Missing In Action: Where I’ve Been

To anyone still reading, I apologize I’ve been MIA for a while. A few weeks ago I had the wonderful good fortune of landing a short-term (but very good) contract job doing technical writing. The work is fast and furious, but the people I’m working with (and for) are dynamite-smart. I’ve also had the opportunity to do a little work for a small personal and automotive injury law firm.

My hope is I’ll have a proper update for you soon.

Thanks for reading.

Bad for Society

Premise

Some people may remark from time to time that “things aren’t what they used to be”, often in relation to “then” versus “now” regarding a particular topic or set of issues. More children being born out of wedlock, escalating gun violence, and a departure from mainstream religion (predominantly organized Christian faiths), are often seen as the “canary in the coalmine” for bad times around the corner.

Over the last 1-100 years, topics have (or still are) in dispute as “bad for American society”, like married women in the workplace, working on Sundays, interracial marriage, liquor, violence on television, social assistance, abortion, same-sex relationships, profanity, non-majority religious beliefs gaining in popularity, “forbidden” books, faith-based initiatives, Facebook, socialism, online dating, capitalism, Marxism, flappers, the right to vote (for women), access to credit in one’s own name (for married women), women who cover/uncover their heads for religious reasons, pornography, the stay-at-home-dad, and eggs (cholesterol). Some topics are perennial favorites (like gun ownership), and others are largely ignored most of the time, only to flare up for a few weeks on television, like the claims that vaccination puts children at risk for diseases and disorders (like autism).

At one time, chocolate Labrador puppies were killed because breeders believed they were protecting the breed. A majority of Americans would probably object to this practice being carried out today, thanks to increased awareness by organizations like the ASPCA. My bias in favor of animal protections aside, it must be acknowledged that there was a time not so long ago when certain practices we consider inhumane today in animal stewardship were standard operating procedures.

When asked why these topics are such a bad thing, a variety of answers can be counted on to pepper the air. In the case of violent television programming, the claim that “it isn’t appropriate for children” will more than likely be made. “Children” are a part of society, but not every part. The same could be made for a standup comedian using profane language in a club. This bad behavior might be objected to on religious grounds, regardless of the comedian’s own religious beliefs: he/she may be an atheist, after all.

In 1968, 17 percent of White respondents to a Gallup poll approved of Black-White marriages. Today that number is 84 percent. While an egalitarian might argue that’s an improvement of 67 percent, the same commenter might also wonder, “what’s with the other 16 percent?” For this minority group of 16 percent, interracial marriage might even be that “crucial point when everything started to go horribly, horribly wrong”.

Backstory

The expression “bad for society” is a broad term that doesn’t bog itself down with facts or parameters. Liquor was deemed to be bad for society by organizations like the Women’s Christian Temperance Union because its position is that it encourages laziness, unemployment, crime, and causes health problems.

After campaigning for several years, opponents of alcohol succeeded in banning the substance with the Volstead Act, claiming that it would help restore society to a simpler, healthier time. Opponents of Prohibition claim that it helped create organized crime in America. For me, personally, learning that Prohibition may have given birth to NASCAR is truly the greatest crime of the 1920s.

Speaking to something being “good” or “bad” for society by the orator/author (particularly in mass media) he/she assumes the moral authority to make such a judgment. Sometimes the orator/author is advancing a cause in this declaration that it is “bad for society”, or has a personal dislike for it.

In the Broadway stage musical, The Music Man, the main character is a con artist operating under the nom de guerre “Professor Harold Hill” who has come to town to interest the parents and their children in joining a boy’s band. When interest proves to be too thin to his liking, the would-be professor seeks an issue of controversy, seizing upon a new pool table in a local tavern. Striking up the townspeople (in a style that only musical theatre can) Hill galvanizes them against the pool table as the living embodiment of sin that would ruin their otherwise noble sons. They are united in a cause that they perceive to be bad for their society. As a result, Hill is free to advance his cause, which is selling band equipment to the townspeople with the intention of skipping town at the end of the scam.  

Why the Topic Interests Me

While basic mores are largely unchanged from one culture to the next (with a few notable exceptions, usually stemming from the high context/low context culture clash) this is where many commonalities end. Indeed, even within a singular culture (like America’s) there are many different, conflicting available courses of action regarding the same topic. For some issues, the choice is a binary one: “yes” or “no”. For instance, “should the death penalty be legal?” is a binary choice.

Often, our binary moral choices are the most polarizing ones. Political constructions like Parties (“Democrat” and “Republican”) thrive on this binary construction. Sometimes, however, issues have “shades of gray” to them, either on their own, or within the context of a binary subject. For instance, alcohol consumption (for those that don’t rule it out completely) may have differing levels of acceptance. “One drink at a party” or “I never drink beer—only wine or a mixed drink, and then only when I’m not driving”. This would be a different shade of gray compared to, having 2-3 beers/glasses of sherry/port several evenings a week. In contrast, neither of these meets the clinical definition for binge drinking.

A too frequent side effect of excess alcohol consumption is driving while impaired (and the subsequent DUI/DWI charges). The penalty for a DUI/DWI changes by state, however, both in terms of classification (misdemeanor versus felony) as well as the individual punishments for either classification (jail time versus probation, losing one’s license versus having one’s driving privileges suspended, etc.). These are shades of gray in a legal application regarding the same moral issue, which is that drunk driving is dangerous or “bad” for other members of society, as well as the drunk driver himself/herself.

In addition to the legal and academic aspects of why certain topics are “bad for society” I’m also interested in the socio-moral context. Women wearing pants (for instance) was once widely regarded as sinful or inappropriate across much of America. Today, the topic is largely a non-issue, except for certain groups like the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints.

Intoxication and women wearing pants can both be traced back to the Torah portion of the bible that is used in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In fact, on the issue of drinking/drinking in moderation, the bible speaks out against this issue a whopping 75 times. In contrast, the bible talks about the poor 64 times. A literalist interpretation might then suggest that the issues of alcoholism and temperance are of greater importance than the care of and solidarity for the poor.

Taking another step back, we might also conclude that religion itself is a manufacturing center for where many of our societal constructs come from for determining what is “good” and “bad” for society. However, religion itself has also been cast as being bad for society from many corners, including sometimes being at odds with the law depending on the country. Christian Scientists are sometimes at odds with state and local vaccination ordinances for what their religion teaches to be “bad for society”.      

    

My Position

“Society” is a pretty big chunk of people. By 2013, America was home to more 315 million citizens, 11.2 million illegal aliens/non-authorized immigrants, 12.6 million Green Card holders, and 336,000 Visa holders. Within each group are different sub-segments of society, and sometimes these groups overlap: I used to work a gentleman from Finland that is here in the United States on a Green Card, for instance.

What people mean when they say, “that’s bad for society” is “I don’t agree with that particular topic”. This is known as “error-related brain activity” or “self-centric” behavior. In effect, what is occurring is that our own perception of “right” and “wrong” has been projected as behavior we feel other people should adopt. Many of us do this by following one of these 15 ethical traps.

What Should Be Done in the Future

When dealing with complex issues, I’m in favor of turning to the advice of people much smarter than I am. In this case, Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States, architect of the Louisiana Land Purchase, enemy of big banks, and violator of his bonds of marital fidelity. After all, a god-like man can inspire, but a man with god-like failings will lead—because his flaws (whether or not accepted) make him relatable.

“All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”

Jefferson was a stalwart believer in the power of democracy through his philosophy of Jeffersonian Republicanism (quite different than the GOP of today), and this was reflected in what Alexis de Tocqueville would later come to call the, “tyranny of the majority” in his magnum opus, Democracy in America. Jefferson understood that smaller groups had existed, did exist and (probably would) exist, and that it was necessary to preserve their basic liberties. Despite expounding upon calls for equality as the secretary that wrote the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson nevertheless neglected to free his slaves, both in life and after his death. However, Jefferson did understand that it was necessary to create an environment that respected these separate (and possibly disparate) groups.

Like many Americans today, Jefferson also possessed a “live and let live attitude, as shown in this statement:

“It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.”

I like to believe that if Jefferson had been born in 1973 (versus 1743) he would have been of the modern mindset that “mankind” can be updated with “humankind”, making no distinction (except as a case of biological function and designation) between a man and a woman.

In this second statement, he is urging that we as Americans deny ourselves the often-frequent right to self-direction, with the exception that we cannot deprive another of liberty, freedom, or independence without appropriate cause.

Later in life, Jefferson would go on to write that,

“Peace and friendship with all mankind is our wisest policy, and I wish we may be permitted to pursue it.”

I think peace and friendship are good guiding principles (at the very least) in helping to protect ourselves from that which is truly harmful, which include actions that have no benefit, either to the person committing them, nor to the society around them. It is also important to prioritize conflicting opinions. If “person a” believes all alcohol consumption (or women wearing pants, or two women getting married, or people owning guns) is bad, but “group 1” can do any of these things without causing physical or financial harm to that person (or group of people) it is not bad for society. Indeed, what “person a” is advocating for would actually hard a segment of the community, and that truly would be “bad for society”.

Open Questions

• Are there any topics (legal or illegal) that you feel are “bad for society” but still frequently engaged in? 
• What would you say are some topics labeled, “bad for society” that you think are okay to engage in? Are there any conditions under which one of these topics could become acceptable if it were changed?
• How do you feel about binary topics, where there is only one “correct” answer in a “yes” or “no” kind of equation?
• If you can, name a time when you saw something that was “bad for society” done that positively benefited one or more person(s).
• Upon what criteria should we as people—and as a society—determine what is bad for society? What authentication/verification measures (if any) should be used to ensure we don’t make a mistake? 
• How do you personally determine what is “bad” or “good” for society?
• Are there some activities that are “bad for society” that you think should be “okay for society” that you yourself would still not personally engage in?

Preserving Reproductive Donor Anonymity

Premise

Many adults long to be parents, but are confronted with reproductive challenges. Some of these challenges include infertility or elevated medical risks, like diabetes. For some women they’ve found economic and personal happiness, but not the right man to settle down with. For others, there’s no desire to settle down with any man, either due to sexual orientation or the belief that two people don’t need to get married to make a “whole person”.

On a smaller scale (in terms of annual business), a gay male couple, or a single man (regardless of sexual orientation) may choose to enlist the help of a surrogate that will carry a fertilized egg to term. For legal reasons, a surrogate should not use her own egg, but the egg from a second woman so that she has no genetic claim to the resulting offspring, so as to minimize the risk of a custody battle.

In a majority of cases, these children have at least one anonymous parent. Since the 1990s, some mothers and/or their children that are the offspring of an anonymous donor (usually a biological father, but rarely, a biological mother) have been seeking to find the missing “branch” in the family tree. Those seeking to find the donor often report frustration, as the person they are seeking to find has been promised anonymity.

Backstory

Since the 1970s, more than 1 million children have been conceived through in vitro fertilization in the United States, which is a technology that fertilizes a woman’s egg outside the human body with a man’s sperm with the intention of creating a zygote. Some news sources report that (world-wide) more than 5 million children have been conceived using this technique.

Assisted reproduction is not a new field of medicine. Indeed, the first artificial insemination occurred over 125 years ago (and quite possibly long before that) in humans. In 1953, Jerome Sherman created the world’s first sperm bank, allowing for the birth of today’s multi-million dollar human reproductive donor market.

Today there are over 70 sperm banks (comprising the largest portion of the reproductive donor reserve for the fertility market) worth more than $320 million. There are a multitude of requirements for a would-be sperm donor. Depending on the genetic makeup and specific donor demand, some sperm samples command higher prices than others, and some donors can even earn over $20,000 per year.

To any young men reading this, I implore you not to quit your day jobs just yet. Over 90 percent of applicants are rejected, and not everyone is paid the same, as some women are looking for perfect sperm. Genetic tests, motility counts, STD/STI screening, family histories, baby pictures, audio recordings, and more bits and pieces come together to create “designer donors” for well-heeled women longing to become loving mothers.

Egg donors make up an important (but much smaller) percentage of the reproductive donor/fertility market than sperm donors. When factoring in the blood tests and the waiting a man has to go through on a regular basis is more than most realize, his commitment is much less risky and less labor-intensive than it is for a woman donating her eggs. Until the technology was developed to “ripen” eggs outside of a woman’s body, some donors would actually burst their ovaries, becoming partially or completely infertile in their quest to help other women conceive. A woman also only has (on average) 300-400 ovulations in her lifetime. By comparison, men are often fertile into their 80s (even if they aren’t usually donors after 39).

In short, egg donation is a bigger commitment for a woman than sperm donation is for a man. Whereas most men receive $35-$50 for a contribution (that the clinic sells for hundreds—or even over a thousand—dollars) an egg donor can make up to $50,000. Surrogate mothers (in whom donated, fertilized eggs are implanted) can expect to make between $24,000 and $28,000.

Why the Topic Interests Me

I’ve known I didn’t want children since I was six-years-old. My career, traveling, entertaining, and the family I grew up with (and have seen grow around me) have always been more important. Some people see this as selfish, but in 2010 the New York Times reported that it cost $222,360 to raise a child from birth to age 18. That’s a lot of money, and doesn’t even begin to cover the average cost of college ($15,971 public, $42,504, 2013 numbers), which can add another 2-5 years after high school graduation.

As the oldest of several children, I was repeatedly told how loved and wanted we all were, as well as the struggles my mother went through in order to conceive and maintain three successful pregnancies. The people I grew up calling “mom” and “dad” were my biological parents—mom had other challenges that her specialists addressed through surgery, treatment, and medication.

During her second pregnancy (after years of waiting) she got a call from the adoption agency that a child was available. She thought about how badly she’d wanted a baby and told the lady on the other end of the phone that she was expecting her second child, and that the agency should give the child to a family that wanted a child as much as she had, and that was that.

As a neo-Malthusian, I believe we have too many people on planet Earth, and that the least qualified people are having the most children. For me, a population contraction would be seen as painful, but advisable and even manageable if done correctly, drawing the world’s population down 50-80 percent to achieve sustainable levels over the course of 30-120 years. However, there are those that have the mental, psychological, and financial means to have children, but have not been given the reproductive apparatus (either in part or in whole) to do so. Many of these people have ruled out adoption (for whatever reason) as a viable alternative.

When I was in high school I read a TIME magazine article talking about in utero surgery for spina bifida. A fetus was going to be born with this disease and the doctors saved him/her from it, ensuring a better quality of life that eliminated hundreds of visits to physicians, specialists, wheelchair salespeople, etc. On one hand, widespread surgery like this is as detrimental to the assisted living industry as the Sauk vaccine was for the iron lung maker, but I hope most would agree it is a worthwhile tradeoff.

Then I got to thinking: what if genetic engineering could correct problems even more complex than spina bifida? What if—either through nanotechnology or in vitro selection—diseases could be cured before they manifested themselves? What if this could be done without the controversial topic of abortion, and with the informed consent of the mother and (if applicable) father? Totally fatal diseases like Tay Sachs that kill most children by kindergarten (or earlier) could be stopped in their tracks with the right proactive therapies.

Once causal links for diseases with genetic propensities like diabetes, cancer, ALS, and a myriad of others could be smoked out from fetal stem cells, blasted off of organisms growing inside expecting mothers no larger than an iPhone with this technology. The total lifetime cost to treat diseases that are eliminated before they could appear would produce a net savings to society in the billions of dollars, with that benefit growing higher and higher every year. In a time when healthcare dollars are critically thin, technology once again could prove a worthy “mother of invention”.

The system could potentially wipe out genetic disease in 2-6 generations, if applied on a broad enough level. It would have to be done judiciously, cautiously, and without being discriminatory. Aldus Huxley’s Brave New World and the lessons of Gattaca must apply—forcible ethnic cleansing can never be allowed as a policy du jour again for as long as the human species endures, and genetic discrimination must remain illegal. Indeed (and with safeguards in place) as we shrink towards a smaller population the mantra should be, “quality over quantity”.

For those that want children, can afford to raise them properly, and who have ruled out adoption (or been discriminated against unjustly to adopt) I don’t see an issue with him/her/them starting a family through surrogacy or sperm donation. Children are an accomplishment, but giving birth is only the first milestone in a newly born human being’s lifecycle.

My Position

I would never want to be a sperm donor. In addition to my population control beliefs, I really don’t want kids—in any capacity. For most of us, though, the desire to know where we come from is an easy one to identify with. However, sperm and egg donors—especially those donating through clinics—have traditionally been promised anonymity. To reverse this promise retroactively is a huge violation of their rights.

The ideal sperm donor for many women is a taller man (at least six feet) with symmetrical features, a nice smile, a “clean” genetic history, and who is in college or has at least a Bachelor’s degree. He is between the ages of 18-24 and often has a glowing personal profile available through the sperm bank. Some sperm banks are as choosy (or choosier) than Ivy League schools.

A sperm donor usually claims to donate for one or more of the following reasons: altruism (to help a couple conceive by donating a viable material he has a surplus of), to spread his genetics around, and to get paid. For many college-age men, money is always in short supply, and getting paid to do something they’d do anyway seems a lucrative opportunity.

By contrast, a sperm donor cannot be a man that has had sex with another man in the last five years. He is also usually a late teenager in college or in his 20s. By that estimation, only the most deeply closeted gay men and their strictly heterosexual counterparts are eligible. Members of both these groups of men may go on to father children in a setting where they both know the child(ren) and are known to the child(ren), such as within the parameters of a marriage or a surrogate pregnancy.

Most women that turn to sperm donors are between 28-40+ years of age. While some of these women are married or in long-term relationships with an opposite-sex partner (who may be infertile), a majority are single, lesbians, or bisexual women in a same-sex relationship that cannot conceive on their own. These seemingly unrelated groups are much more dependent upon one another than one might think.

Whatever the case, most sperm donors do not wish to be found, either by adult offspring and/or by the mother(s) of minor children they provided 50 percent of the genetic material for. The donor that goes on to have children “of his own” are often seen as his “real kids”. Even though a child conceived through an anonymous donation has no claim to child support or inheritance from her/his biological father, their very existence is problematic for some men who may be in their 30s, 40s, or even 50s when a child they helped to father 18+ years ago shows up.

In a blog post published at one clinic, one concerned employee stated that, “in a survey taken of the offspring, it was found that 2/3 of donor conceived children felt they had the right to know specific information about their donors”. Some legal scholars are calling for a similar end to donor anonymity, citing this being done in other nations.

The UK and Holland chose to end anonymous donation several years ago (2005 for the UK). Three years after anonymity for donors going forward was ended, the available number of donors had dropped by more than 40 percent. By 2012, the UK had started importing sperm from the United States to meet demand.

Ending donor anonymity means ending a great deal of the donated supply as well. Sometimes “dad” simply does not want to be found. The children that he helps to conceive “the natural way” (or using a surrogate he hires) may be seen as his only “real” children, in effect.

There are many compelling arguments in favor of allowing the children of sperm donors to be found, including discovering siblings, filling in medical records, and “finding one’s roots”. Sometimes something life-changing (like an organ transplant) is needed. Indeed, donors have even begun looking for their unmet offspring. However, when a donor elects to have a “closed” or anonymous donation (either intentionally or by default) that is a decision the future mother of his donation is informed about (or at least is supposed to be informed about). Putting the “shoe on the other foot”, try imagining a sperm donor petitioning (or even suing) a clinic to find his child/children 5, 10, 18, or 20+ years after making his contribution.

What Should Be Done in the Future

Life is imperfect. This theme is universal and constant, and often extends to the conception of life. A child that is conceived as the result of an anonymous one-night-stand has little hope of finding out whom his father is under ordinary circumstances. By contrast, the offspring of a mother that used the services of a fertility clinic has obtained the genetic material of a highly virile man, who has been tested for all major STI/STD infections, and (based on IQ, education, motility count, and other criteria) beaten out over 90 percent of all would-be donors. This hopeful mother-to-be has also deliberately sought out (at great personal expense and personal sacrifice) to become pregnant.

For mothers that want to know who the biological father of their child is, I encourage them to seek what is called an “open” donation. At age 18, the identity of an “open” donor is disclosed to the child(ren) conceived through donated sperm. Not surprisingly, there are fewer open donors, but they are available. 

www.donorsiblingregistry.com is a website that mothers that have chosen sperm donors can reach out to one another through. Sometimes children discover dozens (and, rarely, over 100) “new playmates” that are also genetic half-siblings. This also begs the question (which I’m not going to answer in this post), “how many children should a sperm donor be allowed to father?” with supporting reasons.  Mothers (or grown children) are able to find one another because all sperm donors are tracked using a unique ID number—children under the same ID number are related.

The danger in programs like Donor Sibling Registry is as follows. Let us assume that in 2004, donor 445123 began to make contributions to his local fertility clinic. He chose to be an open donor. In 2007, he stopped. By 2009, his last sample was used. Children conceived from his donated sperm have a five-year age range. Now let us assume that the first child conceived with his DNA from the clinic was born in 2005. In 2023, that child turns 18 and opts to discover her/his biological father. 445123 is now known. This is a detail that can now suddenly be shared with the mothers and children of the other 35 (or 10, or 70, or another number) children conceived using his DNA, ranging in age from 13-18, effectively making the open donor unintentionally open to minor children.

The very last thing that should be done is to destroy sperm donor anonymity going forward. It will effectively cripple the supply of genetic material if donor anonymity is ended. Retroactively, anonymity should also be preserved. The system is imperfect, but disrupting the donor’s privacy will permanently strangle it.

Open Questions

• Would you want to be a sperm donor? (For the Men.)
• If “yes”, would you be an “open” or “anonymous” donor? Why? (For the Men.)
• Would you want to be an egg donor? (For the Women.)
• If “yes”, would you be an “open” or “anonymous donor? Why? (For the Women.)
• (If you’re a woman) would you ever consider being a surrogate?
• Do you think that donors should be allowed to be anonymous? Why?
• What do you think the future of this business should be?

Formatting Change

Salutations, dear reader:

I’ve been attempting to organize my postings as essays (sometimes more lengthy than I’d like) to frame my ideas to allow them to be most-quickly processed. Going forward (and where applicable) I plan to frame my blog posts to follow this format:

• Title.
• Premise.
• Backstory.
• Why the Topic Interests Me.
• My Position.
• What Should Be Done in the Future.
• Open Questions.

The questions will hopefully inspire comments that are both constructive and concise by readers like you. I hope this new format will be helpful.  

What It Means to be Dauntless

The word “dauntless” means, “not to be daunted or intimidated; fearless, intrepid; bold, a dauntless hero” according to dictionary.com. Synonyms for it include, “bold”, “confident”, “determined”, “heroic”, “intrepid”, “resolute”, and “valiant”. While I don’t believe most of us go through life truly fearless, being able to manage fear (and let it speak when caution can save us) is important.   

I would also add that “dauntless” ends in “less”, in the same suffix-structure as “tireless”, “endless”, and “ceaseless”. It is to continuously pursue something to the core, the root: to the base essence of something with a purpose. A “dauntless American” is therefore a citizen of Jefferson’s great republic, the living embodiment of Washington’s shining city on the Potomac, and the living embodiment of united resistance against injustice.

To be dauntless is to continue without end, like a comet through the cosmos that flies a clear path, crashing into nothing and leaving a sparkling trail in its wake. It is to leap up like a glowing buoy in the middle of a dark ocean. It means doing what is fair and just, even if it is unpopular or personally problematic. It is easier said than done.

Jefferson’s republic is facing unprecedented challenges in the forms of a rapidly shrinking world on an Earth that is fixed in size, and Washington’s shining city is marred by both the physical dirt of reality and the grime of the ethically challenged. We live in a time when resistance cannot be calibrated by musket fire or charged literary documents that rebel against the established authority, but rather by the need to peacefully and amicably work within an imperfect framework towards a model for perfection.

To be dauntless is to be continually in pursuit of an accelerating destiny, while trimming one’s performance towards increasingly flawless efficiencies. In a small way, the dauntless are often those that sit down to Thanksgiving dinner they helped create. But not just any Thanksgiving: a five-day odyssey affair of epic side dishes, mouthwatering main courses, hearty desserts, and all manner of accouterments that would seem excessive to a Roman senator. Not content to bask in the salivating platitudes of his/her guests, he/she is the first to jump up before the first roll can be passed to exclaim, “I forgot the other cranberry relish tray!” In short, the dauntless appreciate their good fortune, but are not comfortable to rest on their laurels—instead they are left asking, “what’s next, and how will it make things better?”

In that spirit, a dauntless American is a United States citizen that is left with these perpetual questions, asking what’s next for himself/herself, America, the world, and what is the role that each of us plays within it to make what’s next the best it can be? It is to be a tirelessly valiant and heroic architect acting as part of a team with a shared destiny that we are each charged with to make so much greater than it already is.

Reasons to Keep the United States Post Office Alive

For Americans, the United States Post Office (USPS) is as iconic as the Cadillac, and equally synonymous with being of “top quality”. For others, it is seen as an outdated, inefficient relic of a bygone era. I happen to be of the former opinion.

It was announced earlier this month that the United States Post Office would be doing away with Saturday delivery, citing this decision as a cost-cutting measure. Respectfully, I disagree. For decades it seems that some companies have timed their mail (particularly billing statements) to arrive on Saturday. For many of these same companies, Saturday customer service isn’t available, reducing the total number of complaint calls—or calls requesting clarification—for Monday.

Some time ago I went with a family member to our local FedEx store to mail a notebook computer to China. The cost? $275. We went two blocks away (to the city’s post office) to mail the computer for $75. It arrived 3-6 weeks later, safe and sound. The irony of mailing a computer to China from the United States is not lost on me, but isn’t my point today. One of the strongest criticisms of the USPS is the Congressional expectation that it run without making a profit (and thank goodness for that).

From 2004-2009, the USPS was voted “most trusted” out of 74 different government agencies. Moreover, the score improved for the USPS every year, meaning the more than 7,000 people polled for the survey increasingly trusted it, finally arriving at an 87 percent approval rating: most private organizations would fall over themselves to achieve a rating where nearly 9/10 of customers trusted them.

US Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe has also called for the following austerity measures. In fairness, he is trying to close a $20 billion deficit and comply with the mandate that the USPS have neither no debt, nor no profit to report.   

•  Require postal workers to sponsor their own health care plan. 

• Programs like Tricare operate on a privatized basis to provide healthcare for military personnel and their dependents (under qualifying conditions).
• Unlike the government-led Veteran’s Affairs (VA) organization, Tricare’s falsifications have resulted in at least $100 million lost. Privatization of programs like Tricare can also lead to ugliness like this. Our veterans deserve much, much better. 
• Reform the USPS business model to remove restrictions that prevent the Postal Service from responding to the demands of the marketplace, and to enable it to compete much more effectively in a dynamic business environment.” This nebulous quote is meaningless until defined, but it comes directly from the press release I’ve linked to above. Eliminate the industry-leading retirement plan currently enjoyed by postal workers for future employees (starting in 2015). The current system would be replaced with a personal contribution plan. While I haven’t seen any documentation on this, my concern is that it would be as ill-advised as former President George W. Bush’s plans to privatize Social Security.

o   The above article also speaks to the disappointing Return On Investment (ROI) that has come from privatizing other government programs in the past, which is a phenomenon that could also hurt USPS employees.

My concern is that all of these well-intentioned plans will do the following instead:

• Kill off the largest worker’s union in the United States (the Post Office), which nearly all of the 495,000 USPS employees belong to. 
• Eventually eliminate the not-for-profit model of the USPS.
• Today Saturday delivery is being cut back. This is going to mean even heavier delivery days on Monday. What happens if another day is removed? Will this make for an even tougher job for nearly half a million workers that are no longer full-time employees.
• Privatize another government institution. 

Here’s what I’d do instead:  

• “Junk mail” producers receive amazingly good rates to distribute their materials. It has been argued that this service actually is helping to keep the USPS afloat. Junk mail probably isn’t going to go away completely (despite its relatively-low penetration rate) and we have the lowest bulk mail rates in the world—modest hikes would help offset costs.
• Sell a “Forever” stamp for a two-ounce envelope—the printing costs would be lower to both the USPS and consumers that need this denomination, versus having to use multiple stamps. 
• Increase the price of the “Forever” stamp to 50 cents—I’m not in favor of this, but the increase is needed. 
• Invest in newer, fuel-efficient technologies, especially renewable resources like hydrogen and solar power, selling off pre-existing equipment and decommissioning it (similar to how police cars are turned into taxi cabs). This would also allow the government to further lead the charge to becoming foreign-oil-free.   

Unless reversed, Saturday delivery will end 2013-08-01, meaning the last day of Saturday pick-up/drop off will be 2013-07-27. What happens next will be very interesting, and will also set the precedent for future changes in other government agencies going forward.