Moral Equivalency: Why It's Not a Good Thing

So PETA members decided to protest the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show by dressing up in Klan outfits and handing out fliers with their message on them. That message? They say that the idea of "purebred" dogs is akin to the idea of a Master Race.

Okay, first of all: purebreeding in dogs is not a bad thing. You look at a breed like golden retrievers, who are typically bred very pure, and they are as close as possible to free of any hereditary illnesses, with few genetic disorders and even a significantly lower risk of cancer than other dogs.

Also, the Kennel Club isn't trying to establish one breed of dog as superior. They just want variety. And for people who still use dogs for work (which I'm sure PETA doesn't take into account), purebreeding means that certain inherited traits--the herding instincts of sheepdogs, digging and tracking instincts of beagles or bloodhounds, etc--are not diluted by mixed heritage. Which matters, PETA loonies--and if you're ever kidnapped, I hope you won't complain when police use purebred bloodhounds to find you.

The really shocking thing about this is, of course, that PETA sees it as perfectly logical to compare purebreeding dogs to murdering Jews and blacks. Never mind that these dogs are not killed, are not even mistreated. The only thing purebreeding means is that they are kept away from dogs of different breeds while in heat. Oh, the horror! It's practically the same as slavery!

Well, no. Dogs are not people. And while it may be abominable to mistreat them, purebreeding is not really mistreatment. And even if it were, it's not equivalent to the Holocaust. Every decent human being should be mortally offended by this.

A Parasite

So you've probably heard of Nadya Suleman, aka the Salad Shooter. This is the unemployed single mother who lives in her mom's house and collects welfare checks. She now, thanks to her recent octuplet birth, has fourteen children, all of whom will be supported by money confiscated from people responsible enough not to have children they can't afford to raise.

Look, she's said she was a lonely child and wanted a big family. Good for you. Now make sure you can support that family and you're free to do so. But why in God's name should my tax dollars subsidize your huge-family fantasy?

Not content with drinking the sweat of people who think that you should have a job and live someplace other than your mother's basement before having fourteen children, this bloodsucker has demanded a $2 million deal from Oprah, hired a publicist, and set up a website asking for donations (which you can see here: http://www.thenadyasulemanfamily.com/). All while continuing to collect welfare.

What on earth is wrong with you? If you can afford a publicist to handle your media exposure, you don't need my tax dollars to support yourself.

You know the real tragedy of this situation? There's one unemployed mother of fourteen entirely dependent on handouts. But there are millions of unemployed mothers of three or four that are equally dependent on the nanny state. It's not right. Exercise some responsibility. Make sure you can support a child before you make the decision to have one. And if you can't, don't expect the rest of us to clean up your mistakes.

This One's Really Scary

One of the provisions buried in the "stimulus" package (or the Generational Theft Act) is for a new government position called the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology. And it's the most terrifying thing the government could possibly do.  

See, the NCHIT and his office will be allowed to review all medical records in the United States and evaluate your doctor's actions--to determine if treatment is "appropriate and cost-effective."  

Remember the good old days when your medical treatment was between you and your doctor? When the government had to get a court order to find out about your medical treatment? Those are now gone.

That should scare the crap out of you.

First of all, for a government that's over $10 trillion in debt and runs a company (Amtrak) that has failed to show a single dollar of profit in over forty years to determine what's "cost-effective" would be laughable if the situation weren't so serious.  

Is there anyone else who's really, really uncomfortable with the government finding every medical treatment you've ever had, with neither your permission nor probable cause for a subpoena? It's my body, not the government's. What right do they have to decide if I'm getting "appropriate" treatment? Shouldn't I be able to determine that? By my standards, if I start out sick, receive treatment, and get not-sick-anymore, that's appropriate treatment. That's all that matters. I don't think that treatment should then be subject to government review.

And if the government review finds that the treatment wasn't appropriate or cost-effective, what are they supposed to do about it? The treatment can't be undone. It's not like I can get sick again and give the doctor a do-ever, but this time make sure to use government-mandated treatment. I guess they'll slap the doctor with punitive fines. What's that going to do to health care? You already have doctors closing up shop for fear of malpractice suits. If you add government review and potentially ruinous fines to the mix, how many more doctors do you suppose will decide to close their doors and go back to teaching, or something?  

This NCHIT is another argument against universal health care--because, of course, when the government pays for your treatment, the government has a right to know what it's paying for. Which means your right to any sort of privacy is gone. Call me crazy, but I'd rather pay the insurance premiums than give the government access to every detail of my medical history.

Black History Month

I really hate black history month.

It's not because I'm racist. It's because I'm not. When you celebrate the achievements of people like George Washington Carver, Thurgood Marshall, or Martin Luther King, because it's Black History Month, you're actually degrading their achievements in favor of their race. Celebrating Carver because it's black history month is getting the priorities backwards: you're saying "This is a black man who was a genius." You should be saying "This is a genius who revolutionized the food industry." That he is black, if mentioned at all, should be a passing afterthought.

If someone's achievements are worth noting, their skin tone--and a month to honor that skin tone--should be irrelevant. To suggest otherwise strikes me as bigotry.

Good God, What Is Wrong With You People?

An Arizona rancher named Roger Barnett owns 22,000 acres, some of which borders Mexico. Because his ranch is private property and not patrolled by the government, illegal immigrants use it as a border crossing. He doesn't like this. Surprise! Somebody doesn't like it when foreign citizens illegally enter this country by trespassing through his property!

In fact, Mr. Barnett dislikes it so much that, when he comes across people illegally crossing his land, he'll hold them at gunpoint while calling the police. This is what, in a saner time, was known as reasonably defending your property. Now, it's called a violation of civil rights.

Seriously. 16 of these criminals are now suing Mr. Barnett for "civil rights violations," with damages to the tune of $32 million.

What a load of crap. You're committing multiple felonies, including illegal border crossing and trespassing (and technically burgalry, since that is defined as illegally entering a property for the purposes of committing a felony). The guy you're committing these felonies against detains you--exercising his right to make a citizen's arrest--until the police arrive. You're entitled to nothing. It's like those jackass burglars who trip over a rug or a power cord then sue the homeowner for the cost of their medical bills.

No. You either get to burglarize/trespass/whatever other crime on someone's property, or ask them to treat you with respect. Not both. When you illegally entered Mr. Barnett's property, you forfeited your right not to be held at gunpoint by Mr. Barnett. He's defending his freaking home against your illegal invasion of his property. You don't get to sue him for that.

And if the judge doesn't throw this case out, I will have lost all respect for this nation's justice system.

The Death of America

So a couple of days ago I was watching the ludicrous orgy of douchebaggery known as Vh1's Tool Academy. For those who don't know, the premise of the show is this: nine women, fed up with their douchebag boyfriends, decided, instead of ditching them, to go on a reality show and teach them to change. In the process, they attend couples' counseling (conducted by a therapist whose degree probably has two "N"s in "University", because she has no freaking clue what she's doing) and compete to win dates in challenges.

In five weeks, Jenna and her tool Matsuflex (aka Ryan, but he insists on being called Matsuflex and refers to himself as "the Matsu") have won three challenges. Second-place finisher Aida this week told Jenna, "I was just hoping Shawn and I could win so we could give the date to somebody who hasn't won yet. I'm not saying you should do that, that's just what I wanted to do."

And that, in a nutshell, is what's wrong with this country. Though it's its own problem, leave aside the passive-aggressive BS in that statement ("I don't want to tell you that's what you should do, but I thought it would be a nice thing to do if I won"). Why should Jenna feel bad about winning? (She should feel bad for being in a long-term relationship with a guy named Matsuflex, but that's a different story.) We've been conditioned in our culture to see it as a bad thing when we acheive more than others. Why should the people who have failed to win a single competition be given the rewards? If you want to reap the benefits of winning, then bust your rear and win. And if someone's more skillful and wins more, why should they feel guilty? Why should they feel that they have to give their rewards away? Thankfully, Jenna resisted the pressure and enjoyed the rewards of her own work.

Does this seem frivolous? It's not. While reality TV tends to have little resemblance to actual reality, in this case it's a microcosm of our entire culture. Selfishness is an obscenity, and achievement is shameful. If you succeed, you have to "give your fair share" to make sure that people who haven't worked as hard or acheived as much can still have access to the rewards of your labor.

Selfishness is not inherently bad. Narcissism is, but there's a difference. One of my biggest philosophical influences, Ayn Rand, contended that selfishness--which she defined as "the rational pursuit of one's self-interest"--was not only not a bad thing, but everyone's highest moral obligation. By rational pursuit of one's self-interest, she explained, she meant not self-indulgence but the pursuit of true fulfillment. Using other people up or destroying yourself with drugs and alcohol may provide a temporary rush, but that lifestyle is not rational or in your self-interest. While I may not go so far as to say that this is humanity's highest moral obligation, it is certainly not a bad thing either. If you want something, and work towards it, not for the betterment of everyone else but for your personal fulfillment, you should not be made to feel guilty about it. It doesn't make you an awful person to acheive for yourself. If you gain something, through your work, and decide to share it, that's your personal choice. If you gain something, through your work, and decide to keep it, that's your personal choice too--and not a bad one. You've recognized that your life is not a tool for others to use to gain things they otherwise couldn't--good for you.

Success is nothing to be embarassed about. Neither is wanting to keep the fruits of your success. There was a time when our country recognized that. And until we remember it again, this culture is going to get worse and worse.

A Freaking Joke

So I watched part of the Grammys last night. Award shows tend to be vapid, annoying orgies of self-congratulating nonsense. Last night's were no exception.

First of all: MIA doing pelvic thrusts while 8 months pregnant and wearing a body-stocking? Am I the only one who vomited at that one? It was so repulsive that I barely noticed Katy Perry's fruit dress (which after her merry-go-round garb looked fairly normal) or Kanye's ridiculous pompadour.

Two very deserving artists got ripped off: David Gilmour for Best Rock Instrumental and Metallica for Best Rock Album. 

Remember the days when rock was supposed to grab you by the throat and bash your teeth in? That's pretty much the exact opposite of Coldplay. Don't get me wrong, I like Coldplay and I respect their art--but I don't think for a second that going toe-to-toe with Metallica they are better rock. Even putting them in the same category is insulting to both bands--you have mellow coffeeshop music on one hand and pure go-for-the-jugular metal on the other. I was quite pleased that Metallica won Best Metal Performance and Rick Rubin picked up Best Producer, but they deserved Rock Album.

And all respect to Steve Vai, but David Gilmour is better. Period.

I was very happy to see Robert Plant and Allison Krauss win Album of the Year over Lil' Wayne. Turns out that having comprehensible vocals and playing real instruments still matters.

I'm sorry, but I don't see Lil' Wayne's talent. From the bizarre noises he makes in his choruses (weird giggles mixed with random shouts of "Young Money" and "Carter") to the fact that he's apparently incapable of making a song not about money and hos, everything about him annoys me. And "A Milli" as Best Rap Song? It's a repetitive irritating beat with a constant distorted repetition of the title and syllables slurred and compressed to force rhymes that really shouldn't be there. Granted, the standards for rap artistry seem to be fairly low (see Exhibit A, the career of Soulja Boy Tell'em), but I don't see the lyrical genius in "I make it snow/I make it flurry/I make it all back tomorrow don't worry." Just once, please, write about something other than how much money you've made and how many women you've had sex with. Then I can take you seriously (well, pulling your pants up would be a step in the right direction there too).

When the most popular artist of the moment makes Slipknot seem cultured, there's a serious problem.