Let's Just Legalize Cockfighting
A few centuries ago, gladiators in the Coliseum at Rome would fight each other or lions. It wasn’t tame entertainment: someone often got killed. Today our coliseums house “sporting” events that are marketed as life and death struggles, but it just isn’t the same. We get a momentary thrill when we see a player dragged off the field with an injury, but hey, they’re still alive, aren’t they?
So where can a discerning public go to satisfy its taste for blood? The answer that comes immediately to mind is the legal system. Lawyers are our gladiators, always eager to jump into the ring and fight to the death (well, at least someone else’s death). Would the OJ Simpson trial have been such a public spectacle without the potential for death or life imprisonment verdict, or if it hadn’t been a murder trial?
To keep the public’s attention, there has to be a victor and a vanquished. If the contestants aren’t locked in mortal combat, what good are they?
Always trying to please, the American political system has figured this out. In debates on policy issues, each side grossly exaggerates the differences, feeding us, for example, images of helpless old people yanked off their life support or a bloated bureaucracy spending us into oblivion. The television sound bite makes a great blunt instrument, reducing deep and careful thought to a single whack on the head. Do you propose to reduce the rate of increase in my pet program? Bam—I AM OUTRAGED BY THE DEEP CUTS!... Is your proposal still alive? Wham—I’ll attack your character!
The joust reaches its highest form in political campaigns. The process of choosing an elected representative is transformed into a no-holds-barred, winner-take-all struggle. If elected, the contestant is subjected to constant public ridicule, in a job where it is next to impossible to get anything done—and they call this “winning.” Even the word “campaign” comes from the French term for “battlefield.”
We say we don’t like to see politicians throwing dirt at each other, but they keep doing it for the simple reason that it works. The thrust and parry of a hot election makes good headlines. We may deny that we like car races because of the possibility of a spectacular crash, but this is like the guy who says he reads Playboy for the articles. Issues and philosophy and vision don’t captivate our attention like the unfortunate candidate going down to flaming defeat.
Which brings me to my proposal. If we have such a strong drive to treat carnage and destruction as a spectator sport, why not pick an arena that has less far-reaching consequences? Cockfighting is banned in most places (as far as I know), because we are too civilized to go in for this sort of thing, but let’s not kid ourselves. As a species, we have never been too civilized for this, and having a few roosters fight it out to the death is surely preferable to the mayhem that we create when we put elected representatives in this role.
It may be too hard to undo decades of treating government like a game, so perhaps we could ease into this new model by electing the roosters that will fight for our cities, states, and country. The roosters could be organized in teams, which we could call “parties.” To add interest, we could even invent some “campaign finance reforms” and watch corporate sponsors come up with new and creative ways around them.
With a little luck, this would satisfy our need to watch death matches. We would read about our roosters on the front page and the op-ed pages, and the news of our government would be covered by the same sober reporting as is now done for scientific research and personal finance planning. Our peers would agree to represent us out of a sense of duty, and we would respect them for it in the same way that we appreciate those who serve as church ushers or Cub Scout den mothers. The business of governing would be done in a careful, thoughtful way in an atmosphere of reason and understanding, with the humility that comes from knowing that this is a practical, but inferior, alternative to the unattainable ideal of a benevolent dictatorship.
But if this doesn’t work, elect me president and I promise you that I will increase the programs you like, cut your taxes, and balance the budget. My opponent sucks eggs.
Speed Limits: One Size Fits All
Over cappuccinos, My friend Vanessa told me she thought speed limits were a stupid and outdated idea.
"Easy for you to say," I told her. "You drive a Porsche."
"Yeah, but until two years ago, all I drove were minivans. I felt that way then."
"So you think people should be able to drive as fast as they want?"
"Nope."
"Well, what then?"
"Here's the thing," she said. "I drive Highway XX almost every day. The posted one-size-fits-all speed limit is 55. But when I'm in my Carrera on a clear day with a dry road, and I'm alert and paying attention, I can safely go at least 70. On the other hand, if it's dark and raining and I'm driving the Caravan and the kids are fighting in the back seat, something under 50 is probably the safe limit. The posted speed is, frankly, irrelevant to safety."
"So what happens if someone drives too fast, and causes a crash?"
"Well, reckless driving is still illegal. Crash investigators can tell if speed is a factor. Don't get me wrong--I'm not arguing that people shouldn't be accountable for their driving behavior."
"So the speed limit should just be a suggestion?"
"Yeah. Matter of fact, I find the yellow advisory speed signs much more useful. When I see one that says 25, I slow down, even in the Carrera. Of course, when I'm in it and paying attention, I can add 20mph to the warning speed. In the minivan, not as much. But we have the technology now to replace speed limits with something better."
"Like what?"
"Cars that nag. The new cars are already smart enough to know when we're too close to the car in front, or when we're weaving out of our lane. The car certainly knows its own capability, and it can monitor the driver's behavior, too. When the driver is going too fast for the vehicle and road conditions, it can flash a warning. Record it to a black box, too, in case there's a crash."
"Hmm. How will it know if you're busy texting or putting on makeup?"
"Simple. Just add a camera that faces the driver."
"And you would take that trade-off? A nagging car versus an arbitrary speed limit?"
"Sure. If you think about it, speed limits are a crazy idea. Even the traffic engineers admit they set them based on the speed that 85% of the drivers go anyway. Who's to say the other 15% are driving too fast to be safe?"
I sipped my drink and thought about it.
"I don't know" I said.
"Well, if you think speed limits make so much sense," she said, "why isn't there a law that all shoes should be sold in only one size? It would make shoes much cheaper, and save a lot of shelf space in stores."
"You've got a point there," I said.
"Yeah, and in Montana all the shoes would be size 14, and in Oregon, they would all be size 8."
"Easy for you to say," I told her. "You drive a Porsche."
"Yeah, but until two years ago, all I drove were minivans. I felt that way then."
"So you think people should be able to drive as fast as they want?"
"Nope."
"Well, what then?"
"Here's the thing," she said. "I drive Highway XX almost every day. The posted one-size-fits-all speed limit is 55. But when I'm in my Carrera on a clear day with a dry road, and I'm alert and paying attention, I can safely go at least 70. On the other hand, if it's dark and raining and I'm driving the Caravan and the kids are fighting in the back seat, something under 50 is probably the safe limit. The posted speed is, frankly, irrelevant to safety."
"So what happens if someone drives too fast, and causes a crash?"
"Well, reckless driving is still illegal. Crash investigators can tell if speed is a factor. Don't get me wrong--I'm not arguing that people shouldn't be accountable for their driving behavior."
"So the speed limit should just be a suggestion?"
"Yeah. Matter of fact, I find the yellow advisory speed signs much more useful. When I see one that says 25, I slow down, even in the Carrera. Of course, when I'm in it and paying attention, I can add 20mph to the warning speed. In the minivan, not as much. But we have the technology now to replace speed limits with something better."
"Like what?"
"Cars that nag. The new cars are already smart enough to know when we're too close to the car in front, or when we're weaving out of our lane. The car certainly knows its own capability, and it can monitor the driver's behavior, too. When the driver is going too fast for the vehicle and road conditions, it can flash a warning. Record it to a black box, too, in case there's a crash."
"Hmm. How will it know if you're busy texting or putting on makeup?"
"Simple. Just add a camera that faces the driver."
"And you would take that trade-off? A nagging car versus an arbitrary speed limit?"
"Sure. If you think about it, speed limits are a crazy idea. Even the traffic engineers admit they set them based on the speed that 85% of the drivers go anyway. Who's to say the other 15% are driving too fast to be safe?"
I sipped my drink and thought about it.
"I don't know" I said.
"Well, if you think speed limits make so much sense," she said, "why isn't there a law that all shoes should be sold in only one size? It would make shoes much cheaper, and save a lot of shelf space in stores."
"You've got a point there," I said.
"Yeah, and in Montana all the shoes would be size 14, and in Oregon, they would all be size 8."
An All-Volunteer Military
Some people claim that the US has had an all-volunteer military for the past 40 years. Not true.
When we talk about volunteer organizations, we mean the employees work for free. Volunteer firefighters, search and rescue volunteers, disaster recovery volunteers, and little league coaches are volunteers, and that means they donate their time.
People who work for the Defense Department and other military-related agencies are paid to do it. They are volunteers in the same sense that all paid employees of all organizations are volunteers: they aren't forced to work for the organization. It's nice that the people who are paid by the defense department aren't conscripted to do so, and that they won't get thrown in jail if they don't. And it's good that they get paid for their work.
It's hard to argue that much of the trillion dollar military budget is of general benefit to society. It certainly isn't necessary for defending the nation's borders; the nuclear subs, bombers, and missile silos do a good job of that, and they collectively account for a small fraction of the budget. And why would we need a separate "homeland" security department if the "defense" department was really there simply to defend US borders from an attack by another country?
But this is a debatable point. A lot of Americans, like Mitt Romney, like having a big military, and would even like it to be even bigger. That's OK. A lot of Americans like big things: TVs, SUVs, houses, breasts, etc. It's a free country, and people are entitled to their opinions.
But what we need is a truly all-volunteer military. All those who like a big military should volunteer to work for it. True, it can be a very dangerous profession, and one that can lead to serious long-term physical and psychological damage. This is an even stronger argument for having the folks that like their military to be big be the ones volunteering to work for it.
Failing that, at the very least, it should be paid for on a voluntary basis. This is very doable; all we need is a check-off at the end of the IRS form 1040, similar to the one where you can donate a dollar of your tax refund to the presidential election fund. But it might need to be a bit more than a dollar. Let's do the math:
Assuming that mostly conservatives like a big military, and that they make up about half the population, that accounts for about 60 million households. But it's a safe bet that most of them would prefer that someone else pay for it: that's exactly why they think it's about the only thing that should be funded with taxes. Assuming a tenth of them are actually willing to step up to the plate, that accounts for a large number--six million households--who can cover the tab for the military. So, dividing this into the trillion dollar cost of the US military, the amount next to the check-off box would need to be only:
When we talk about volunteer organizations, we mean the employees work for free. Volunteer firefighters, search and rescue volunteers, disaster recovery volunteers, and little league coaches are volunteers, and that means they donate their time.
People who work for the Defense Department and other military-related agencies are paid to do it. They are volunteers in the same sense that all paid employees of all organizations are volunteers: they aren't forced to work for the organization. It's nice that the people who are paid by the defense department aren't conscripted to do so, and that they won't get thrown in jail if they don't. And it's good that they get paid for their work.
It's hard to argue that much of the trillion dollar military budget is of general benefit to society. It certainly isn't necessary for defending the nation's borders; the nuclear subs, bombers, and missile silos do a good job of that, and they collectively account for a small fraction of the budget. And why would we need a separate "homeland" security department if the "defense" department was really there simply to defend US borders from an attack by another country?
But this is a debatable point. A lot of Americans, like Mitt Romney, like having a big military, and would even like it to be even bigger. That's OK. A lot of Americans like big things: TVs, SUVs, houses, breasts, etc. It's a free country, and people are entitled to their opinions.
But what we need is a truly all-volunteer military. All those who like a big military should volunteer to work for it. True, it can be a very dangerous profession, and one that can lead to serious long-term physical and psychological damage. This is an even stronger argument for having the folks that like their military to be big be the ones volunteering to work for it.
Failing that, at the very least, it should be paid for on a voluntary basis. This is very doable; all we need is a check-off at the end of the IRS form 1040, similar to the one where you can donate a dollar of your tax refund to the presidential election fund. But it might need to be a bit more than a dollar. Let's do the math:
Assuming that mostly conservatives like a big military, and that they make up about half the population, that accounts for about 60 million households. But it's a safe bet that most of them would prefer that someone else pay for it: that's exactly why they think it's about the only thing that should be funded with taxes. Assuming a tenth of them are actually willing to step up to the plate, that accounts for a large number--six million households--who can cover the tab for the military. So, dividing this into the trillion dollar cost of the US military, the amount next to the check-off box would need to be only:
Ö $167,000
Let's Vote On Everything!
I just got my ballot in the mail. It includes the following:
Or how about this? Maybe have the CEO's of the various executive branches (governor, county administrator) or whoever they delegate do the actual hiring of all their respective executive branch employees BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE PAY THEM TO DO.
Let's roll all the obscure under-the-radar special districts (over 50,000 in the US at last count) into the nearest real government (counties, or cities when most of the district is in a city).
And except for a few public-value-based straw polls, like making Oregon the pot capital of America (new state tourism motto: Come Get High With Us!), remove the Yes and No boxes from ballot initiatives and replace them with a single box labelled: "What good is the best legislature that money can buy if it doesn't make decisions on stuff like this??"
- Some people I've never heard of running for the board of an obscure special district (the Conservation of Angular Momentum District)
- Election of an employee of an obscure and relatively insignificant unit of state government (the Oregon State state department, similar to the Department of Redundancy Department)
- Election of some government lawyers
- Election of a police officer for the county
- A Consititutional amendment keeping any unit of government in Oregon, at any level, from even thinking about adopting a tax on sales of land and buildings. Oddly, it does not include a cap on the amount that real estate salespeople can siphon off on the sale of your home.
- A decision on techniques commercial fishermen should use to catch fish
- A decision on the difference between a square knot and a granny knot
- A decision, based on the evidence, as to whether the scientists in Geneva really detected the Higgs boson.
Or how about this? Maybe have the CEO's of the various executive branches (governor, county administrator) or whoever they delegate do the actual hiring of all their respective executive branch employees BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE PAY THEM TO DO.
Let's roll all the obscure under-the-radar special districts (over 50,000 in the US at last count) into the nearest real government (counties, or cities when most of the district is in a city).
And except for a few public-value-based straw polls, like making Oregon the pot capital of America (new state tourism motto: Come Get High With Us!), remove the Yes and No boxes from ballot initiatives and replace them with a single box labelled: "What good is the best legislature that money can buy if it doesn't make decisions on stuff like this??"
Heads Should Roll
The Oregonian reported today that a group of chest-thumping legislators are demanding to know why no one was fired over the Department of Revenue's mistake in issuing a $2 million tax refund based on a fraudulent return. The legislators were from both parties: it was a bipartisan kangaroo court!
Why was no one fired? Well, let's see. Even if the Department of Revenue were a private corporation, firing employees just isn't as much fun as it used to be. Trial lawyers, in a feeding frenzy at the trough of employment lawsuits, have created a world in which relations between organizations and their employees is set by case law, not by any rational approach to human relations. Sure, people can be fired for cause, as long as they aren't part of a protected class, which now includes all carbon-based organisms.
But the Department of Revenue operates under the further burden of being a government agency. The employees who should have been reviewing the tax return are protected by a collective bargaining agreement that allows almost any management decision to be second-guessed by an arbitrator who is for all intents and purposes controlled by the union. If Portland police officers can't be fired for using bad judgment that results in someone's death, or a teacher can't be fired for being unlicensed (licensing is admittedly a silly idea, but it is nonetheless a legislatively-imposed requirement), then how in the world could DOR fire an overworked employee for not having the time to do a thorough job?
And who came up with the insanity that is the Public Employees Collective Bargaining Act? Could it be......the legislature? Sure, it was a different bunch than the current group of grandstanders, but refusal to repeal a bad law is just as reprehensible as passing it in the first place.
And the situation is more complicated. After years of wage freezes and furlough days, many of the good employees have long since left; all that remain are dissillusioned and abused folks just hanging on for their PERS payoff. Budget cuts have created unrealistic workloads; especially in the human services area, it is humanly impossible to meet the demand for service. And who, exactly, is responsible for this situation? Maybe...the legislature?
Aristotle tells us that statesmen can be regular folks and not professional politicians, but they should at least possess moral virtue and the knowledge and judgment to govern effectively.
So the solution is simple. When a group of legislators ask such a flagrantly stupid (and hypocritical) question as, "why didn't someone get fired?"they should be, well, fired.
Why was no one fired? Well, let's see. Even if the Department of Revenue were a private corporation, firing employees just isn't as much fun as it used to be. Trial lawyers, in a feeding frenzy at the trough of employment lawsuits, have created a world in which relations between organizations and their employees is set by case law, not by any rational approach to human relations. Sure, people can be fired for cause, as long as they aren't part of a protected class, which now includes all carbon-based organisms.
But the Department of Revenue operates under the further burden of being a government agency. The employees who should have been reviewing the tax return are protected by a collective bargaining agreement that allows almost any management decision to be second-guessed by an arbitrator who is for all intents and purposes controlled by the union. If Portland police officers can't be fired for using bad judgment that results in someone's death, or a teacher can't be fired for being unlicensed (licensing is admittedly a silly idea, but it is nonetheless a legislatively-imposed requirement), then how in the world could DOR fire an overworked employee for not having the time to do a thorough job?
And who came up with the insanity that is the Public Employees Collective Bargaining Act? Could it be......the legislature? Sure, it was a different bunch than the current group of grandstanders, but refusal to repeal a bad law is just as reprehensible as passing it in the first place.
And the situation is more complicated. After years of wage freezes and furlough days, many of the good employees have long since left; all that remain are dissillusioned and abused folks just hanging on for their PERS payoff. Budget cuts have created unrealistic workloads; especially in the human services area, it is humanly impossible to meet the demand for service. And who, exactly, is responsible for this situation? Maybe...the legislature?
Aristotle tells us that statesmen can be regular folks and not professional politicians, but they should at least possess moral virtue and the knowledge and judgment to govern effectively.
So the solution is simple. When a group of legislators ask such a flagrantly stupid (and hypocritical) question as, "why didn't someone get fired?"they should be, well, fired.
Oregon Continues to Legislate Morality
Providing jobs for returning veterans is a noble cause; many local governments and private companies in fact do so. In its zeal to demonstrate concern for veterans, the Oregon legislature has moved the practice from a nice thing to do to one that is mandatory for state agencies (and for the state’s whipping boys, the cities and counties in the state).
A November 11, 2011 article in the Oregonian describes a settlement reached between the Oregon State Hospital and a disabled army reserve veteran resulting from the hospital’s failure to “consider his status as a disabled veteran when weighing his application for a promotion.” In addition to a cash payment to the veteran, as part of the settlement, the hospital agreed to provide training for its staff in applying the point preference system in hiring and promoting vets.
Human resource systems in large bureaucracies such as the state government reduce human beings to a single number (made up of the sum of “points”) when making hiring and promotion decisions. Two individuals with the exact same point count will, presumably, perform exactly the same in a work situation. To give veterans an edge, state agencies and local governments must give them more points for being a veteran, and even more points for being a disabled veteran (the soldier in the Oregonian story was disabled through a knee injury in a training exercise).
Realizing that the law doesn’t go far enough, the Oregon legislature is using its between-sessions break to consider a number of refinements. Rep. Orem Bukshot (R-Toadleg) said, “points are good, but if we’re giving points for some lieutenant shuffling papers on an army base in Arizona, shouldn’t we give more points for some guy who’s actually dodging bullets on the front line in Afghanistan?” Not to be outdone, his counterpart in the Senate, Margaret Beekeep (D-Shiphole) said, “I will insist that more points be given for disabilities that arise through combat.” In an example provided through a press release, a limb lost due to an exploding IED would be awarded 22 points, while a limb lost in a truck accident on I-5 next to Fort Lewis while picking up a pizza order would be awarded only 13.5 points.
Lobbyists from a variety of professional guilds protected by the state have taken notice, and have drafted further amendments. Similar points would be awarded for police officers, firefighters, nurses, pastors and rabbis, social workers, sewer workers, garbage collectors, ambulance drivers, and teachers. Injuries sustained while working would result in extra points; fatal injuries would receive the maximum possible points (100). The proposed amendments would make the point count process mandatory for all employers in the state, including fast food outlets and berry farms.
In recognition of the fact that the forthcoming legislation will make it virtually impossible for normal people to understand the legal requirements for hiring and promotion, a new unit of the State Department of Administrative Services has been created to make the hiring and promotion decisions for all organizations in Oregon, including private companies and nonprofits. This division is encountering difficulty in filling its available positions. In response, the governor has formally petitioned President Obama to initiate another war of adventure, in order to increase the supply of available disabled veterans.
Mass Transit
Scientific Earth, July 9, 3012
Eight centuries after the development of anti-gravity vehicles, we take it for granted that humans have always traveled alone or in small groups. Indeed, we see no reason to build vehicles for more than eight people. And historically, this pattern has been repeated. Early humans travelled on foot, and then on animals such as horses or elephants. With the invention of the wheel, they used small vehicles called chariots or carriages, and later bicycles (the precursor to the velomobiles still used today). During the Fossil Fuel Era, humans travelled alone or in small groups (typically the size of a family) in wheeled vehicles called automobiles.
But archeologists have uncovered evidence of other (larger) vehicles, used for a brief period during the Fossil Fuel Era (roughly a thousand years ago). Some of these could seat up to fifty people (sitting and standing). Inexplicably, even after the development of pneumatic tires and wide hard-surface paths called "roads," humans continued to use vehicles with metal wheels running on metal tracks, severly limiting choices of origins and destinations. These could carry several hundred people at a time.
It isn't clear what purpose this form of transportation served; it is hard to imagine a society in which that many people would share a both a common origin and a common destination for travelling. Anthropologists speculate that these vehicles were used to transport slaves, or to carry prisoners to locations for the performance of forced labor.
Eight centuries after the development of anti-gravity vehicles, we take it for granted that humans have always traveled alone or in small groups. Indeed, we see no reason to build vehicles for more than eight people. And historically, this pattern has been repeated. Early humans travelled on foot, and then on animals such as horses or elephants. With the invention of the wheel, they used small vehicles called chariots or carriages, and later bicycles (the precursor to the velomobiles still used today). During the Fossil Fuel Era, humans travelled alone or in small groups (typically the size of a family) in wheeled vehicles called automobiles.
But archeologists have uncovered evidence of other (larger) vehicles, used for a brief period during the Fossil Fuel Era (roughly a thousand years ago). Some of these could seat up to fifty people (sitting and standing). Inexplicably, even after the development of pneumatic tires and wide hard-surface paths called "roads," humans continued to use vehicles with metal wheels running on metal tracks, severly limiting choices of origins and destinations. These could carry several hundred people at a time.
It isn't clear what purpose this form of transportation served; it is hard to imagine a society in which that many people would share a both a common origin and a common destination for travelling. Anthropologists speculate that these vehicles were used to transport slaves, or to carry prisoners to locations for the performance of forced labor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)