I’d never heard of the site Edutopia before today, but one of my Facebook friends posted a link to an interesting piece: “A Teacher’s Guide to Generation X Parents.” It’s ostensibly addressed to teachers (as you can see from the title), but it feels more like a piece of self-analysis as the author reflects on her own experience. The key to the article, I think, is this:
If you want to know what’s unhealed from your own childhood, have children. Key to decoding our parental behavior is understanding that we are, albeit often unconsciously, doing for our children what no one did for us.
I don’t disagree with that, but I’m still mulling the piece as a whole; the comments are quite interesting as well. If you’re a parent or a teacher, check it out—I don’t know if you’ll agree, but it will give you something to think about.
Today is the 197th anniversary of the birth of Dr. David Livingstone, the great medical missionary and missionary explorer to Africa. Though he’s far less well remembered in the West than was once the case, he was a man who did great work for God and, I think it’s fair to say, brought real blessing to the peoples of southern Africa. His Wikipedia entry sums up his legacy thus:
He had made geographical discoveries for European knowledge. He inspired abolitionists of the slave trade, explorers and missionaries. He opened up Central Africa to missionaries who initiated the education and health care for Africans, and trade by the African Lakes Company. He was held in some esteem by many African chiefs and local people and his name facilitated relations between them and the British.
Partly as a result, within fifty years of his death, colonial rule was established in Africa and white settlement was encouraged to extend further into the interior.
On the other hand, within a further fifty years after that, two other aspects of his legacy paradoxically helped end the colonial era in Africa without excessive bloodshed. Livingstone was part of an evangelical and nonconformist movement in Britain which during the 19th century changed the national mindset from the notion of a divine right to rule ‘lesser races’, to ethical ideas in foreign policy which, with other factors, contributed to the end of the British Empire. Secondly, Africans educated in mission schools founded by people inspired by Livingstone were at the forefront of national independence movements in central, eastern and southern Africa.
As it goes on to note, his life in Africa took a real toll on his family, which he regretted; he should not be idealized any more than any other human being. And yet, he is remembered and honored across southern Africa because of the work he did and the witness he bore for the gospel. And while he also endured considerable suffering and danger over the course of his life, he kept those things in gospel perspective:
For my own part, I have never ceased to rejoice that God has appointed me to such an office. People talk of the sacrifice I have made in spending so much of my life in Africa. . . . Is that a sacrifice which brings its own blest reward in healthful activity, the consciousness of doing good, peace of mind, and a bright hope of a glorious destiny hereafter? Away with the word in such a view, and with such a thought! It is emphatically no sacrifice. Say rather it is a privilege. Anxiety, sickness, suffering, or danger, now and then, with a foregoing of the common conveniences and charities of this life, may make us pause, and cause the spirit to waver, and the soul to sink; but let this only be for a moment. All these are nothing when compared with the glory which shall be revealed in and for us. I never made a sacrifice.
While we might do things somewhat differently than he did, we would do well to learn from his example.
We human beings have the tendency to forget that we exist within systems of relationships, which are themselves part of larger systems, and that anything we do causes ripple effects. The consequence of this is that we tend to assume that we can change this one thing over here without changing all the other parts of our lives, because everyone else’s behavior will remain the same. Life doesn’t work that way, but we never seem to remember that. This is, I think, the biggest single reason for the Law of Unintended Consequences (which states, in its simplest form, that whatever you do will always produce consequences which you neither intended nor foresaw; Murphy’s codicil to that is that those consequences will usually be negative): we fail to consider that other people will adjust to the changes we make, and thus don’t stop to think about how they are likely to do so.
This is, of course, true on a national and global scale as well as on a personal and local one; and we’ve just gotten a pretty big red flag regarding the possible unintended consequences if ObamaPelosiCare passes. To wit, a survey taken by a leading medical search and consulting firm and reported in theNew England Journal of Medicinefound this:
The poll finds 46.3% of primary care physicians (family medicine and internal medicine) feel that the passing of a public option will either force them out of medicine or make them want to leave medicine.
Doctors also seem to understand the impact that will have as 72% of physicians feel that a public option would have a negative impact on physician supply, with 45% feeling it will “decline or worsen dramatically” and 27% predicting it will “decline or worsen somewhat.”
Why would they feel this way? Consider:
62.7% of physicians feel that health reform is needed but should be implemented in a more targeted, gradual way, as opposed to the sweeping overhaul that is in legislation.
The respected medical journal also found 41% of physicians feel that income and practice revenue will “decline or worsen dramatically” and 30% feel income will “decline or worsen somewhat” with a public option.
Just 28.7 percent of doctors support the pro-abortion health care bill pending in the House
The assumption tends to be that if doctors and others in health care don’t like the changes the government wants to make, they can just lump it; but that fails to take into account that they do in fact have another option: they can stop seeing patients. Or, alternatively, they can stop seeing some patients (as many doctors and hospitals already restrict the number of Medicare patients they’ll take on), or see them on a different basis.
If this bill passes, will it really mean that nearly half of our primary-care physicians will leave practice? I’m sure it won’t; but will it mean that some leave, and some work fewer hours, and some retire early, and that in general, the availability of doctors drops? For my part, I saw enough “reduced activity days” (read: one-day strikes) by doctors while we were in Canada that I have no doubt it will. How is that going to improve health care?
Proponents of socializing our medical system need to take this very seriously. As the managing partner of the firm that conducted the survey wrote,
Many physicians feel that they cannot continue to practice if patient loads increase while pay decreases. The overwhelming prediction from physicians is that health reform, if implemented inappropriately, could create a detrimental combination of circumstances, and result in an environment in which it is not possible for most physicians to continue practicing medicine.
Health-care reform and increasing government control of medicine may be the final straw that causes the physician workforce to break down.
We human beings have the tendency to forget that we exist within systems of relationships, which are themselves part of larger systems, and that anything we do causes ripple effects. The consequence of this is that we tend to assume that we can change this one thing over here without changing all the other parts of our lives, because everyone else’s behavior will remain the same. Life doesn’t work that way, but we never seem to remember that. This is, I think, the biggest single reason for the Law of Unintended Consequences (which states, in its simplest form, that whatever you do will always produce consequences which you neither intended nor foresaw; Murphy’s codicil to that is that those consequences will usually be negative): we fail to consider that other people will adjust to the changes we make, and thus don’t stop to think about how they are likely to do so.
This is, of course, true on a national and global scale as well as on a personal and local one; and we’ve just gotten a pretty big red flag regarding the possible unintended consequences if ObamaPelosiCare passes. To wit, a survey taken by a leading medical search and consulting firm and reported in the New England Journal of Medicinefound this:
The poll finds 46.3% of primary care physicians (family medicine and internal medicine) feel that the passing of a public option will either force them out of medicine or make them want to leave medicine.
Doctors also seem to understand the impact that will have as 72% of physicians feel that a public option would have a negative impact on physician supply, with 45% feeling it will “decline or worsen dramatically” and 27% predicting it will “decline or worsen somewhat.”
Why would they feel this way? Consider:
62.7% of physicians feel that health reform is needed but should be implemented in a more targeted, gradual way, as opposed to the sweeping overhaul that is in legislation.
The respected medical journal also found 41% of physicians feel that income and practice revenue will “decline or worsen dramatically” and 30% feel income will “decline or worsen somewhat” with a public option.
Just 28.7 percent of doctors support the pro-abortion health care bill pending in the House
The assumption tends to be that if doctors and others in health care don’t like the changes the government wants to make, they can just lump it; but that fails to take into account that they do in fact have another option: they can stop seeing patients. Or, alternatively, they can stop seeing some patients (as many doctors and hospitals already restrict the number of Medicare patients they’ll take on), or see them on a different basis.
If this bill passes, will it really mean that nearly half of our primary-care physicians will leave practice? I’m sure it won’t; but will it mean that some leave, and some work fewer hours, and some retire early, and that in general, the availability of doctors drops? For my part, I saw enough “reduced activity days” (read: one-day strikes) by doctors while we were in Canada that I have no doubt it will. How is that going to improve health care?
Proponents of socializing our medical system need to take this very seriously. As the managing partner of the firm that conducted the survey wrote,
Many physicians feel that they cannot continue to practice if patient loads increase while pay decreases. The overwhelming prediction from physicians is that health reform, if implemented inappropriately, could create a detrimental combination of circumstances, and result in an environment in which it is not possible for most physicians to continue practicing medicine.
Health-care reform and increasing government control of medicine may be the final straw that causes the physician workforce to break down.
Doctor Zero over at Hot Air has done a brilliant job of capturing the essential falsity of government programs:
Even discounting the sewer system of underhanded deals and bribes needed to push ObamaCare through Congress, distorting it beyond any semblance of a carefully-designed plan, it’s foolish to accept it as a “solution” to health care “problems.” No government program is a solution to anything. I’m not referring to their inefficiency or cost. I’m talking about their very nature.
A government program is not a carefully-designed system, or even an enduring commitment. It is a promise. Systems require discipline. For example, the operation of an aircraft carrier is a very complex system, which relies upon many individuals to perform carefully-defined duties. Failure to perform these duties results in punishment or dismissal. All of the crew members understand this, so the system is reliable. When the captain orders a fighter to launch, he knows the deck crew and pilot will quickly obey. The crew and pilot, in turn, know that the captain would not order a launch for no good reason. Everything happens with speed, efficiency, and precision, because the system is illuminated by trust.
Government social programs don’t work that way. They can’t. Today’s Congress cannot bind future sessions with discipline. They can only saddle their successors with obligations. The national debt has grown to staggering proportions because debt is the only thing each new Administration and Congress inherit from those who went before.
When Barack Obama tries to convince you to accept a government takeover of the health-care industry, he is making a promise he won’t be around to keep. ObamaCare’s job-killing taxes are front-loaded, but in order to fool the Congressional Budget Office into giving it a respectable deficit score, its benefits are delayed for years. Even if Obama wins re-election, he would complete his second term long before the program was completely phased in . . . and no external authority exists to compel either Obama, or his successors, to honor the promises he’s been making. . . .
It would also be foolish to place such faith in Republicans, or anyone else. Today’s Democrats are not unique in their corruption, a cancer that can be driven into remission with electoral chemotherapy in 2010 and 2012. Massive government breeds massive corruption through its very nature—it is the predictable behavior of people who are no less greedy, ambitious, or deceitful that the most rapacious robber baron. They hide their avarice behind masks of finely chiseled sanctimony, but as the final maneuvers toward the passage of ObamaCare illustrate, they’re just as quick to bend rules and perpetrate fraud as any white-collar criminal.
It would be a horrible mistake to accept a deal with the creators of history’s most staggering natonal debt, based on assurances they will place your interests ahead of theirs, for decades to come. As Darth Vader memorably explained to Lando Calrissian, the State can always alter the terms of the deal, and your only recourse will be praying they don’t alter it any further.
Government is Darth Vader, and we’re Lando. Read the whole thing—it’s unmatched.
Barack Obama campaigned offering a new era of sane government. And I believe he would do it if he had the chance. But he has been so sucked into the system that now he stands by while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi talks about passing health care via “deem and pass”—a tricky legislative device in which things get passed without members having the honor or the guts to stand up and vote for it. . . .
Yes, I know Republicans have used the deem and pass technique. It was terrible then. But those were smallish items. This is the largest piece of legislation in a generation and Pelosi wants to pass it without a vote. It’s unbelievable that people even talk about this with a straight face. Do they really think the American people are going to stand for this? Do they think it will really fool anybody if a Democratic House member goes back to his district and says, “I didn’t vote for the bill. I just voted for the amendments.” Do they think all of America is insane? . . .
Yes, my own view may be distorted by the fact that I’m disappointed in the health care bill. But at least I violently opposed the nuclear option when the Republicans tried it a few years ago. I don’t think it is mere partisanship that makes me believe that representatives should have the guts to actually vote for the legislation they want to become law.
Either this whole city has gone insane or I have or both. But I’m out here on the ledge and I’m not coming in the window. In my view this is no longer about health care. It’s just Democrats wanting to pass a bill, any bill, and shredding anything they have to in order to get it done. It’s about taking every sin the Republicans committed when they were busy being corrupted by power and matching it with interest.
That last sentence is the key, I think. The Republican Party doesn’t have clean hands on this, though they’ve yet to do anything that took quite as much gall as what the Democrats are doing here; the GOP abandoned its principles and supporters both for the siren song of the pleasures of power, and they quite rightly got kicked to the curb by the voting public for it. They deserved the losses they took, and if the political pendulum swing that looks like it’s coming in November in fact materializes, it will happen despite the fact that the GOP, quite frankly, still doesn’t deserve it.
That said, whatever the Republican Party might be guilty of, the Republican base still has the right to be heard from, and we are not happy with what the Democrats are doing; and who else ise going to represent us than Republican politicians? Joe Conason can ding Republicans all he wants for hypocrisy in their newfound concern for proper process, and I won’t defend them—but wrong is no less wrong because it’s pointed out by a hypocrite. Fundamentally, “you do it too” isn’t an argument (except for electing people like Sarah Palin who are outsiders to the Washington mindset). Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) can insist until he’s blue in the face that Americans don’t care about process, but he’s wrong; and quite frankly, to the extent that he’s right, we as Americans need to change that. Something I learned from math class and relearned from studying baseball is that good process is important, because doing things the right way is a better predictor of good future results than good current results; until we get the political process right in this country, we’re going to keep on fouling ourselves up.
I’d never heard of the groupOK Gountil a month or two ago when my brother-in-law played me the video for their song “This TooShall Pass,” from the album Of the Blue Colour of the Sky. I enjoyed it, but the group didn’t really stick in my consciousness until they released a second video for the same song, featuring a most remarkable Rube Goldberg machine:
At first, the most interesting question to me was, did they really shoot that in a single take? (Answer: it took them over sixty tries, and apparently they ended up having to splice two of them together.) With that answered, I discovered that in truth, the most interesting question is this: why did they make a second video to the song when the first one (featuring the Notre Dame marching band) was perfectly fine? As Dylan Tweney wrote on the Wired website,
OK Go developed a reputation for making catchy, viral videos four years ago with the homemade video for “Here It Goes Again,” which features the band members dancing around on treadmills. The company ran afoul of music label EMI’s restrictive licensing rules, which required YouTube to disable embedding, cutting views to 1/10 of their previous level. Now, the new video is up—and it’s embeddable, so the band seems to have won this round with its label—and is already generating buzz on YouTube and on Twitter.
Actually, it’s not so much that OK Go won the round as it is that they cut ties with their label and went independent. As one commenter on another OK Go video (“We’re Sorry YouTube”) put it,
OK Go got into a huge fight with EMI and Capitol over how their viral videos were distributed. They wanted You Tube viewers to be able to watch the videos without worries about the labels coming down on people who posted. In the end, they ended up leaving EMI and Capitol and forming their own label. In fact, they were so mad that’s why they created a second video for “This Too Shall Pass” with the Rube Goldberg machinery. This video is just their humorous way of dealing.
In the cheap political calculus that floats around, it’s usually assumed that because conservatives support big business, big business is politically conservative—which in economic terms means in favor of deregulation and the free market. In truth, though, this is a long way off the mark; big business is very much in favor of regulation, because regulation is the simplest way of squashing competition. It’s certainly easier than actually having to outcompete people. Thus the approach of big companies like EMI to something like YouTube is generally to try to regulate it by one means or another so as to maintain as much control as possible over how their material is used; they want to ensure that nothing happens that they don’t approve, and that they don’t miss any opportunity to make money.
Now, I don’t want to minimize the importance of intellectual property and intellectual property rights; it’s morally wrong when people who create things don’t profit from their creations as they should, and I’ll even grant that the companies which connect musicians and authors and other creative types to those who want to buy their creations should also make an appropriate profit for their work. But the approach EMI took here is extremely short-sighted, because it treats the economic process as a zero-sum game; thus it assumes that if someone is able to, say, watch an OK Go video someplace other than on YouTube (i.e., someplace that doesn’t have an ad for EMI up right next to the video), that represents a lost profit opportunity which can never be recovered. That simply isn’t true.
Rather, what OK Go understands and EMI (like many other corporations) doesn’t is that giving things away can often be the best way to make money. The best illustration of this I know of is the success of the Baen Free Library at Baen Books. Baen, founded by the late Jim Baen, isn’t a huge publishing company by any means, but it’s a significant one in the world of science fiction; and spurred on by Eric Flint, one of their authors, they opted years ago to start making a significant number of their titles available free online. As Flint explained at the time,
Losses any author suffers from piracy are almost certainly offset by the additional publicity which, in practice, any kind of free copies of a book usually engender. Whatever the moral difference, which certainly exists, the practical effect of online piracy is no different from that of any existing method by which readers may obtain books for free or at reduced cost: public libraries, friends borrowing and loaning each other books, used book stores, promotional copies, etc. . . .
Any cure which relies on tighter regulation of the market—especially the kind of extreme measures being advocated by some people—is far worse than the disease. As a widespread phenomenon rather than a nuisance, piracy occurs when artificial restrictions in the market jack up prices beyond what people think are reasonable. The “regulation-enforcement-more regulation” strategy is a bottomless pit which continually recreates (on a larger scale) the problem it supposedly solves. And that commercial effect is often compounded by the more general damage done to social and political freedom. . . .
We expect this Baen Free Library to make us money by selling books.
How? As I said above, for the same reason that any kind of book distribution which provides free copies to people has always, throughout the history of publishing, eventually rebounded to the benefit of the author. . . .
I don’t know any author, other than a few who are—to speak bluntly—cretins, who hears about people lending his or her books to their friends, or checking them out of a library, with anything other than pleasure. Because they understand full well that, in the long run, what maintains and (especially) expands a writer’s audience base is that mysterious magic we call: word of mouth.
Word of mouth, unlike paid advertising, comes free to the author—and it’s ten times more effective than any kind of paid advertising, because it’s the one form of promotion which people usually trust.
That being so, an author can hardly complain—since the author paid nothing for it either. And it is that word of mouth, percolating through the reading public down a million little channels, which is what really puts the food on an author’s table. Don’t let anyone ever tell you otherwise. . . .
The only time that mass scale petty thievery becomes a problem is when the perception spreads, among broad layers of the population, that a given product is priced artificially high due to monopolistic practices and/or draconian legislation designed to protect those practices. But so long as the “gap” between the price of a legal product and a stolen one remains both small and, in the eyes of most people, a legitimate cost rather than gouging, 99% of them will prefer the legal product.
Of course, some might be skeptical: is it really working? Well, about a year and a half after Flint launched the Library, he wrote an extended piece showing that the Library had actually boosted sales of the books Baen gave away—by quite a significant amount, actually.
The Library’s track record shows clearly that the traditional “encryption/enforcement policy” which has been followed thus far by most of the publishing industry is just plain stupid, as well as unconscionable from the viewpoint of infringing on personal liberties. . . .
Making one or a few titles of an author’s writings available for free electronically in the Free Library seems to have no other impact, certainly over time, than to increase that author’s general audience recognition-and thereby, indirectly if not directly, the sales of his or her books.
I believe it also—I leave it up to each individual to weigh this out for themselves—places such authors on what you might call the side of the angels in this dispute. For me, at least, this side of the matter is even more important than the practical side. It grates me to see the way powerful corporate interests have been steadily twisting the copyright laws and encroaching on personal liberties in order to shore up their profit margins-all the more so when their profit problems are a result of their own stupidity and short-sighted greed in the first place.
I will leave you all with one final anecdote. Napster, of course, is held up as the ultimate “villain” with regard to the so-called problem of online piracy. The letters I received as Librarian were addressed to the issue of books, not music. Yet I was struck by how often—perhaps in a hundred letters—the writers would mention their own experience with Napster. And, in every instance, stated that their purchases of CDs increased as a result of Napster—for the good and simple reason that because Napster enabled them to sample musicians, they bought music they would not otherwise have been tempted to buy because CDs are too expensive to experiment with.
Not enough? Well, check out what Janis Ian had to say. Or consider a personal anecdote: a few days ago, Ray Ortlund put up a blog post with a video of Quicksilver Messenger Service’s song “Pride of Man.” An embedded video, note. I’d never heard of the group before, and neither had Sara; we now own a copy of their “Best of” album, and I think there’s pretty good odds we’ll buy more before all is said and done. If the record labels had their way (or if, at any rate, they all operated like EMI), that sale would never have happened.
Yes, copyright is important. Yes, intellectual property is important. The laborer is worthy of his hire, after all. But using copyright as a club, seeking ever greater regulation of people’s behavior out of fear of what they might do, isn’t just philosophically problematic—it’s unprofitable, because it has a dampening effect and a chilling effect on the very market on which companies depend. A receding tide lowers all boats, but a rising tide lifts them. Just ask Eric Flint.
I posted this last year, but it deserves a repost, too; there’s a lot we don’t know about St. Patrick, but what we do know is very impressive—he was truly a great and a godly man. The American Spectator website ran two pieces last year that are well worth your time, a shorter one by James M. Thunder and a more detailed piece by G. Tracy Mehan III called “The Solitude of St. Patrick.” I commend both to your reading, especially if you aren’t familiar with the true life and accomplishments of this towering evangelist-bishop of the early church; if you are, they won’t be news to you, but you ought to read them anyway, because St. Patrick is one of those people who’s always worth spending time with. And then go and read his Confession, which stands to this day, over 1500 years later, as one of the greatest Christian books ever written. Here is deep wisdom, and a great love for God; here is a true saint, and a model for the church.
According to the late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, in New York City, Lenten disciplines are suspended by special dispensation on St. Patrick’s Day; so I thought I’d repost this wonderful prayer in honor of that great (and much-misappreciated) saint. He probably didn’t write the caim (encircling prayer) that’s often called “St. Patrick’s Breastplate,” but I don’t know that it matters much—I expect he would have approved. This is the Kuno Meyer translation, which has its own title.
The Deer’s Cry
I arise today
Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,
Through belief in the Threeness,
Through confession of the Oneness
Of the Creator of Creation.
I arise today
Through the strength of Christ’s birth with His baptism,
Through the strength of His crucifixion with His burial,
Through the strength of His resurrection with His ascension,
Through the strength of His descent for the judgment of Doom.
I arise today
Through the strength of the love of the Cherubim,
In the obedience of angels,
In the service of archangels,
In the hope of the resurrection to meet with reward,
In the prayers of patriarchs,
In prediction of prophets,
In preaching of apostles,
In faith of confessors,
In innocence of holy virgins,
In deeds of righteous men.
I arise today
Through the strength of heaven:
Light of sun,
Radiance of moon,
Splendor of fire,
Speed of lightning,
Swiftness of wind,
Depth of sea,
Stability of earth,
Firmness of rock.
I arise today
Through God’s strength to pilot me:
God’s might to uphold me,
God’s wisdom to guide me,
God’s eye to look before me,
God’s ear to hear me,
God’s word to speak to me,
God’s hand to guard me,
God’s way to lie before me,
God’s shield to protect me,
God’s host to save me
From snares of devils,
From temptations of vices,
From everyone who shall wish me ill,
Afar and anear,
Alone and in a multitude.
I summon today all these powers between me and those evils,
Against every cruel merciless power that may oppose my body and soul,
Against incantations of false prophets,
Against black laws of pagandom,
Against false laws of heretics,
Against craft of idolatry,
Against spells of wizards,
Against every knowledge that corrupts body and soul.
Christ to shield me today
Against poisoning, against burning,
Against drowning, against wounding
So there come to me abundance of reward.
Christ with me, Christ before me, Christ behind me,
Christ in me, Christ beneath me, Christ above me,
Christ on my right, Christ on my left,
Christ when I lie down, Christ when I sit down, Christ when I arise,
Christ in the heart of everyone who thinks of me,
Christ in the mouth of everyone who speaks of me,
Christ in the eye of everyone who sees me,
Christ in every ear that hears me.
I arise today
Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,
Through belief in the Threeness,
Through confession of the Oneness
Of the Creator of Creation.
