The main problem with "Free Market" Capitalism

Yeah, so with Martin Shkreli arrested, I started thinking.

Yes, what he did to extremely sick people was extremely bad. And, now it seems, he's always been like that; profit for himself above basically everything else.

But, he is far from the only CEO-type that's done this. Many (even most) do it when they can get away with it. And it's totally legal. Hedge-fund types, and "investors" find out what drugs are only made by one company (mostly older drugs that are still used), and buy the company that makes it, then jack the price up as much "as the market will bear."

I'm not going to rehash the arguments against a free-market mentality in health care; it's been done before (check here). Instead, I feel the need to comment on a more over-riding problem.

In an unfettered, unregulated capitalist environment, everything is considered by its value. Its monetary value. Shkreli and the others thought that what they did was perfectly fine, since they could make money at it. Others, closer to the research and manufacture of the medications, check out the needs before they begin work. To a certain extent, this does make sense; research and development does cost a lot, and they need to make some kind of money to stay in business. But that means that fatal illnesses and diseases that strike relatively few (and thus won't be sold to thousands, or even millions) don't get any medication that might very well save lives, because it won't be profitable enough. And foreign causes (remember Ebola?) only get research when it might get us. Africa tends to be among the poorest on the planet; they surely can't afford "real" medicine, so it doesn't get made, since those expected to need it won't be able to afford it, even cheap.

This time of year, it seems every movie version of A Christmas Carol runs eternally on TV. Some of them don't keep the original ending intact, but some do. The next-to-last paragraph includes:
"He became as good a friend, as good a master, and as good a man, as the good old city knew, or any other good old city, town, or borough, in the good old world."
It's not just about being nice at Christmastime; it's about being a good man, taking care of your fellows when they need it. You know, acting like Jesus himself said to.

Also, many politicians in Congress who claim to be Christian, voted against Medicare and Medicaid expansions, Veterans' benefits, and the Zadroga 9/11 first responders bill, and (of course) the Affordable Care Act, and most of them say it's because of cost.

My immediate response to that is to ask, "well, what is a human life worth, then? How much money would you, should you spend, to keep a human being healthy and alive?"

I mean it sarcastically, but it seems that many people actually consider it seriously. If saving a human life will cost me money, then let's not.

Please understand, I'm not against capitalism; good work would get rewarded. Achievement should be acknowledged and repaid. But there are some things that shouldn't be purely profit-driven.

And what of a widowed woman or a woman who's escaped abuse, raising a child (or children) alone, working 3 full-time jobs, still can't get ahead? Still descends deeper into poverty? She's not "lazy" or a "taker" or a "moocher", any more than physically or mentally damaged veterans are; they've worked and sacrificed to protect us all, just as the woman works and sacrifices for her family; who are we; what are we if we don't help them? And why not? Simply because it costs money.

bombing response to Paris attacks

First off, let me say that my heart goes out to the Parisiens, both those who were injured or slain, and those whose world is now composed of fear. I live near New York City, and I still remember what it was like, and that wasn't close-up, face-to-face killing. I cannot begin to imagine how much worse it is now for them.

That said, I want to reproach many American politicians and pundits who seem intent on using the Parisian attacks to justify their own brand of hateful fear-mongering, pointing to different aspects of Daesh's (see here for why I'm not calling it "ISIS") operation to defend their call to deport undocumented people, to refuse humanitarian aid to refugees, even to fight against any, any, attempt at curbing armed violence in the US, and to call for yet more attacks on Daesh holdings.

DON'T. YOU. GET. IT?!  That's what they want! They need an external enemy attacking to hold them together. Their vision of Islam is so narrow, that without someone outside to hate on, they'll turn on each other and destroy themselves.

Also, they need the multiple civilian casualties ("acceptable collateral damage") to justify their rule in their conquered territories. "See?" they cry. "Look at the non-Muslims. They kill us without any care. If we were not here fighting them, they would kill you all."

And, of course, video footage of American (and European) bombs falling all over the Middle East figures into most of their recruitment images and propaganda. That, and the rhetoric spewing from many far-right speakers, denouncing all Muslims as terrorists. Is it really that surprising, with such speech coming from elected leaders, those vying for election, and popular radio and TV personalities, that young Muslims think they have to join Daesh, or Al-Qaeda, or another like them, lest them be hunted down and "detained" or even killed outright?

Does Daesh need to be stopped? Yes, of course they do.

Is a military solution the best one? Honestly, I'm not sure any more.

Most Americans, especially those who served in the Middle East, or know someone who did, are exhausted with endless war. We don't want to spend more American lives and deaths over there. Besides, there are prominent nations right there who could step up and do something. (Saudi Arabia, for one; they have the wealth and the military strength to do something.) We can't traipse through the Middle East, killing and bombing, without myriad enemies springing from the ground like dragons' teeth. Our continued involvement there is only culling the less-capable terrorists and allowing those who survive to replace their lost ranks with new, scared, young people. Scared of bombs dropped from drones; scared of being rounded up and shipped to who knows where for being Muslim.

I know one of the excuses people use to lump all Muslims together. "Why don't you 'good' ones stand up and stop them? Don't you really support them secretly?"

One: the so-called 'good' ones are usually unarmed civilians, dominated by heavily armed and skilled fighters. Trying that will get them killed. Would you yourself stand up in a futile gesture that will get you killed, and your family too, without even making the 'bad guys' stumble?

Two: All you christians out there; do you support the Westboro Baptist Church? They call themselves Christian. How about the KKK? They base their actions on (selected portions of) the Bible.
You don't support them? Then why don't you stop them? They can't even kill you; that's illegal here. Or at least speak out against them; that won't violate their "free speech". You won't even do that? Then you don't get to lump all Muslims together because they won't "stand up" to Daesh and those like them.

When a new law is proposed or enacted

One other lesson from Houston, and the voter fraud stuff too, is how to think about a new, proposed law.

Just ask two questions about it:

1) Will it actually prevent a bad thing?
2) Will it actually prevent a good thing?

"Actually" here means, not only as the law is intended, but also as it will be enforced/continued. The "unintended consequences" need to be thought of, too.

If the answer to 1 is "no" why are you bothering with the law at all?
If the answer to 1 is "yes" and the answer to 2 is "no" then by all means, enact the law.
If the answer to 1 is "yes" and the answer to 2 is "yes", it needs to be decided, is the loss of the good thing worth the prevention of the bad thing?

For example: the Houston Transgender Equality law.
1) There's really no way that law can prevent rape, or kidnapping of women, in bathrooms. (How could you even do it? Station police in every women's room to make sure that nobody with a penis goes in?)

Thus, there's no reason for that law. But, anyway
2) it will prevent transgender people from using their preferred gender. Personal comfort and freedom is supposed to be the sum total of goals in the USA. Even if you don't agree with their lives.
(Note: I really don't think that gay/straight or transgender is a conscious choice. It's part of the biological make-up. I'm not going to get into the juvenile, stupid jokes from certain politicians about "finding their feminine side")

Voting and Fear

So, last Tuesday, local elections happened. Several things of note: New Jersey democrats went from a small minority in the state government, to a large minority (though still a minority), surprising basically everybody. Several states that already had the Medicaid expansion elected new governors who have vowed to remove it. And, in Houston, transgender people's rights were removed.

I take a lesson from New Jersey: if you're legal, register and VOTE! The statistically most common reasons for not voting are,  I believe, my vote doesn't matter, there are thousands of people voting. How could I make any difference? Well, NJ is how. Nobody thought so many Dems would take seats. But they did. Why? Because people who wanted them to, showed up and voted them in.

The other reason, is that certain areas are making it basically impossible to vote, calling it protection against "voter fraud". Look up the numbers yourself; there have been less than 10 actual cases of voter fraud in the last decade or so. That is so statistically tiny that it won't even show up in percentile data analysis.

The Houston thing got me thinking. The act was voted down, basically because the anti-rights people terrified the populace by essentially threatening that rapists (no, not "sexual predators"; see the George Carlin bit on Euphemisms) would just dress in women's clothes to get in the women's bathroom.

My first thought about this was: "Wait. People planning to commit the worst, vilest crime that can be committed against someone is going to not do it in a bathroom because they're not supposed to be in the women's bathroom?" Really? The most heinous crime will be prevented by a social norm keeping men out of bathrooms?

To me, this seems transparent, make up something to be scared of, and tell them this law will make it happen. Whether or not it's going to be true or not. It's kinda nasty. Unfortunately, it seems effective.

Immigrants

Okay, I think I finally figured out why so many white people (yeah, fine, mostly Republicans) are scared of immigrants.

They think the new immigrants are going to be like them; or more accurately, their ancestors. You know, the ones who came here fleeing religious persecution and set up a perfect replica of their religious ideal, then proceeded to starve to death when they couldn't figure out how to plant.

They got help and support from the indigenous people, food and supplies, and teaching how to plant and reap crops, then after a while, killed them all and took over. Or, if not killed them, made them lose their culture and identity, forcing them to tiny areas much smaller than the land they occupied before (often in a completely different part of the continent), and giving them no self-rule or authority at all, no opportunities for living, and making them go to white schools and learn "correct" history. History with no mention of them except as conquered and deserving of it.

Now, the descendants of those religious settlers are the "natives" and they're terrified that the new crop of immigrants and refugees from persecution will follow their own example: accept their help and be incredibly grateful, and then destroy them, just like their own ancestors did.

There are two basic problems with that thinking:
1) not everybody is as selfish and violent as you are. These immigrants want to be American; we really are the "shining city on the hill" and we are (mostly) admired and envied by others in the world; when they get the chance, they want to be part of the USA. If our demographics are changing, we need to keep up. The USA has always been a melting pot; many peoples, from many places and cultures, coming together to make a great amalgam, better than, but still holding to, the places and cultures they came from.

2) These refugees and immigrants are already being turned away from everywhere. They are homeless, desperate, and have nothing. Giving them aid, a place, a life, will earn their love and loyalty for those who gave it. Giving them nothing and telling them there is no room at the inn, will make them even more desperate and who knows what might happen, to them or to anywhere they may be stranded, if and when they finally break?
That is, if you need selfish reasons to help, instead of just helping those in need because you're a good person. We have so much to gain from them if we offer help, and so much to lose if we don't.

I know, I know, enemies of giving assistance to "brown people" keep saying "ISIS has said they're going to take advantage of this to sneak into the US." Well, we have vetting processes. Far too many actually. It can take more than 3 months to even clear the background checks, let alone get in with a visa. Homeland Security, medical, FBI, CIA, NSA, and many others all do independent checks on everybody coming in. It's kind of insane, how much checking is done, but are you really saying that all those various and different agencies, doing their own checks, will all miss an ISIS mole sneaking in? Really? Are all of those agencies totally incompetent?

Then, there's the other thought. ISIS has proven themselves quite savvy in PR and new media. It's entirely possible (maybe even likely?) that they're releasing these statements so that other countries will turn away the refugees, who will tell their families and friends back home, who will then stay put, under ISIS control, rather than trying a horrendous journey that will end with them being sent back anyway. Consolidating their control and the hold over the people they've taken.

They could also try to use it as recruiting: "see, the West is so scared of us, they won't even help the detritus that flees our nation," or "see? The infidels don't really care about you. We do." or even both. Goodness knows that even in the US, a particular group can say two completely contradictory things at different times and have both be accepted.

Again, there are many reasons to help; not least of which is it's a human, and humane, thing to do. And few, if any, valid reasons not to.

I'm fed up with the gun debate

The is a shooting a week now.

One multi-victim event of violence a week.

It's nearly routine now. "Oh, another one. Sigh."

How twisted is this? Shootings with more than one injury or even death are normal now!

Meanwhile, conservatives are doing everything they can to close Planned Parenthood, because they help women make probably the hardest decision they will ever make, and carry out their decision.

I'm sick of it. Insisting abortions kill babies and must be stopped when school-age children (6 years old for Sandy Hook, high-school for Columbine, college-age for Seattle) are dying once a week!

I don't think I can be civil any more. I just have one question for all the "pro-gun, anti-choice" conservatives:

At what age do you stop caring about children's lives and safety?

-9 months, you clearly care.

18 years, you don't seem to.

12 years old (Spring Grove Village in Cincinnati)

6 years old (Sandy Hook)

At what age are children on their own? How old are they when you no longer call for legislation to remove a threat to their life?

The sheer hypocrisy in screaming for a total ban on all abortions when guns really seem to matter more than children's lives do is staggering.

And let's not even bother with food (SNAP, or "food stamps") and medicines for children (the Affordable Care Act) that the same conservatives try to defund or kill outright every time they come up, even while defending guns to their last breath. Heaven knows they won't bother with them.

Why is everything important for profit?

I know this will be sacrilegious, maybe even blasphemous, but some things, even in the US, shouldn't be done "for profit."

Three to start with: public education, prison systems, and health care.

Do I need to go into details on this? Okay, here goes.

Health care: companies that are in business, any business, to make a profit, need to maximize income, and minimize outflow. This means that a for-profit insurance company needs to get premiums as high as they can get away with, and pay out as little benefits as possible. In "regular" businesses, this can be bad; price-gouging, monopolies, and so on. In health care, when benefits are minimal, people die. Or at least, lose their homes and go bankrupt trying to pay for necessary, even life-saving, treatments. It has happened already, and often. Being a for-profit company, even if it's not in the name or description, but only in the goals of the leadership, requires putting money income above all else. In health insurance, that means money above human health and lives. Insurance companies have even rebranded their wares as "insurance products." Is that what we want for an insurance provider?

Prisons: this one's even easier. Prisons for profit makes prisoners money earnings. More prisoners means more profit, fewer prisoners means less profit. Prisons run by profit-driven companies can have no interest in preventing crimes from happening, stopping recidivism, or common-sense altering of sentencing (lighter sentences for first-timers, rehab instead of prison for drug addicts, etc.), because prisoners are profit centers; all of those lower profits and must be fought with any and all legal methods (even quasi-legal) available. Getting "career criminals" on an honest track, treating drug-addiction as medical and treating it for healing, common-sense precautions to prevent criminal behavior, all of these will reduce profits and cannot be tolerated.

Public education: okay, this one's really important to me. Remember, I'm a schoolteacher. Actually, it's kind of the same reason as health care, above. Many companies are trying to get into public education and standardized testing right now. This testing, when done right, can in fact inform instruction and increase the effectiveness of teaching. WHEN DONE RIGHT. I'm not convinced that these new tests and testing systems are being done right, and many many parents aren't either. Just look at the growing "opt-out" movement in states with the new standards and the reasons given for them. The questions are haphazard, some aren't even grade-level appropriate, the data isn't returned for months, sometimes not until the next school year; far too long to be effective in modifying instruction. And with some of the companies, the scores that are returned are a single value, with no details or even insight into the methods of the scoring. Complete opacity of the scoring. These companies genuinely seem to be interested in selling tests and testing materials and methods, not for helping instruction, but for the profits to be generated from the testing products, and possible extra profits generated from "remediation" programs because the students did poorly on the tests (according to the company who wants to sell the remediation). As with prisoners, above, students are seen as profit centers, not really even thought of by the companies as people, just an income source.

I do feel that I must mention that, since my district does in fact use the new standardized testing, of course I will proctor the tests as needed by the district administration, and I will not actively attempt to convince any student to opt out of the testing. I'll ride this out, and whatever next "new and improved" thing follows this, and do my best to help my students kindle a love of learning, and developing skills that are not limited to picking a multiple-choice answer. With what instructional time remains during the school year.

So, there it is. Even in modern capitalist America, some things really shouldn't be done expressly for profit. If the company does profit from its efforts in any of the above areas, then they're a financial success, and they deserve success. But if a company is entering these fields only because the projected earning potential, then nothing in those areas will be improved.  Health care outcomes will still be among the worst in the developed world, prisons will be the largest percentage of the population in the developed world, and the public education system will still be broken, and used as a whipping post for politicians, and the students will continue to suffer mediocre outcomes and lack of thinking skills and problem solving ability.

And, worst of all, with companies profiting from these areas, they will be able to use their earnings to control the political climate, and no reforms that actually benefit people and society will be permitted to succeed.

His Trump-iness

So, Trump spouts anti-immigrant, misogynist, often incoherent ramblings, and his poll numbers are high. Naturally, the other candidates want those numbers, so they start spouting similar nonsense. 

But what if, just as a possibility, people who like Trump aren't interested in his raving piles of crazy?

What if the people prefer a candidate who isn't so far in debt to huge money donors that they think he might, he just might, serve the public's interests rather than the huge money's? 

Yet, we don't see anybody else forgoing huge donations from the hyper-rich (except maybe Bernie Sanders, but he's on the left and he doesn't really count in the other candidates' minds). No, they love the rich folks (and their money) and are only too eager to let themselves be bought so they can be President. 

Being a flunky president, having power only at the pleasure of the rich, is better than no power at all, I guess. If you're too      poor to donate millions (or a large fraction of), that's your problem. What do you expect s President, or even Congress, to do about it? It's not really their job to help out the voters that elected them is it?

Oh wait, yes it is. Or it used to be.

Ben Carson on Syrian refugees

I heard the interview with Ben Carson, retired neurosurgeon and current Republican presidential candidate, this morning.

One thing stuck with me. In answer to the interviewers question about letting Syrian refugees in, his first response was to say that, likely, at least some of them are extremists trying to sneak into the US, for what purpose he didn't say.

OK, I get that incoming refugees need to be verified that they're NOT provocateurs trying to get in, playing on sympathies. I don't know that I like the assumption that people fleeing war and persecution obviously are lying and using our own generous nature against us, but I do understand the necessity. We need to streamline the vetting, though; every refugee is examined by more than 3 separate government agencies and departments. It can take years, Years! to get through the vetting. Actual refugees stand a very good chance of being dead by the time they're allowed to escape.

That aside, what struck me was that when the interviewer pressed; "assuming we weed out the extremists, how many would you let it?" Dr. Carson's first statement was he'd let in people who have skills we need, and that's basically it.

So, the only people who can get asylum from war and persecution, and perhaps even physical or sexual assault by soldiers, are the people who are useful to us? Children, or aged or infirm, can't be useful, so they're out of luck?

For a doctor, even one who's retired, that is depressingly and frighteningly selfish, and troubling.

And it seems from the rhetoric that most (if not all) of the Republican candidates feel this way, or even worse; don't want to let anybody in, no matter their skills or their needs.

Just now, I don't think he has to worry about extremists using our generous nature against us; we don't seem to have one any more.

Same-sex Marriage in Kentucky

So, the first thing I think I need to deal with is the whole Rowan county, Kentucky thing.

Refusing to honor a Supreme Court decision and not give marriage licenses because your version of Christianity doesn't like them isn't really a religious freedom issue.

Hold on, I'm not insulting her or her views. Here's why it's not really about religious freedom: I would assume that the same-sex couples looking for marriage licenses don't follow Ms. Davis's version of Christianity, as they clearly aren't forbidden to marry.
By refusing to grant them a (by the way, secular, NOT religious) marriage license, she is forcing those people to follow her religion instead of their own.
The clerk in question is on her third marriage; her actions don't look all that different than if another town clerk had refused her 3rd license because the clerk's religion forbids divorce. Clearly Ms. Davis's own version of Christianity is OK with it, so she'd have been forced to follow the other religion's rules rather than her own. Being refused a marriage license for a marriage your religion permits because someone else's religion doesn't permit it, is the exact OPPOSITE of religious freedom.

Also, religious freedom, separation of church and state, call it whatever you want, is established in the United States for ALL religions and religious people, not just Christians, and certainly not just those Christians who don't like same-sex marriage. Just because you don't like it, and your religion forbids it, is NOT enough of a reason to deny people who aren't followers of your religion.

If your religion disapproves of same-sex marriage, then your church doesn't have to have them. You may get pushback from others, but if you're being true to your faith, let them rail at you. But, (and here's my main theme) just because your religion doesn't approve, that doesn't mean you get to force others, of other religions, to follow your guidelines.

If you personally disapprove of same-sex marriage so much that you don't want to be in any way associated with one, but your job duties require it, there are several ways to really handle a religious objection to your job duties. 

The easiest is the great American response to a horrible job: "Take this job and shove it!" If a job is trying to force you to do things that are objectionable to you, the simplest thing to do is quit and find a better job. I'm certain there are many places that would hire her in a hot second, lots of them because of her business clerk experience, or her experience in government (companies often need to deal with government departments), or even because of her, let's call it fame. She wouldn't be unemployed for long.

Another way is to go part-time, and let the county office hire another clerk, also part-time, to handle those duties she finds objectionable. Then she can stay faithful and still do as much of her job as she can, and the county is in compliance with federal rulings, even up to the Supreme Court (which, in a wonderful ironic twist, she is willing to petition for her own case, when she is defying it and its ruling about her own job).

The fact that neither of these options seems to have occurred to her makes this seem, again, like something other than a religious freedom issue. To most casual observers (I am here avoiding both her avid supporters and the real avid opposers of her statements and actions), it seems like she isn't interested in her own religious freedom so much as forcing her own religion on others who are not already followers of it.

And that, still, is not religious freedom. It's an attempt at religious oppression.

Introduction

Well, I've finally given in and am blogging. For the short version, read the info header.
I'm not really looking for thousands of followers; I'm just writing down my musings about politics, social issues, current events, and pop culture.

Whenever I hear about something on a news source, or even an "news" source, that makes me want to say something, I'll put it here. If anybody sees it, maybe I can make some folks think a little differently.

Let's get some demographic things out of the way first.
I am a white male.
I teach public school in the USA.
I'm married for several decades, and have no intention of losing her.
We have adopted internationally, and our daughter is the joy of our life.
I am of no religion, though I do believe in spirituality, "weird stuff" and God. (Why that is, I may get into at some point, if I feel it's relevant, or if someone asks, politely.)

I'll try to be courteous and at least civil. It's not my way to attack people who disagree with me; I do make an attempt to understand where they're coming from. That said, there are certain viewpoints I've tried and tried to understand, and I just can't.