Ethics and Inevitability

                                                                                                                                         Photo: Enoch Lai

It is inevitable that other nations will not enforce American copyrights and patents in violation of their treaties. Is it ethical then for the United States to break its promise and not enforce those countries' copyrights and patents? 

A couple years ago, a controversial scientist testified before Congress that "The development of human cloning is inevitable." If his statement is true, would advocating against human cloning or for restraint be futile? Would it be anti-science? 

It is inevitable that political partisans will use unethical arguments and mudslinging to persuade the weak to their cause. Does that justify using ad hominem and mischaracterization to push a political agenda?

Cheating in school is inevitable. There are a surprising number of students who cheat on college and graduate school entrance exams. Most polls seem to show that a majority of both high school and college students cheat. Since others are getting a leg up, is it ok to level the playing field by cheating?

The answer to all four of these questions is a resounding NO. It is not inherently anti-science or anti-progress to oppose the inevitable. The announcement of inevitability does not signal ethical finality. The assertion of inevitability in ethical disputes is not an appeal to morals at all; it is an effort to abandon ethical considerations altogether.  Just because something will happen does not mean we shouldn't fight against it. Courage is standing for what is right even if you stand alone.

Virtue Politics

Honor is a harder master than the law.

Today, political campaigns seem devoid of moral justifications for their social policies. Instead, politicians mask their foundational beliefs and defend their proposals with mere facial arguments from liberty and equality. While considerations of liberty and equality are relevant and important; alone, they are insufficient defenses for policies regarding abortion, marriage, affirmative action, drugs, immigration, capital punishment, pornography, and a whole gambit of other social issues.

Today, society is increasingly gripped by the notion that religion and moral beliefs have little or no place in the public sphere. Science is supreme. When you debate political issues, you aren’t supposed to defend your views with notions of morality. You are supposed to say how it will affect the economy or how it will affect public health or what will be “fair” in a sort of morally relativistic way. However, science can only inform our decisions; science cannot determine values. But, I say that religious views and moral considerations should be involved in our debates over social policy. When politicians capriciously remove these fundamental beliefs from their speeches and debates and pretend that they have no bearing on their platform, it leaves public deliberations on the issues debilitated. It unilaterally disarms anyone that believes in anything other than liberty of choice or equality as the sole and ultimate objectives of human societies.

Those who claim to be morally neutral do so misleadingly; they hold their moral beliefs so dogmatically that they do not even recognize that they are not really neutral. There can be no political community that is morally neutral. Their vision of a good society is not supported by science but is a moral conviction. The values these people esteem above others (without scientific support) are free self-expression, liberty of choice, or some notion of equality. All good goals, but at the same time, these people cheapen historically ubiquitous virtues like wisdom, courage, kindness, temperance, or transcendence.

What kind of society does this purported neutrality give us? It aims towards a polis that implicitly accepts that there are no right and wrong and no real human virtues. It affords no reverence to tradition. Tolerance and sharing are the only values in such a dispirited society. This intensely individualist sort of social contract would only have the benefit of avoiding religious or moral disputes. But, it aims too low. As society allows room for the basest parts of human nature, evil actions become normalized and acceptable. The saying of the day, “I can do whatever I want so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else” proves untenable. We cannot do evil without negatively affecting those around us directly or indirectly. People too often underestimate the harm they do to others. Similarly, society underestimates the effect of removing public disapproval of evil.

This disenchanted “neutral” society wherein all we can do is “get along” is not the best we can do. We can strive for a wise, courageous, kind, temperate, and transcendent culture and society. But, we have to be willing to say that these virtues really are better than characteristics like stupidity, guile, selfishness, overindulgence, and corruption and that we will not condone them. And, can we not say that? I am not advocating here a tyranny of the majority where the values of the powerful are always imposed on those less fortunate. Plurality is a wonderful part of American government. However, I am advocating a liberal society moderated and elevated by the traditional and fundamental values we inherited from our founding fathers. We should bring our beliefs to the ballot box with us, but not establish a religion or state indoctrinated moral code. Politicians should be more open and candid about the moral values that undergird their social policy proposals.

Freedom and equality are instrumental in obtaining a virtuous society; they are not the ends in themselves. Let us stop pretending that those values are somehow more scientific or morally neutral than wisdom, courage, kindness, temperance, and transcendence. Virtuous living supersedes the value of cultural diversity (though cultural diversity is certainly to be celebrated). A virtuous society precedes a prosperous one just as a corrupt and decadent society precedes a nation in decline. Facilitating a virtuous society must be the first goal of American politics, then freedom and equality.

Heterophobes and Fried Chicken

                                                                                  Photo: Port Charlotte NJROTC

Dan Cathy, Chick-Fil-A's Baptist President and Chief Operating Officer, is not sheepish about expressing his support for traditional marriage. His father founded the successful fast-food chain and fostered a corporate culture based on Christian beliefs. The chain is closed on Sundays and, not surprisingly, the President and faithful Baptist supports traditional marriage and opposes same-sex marriage. 

Demonstrating blatant disrespect for freedom of speech, the Mayors of Chicago, Boston, Washington D.C., and San Francisco have announced that Chick-Fil-A is not welcome in their cities. They claim that Chick-Fil-A values are not their cities' values and that they might well attempt to block Chick-Fil-A from opening up new locations in their cities. 

The Mayors' threats are obviously a political ploy. No one could take an attempt to block a new Chick-Fil-A location too seriously. The ACLU says the Mayor's threats constitute a "constitutional problem with discriminating against someone based on the content of their speech.” It is unconstitutional to block strip clubs; obviously it is unconstitutional to block a restaurant chain. Although I don't imagine very many people consider the Mayors' threats seriously, the vignette of politics brings to light a serious problem with policy debate in America. The problem is that many secularists and same-sex marriage advocates push their agenda primarily with ad hominem and hostility rather than addressing the scientific, philosophical, ethical, political, psychological, and religious arguments of their opponents. These advocates are quick to cry "bigot" and "oppression" at anyone's suggestion that same-sex marriage may have negative policy effects or if anyone shows discomfort with the notion of same-sex marriage. These are the same advocates that use vague expressions of diversity and tolerance as their primary argument. Yet, too many attack their opponents rather than their opponents' arguments. Their strategy is no longer to convince the other side but to embarrass, shut out, and shut up their opponents through mudslinging and name-calling. 

The Roman Catholic Church also opposes same-sex marriage. They also operate many of the largest and most efficient charities in the world. Are their values not Chicago's values? Will radical same-sex marriage advocates boycott the charities? Individuals are free to do so. But, for politicians to use their position to attack organizations and individuals because of their political beliefs (especially those shared by half the population) seems to go too far in itself. But, threatening to do clearly unconstitutional actions is, wow. 

The public discourse is eroded when fallacies like ad hominem are employed in the place of arguments of real substance. Unfortunately, playing on peoples fears and needs of acceptance works. Many people are not trained to think critically about what they hear. However, to coerce by threats of hate and rejection rather than to try and honestly and intelligently convince the opposing side is immoral and hostile to the democratic process. Our discourse about policy should not be modeled after cable news political commentary, which is a parade of confirmation bias and vitriol. Yes, it sells. But, no it is not good for public discourse. Rather, we should try to model our debate and discourse after academic discourse which is more self-examined, honest, comprehensive, and helpful. Perhaps, our discourse should allow emotion and religion more of a place than it has in academic literature. But the mature respect for the opposing side where reasonable minds differ should be present in public discourse as it is in scholastic debate.

Critique of the Supreme Court's Healthcare Decision

Last week, the United States Supreme Court held that the Affordable Healthcare Act's ("Act") individual mandate, although unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause was constitutional under the Taxing and Spending Clause. I disagree for two reasons. First, the "[s]hared responsibility payment" exacted from those who do not buy health insurance does not fall under the Taxing and Spending Clause because its primary purpose is to alter behavior and not to raise revenue. If there is to be any distinction between taxes and penalties, surely it is that taxes raise revenue first and alter behavior second while penalties alter behavior primarily and raise revenue as a plus. Second, to the extent that Justice Roberts ruled the way he did to protect the legitimacy of the court, he did exactly the opposite. The Supreme Court is to interpret the law; not to engage in politics and protect the legitimacy of the Court in the eyes of the public. By deciding issues not on their merits, but on public opinion, in fact, diminishes the legitimacy of the court. Besides, the Act, and especially the individual mandate, is very unpopular.

The Affordable Healthcare Act intends to increase healthcare coverage and lower insurance premiums. Currently, federal laws require hospitals to care for people regardless of whether they have insurance or not. See, e.g. 42 U.S.C. 1395(d)(d). This creates a free-rider problem that the Act seeks to avoid by making sure everyone gets insurance or pays their own way. The Act makes a number of other changes in the current healthcare system too. It requires insurers to provide policies to those with most preexisting conditions (excluding tobacco use) and prohibits insurers from discriminating against those with preexisting conditions. Medicaid is extended to cover all people under 133% of the federal poverty level ($14, 856 for an individual) and subsidizes insurance for families making up to 400% the poverty level. The overall objective is praiseworthy; but the execution is lamentable.

Although I like the provision requiring insurers to cover preexisting conditions, I do not think preexisting conditions that are caused by an individual's poor choices should be treated equally as preexisting conditions that are someone else's fault, an act of fate, or genetic. Although I want to get rid of free riders too, there are other ways to do that. Perhaps mandate employers to cover their employees and create an unemployment program. Perhaps let the states figure it out on their own. Perhaps create a public/private balance by providing a limited-public healthcare (preventative care and emergency services only) that is restricted so as to allow private hospitals to thrive.

Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, was correct in determining that the individual mandate is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause regulates commerce and gives Congress only the right to regulate commercial activities. If an activity does not endanger another's fundamental rights and is not commercial in nature, it is generally outside the regulation power of Congress. The individual mandate does not purport to regulate existing commercial activity but attempts to coerce people into the market.

My contention with the Chief Justice has to do with his notion that the "shared responsibility payment" is a tax rather than a penalty. Unlike Congress' other powers, the taxing and spending power is unlimited. As long as the government is primarily spending its revenues or raising revenues it can do whatever it likes. If it wanted, Congress could institute a national bake sale in an effort to raise a lot of dough. Essentially, Justice Roberts says that unless legislation is unavoidably unconstitutional, then judges should decide to uphold the legislation and respect the democratic process. Justice Roberts believes that to call the shared responsibility payment a tax is plausible and thus, to protect the democratic process, you have to agree that it is a tax. I disagree. Unless the construction truly is 50/50 ambiguous, a judges job is to interpret the law and call it how the preponderance of the evidence points. Justice Roberts is changing the evidentiary standard for civil cases without giving any meaningful explanation as to why.

Additionally, I do not think calling it a tax is reasonable. Many people call it a tax for political reasons; but they don't call it that because there is anything more than the slightest whim to suggest that the fee is a tax. Taxing is to raise revenue (see, e.g. Rev. Rul. 79-180); penalties incentivize affirmative behavior. Penalties have a wag your finger feeling to them. Taxes do not. Even the name of the penalty, "shared responsibility payment" implies that it is a penalty to incentivize responsible behavior. If it were a tax, it would be called the "economic offset payment" or something. The act itself even refers to the payment as a "penalty." Is there any question that Congress intended this to be a penalty? To call this a tax is to both distort the plain definition of tax and rewrite the statute to be something it was not. Chief Justice Roberts says government has called fees that are supposed to change behavior taxes before (like cigarette taxes). However, such taxes are commercial in nature or are constitutional under other provisions of the Constitution. The taxes Justice Roberts refers to seek to regulate activities that are commercial or activities that negatively effect others' liberties. It seems that the Chief Justice arbitrarily defines a penalty as fines that are unbearable or enforced by criminal institutions. Hardly an intuitive definition.

It is also curious that Chief Justice Roberts considers the penalty a penalty for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act but a tax for other legal purposes without any real explanation. No one saw that contortion of logic coming; not even the lawyers arguing for the mandate.

The reading of the Court allows Congress to force people to buy anything on threat of getting a penalty (oops, I mean "tax"). Congress can now use the Taxing and Spending Clause all alone to force citizens to buy healthy food, bus tickets, funeral insurance, gymnastics lessons, etc. We are now less free than we were last week and the limited powers of the Federal government as intended by the Framers are less limited. We are being lulled into soft tyranny, trading our American autonomy for paternalistic and ostensible comforts and entitlements.

And what of the 10th Amendment that reserves all unlisted powers to the states? To deny states all medicaid funding if they do not implement the plan is surely so substantial as to amount to coercion against the 10th Amendment. Let the states come up with their own solutions.

The most important judicial precedent is original understanding. While we may depart from original understanding through Constitutional Amendments or enormously deliberate popular action, to depart from the original understanding of the Constitution to such an extent and on such a flimsy whim is a tragic disrespect to the miracle of the Constitution.

Reaction to President Obama's Support of Same-Sex Marriage

President Obama announced yesterday on ABC News that he now affirmatively supports legalizing gay marriage. He mentioned that his Christian faith and the golden rule lie at the foundation of his decision. In my opinion, the interviewer, Robin Roberts, failed to ask him the obvious tough follow up questions. I watched an hour of coverage of the issue on CNN and they had not one commentator on the other side of the issue except for one blurb from an AME reverend who, in essence, said that although he disagrees with the President's decision everyone should still vote for him. Anyway, that is an aside. This assertion implies that the President buys in to one of four beliefs that would justify his new found support for gay marriage: (1) gay marriage is a moral issue and same-sex marriage is moral, (2) gay marriage is a moral issue and regardless of his own personal view, government endorsement of same-sex marriage is fine, (3) gay marriage is not a moral issue, or (4), the most cynical, that he believes it is a good political bet and that making insincere statements to get reelected is ok.

If the President accepts (1) or (3) his ideology becomes even more masked than before. He used his religious beliefs, Christianity, to justify his decision. That invites skepticism. Doesn't the Bible condemn sex outside of opposite-gender marriage across the board? Isn't sex outside of traditional marriage a moral issue in all of the major monotheistic religions? How could defining marriage not be moral? If it is moral were Moses, Paul, and other prophets wrong when they implicitly and explicitly denounced gay marriage and sex outside of opposite-sex marriage? Shopping cart Christians and fearful believers efforts to reconcile the growing popular support for gay marriage with doctrine have, in my view, failed. I have heard reporters say that Christian churches are behind the times; but, what they don't understand is that the doctrine and principles of Christianity are neither behind nor ahead of the times-- they transcend time. However, they find little historical support and are controversial at least. While supporting (1) might not be totally out of left field, I hope some commentator will push him to really say why he believes that.

The second assertion (2) bugs me because it takes moral debate out of the public policy. It endorses moral relativism and libertinism. It invites market theory to control things within the moral realm. Although money may not be involved, believing (2) says "I think we should keep our conversation shallow and never address the moral and religious foundations of our beliefs. Popularity and not wisdom should drive our policy."

Finally, (4) is, in my view,  corrupt. 'Nuff said.

Defining marriage is clearly a moral issue. Although individuals might be unable to entirely control their feelings, they can control their actions. We are all born with trials. Policy should reflect the ideal of children being raised by their biological parents who are committed to a forever relationship and teamwork. Marriage as a legal sanctioning of personal commitment or of love is only part of the equation.

Federalism: Commerce + Elastic Clauses vs. 10th Amendment

One of the crowning features of the American Constitution is federalism. Splitting the atom of national sovereignty vertically between the states and federal government affords Americans many benefits. Firstly, it guards against tyranny. Montesquieu and James Madison both defined tyranny as the accumulation of powers all in the same unified entity (Federalist #47). Keeping authority and powers separated between local and national government discourages the abuse of power and protects the rights of regional minorities. Secondly, federalism facilitates the general principle of subsidiarity which holds that matters should be handled on the lowest organizational level possible. Regional governments are closer and more invested in their jurisdiction and can better respond to local needs and preferences. Federalism tends to result in improved economic effectiveness. Thirdly, federalism allows for experimentation as the states innovate and test new policies.

Originally, even the founding fathers who advocated for a strong federal government believed that the states would retain substantial sovereignty. Madison said, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." Until very recently, however, the federal government has consistently expanded its powers to the diminution of the powers of the states. It is the natural tendency for any governmental entity to try and amplify its influence; however, their actions at the fringes of their power must make it through the gates of judicial review.

One of the enumerated powers of Congress is to "regulate Commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." Although, in its infancy, the Commerce Clause was given a narrow interpretation of "trade," the Supreme Court now interprets "Commerce" more broadly to include production, manufacturing, trade, and even wholly intrastate economic activities which "substantially effect" interstate commerce. The latter meaning is set in precedent, but certainly stretches the original understanding of the term considerably.

The Constitution also empowers Congress "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." The Necessary and Proper Clause has caused political friction since its inception. Thomas Jefferson thought that "Necessary" referred only to those things that were indispensible. Thus, in his mind, the federal government could exercise only its enumerated powers and the means to accomplishing those powers as absolutely necessary. John Adams, on the other hand, believed that this was an untenable position that would result in an impuissant federal government unable to provide for the well-being of its citizens. Adam's view won the day and since McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the Supreme Court has read "Necessary" to mean "convenient" or "useful" for some political end. The Court, however, does not question the validity of acts of Congress as long as such acts have some plausible explanation or purpose behind the legislation.

The Commerce Clause combined with the Necessary and Proper Clause makes for wide discretion and power on behalf of the federal government and gives reason for continually diminishing the powers reserved for the states. The current Court has said that this combination is not without limit as other Supreme Courts seemed to have implied. In United States v. Lopez, the Court held that the Commerce Clause extended only to economic activities. In the past decade, the Court has also limited the federal expansion by asserting that the 10th Amendment also buts up against the Commerce Clause. There are various opinions about this. The 10th Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." On one end of the spectrum, there are people that hold this Amendment to be only a truism. They believe that the states only have the leftover powers that the federal government leaves behind, which could be nothing. Others say no, no, the states obviously have some essential function in the Constitution and the federal government cannot grow to the point that it infringes on that essential constitutional role. On the other extreme end of the spectrum are those that believe the federal government should be severely restricted to its enumerated powers alone.

I believe American federalism is an exalted principle of our miraculous Constitution. While I am a firm believer in the free market, I am not totally opposed to federal involvement and regulation. But, Congress too often overreacts to public tragedies and enact regulations to please the public and add ephemeral popular causes to their curriculum vitae. The result is overregulation and legislation that is hastily pushed through. The United States currently has over 240 regulatory agencies. The Federal Register (containing executive agencies regulations) is nearly 83,000 pages long (Obama's administration has added around 15,000 pages so far). Whereas before there was only a handful of federal crimes and the states were left to deal with crime, now there are over 4,000 federal crimes, but no one knows exactly how many there are because of the way they are cross-referenced with regulations. Too many federal laws and regulations are either unnecessary or detrimental; too many are overlapping with the each other or with state regulations that are doing a fine enough job.

Legislation should be approached carefully and deliberately. Here are a few things legislatures should consider before enacting any new law or regulation scheme:

(1) How much would the subject of legislation or regulation benefit from economies of scale. Sometimes, it is more effective to do something once on a grand scale than to do it 50 times. For example, the NASA space program would likely be impossible if every state pursued it on their own. But, together, much more is possible.

(2) Is the issue of great, lasting, and communal importance or is it a matter of local needs, preferences, and conditions? Building codes and speed limits, for example, have little or no effect on the nation as a whole and are better established by local governments.

(3) Is there a collective-action problem resulting in a race to the bottom when all the states are left on their own to devise policy and solutions? Or, is there incentive to race to the top? Does competitiveness and free market lead to positive outcomes or does it lead to free riders and states trying to undercut each other?

(4) Does allowing states to legislate and regulate in a particular area cause negative externalities? If Illinois decides to engage in manufacturing that severely pollutes the Mississippi River, at least five other states are going to suffer.

(5) How sure are we of a regulation or legislative scheme's effectiveness? Has it been proven in the laboratories of the states? States experiment with new policies that sometimes work and are adopted by other states. For example, medical marijuana in California, a Unicameral legislature in Nebraska, or a 4-day state government business week in Utah are all being watched by other states to see how things work out.

(6) Are maintenance, monitoring, and enforcement costs cheaper at the state or national level?

(7) Is legislation and regulation the most effective way to deal with a problem or would tort law be more cost-effective? So many expensive regulations are unnecessary because Tort Law (or Contract or Property) has proven itself more cost-effective and equally as efficient.

(8) Is there a restraint on Americans' individual agency and liberty? Will Americans have less choices because of a new regulation or law? If so, is a (often marginal) increase in security worth the loss of freedom? Remember, "Give me liberty or give me death?" It seems Americans are too easily lulled into saying, "Here's some more of my liberty, can you make me more secure (even if the policy is more like a sugar pill)?

Thoughts on Feminism, Marriage, and Family

Conservative feminism may seem like an oxymoron to some. It isn't. Feminism is about addressing inequities between the opportunities, respect, and treatment afforded to men compared to those afforded to women. Some strains of feminism are so radical as to seek the destruction of anything implying differing natures and roles between men and women. This minority approach is unhelpful as it undermines families and ignores biology. In this post, I intend to articulate a better approach to feminism, one espoused by many already, and comment on some causes and results of chauvinism.

Women are paid less then men for exactly the same work in almost every nation in the world (even the United States). Worldwide women are subjected to enormously high rates of domestic abuse while society continues to condone a false perception of men as naturally unable to control themselves. Women worldwide have lower access to education, healthcare, and political activity. Baby girls are abandoned or seen as a misfortune in many places around the world.

After the second wave of feminism in the 196os and 70s, women made tremendous strides in reclaiming their God-given rights; however, the excesses of the radical strains of thought did much to bring about negative side effects. The movement opened the doors to greater objectification of women in the media, no-fault divorce laws undermined the family and left women more vulnerable to financial problems, and an overemphasis on womens' careers over family left the roles of fathers and mothers devalued.

While feminism has been successful in improving women's opportunities and treatment, there is still deeply rooted perceptions and beliefs that devalue the proper nature and role spectrum of women. In many religions, it is taught that men are created in the image of God, while women aspire to a step-up in heaven of sexlessness. Some faiths teach that Mary was an eternal virgin, that she gave birth only once (I don't know how they read Mark 6:3 though) and that her asexuality represented some apex of femininity. Many Christian faiths teach that Eve sinned disobediently causing the fall, which is, in their view, a great tragedy that could have been otherwise avoided.

While I hope to cooperate with many of these faiths in advocating the many principles on which we agree, these views on femininity promulgate the problem of society's abuse of women's self-evident rights and divine nature. Ultimately, they hurt the family. Without getting into theology too much, it is my belief that Eve acted bravely when she ushered in mortality and paved the way for Christ's atonement and our eternal progression. The hebrew, "bet" is used and translated as "rule over" in Genesis, but is probably more correctly interpreted as "rule with." Man is to "rule with" his wife. I believe Mary had other children after Jesus with her husband Joseph and that her life, intimacy in marriage included, is an example of an honorable woman. Additionally, I believe Femininity is an eternal trait of women to be celebrated forever. This is an issue of faith largely outside the realm of the influence of public policy. However, I hope that those who unwittingly have supported such discordant beliefs reconsider. "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not; and it shall be given them." (James 1:5) I know that to be true.

The loss of a marriage culture in America is a huge cause for concern and comes largely as a result of erroneous perceptions of proper masculinity and femininity. Children deserve to be born into a home where the parents are hardworking co-presidents of the family who love one another and are serious about there commitment. We take the covenant of marriage too lightly. In France, if one of the spouses objects to divorce, the other must put forth evidence of either adultery or abuse or separate for two years and attend mandatory family counseling with one another. France needs improvement in their respect of the marriage contract too, but in this respect, they take the commitment more seriously than we do. Also, the media fictitiously romanticizes bachelorhood, over-independence, and uncommitted sexual intimacy. The media condones male aggression. As humans, it is natural for us to express our affection by making promises of loyalty to one another. Marriage is the precipice of loyalty and teamwork. The eternal meaningfulness of committed and selfless marriage allows for deep joy and success that should be better protected by public policy.

Now, in this imperfect world, some women don't marry. Some are unable to have children. Some are abused. These women should be supported by public policy and they should be viewed as equal. However, the ideal situation to be incentivized by public policy is an equal marriage between a man and a wife.

I echo Hilary Clinton's declaration to the U.N. that "human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights once and for all." Give women a voice equal to that of men. Give women equal wages and opportunities in the workplace. Give wives and equal place at the head of the family. Women have a special nature; they are daughters of God! Women have a valuable role in the home as mothers. The selfish, individualistic cultural trends of recent history have degraded the role of a mother in favor of success in the workplace. American mothers and fathers must put the nurturing of children and family as priority number one. Even if this means sacrificing some career goal, putting family first will save the country. Family before self, always.

Putting the Cart Before the Horse

Too many people derive their life principles from the way they live rather than living according to their values and beliefs. If such a person becomes dependent on or acclimated to some substance, activity, or behavior he is likely to chase after religious, political, and ethical axioms to justify his comportment. Even if he was raised with contrary values and even if feeling and evidence point clearly in another direction, I have been surprised at the lengths people will go to find some relativistic philosophy to justify their conduct.

To be sure, this is the easy way out. Searching out truth and rectitude can be laborious, tedious, and uncomfortable. It isn't easy to break bad habits and to establish good ones. It isn't easy to sacrifice. It isn't easy to change. It isn't easy to be patient. It isn't easy to admit fault. But, these represent some of the obstacles in the way of gaining truth and virtue. It is much easier to say, for example, "I have my own values. I like to _______. You can't prove that ______ is wrong. Lots of people _______. So _____ isn't wrong."

A trademark problem solving strategy employed by McKinsey & Co. business consultants is to break the issue at hand (like insufficient revenue or excessive expenses) into mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive categories. In "The Firm" consultants refer to this as MECE (pronounced "Mee-see") and no problem analysis or solution is adequate unless it is completely MECE. You have to break up the big problem into separate categories that do not overlap and you can't have any gaps. Then, you break those categories down in the same manner until you can't do it any more. This system of organizing information allows consultants to break up the major issue into bite sized pieces. It allows analysts to come up with the individual factors that make up the larger problem. The consulting team can then better innovate practical solutions, implement them, and measure success within that MECE framework. [See The McKinsey Way by Ethan M. Rasiel]

Christopher Peterson and Martin Seligman came up with a MECE analysis of society's problems in their book, Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook. They intended the book primarily to serve as the positive converse to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a handbook outlining all the things that could go wrong with a person's mind. They wanted to outline and describe all the things that could go right in a person's mind. In my opinion, their work is a masterpiece. They categorize all the character values and virtues that have been ubiquitous throughout time and geography and describe them to the extent that is virtually unanimous among classifications of people as a whole. Their list is as MECE as possible. It includes:

1.) Wisdom and Knowledge: Creativity, Curiosity, Open Mindedness, Love of Learning, Perspective

2.) Courage: Bravery, Persistance, Integrity, Vitality

3.) Humanity: Love, Kindness, Social Intelligence

4.) Justice: Citizenship, Fairness, Leadership

5.) Temperance: Forgiveness and Mercy, Humility and Modesty, Prudence, Self-Regulation

6.) Transcendence: Appreciation of Beauty and Excellence, Gratitude, Hope, Humor, Spirituality

I submit that these values are all as American as is Liberty and should be recognized as such. Almost any problem confronting our nation can be traced back to some lack of one of these virtues by either some component of our citizenry or by outsiders. I support a Constitutional Amendment officially recognizing these values as American. The government should seek to protect and incentivize these virtues. A pure libertarian might object to this saying it is not the place of government to enforce moral values. In a sense, I certainly agree. Forcing values on citizens is the approach of paternalistic authoritarian governments. I believe recognizing and protecting these values is different from forcing or enforcing them. I am worried Americans may be trending towards modeling government and interpreting law according to the condition of society rather than on the principles that define our ideals as a nation. This is putting the cart before the horse and is a recipe for societal decline. The political ideas, governmental institutions, and law should not be established to justify how we are. They should be constant anchors pointing towards who we want to be as a nation. The U.S. Constitution itself was founded on this idea of intergenerational stability as a protection of the carnal sentiments of a moment or of a mob majority: "We the People of the United States, in order to ... secure the Blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

When we say, "United we stand. Divided we fall." I think we are mostly referring to these American and human virtues. If Americans embody these values, we will succeed and we will lead the world. If we fail to live according to these enumerated virtues, we will equally fail. American institutions and policies must be designed in a way to first protect American's right and duty to live according to these values of their own volition. Individuals' freedom to act cannot be allowed to infringe on others' freedom to be citizens of strong character. That is where the line of freedom to act as one desires must be drawn. That is the harmony of the American system. We can't be a nation if we have no common values. No man is an island. With the liberty of being an American comes the responsibility to protect the right to live virtuously.

Towards a Better Sex Education

Abstinence-only sex education programs do not work. The empirical studies on the subject consistently show that abstinence-plus programs are more successful in lowering teen sexual activity, pregnancies, and sexually transmitted disease. Western European teenagers, for example, become sexually active at about the same rates as Americans. But, the European parents are more open in their discussions concerning sexuality and their sex education starts earlier and is more comprehensive than what we have here in the U.S. This combination makes for much much (did I say much?) fewer adolescent pregnancies, abortions, and transmissions of venereal diseases. Unfortunately, the European model often sidesteps talking about the morality of sex. The best possible sex education outside the home would include information concerning the science of human reproduction, puberty, pregnancy, abortion, sexual violence, sex in the media, same-sex attraction, sexually-transmitted diseases, contraception, AND reinforcement of the importance of self-restraint, responsibility, and chastity.

What is included in sex education is always controversial. Perhaps the three most controversial subjects are (1) same-sex attraction, (2) inclusion of more than abstinence, and (3) advocating chastity. Here are my suggestions for sex ed curriculum on these touchy topics:

(1) When it comes to same-sex attraction, the curriculum should not take a side as to its morality. However, I think addressing abuse and discrimination may be appropriate. Regardless of whether you think expressions of same-sex attraction are immoral or not, no one deserves to be mocked, excluded, or discriminated against. Schools shouldn't specially praise same-sex attraction or those attracted to members of the same sex any more than they would note the achievements of short people, religious people, left-handed people, or other preferences and traits that people use to define themselves.

(2) The word “abstinence” is most closely associated with drugs in the minds of teenagers. As educators, we need to be careful not to throw sex in the same bucket as cocaine and heroin. Perhaps waiting to have sex until marriage or, at least, a committed relationship should be taught not as a matter of abstinence, but as a matter of self-mastery and responsibility. There are those on the extreme-right who believe that teaching anything but abstinence somehow blemishes the purity of American young people. This view is very much in the minority. Knowledge, in itself, is not sin. The goal here is to present the information correctly and maturely before students learn it the hard way. Having condoms available for adolescents, might condone their use. But, the benefits may outweigh the disadvantages of not having them available. But, the fact that having them does not condone their use can be made clear in the sex ed program.

(3) Finally, it seems to be somewhat controversial to advocate chastity until marriage. The libertine-left advocates the hedonistic idea that one-night stands are fine and that young people need to experiment with sex. Sex is a gift and a healthy part of who we are as humans. However, sex is the means of creating human life and starting a family unit. Marriage is a lifelong commitment to family. As such, marriage is the only appropriate place to chance pregnancy. Only the greatest love of a person’s life can rightly accept and reciprocate the most poignant expression of love and togetherness we have. To give that highest expression of affection and commitment to anyone but the dearest person necessarily diminishes its meaning. Those who wait to have sex until they are in a committed relationship are more successful in their careers and physically and psychologically happy. Furthermore, the majority of social ills hurting the country can be traced to rates of sex out of wedlock. Drug abuse, physical abuse, unemployment, low education, violence, and criminal activity are all very correlated with pregnancies out of wedlock. As chastity increases, marriage increases, and no-fault divorce decreases, I can guarantee these social problems will decrease. On both an individual level and a social level, chastity contributes to greater happiness and health.

In Europe and in the United States, sex before marriage is treated as a given. Parents are allowing boyfriends and girlfriends to sleep-over in their son’s or daughter’s room. “Well,” some parents figure, “better openly in our house with condoms than secretly on lover’s lane.” This is a cop out. What about the hundreds of thousands of American young people who do wait until marriage to have sex? Our low expectations and moral mediocrity aren’t pragmatic; they are self-fulfilling prophecies. Parents should assure their children that they will love them unconditionally and are always there to help. They should maintain open lines of communication. Teaching obedience, discipline, and chastity are not inconsistent with maintaining open and sincere lines of communication between parent and adolescent child.

Sex education programs should also include separate classes and resources for parents. Children are being exposed to sex through media and peers at earlier and earlier ages. Some children become addicted to pornography before they even go into middle school. Advertisements, movies, television shows are all employing sex more and more as a means of marketing. Parents need to be given all the tools to more courageously help their children to avoid the immoral temptations of the world at a young age and to overcome enslaving snares disguised as experimentation. If parents would rather teach sex education in the confines of their own homes, perhaps they should be allowed so long as their child can pass a comprehensive but reasonably noncontroversial exam.

Occupy Wall Street Opinion

I recently read short biographic profiles of various people participating in the occupy wall street demonstration. Some have respectable "messages." But, I couldn't see how any of the good messages were being conveyed or furthered by the folks' camping out on Wall Street. The only message I get from the Occupy Wall Street ("OWS") is one of frustration and socialism. To me, OWS says, "When you're frustrated, play dead until someone feels sorry for you." And, "Successful businesses, and the people they are composed of, got their money unjustly and use it immorally."

Some Wall Street employees are overpaid and some do engage in misconduct. And, when they are caught they are subject to criminal law. However, Wall Street executives, in most cases, worked hard to get where they are. They also pay between 35% of their salaries (And 15% on capital gains and then taxes on other sources of income, sales, property, etc.) to taxes. Whose to say that they don't deserve their money? Steve Jobs was extremely rich (around $2 billion). Apple's shares trade at above $400 per. Whose to say that he didn't deserve all that? Whose to say that the government should regulate his company excessively and tax him more to give it to the poor, the dissatisfied, and the protestors of OWS?

Tax Bracket	Married Filing Jointly	Single
10% Bracket	$0 – $17,400	$0 – $8,700
15% Bracket	$17,400 – $70,700	$8,700 – $35,350
25% Bracket	$70,700 – $142,700	$35,350 – $85,650
28% Bracket	$142,700 – $217,450	$85,650 – $178,650
33% Bracket	$217,450 – $388,350	$178,650 – $388,350
35% Bracket Source: Forbes	Over $388,350	Over $388,350

Besides, most millionnaires give more generously to socially constructive causes and charities (that, unlike most government entitlement programs, efficiently aid the needy) when taxes are lower.

Some media outlets have portrayed the protestors quite positively. I do not see the majority as very sympathetic characters. The truth is that misconduct and idleness are the main causes of poverty in America. Almost any healthy American who lives chastely, avoids addictions, and works hard will succeed. After reading the bios of the OWS protestors I decided to look up the bios of some Wall Street executives. It turns out that most executives were hard working all through their high school, college, and graduate school experiences. They had leadership positions in extracurricular activities and sports. They volunteered a lot. They didn't party much. They spent long hours at the library. They lived chastely. They avoided addictive substances and behaviors. They were respectful of authority while still being innovative and critical thinking. They marry and have committed relationships. In their careers, they work at least 11 hour days Monday through Friday and then a few hours on Saturdays too. They are committed to family life and contribute to charity and their communities. Yes, frequently (although perhaps less than you think) they have the benefit of being born to a successful and loving family, certainly an advantage, but that is no reason to think of them as undeserving. Oftentimes, success takes generations to establish and a CEO, rocket scientist, cardiovascular surgeon, or senator may be the pinnacle of generations of a family's efforts.

The protestors frequently do not live chaste lives. They frequently are involved in addictive substances and behaviors. They are too often rebellious for rebellious' sake. They did not work particularly hard in high school, college, or in their careers. They don't contribute to their communities or volunteer much.

The protestors may be from rough neighborhoods and dysfunctional families. But, that doesn't entitle them to demand the earnings of hard working business people. That doesn't entitle them to the right to sit around with an angry sign being frustrated. Get up! Do something about it! Sitting around won't change a thing. Be successful and then give back and advocate. All that the OWS demonstration does is blame others and demand gifts. Stop blaming and do something that actually makes a difference.