The Conservative Reader

Art Smith August 9th, 2008

Two big hits on prominant families this week.

Mr. Shawshank

One is Morgan Freeman.  You may recall he was in an automobile accident earlier this week and was in serious condition.  He was released later in the week after surgery with shoulder damage and a broken arm and elbow.  According to Fox News, Freeman and his wife Myrna Colley-Lee have been separated since last December.

As far as I know, this was a huge surpise to most of the world.  Of course, being in an accident with a lady friend in the car can lead to speculation, but I don’t anyone was ready to start accusing Freeman of infidelity.  It seems she was a friend that had simply offered him a ride home.

I’m guessing the biggest reason for the divorce disclosure now is the fact someone might be asking why his wife isn’t taking care of him.

Mr. Perfect

John Edwards admitted this week that he had been in an adulterous relationship with Rielle Hunter in 2006.  The tone of his apology to the general public (since he has already apologized to his wife some time ago) was politically wordsmithed to convey a sense that the issue of adultery was trivial and that his primary sin (though he never uses that word, rather he uses the word “choice”) was not having an affair, it was in not revealing it to the public earlier… denying it in fact because he thought the inaccuracies in the report by the National Enquirer made it deniable.

It will be interesting to see whether Edwards can recover from this politically.  Obviously, he has recovered from the family impacts since his wife has publicaly forgiven him.  Ed Morrissey at Hot Air provides an excellent analysis of where Edwards can go from here.

This item from Death By A Thousand Paperclips in December of last year is interesting to view in light of this week’s revelation.

My thoughts on Captain Ed’s commentary: What is revealing about Edwards is an almost blatant disregard for integrity and trust.  The reason most politicians conceal improprieties of this nature is that the public simply doesn’t like to elect people that would do something as bad as cheating on their wife.  On the positive side, the public is becoming generally less concerned about marital infidelity on its face because we understand that all of us have failings.

On the negative side, the public is becoming more and more tolerant of those failing in solemn commitments and tolerating, or just looking blindly at, people who have given a vow to another and have broken it, many of them repeatedly.  The public does this without considering what that means to the public trust.  The same thing happened with Bill Clinton, and even today many just giggle about the licentious behavior of Jack and Ted Kennedy and continue to diefy both of them despite evidence to the contrary.  in 8 years, I’d bet Gary Hart, Jonathan Edwards, maybe even Hugh Hefner could all become President.

The mark of confusion comes in this regard: skills and character are two different things.  Skills are things you learn how to do, and can do effectively outside the realm of integrity.  Skills can be easily measured and agreed upon.  Character is is about how you use your skills, what choices you will make, how far people can trust you to do the right thing.

One can be taught how execute on the right thing.  A lifetime is spent becoming the person who knows what the right thing is and when to do it.

Hat Tips to Real Clear Politics, Death By A Thousand Paperclips, Hot Air, and Daily Kos.

Update: Mispelling.

Tags: Adultery, Affair, Bill Clinton, Character, Daily Kos, Death By A Thousand Paperclips, deniable, Divorce, Ed Morrissey, Edward Kennedy, Elisabeth Edwards, Fox News, Gary Hart, Hot Air, Hugh Hefner, Infidelity, Jennifer Flowers, JFK, John Edwards, John F. Kennedy, licentious, Marriage, Morgan Freeman, Myrna Colley-Lee, National Enquirer, Real Clear Politics, Rielle Hunter, Shawshank Redemption, Ted Kennedy

• 2008 Presidential Election , Accountability , Bill Clinton , Democratic Party , Family , Integrity , John Edwards , Marriage , Ted Kennedy , society
• Comments(0)

Art Smith July 1st, 2008

It took me a few days to figure out I could talk about this story without referring to the AP article… fortunately, a local newspaper (The Hartford Courant) web site covered the story along with the video. I’ve had several people mention this story to me via email.

So, two cars are racing around and a gentleman gets hit by one of them. Pretty routine, happens all the time. What was unusual was the lack of any helpful response by the crowd.

So, what’s happening here? Why would a crowd of people just circle around or walk by someone clearly in need without coming close enough to even convey a sense of belonging to the same race?

Those in the community of Hartford, Connecticut are expressing regret and shame over this, and I’m glad they are bothered by it. But fundamentally, this is another reflection of the state of decline our society is in. Not so much because people are “bad” as much as people are just not accustomed to direct contact with strangers in general let alone getting close enough to actually aid someone in distress.

We are becoming more accustomed to teaching our children, and as a result ourselves, to stay far away from strangers. We are fearful of any stranger that is bleeding for any reason because we may become infected by some unknown disease. Knowing full well the types of situations people can find themselves in, we lack good “civilian” training in first aid, which was once considered essential.

And we’ve become more and more subtly accustomed to minding our own business. Because perhaps we’ll get sued for doing something wrong. Perhaps someone will retaliate against us for doing something to help their enemy.

Good Samaritan laws, according to the TortsProf Blog, provide some protection. In some areas, such laws actually require assistance be provided (from the Ex Post Blog):

…the type that exists in many countries (most notably, Canada) and that are becoming more prominent in the US today. Good Samaritan laws describe a legal requirement for citizens to assist people in distress, unless doing so would put them in harm’s way. Good Samaritan laws, in certain parts of the nation, actually refer to laws that require citizens to assist individuals who need help (think Massachusetts, a la Seinfeld series finale.)

It’s sad to think that we need laws that force people to behave in a manner that many yet (including myself) simply expect of others, and at one time was considered “normal”.

But normal is gone. Proper, essential, appropriate behaviors are no longer considered the default response for a growing segment of society.

I think the general uproar is good, the response in Hartford is appropriate, but what can we do to stem the tide? I fear little, but the point we must always see is that we cannot give up. Keep doing what is right.

I believe that Isaac Asimov was sort of a social prophet. If you’ve read his science fiction, you’ll find that he immersed himself in theories of social order, which he proposed in varying degrees in his Foundation Series, and others. Most relevant here would be his Robot Series, about a future where people on Earth live indoors, and colonists have seeded many worlds in space.

And one of those worlds, in the book “The Naked Sun‘, was a planet called Solaria where everyone is tended by robots, and no one has personal contact with any other human beings. Not physically. They do talk via holographic communications, but never in person. The society decayed severely (as depicted in a later work titled “Foundation and Earth“) over time and the Solarians eventually altered themselves genetically to become hermaphrodites (providing the ability to self-reproduce).

I’m just saying.

Tags: Always do good, Canada, Connecticut, Ex Post Blog, Foundation and Earth, Foundation Series, Good Samaritan Laws, Hartford Courant, Helping others, Hermaphrodites, Hit and Run, Isaac Asimov, Massachusetts, Robot Series, Solaria, The Naked Sun, TortsProf

• Featured , Humanity , society
• Comments(0)

Art Smith June 28th, 2008

When I was in college, my first major was Psychology. I was planning to become a counselor like psychologist in my high school who helped me work through some issues (sure, not all of them, but you should have seen me then). One semester was enough to tell me this was not my field. A lot of work was done to reach conclusions that just seemed too obvious to me, and although I do respect those that work in the field to serve the needs of individuals, the overarching view by some that psychology/psychiatry provides a method for improving society is tenuous in my mind.

And so today I find in one of my favorite weekly columns in the Wall Street Journal, the “Five Best” (five books recommended by someone of interest and covering a common topic) to be offered by Paul McHugh, a professor at Johns Hopkins University. The books mentioned are touted as “factions and follies of psychiatry”. Sadly, I could not find an electronic posting of the list at wsj.com.

Interesting in that his list focuses on Psychiatry, which is the medically related segment of the spectrum (so, surgery, drugs, etc.). I’m sure there are similar lists related to Psychology (more counseling related), but this list is fairly interesting.

1. Great and Desperate Cures: The Rise and Decline of Psychosurgery and Other Radical Treatments for Mental Illness by Eliot S. Valenstein. This book reviews the history of the use of lobotomy as a form of treatment.
2. In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity by Daniel J. Kevles. Covers the the history of Eugenics, especially in the early part of the 20th century. Includes reference to Buck v Bell, Nazi work in this field prior to the mass extermination of Jews, and the current efforts in screening for genetic defects and using abortions to manage genetic purification even in the 21st century.
3. Remembering Trauma by Richard J. McNally. This book covers the topic of repressed memories, and the popularity of this now heavily disputed form of diagnosis and associated treatment.
4. Stolen Valor by B. G. Burkett and Glenna Whitley. Uncovers the political and popular drivers behind how Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder became such a widely diagnosed and treated malady even for those that never faced combat. Not to take away from the impact that facing war and death day-to-day has on people, but to bring some understanding to the political anti-war drivers that are tending to over state this impact.
5. Abducted: How People Come to Believe They Were Kidnapped by Aliens by Susan A. Clancy. This book provides details around a study by the author to understand why so many people believed they needed treatment as a result of being abducted by aliens. Interesting to see how easy it might be to convince people of this.

Take a look. I plan to purchase all 5 this week… might take a while to read through. Without a doubt, this looks like a good set of content to see many of our historical mistakes in trying to manage society with psychology/psychiatry. Again, not intending to criticize the disciplines as a whole, just to see where our desire to control through any means can lead to disastrous failure.

Updated: Reader Richard Perlman, obviously more adept at finding content on the Wall Street Journal web site, graciously provided me with the link to Paul McHugh’s Five Best reviews.  Thanks, Richard, for the assistance!

Tags: B. G. Burkett, Books, Daniel J. Kevles, Elliot S. Valenstein, Five Bes, Glenna Whitley, Paul McHugh, Psychiatry, Psychology, Richard J. McNally, Susan A. Clancy, Wall Street Journal

• Books , Eugenics , Psychiatry , Psychology , Uncategorized , society
• Comments(0)

DJ Durant March 25th, 2008

Ah, my first contribution to the Conservative Reader.  I hope my effort is worthy of this site.  I hope I can remember my training from last night.  I hope I don’t come off sounding like a fool, or worse yet, like a pompas ass, but then again, how would anyone know the difference.

In the March 17, 2008 edition of Fortune, Geoff Colvin described a situation that is rearing it’s ugly head and that no one wants to talk about.  The subject was Medicare and in the opinion of many, including Alan Greenspan, this one issue will do more to negatively impact the American economy than the current credit crisis, than the war in Iraq, than $100 a barrel oil, than the trade or budget deficits.  The estimate:  regardless of who the next President is, Medicare Part A will go cash-flow negative, “and it’s downhill from there”.  In fact, it was suggested that by 2070, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security “will consume the entire federal budget”.  Yikes!

We can examine how we got there, but that’s not likely to be very helpful.  We can blame FDR, LBJ, GWB, and any other initials you can think of for this mess.  The issue, as I see it, is more fundamental than that.  It’s a question of personal responsibility.  Somewhere along the line, our populace has become conditioned to accept the notion that they aren’t responsible for anything!  Retirement?  Not my responsibility, that’s what Social Security and corporate pensions are for.  Personal health?  Why do I need to diet and exercise?  Jobs moving to Mexico?  Blame it on illegal immigration!  (How that makes any logical sense is another subject altogether.)

Here are some simple facts.  We have a fiscal budget deficit in this country that should be corrected.  Social security, as we know it, must change in order to become anything other than just another income redistribution process.  Either mandatory retirement ages must increase, contributions must increase (taxes), or payouts must decrease.  Is it any wonder no politician wants to touch this?  Now, Mr. Colvin tells us Medicare is a “$34 Trillion Problem”.  Someone please explain to me how taxes are NOT going to increase!

The federal goverment is the only entity I know of that can operate in La-La Land.  Every other organization must either have revenues greater than expenses, otherwise it’s insolvent.  Which politician is willing to cut federal expenditures (never mind which ones) in order to keep taxation the same and balance the budget?  Which politician is willing to get rid of Medicare, or Social Security and begin to retrain the masses that it’s not government’s responsiblity to take care of them?  Didn’t anyone learn from the collapse of the Soviet Union?

So of the three candidates that remain standing, none of them are willing to give us the bad news.  I wonder when our next President will come forth with the announcement.  Or will he/she keep pretending?  Or will the solution be to increase taxes on the rich, thereby stifling investment and creating yet another recession?  God, give us a leader!  Give us someone with the chutzpah to tell it like it is!  I fogot, no one with that level of courage would ever be elected, and isn’t that the sad truth?

Tags: budget deficit, Colvin, Greenspan, Medicare, TAXES

• TAXES , society
• Comments(3)

Art Smith March 12th, 2008

Not surprisingly, Eliot Spitzer did resign today as Governor of New York, ,effective Monday. There is lots and lots of pundit commentary on this today (see Memeorandum). I’m sorry for his family, and I’m glad he did the right thing.

A coworker of mine made a good observation. He said, it seems as time goes on, we are becoming more and more intolerant of bad behavior. Not that it should be okay to engage in illicit sexual activity, but there was a time when bad behavior on the part of politicians was treated with more of a “boys will be boys” kind of mentality. His question to me today was, “What’s changed since Bill Clinton?”, alluding to the fact that Clinton brazenly behaved very badly and suffered little consequence. And truly, before Nixon, most men in power got away with worse behavior than (we know about) today (reference what we think we know now about JFK’s hanky-pankying).

Good question, and there’s some things to be said about that.

First of all, there are some similarities and some differences between Clinton and Spitzer to consider. What Clinton did with Lewinski was definitely bad, but not impeachable, not any reason to resign. For that offense (against his wife, really), I think most Americans (as disgusted as we may be by it) would forgive. Amazingly, what he did after that should have been reason to resign or be impeached, and that was to look the American people in the eye and lie through his teeth about it. A President needs to be in a position to withhold the truth, or even deceive if necessary, when national security is at stake, but that was plainly not the case here and to this day it amazes me that so many people actually think it didn’t matter that he did that.

The offense regarding sex is essentially the same between the two men (although I assume a solicitation charge could be in order), and I commend the Governor for having the intelligence not to try and lie his way around it. However, there is clearly more to this story than just a governor buying sex. We don’t know the whole story yet, but the investigation around this appears to involve money laundering which puts us in the position of not knowing just what laws were actually broken. And as that story unfolds, it will be impossible for Spitzer to govern without significant distraction, and I commend him for not putting his state through the turmoil of a political circus that would make him impotent to represent and govern New York. But the grace I would afford him will end there, as I am confident the next few months will reveal a pattern of deception and potentially unanticipated corruption… and the fact that the corruption and potential list of broken laws are all wrapped around this revelation about his involvement with a prostitute is what makes this different from the Clinton affair. Any alleged corruption on Bill’s part was never tied to the Lewinsky entanglement.

So why do we focus so much more now on these types of behaviors? Here’s my current list of reasons:

1. We want to believe that one person or party is fundamentally better than the other. That is, less likely to be corrupt, stronger convictions, better integrity, more steadfast character. And the only way to really demonstrate that is to unwind the threads of the opposition. Regardless, I think integrity and character matter a great deal, I just want to be sure that everyone is measured with the same ruler. Which is a challenge because we have become much more diverse in our ideas of where the line is.
2. We have become much more attentive to the fact that sex can be used as a means to intimidate others. I don’t think anyone believes it is right to hold this kind of power over another in any setting, and as sexual harassment sensitivity and training become more prevalent in corporate America, we have started developing some good sense of right and wrong when it comes to using sex as a power ploy.
3. We have become much more attentive to the fact that any kind of “deviant” behavior (again, an expression has varying degrees of definition) can also be a sign of potential darkness in areas that we simply don’t tolerate, such as child molestation. If Lewinsky had been a teenage intern, I think it’s highly likely Bill would have been forced to retire early. We don’t want another Mark Foley. And this as it should be.

This new sense of seriousness could be a great sign. I hope it means something good about our society, maybe we’re not on the road to ruin.

Hat tip to BitHead.

Tags: Bill Clinton, Eliot Spitzer, New York Governor, Prostitute, Sex, society

• Bill Clinton , Eliot Spitzer , Sex , society
• Comments(1)