Mandates - The government made me do it

Doug:
I thought a "mandate" was just an experimental date in college?

David:
Rimshot sound effects.

Perhaps we should just end this blog here?

Seriously, one question the Supreme Court never really clarified was whether or not the government can mandate, or force, citizens to purchase goods from private vendors. The Obamacare decision was a more narrowly tailored ruling that the "fines" were, in fact, taxes, and the law was constitutional on that ground the government can tax to coerce you into purchasing health insurance.  But does this open the window towards other "mandates"?

Doug:
Ah, those kinds of mandates. I don't have a problem with the government requiring all of us to buy health care. After all, that is one thing we will all need. If it isn't mandated, wouldn't there be some people that don't buy it, but will still need it? This make sure that there is money to do it. Isn't this a Republican ideal?

David:
Ah, but the government doesn't require you to buy healthcare. The government has mandated we buy health insurance. The government is forcing you to purchase a product from a large corporation, that then pays other large corporations (hospitals). And then the government forced the insurance companies to offer many extras that most people don't want or need. The government eliminated lower-cost catastrophic care that many young people would have found most useful. But they needed young people to fill the coffers of the corporations since they were losing money on Medicaid and Medicare patients. This is a scheme to redistribute money from the young to older Americans. No, that is not a Republican ideal.

Doug:
The trouble I have with the health care system is that it was married with capitalism. I think that there are two places where I don't want capitalism: education and health care. That creates a strange relationship between the public and these corporations.

David:
Capitalism is where the biggest gains will be made in both of those areas. Business-sponsored charter schools have to meet certain goals to be successful. And success equals children learning. If the kids don't do well (choose whatever measuring stick you desire), the school closes, and the kids go to one where they are successful.

Right now, children are languishing in public schools that have no responsibilities to do well. If children fail, the only ones who pay a price are the children. The teachers don't get fired. The superintendents don't get fired. No one gets fired. That isn't to say there are not good teachers, just that there is no reward or punishment for results. That's the government way.

When a dollar can be made, great things and innovations can, and often do, happen.

Doug:
Every dollar made from education or healthcare is a dollar that goes to neither education nor healthcare.

David:
That's a pretty broad statement. Many companies use the money to improve their products or to create new products to make their services better, for both education and healthcare. Teachers make their money from the education system. I'd say they give quite a bit back. Charter schools that are successful (i.e.: educate children better) can put that money into hiring more teachers, serving more children, and expanding their services. That's what a good educational system should do.

But back to mandates. What if the government mandated you send your child to the closest school, which just happens to be a Christian charter school?

Doug:
The government shouldn't make your children go to a religious school of any kind. There is a separation of church and state, and I think that would apply to schools especially.

David:
So, you do agree that there are government mandates that you would consider especially distasteful. Like forcing your child to go to a school that you don't like.

The Indiana Supreme court has already found that Catholic (and other religious-based) charter schools  can be provided with government money for education.  Since charters are voluntary (parental choice), parents can use the money (vouchers) provided to them to enroll their children anywhere.

It seems we both agree that the government should not be able to mandate where your child goes to school, and tax dollars should be made available to parents to make the choices themselves.

Doug:
If the government is going to use my tax dollars to fund an Islamic school, or Christian school, or Atheist School, then yes, I agree that we shouldn't also have to send our children there. But isn't that an argument against such schools? Taxes should be used to benefit the good of all, and having an intelligent electorate is important.

What happens when many people in your surrounding area decides to put their money behind a school that you don't want to go to? I don't see how this is a viable option. So, mandates should be for everyone. If you want to go to a different school than what the mandate offers, then you'll have to pay for that over and above your taxes. That's called a private school, and you are free to send your kids there. We have one kid that went through the public school system, and one that chose a private school (at 6th grade). But taxes aren't paying for her schooling.

David:
How about this: the state just sends you a check to pay for your child's education, or you deduct the cost from your taxes, and you (as the parent) get to send your child to any accredited school. Let the schools compete for students by providing excellent educations. And let failing, poorly run schools just go bankrupt, like a failing, poorly run company. Children with special needs, or other issues (make up whatever scoring system is needed, like single-parent families, or falling below the poverty line, etc.) get extra money to cover their needs.

Then, we are all funding schools that work, not institutions that don't. And one more government mandate goes away,  which is good for everyone.

Doug:
If you had two schools in an area, wouldn't eventually one win out? I see "bundling" ... go to School X and get a discount on your cable bill. Send 3 kids to School Y and get a discount. Soon, it looks like the phone companies, or the banks... there are only a few left, there is no competition, and therefore no pressure to do well. No, I don't think that is sustainable, for schools or healthcare.

David:
Only one school in a district, no competition, and no pressure to do well?  You've just described the public school system. The advent of charters introduces competition, and as long as a school performs well, it will succeed.

Doug:
I do think a reward system would help for both systems. Good teachers and healthcare providers should be well-paid and celebrated. Bad teachers and doctors should lose their jobs. That is what we should get in exchange for our mandates. Maybe that, and a nice dinner and a movie.

David:
Be careful what you wish for. Currently, malpractice lawsuits protect patients from bad doctors.  I don't think you want teachers to be subjected to a malpractice suit if little Johnnie doesn't get an "A" on his next test. I agree that excellent teachers certainly should have a generous reward system in place.

We both can agree that the ultimate goal is to have a well-educated population, and finding innovative ways to provide more kids with a quality education for the future job market is good for everyone. Along with a nice dinner and a movie!

I am a Feminist

Doug:
I am a feminist.

David:
Of course you are.  Please tell me specifically what you mean when you say that.

Doug:
What comes to your mind when someone says that they are a feminist?

David:
Gloria Steinem. And you don't look anything like her.

Well, actually there is a resemblance.  But anyway, what's on your mind?

Doug:
I think your view of a feminist is a bit outdated. A feminist is anyone that works toward making it so that women have the same rights as men. Equal rights for everyone. Who could be against that?

David:
No one is against that. In fact, based on that definition, everyone I know is a feminist. Apparently, their work is already done, because I don't know any women (or know of any women) who have fewer rights than men.

Doug:
That's great!

Oh, but wait. But, maybe your idea of "rights" is a bit limited. Do you think that women should be paid as much as men for doing the same work?

David:
I was hoping we would rise above Hillary's bogus talking points. Show me an example of a woman who works the same job as a man, and works the same number of hours as a man, who gets paid less. It's already illegal to do so.

Doug:
Sorry, but Hillary Clinton isn't the only one concerned with this issue; there are many people working on making the world more fair for everyone. I guess it is clever to dismiss an issue by making it seem that only one person is championing it, and then demonize that person. I'm thinking Al Gore and climate change. That isn't an argument.

David:
When the POTUS and the only real Democratic candidate for POTUS both give speeches in the same week about this "issue", I'd say that qualifies it as a Democratic-talking point. This appears to be the only sliver of the "war on women" that still polls well for Democrats, so they're going to push it.

And let's not ever mention Al "Global-Warming-Nobel-Laureate" Gore again.

Doug:
Oh, we are going to have to talk about Al, because climate change is an important issue.

But back to the current discussion. There are lots of women that are not being paid as much as their male colleagues. Again, this is a systemic issue, and one that probably has its roots in implicit bias. Here are some data from http://www.aauw.org/files/2013/03/Graduating-to-a-Pay-Gap-The-Earnings-of-Women-and-Men-One-Year-after-College-Graduation-Executive-Summary-and-Recommendations.pdf:

There is no occupation studied here where women make more than men, but a few that men make more than women.

David:
We have women who work in my physician group as doctors, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. They each get the same hourly wage and benefits as the men.

Doug:
That matches the data above; health care fields have equal parity of pay for men and women.

David:
We also have our group set up so that you can work less than full-time if you wish. Interestingly, all of our female physicians have opted to work less than full time for various reasons. Some of our males do as well. And whether you are a man or a woman, if you work 70% of the hours as a full-time worker, you get paid 70% as much at the end of the month. If you choose to take 3 months off for maternity leave, your job will still be here waiting for you when you come back, but your year-end cash intake will be 75% what it is for full-time workers. You only get paid for working, regardless of gender.

Doug:
The study above takes those kinds of differences into account, and women often still make less than their male counterparts.

David:
The study above wouldn't get published in any scientific journals I read. Citing prior studies that you yourself have done, to prove your argument,  just doesn't hold water.

When you look at how people who push this pay-discrepancy argument forward, they are comparing apples to oranges. Women who opt for flexibility in the number of hours worked get paid less, if they work less hours. They may have the same job, but they get paid by the hour worked.

But, if you want to pursue this false argument, then President Obama and Hillary Clinton both pay their women staff 70-75% of what the men make for the same jobs. And, they continue to do so today, despite pressing this argument themselves in the past weeks. Why would they do that, if they could just pay them the same? Because it isn't true.

Doug:
Did you just argue that because some women make as much as men, that all women make as much as men? Or did you argue that because most women don't make as much as men, that all women must make less than men? I got lost in your argumental kung fu.

Anyway, being a feminist means that you care about issues like this. You want it to be the case that all people are treated fairly, and make what they deserve. Exactly how you go about solving the issue, or which area is more important, are the details. But I think you agree that we are all feminists, as you said as much: "No one is against that."

But pay isn't the only place in the world where there is unequal treatment. The idea that women are somehow less than men permeates almost every aspect of our culture. Here is an experiment to try: consider all of the things you might do or say to a woman today. Now, instead, do or say those to a dude.

Then go watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1XGPvbWn0A

I don't generally encourage reading the comments on any internet source, but there are many men there saying that "she should take the complements!" But imagine yourself saying those things in the video to a guy (or having them said to you from a guy). It seems disturbing, yes? Why? Because they are unwanted, and you don't say them to people that you consider equal to yourself.

David:
You''re making a few leaps here. And it's because you believe that women are paid differently, based on liberal web sites that promote this issue (and fundraise based on this issue). Try these:

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2013/12/gender-and-work_final.pdf

This notes that for entry level, there is parity in salary between men and women, but that there are perceived barriers to success for women.

http://www.topmanagementdegrees.com/women-dont-make-less/

This is a site that promotes the idea of women entering into higher-paying majors. It is not a biased site. And it finds a lot of reasons that women make less than men, none of them based on discrimination.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-white-houses-use-of-data-on-the-gender-wage-gap/2012/06/04/gJQAYH6nEV_blog.html

There have been several government-agency studies that also show what these articles / studies indicate. There is essentially no difference in wages by gender starting out, and the differences that develop are the result of choices that women make:  their college majors, the number of hours they work, the goals they have for careers,  the decisions they make for their families, etc.

And I think they should be able to make any decisions they want, for any reason they want.

I know we agree to discriminate against a woman just because she's a woman is wrong. But to create an issue where there isn't one only serves to divide people. And that's wrong, too.

Doug:
You left out a word: it is "near parity". Let's take a look at the Pew Social Trends report (not a "liberal website".) It says, and I quote:

• "In 2012, among workers ages 25 to 34, women’s hourly earnings were 93% those of men."
• "Yet there is no guarantee that today’s young women will sustain their near parity with men in earnings in the years to come." 
• "Recent cohorts of young women have fallen further behind their same-aged male counterparts as they have aged..."

It goes on, but the point of that study is that young women are doing better than ever before, but still only make 93% of what men make, and it is a constant battle. This is good news that feminism is making progress on this issue. We should all be proud of that!

(I'm not even going to respond to infographics made by a single person on their own web site. The Washington Post article is a blog, like this one. Also, not something I would let my students cite in making an argument. It may well be that the "77 cents on the dollar" argument is invalid. But that does not negate all arguments.)

David:
Still, you are using the terms "pay" and "earnings" interchangeably. They are different. None of the reports that either of us has produced noted women are "paid" less, but they do note that women "earn" less.

Doug:

I think we can agree that women are making progress, and that feminism is all about that progress. And that's why I am a feminist. 

The Drone Wars

Doug:
As a person who has studied artificial intelligence and robotics for the last 25 years, I was really surprised when it was discovered that we were wiping people off the planet with drones. This is the type of activity that deserves ethical scrutiny.

David:
Perhaps the words you are looking for are "Constitutional scrutiny".

There are Americans abroad who are being gunned down by the President. He's admitted that he keeps a "list" of targets in his desk, and hand picks them for death. That's a lot of power for one man to have, and not exactly what the founders of this country had in mind. (Due process and all….)

Doug:
I'm not in favor of the government killing anyone. So, it would not be ok for me even if there were more people involved, or even a jury. And it doesn't matter if it is a citizen or not.

The battlefield is a different story. But it should require a declaration of war.

David:
It fits the President's foreign policy objectives, however:
-No boots on the ground, anywhere or for any reason.
-No prisoners in Guantanamo, because he wants to close it.
-No secret CIA prisons.
-No interrogations of prisoners, because all of that interrogation stuff is "torture".

Therefore, he can take no prisoners.

 And since a "take no prisoners" approach during war is against the rules of the Geneva Conventions, the president has to go out of his way with verbal gymnastics to claim we are not at war, and there is no named group we are at war with. Otherwise, he might be guilty of war crimes.

Doug:
Diplomacy is always better, don't you think? Having "prisons" in other countries is problematic, yes? Torture is unacceptable, yes?

David:
Torture is unacceptible, but interrogation is not. But how do you interrogate a dead man?

By the current standards shown by the President, it's surprising that Bowe Bergdahl wasn't blown to smithereens by a drone. Other Americans who were working with our enemies (who shall remain nameless by the administration) suffered this fate. Ah, but by releasing prisoners in a swap, the goal of closing Gitmo moves closer to reality, so I guess it fits.

I'm not sure a guy who knowingly lies to the public to pass bills, and insults the Republican half of the voting electorate in every speech he gives, is a guy who seems too concerned with whether he acting in an ethical way or not. His actions speak for themselves; The ends justify the means in his worldview.

Doug:
I have no idea what you are talking about. I thought we were talking about the ethics of drones. The next step is to completely automate the drones, taking humans completely (or nearly) out of the loop. This is not acceptable.

David:
Drones suit this particular president's policies very well (and most politician's needs as well). Waging war without calling it war. Killing those who oppose you without committing any US lives. Eliminating all of the baggage that goes with having prisoners to care for. All carried out with robot warriors who are above (or below) ethical considerations. The more automated, the cleaner it is to just wipe your hands of it when something goes awry.

The next step in all of this is to just have our robots battle their robots. Or perhaps have our robots negotiate with their robots. Then, it becomes an arms race of who can make the best robot killing machine (i.e.: Terminators).

Doug:
We may never again fight a group that has enough money or resources to have their own drones, because then they would be over here wiping us out, and we'd find a solution to the war. No, it will be drones vs. humans.

David:
You don't think China or Russia has the resources or money to threaten us? The Middle East is where all of the fighting is currently ongoing, but they are not the biggest military threat to us, by far. Drones may become the preferred way of fighting, as this president has shown, because there is no loss of life, and therefore, no reason for public outcry against a war.

Doug:
Yes, they can threaten us, but I don't think they will with drones, because it would be too costly for them if we use drones against them. Those are rational agents. I meant that we would fight groups that don't really own property, or are not a real government, like ISIS. Of course there is loss of life, just not ours. There is a real role for discussing ethics here, and as a country, we aren't having that discussion.

David:
I agree that as a country, there are a great many important issues we should be having serious discussions about. But I'm not going to hold my breath. The last thing our politicians want to do is actually talk about things like ethics…..or honesty.  To be honest, there are too many Americans that don't want to listen to the discussion. (I'm reminded of the movie, Idiocracy.)

Perhaps more families need to have discussions like this with their children, at the dinner table. Or with their favorite brother. In a blog.

Doug:
I agree! We need to have such discussions everywhere... at home, on the news, at schools. Politicians don't like to have hard conversations, but we need to hold them to a high standard.