William Calley Admits Wrongdoing for My Lai; Remembering the CMC Whistleblower Who Brought it To National Attention

William Calley, the former lieutenant convicted of 22 counts of murder at My Lai, publicly apologized for the massacre of Vietnamese civilians on Friday. It is believed to be the first public apology he has ever made for the massacre that landed him prison time.

Few remember that CMCer, Ron Ridenhour, Class of 1972, exposed this corruption to the light of day. For more on Ridenhour, please read this post I wrote on the 40th anniversary of My Lai.

Professor Pitney Argues Against Death Panels for Ted Kennedy

Professor John J. Pitney Jr. has a stirring argument against rationing health care found here. He's arguing against supposed medical ethicist and Harvard professor, James Sabin, who believes that Ted Kennedy should send a "message" and refuse his expensive treatment.

Sabin's message is that Ted Kennedy should pass up life-prolonging treatment and go gently into that good night. The ethicist would applaud if he gave a farewell speech saying "I should die more quickly!" But Americans admire the Kennedys because they fight like hell against illness and injury.

The comparison to Buffet is nonsense. If Buffet gets his way and pays more tax, he's still a billionaire. If Kennedy pulls his own plug, he's dead.

This is the ethics of redistribution applied to life and death. This is the world of Sophie's Choices and overcrowded lifeboats. It's not the world Americans want to live in.

Professor Pitney raises an interesting question. Just who is to judge the value of a life? What is an extra day really worth? An extra hour?

For most of us, that decision is a horribly difficult one to answer, but not, it would appear for those who insist that we must ration care. For them, it seems an increasingly easy choice. Rather than grow the pie of health care, others quibble about how to divide the slices.

I've criticized Charlie Sprague CMC '10 for much the same kind of thinking here.

CGU Professor Paul Zak Mentioned in City Journal

The question for our time is whether or not morality and markets must reach some kind of societal equilibrium for them to be most effective. Some favor regulations as a means of keeping us more honest. Others, like me, are skeptical of such regulations and argue that more often than not, they end up creating perverse incentives and distorting trust.

The latest article up on City Journal by Steven Malanga makes much this point, but looks at the importance of moral fiber in markets. (He also cites CGU Professor Paul Zak.)

Needless to say, this is not what Adam Smith had in mind. Smith laid the groundwork for the economic theories of The Wealth of Nations in his preceding book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, which traces the evolution of ethics from man’s nature as a social being who feels shame if he does something that he believes a neutral observer would consider improper. Smith proposed that as societies evolve, they form institutions—courts of law, for instance—that reflect and codify these ethical perceptions of individuals, and that these institutions provide the essential backbone of any sophisticated commercial system.

Modern experiments in neuroscience have tended to confirm Smith’s notion that our virtues derive from our empathy for others, though with an important qualification: the ethics of individuals need reinforcement from social institutions and can be undermined by the wrong societal message, as neuroeconomist Paul Zak writes in Moral Markets: The Critical Role of Values in the Economy. When people find themselves bombarded by the wrong message—like the Washington Mutual employees whose supervisors constantly pushed them into riskier and riskier actions—some will resign in disgust, but others will gradually suppress what scientists call the brain’s “other-regarding” behavior and the shame that goes along with it and violate their own ethics.

Chuck DeVore Attacks Carly Fiorina for Not Voting, Being Rich

As anyone who reads this blog knows, I have unfailing respect for Assemblyman Chuck DeVore (CMC '85) and want him to win the nomination for the G.O.P and to take on Barbara Boxer in 2010.

I think he'll easily defeat any nominee for the nomination, and so I have to ask myself: What is DeVore doing in The San Francisco Chronicle criticizing his fellow Republican, Carly Fiorina over her spotty voting record?

If Republicans have any chance of winning in 2010 in California or elsewhere, they'll need to appeal to that pragmatic middle that has sat out elections. Many Americans have spotty voting records because few have felt that politics mattered as much as it does now that the government is trying to nationalize the health care sector of the economy, after it successfully nationalized the automotive industry and financial services sectors.

DeVore should be applauding wealthy people like Fiorina for joining the fight against Barbara Boxer. Instead, he caricatures her campaign and casts aspersions on her character. In language that sounds like it could have been written by the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post, DeVore says that he,

... believes that Cornyn and other GOP biggies are drawn to Fiorina because, as "a telegenic self-funder," she's like an Instant Candidate - "you just add water." He also sees the influence of "consultative mercenaries" who "create their own candidates" with big checkbooks, then "turn around and work for them."

Earlier DeVore attacked Fiorina for having a "casual association with the democratic process." He even suggests that Fiorina doesn't appropriately value our "participatory democracy." Shame on you, Mr. DeVore. We're a republic. Perhaps Ms. Fiorina felt represented by those in office already? Democrats are the ones that fetishize the democratic process, prefering to nationalize or regulate.

It is policies, not procedures, that interest voters. DeVore should wise up and criticize Fiorina for her lack of substance, not her lack of going to the ballot box.

I'm disappointed in DeVore.