10 Commandments and 11 Herbs and Spices

I feel a little guilty about it. 


Not about liking the product--I mean, they didn't get to be a nationwide phenomenon by making a product nobody wanted. So it's no surprise that it tastes really good, and that the service is world class, and that I keep wanting to buy it. But, honestly, they wear their politics on their sleeve a bit. Specifically, it's their opinion on gay marriage. 


I'm talking about Starbucks of course. Great coffee. But they've been very vocal in their support of gay marriage legislation. As I've mentioned elsewhere in my blog, I have no interest in preventing gay marriage whatsoever, or for that matter, in encouraging it. But the same is true of straight marriage. I couldn't care less whether people are married or not, at least as a matter of public policy. I believe, quite strongly, that marriage is among the many things about which there should be no laws whatsoever. Everyone who insists on recognition for gay marriage is in fact arguing for a more intrusive state. I'd like to move us the other way, where consenting adults construct their own arrangements and give them the weight of a contract, managed by civil courts where necessary. Private citizens will always be superior managers of their interactions than any federal government. 


Starbucks isn't alone though. Chick-fil-a has been pretty vocal about their support for organizations that oppose gay marriage and some that even run camps or programs aimed at "curing" homosexuals. That strikes me as pretty out there. But man, is there chicken good! I go once a week or so. And I have no plans to stop--but that could change. 


For instance, I didn't go yesterday. Why? Because there were huge lines of people frothing at the mouth, not simply for the chicken, but for the chance to show their support for Chick-fil-a's politics. I just wanted a sandwich. Tomorrow, a similarly foam-lipped crowd plans a public display of affection outside their doors(or inside them, I guess, because I've seen no evidence that Chick-fil-a has ever turned anyone away on that basis). I won't want to go then either, because I have no interest in aligning myself with a political opinion. I just wanted a really good chicken sandwich. 


So, yes, I think Chick-fil-a has made a mistake. Actually, that's overstating it, because it's not clear their political stance has or will hurt them at all. In fact, let's be honest; all I'm really saying is that Chick-fil-a has engaged in behavior that annoys me. Not by funding a homosexual cure--it's misguided, but pepole do lots of very similar, very misguided things--but by taking a stance as a corporation and politicizing something as delightful as a chicken sandwich. 


It's one of the most exhausting things about life in 21st century America--the degree to which every decision, no matter how small, can be politicized in some way. It is both true to and completely contradictory to the American ideal, and very little can be done about it. 


Let's be clear; everyone is entirely within their rights. Chick-fil-a is welcome to use faith as an element of their successful formula. As recent events have shown, it's a draw for many, and arguably a reasonable marketing strategy. The left, on the other hand, is certainly within their rights to oppose a company that has made itself political. 


But people--these are really terrible ways to exercise your rights! 


We were founded as a Christian nation, sure, but the people who say that most often now are forgetting that it was a very different kind of Christianity, a brand that wasn't particularly consistent. Boring Congrgational churches one minute, punctuated ocassionally by "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." What's indisputable though, is that we were founded as a capitalist nation. And to me that is sacred and profound in a way that I'm not sure either side of this debate recognizes. 


Capitalism is about, first and foremost, setting aside our differences. Why? Because it elevates the work product above our associations, histories, ethnicities, and philosophies. And because the decision on which producers rise and fall is based solely on the product. Whether the product is sandwiches or coffee or clothing or coolness--capitalism insures that a product succeeds because people want it. 


To that end, I support removing barriers that prevent people from competing fairly. I don't think gays should be discriminated against. But I also don't think government should be encouraged to compound problems it created by meddling in the first place. Competing fairly means removing governmental barriers to entry in the marketplace. Many more people who happen to be gay are harmed by excessive federal regulation than will be impacted by the foolish political goals espoused by the controlling interests at Chick-fil-a. 


Of course, both Starbucks and Chick-fil-a have seen real benefit in espousing a general political outlook and taking some very specific stands; I don't blame them. If they did not give to programs or support legislation of ANY kind, you can bet they would hear about their failure to support communities or some such. Again, I firmly believe those are actions individuals should take, not companies. But, that's not how the game is played these days. I could protest of course, by not buying products from any company that makes politics a part of its promotion strategy. But then I would be hungry. And thirsty. And naked. And the tv would be really lousy.

There was an old woman who swallowed a fly. She really should have stopped there.

Drug Tests and government checks


New freedoms often come with new responsibilities. In the case of my children, they get some sort of car, but they also have to cover their car insurance, which means going to work. The pairing of liberty and liability seems entirely natural, and derives from the idea that I, as a parent, have enormous discretion in such matters as granting liberties, enabling privileges, and redressing wrongs.

So the model for coupling a privilege, like recieving welfare or unemployment insurance, with a responsibility to remain drug-free (and, periodically, to prove it) is well established and gets a lot of heads nodding. After all, the cost is born by the recipient and it keeps the riffraff out of the system. My problem is not that it's likely to be found unconstitutional; I think any number of things are that are in common practice in government, and I think any number of other things ought to be. No, my problem is the same old problem--that it grants government a power it should not posses as compensation for a privlege it should not have granted in the first place.

Let's see, so many places to go...I think I'll set aside the failed drug policy in this country, the ridiculous prohibition that has cost so many billions and so many lives. I'll also ignore the self-fulfilling and demand-generating culture of addiction and poverty, driven by a huge swath of well meaning folks who believe they can take better care of the allegedly disenfranchised than those poor happless folks can manage themselves.

The wave of what I will call UFC("Urine for Checks") legislation being discussed seems to appeal to a lot of people who would say their concern is making sure their tax dollars are well spent, or even making sure the least possible amount is spent. I phrase it that way because what they say isn't well represented by their apparent legislative preferences. The way to save money is to end programs, not to begin new ones. Given the obvious challenges in administering and litigating such a huge drug testing program, it is unfathomable to me that this would save anyone any money. So, if such programs are passed, and if they can't reasonably be said to save any money, why do they pass? That's actually easy: moral indignation.

I guess I should make clear at this point that I understand the motive and feel a bit of the old M.I. myself. I don't like the idea of my tax money going to drug users. But I really wonder if the folks who support these bills are really taking all of its ideas to their ultimate conclusions, or rather, tracing them backwards to their  premises. Because I don't believe most people would agree with them. I'll list a few here.

1) Government is your daddy. How do you think of government, at its best that is? I think of it as a  clerk or administrative assistant, carrying out things society has told it to complete, with no real will of its own. The UFC debate plants governement firmly in the role of parent, doling out privileges and responsibilities, deciding what's best for all of us.

2) Welfare is an undisputed responsibility of government. Just being clear here; the argument is all about whether you must pee for payment; but the checks will be written no matter how we vote on this legislation. I object to welfare as I object to the taxation which funds it. Go back one more level and the ridiculous assumptions are many fold: that the government is better at planning for trouble (poverty, unemployment) than we are as individuals; that deficit spending makes sense in bad times; that tax collection is somehow superior to private savings or investment.

3) The government can administer drug tests accurately and fairly. Sure, why not. Government is always so efficient, especially when attached to huge entitlement programs.

4) Lots of welfare or unemployment recipients are on drugs. Yeah, that's not actually true. UFC solves a problem that isn't much of a problem, on top of everything else. Note: A recent headline noted that the Social Security Administration wrongfully declares dead 14000 people a year.

5) No one has a right to take drugs. This won't won't be as obviously false to the reader, but I believe it is. Put simply, I believe everyone has a right to do anything that doesn't violate the rights of others--children in their care, or cars in the opposite lane for instance. Insert ususal schtick about alcohol prohibition here. But more importantly, our attempts to legislate new behavior around drugs simply have not worked. We ought to be past ruminating on what government SHOULD do and well on to concentrating on what government is actually capable of.

In conclusion, two wrongs don't make a right. (Yes, I thought of that myself just now.)If we are incensed at government abusing its authority to make us pay for the welfare of others, giving it more authority, this time to examine our various bodily fluids and keep records, is ill advised at best and crazy at worst. We as a nation, having swallowed the fly, will not be thought wiser for downing a spider. Sure, we've got strong stomachs, but there is a horse in that list a ways down, and I for one am not that hungry.