Husband hunting? Think it through.

Susan Patton on Hunting for a Husband

It's unfortunate that Ms. Patton (who is probably Mrs. Patton) wasn't more careful with her language in this article, because I think her intention has merit.  But unfortunately, women my age (around 30) were raised to insist on their independence and encouraged to put our own education and other needs first.  So when people like me read a tagline that says "Young women in college need to smarten up and start husband-hunting," don't be surprised when we splutter and rage. 

Which is too bad.  Because in truth, Ms. Patton has a point.  Education can happen at any time in your life; child-bearing cannot.  If that's up there on your list of things you want to have happen before you die, then finding a suitable mate probably should be fairly high on your list. 

I think part of the knee-jerk outrage over this article is her use of the term 'husband-hunting'.  This sounds so terribly 1950's, when women didn't have other options, and the important thing to do was snag a husband that would provide for you.  I hope that's not what Ms. Patton meant.  In this day and age, a husband is neither a meal ticket nor just a sperm donor.  Ideally, each of us chooses a mate because it's someone we want to share our life with.  We have dreams, and we've found someone to help us accomplish them.  You're looking down the road and realizing that Team Us can get farther than Team Me.  And there is nothing wrong with that.  In truth, if that's your attitude, you almost can't go wrong with looking early for your husband/wife/partner. 

I say almost because I do think it's important to get out there and play the field a little, get to know what you like, what you don't like, and what's important to you BEFORE you settle down with someone.  Go ahead, date those bad boys and gorgeous but high maintenance girls--you'll learn really fast that that is NOT what you want in a long-term partner.  Everybody is different, but I know I definitely shouldn't have married my boyfriend when I was 21.  Thankfully he didn't ask, since I probably would have said yes, because I hadn't dated many guys before him and didn't realize what else I wanted in a relationship.  Instead, I married at 26, and I had dated this guy for a lot less time than previous boyfriends--but by then, I knew what I wanted and more importantly, I knew that I'd found it. 

Ms. Patton's other unfortunate angle on this point is that if you wait til you're in your 30s to start looking for a man, you're going to be competing with younger (and therefore prettier, I guess?) women for the same group of ideal men.  I suppose I see her point, but I do find it a little offensive.  Just because you're older doesn't make you less attractive. Especially given MY point, which is that your partner for life will be more interested in who you are and what you think about than what you look like. You're not likely to be seeking long-term commitment from across the bar--which is the kind of situation where a barely-dressed-20-something might have the edge over your slightly more sensible ensemble.  If you're looking for a one night stand, then yeah, you should do that when you're younger.  But I heartily disagree that you should look for a husband when you're only 21 or 22.  Have some fun, fully selfish time before you sign that marriage contract.

Now, here's the big thing I suspect upset a lot of women--Ms. Patton might be implying that you need to buckle down to being a wife and mother to the exclusion of your other titles (student/employee/achiever). She doesn't say it, and I really hope she doesn't mean it, because that's another spot where I need to put my foot down. Just because you're marrying someone does not mean you have to put your own life on hold.  If that's how the relationship feels, then you're marrying the wrong person!  Instead, you should be excited to team up with someone who's going to work with you to pursue mutual goals.  You shouldn't always put your mate's needs ahead of yours, and they shouldn't either!  There's happy middle ground there, because there are few things in life that can give you more pleasure than pleasantly surprising someone you love, and getting support when and where you need it in return.

That is something worth looking for--at any age. 

The Heritage Foundation and the Individual Mandate

So a friend of mine dropped a bomb on me last night; he said that The Heritage Foundation 'invented the individual mandate' that ObamaCare based their plan on. I think anyone who's familiar with The Heritage Foundation would be just as shocked as I was. So I spent some time this morning digging through their online archives and found some fascinating tidbits. I haven't posted anything on this blog in a million years, it seems like, but I need to write some of this out in order to help me process this much information. So here goes, my absent audience!

First of all, here's an article from 2011 that gives hints of what my friend was talking about: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/10/20/how-a-conservative-think-tank-invented-the-individual-mandate/

I'm guessing that the quoted sections are from the book The Heritage Foundation put out in January of 1989....and is 140 pages, which I wasn't quite ready to commit to. I also found a shorter article posted in October of 1989 that highlights 'the Heritage Plan.' Unfortunately, it must have been scanned into their archives by an early text translating device, cuz there are loooooots of typos and weird spacing, etc. So for the portions that I've copied and pasted, I took the liberty of fixing it.

As for the individual mandate questions, here is the pertinent paragraph: 

[Item #2] Mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance. Many states now require passengers in automobiles to wear seat belts for their own protection. Many others require anybody driving a car to have liability insurance. But neither the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement. This mandate is based on two important principles. First, that health care protection is a responsibility of individuals, not businesses. Thus to the extent that anybody should be required to provide coverage to a family, the household mandate assumes that it is the family that carries the first responsibility. Second, it assumes that there is an implicit contract between households and society, based on the notion that health insurance is not like other forms of insurance protection. If a young man wrecks his Porsche and has not had the foresight to obtain insurance, we may commiserate but society feels no obligation to repair his car. But health care is different. If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance. If we find that he has spent his money on other things rather than insurance, we may be angry but we will not deny him services - even if that means more prudent citizens end up paying the tab. A mandate on individuals recognizes this implicit contract. Society does feel a moral obligation to insure that its citizens do not suffer from the unavailability of health care. But on the other hand, each household has the obligation, to the extent it is able, to avoid placing demands on society by protecting itself.

Ooookay. So that's a lot to take in. On one hand, they're saying it's an individual/household responsibility and not up to employers (hurray!) and on the other hand, the line about society feeling a moral obligation...? Ehhh not so much hurray there. I have really mixed feelings about this, because as long as "prudent citizens" MIGHT possibly be forced to pay for someone else's health care, then I suppose an individual/household mandate actually is the best way to ensure an even keel. Here's their conclusion:

All of these measures, from the basic tax treatment of health care to the encouragement of long-term care insurance, would introduce a far greater degree of consumer activism into the health care market. This strategy, combined with a requirement for basic health coverage and the focusing of government assistance to those who need it most, would change the foundations of health care in America. Rather than the current system with its built-in inflation and enormous gaps in coverage, the result would be a system providing not only coverage to all but also a powerful set of incentives for the health care industry to be as efficient and consumer sensitive as possible. In this way, America could create a national health system that combines universal health care with a degree of quality, access, and budget control that is unavailable in other national health systems around the world.

The full article can be found here: http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/assuring-affordable-health-care-for-all-americans I heartily suggest reading it, though I don't know how accurate their info is these days on how the taxing/benefits/care system works (I wouldn't know, I've never been able to afford insurance, haha!) but overall they make a pretty good argument for the best way to run a national health care program.

And that's the crux of it. They're making a proposal for how to run a program for universal health care. I think the real question is, do we need it? Is it possible to make health care (not necessarily insurance, mind, but CARE) more affordable in another way...in a more traditional American way? That is, based on free market ideas. What if health insurance were regulated so that it could ONLY cover catastrophic incidents? Would the market react accordingly and suddenly prescriptions might be less expensive, and your normal annual check-up is something for which you put aside some money for a week, instead of a month? I'm all ears on this one, so feel free to leave a comment.

PS-I'm still slightly horrified that Heritage came up with a proposal for any sort of universal health care. But I think they saw the inevitability of the situation, so perhaps they were just trying to keep a step ahead and save what freedoms they could?

Perplexity

I haven't written in ages because life was just too hectic and it didn't seem like anyone was reading/following this blog. My goal for this blog was (and still is) to provoke rational thought, and promote civil discourse on political philosophy. I am NOT looking for a forum to spew vicious thoughts or whine or rant about stoopid people in the media. Tempting though that can be...there's plenty of that out there. I wanted something different, something that would make someone say "hmm I hadn't thought of it that way before", or even "that doesn't make sense to me--here's why". But I didn't get much of that, so I let a lot of time go by.
But.
Now that the primaries are starting to ramp up and Obama's on TV all the time again, there's a lot of spewing going on from both sides of the aisle. And I am perplexed. I was talking with my husband about it last night, and the more we discussed WHY people have these knee-jerk reactions, I became...not quite frustrated....more like sadly puzzled. I just don't understand why people are so threatened by other people's opinions. I mean, disagree, fine! There's no need to jump at someone's throat or get snotty unless they make it personal first.
Allow me to share an example from twitter yesterday:

some lady:
How crazy are the Tea Baggers that they will vote Herman Cain for President. A man who owed a pizza parlor.

me:
really? you think that's crazy? have you ever tried to run a business and solve problems on the fly?

her:
Yeah....that's the same.

me:
I didn't say it's the same thing. But don't knock what you can't understand. Problem-solving is key to being a good leader.

her:
I understand problem-solving quite well. Thanks. You just made my point.

Do you see the oddness of this exchange? She responded with total sarcasm, without answering my question...and the "made my point" part...I don't even know what she's talking about! Maybe she had tweeted something earlier in the day that I unknowingly responded to, but it was just odd. And it bugged me for most of the evening, because there are so many other people out there who have those same knee-jerk reactions. She doesn't like Herman Cain because he's a conservative, and therefore mocks the fact that he was a businessman. But why?
Why is it so hard for people to just LISTEN to what candidates/representatives actually say, and respond to that specifically? Instead of spouting vague generalities and misinformation, say WHAT you disagree with, and WHY. Don't just call someone names. Personally, I think that just pegs you as someone who isn't informed, or is just repeating what they've heard from some talking head. Again, this applies to both sides. I hate it when right wingers call all Dems communists. But that being said, I've heard amazingly communist drivel come out of Nancy Pelosi's mouth. So I wouldn't disagree with calling her one...but I'm not going to hold that against every other Democrat in Congress. That's unfair.
Anyway, I guess you get my point. I exhort everyone to think before you react, when you hear a news story or someone else's opinion in politics. Don't revert to name-calling, just debate something logically (if you want to). Or admit you don't know enough about the subject to have a formed opinion.
I really hope we can have more civility as time goes on, not less.

Tim Wise's essay

In response to Tim Wise's "Open Letter to the White Right...." et al
I am white. And considering that I've attended a Tea Party rally and am part of the Pittsburgh Tea Party meetup.com group, you would label me as one of the Right. So be it. Being, therefore, one of the people you addressed your letter to, allow me to respond to your bit of absurdity.
I'm quite sure there are racist people involved in the Tea Party movement and in the Republican party. But then I'm pretty sure there are racist people in the liberal camp and the Democratic Party, too. So the fact that racism exists is not even really worth mentioning. It is what it is, there will always be people who are incapable of seeing past others' external appearance before judging their character. Fine. I don't care what those people think, and nobody else should either. They have forfeited their right to be heard as rational people by judging others in an irrational manner.
So here's my point: I can't speak for everyone who supports the Tea Party movement, but I am one that does support it. And I, as well as the people I know personally who have attended rallies and meetings, am not racist. This election upheaval had absolutely nothing to do with minorities, or a secret desire to take things back to the 1950s. Where did that idea even come from?!? Everything I've heard, including your arch-nemeses' radio shows (Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck) is pretty straight forward and obvious with regards to the goal of 'taking our country back'.
We want to take it back to the days of pride and responsibility. We want to take it back to when the Constitution was actually respected by our president, instead of being ignored. We want American citizens to be legal citizens, and people willing to work for their wages and benefits. WE DON'T WANT THE HEALTH CARE BILL. Know why? Not because we hate poor people or handicapped people, but because it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The federal government has no business telling us what we are required to buy.
And that's just a start. I, personally think we need to majorly downsize the federal government. I've talked about that in previous posts though, so I'm not going to repeat myself here. I'd like to see politicians that I can respect, people that go to work for the citizens, not in spite of them. There are lots of things that I'd like to see, but mostly I'd like to see someone in office (at any level) who understands the concept of doing things in a responsible manner. Because we DO need to take the long view, as Mr. Wise says. But he's got it wrong, by removing government meddling, we're doing more for all those underdog citizens out there than any socialist program ever could.
So, Mr. Wise...in conclusion, I'd just like to say this: Be more careful how you address your open letters. Yours was clearly written at irrational racist people, not white Conservatives. The two are not the same thing, and if you can't see that, then you are just as guilty of making irrational judgments as racist people are. Try making arguments based on fact and deductive reasoning next time, instead of broad generalities. Remember, there's always an exception to every rule.

Smaller is Better?

I've been working on the Series 2 post, and it's a little overwhelming. Given my insane to-do list for my business and the fact that I'm moving soon, doing a series of posts going through the entire Constitution and its amendments may be a little more than I can do right now.
SO. I do, however, want to continue discussion about the role of government in our lives. LP's comments on the last post made me think a little more about what CAN be changed. Because she's right, there are lots of people out there who think it's our job as humans to help take care of each other. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, and I'm relieved that at least there's someone else out there who doesn't feel comfortable sitting back and letting someone else "shoulder our burdens".
You *could* make the argument that any kind of socialism *is* letting others' shoulder their burdens whether you want them to or not. You are allowing the government to decide how, where and when to help people.
Wouldn't it make more sense for those sorts of 'helping' organizations to be at the VERY biggest, a state issue? I think they should be entirely private (there is evidence [Charles Murray, "The Tendrils of Community"] that private orgs are both more efficient and garner better funding). But if you really think that all citizens should contribute willingly or no, (therefore by taxation) then I think a local or state organization is FAR better than a federal one. How can it not be?
Firstly, it's right there, in the location that needs the help. Secondly, since it's covering a smaller area, it's bound to be a smaller group of employees/volunteers, which significantly lowers the risk of both corruption and inefficiency.
I mean, honestly...in theory this is a change that could be effected tomorrow. Every Federal Org could be split into smaller orgs for each state. Their focuses would be clearer and surely they would accomplish more, therefore helping best those who need it most.
OK, that's enough food for thought today. Please comment and share your thoughts with me, I would really like to hear what you think.

Food for thought

I'd like to share with you a few quotes from Henry Cabot Lodge, in his book "The Democracy of the Constitution". I was startled when I was reading this last night to see how much his comments relate to current events. This book was published in 1915.

"[The Constitution] has disappointed the expectations of those who opposed it, convinced those who doubted, and won a success beyond the most glowing hopes of those who put faith in it. Such a work is not to be lightly cast down or set aside, or, which would be still worse, remade by crude thinkers and by men who live only to serve and flatter in their own interest the emotion of the moment."

In my opinion, this describes exactly the efforts of the Congress to expand Federal powers. Talk about the emotion of the moment!

"It is the fashion...to speak of socialism as if it were something new, a radiant discovery of our own time which is to wipe away all tears. The truth is that it is very old, as old in essence as human nature, for it appeals to the strong desire in every man to get something for nothing, and to have someone else bear his burdens and do his work for him."

I have nothing to add to that. How can I put it more clearly than he? Last quote, and my personal favorite:

"To argue from results seems just now out of fashion. Actual accomplishment, it would appear, is nothing. According to the new dispensation our decision must be made on what is promised for the future, not on what has been done in the past. Under this novel doctrine, as I have observed it, we are to be guided chiefly by envy and discontent and are to act on the general principle that whatever is is wrong." (emphasis added by me)

So there you have it. People today are caught up in the belief that change for change's sake must be good. These days, as in 1915, socialism seems a new answer...that the government can fix everything. But history (and even recent experiences!) have proven that adding layers of bureaucratic control does nothing but complicate programs, and open them to corruption. How could making anything more complicated also reduce costs? Think about that for a minute.
The logic behind keeping government out of as much business as possible is a basic capitalist principle, but Ayn Rand does a fantastic job of explaining the morality and the philosophy behind allowing men to think and work for themselves. Give this interview of hers a read if you'd like to learn more about her argument. It changed my life and my perception of the world around me--gave me confidence in my own ability and purpose.
http://www.ellensplace.net/ar_pboy.html
[Editor's note: I just read through that particular version of her interview, it must be the full one, so it covers a LOT more of her philosophy as a whole, not just the political part of it that I read in "The Libertarian Reader". It's still great, it's just a lot longer and a lot more to take in all at once. So try not to be overwhelmed, haha]

Stay tuned for the Series post #2...

Health Care Is Not a Right

This is a fabulous speech I read about a year ago that Leonard Peikoff gave in 1993. It is in my opinion, the best analysis and explanation for why the government should have no hand in health care. It covers the dangers of the entitlement mentality, why the government cannot dole out new "rights" without infringing on our actual ones, and the specifics of what happens when meddling bureaucrats get in the way of a free market.
It's not very long (about 3.5 pages when printed out), so please give it a read, it may give you some fodder for rational arguments with people who think this health care takeover is well-intentioned, if poorly executed.
http://www.westandfirm.org/Peikoff-01.html
Series post #2 is in the works and coming soon!