifts the dynamics of the real estate market. Of course people are clamoring to buy right now - there is a huge incentive. Remember, this is a tax credit, not a write-off... the $6500 comes off of what you owe, not off of your income to calculate what you owe, which means that many people will be getting $6500 more on their tax returns.
But that sounds great, you say, and I say "Nay, nay". The problem is multifaceted now. You have shifted the buying trend, so don't be shocked if the summer (a traditionally good time in real estate) has a sharp decline in sales - people shifted their buying window forward slightly, this did not mean that more people necessarily are buying homes, and it did not make those homes more affordable. In fact, given the stringent lending requirements now, I would warrant that only upper-middle class to wealthy people can cash in on this credit. It might help some in the middle class, but it certainly does not make the homes more affordable to the poor (this is just an impression - I do not have the stats to back it up, but it seems to make logical sense - not that this program really is targeting the poor, I believe it is intended to help the middle class, but my impression is that it will only help the upper-middle to upper class groups).
Also, this will artificially boost home prices - people are fighting to get into homes and get them closed by the end of May (the closing deadline in the law). All that this will do is artificially inflate home prices and cause a "mini-bubble" in price. Again, don't be surprised to see home values fall (slightly) the two quarters after the program ends. Of course, the government could continue the program, but that still delays the inevitable and tries to artificially prop up home values.
Of course, this ultimately hurts the consumer, the lender, and the market. With values artificially high, more people will get into the homes at an inflated price and be shocked when the value falls. Lenders will have assets that do not match the values (not as big a concern because they are doing less "sub-prime" lending (sub-prime refers to the credit of the borrower, not the type of loan - "sub-prime" borrowers have credit that makes them a risky investment for the bank)), and if someone forecloses, the banks are stuck with a home that does not match the value of the loan that it made. Of course, the market suffers because the manipulations by the government will (and are) cause large fluctuations in the market, leaving investors, buyers, and sellers in a state of shock.
The best thing the government could do is to stay out of housing, let the home values correct on their own (of course, this doesn't account for the other silly program forbidding banks from foreclosing on properties until it is verified that the homeowners don't qualify for federal assistance - that won't hurt a bank's liquidity or willingness to loan money, will it? (note heavy sarcasm)), and allow the consumers who have been smart with their money to benefit, rather than bailing out people who have foolishly flung money down a rat hole.
Of course, this means that some people will be upside-down in their loans, but why is that a problem. Long term the value will go up and correct, but even if it doesn't you ultimately own an asset, free and clear. If you paid too much, too bad. You will be paying far more than the value of the home in interest anyway, and nobody makes noise about that (which is essentially the same phenomenon - paying more than the value of the property). And why isn't anyone up-in-arms about being upside-down in their car loan? You are upside-down in that the moment you drive off the lot. Shouldn't we have a federal program to rectify that? What if I wreck my car and I am not as lucky as Supergoober? Shouldn't the rest of you bail me out?
Of course not, but we have sentimentality (understandably so) attached to home-ownership. The fact is, however, that even with this sentimentality, we can incentivize home-ownership without destroying the market. Give the tax write-off that we currently get and the market will (ultimately) do just fine. If you want lower-middle class (and lower income) people to own property, federal subsidies will work, but you must make sure that the subsidy is not in the form of a loan that the person can never pay back and that there is still the perception that the person is spending a significant amount of his/her own money to purchase the residence (to instill pride in ownership - if that is lacking, well, that is another blog, now isn't it?). trying to get everyone to own is foolish, our system is supposed to guarantee opportunity, not outcome - that can never be guaranteed (see the next blog). And yes, we should work to provide people with opportunities, but people have to fend for themselves and deal with the consequences of being a living agent with free will. Sorry, but life is not perfect, nor will it ever be.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Boy the internet sucks...
Well, I just was roaming briefly on the Internet, looking up a couple of things by a profile that I have been using off-and-on for years... johndrake6. The not so obvious reference is to a combination of the Prisoner and Danger Man - like many Prisoner fans, I believe that number six is actually John Drake from the series "Danger Man". Imagine my surprise in finding out I am no longer unique.
As near as I can tell, there are two new "Johnny come lately" upstarts with that profile name - using it much more pervasively (and it might just be one person, I did not pay that close attention). Ironically enough, the person is of nearly opposite political persuasion (which I, of course find ironic considering that #6 is a "Man vs. Society" themed character that doesn't fit with the big government liberalism that the other JD6 espouses - of course, he would see me, a conservative as a big government represser of people's rights, and we are probably in our own ways, both right).
Of course, I have a romantic idealised vision of myself as an independent thinker not constrained by societal or governmental norms - (s)he probably has the same idealized vision of him/herself (one can never be assured of gender just by screen name). Clearly we would have different ideas of what this ideal embodies (given some blogs on the huffington post on how Dems should dare Reps to filibuster health care reform, etc), but it is interesting to have one's semi-uniqueness copied. And I say semi-uniqueness because I obviously took the idea from somewhere else, but when I did, I did not see anyone else on the net that had that screen name anywhere on any search... and now I do, and it's not me :(
I guess I'll just start using the moniker jonathanE
ah... Rollerball and James Caan - another rugged individualist who triumphs against a repressive society - how I wish I could be that ;)
As near as I can tell, there are two new "Johnny come lately" upstarts with that profile name - using it much more pervasively (and it might just be one person, I did not pay that close attention). Ironically enough, the person is of nearly opposite political persuasion (which I, of course find ironic considering that #6 is a "Man vs. Society" themed character that doesn't fit with the big government liberalism that the other JD6 espouses - of course, he would see me, a conservative as a big government represser of people's rights, and we are probably in our own ways, both right).
Of course, I have a romantic idealised vision of myself as an independent thinker not constrained by societal or governmental norms - (s)he probably has the same idealized vision of him/herself (one can never be assured of gender just by screen name). Clearly we would have different ideas of what this ideal embodies (given some blogs on the huffington post on how Dems should dare Reps to filibuster health care reform, etc), but it is interesting to have one's semi-uniqueness copied. And I say semi-uniqueness because I obviously took the idea from somewhere else, but when I did, I did not see anyone else on the net that had that screen name anywhere on any search... and now I do, and it's not me :(
I guess I'll just start using the moniker jonathanE
ah... Rollerball and James Caan - another rugged individualist who triumphs against a repressive society - how I wish I could be that ;)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
