Update from the Heartland
No.540
16.4.12 – 22.4.12
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
OK, indulge me . . . it is proud grandfather time:
“Rose Hill rallies, tops Mavericks”
by Lionel Tipton / Eagle correspondent
http://www.varsitykansas.com
Published April 17 at 6:12 a.m. | Last updated April 17 at
6:12 a.m.
There is a great pic of Granddaughter
Aspen Shae accompanying the story.
Aspen’s team lost 1-2, but it is always a genuine treat to watch her
perform; and, she made the headline photograph. On top of that, she had her first prom Saturday night. They grow up so fast!
On Sunday, we took Grandson Jack
to the Kansas Cosmosphere & Space Center in Hutchinson, Kansas, to see the
new IMAX movie Air Racers, about the National Championship Air Races and Air
Show at Reno Stead Aerodrome, Reno, Nevada. For those not familiar with the Cosmosphere, the screen is a
44-foot dome for 70mm IMAX projection and through-screen, stereo, surround
sound – very impressive – especially for a movie of this nature. The photography was quite good;
although the editing was a little too choppy for me liking. I wanted to see a better depiction of
sheer speed and power inherent in the Unlimited race. I did notice a single brief flash glimpse of “Galloping
Ghost,” the highly modified P-51 pylon racer that crashed into the main
grandstand last year [509/510]. For those readers who enjoy flying
machines, I recommend the movie.
The follow-up news items:
-- Update on tornado damage [539]. The damage to
the Spirit Aerospace hangers on the Westside of McConnell Air Force Base was
far more substantial than initially reported. Also, when I got to work on Monday, we had a major skylight
torn in the roof of the company’s final assembly building. Our roof and other damage were repaired
by the end of the week. Public
reports indicate Spirit will be back in business with temporary repairs on
Monday. The residential property
damage will not be so quick to fix.
The village of Fucking,
Upper Austria State, Republic of Austria, has endured the unwanted attention of
English-speaking people since the village achieved general public awareness
after World War II. The Telegraph of
London reported that the village is considering a referendum for a name change
all because so many English-speaking people snicker and giggle over names that
carry sexual connotation. Very sad
to me! When are we going to grow
up?
In the ensuing conflagration from the Secret Service / DoD
prostitution event at the Hotel Caribe in Cartagena, Bolivar Department,
Republic of Colombia, it is truly sad and embarrassing that Colombia has more
progressive and reasonable laws regarding prostitution than the United States
of America. To me, the public
condemnation of the Secret Service agents is not particularly different from
the unwanted attention garnered by the Austrian village of Fucking
(above). Because prostitution is
illegal and socially contemptible in the United States, a half-dozen Secret
Service agents and eventually military personnel will pay an extraordinary
penalty. The security risk comes not
from prostitution but rather our moral disapproval of the profession. Nonetheless, those agents demonstrated
incredibly poor judgment. Their
mission was as the advance team for the President’s participation in the Summit
of the Americas. They succeeded,
but they ultimately failed, bringing attention to themselves.
The President of Sudan Omar al-Bashir declared war on South
Sudan and demanded South Sudanese forces withdraw from their occupation of the
60,000-barrels-a-day Heglig oil field.
Both countries continue to ignore calls to end the fighting. The United
Nations Security Council is considering sanctions on both countries in an
attempt to end the violence.
Apparently, this is the week of sex.
“Birth Control and Teenage Pregnancy”
Editorial
New York Times
Published: April 18, 2012
and
“Not Quite a Teen, Yet Sold for Sex”
by Nicholas D. Kristopf, Op-Ed Columnist
New York Times
Published: April 18, 2012
The social conservative assault on childhood sex education
began with the passage of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 [PL
97-35; 95 Stat. 357; 13.August.1981], which included Title IX, Subtitle G, §955(a) [95 Stat. 578] – the
progenitor of the abstinence-only sex education program [510] – that amended the Public Health
Service Act (PHSA) [PL 78-410; 58 Stat. 682; 1.7.1944]. Somehow, the social conservatives in
Congress gathered sufficient support to pass Federal laws and programs to keep
children ignorant rather than teach them about an important part of life. When children are not taught properly,
they have very little upon which to make good decisions, and often, if not
inevitably, they rely upon peers, which is usually not the most reliable source
of sexual or relationship information.
As noted in the editorial, the presumed Republican Party candidate for
President seeks to repeal the Population
Research and Voluntary Family Planning Programs of 1970 [PL 91-572;
84 Stat.
1504; 24.December.1970] that added Title X [84 Stat. 1506]
to the PHSA. I suppose the
objective is to head back to the good ol’ days of the Victorian era. Oh yea!
Interesting observations:
“The Future of Sex? 5 Trends That May Completely Transform
Our Sex Lives – Pornography, prostitution, online sex -- in the future, it's
all one thing. But is it a better thing?”
by Emily Empel
AlterNet.org
Posted: April 18, 2012
1. The commercial sex industry will expand the definition of
sex.
2. Tech innovations will raise the intimacy level of
commercial sex.
3. Commercial sex will converge with pop-tech.
4. Sex work will be dependent on region.
5. Mainstream organizations will realize the economic
value of commercial sex.
. . . for our
rumination and cogitation.
“Is Prostitution Safer When It’s Legal?”
Room for Debate
New York Times
Updated: April 20, 2012; 9:18 AM
I missed the on-line debate, but there are sufficient
written supporting articles for the broader public debate. Your contributions to the discussion
are always appreciated.
My review of the Supreme Court’s recent Perry v. Perez, [565 U.S.
___ (2012); no 11-713] ruling [528]
regarding electoral reapportionment led me into a series of historical cases –
the latest being Baker v. Carr [369 U.S. 186 (1962); no. 6]. Associate Justice John Marshall Harlan
II said, “[T]here is nothing in the Federal Constitution to prevent a State,
acting not irrationally, from choosing any electoral legislative structure it
thinks best suited to the interests, temper, and customs of its people.” In
essence, Harlan’s reasoning supported grossly unequal representation as long as
the state had an asserted reason for doing so. The statement in the context of the 1962 Baker
decision struck me as the epitome of our on-going debate with respect to
judicial activism. To the strict
constructionists, there is not one mention of one person, one vote, or equality
of representation. They argue that
by virtue of the paucity of reference and the 10th Amendment,
electoral apportionment is the sole domain of the respective states. To the progressives, it is the
combination of the Constitution’s Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 (decennial census),
Article IV,
Section 4 (republican government), 14th Amendment (Equal
Protection Clause), and the opening words of the Preamble – We, the People – that command one
person, one vote for the House of Representatives. As I often do, I take a presented logic to the extreme to
appreciate the ramifications, especially if there is no qualification or
constraint on the application. Using
Harlan’s argument, Jim Crow would still be alive and well. Fortunately, for all of us, the Supreme
Court eventually saw a citizen’s rights in greater measure.
Comments and contributions from Update no.539:
“Thank you for the update and so pleased to read you, your
family plus friends are okay. I
was concerned since Sunday night for you since the NBC news depicted the damage
in your area. Scary I bet. Strange that early Tuesday (last week),
I had an intense dream about a tornado near, while I was in a cafe here in San
Diego. Our chance for quake is
much higher, tho we have had tornadoes, but not destructive. Waterspouts have been more common. I am hoping your area is clearing soon
(wx).
My reply:
“I will freely
confess of fair amount of apprehension.
When I made the decision to make a run for home, the Weather Service was
reporting the tornado as ¾ of a mile wide and boresighted on downtown, which is
where the wedding reception was being held. I’ve seen tornados in California, Arizona, Colorado,
Florida, Virginia, Maryland, and of course Kansas. I studied the mechanism of the atmospheric phenomenon in
graduate school. Weather is great
today; I rode the bike into work.”
Comment to the Blog:
“While I disagree with Mr. Hiatt’s notion that we should be
insistently spreading American-style around the world over the objections of
those we think should welcome it, he does share one point with me. He states
that, ‘Regimes that spit on the rule of law at home may not be reliable
partners in creating a rule of law across borders.’ I have recently published
an essay series on ‘Decay of the Rule of Law in America.’ One of the results of
our excusing law breaking in high officials and their collaborators is the
hypocritical spectacle of Obama and his predecessors condemning that behavior
in other countries even while they depend upon it to stay out of jail. Think of
Ford’s pardon of Nixon, Daddy Bush’s conduct in the Iran-Contra scandal,
Clinton and Sonny Bush’s telecom and other scandals. We have yet to find out
what offenses Obama may have committed, but Attorney General Holder has stated
(in different words but with clear meaning) that the Obama Administration does
not prosecute criminals from prior administrations for fear they might be
prosecuted for their own offenses in a future administration.
“I believe you need to study addiction in far more depth
before you make broad statements about it. So does George Will. His figure for
the cost of prison is common and reasonably accurate. My guess would be that
his 80:20 ratio for consumption would hold up for marijuana but probably not
for other drugs. My issue with Mr. Will is that he draws completely unwarranted
assumptions from his figures. I will note that he still makes no concrete
proposal, although he has used up another essay pointing out the failures of
the current attempt at Prohibition. This time he threw in a shot at medical
marijuana. While these laws are no doubt abused due to the hypocrisy inherent
in prohibition, a reasonable number and variety of studies have shown that
marijuana can indeed have a genuine medical benefit.
“Cap, you would be considered an oddity in most circles of
debate. You support several progressive causes, but you also seem to believe
that the military and the ‘intelligence’ community should be allowed to do as
they please in the name of the ‘war on terrorism.’
“I could not tell exactly what in that second article on the
incestuous German brother that brought you to the point of writing. The article
seemed to give a fairly broad range of opinions. My opinion of incest is that
society needs to undertake a very long and thorough examination of the subject.
As you did, I also noted the assumptions of abuse, and the article does not
point out that such assumptions arise in the absence of knowledge. We do know,
however, that children of such unions have a higher chance of genetic
illnesses. If we must regulate incest, perhaps such regulation should favor
birth control rather than invade bedrooms”
My response to the
Blog:
Re:
Rule of Law. An interesting
premise! I am not one of those who
claims or even suggests that American republican democracy is perfect. The rest is just opinion. I’ll let that stand. I am interested in reading your essay.
Re:
addiction. I have thought about
your statement and opinion since I read your contribution yesterday. Perhaps you are correct that I should
study addiction “in far more depth,” but I think not. Frankly, I am not concerned about the addict or addiction;
I’ve had too much direct experience.
I respect the addict’s right to make choices regarding his “Life,
Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness” and not interfere with his choices. My concern is solely to eliminate the
collateral damage inflicted upon others by the addict’s obsession – everything
from the crime it generates to the unconscionable intrusion and imposition upon
our rights and freedom. In a free
society, prohibition against private behavior rarely, if ever, works. We tried that with alcohol nearly a
century ago with disastrous results.
We have endured horrific consequences in the so-called “war on
drugs.” We have tried to focus on the
public effects of tobacco use rather than prohibition of private consumption –
not entirely but close enough. We
have made a somewhat lame attempt at dealing with the public consequences of
alcohol abuse without trying to prohibit private consumption. It is public conduct and consequences
that are my concern, which is precisely why I advocate for legalization and
regulation of the morality “crimes” like prostitution, drugs, gambling, et
cetera. Let us focus on public
conduct. Let the individuals live
their choices in peace . . . as long as they cause no harm to another living
soul. I accept that my ideas and
concepts may not be well-informed or thoroughly researched, but even the most
casual observer can recognize that what we have been doing for the last 40
years is not working and will never work.
At least I am trying to offer solutions, however lame they may be. I do not support elements of Will’s
opinion, but at least he is talking about the topic.
Re:
oddity. Indeed! Acknowledged! The impression regarding the military and Intelligence
Community is incorrect. There are
rules for everyone. We are asking
our Intelligence Community and military to wage war successfully in the War on
Islamic Fascism; they must have the necessary tools commensurate with the
modern battlefield. I do not
subscribe to the label “war on terrorism,” because terrorism is an instrument,
like a gun, and a symptom; those tools do not cause men to do bad things; the
fascism of a small segment of Islamic religious believers is the root cause of
our present war. I simply want us
to win the present war.
Re:
incest. I am with you. I want a thorough, unemotional
examination of an important topic that we want to pretend does not exist. Further, we use certain words in a far
too broad and indiscriminate manner, which in turn produces unwarranted,
destructive consequences. The
Stübing case appears to be a most unusual outlier, but probably not unique. We have discussed the use of the word
“abuse” many times, and I’m sure we shall discuss it many more times before we
are done. Again, my point is we
should focus on the public conduct, injury, consequences, and avoid the
emotional content of broad, general, moral outrage. I just advocate that we talk, we learn, we find solutions
for real public issues. The
undeniable public issue is genetic consequences. I also believe there is genuine injury to other people in
such conduct. Let us focus
properly and avoid generalized accusations that in themselves are destructive.
. . . round two:
“I suspect that your ‘too much direct experience’ has led
you astray with respect to addiction. We share the observation that Prohibition
never worked and the desire to replace it with something that will limit the
damage to society. However, first recognize the scope of the disease. All
parties to this discussion are interested parties, but I found some handy
figures. The Federal drug czar, Barry McCaffrey, gives an estimate of 3.6
million people addicted to illegal drugs (not including casual users). The
National Institutes of Health figure for alcoholics (not social drinkers) is
17.6 million in the USA. Providing any kind of ‘isolation’ environment for 21.2
million people would break the national budget. Further traps await as you
study the nature of this disease. Addicts do not want to be isolated from their
families and friends, and the feeling is usually mutual whether or not that is
rational. Now we have over 20 million families opposed to any such idea.
There's more yet. Consider the effects of all this on the alcoholic beverage
makers, distributors, bars, and retailers and on associated businesses such as
casinos and restaurants. Social drinkers do business with all of those
industries, but alcoholics spend a great deal more per person. Even the
advertising industry would be affected. All of those industries will lobby
against any such action, as will people who make staggering profits on illegal
drugs.
“We have discussed the ‘war’ at too much length already. A
military action without a measurable goal cannot be either won or lost but can
certainly be used to achieve other less welcome goals. Historically, such
actions have always been used to stop dissent in the home country.
“I doubt the Stübing case is a true outlier because
of the existence of a sibling couple. I have known such a couple, not
well. The brother-sister couple I knew, however, never had children. I imagine
some number of others exist that are not known to outsiders. The German case
becomes an outlier only because of Patrick Stübing's open willingness to
defy society. We cannot know the rate of such relationships without the
extensive study we both seek.”
. . . my response to round two:
Re:
addiction. I fully acknowledge
that I may be “astray” or flat wrong.
At least, I’m trying to find a better way. So, help me.
What is your proposal? What
are your ideas? The status quo is
NOT sustainable and there is no hope of success; we must do something
different. Next, I think and
believe drug users are quite akin to alcohol or other substance consumers. The casual or low-grade users function
quite well in society; they lead fairly normal, productive lives. I drink a glass or two of red wine at
night on the weekends; by some definitions, I am an alcoholic. Even if so, I am a functioning
alcoholic; alcohol does not affect my public conduct, or cause injury to another
person, or diminish my productivity.
I am not a threat to public safety or society. Likewise, the casual or low-grade users of psychotropic
substances are not threats either; yet, the current laws make those users
criminals, some have been imprisoned or tainted for life. Such mindless, destructive retribution
is flat-ass wrong. I do not
dispute that addicts do not want to be “isolated.” The key for us is their public conduct and injurious private
behavior. As long as they respect
others, I am good with their consumption of psychotropic substances; it makes
no nevermind to me. The isolation
camp is a voluntary place where they can consume to their heart’s content until
they can consume no more. If an
addict chooses to reject the isolation camp and threatens another living soul,
then they should and must face criminal sanction and prison. We simply cannot tolerate collateral
damage. The isolation camp is simply
a means to provide them what they seek in a safe environment, free from the
pressures of acquisition. I am
even OK with enablers feeding and protecting the addict as long as he conducts
himself properly in public and threatens no injury to anyone else. Thus, the fraction who seek the
benefits of an isolation camp would be small. The fraction in prison would certainly be less than at
present. I truly believe the
majority would be functional addicts, which again, I am quite comfortable with
tolerating. Again, I see no
purpose in imprisonment for personal consumption, or even treatment for the
untreatable; let the addict do what the addict wants to do as along as he
causes no harm (to person or property).
Yes, I’m sure there are many who prefer the status quo, just as there were
in the 1920’s – those whose livelihood depends upon the illegal trade. Many of the illegals can be converted
into legal merchants, once the trade is legalized and regulated.
Re:
war & dissent. We share the
same concern regarding the impact of warfighting on our civil liberties. To me, the issue is not dissent or
opposition, but rather the means chosen for that dissent. Daniel Ellsberg’s crime was not his
opposition to the war, but rather his betrayal of trust in exposing classified
material. Jane Fonda’s crime was
not her dissent, but rather the method by which she chose to dissent. I have long argued that a general’s
choice is to carry-out his assignment to the best of his ability or to resign;
he does not have the option of disclosing classified material or criticizing
the commander-in-chief, period.
Re:
Stübing case. Perhaps it is not an
outlier; it just seems so to me, given the facts of the case. Even by my liberal definition, Stübing
committed a bona fide crime in that they produced children (2 of 4 have genetic
infirmities, BTW). If they had not
produced children, I would have had no objection. However, some of the publicly available data indicates his
sister may not have been of sufficient mental and/or emotional capacity to
freely choose the relationship; if so, then that would also be a violation even
under my liberal definition. My
point was, I can no longer accept the moral objections often raised against
such relationships. The law is too
broad, ill-defined, and indiscriminate, and as with most, if not all, morality
laws, it causes far more damage than it ever protects genuine harm.
. . . round three:
My question is not whether democracy is the “best” form of
government but whether we still operate as a democracy.
The estimate of 3.7 million addicts is quoted on this
page and is for weekly users of heroin, crack and cocaine. (Crack is a
form of cocaine. I do not know why the article treats them separately. The
person who wrote this disputes the figure and is selling treatment and/or
books.) My reading of that page makes it seem that he leaves out pill users and
others besides the drugs named. The estimate of 17.6 million alcoholics comes
from a National Institutes of Health page
on the subject and clearly (by symptoms) excludes you and other social
drinkers. None of my discussion has anything to do with true “recreational”
users.
I see no more benefit from continuing the current situation
than you do. I, along with most other advocates for legalization, favor
legalization with essentially the same distribution and regulation basis as
alcohol. You’re right; one substance is pretty much like another from a
societal standpoint.
What else should we do? Probably, we could start with our
best current remedy, in-patient treatment. Many addicts and alcoholics are
uninsured. The only facility available to them in my area (Metropolitan
Columbus, Ohio) has a waiting list that requires them to call every morning for
three weeks or longer to see whether a bed is available. Very few active
addicts are capable of that; most go untreated. We could divert a fraction of
the money we waste on pursuing, trying and imprisoning these people into
expanding the treatment system. Research into the neurology and biochemistry of
alcoholism has begun to show some promise. Following up on that might be
another good idea. Trying to control their actions by any means has yet to
succeed except in the context you mentioned, where the issue becomes damage to
others.
My comment about dissent has no bearing on the method of
dissent. History shows that tyrants suppress all dissent regardless of the
approach used by the dissenter.
. . . my response to round three:
Re:
democracy. Once again, it all
comes down to definitions. In my
parlance, we have never been a democracy.
Citizens have no effect on government other than by vote for our
representatives. Several states are
closer to democracies by virtue of their direct vote on constitutional and
common law issues, e.g., PropH8 in CA.
Re:
addicts. I do not exclude
prescription meds; I’ve seen the effects and consequences. Frankly, I also include nicotine and
caffeine. Plenty of chronic users
are fully functional in society.
As long as they hold a job, pay for their substance(s) of choice without
illegal activity, and do not threaten harm to person or property, I say live
and let live.
Re:
in-patient treatment. Without the
addicts deep down gut & soul commitment to kick the habit, there is no such
thing as successful treatment.
Rehab rarely works. I want
to know we have a reasonable shot at success, if we are going to use treasury
funds for such things. I cannot tolerate
serial rehab . . . like some lame faux-demonstration commitment, only to be
repeated over & over. So, how
do we determine who is committed to kickin’ it? As stated previously, I make no judgment of the addict; I’m
also quite liberal and willing to help those who genuinely seek help; I’d even
use treasury funds to support his habit as long as he complies with my
conditions; but, I have no compassion for the abuser who threatens harm to
another soul or property.
Re:
dissent. In a free society, in our
society, the method is quite relevant.
Are you suggesting that we have tyrants? If so, who and how so?
. . . round four:
“No, I'm not quibbling about definitions. Call it a
democracy, a representative republic, or the Land of the Free. None of those
fits a nation where people may be monitored, imprisoned, or killed with no open
legal process. Whatever explanation is given for those actions is meaningless
if no outside authority can examine its truth or falsehood. Those possibilities
cancel all other civil liberties.
“I did not exclude prescription addicts from this
discussion; I simply explained that they were not included in the figure that I
found. Finding accurate figures for prescription abuse would be a very
difficult assignment. Including them would expand that 21.6 million figure.
People addicted to caffeine and nicotine are indeed addicts, but they rarely
cause the kind of direct damage seen in those addicted to alcohol and other drugs.
“I need to see your supporting research for your statement
that ‘rehab rarely works.’ I have not done that research either, but I have at
least a dozen friends and acquaintances who have been clean and sober for at
least ten years beginning with a foundation of rehab.
“Yes, of course I'm suggesting we have tyrants. See the
first paragraph above.”
. . . my response to round four:
Re:
democracy. I suspect you are
falling victim to gross generalizations that we all do on occasion. Are there reasons for concern,
attentiveness, and critical review?
Yes, absolutely. I urge us
all to not lose sight of the broader perspective. The Supremes have more than a few reviews of the extraordinary
measures implemented in support of the government’s ability to wage war
successfully in the War on Islamic Fascism. A goodly portion of the laws were passed by Congress and
signed by the President; and, we can change the laws.
Re:
addicts. I did not suggest you
excluded prescription drugs. I
simply noted that I include them in my opinions. I do not know what fraction of the 21.6M would qualify in
each of my suggested groups: functional, isolated, or imprisoned; I suspect the
fractions are or should be largest to smallest, respectfully. Sure, caffeine addiction does not
generate substantial collateral damage, but still deserves not to be neglected.
Re:
rehab. My bad! I should have added the qualifier
“unless the addict has convinced himself he must change” or some such. My point is only the gut-level
commitment of the addict to change will enable treatment to work, so let us not
pretend addiction rehab is like surgery or a splint. I also freely acknowledge that rehab works when the
foundational conditions have been met.
Re:
tyrants. I do not share your
assessment.
Another contribution:
“I'm amazed how calm you sound about the Tornados! Such a malevolent
weather example never crosses these shores. Although we did witness minor
events in Cyprus.
“We heard of a town where the sirens failed and there was
loss of life. Sorry to hear that.”
My reply:
Well,
I suppose familiarity breeds calmness.
They are very finite storms, and our technology and predictive ability
continue to grow. In many ways,
tornados are better storms to have than hurricanes, earthquakes, and such.
Yes,
Woodward, Oklahoma (just south of us) is the town to which you referred. A previous, close-call tornado took out
power to part of the town and the warning system. The big one hit just about midnight, so without much
warning.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
Cap,
That is indeed a nice picture of Aspen. If one is not paying attention, they go from arrival to adolescence to adulthood in the blink of an eye. Time flies.
I am glad that you and yours were not injured in the tornado. The property damage requires coping skills, but health matters more.
I “just don’t get” the Secret Service scandal. Certainly the agent(s) who participated in the loud argument that reportedly took place in an open-to-all hallway should be disciplined for their lack of discretion. Perhaps a supervisor should also be held accountable for not stopping or preventing that. Beyond those minor issues, the events that took place were ordinary and legal in their place and time. The locations of these actions did not contain sensitive information. An investigation of whether the payments came from the agents’ salaries or from expense (“government”) funds might be worthwhile, but almost any of us can find more important wastes of government money. There’s no news here.
Your linked article on birth control and teen pregnancy gives useful and relevant information. People who advocate against others having sex do not live in the real world. I did not understand the point of including the other article; you did not comment on it.
Of the “trends that may completely transform our sex lives,” I suspect the most important in the USA will prove to be the last listed, that mainstream organizations will recognize the economic value of commercial sex. Here as nowhere else, corporate interests influence social values. Witness the TV advertising for condoms and for new forms of KY products. Careful investigation of ownership might well reveal that this trend is already under way. “Big Mac” could get a whole new meaning.
As far as the discussion of prostitution, even just reading the headlines to which you linked convinces me that no parties listed are yet objective enough to conduct a rational discussion of whether legal prostitution is safer for the prostitutes. I would hazard a guess that legalization would improve safety for the customer due to requirements for registration, health inspection, etc. We need new voices to study actual results from Columbia, Spain, the Netherlands, and other places before we decide on the best way to go about changing our failed “prohibition” policy.
Mr. Justice Harlan seemed to think the political parties who make redistricting decisions would somehow operate in the interests of the people rather than of the political party. I have no idea where he got that notion; history had already proven him wrong over and over by the time he said that.
The other reason you should study addiction is to take yourself away from the concept that people are “rational actors,” making decisions in their own self-interest based on all of the available facts. You could also study history, sociology, psychology, or political science to disprove that notion.
Calvin,
A blink of the eye . . . indeed!
Re: Secret Service. Their agency title is the primary reason. They were on a mission. Exposure is an automatic detractor; in that sense, they failed. Aside from the compromised mission, too many Americans are offended by prostitution, which adds the titillating and prurient spices to the story. The reason I raised the point was the immaturity of our righteous indignation. The Press / public outrage is the prostitution aspect. My disapproval is their poor judgment in risking the mission. They should have recognized the potential for their activities to go sideways on them.
Re: childhood sex education. The point of including both opinions was simply the consequences of inadequate education. There are many reasons teenage girls become pregnant or get sucked into the sex trade. One of those reasons is little if any knowledge of sex and sexual relations, or recognizing the precursor signs. I believe many of these little tragedies could be avoided if teenage girls and boys understood.
Re: commercial sex. Agreed.
Re: prostitution (I suppose we can differentiate it from the larger commercial sex arena). I am not so sure Colombia, Spain, or the Netherlands are good examples as I see them as more legalization without regulation . . . that may well be a different kind of worse. At least they have tried to make things better, and for that we should study what works and what doesn’t work. There must be regulation to protect the providers and well as the customers, and prosecute those who violate the regulations or cause injury to others. To me, prohibition against private conduct is never going to be successful, if we expect to have a free society.
Re: Harlan. Precisely the point. His logic assumes good will by those in power, and we know all too well, flawed men are not always noble in their actions.
Re: addiction. I have never claimed addicts are “rational actors.” In fact, if I was asked, I would say addiction tends to be highly irrational. I believe my approach is to assume the worst case. The addict may not be able to make rational decisions regarding his course of action. Ultimately, if the addict is unable to make the correct choices, then he will most likely quickly progress to prison so that he cannot harm innocent people. Our compassion should give him choices until he convinces himself to seek treatment. Let’s get things out in the open where we can see them and deal with them properly. We must break the cycle with the criminal sub-culture. I want to respect the addict and allow him the freedom to do as he wishes, to respect his choices whether rational or irrational. Our only primary objective is to prevent the addict from harming other people or property. Once the primary objective is met AND the addict finally convinces himself he must change, then we can help him; failing the first, he does not reach the second. We have place making private decisions for any citizen, including addicts; our responsibility is to protect the public domain and innocent citizens. I hope all this makes some semblance of sense.
Thank you for your opinions. Keep ‘em comin’.
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment