Arguments that Drive Me Nuts, Part 1 of a Million

So here in Minnesota, we have a governor, Tim Pawlenty, who will do anything and everything humanly possible to not raise taxes. His only real guiding principle in life is that taxes are no fun to pay. Right now he's planning to cut whatever government services he can see -- health, education, your gramma's medicine, the fund to protect cute things from being eaten by bears -- as long as rich people don't have to pay another tiny fraction of their income! What did you say, that the cuts to health services will throw a lot of helpless people on the street, take them off their meds, and basically sign their death sentences? Well, it's all worth it, because a few people didn't have to pay an extra $20 a year in taxes!

I've written before about how much I love taxes, and consider it a central patriotic duty to pay them in full. So I won't bore y'all with that. My beef this time is with his justification, one that's repeated parrot-like by everyone who supports his perspective. It is:

"Well, companies and families are having to cut back. So should the government!"

No, no, and no. And you're an idiot. And no. See, the budgets for families and companies are spent on those individual families and companies. The budget for government is spent on the whole society. That makes for a very, very different animal.

So if a company tightens its belt, it might mean cutting travel expenses. It may even mean laying off employees. If a family tightens its belt, it might mean fewer vacations, or maybe laying off a few kids. Not good stuff, surely, but still, restricted to just those entities.

But if a government tightens its belt, it could mean cutting essential services to all sorts of people, usually the most needy ones, and creating a devastating effect that may not be felt right away but slowly creeps through the society like a virus. The government doesn't exist solely to support itself financially (at least, not a functional government). The government exists to support the whole society financially. Telling the government that it needs to cut expenses isn't just getting tough on the government -- it's also punishing the whole society, often the most vulnerable elements of it to a disproportiate degree. It's cutting your nose to spite your face.

In bad times, the opposite has to take place. Governments have to take in the big picture, to counteract the negative economic trends, and become the spender of last resort when no one else is spending. Obama knows this, and is weathering the firestorm from people who say "Hey! How come you get to spend money when I don't? Spending is bad nowadays -- I saw it the 'Today Show' and everything!" But Pawlenty would rather throw anvils on the economy's sinking ship by forcing the government to spend less too.

(And yes, I know that the comparison isn't entirely fair, since Pawlenty has to balance the budget by law, while Obama is free to spend like a crazy person. But I submit that allowing just a wee boost in taxes to the upper-middle class and wealthy is not going to affect their spending much, not going to force them all to move to Florida or something as many conservatives claim (a lot of people enjoy living in Minnesota, believe it or don't), and meanwhile will tide us through this downturn and maintain a solid foundation for future prosperity. But now back to the regularly scheduled argument. Man, this might be my longest parenthetical statement ever! Let's just sit back for a moment enjoy the feeling of being in parentheses. It's quieter here, more peaceful. It's an exclusive club, only for those truly dedicated to reading pointless tirades. Welcome, friends. Sit, enjoy, and love.)

Of course, I grant you, governments can have plenty of unnecessary services that aren't really benefitting society much at all. Those can and should go. But good luck finding them at this point. Keep in mind that this country has been dominated by this "government is wasteful" philosophy for how long now? Since Reagan? And in that time, politicians have had every incentive to pander by cutting stuff and every incentive to not raise taxes. I've looked carefully through all that the government does nowadays, and I don't think there's much left to cut. Our Minnesota governor is discovering the same thing, apparently, but is still happy to cut the necessary services.

And if you're still convinced that our government is too big, I ask you: compared to what? Take a gander at every other highly developed nation. All their governments are much larger than ours. All enjoy a high standard of living, clean drinking water, relatively low crime rates, healthy people with reliable health services, food that you can basically trust to not kill you, streets full of fliers for phone-sex services, sullen and spoiled teenagers, abundant flocks of hairdressers, and buildings! Oh, the buildings! Point is, the big-government countries of Europe and elsewhere all tend to be pretty safe, happy, well-functioning places, and I don't think that is a coincidence.

Meanwhile, where do you find small governments that provide few services? Places like Burkina Faso. We don't want to be Burkina Faso, trust me. Despite their hilariously named capital city (Ougadougou), it's not a nation of people giggling all day at silly-sounding words. They actually have loads of problems with basic things like finding drinking water that we don't have to worry about.

I love government, in case you couldn't tell. I think our government is the major factor that makes us a successful, developed nation. Our government made and is making the long-term investments that make a society great, from highway systems to higher education. Most Americans seem to think our country has been such a great success because Americans are just so darn special. Bullshit. We're full of the people that the rest of the world threw away. We've been successful because the structures set up by our government and legal system struck the right balance between encouraging business innovation while also checking and balancing the excesses of capitalism.

And, most importantly, our government invests in the things that are vital to the economy, but that no business would ever see as a wise investment. Government does the long-term stuff that that brings benefits to a whole range of people but can't easily measured in dollars and cents. Businesses prefer short-term investments that benefit only themselves and are very easily measured in dollars and cents. Cutting jobs is the kind of thing that boosts your stock prices, not investing in education. (A related issue that I'll resist going into: How stock markets incentivize businesses to pursue short-term gains instead of, and often in the expense of, their own long-term interests. Quick version of my opinion on this: Grrr.)

Maybe an example is in order. Take K-12 education. No business in its right mind would pay for some random kid's kindergarten at a Catholic school (unless of course, they were trying to look like they're all a bunch of nice folks). That's not likely to be an investment that will pay off -- it's unlikely that kid will come to work for that company. As for families, few have the money to pay for Catholic school.

But if the government pays for that kid's education, then that kid will go to work somewhere, and the investment in the kid's education will be paid back to the society tenfold. Imagine if the government didn't do that - then the kid would be a moron. Morons are bad for the economy.

See, I'm not someone who likes putting government services in terms of compassion or it being "the right thing to do." Fuck poor people's feelings -- to me, they're an investment. If you give the poor enough services to climb out of poverty and have fulfilling lives, they contribute to the economy, and lift up everyone's boats just a little bit. If you don't, they may turn to crime to survive. That sinks everyone's boats a little bit.

Government does so many things for us that we take for granted. Enjoy driving on highways? Thank the government. Enjoy not getting botulism when you drink milk (as happened regularly in the days before the regulation of food)? The government is waiting for a thank you card. Enjoy having police and firemen and the legal system and the military and etc. etc. etc? You're welcome, says Uncle Sam.

In fact, I think almost every recent major failure in our economy is rooted in taking the government for granted, and then cutting funds to regulatory agencies or just failing to regulate sanely from the beginning. Among many people in this country, there is an unbounded faith in the invisible hand of the markets being able to only do good. But lately, the invisible hand has slapped us on our invisible asses so often that I'm thinking maybe we shouldn't give it quite so much free reign. It's good in some places, bad in others. It's all about continually making adjustments to strike the right balance.

And this gets us to the boogeyman of "socialism" that conservatives are getting their panties in a bunch over. Hey dummies, we already have socialism. Social Security is socialism. It redistributes wealth to the elderly. Education is socialism. It's redistributing wealth in favor of kids. And kids don't even contribute anything to the economy! Why are they getting such big handouts? They could at least put a few hours in at the coal mines to pay for it, am I right, Hannity?

Capitalism without any socialist structures means the raw, brutal, unfettered capitalism of the Gilded Age, when a few people wiped their asses with $100 bills and everyone else lived in shacks on starvation wages. But on the other hand, raw, brutal, unfettered socialism (odd turn of phrase there) equals the USSR, where no one but the government is motivated to do jack shit. That's no good either. It's not a battle of capitalism vs. socialism -- it's actually both. We have to continually work to find the right combination of the two.

And to be clear, I think capitalism is ideal for a lot of aspects of society, perhaps a majority of them. Capitalism is the only way to make good computers, food, twelve-inch dildos, etc. Regulation, the threat of lawsuits, and occasional government intervention are all necessary checks and balances on the extreme and damaging stuff that can sometimes come out of a pure profit motive, but on the whole, profit motives can be good and productive things.

But capitalism doesn't work for everything. It doesn't work for firemen -- imagine if you had to pay firemen a fee each month or they wouldn't come to your house when it's burning (which is how it actually did work in the 1800s). Capitalism is also not great for education, as I mentioned before (though it could be carefully infused in education, I think -- I like the idea of charter schools competing for students). I personally don't think capitalism works for health care (this is a whole 'nother post, but did you ever think about how backwards it is that health insurance companies have all their incentives pointing toward NOT providing their services to their customers? They make more money when they find creative ways to give their claimants less. That's a fundamentally warped system. Imagine if an orange farmer took a monthly fee from his customers, and then only provided oranges when people sent in forms saying that they were starting to get scurvy. The orange farmers who made the most money would be the ones who said "But do you really need three oranges? I don't care what your doctor says -- we only cover two per month for brown-haired people with large feet. Oh wait, you had pre-existing scurvy because you didn't have the money to have an orange plan for a long time? Oh well, then we can't help you, bye!")

Well, I went far afield of the original topic, but oh well. There are such fundamental differences between my perspective and those of the small-government freaks that it takes a lot of explaining.

Things That Really Aren't That Sexy, Guys

Men are stupid. I think we all recognize that. Men may complain about the double standard at work here - you could never get away with saying "women are stupid" and expect to live to tell the tale, whereas it's quite fashionable in polite society to say that men are stupid -- but in my view, this is double standard is awesome. After thousands of years of it being de rigeur to presume women aren't intelligent enough to vote, lead, hunt, smoke tobacco, wear pants, etc., now the reasonable and unrestrictive shoe is on the other foot. And in my view, the shoe belonged on that foot in the first place.

Here's just one way in which men prove their stupidity. They convince themselves that certain things are sexy that really aren't. I'm not talking about fetishes, which are up to the individual -- I'm talking about deep-seated turn-ons that are fundamentally wrong-headed. These are the ones in which only men's own delusions are to blame:

1. Lesbians are not sexy. I mean, they're sexy to other lesbians. And individual lesbians can be plenty attractive - I'm not saying as a whole that they aren't nice-looking folks. I'm saying that there's nothing inherent about a woman who prefers other women that should in any way turn a man on.

In fact, quite the opposite -- by definition, a lesbian is someone who isn't interested in guys. This definition should be a sign to guys that two lesbians together = sorry, dude, you're not wanted here; please try somewhere else. But for some reason, this situation turns men on more, apparently.

I thought of this recently (and this whole post, for that matter) as I read a column written by a woman who talked about a date she had with another woman. They were approached by a man, and when they made it clear that they were on a date, he did not say, "oh, sorry, I guess I'm not needed here then. I will now go over there." Instead, he said, "Wow, that's even hotter. Since you are both exclusively interested in women, you must want me, a man, all the more," or something to that effect. I found his reaction predictable but stunningly counter-intuitive and moronic.

Maybe this idea that lesbians are sexy to men was created by the porn industry? Perhaps it's better to watch to women going at it because you don't have to watch some repulsive guy in the mix. But porn can only appeal to men's stupidity -- it can't create it out of whole cloth.

I think the reason for this baffling attraction is the principle at the center of most men's sexuality, which is a horribly unwarranted and stultifyingly high level of self-confident myopia. Me and my needs are at the center of the world, they seem to think, so anything sexual going on is somehow for my benefit. Bar skanks capitalize on this by kissing in public, but the root of it is the bizarre subconscious notion that lesbians might be doing their thing for the benefit of men. And of course the very opposite is true: They're doing it because they're sexually repelled by men. I'm guessing women don't get hot at seeing two men kissing. If one or both of the men were attractive to them, I would presume they'd be disappointed by that.

Maybe men assume that lesbians must be more promiscuous, because, dude, she's so horny she's willing to do it with another woman! Which is of course, infinitely insulting to and delusional about gay people. I don't know; I think there are probably layers of this particular delusion that I can't even fathom.

2. Identical twins are not sexy. Again, individual twins may be plenty attractive, and I suppose since they're identical, then both would have to be similarly attractive. But there's nothing inherent to identical twins that should make them any more attractive than two female friends who are both attractive.

I heard about this one through a Coors Light commercial that listed all the things that guys supposedly love. At one point it went "And TWIIIIINS!!!" and showed two identical blonde chicks straight out Central Casting for Allegedly Attractive Women. I was baffled, and it took me a long time to figure this out.

Again, it's rooted in the male tendency to think everything is somehow sexual, for their benefit. Most people look at identical twins and think "Oh, weird" and then move on with their lives. I tend to look at them and say "Oh my God, clones!!!! It has occurred! Some kind of evil plot that you find in sci-fi shows, which I haven't exactly figured out the details of at this moment, but regardless, it's scary!"

But men apparently look at clones, I mean, uh, identical twins, and think "menage a trois!" They seem to think that because twins are freakishly similar-looking, they would thus want to engage in a three-way with fat, shlubby, beer-swilling losers. Which I sincerely doubt. I don't know why two identical twins would want to share that most private of human activities any more than regular sisters would, and I think regular sisters really, really, really, really would not. That's gross. That's incest, basically. That's kind of a taboo, guys, and a good one. I'm guessing you wouldn't want to have sex with one woman along with your brother. I bet he would piss you off in the middle of it by making a really annoying noise and then you'd start fighting and then that would turn to wrestling and then you would officially be gay.

3. Women with 0% body fat are not sexy. This is of course a familiar one, fraught with discussion and controversy, and has been a problem for decades. Models tend to be rail-thin and harsh-looking. It's a terrible role model for young girls and probably a cause of many eating disorders. The fashion industry tries to defend this by saying that clothes look best on thin people -- well, maybe that's because you only make clothes for thin people, smart guy. Maybe it would break new, exciting ground to make clothes for more than one body type. Shocking, I know.

A side issue to all this is that it all seems especially pointless since extremely thin women are not attractive. They're often painful to look at, in fact. They look either like corpses or like pubescent girls or boys, and if you think that's sexy, well, I have a jail cell with your name on it. Women are better when they actually look different from men, when they have curves.

This is not just me mouthing off -- this preference for curves is actually hard-wired into male brains, and has been for millenia. There's evidence of this wiring in the primate kingdom: In many monkey species, the females signal the fact that they are in heat, or "estrus," and can thus conceive, by having their breasts and butts swell up. This demonstrates that they have the excess caloric intake to be physically able to bring a baby to term. It's a sign of health. Humans are unique in that we don't have an estrus period, and can always conceive, and thus human women's curves are permanent year-round.

So why would men be more attracted to women who are terribly thin? Wouldn't that be a sign of unhealthiness? Maybe, in a sick, twisted subconscious way, that's what they want. Maybe they want a woman who can't conceive, as many anorexics can't because they don't have enough body fat. Maybe it's also a form of control, in that their extreme and difficult-to-attain preferences are meant to force women to work very hard to maintain a certain "ideal."

Many women are now getting so thin that they have visible muscles. They have ripped abs and biceps and stuff. I suppose there's nothing wrong with that if that's your choice, and you could say it's a signal of female strength. But to me, it makes women look awfully mannish. I don't want women to look like men. I'm not attracted to men. Maybe the preference for extremely thin women is a manifestation of some sort of latent homosexuality.

I'm throwing a lot of theories out there because this one is especially pervasive and especially confusing. This one's so pervasive that I think there are probably tons of causes. Another idea I've heard is that it's a class thing, that only wealthy women have the time and resources to maintain a very thin frame, while lower-class women have to spend their time working at desks and eating whatever they can whenever they can.

And signals of class membership change over time, of course. Back in the days of Rubens (that porn merchant), plumper women tended to be wealthier and were considered more sexy. They, like the monkeys in estrus, had the resources to be able to maintain some extra body fat. And in those days, it was more desirable and more rare to have the ability to carry a baby to term.

I don't know -- there are thousands of interlocking issues here. Any thoughts from the peanut gallery?