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.
Union Rights
New Jersey, June 19 , 2012 – Don Vito Corleone has filed suit in federal court alleging that the State of New Jersey has abridged his rights. The whole point of organized crime, he argues, is lost if the state removes his right to enforce membership in the syndicate. The ability of crime bosses to break a few kneecaps is essential to maintaining unity in the family in their continuing struggle to protect their interests. If individuals were free to choose whether or not to join the organization, the system would encourage freeloading, where the mobsters could merely ride on the coattails of the godfather, without actually contributing to the fight. This situation, says Corleone, is intolerable.
The don, through a press release, emphasized the strong popular support organized crime enjoys in society, and warned New Jersey legislators that they would interfere in syndicate rights only to their peril. Thousands of Americans benefit from the services of prostitutes, illegal drugs, and gambling, and organized crime is an important source of jobs and prosperity.
The family has mounted a recall effort against the legislators who have attacked the rights of crime bosses. Campaign funds have poured in from the Cosa Nostra, which according to the US Supreme Courts, has the same free speech rights as any other person. “If New Jersey goes, it will only be a matter of time before the rights of criminal groups to organize are lost everywhere,” Corleone stated.
The don, through a press release, emphasized the strong popular support organized crime enjoys in society, and warned New Jersey legislators that they would interfere in syndicate rights only to their peril. Thousands of Americans benefit from the services of prostitutes, illegal drugs, and gambling, and organized crime is an important source of jobs and prosperity.
The family has mounted a recall effort against the legislators who have attacked the rights of crime bosses. Campaign funds have poured in from the Cosa Nostra, which according to the US Supreme Courts, has the same free speech rights as any other person. “If New Jersey goes, it will only be a matter of time before the rights of criminal groups to organize are lost everywhere,” Corleone stated.
A Problem of Pronouns (Part 2)
The Hatfields and McCoys and the Abuse of “You” and “Me”
A second problem of the (intentional) sloppy use of pronouns is the perpetuation of tribal conflicts. The statement, “We failed to end slavery until the mid 19th century” is meaningless. If the word “we” is replaced by “I” (first person singular), it can’t be true, since I wasn’t alive then. If it is replaced by “you” (everyone left in “we” when I am removed), then it is equally meaningless, since you weren’t alive then either.
A politically-correct use of the word “we” when referring to some historical sense of guilt can easily be corrected by substituting the word “I.” If it doesn’t make sense (“I interned the Japanese Americans during WWII” or “I displaced the Native Americans when I migrated westward”), then use of the word “we” isn’t appropriate either.
“You violated over one hundred Indian treaties” or “We failed
to end slavery in this country until the middle of the 19th
century.”
A second problem of the (intentional) sloppy use of pronouns is the perpetuation of tribal conflicts. The statement, “We failed to end slavery until the mid 19th century” is meaningless. If the word “we” is replaced by “I” (first person singular), it can’t be true, since I wasn’t alive then. If it is replaced by “you” (everyone left in “we” when I am removed), then it is equally meaningless, since you weren’t alive then either.
A politically-correct use of the word “we” when referring to some historical sense of guilt can easily be corrected by substituting the word “I.” If it doesn’t make sense (“I interned the Japanese Americans during WWII” or “I displaced the Native Americans when I migrated westward”), then use of the word “we” isn’t appropriate either.
The pronoun “you” is even more problematic, because it is
both singular (you as an individual) and plural (you and everyone like you).
Its indiscriminate use automatically creates “us and them” divisions and class
separation. “You discriminated against us.” “You invaded my country.” “You need
to solve your problem with fatherless families.”
The use of “you” and “we” in this way can put the listener
on the defensive, and create barriers to solutions to real problems. Consider instead
the statement, “Due to historical patterns of discrimination, an African
American child born in poverty has an especially difficult time achieving the
American dream.” There isn’t any “you” and “we” here, or an implication that I
personally discriminated against this child’s ancestors. It is more likely that
the listener, as a fellow human being, will be more sympathetic to the plight
of this child and open to solutions.
This isn’t to suggest that historic conflicts between races,
tribal groups, or classes haven’t existed, or aren’t important. But solutions
are more likely to come through appeals to common
humanity and concern for others. When a speaker puts himself or herself in the
“we” camp and the listener in the “you” camp, the divisions and conflicts are
perpetuated.
A Problem of Pronouns (Part 1)
“Our world is facing an energy crisis. The solution is simple: we need to drive fuel-efficient cars, live in smaller homes, and buy ‘green’ energy.”
You have heard or read this kind of statement before. Even if you agree with it, the statement makes a serious error in the use of the pronoun “we.” This isn’t uncommon; in many ways, sloppy use of the English language masks underlying assumptions that we too often gloss over.
When a person says that “we” need to change our behavior, they really mean that you need to change your behavior. The speaker can easily change his or her actions or habits; it is the only thing they have control over. What they really want to do is change the behavior of others. If all they are doing is exhorting people for voluntary compliance, the deception would be excusable. But in many cases, the ones saying “we need to do this or that” are really arguing that the government should force you to do whatever it is they want done.
Why do they do this? For one reason, it avoids the problem of hypocrisy. People urging a more energy-efficient lifestyle may well drive pickup trucks and live in large houses. When they say “we” need to conserve more, they mean “I will when you have to.”
A second reason is that the use of the indeterminate “we” may get you to agree with them before you really understand the implications. The statement, “we need to reduce the emission of greenhouse gasses,” sounds innocuous, if vague. It’s hard to disagree with. Consider, instead, the statement, “The government should tax you more if you drive a lot, or drive a big car. And the government should add a tax to power plants that burn hydrocarbons, making your electricity bill go up.” Now hold on a minute; I thought the global warming problem was caused by farmers burning the Brazilian forest.
It's not that pleas for collective action are wrong. Our country and the world are facing serious challenges in the environment, the use of bio technology, global trade, violence, poverty, and disease. But the people proposing solutions to these problems should be more specific (and honest) in identifying exactly whose behavior needs to be changed, and how.
You have heard or read this kind of statement before. Even if you agree with it, the statement makes a serious error in the use of the pronoun “we.” This isn’t uncommon; in many ways, sloppy use of the English language masks underlying assumptions that we too often gloss over.
When a person says that “we” need to change our behavior, they really mean that you need to change your behavior. The speaker can easily change his or her actions or habits; it is the only thing they have control over. What they really want to do is change the behavior of others. If all they are doing is exhorting people for voluntary compliance, the deception would be excusable. But in many cases, the ones saying “we need to do this or that” are really arguing that the government should force you to do whatever it is they want done.
Why do they do this? For one reason, it avoids the problem of hypocrisy. People urging a more energy-efficient lifestyle may well drive pickup trucks and live in large houses. When they say “we” need to conserve more, they mean “I will when you have to.”
A second reason is that the use of the indeterminate “we” may get you to agree with them before you really understand the implications. The statement, “we need to reduce the emission of greenhouse gasses,” sounds innocuous, if vague. It’s hard to disagree with. Consider, instead, the statement, “The government should tax you more if you drive a lot, or drive a big car. And the government should add a tax to power plants that burn hydrocarbons, making your electricity bill go up.” Now hold on a minute; I thought the global warming problem was caused by farmers burning the Brazilian forest.
It's not that pleas for collective action are wrong. Our country and the world are facing serious challenges in the environment, the use of bio technology, global trade, violence, poverty, and disease. But the people proposing solutions to these problems should be more specific (and honest) in identifying exactly whose behavior needs to be changed, and how.
College Sports
With pride in his voice, my friend Quincy shared some news this week: his son Joshua had been accepted to the University of Washington on a drinking scholarship.
Our colleague from Japan, Ichiro, politely shared that he found it interesting that American universities grant scholarships for drinking and other recreational pastimes. He noted that, if you think about it, a “drinking scholarship” is an oxymoron. He wondered how this might affect America’s future global competitiveness.
Quincy responded that drinking provides the individual with many skills that contribute to a successful life: a sense of camaraderie, a competitive urge associated with drinking games, and increased ability in uninhibited expression of opinions. I wondered if it contributed some negative ones, too: tribalism due to the fanning of rivalries with drinkers from other colleges, and even between fraternities on the same campus. And college drinking seems to encourage fighting. Could our college and high school drinking culture be part of the reason that America seems to view international relations as simply an opportunity to fight other tribes?
I asked Quincy if he was worried about the health aspects of college drinking. Studies seem to point to brain injuries caused by repeated bouts of binge drinking. And, at least from what I see on TV, many college drinkers are grossly overweight. Maybe, I speculated, drinking has overtaken baseball as our national pastime because it’s a sport where it’s OK to be fat. And it seems college drinkers are also more likely to engage in other dangerous activities, such as taking drugs and playing football.
Quincy replied that many aspects of life have risks. At least Joshua was going to college. And Joshua himself admitted that it was drinking that got him through high school.
The scholarship requires Joshua to show up on campus early--in the middle of summer, in fact. When I saw him later that week, I asked him if he looked forward to checking out the library and talking to professors before classes began. He gave me a vacant stare and mumbled, “Whatever, man, I’m just lookin’ forward to hanging out with the other members of the drinking team."
Our colleague from Japan, Ichiro, politely shared that he found it interesting that American universities grant scholarships for drinking and other recreational pastimes. He noted that, if you think about it, a “drinking scholarship” is an oxymoron. He wondered how this might affect America’s future global competitiveness.
Quincy responded that drinking provides the individual with many skills that contribute to a successful life: a sense of camaraderie, a competitive urge associated with drinking games, and increased ability in uninhibited expression of opinions. I wondered if it contributed some negative ones, too: tribalism due to the fanning of rivalries with drinkers from other colleges, and even between fraternities on the same campus. And college drinking seems to encourage fighting. Could our college and high school drinking culture be part of the reason that America seems to view international relations as simply an opportunity to fight other tribes?
I asked Quincy if he was worried about the health aspects of college drinking. Studies seem to point to brain injuries caused by repeated bouts of binge drinking. And, at least from what I see on TV, many college drinkers are grossly overweight. Maybe, I speculated, drinking has overtaken baseball as our national pastime because it’s a sport where it’s OK to be fat. And it seems college drinkers are also more likely to engage in other dangerous activities, such as taking drugs and playing football.
Quincy replied that many aspects of life have risks. At least Joshua was going to college. And Joshua himself admitted that it was drinking that got him through high school.
The scholarship requires Joshua to show up on campus early--in the middle of summer, in fact. When I saw him later that week, I asked him if he looked forward to checking out the library and talking to professors before classes began. He gave me a vacant stare and mumbled, “Whatever, man, I’m just lookin’ forward to hanging out with the other members of the drinking team."
Of Course We Have Property Rights
The City of Damascus, Oregon, was incorporated in 2004, but in over seven years it has been unable to adopt a comprehensive plan. The problem, pundits agree, is a division in the community over the issues of property rights and environmental protection. But these issues aren’t mutually exclusive; they aren’t even related.
The “property” that the founders of our nation wanted to protect included far more than land. It encompassed other forms of wealth and possessions, including in those days slaves. But today, in land use disputes, “property” has come to mean land.
Why do we even need to have this debate? Of course you have a right to your property. You can do anything you want on your land. You own it; it’s yours to do with whatever you please.
But you don’t have a right to the property owned by other people, including the right to property owned in common by other people. This means you have no right to connect your property to a municipal water or sewer system, or to use public streets to get access to your property. Those services and privileges have nothing to do with your right to your property. If you want them, you’ll have to bargain for them, as you would whenever you want someone else’s property. That bargain might include some limits in how you use your property, but the choice is yours as to whether to take it or leave it.
You have a right to do whatever you want on your property, but you don’t have a right to alter or harm other people’s property. This means you don’t have a right to burn stuff, or do anything that makes dust, if the dust or smoke particulates drift off your property line. You don’t have a right to add silt or anything else to a river or creek that runs through your property, since that clearly flows onto someone else’s property. You don’t have a right to use a septic tank, since the drain field affects ground water that eventually makes its way off your property onto someone else’s. You certainly don’t have a right to dam or alter the flow of any streams on your property, since that obviously affects the property rights of the people who own property downstream.
You don’t have a right to use a well, since the water you would draw from is connected, underground, to other properties. You might be able to collect and use the rain water that falls from the sky, but there is some question as to whether you really own it. You don’t own rain when it’s in the sky; do you get title to it when it hits the ground? The same applies to the other living things on your property—animals, plants, birds, insects. Do you own them? What if the birds or insects are born on someone else’s property and simply wander onto yours? If you kill them, have you taken someone else’s property?
Some day in the future, private ownership of a piece of God’s earth will seem as strange as the concept of owning another human being. But we’re not there yet. For now, you are free to use your land however you want…as long as you don’t affect in any way the property rights of anyone else.
The “property” that the founders of our nation wanted to protect included far more than land. It encompassed other forms of wealth and possessions, including in those days slaves. But today, in land use disputes, “property” has come to mean land.
Why do we even need to have this debate? Of course you have a right to your property. You can do anything you want on your land. You own it; it’s yours to do with whatever you please.
But you don’t have a right to the property owned by other people, including the right to property owned in common by other people. This means you have no right to connect your property to a municipal water or sewer system, or to use public streets to get access to your property. Those services and privileges have nothing to do with your right to your property. If you want them, you’ll have to bargain for them, as you would whenever you want someone else’s property. That bargain might include some limits in how you use your property, but the choice is yours as to whether to take it or leave it.
You have a right to do whatever you want on your property, but you don’t have a right to alter or harm other people’s property. This means you don’t have a right to burn stuff, or do anything that makes dust, if the dust or smoke particulates drift off your property line. You don’t have a right to add silt or anything else to a river or creek that runs through your property, since that clearly flows onto someone else’s property. You don’t have a right to use a septic tank, since the drain field affects ground water that eventually makes its way off your property onto someone else’s. You certainly don’t have a right to dam or alter the flow of any streams on your property, since that obviously affects the property rights of the people who own property downstream.
You don’t have a right to use a well, since the water you would draw from is connected, underground, to other properties. You might be able to collect and use the rain water that falls from the sky, but there is some question as to whether you really own it. You don’t own rain when it’s in the sky; do you get title to it when it hits the ground? The same applies to the other living things on your property—animals, plants, birds, insects. Do you own them? What if the birds or insects are born on someone else’s property and simply wander onto yours? If you kill them, have you taken someone else’s property?
Some day in the future, private ownership of a piece of God’s earth will seem as strange as the concept of owning another human being. But we’re not there yet. For now, you are free to use your land however you want…as long as you don’t affect in any way the property rights of anyone else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)