Harebrained Schemes 4

There's been a major change in society's view of homosexuality. Perhaps it should become the cultural norm – especially in overpopulated nations. There's a lot to be said for lowering the birthrate. China has tried it, but they missed an obvious solution while antagonizing their citizens by punishing them for having children. Instead of repressing the natural wishes of much of their population they should have encouraged that part of their number that would not produce children, and might wind up as happier and more compliant members of a society that supported them.

And for all nations it should not be ignored that the cost of homosexual unions would probably be lower, because prejudice still exists and there would be fewer people at the receptions. In fact, subsidization or such ceremonies should offered by the governments of enlightened countries. While there would be an initial expense, the savings in other programs (like Social Security and health care) would more than make up for it. And what liberal thinker could oppose such an advancement in the relationships of members of their society, especially one that lowered unemployment rates, and promoted an increase in the need for immigration of workers? All we need to do is get rid of those Bible-thumping bigots.

Sounds like win-win to me.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Isn't it time we legalized narcotics as we do cigarettes and liquor. It's already being done in terms of cannabis in several states – for medical and therapeutic use as well as recreationally. At the same time there are numerous advertisements for programs which claim to be able to rid people of their addictions – specifically those caused by prescribed opioids. And until now people – Americans and citizens of other countries – are making fortunes off drugs while addicts, their families, and their communities suffer and die because of the drug trade.

Think of the benefits to our economy if the government received the profits from drugs and the states were free to tax them. The purity of the drugs could be better managed and some of the money obtained through drug sales could be used for treatment programs. And if drugs were legal, the traffic in illegal drugs would be eliminated and the gigantic cost associated with fighting “the war on drugs” would disappear as well. And, incidentally, the cost of the drugs could be decreased, lessening the crime associated with the current situation, when addicts rob and kill others to support their habits. Not only that, but those who take up a “forbidden pleasure” would have less incentive.

Addiction isn't something that can be viewed as good, but it exists. We've learned that the prohibition of alcohol doesn't work, and now we tax it while our citizens use it legally. We can't eliminate smoking, but we recognize that taxing tobacco products can be quite profitable. Additionally, a country that permits lotteries and other forms of gambling is in no position to proclaim the morality of an anti-drug position. (Indeed, prostitution laws should be reconsidered. The courts are making very liberal interpretations of what sexual practices are permitted by the Constitution – although those who wrote the original document might be confused by such interpretations.) And if we have no moral basis for prohibiting drugs, it is reasonable to wonder if we're not tilting windmills. And paying the price for it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

C. Northcote Parkinson, one of the twentieth century's most significant thinkers was, in fact, a polymath. He published many books as a naval historian, but his thinking far transcended his field of interest. His most famous accomplishment was the publication of “Parkinson's Law,” whose primary premise was that "work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion." The work, whose subtitle was “The Pursuit of Progress,” not only documented the workings of the British civil service, but earned for Professor Parkinson recognition as an expert on administration. Indeed, he published further on the subject of the operation of administrative bodies, most notably “Parkinson's Law of Triviality,” which discussed in detail the “bike-shed effect.” His work inspired many others to examine the subject, and corollaries are numerous.

Not discussed, however, was the phenomenon I have noted personally. When reading anything – and that includes the professor's works – I tend to nod off. The time of the event is irrelevant as is the length of time available for sleep. The same happens when I'm just sitting quietly. It seems that sleep expands as well. And there is no time of its completion so there is plenty of room for expansion. Which raises the question: Can sleep expand to fill in for waking time?

There was a time when I thought this was my problem alone, but I find that many elderly retired individuals – especially men – have noticed the same thing. With more time available, increased sleeping has affected lots of these people. There is too much unoccupied time that could be put to good use. Hence I propose that society subsidize positions for the elderly, like walking the monsters under their grandchildren's beds, so as to contract the time available for sleep. Sleep, as we all know, is contrary to society's interests because those involved are not out supporting the economy.

And that's what it's all about. Professor Parkinson wanted to evaluate the amount of time wasted by those who were working to the clock. I want to be sure that as many as possible – both those currently employed but struggling to complete their assignments in the allotted time, and citizens reemployed following retirement – spend their earnings and not sleep away the time available to do this. Time is money. Sleep is wasted time.