For the second time in eleven months, President Bush has vetoed an embryonic stem cell bill. Never mind that embryonic stem cells easily regenerate, providing society’s best opportunity to tackle a variety of human maladies such as spinal cord injury, burns, diabetes, arthritis, Parkinson’s disease, heart disease, and Alzheimer’s disease.

Conservative Republicans, reflecting the views of the Christian right, have taken the stand that the death of even one human cell is a crime against God and humanity. After vetoing the bill, Bush said, “I made it clear to Congress and the American people I will not allow our nation to cross this moral line,” said President Bush. “Last year, Congress passed a similar bill. I kept my promise by vetoing it. And today I am keeping my word again. I am vetoing the bill that Congress has sent.”

The Bush veto, which backs away from science for religious reasons, reminds me of sailors telling their mates not to sail too far out in the ocean, lest their ships fall off the flat earth. Galileo was persecuted for suggesting that the sun, not earth, was the center of our planetary system. If the Republicans had control of the Congress and when Galileo was a scientist, you can bet your last five bucks that the Republicans would have run him out of town for going against the laws of God. With regard to stem cell research and keeping brain-dead people like Terri Schavio alive, the Republicans stand on the same religious dogma as those who burned witches in Salem or the ignorant Mullahs who rile up crowds when a Danish paper runs an editorial cartoon depicting Mohammed as a bomber.

The other day I was talking to a friend of mine about the stem cell issue. His response was, “Hey, if I’m sick and it comes down to finding a cure for me or saving a stem cell, I win! Final score, me 1, stem cell 0.” I couldn’t agree more. To argue that the first cell in the development of a human embryo is as sacred as a live, fully developed, breathing human being is absurd in my opinion. While I do not advocate cruelty to animals, to argue that an animal is as important as a man, is equally ridiculous.

Lets face it. It is human beings that have won the biological contest for species superiority. Within our brains is the creativity we need to further our livelihoods, to create art and music, and to explore and utilize the mysteries of science. While Bush fiddles, literally thousands of Americans will die prematurely and needlessly as stem cell research is delayed. The idea that it is OK to let a human being die for the sake of saving a stem cell is, in my opinion, shortsighted at best. At it’s worst it’s downright evil. If you ever wondered why we have Democrats on capital hill, all you need to do is listen to a Republican rail against abortion, stem cell research, and evolution. Yes, folks, with these Republicans we have in our own backyard, intolerant, and scientifically clueless Mullahs.

All around me I hear people complaining about how expensive things are. Gasoline is $3 a gallon and rising. Electricity rates are through the roof. Housing prices are out of sight. Sticker shock for new cars is incredible. Public transportation isn’t affordable. Food isn’t even cheap anymore. Many believe it’s a big conspiracy, but as my former business partner used to say; “It costs what it costs!”

My business partner was wise beyond his years with that comment. We owned a small manufacturing business where people would come to us for custom metal parts. The customer would have the drawings of a part. Our job would be to take what he had on paper and actually create the physical object, usually out of some kind of metal. We would look at the drawing and figure out how many man-hours it would take to make the part. Our machinery costs, factory overhead, and a modest amount for profit would have to be covered. Then we would give the customer an estimate. Many times the customer would say, “My gosh, $3,000 for that part? That’s four times what I thought it would cost.”

These were the times when we wanted to be cynical, but it isn’t good for customer relations. You felt like saying, “Well, Pete, I’ll have to pay my worker $2,000 for his wages (including payroll taxes and fringe benefits) because it will take him 100 hours to make the part; I’ll have to pay $500 for utilities, building rent, and other factory overhead; it will cost me $300 for materials and I’d like to make a $200 profit on the job. What the heck, you’re a nice guy, Pete. I’ll sell you the part for $750! I’ll lose $2,250 on the job, but as a gift to you and to make your life easier, I’ll subsidize your existence! I won’t be in business long, but Pete, it’s all about you!”

My partner’s analogy extends far beyond the parts quotes of a small manufacturing business. It is a mirror for society in general. His comment, “It costs what it costs” is a common-sense rule of life, whether we’re talking about the price of a subway ride or the cost of a head of lettuce. In Chicago people are complaining about a proposed rise in subway fares. Right now a typical fellow living on the north side of Chicago pays $2.00 each way for a 20-minute train ride to his office downtown. That’s $4.00 a day for his round trip commute. By riding the train he saves a $25 a day on parking and $10 a day on gasoline. The train gets him to work in less time than he would spend sitting in his automobile, but he still complains when the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) wants to raise it’s fare from $2 to $3. It would cost him $35 per day, plus wear and tear on his car to drive downtown to work. The CTA now wants to raise his daily commute expense from $4 to $6 per day. He complains about the increase. What a bunch of thieves they are down at the CTA!

But wait a minute. The CTA maintains hundreds of miles of overhead rails, employs the workers who are needed to drive the trains and man the stations, purchases expensive engines and passenger cars, prints the system maps and schedules for their customers, and on and on. It costs what it costs! There is no magic bullet. If poor people are negatively affected by higher commuting prices then let’s subsidize their fares. But those who have the income need to step up and pay the difference. Someone has to pay the costs!

Gasoline is now $3 per gallon and naturally, people complain about its price. But gasoline doesn’t just ooze out of the ground. Crude oil must be discovered and extracted. It takes men and machinery to do this. Men demand wages. Machinery costs money and must be installed and maintained constantly. Once extracted the crude must be transported and refined. Have you ever noticed the complexity of an oil refinery? Again, it costs what it costs! Yet, despite the complexities and real costs associated with the production and distribution of gasoline, most of which originates as crude from half way around the world, gasoline is still cheaper per ounce at your local convenience store than a bottle of water! Greedy oil companies!

The next time you think that peaches or lettuce are too expensive, go out in the field and pick them yourself. The next time you think a car, a house, or utilities are too costly; remember that these things are not manna from heaven. It isn’t easy making these products or providing those services. You have to put together capital equipment, pay the salary and benefits of both skilled and unskilled workers, pay for raw materials, and take business risk. Buck up, brother. Face the facts. No manner of complaining will change it. As my business partner used to say, “It costs what it costs.”

Summer has arrived in Hubbard, Wisconsin. The June daytime high temperatures have been in the eighties with night temperatures in the fifties. This is the kind of weather that Dave likes, cool at night for sleeping, yet warm and comfortable during the day. For the last couple of days Dave has been cleaning up leaves that fell after the fall raking. He’s also had to pick up sticks on the lawn that winter wind and snow have claimed from maple and hackberry trees. By the time Dave finishes gathering up all of this natural debris his pickup is full.

Dave’s most practical choice for dumping his “compost” is to drive out to the farm of Tieg Rasmussen, known around Hubbard as “The Self Sufficient Man”. Dave has dumped his compost at Tieg’s for over 30 years, and the men enjoy each other’s company. Like Dave, Tieg is in his mid 50’s and while the two men are both non-conformists and mechanically inclined, they are on opposite ends of the “economic dependence” spectrum. Dave’s a free trader who relies entirely on specialization and exchange. As a result, Dave’s economic well being is inexorably tied to the fact that he receives money by selling goods and services, thereby exchanging that money for products and services he receives from others. Tieg stakes his mental and physical well being on the concept of self-sufficiency. His farm contains virtually everything he needs to live, including goats and cows for milk and meat, chickens for eggs, vegetable crops that can be canned for winter use, manure recycling for heat and cooking gas, solar panels, and wind-generated electricity with full battery backup. Tieg describes his farm as a “closed cycle” of complete economic independence.

As Dave shovels the sticks and leaves out of his truck into Tieg’s compost pile, Tieg breaks into his favorite topic of conversation; satisfaction with his own self-sufficiency. Tieg reminds Dave that he is vulnerable to the “rotting underpinnings of the capitalist economy.” Tieg says to Dave, “While I am self-sufficient and depend on nobody for my survival, you, my friend, will be in bad shape when the economy collapses. You must buy your food from the grocer, your gasoline from a corrupt oil oligopoly, and your clothing and consumer products from the Chinese and Bangladeshi’s. This whole false globalization economy of yours is going to collapse very soon and things are going to get real bad.” Yeah, says Dave, “It’s going to be bad for sure, I’m really going to be sucking gravel when the end comes.”

Dave knows better than to argue with Tieg about the economy and self-sufficiency. He distinctly remembers Tieg telling him thirty years ago that “the economy is going to collapse soon.” Thirty years later, Tieg is still talking about “the end of the capitalist economy” and the suffering it will bring. During those thirty years Tieg’s life has changed little. He has no luxuries and works seven days a week to make ends meet. There is no question that Tieg is self-sufficient while Dave is not. There is no question that if and when the “end of the capitalist economy” occurs, Tieg will be able to survive. But even Tieg depends on the capitalist economy. The batteries he buys for his electrical backup, the pump for his well, his tractor, his wagons; all of these are the products of others. While he doesn’t like to admit it, even Tieg must trade with others to survive.

While Dave’s income and standard of living have grown steadily over the past thirty years, Tieg annually reminds Dave about the pending economic calamity. What bugs Dave is that Tieg seems to be actually looking forward to a collapse of the U.S. economy! After all, such a collapse would vindicate Tieg’s reason for his self-sufficient existence and philosophy. It’s occurred to Dave that if Tieg goes to his grave without having witnessed an economic collapse, he’ll be dreadfully disappointed! What a legacy!

Dave sees things differently than Tieg. In Dave’s view the move from self-sufficiency toward specialization and exchange has been a primary tool in liberating the average American from backbreaking labor and poverty. With the dairy farmer specializing in milk production, the electrician specializing in wiring buildings, and the professor specializing in educating students, the farmer can send his daughter to college for a better education than he could provide if he tried to educate her himself. With the tuition income from the dairy farmer, the professor can hire the electrician to wire his home at a lower cost and with more safety than if he did it himself. The electrician can take his wages and buy milk that the farmer has produced without ever concerning himself with all of the technicalities of milk production. The entire society, by specializing and trading, has a greater variety of products and services, enjoys higher quality products and services, and pays a lower price for those goods and services than would be the case if everyone tried to be self sufficient.

While Tieg is a “live and let live” reasonable kind of guy who has a healthy respect for clever capitalists, Dave wonders about the motives and affiliations of those who truly despise capitalism and free markets. As Dave sees it, if people who support emissions regulations on U.S. business are doing this for the sake of reducing greenhouse gasses, that is fine with him. Dave is in agreement with anyone who is working to achieve new, cost efficient methods of producing energy and products with as little negative environmental impact as possible. However, many of the people who have rallied behind emissions regulations are affiliated with groups whose primary goal is to undermine capitalism and free markets. Dave thinks that most of these are resentful non-producer, non-achievers who envy people who dream dreams, accomplish their goals, and serve as the font of human progress. These non-producers will climb on any bandwagon (including the global warming bandwagon) primarily to destroy the economy and it’s productive participants, both of which they despise. Motivated by jealousy and feeding upon myths and ignorance, they are, according to Dave, the economic terrorists from within.

About two weeks before the United States invaded Iraq I was visiting some Kuwaiti friends who had an ill relative at the Mayo Clinic. In the visitor lounge the television was blaring about the potential invasion of Iraq by the United States. My Kuwaiti friends looked at me and said, “You guys don’t want to go into Iraq. The Iraqi’s are not worth it; they are a miserable untrustworthy lot and you are crazy to get involved with them.”

They went on to say, “When you liberated Kuwait from the invasion by the Iraqi’s, we were grateful. No American soldier was ever harmed on Kuwaiti soil, but those Iraqi’s will be trouble.” Not knowing much about Iraqis I politely nodded in agreement, but I remember thinking that it wouldn’t be unusual for Kuwaitis to be upset with a country that had just invaded them.

Now, four years later, the words of my Kuwaiti friends appear sadly prophetic. There can be no question that the United States made many serious mistakes in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Saddam Hussein’s regime deserved to be overthrown and the Iraqi’s have had free elections, but there has been little real progress or initiative on the part of the Iraqi people or their leaders to secure, solidify, or even appreciate their American-given freedoms. In fact, it appears that the only one who really knew how to control this nation of madmen was the supreme madman himself, Saddam Hussein! As horrible as he was, you’ve got to give the man credit; he knew how to run Iraq. Only coercion, fear, and an iron fist will work in Iraq. Happily and sadly, the United States didn’t have the stomach for such measures.

It is time for the United States to pull out of Iraq in a deliberate but steady fashion. Once we’re gone, let the Shiites and Sunnis kill each other until they get sick of it. It isn’t our problem and despite what liberal U.S. politicians say, it isn’t our fault. We tried, spilled our blood and spent our treasure in this place called Iraq. The government and citizens of Iraq failed to seize the opportunities given them and the blame rests squarely on their shoulders. Sometime, at some point, the people of every country must suffer or prosper as a result of the practices of their leaders. If the leaders of that nation lead their innocent citizens into the hell of hate and violence, so be it. That “sometime” has come and gone for Iraq.

We have lost over three thousand brave American soldiers in this effort, with many more injured and maimed. Had this suffering produced some permanent improvement in Iraq, those losses would be more acceptable. We have cast our pearls before swine too long. The United States is a noble, good place. We are not perfect, but we have given with honorable intentions our literal blood to the Iraqi people while they have mocked us. No Iraqis should be able to come to the United States as refugees. They should remain in their own country to work out their own problems. Unfortunately, as my Kuwaiti friends told me over four years ago, it appears that the Iraqi’s aren’t worth saving.

The other day I got a letter from my doctor telling me that he was moving on to another position. The bottom line is that he can no longer be my physician, so it is up to me to pick another doctor at my primary care clinic. He included a list of seven of his colleagues who can be my new doctor. The letter, which is printed on the clinic stationery, says, “Below are the names of my very capable colleagues at the Clinic who will be able to provide you care. I would heartily endorse all of them.”

If I’ve ever heard Clinic-speak baloney, that’s it. I don’t know any of the seven people listed. The sole information with which I’ve been provided is the name and medical title of each doctor. That’s exactly how my clinic and the medical establishment want it. They’re all licensed, they’re all doctors, so heck, they’re all equally good, right? WRONG! Do you know what they call the person who graduates first in his class from Medical School? Do you know what they call the dumbest, stupidest guy (last in his class) who just barely graduates from medical school???? They both have the same title…Doctor! Now how in the heck am I supposed to rank those seven names at the bottom of the letter I’ve received?

The problem here is occupational licensure, where government intervenes to allow only those with a “license” to practice a profession. Doctors, lawyers, electricians, plumbers, even barbers, must be licensed in most states. The primary effect of licensure isn’t to ensure consumer protection (there are horrific doctors, lawyers, and plumbers out there) but to limit the supply of those practicing the profession, thereby increasing the income of those allowed to practice the profession.

I could go on and on about how occupational licensure costs consumers billions of unnecessary dollars every year, but in this blog I want to concentrate on the “information void” that licensure creates. Because practitioners, whether they are electricians or medical doctors, all fall under the same title (licensed electrician, doctor, lawyer, etc.) consumers are supposed to assume that a high degree of quality exists with all licensed practitioners. In short, the occupational licensure information void leaves consumers without the relevant facts they need to make a wise decision.

In a world of de-regulated medicine there wouldn’t be an information void. I could just pull out my copy of the medical issue of consumer reports where every physician, surgeon, nurse practitioner, and physician’s assistant would be ranked according to various criteria. The surgical survival rate, the patient satisfaction rate, the referral rate, the bedside manner ranking, and other important indicators would all be available to me.

Licensure isn’t needed to insure quality. Quality can be approached just as well with certification, which refers to the passing of a privately controlled exam to demonstrate knowledge. For example, accountants are not licensed. Any guy on the corner can hang a sign and do your taxes if you agree. However, the certified public accountant (CPA) takes a rigorous exam to differentiate himself from others who practice accounting. I prefer certification to licensure, because the government isn’t involved in certification and the consumer is free to shop a larger number of providers by hiring non-certified practitioners.

It’s ironic that we have more information available to us in the purchase of a dishwasher or an automobile than in choice of our healthcare provider. Without a medical issue of consumer reports, I’m stuck with using informal networks to choose my next provider. I’ll talk to a few doctors and try to get their opinions “off the record.” I’ll ask around and get all of the information I can possibly get. This information gathering process is time-consuming and imperfect, but until we can loosen up on occupational licensing I’m pretty much shopping blind for a new doctor.