Anti-Federalist

A Right to Ignorance

2011-08-31T11:48:00.009-05:00

On Tuesday, a federal court struck down much of Texas's new abortion sonogram law. The court concluded that it is unconstitutional to compel women to listen to information regarding abortion that isn't "medically relevant and that they (patients) don't wish to hear." The ruling was heralded as a victory for doctors and women. Under the ruling, doctors are no longer required to provide medical information deemed unnecessary to the termination of the pregnancy. Texas officials have made it known that they intend to appeal the ruling.

The ire directed towards the new abortion law is based on the objection that the law unfairly compels physicians to collect information regarding a medical procedure, namely by performing a sonogram, and places too great an onus on women contemplating getting that procedure by requiring them to listen to it. It is asserted that women have the right to request and receive an abortion with as little information about the procedure as necessary. Essentially, they simply need to know where the clinic is and what time it opens.

The debate over the abortion law is an anomaly. No one objects to x-rays regarding sore knees or aching backs. Very few demand medical treatment with as little information collected or provided as possible. Indeed, many physicians would be considered negligent if they declined to collect information concerning a medical condition and provide that information to a patient before offering it. But then, pregnancy is a peculiar medical condition. Most often a patient is very much aware of her medical condition before she walks into a doctor's office. She knows she she is pregnant and she knows the cure, at least by name. She does not need an x-ray to tell her she are pregnant. What she might not know, and what she may not want to know, are the details. She simply wants to be rid of the problem with a little muss or fuss as possible.

Abortion has always been a psychologically difficult medical procedure to contemplate. Numerous studies have been conducted that identify the often troubling psychological consequences that occur after an abortion is received. Many women suffer from depression and remorse in the years following having an abortion. For abortion advocates, front loading the procedure with details will only make a difficult decision even more difficult. There is concern that many women will forgo obtaining an abortion if they are required to listen to details before receiving one. A women strolling down to the clinic in anticipation of receiving an abortion might have second thoughts if she is required to confront the details of what she is seeking. She might conclude that an abortion is not quite the casual procedure she anticipated. She might even have second thoughts about getting an abortion if she learns all of what it involves.

Why any of that should disturb abortion rights advocates escapes me. If the law is allowed to stand abortion will be no less safe or legal. It might become more rare. Hasn't that been the stated goal of abortion advocates from the beginning? Or have they really meant that abortion should be safe, legal, and easy?

If information is the enemy of abortion, what does that say about its allies?

Good News and Bad News

2011-08-25T15:10:00.016-05:00

There was good news and bad news in Washington today. The Congressional Budget Office predicted that over the next ten years annual budget deficits will shrink by $3.3 trillion. The bad news is that, despite the savings, the annual budget deficits are predicted to total roughly $3.5 trillion over the next decade. The debt now stands at $14.6 trillion. Even if the deficit shrinks according to CBO predictions, it is expected that the debt will increase by $8.5 trillion over those same ten years. Deficits aren't really a problem. Borrowing money is painless. It is paying off debt that hurts.

Many in Washington, particularly those in the White House, are no doubt pleased by the news. It is proof that they are effectively addressing the situation. Their steps to reduce the deficit are working, or at least are predicted to work (you never know if you will need another bail out or stimulus package). Of course, the news is only good news if you ignore the larger situation and simply consider less of a deficit a good thing. It is predicted, I would say it is certain, that massive federal spending will continue unabated. Cuts will be made and savings will be found but they will in no way be sufficient to stop the financial bleeding. The debt will continue to go up. As the debt goes up the costs of carrying that debt will go up. Interest on the debt cost the U.S. $202 billion last year. Even in Washington that is a lot of money.

If the CBO predictions are borne out we are still looking at yearly deficits of nearly $350 billion over the next decade. That is not good news. The debt is the real problem, not deficits. Deficits can be easily, if painfully, taken care of. The government is perfectly capable of passing a balanced budget. They are simply unwilling to. The reason they are unwilling to is that it would amount to collective political suicide. That is why the debt will continue to go up.

There is a third way to address deficits apart from raising taxes or cutting spending. That is to hold government spending flat and wait for the economy to catch up. That option is nearly as bad to elected officials as the first two. While not quite as bad as cutting spending or raising taxes, it would mean saying no to interest groups and voters.

The debt is an economic issue, but it above all else a political issue. It is the politics of spending that drive the problem. Politicians like to spend. Arguably, they need to spend if they want to be reelected. They are compelled to support spending desired by their constituents. It is the very nature of their job. They are also driven by ego. They want libraries with their name on it. The want the gratitude of their constituents. They want the grandeur of being responsible bridges, harbors, and highways. They want history to know who they were and what they have done. The rely on the largess of government to achieve those ends. Getting Johnny a recommendation to West Point or a smoothing over a constituent's social security problem is no longer enough. Projects are needed. Money must be distributed.

Any solution to the debt crisis will involve members of Congress telling their constituents how much more they will have to pay, what they cannot have, and worse, what they will lose. That is the real problem behind addressing the debt. The vanity and ego of politicians only contributes to it.

So, the good news out of Washington is that deficits are likely to decrease. The bad news is that they are not going to disappear. Even if the economy rebounds, unless there is a dramatic increase in revenue or a historical cut in spending, the debt is going to continue going up: just more slowly than anticipated. I suppose less of a bad thing can be a good thing if you look at it just the right way.

Love is Blind

2011-08-17T11:58:00.024-05:00

Governor Rick Perry is hot on the campaign trail. Speaking to enthusiastic crowds, Perry is fine tuning his message and honing it to a sharp edge. Recently, Perry gave a speech in which he said the American people are in search not of a candidate who loves America, but "is in love with America." We can infer from that speech that Perry is in love with America. Anyone not completely caught up in Perry's rhetoric should be disturbed. I know I am.

I, for one, do not want a president, or any politician for that matter, who is in love with America. I want a person who is responsible, thoughtful, pragmatic, and flexible enough to handle the challenges our nation faces, and will face in the future. I want a president who is motivated by principal, not passion. I want a president who will be able to reflect coolly on issues, calmly gather facts, and reach decisions through deliberation. I do not want a president motivated by desire and animated by emotion. I want a president who is faithful to the Constitution and understands his responsibilities under it, not a president in pursuit of the nation's adulation or a place in history. I want a president who will do what he thinks is right for the nation, not what he thinks will make the nation happy or garner its affection. I do not want a president with a vision. I want a president with a clear grasp of things and his feet planted firmly on the ground.

I want such a president whether I agree with what he does does or not. America should want that too. You cannot persuade emotion. You can not reason with it. You cannot negotiate with it. A president who acts on principal and out of duty is a man with whom one can discuss issues and reach agreement. A president who would act out of emotion or in pursuit of an ideal is a dangerous man who will follow his heart, even if it leads to ruin.

America more than ever needs a clear headed chief executive who is willing to risk the ire of a nation accustomed to being flattered and getting its own way. America needs a leader who will tell the public that it cannot, and should not, always get what it wants. America needs someone who will tell the people what they need to hear, not what they want to hear. In short, America needs a president. It does not need a lover.

I live in Texas and have voted Republican in every presidential election since I came of age. Perry is starting to make even me nervous. Many will brush off Perry's statement as just a throw away line in a stump speech. They shouldn't. Perry is running to be President of the United States. He is trying to send a message. We should pay attention to what he says, even if he doesn't.

A Brave New World

2011-08-10T13:10:00.031-05:00

Over the years scientists have been working diligently to unlock the secrets of human genes. They have already discovered thousands of genes related to physical biology and appearance. Recently, scientists discovered that there are over 1,000 genes affecting human intelligence alone. They do not have the puzzle solved. They do not even have all the pieces. What they do have is the awareness that human intelligence is at least in part the product of genetic make up. They also have the determination to solve that puzzle.

It has been learned that the relationship between genes and intelligence is a complicated one. The hundreds, if not thousands of genes that affect human intelligence work in a complex fashion that will take a great deal of time and effort to unravel. Nevertheless, the field has been advancing steadily over the years and optimism is high. Researchers are enthusiastic about the future. As scientific method improves and data accumulates more and more of human biology will become comprehensible to scientists. That comprehension will eventually lead to knowledge. Knowledge will inevitably lead to manipulation, and therein lies the problem.

While the field has been heralded, and rightly so, for the promise it holds in improving the lives of people suffering from genetic disorders, it also has a dark side. Genetic testing has the potential to evolve into a method for manipulating the appearance, aptitude, and abilities of human beings, if only through selection. If intelligence can be determined before birth, who will settle for a child of average intelligence, let alone low intelligence? I suspect few parents, certainly those who could afford genetic testing, would be satisfied with a child of modest height, a precarious genetic make up, or with a tilt towards obesity if they get the choice.

If my concerns seem overly dramatic, I would like to point out another recent development in the news. A new blood test has been developed that allows the sex of a child to be determined as early as seven weeks into gestation. That discovery was also heralded as great progress. According to the report in the Dallas Morning News the test will "lead to to more widespread use by parents concerned about gender-linked diseases and those who are merely curious, as well as people considering the more ethically controversial step of selecting the sex of their child." Such a test would be eagerly welcomed in places like China where parents have a keen interest in the gender of their child.

We are now able to determine the sex of developing child. We have already developed tests that can identify genetic and physical disorders and will soon be able to know much more. We are on the thresh hold of identifying physical and intellectual potential before birth. If we can get a handle on manipulating genes a whole new horizon will open up: it could someday be possible to design people.

If physiological characteristics can be discerned before birth, who would embrace a handicapped child or a child of low physical potential? What parents aspire to have average children? If intelligence can be determined before birth, who would choose to have a child of substandard intellect? Chances are no one would. But if the day comes where selection is possible, will we have a society, perhaps even a world, populated by smart and physically adept human beings? If that day comes, who will work in the factories? Who will harvest our crops? Who will pave our roads? We cannot have a society made up exclusively of Alphas. We will need Betas, Gammas, Deltas, and Epsilons too. (Well, maybe not Epsilons. That is what immigration is for.) Fortunately, genetic screening will likely be expensive and beyond the reach of most people, genetic engineering even more so. That should ensure a steady supply of workers and provide a supporting cast.

If my concerns seem exaggerated I suggest one look to China where biological selection is already at work. For some time, the image of "1984" has haunted our society. Now we have "A Brave New World" to consider. The new discoveries in genetics will not allow us to design people, at least not yet, but it will give us an ability to genetically screen people before they are born. We may not be able to design the people we want any time soon but we will have taken a significant step towards being able to identify the people we don't want. When you think about it, that is almost the same thing.

Maybe He Means It

2011-08-05T13:33:00.038-05:00

Texas Governor Rick Perry has been in the press quite a bit lately. Most recently he attended a prayer rally called "The Response: A Call to Prayer for a Nation in Crisis" at Reliant Stadium in Houston. Evangelicals were there in abundance. No doubt that is why Perry was there. In addition to the unease any appeal to prayer by a public figure generally causes, the presence of many religious groups on the margins of society distinguished the event out as one of particular concern. Evangelicals such as John Hagee, known for his declaration that Hurricane Katrina was an act of divine vengeance and that the Catholic Church is the "Whore of Babylon" and groups like the International House of Prayer (not to be confused with the International House of Pancakes) whose leader, Mike Bikel, has called for a campaign of "spiritual warfare" against abortion and gay marriage were there. The list of speakers was long and troublesome one. Perry's presence at the conference raised eyebrows among many Republicans. Some are questioning why Perry, an early front runner for the Republican nomination, would seek to divert attention away from the economic crisis in Washington by attending a controversial prayer conference. All evidence indicates that the economy will be the major issue in the next presidential election.

Pundits, as well as many GOP political brokers, are shaking their heads. It is difficult to fathom why Perry would seek to carve out a place so far to the right and plant his flag so firmly on social issues when it is not necessary to do so.
With all the turmoil in the Middle East and the painstaking negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis, is it helpful for Perry to quote Scripture and declare that God gave Israel to the Jews? With all the technical and scientific deficiencies plaguing our public schools, shouldn't he give the issue more thought than to argue that creationism should be taught along side evolution? With so many other issues facing the nation, why would Perry seek to make a stand on moral issues, particularly issues likely to be divisive in the extreme?

Perry's appeal to evangelicals is counterproductive given the economic challenges the nation is facing. Perry has a strong economic platform to run on and no challenger to the right of him. To invoke divine guidance and rail against abortion and same sex marriage threatens to polarize an electorate increasingly united in its unease at the current state of affairs. Moreover, it serves to detract from Obama's growing vulnerability by giving him the opportunity to pose as a bulwark of moderation and reason, if not sanity, in the face of religious mania. The farther to the right Perry runs the closer to the center Obama will appear.

I do not understand what Perry is seeking to gain in his fundamentalist fervency. He has little to gain from it and much to lose. His conservative credentials are already impressive. I, like many political observers, have been inclined to see Perry's actions as some sort of political maneuvering. But it might not be maneuvering at all. Perry might sincerely believe that we can petition the Lord to come to our aid in our time of need and that God will continue to bless the U.S. as a light unto the world only so long as we uphold our covenant with Him. If that is the case, I wish him luck and would suggest he get himself a good agent. I see a job as a commentator on the FOX network in his future.

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul

2011-07-26T13:34:00.019-05:00

President Obama is asking vigorously for an increase in the debt limit that is threatening to bring the United States to a halt, and perhaps fiscal ruin. The House is proving resistant to his demands. The president is promising to make cuts in order to reduce future deficits. Republicans are reluctant to accept Obama's word. They want real cuts now as a condition for signing off on raising the debt limit. All the while, the clock is ticking. It will go off on August 2nd.

Raising the debt limit will not solve any problems. It will get us past the immediate crisis but it will just make the future budget problems all the more difficult. Moreover, whatever spending cuts are made to get the measure passed will almost certainly be contested, as will any concessions made, when the next budget is put forward. Even if the Republicans succeed magnificently in their plans to cut spending, a balanced budget will remain elusive. The deficit and, much worse, the debt will remain regardless of what is agreed upon in Washington and it is the debt that is the real problem. It is because of the debt that we had to pay $164 billion in interest last year. It is because of the debt that we are having this discussion today. As of June this year, the U.S. national debt totalled $14.46 trillion. Unless the U.S. does something about the debt, the spending problem in Washington will never go away. Every year the government will have to set aside over $150 billion off the top of whatever it takes in just to make payments. Even if the government gets back into the black, payments will have to be made and interest will have to be paid. That will make any black ink that might arise more difficult to maintain and less than it would have been otherwise.

Amid the discussion over raising the debt limit is the plight of those who rely on government spending for their well being. They are the ones most at risk. They are at one end of the budget debate. Financial ruin is at the other. You can be assured that the debt limit will be raised. Even the most doctrinaire republican will not bring the country to ruin or cast people into the street in order to protect a principal. The only question is what it will take to garner GOP support.

There is no way to address the debt unless we can rid ourselves of deficits. By raising the debt limit we only make deficits more likely and as a result make future more perilous. In seeking to avert present pain we are assuring future pain that likely will be much worse. By borrowing money we have no hope of paying off any time soon we are robbing the future. We are robbing Peter to pay Paul. We are robbing our children in order to cover our expenses. As important as the deficit and meeting our current obligations are, the debt is the larger problem. Every dollar added to the debt is a dollar that will demand interest. Every dollar paid in interest will be one less dollar our children will have to spend as the debt is carried forward.

What is Geography Worth?

2011-07-20T09:27:00.019-05:00

The result of the tests recently administered by the National Association of Educational Progress reinforced the already depressing statistics on public education in the U.S. The National Assessment of Educational Progress, as the test is called, is among other things known as the "nation's geography report card."

Only 20 percent of high school seniors tested were judged to be "proficient or better", slightly more than when the last test was given in 2010. 27 percent of eighth graders were judged to be so. Many were discouraged, not just by the continuing poor performance of the U.S.'s educational system, (typical of contemporary thinking in the U.S., the system was blamed), but by the low geography scores in particular. "Geography is not just about maps" said David Driscoll, chairman of the National Assessment Governing Board, "it is a rich and varied discipline that, now more than ever, is vital to understanding the connection between our global economy, environment, and diverse cultures." While I didn't take the time myself to follow the thread that connects geography to the global economy, Driscoll is correct. Geography is important. It is unfortunate that disciplines such as geography feel compelled to state their case in terms of their benefit to the economy but such are the times we live in.

It is noteworthy that in the attempts to put forward the importance of geography a much more potent opportunity was missed. A better understanding of geography on the part of the American public might have prevented a few reckless adventures on the part of the U.S. Throw in a smattering of world history and billions of dollars and thousands of lives could be saved.

You can blame teachers if you like. That would be the easiest thing to do. But it has been some time since teachers and schools have had control over what is taught in their classrooms. As troublesome as that is, they increasingly have less control over how things are taught in their classrooms. The blame lies elsewhere. It lay in an effort to identify just the right mix of facts and methods needed to create the effective little economic and scientific engines needed to drive America through the 21st century. If scores in geography are poor it is because the emphasis on geography is small. One can only imagine what the results of a national assessment on literature or art would be. Fortunately, literature and art are not essential to maintaining America's competitive edge. If they were, chances are we would be doomed.

Traps and Snares

2011-07-10T15:59:00.029-05:00

Unease is growing in the nation with the mounting national debt. Tension is Washington is rising as Republicans and Democrats try to find agreement on what to do about it. Democrats persist in arguing for the need to increase revenue, something they should have thought of before they went on a spending spree. Republicans insist on cutting spending. The zealous in both camps are reluctant to compromise even though, by most accounts, without a compromise nothing will be done. Meanwhile, the debt clock is ticking. If the debt limit is not raised by August the United States could go into default.

So badly have the talks gone so far that Republicans have walked out on negotiations. Their prospects are looking increasingly poor. They have refused to consider any tax increases. They are making a stand on cutting spending. The Democrats have expressed willingness to cut spending but only over the long term and in conjunction with increased revenue, i.e., higher taxes. Score one for the Democrats. Their willingness to "compromise" portrays them as pragmatic and flexible while the Republicans' principled opposition casts them as rigid and doctrinaire, even in the face of catastrophe. If the Republicans persist in their objections it is likely they will be seen as the ones responsible for any financial collapse. After all, if a deal is not reached it would be because the Republicans refused to budge. Should budget talks break down it is quite possible that the Republicans will be left holding the bag. That is the trap.

The Republicans came to victory in the last election largely due to their opposition to higher taxes and government spending. To give in to any tax increase or go soft on government spending would be to give up their single greatest weapon and undermine virtually everything they ran on. If they accede to a budget compromise that raises taxes or fails to reduce spending in any significant way what will they be able to run on in 2012? If government spending is firmly taken into hand republicans will be able to acquiesce to some tax increases. They might even burnish themselves and gain a touch of political responsibility for doing so. But in the absence of any significant cuts in spending the only result of a tax increase will be to allow the government to continue in its profligacy. In that event Republicans will have accomplished nothing. They will have abandoned their principals simply in order to buy some time. That is the snare Republicans face.

Democrats have few good options themselves. To unilaterally proceed to raise taxes would be to take the ire of voters upon themselves. To give in on spending would jeopardize their standing with the many millions of Americans who count upon government spending, not just to keep themselves above water, but for their livelihoods as well. There is also the more subtle threat reduced spending poses to progressives. To reduce federal spending is to hinder federal power. Without the velvet glove of money, only the iron gauntlet of law remains.

When it comes to raising taxes, republicans and democrats are in very different positions. Democrats can raise taxes without jeopardizing their political base. Republicans cannot. Because of this, democrats have more room to maneuver on the issue. Democrats can support increased taxes and keep their base content, as long as those taxes fall on the usual suspects. Republicans do not have that luxury. Most republicans oppose higher taxes of any kind. Unless a deal can be reached where only democrats will pay higher taxes, republicans will need something big to abandon their anti tax position. Simply keeping the government running will not be enough. If Congress cannot step up and do something to avert a train wreck perhaps Republicans should consider just getting out of the way.

The real test of the political resolve to address the debt will come in the fall of 2012. That is when we will learn how determined politicians are to tell the public the truth about spending and find out how willing the public is to accept what it will take to get the national debt under control.

Many years ago I learned the lesson that the first thing you should do if you find yourself in a hole is stop digging. Just digging more slowly won't help. That is a lesson that Congress and the president need to learn.

Are They Sure?

2011-07-05T17:05:00.009-05:00

It was reported this morning in the Dallas Morning News that, according to the most recent census, the Asian population in the Dallas/Fort Worth metropolitan area increased by a whopping 75 percent over the last ten years. Indians, Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, and other Asians are increasingly present throughout the greater Dallas area.

The list of numbers provided to illustrate the growth was impressive. The Asian population of Dallas increased by 35 percent over the last ten years to almost 120,000. They now represent 5 percent of the total population of Dallas. In Tarrant County the Asian population increased from 52,594 to 84,561: a growth of 60 percent. There are 31,890 Indians living in Collin County. There are 29,128 Vietnamese living in Tarrant county. There are 6,473 Koreans living in Denton County.

Rockwall County is located just northeast of Dallas. It is the smallest county in the greater Dallas area. It also experienced a growth in its Asian population. According to the census, there are now 62 Japanese living in Rockwall County. What I want to know is are they sure? Are they certain that there are not 61, or 63? Maybe one was out visiting one of the 23 Japanese who live in Kaufman County.

Holding the Poor Hostage

2011-06-28T20:20:00.110-05:00

It is wisely ordained by nature that private connections should prevail over universal views and considerations, otherwise our affections and action would be dissipated and lost for want of a proper limited object.

-David Hume

Leonard Pitts, an editorialist with the Miami Herald, has taken umbrage with those critical of government and resentful of their tax burden. Pitts makes the familiar and rarely challenged argument that government is necessary to any civilized society. He is correct. Government is indeed necessary. No one, at least no one not on the fringe of society, is arguing otherwise. It is a common rhetorical tactic to paint those critical of government spending as "anti government" and who, in their anti establishment zeal, seek to toss the baby out with the bath water. In fact, it is nothing of the sort.

The government is Washington is a behemoth. What it does not control, it regulates. What it does not regulate it manipulates. What it does not manipulate, it influences. Washington, specifically the people who run it and support it, has an insatiable appetite for control. There is no wrong it does not seek to right. There is no suffering it does not seek to ameliorate. There is no problem it believes is beyond its grasp. It is the desire to ease the plight of mankind and improve the world that progressives see when they examine themselves and their motivations. It is their efforts to reshape the world for the better that they behold when they look upon what they have achieved in Washington. To criticize their policies is to impugn their judgement. To criticize the efficacy of those policies is to impugn their efforts. This is why so many take criticism of the government so personally. To criticize the government is to criticize them.

The discussion over the size,scope, and cost of government is a discussion that needs to be had. The first item on the list of that discussion is the plain and simple fact that as things stand, the government of the United States cannot afford to pay for all the obligations it has taken upon itself. That is not a partisan position. It is an economic fact. The numbers prove it. Once that is established the hard part begins. Based on the money we have, what can we afford? Just as a parent who cannot afford to buy her child a new coat is not a miserly or indifferent parent, a government that cannot afford to provide subsidised health care to every one who needs it is not a miserly or indifferent government, despite what you may hear in the media. The heart and soul of politics is making decisions. It is the government that has to make decisions regarding what can and should be paid for and what cannot. It is the public that has to decide whether those decisions are good ones, or at least ones they can live with.

The first step toward this end is distinguishing between what we need government to do and what we want government to do. As many correctly point out, we need government. We need it to maintain police and fire departments. We need a military to defend us. We need agencies to ensure the water we drink is clean, that our buildings don't fall down, and that we are not swindled by banks. We need to pay taxes to make sure the government can do those things. But even those things are not immune from politics and budget pressure. If a town needs to choose between paying for a new sewer line or buying a new fire truck a decision has to be made. That decision will have to be made in a larger political context. If they can only afford one or the other, which will it be? That is what politics is about. To say the town needs both is not the same as to say the town can afford both. The problem in Washington is that paying for policies is too often subsequent to passing them. If they don't have the money when they get to the check out counter, and they haven't in a long time, they just pull out the credit card.

Where Pitts and others frequently err is on two fronts. First they overly dramatize the results of spending cuts. In Pitts' case he uses the example of a man so in need of medical treatment and so unable to afford it he robs a bank in order to be sent to prison where he can receive that treatment. A heart rending story indeed but a poor one to frame massive federal legislation around, even if you multiply it by a few thousand. Tragic stories of suffering are never difficult to find. But there are other more efficient and cost effective remedies for helping those in need than government policy. The problem is the best of those remedies lay in the private sector and have little appeal to those who want more from their beneficence than the satisfaction of helping others.

Neither would every budget cut result in people being cast into the street or going hungry. Not all government spending is for the benefit of those in need. Not by far. Only a little over 16% of the 2010 federal budget went to unemployment and welfare. Even a modest reduction in the other 84% would have significant results. The government took in $2.4 trillion last year. It spent spent $3.52 trillion. Some believe that each one of those 3.52 trillion dollars spent was necessary. There are even some who argue that more needed to be spent. It is quite a stretch, indeed it is ludicrous, to argue that making an effort to reduce the deficit, never mind addressing the debt, will result in people robbing banks or taking other desperate measures to obtain needed services. There is no reason for assistance to the poor and disabled to be any higher on the list of things to cut than foreign aide, defense, agriculture, tax breaks, economic subsidies, or any other item in the budget. To make the argument that the poor, the children, the blind and the crippled will be the ones to suffer if the budget is cut is simply to use them as human shields to protect government spending.

Decisions have to made regarding spending. Government has to distinguish between what it wants, what it needs, and what it can afford. Washington has proved to be extraordinarily unable to make a distinction. It has been trying to fund everything while persistently taking on new obligations. It simply cannot afford to do so. That is not politics. It is economics. The United States has become a junkie addicted to government spending. And, like a junkie, we need to quit. If we quit we will be miserable, at least for a time, but we will be better for it. If we don't quit, we will die. As anyone who has been in that position can tell you, as hard and unpleasant as the decision seems, there is only one choice.

The interest payments on the national debt last year totaled 202 billion dollars. $202 billion is a lot of money. We will pay more in interest this year. A lot could have been done with that money. Nothing was done with it. It was simply sent to our lenders. With hard work, sacrifice, and a willingness to curtail our hopes and dreams of what government can do for us the day could come when we can pay off the debt. If that day comes, we will have an extra couple of hundred billion dollars to spend. That will be the time for talking about all the wonderful things government should do for us. We can all have top notch schools, community clinics, and spanking new firetrucks. Best of all, we could sleep at night knowing they were paid for. But that day will never come until we can start balancing our budgets.

Pitts says he doesn't begrudge others for his tax money. That is fine. He is a good man. The problem is that it is not his tax money. It belongs to everyone. It is commendable to give your money away to help those in distress or pay for things you think are important. Sacrifice and charity are two of mankind's most noble traits. Compelling money from people and distributing it, (after you have covered your expenses naturally), is neither noble nor compassionate and adds nothing to a person's moral stature. Neither does it in any way make those whose money is taken away more charitable. It is little more than a business transaction undertaken to satisfy the sensibilities of those who feel things should be different.

Many people take some satisfaction in that by paying their taxes and supporting government programs they are helping those in need. They evidently feel that by simply paying their taxes and voicing their support they are doing their part to make society a better place, as if every poor person helped and every indigent person treated is in some small way due to their willingness to support programs and pay their taxes. Perhaps that is why they get so angered when social spending is cut: it makes them feel as if it is they who are being less charitable. If government cuts spending it does not mean that those in need have to go without. It does not make Americans less charitable or caring. It means that Americans will have to take the obligation of caring for others upon themselves. Clearly that is an obligation many people would rather not have.

We have been borrowing money to maintain an illusion of what Washington should be. If we do not stop, that illusion will become a delusion.

Yesterday Stone Wall, Tomorrow the World.

2011-06-19T14:08:00.065-05:00

When the United Nations Human Rights Commission meets next year in Geneva it is expected that it will take up the issue of gay and lesbian rights. Last year a resolution was introduced to the commission that would make abuse on the basis of sexual orientation a human rights violation. That is the resolution the commission will take up when it meets. The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission is excited. They called it "a historic opportunity to advance (homosexual) issues in a international human-rights law." It is indeed a historic occasion. Never before in human history has the argument been put forth that being able to consummate your desire for a person with whom you share genitalia without abuse or condemnation is a human right.

Despite the frequent use of the term on the part its supporters, the gay rights movement is not about love. The right to love whomever you want has never really been an issue. Indeed, to frame the issue in terms of love is a red herring. Some of the greatest literature in Western history has involved deep and enduring love between people of the same gender. What is, and always has been the issue, is the right to have sex with whomever you want, and, more recently, the right to marry whomever you want. It is the sexual component that has historically engendered the animosity directed toward homosexuals. It is the the social, legal, and religious challenges posed by an increasingly public and defiant homosexuality that lay behind much of the present day animosity.

Homosexuals have made great progress in the U.S. over the years. They are now able to express their love and desires openly, and legally, throughout the U.S. with little or no fear of legal retribution. They openly hold prominent positions in communities and in statehouses and Congress. They serve on boards of directors. They lead churches. They are frequently celebrated in the media and in Hollywood. In short, they are everywhere and do everything. The last lines of resistance, adoption and marriage, are rapidly being breached. Total victory is at hand. While pockets of resistance still exist and skirmishes still occur, they are no real threat to gays. Where disapproval of homosexuality appears it is quickly challenged, pilloried, and mocked. Hollywood is captured. State Houses have fallen. Washington is under siege. Gay rights in the U.S. are here to stay.

With victory in the U.S. largely achieved, homosexuals, along with their advocates and supporters, are taking their show on the road. Their objective is nothing less than global recognition of the rights they have demanded and obtained in the U.S. They want the world to catch up. Homosexuals and their supporters want to "connect the full range of human rights to sexual orientation, and to condemn the discrimination on its basis" said Paula Ettelbrick of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission. They want to make the pursuit and satisfaction of one's sexual desire for a person of the same gender a human right.

If the U.N. sees fit to make abuse based on sexual orientation a violation of a human right it will have acquiesced to a back handed attempt to establish sexual orientation as a human right. You cannot violate a right that does not exist. Sexual orientation will have taken a seat beside speech, liberty, and religion in the pantheon of human rights. If adopted the resolution will be yet another cudgel in the hands of the enlightened with which to to beat a backward and ignorant world.

Homosexuals are a group unlike any other the U.N. has been asked to confer human rights upon. Homosexuality cuts across every religious, racial, and ethnic demographic and encompasses both genders. The only thing that distinguishes homosexuals as group is their singular desire to have sex with people of the same gender as themselves. It is the right to consummate that desire without judgement or consequence that the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission wants to establish. One should be warned that there are many peculiar romantic and sexual desires. Quite a few them are found to be objectionable by the majority of people on this planet. If the pursuit and satisfaction of romantic and sexual desire is deemed a basic human right the future will be a bumpy one.

There are 193 nations in the U.N. Many do not tolerate homosexuality. Most do not embrace it. According to gay and lesbian activists, that needs to be changed. A good first step to bringing about that change will be to have the U.N. pass a resolution. It does not matter in the least that the rights of homosexuals can only be established if the right of people to organize their communities and maintain their customs, religious beliefs, and traditions is eclipsed. That is not an issue to those trying to perfect the world. For them culture, religion, and tradition are not bulwarks, they are obstacles.

Who Was Gettysburg?

2011-06-15T14:23:00.019-05:00

It was reported this morning in the Dallas Morning News that only 12% of high school seniors nationally were able to demonstrate proficiency on the National Assessment of Education Progress. The government found it encouraging that 8th graders did a little better. 20% of them demonstrated proficiency. Students taking the test scored most poorly on the section dealing with history. "The history scores released today show that student performance is still too low" said Education Secretary Arne Duncan. Interestingly, perhaps in a reflection of the current national obsession with the economy, students did best in economics, 42% of them were deemed proficient in the field.

Educators, with reason, blamed the system for the poor results. They assert that the No Child Left Behind program has compelled them to change emphasis from teaching history and science to focusing on reading and math. This is reasonable enough considering you cannot learn much about history if you cannot read and you would have a hard time making progress in science if you cannot do math. But what is neglected in all the measuring is the distinction between a necessary cause and a sufficient cause. Reading and math are necessary to a good education, but they are not sufficient. Other subjects are required. History is one of those subjects. History is also the subject students did most poorly on.

In the clamor over national competitiveness, attention has been turned to scientific and technological knowledge. History, literature, art, and other such subjects are pushed aside in the effort to ensure America's technological "edge" in the 21st century. Learning history will not make us more competitive. Only science can do that. As a result, less than a third of the eighth graders tested could list one advantage the Colonial Army had over the British in the Revolutionary War. Only twenty two percent could identify China as a participant in the Korean War. Ignorance of history was pervasive. From colonial history through the Civil War to the Great Depression, students' lack of knowledge was on display. Where more recent events were involved, students were better able to demonstrate a basic knowledge of dates, locations, and events, although many frequently erred in placing them in context.

None of this is likely to change anytime soon. History is one of those subjects that is commonly agreed to be important to any good education. It is also a subject where there is little agreement over what should be taught and how it should be taught. Debate inevitably arises over what merits discussion, what merits mention, and what can or should be excluded. A lot has happened in North America over the last four hundred years. All of it cannot be brought up in a few high school history classes. It certainly cannot be discussed. What compounds the problem is that even the narrow and abbreviated history that is taught is not being learned.

Kids don't care about the French and Indian War. What possible advantage could come from knowing about such a thing? It is not as if a potential employer is ever going to ask an applicant about it. It would be a waste of time trying to explain how history can broaden one's horizons and thereby make the world more comprehensible or how literature can give one insight into what it means to be human. Education is a tough enough task. There is no need to make it any tougher by introducing fuzzy topics likely to bewilder students. It is much better, and easier, to abstract history into a matter of numbers, dates, and brief descriptions that can be memorized and repeated.

History and the humanities are just not seen as important as science and technology. After all, even if students knew when, where, and what was at stake at the Battle of Gettysburg would that make them more productive citizens? Or would such knowledge just take up valuable space?

It's Not Just About Ethics.

2011-06-07T12:52:00.055-05:00

As anyone who has not been in a coma the last few days is aware, Rep. Anthony Wiener has gotten himself into trouble. After a week of steadfast denial and claims of being the victim of a plot to discredit him, Wiener admitted that he had sent lewd pictures of himself to a woman he met on face book as well as engaged in "several inappropriate conversations" on Twitter. He also admitted to engaging in "intimate sexual banter" with women on the Internet and over the phone. He stated that he did not know what he was thinking when he did so. I am not a psychic and I have never met Weiner but I will venture he knew exactly what he was thinking when conversing with the women he met. What he was not thinking about is that he is a married U.S. congressman and that the chances of him keeping his actions a secret were slim at best. Wiener did not avail himself of one of the discreet high class services that cater to the powerful and famous in Washington. He did not even seduce a staffer. He conducted himself like a hormone fueled teenager and engaged in sexual "banter" and sent lewd pictures of himself to a woman he met on face book.

Weiner's conduct is not simply a matter of ethics. It is a matter of self discipline, character and judgement as well. For a man in Weiner's position, with his tastes and predilections, self discipline is vital. But he did not even have the self discipline to do what it takes to keep his sexual inclinations off the Internet.

Despite whatever excuses Wiener might give for his actions, he did not yield to a temptation. His action was not an aberration as he claimed. He admitted he had engaged in sexual chat with others he had met on line. His action was part of a pattern of behavior. You do not just wake up one morning and decide you want to engage in sexual chat on line and send provocative pictures of yourself to people you meet on face book. Such desires are the product of cultivation and indulgence. Wiener's actions reflect a preoccupation and a weakness of character, not a simple lapse of judgment. Even if he claims, as he inevitably will, that he is suffering from some disorder or another that would change nothing. His conduct was beyond the pale. A letter from his therapist saying he is cured would do nothing to erase the stain he left on Congress.

Wiener's culpability extends far beyond the simple act of emailing lewd pictures of himself to a woman he met on line. Weiner may not have broken any laws but he exercised the poorest of judgement and demonstrated the weakest of characters not simply by committing the actions he did, but by lying about them afterwards. Like so many before him, Weiner decided that when all else fails, tell the truth and throw yourself on the mercy of the public. That might be an effective tactic in Hollywood where character and judgment are are not required to do one's job. But Washington is a different matter. The U.S. Congress is one place where character, self discipline, and judgement are essential: at least it should be.

It would be unfortunate if the lesson drawn from Wiener's downfall is the need for more discretion on the part of politicians in their sexual dalliances. Perhaps the next time character comes up as an issue in an election people should pay closer attention rather than shrugging it off as somehow irrelevant. Wiener lied to the public. He lied to his wife. We call people who lie liars. Why should we trust him if he says he has learned his lesson? Why should we trust any politician who, after being caught in a lie, says he has learned his lesson? Politicians of weak judgement and character cannot be relied upon and, in their efforts to hide their shortcomings, are more often a risk to their constituents than an asset.

It is commonly asserted that how a person conducts himself in private is of no concern to the public. It is asked what business is it of ours if a person is engaged in adultery, frequents prostitutes, or indulges in on line porn out of the public eye? The same question can be asked regarding other moral shortcomings. What business is it of ours if a person lies or exhibits cowardice in private? Does it really matter if a man is covetous, vain, or cheats at cards behind closed doors? The answer is it depends. If the person in question is a U.S. congressman the answer is yes. Vice is vice whether it is manifested in public or private. Immorality and weak character may be hidden or restrained in public but if they are privately indulged they will only become more entrenched. When coupled with a weak will, vice can exceed restraint. Wiener's inability to stop himself from acting recklessly out of his desires is a case in point. Wiener's job is to legislate on behalf his constituents. His constituents should very much care about his character.

If we want to be rid of lurid scandals and unethical behavior in Washington we should either abandon moral and ethical standards altogether or more diligently take the measure the of the politicians we elect. Either way we will wind up with politicians who have nothing to hide. Wiener's actions were not the result of lax ethics or inadequate rules. Neither were they the product of a bad decision. They were the result of questionable character and poor judgement. That is why Wiener is unfit to serve in Congress.

Who Cares About New Hampshire?

2011-06-05T20:12:00.032-05:00

In an editorial this morning David Leonhardt, a columnist for the New York Times, makes a complaint about the nation's primary system that has frequently been made before, and will frequently be made again. Leonhardt criticizes a primary system that begins in two of the least populated and representative states in the U.S., New Hampshire and Iowa. Leonhardt, and many others, argue that New Hampshire's and Iowa's place at the front of the line distorts presidential elections by compelling candidates to appeal to an almost exclusively middle class and rural population, i.e. an electorate unrepresentative of the U.S. at large. They are on the average older, more likely to have health insurance, slower to reproduce, and perhaps worst of all, whiter than the nation at large.

What is important to voters in New Hampshire and Iowa is understood by Leonhardt and others to be peculiar to the narrow demographics that make up those two states. When presidential aspirants appeal to the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire they stake out positions and policies calculated to gain the support of voters in those two states. Given the deep aversion to "flip flopping" on the part of candidates, positions adopted at the start of the campaign will be carried through to the general election. It would not do to say one thing to voters in New Hampshire and another thing to voters in California. To deal with this, the increasingly sophisticated art of obfuscation is required: another malady of modern politics.

This lament is borne of a very low estimation of the American public. It presumes that the vast majority of voters in the U.S. are either uninformed, lazy, or slow witted. Candidates, and as importantly their financial backers, seem to assume that voters in the rest of the United States reserve their opinions until the victories and electoral votes start piling up. It is a discredit to the U.S. electorate that this assumption has merit. To sacrifice or abandon one's political beliefs in order be on the side of a winner is lazy and opportunistic.

There is nothing necessarily undemocratic or unfair about the way the presidential primary system is set up. The political sensibilities of voters in New Hampshire should not in any way influence voters in Nebraska. Once the vagaries and generalities about "putting people to work" and "getting the nation moving" are gotten past the real issues emerge and those issues are not general or vague. Just as farm policy has little import to voters in Michigan, manufacturing and industrial policy have little import to voters in New Hampshire and Iowa. However voters in New Hampshire feel about free trade, voters in Michigan are likely to feel different. If voters in Michigan want to abandon their opinions in order to climb on a bandwagon launched in New Hampshire that is their prerogative, but they should not blame New Hampshire or the "system" for it. They are in no way obliged.

To those around the nation who feel they are being cheated or short changed by the early primaries in New Hampshire and Vermont I ask who cares what voters in Vermont and New Hampshire think? Why should voters in Alabama care one whit who voters in New Hampshire think is the best candidate? If voters around the nation are firm in their political positions and at all informed they will not, or at least should not, be swayed by what voters in New Hampshire think. A vote in New Hampshire does not count any more than a vote in Texas.

If the assumption that voters in New Hampshire and Vermont set the table for the rest of the nation is valid, do not blame the system. The system does not vote. Blame the voter. If voters in Ohio are inclined to base their votes on what voters in New Hampshire think they are only short changing themselves. Very few, however, are willing to blame voters for anything, certainly not in public. That is why every unexpected result and every brow raising victory is greeted with arguments that the system is askew and should be reformed. The system is not to blame. If anything is to blame it is the voter. But let's keep tinkering with the primary system. If we can somehow get it just right there should be fewer surprises. The most electable candidate will win every time, and who doesn't want the most electable candidate to win?

At this point in the campaign it is not really about voters at all. It is about money and backing. Presidential hopefuls are looking for momentum and all that it brings with it. They want to demonstrate "electability" and the first step takes place in New Hampshire. The answer to the question of who cares about New Hampshire is presidential hopefuls do. The answer to the question of why anyone else should care about New Hampshire is because presidential hopefuls do.

Tending the Farm

2011-06-02T17:53:00.033-05:00

Over the last 20 years residents in many parts of Dallas have come to rely upon federal money to help maintain their communities. Federal money has been distributed to organizations such as the Ferguson Road Initiative in Dallas to help support groups like Crime Watch as well as to finance graffiti clean ups, and drug education programs. Money was also used to fight crime through paying for increased police staffing and patrols and to maintain city services that would otherwise suffer for lack of funds. The "Weed and Seed" grants, as they are known, are intended to help weed out drugs and crime and seed the communities with services and projects to foster the bloom of revitalization. The results have been mixed. Many communities have seen a drop in crime and a rise in property values (not always a blessing). Others have not.

The Weed and Seed program was enacted under President George H.W. Bush to revitalize communities through five year grants distributed to foster development and improve services. Some communities are already under their fourth five year grant. For 20 years communities like Far East Dallas have been weeding and seeding. They have pulled roots and tilled the soil. But they still rely on the government to provide the fertilizer and the seeds.

The Weed and Seed program is facing dissolution. Money is tight in Washington and a few corners are being cut. The Weed and Seed program is in one of those corners. In Dallas, of Ferguson Road Initiative's current annual budget of $400,000, $156,000 is from Washington. By many accounts, the Ferguson Road Initiative has done well, just not well enough to make itself irrelevant. Without continued federal funding it will have to cut programs and, even worse, lay people off.

Alice Zaccarello, the executive Director of the Ferguson Road Initiative claims the cuts will impact all of Dallas, not just her neighborhood. "I don't think the general population realizes that when Weed and Seed can reduce crime in high-crime areas, then every other area in the city of Dallas benefits." That might be true under the casuistry that what benefits one benefits all. But in reality of the hundreds of square miles that make up the City of Dallas a drop in crime or up tic in property values in Fergsun Road will be unnoticed.

When groups like the Ferguson Road Initiative in Far East Dallas need federal funds to stay afloat it is a sign that the nation has become overly dependent upon the federal government. This is in part a result of short sighted thinking on the part of the federal and local government. They tend to think in terms of simple dollars and conflate money with results. It is also a result of calculation on the part of many in Washington to bring more and more economic and political activity under the purview of Washington. Federal money is often a snare designed to entrap state and local governments and bring them further into reliance upon Washington.

The Ferguson Road Initiative needs federal money. A lot of people need federal money. The Founding Fathers would be astounded to find that in only a little under 250 years, states and cities have become so enfeebled that they cannot operate without federal support.

Crime and Punishment

2011-05-26T16:31:00.030-05:00

Jose Arturo Guerra is a senior at South Texas University. It was discovered that he is in the United States illegally. It is quite possible he will be deported. His fate will be decided Wednesday at his immigration hearing.

This is not Guerra's first brush with immigration law. In 2005 Guerra's visa expired while he was home visiting in Mexico. Not willing to apply for a new one, Guerra decided to sneak back into the U.S. He was apprehended and sent home. Undeterred, he made a second attempt and succeeded. It was not until last December that Guerra's status was discovered and his problems began. What has complicated Guerra's immigration problems is that when he was apprehended the first time he falsely claimed to be a U.S. citizen. That claim could disqualify him from ever becoming a one.

Guerra and his supporters are making the case that not only would his deportation be unfair, it would be financially foolish. They are questioning whether it would make sense to deport someone after spending thousands of dollars to educate him. Once again, they are missing the point. The thousands of dollars that were spent on Guerra's education would not have been spent had his immigration status been known. The money spent to educate him was spent under false pretenses. It is not as if that money would have been wasted had it not been spent on Guerra. It would simply have gone to someone else, ideally someone here legally.

Guerra is not a victim here. His predicament is entirely his own fault. He was apprehended entering the country illegally. Even though he knew that what he was doing is illegal, he made a second attempt. Guerra compounded his actions by wrongfully claiming he was a U.S. citizen, a much more serious offense.

Pity for Guerra should be reserved. He is not being banished to a life of misery and desolation in the wilderness. He has family in Mexico. If it is true, as was reported, that Guerra hardly knows them, that is not a problem the U.S. should be concerned with. Indeed, whatever hardships and deprivations Guerra might face in Mexico are not due to U.S. immigration policy. They are matters to be taken up with the Mexican government.

Jose Guerra is a poster child for immigration reform. He is intelligent, hard working and ambitious. It would be easy to see him as a victim of fate or circumstance. But he is not. Guerra's problems are due to his violation of U.S. law. There are punishments for breaking the law. The punishment for entering the U.S. illegally is deportation. The U.S. has laws on immigration. An important job of government is to make sure that laws are obeyed. Guerra knowingly violated U.S. law. He was caught and now he is being punished. There is nothing unjust about it. That is precisely how the system is supposed to work. If you do not like U.S. immigration laws, change them. In the mean time, like all laws, they should be enforced.

Guerra was hoping that he would not be caught and that, if he was, his transgression would be overlooked. He was mistaken on both counts. Everyone who enters the country illegally hopes that they will not be caught. The porous nature of our border encourages that hope. Everyone who is caught hopes they will not be punished. The haphazard enforcement of immigration laws encourages that hope.

Whatever the lamentations of immigration activists, Guerra is not being persecuted. He is being punished for violating the law. He is not being sent to jail. He is being sent home.

How Much Time is Left?

2011-05-19T21:32:00.089-05:00

The clock has started ticking in the Levant. It is set to go off in September when the Palestinians will seek recognition as a state by the U.N. General Assembly along the lines of the 1967 border. Given the make up of the U.N., it is likely that recognition will be had. If it is granted Israel will find itself in a difficult position. Should a Palestinian state be recognized, Israel would overnight find itself an occupying power. Not that it would matter much. Israel has shown little but disdain for the U.N. and its resolutions over the years. Nevertheless, a formal recognition of the 1967 borders would officially make Israel a transgressor in violation of international law. That would be a serious blow to Israel's international standing (such as it is) and severely complicate its desire for continued expansion. It might even occasion sanctions.

Naturally, Israel and the U.S. were critical of the move. Israel condemned the action as a threat to the peace process. It insists that any resolution of the issue must go through Jerusalem, a sensible enough demand since any agreement would ultimately have to be one Israel could live with. The U.S. disapproved of the action since not only would the move undermine its efforts to find a solution to the problem: a project it has been working on intermittently for over 40 years, it would potentially place it in conflict with its most important ally in the region. U.N. recognition of a Palestinian state would be much more than another rebuke of Israel. The international recognition of a Palestinian State along the lines of the 1967 border would change the whole dynamic of Palestinian Israeli negotiations. Israel could find itself in the position of negotiating to keep land rather than to give it away.

As a new era is emerging in the Middle East the U.S. is finding itself in an increasingly awkward position. After advocating democracy, self determination, and pluralism throughout the region it is reinforcing ethnic division in Israel and being pressured to throttle the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people. As the U.S. twists and turns it is inviting the charge of hypocrisy and risking the ire of emerging regimes, to say nothing of alienating a whole new generation of Arabs.

By all means the Palestinians and the Israelis should keep talking. But it should be kept in mind that it is the Palestinians who are suffering while the talking is going on. If the Palestinians can be persuaded to wait, perhaps in a decade or two we might have an agreement, assuming there is anything left to negotiate. But time is not on the Palestinians' side. The longer negotiations go on, the less there is to negotiate. If Palestinians cannot get satisfaction at the hands of Israel or the U.S. they should not be blamed for seeking it elsewhere. If Israel wants negotiations to go through Jerusalem it should make it possible for them to go through Jerusalem rather than stop in Jerusalem.

If you look at a map of Israel at its founding in 1948 and compare it with a map of Israel in 1967 it is clear that even if Israel was persuaded to return to the 1967 borders, it is still coming out very much ahead. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has condemned the proposal claiming that a return to the 1967 border would render Israel indefensible. Against whom? The Palestinians would have no army and Jordan poses absolutely no threat to Israel. Whatever danger Israel faces, it is not from the east unless you include Iran. When it comes to Iran, the Jordan River is no barrier. The most probable reason for Israel's insistence on a military presence along the Jordan River is to keep the Palestinians in a bottle. As for terrorism, a Palestinian state would have every incentive to prevent infiltration by Hezbollah or other radical organizations. The presence of such groups would give Israel ample pretext to intervene and reoccupy the West Bank and thereby doom any chance of a sovereign Palestine along the Jordon River.

The only threat the Palestinians hold to Israel is their presence. Israel wants to get rid of them. There is very little room in a Jewish state for non Jews. It will drive out the Palestinians it can and build a wall around the ones it can't. The Palestinians are not just fighting to get a state of their own, they are fighting for a place to live. Short of being allowed citizenship in Israel, the only place Palestinians will be secure in their lives, property, and possessions is in a state of their own. Israel ought to appreciate that.

What if the Rebels Don't Win?

2011-05-18T04:44:00.003-05:00

Rebels in Libya have begun to turn things around in their fight against Gaddafi's troops. After weeks of stalled fighting it was reported that they had gained ground and made progress in their struggle to break the siege of Misrata by capturing an airport and pushing government troops, aka Gaddafi's troops, from the western suburbs. Rebel victories have been few and far between since the rebellion began, much to NATO's dismay.

Western support of the rebels has been increasing since fighting first broke out. After the rebellion began, the West quickly imposed more sanctions on the Libyan government. When the increased sanctions didn't work, a "no fly" zone was implemented and the Libyan air force was quickly grounded. When the "no fly" zone didn't succeed in tipping the balance, combat air support was provided. Libyan tanks, artillery, and mechanized forces were soon hobbled. Since March 31st, NATO has carried out more than 2,400 air strikes, including some aimed directly at Gaddafi's himself. Still, the rebellion is foundering.

The fighting has been going on for nearly three months since riots first broke out in Benghazi. The U.S. and its allies are determined to help the rebellion succeed. Indeed the only reason the fighting has lasted this long is because of NATO air support and military assistance. Given the level of support being provided, if the rebellion doesn't succeed, the West will suffer a major black eye. Dictators in the region and around the world would take heart.

The U.S. and NATO have invested themselves heavily in the struggle. They have expanded their mission from protecting rebel forces to providing combat air support and interdiction. NATO has struck at government troops, supply routes, and logistics and command centers. It has been hitting targets of its own choosing for some time in cities like Tripoli. It has even targeted Qaddafi himself. By investing themselves heavily in the success of the rebels, Western military prestige is on the line. A rebel defeat would be a NATO defeat. After a string of impressive air campaigns by the West, its perfect record is in jeopardy. If one country can withstand a NATO onslaught, others can. The West is determined that an example not be set.

If the rebels do manage to win, it will not be due to the legitimacy of their cause or their military prowess. It will be due to Western military efforts. If they succeed, they will have the U.S. and NATO to thank. In the eyes of the West, that would be a very good thing.

What Limit?

2011-05-17T17:55:00.034-05:00

According to a report in this morning's New York Times the federal government has reached its $14.3 trillion debt limit. That would not be a problem, well, not as big a problem anyway, if the government did not need more money to get it through the year, but it does. Discussion is under way on what to do about it. Republicans want spending cuts. Democrats want to increase revenue. It is anticipated that a compromise will be reached. A compromise will have to be reached. It is inconceivable that taxes could be raised or spending cut enough to put the nation back in the black any time soon.

There is talk in Washington that something will have to be done. Unfortunately, such talk is rarely little more than symbolic. When Washington speaks about addressing spending it is trying to send a message that it is serious about addressing the issue even, or especially, if it is not serious about it. Nevertheless, it is a necessary message to send, not just to the public, but to our lenders as well. You know you are in trouble when lenders begin to get squeamish about lending you more money.

The government is in serious financial straights. There will be stern countenances and grave pronouncements but the debt limit will be raised. A balanced budget is flat out of the question. In 2009 the government had a $1.84 trillion deficit. Last year it ran a deficit of $1.26 trillion. It is anticipated that the deficit for this year will be a more modest $929 billion. Even if the trend continues, it will be many years before black ink is seen. The debt is going to go up as sure as the sun is going to rise. The only question is by how much.

A debt limit that can be raised when it becomes inconvenient is not a limit. It is at best a hurdle. Until we can pass a balanced budget why even talk about addressing the debt?

What if the Rebels Don't Win?

2011-05-12T09:16:00.010-05:00

Rebels in Libya have begun to turn things around in their fight against government troops. After weeks of stalled fighting it was reported that they had gained ground and made progress in their struggle to break the siege of Misrata by capturing an airport and pushing government troops, aka Gaddafi's troops, from the western suburbs. Rebel victories have been few and far between since the rebellion began, much to NATO's dismay.

Western support of the rebels has been increasing since fighting first broke out. After the rebellion began, the West quickly imposed sanctions, more sanctions that is, on the Libyan government. When the increased sanctions didn't work, a "no fly" zone was implemented and the Libyan air force was quickly grounded. When the "no fly" zone didn't succeed in tipping the balance, combat air support was provided. Libyan tanks, artillery, and mechanized forces were soon hobbled. Since March 31st, NATO has carried out more than 2,400 air strikes, including some aimed directly at Gaddafi himself. Still, the rebellion is foundering.

The fighting has been going on for nearly three months since riots first broke out in Benghazi. The U.S. and its allies are determined to help the rebellion succeed. Indeed the only reason the fighting has lasted this long is because of NATO air support and military assistance. Given the level of support being provided, if the rebellion doesn't succeed, the West will suffer a major black eye. Dictators in the region and around the world would take heart in knowing that even in the face of Western support, a rebellion can be beaten.

The U.S. and NATO have committed themselves to the struggle. They have expanded their mission from protecting rebel forces to providing combat air support and interdiction. NATO has struck at government troops, supply routes, and logistics and command centers. It has been hitting targets of its own choosing for some time in cities like Tripoli. It has even targeted Gaddafi himself. Because it has invested itself heavily in the success of the rebellion, Western military prestige is on the line.

If the rebels manage to win, it will not be due to the legitimacy of their cause or their military prowess. It will be due to Western military power. Because of that, any new government in Libya will carry a stigma. A rebel defeat on the other hand would be a NATO defeat. After a string of impressive air campaigns by the West, its perfect record is in jeopardy. If one country can withstand a NATO onslaught, others can. The West is determined that an example not be set.

The West's insistence on levelling the playing field in Libya and elsewhere is disingenuous. Wars, civil or otherwise, are not supposed to be fair fights. They never have been.

There is a Growing Choice

2011-05-06T09:04:00.032-05:00

There is a troubling political undercurrent in Afghanistan. Recently President Karzai has been making moves to improve his country's relationship with neighboring Pakistan. In a meeting with Pakistani officials, both countries pledged to work at building closer ties. Included as part of those warming ties, Karzai was encouraged to move Afghanistan closer to Pakistan and China and by extension move away from the U.S. This makes sense if you look at a map. Pakistan and China are in the neighborhood. Afghanistan has to live in that neighborhood.

As the recent execution of Bin Laden demonstrates, Pakistan can be a problematic neighbor. Despite that, Afghanistan and Pakistan have much in common, not the least of which is religion. The greater concern however is China. China is a growing power in the world. As China's scientific expertise and economic prowess increase it is beginning to challenge U.S. hegemony around the world. It is doing so quietly without pageant or posturing.

The U.S. has expertise and markets but it brings with it a lot of baggage. There are many countries in the world where doing business with the U.S. is at best a necessary concession. China does not concern itself over political or social demands, it travels light. China is about business, not human rights or democracy. China is not seeking to change the world or reform nations and people. That is why China has been able to quietly expand its influence where similar U.S. activity would inspire headlines and protest.

There is a growing choice in the world. The U.S. is becoming only one option for nations seeking to grow their economies and improve trade. The spectacular growth of Chinese economic power is a catalyst for its growing involvement in world affairs. As its economic power and technical expertise grow, China is becoming a potent global competitor to the U.S. It also has an abundance of natural resources and a growing market that in time will dwarf the U.S. On top of that, its political savvy and military ability are increasing.

If countries do not need U.S. markets or U.S. protection why do they need the U.S.? Why suffer the pestering and prodding of the U.S. if you can simply do business with someone else? Why get caught up in the geopolitical intrigue of the U.S. if you do not have to? Why put up with a lecture if you can just take a check?

The day might soon come when nations will have a choice between orienting themselves towards the East or the West. When that day comes the U.S. will be at a distinct disadvantage. Politics aside, how can you compete when you are in debt to your competitor to a tune of $1 trillion. Yes, the U.S. has principals and values. But you cannot put those in the bank.

What is Winning a Presidential Election Worth?

2011-05-01T19:43:00.036-05:00

The scrambling has already begun for next year's presidential election. Well, republican scrambling has begun. It is not expected that there will be much scrambling in the democratic party. With the primary season still months away potential candidates are not looking for votes. They are looking for money. Votes won't count for another year or so. At this point, a candidate's status is measured by the money he is able to raise. The more viable a candidate is perceived to be, the more money he can expect to raise. The more money he raises, the more viable he becomes.

It has been reported that President Obama might be able to raise as much as $1 billion for his reelection campaign. That's right, $1 billion. No republican is even close. Well, perhaps Donald Trump can find a few hundred million but that would likely have to come out of his pocket, not his supporters'. The RNC brought in $7 million in March. Mitt Romney, one of the early GOP front runners, is hoping to raise $50 million over the next couple of months.

There are many things wrong with America at the moment that could significantly be improved with $1 billion. The irony of liberals spending a billion dollars in order to elect a president who will spend hundreds of millions of dollars to advance their cause is lost on them. But what is a billion dollars in the larger scheme of things? Obama has already spent more than a trillion dollars to help improve his chances for reelection. If it takes another billion to keep him in office, to many that is a bargain.

I suppose it all comes down to what winning a presidential election is worth to a person. For some it is all but priceless.

Every Silver Lining Has a Dark Cloud

2011-04-26T09:35:00.046-05:00

There is troubling news from Egypt. According to a recent Pew Center poll, the majority of Egyptians favor ending the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel that was signed 32 years ago. When the treaty was signed between the two nations it was heralded as a mile stone. It showed that there could be peace between Arabs and Israelis. Now, after the fall of the Egyptian government, that treaty could be in peril.

Democracy in the Middle East has long been a goal of U.S. policy. For years the U.S. has prodded nations in the region to move towards more open and representative government. In the last several months the U.S. has become almost giddy at the prospect of finally achieving its political goals in the region. But, as the recent Pew Center poll has revealed, the move towards democracy in the Middle East is not without its perils.

Over the last several decades, negotiations with the Arab world were simple. We only needed to reach agreement with the leader of a nation. Once an agreement was reached, the leader of that nation could be relied upon to observe that agreement whether the people of that nation approved or not. Those days are quickly coming to and end. Those days will be missed.

The Pew Center poll revealed many troubling issues on the horizon. While the poll revealed that the vast majority of Egyptians, 77% according to the poll, are happy Mubarak is gone, the joy on the part of Egyptians is not simply due to personal dislike. A key element of that dislike was Mubarak's foreign policy.

During his tenure, Mubarak became an important and reliable partner for the U.S. in the region. However, only 32% of Egyptians approve of U.S. policy in the Middle East. Only 20% of Egyptians view the U.S. favorably. 43% of Egyptians asked want cooler ties with the U.S. against only 15% who want closer relations. The majority of Egyptians are angered over Israel's treatment of Palestinians. It gets worse. Another poll revealed that 37% of Egyptians had a "very favorable" view of the Muslim Brotherhood, a hard line Islamic party and that 62% of the people felt that the law should more strictly follow the Koran. As if that weren't enough, over half of those polled feel that the 1979 peace agreement signed between Israel and Egypt should be annulled.

What should also be disturbing from the U.S. point of view is that a large majority of Egyptians are satisfied with their religious leaders. Even though religious fundamentalists in the nation are still on the margins, that can change very quickly. Unlike the U.S., Muslims tend to adhere to their religion and listen to their religious leaders. It cannot be assumed that Egyptians will abandon their mosques if their mullahs start to tilt toward the right. Muslims are not Episcopalians.

Before the uprising it didn't matter much how ordinary Egyptians felt about Israel and U.S. policy in the region. Soon it will. Both Israel and the U.S. are going to have to keep that in mind. According to the poll, most people in Egypt are looking forward to a new government. The question is whether we should.

What is the Problem With Bigamy?

2011-04-18T14:59:00.063-05:00

The Dallas Morning News regularly runs a column called Crime Stoppers. In the column, a list of people currently wanted by the Dallas police department is published a long with a photo of the person and the charge they are wanted on. The crimes typically cover a wide range of offenses, from public intoxication and burglary to armed robbery and murder. (I have not yet discerned how or why particular people are chosen for an appearance in the column.) In this morning's paper, there was a listing I have not seen before. Sean Block, age 30, is wanted for bigamy.

It is surprising that in this enlightened age of homosexual marriage that there are still laws against bigamy. Certainly the idea of traditional marriage as one between one man and one woman is not a barrier. If two men decide they want to get married, many demand that the state accede to their request. Many courts have upheld the legitimacy of gay marriage and conferred upon it the same rights and privileges accorded to traditional marriage. Any infringement of that right usually must be able to withstand a high level of scrutiny.

Laws against miscegenation, adultery and fornication have long gone by the board. So why are laws against bigamy, to say nothing of polygamy, allowed to stand? Is it because bigamy undermines the idea of marriage as a union between one man and one woman? That cannot be it. That barrier has been breached. Could it be because polygamy is contrary to what is written in the Bible? That is a laughable proposition. Since when have the courts cared what is in the Bible? Could it be because polygamy is seen to undermine the morals or threaten the health of the community? Certainly that is not the case. Morality we are told is simply a subjective set of beliefs that do not bind anyone but the person who feels them and there is no evidence that bigamy is any more of a threat to public health than monogamy. Moreover, as is often chanted by the left, you cannot legislate morality. Essentially, the reason bigamy is illegal is because most people, liberal and conservative alike, (albeit for very different reasons), object to it. So strong are the feelings against bigamy that any religion that embraces it or group that advocates for it is scorned. Tolerance, religious or otherwise, does not extend to bigamy.

It can, (and likely one day will), be argued that bigamy hurts no one. Where bigamy is the result of coercion or involves minors it becomes a matter where the law is obliged to step in. If a bigamous marriage is the result deceit there is already a legal remedy. It is called divorce. Where bigamy involves consenting adults, there is no basis for legal interference, especially if it is rooted in religious tradition. Simply put, bigamy is illegal because most people object to it. It is an institution that runs contrary to Christian tradition and the moral sensibilities of an overwhelming majority of Americans. But why should it matter what most people or particular religions think? As we have been told time and time again, just because something offends people or violates a religious tenet is no basis to make it illegal.

Often in the U.S., when it comes to moral issues it doesn't matter what the public thinks. As far as the law is concerned, public opinion is not important. Why should it matter how Americans feel about polygamy? By the standards of modern relativism, traditional marriage is simply one of the last remnants of an antiquated notion of religion and moral propriety. If we are to keep making progress towards the ideal society, cobwebs such as bourgeoisie notion that marriage should be confined to a union between two consenting adults must be swept away. If Jane can marry Betty, why can't Robert marry Sarah and Ruth?

Custom, tradition, and community sensibilities have been steadily eroding as foundations of law. Without them, we are left with only reason to guide us. Reason alone is not a sufficient basis for drafting law. It never has been. This is because simply following a line of reasoning can lead not only to places one doesn't want to go, but also to places one never imagined to go.

Doing What They Can.

2011-04-14T18:59:00.049-05:00

Struck by the catastrophe in Japan following the recent tsunami, countries around the globe have been coming to Japan's aide. Supplies, money, and assistance are arriving daily. The scope and depth of the destruction that followed the earthquake has moved the world. Now, the fashion industry is seeking to be of assistance.

The fashion industry has decided to take a little time out of its busy schedule to hold the Fashion and Friends for Japan Auction. Many of those attending the auction won't even open their own car doors. The industry will put up for bids delights such as a week long stay at Dianne Furstenburg's Harbor Island beach house along with a complimentary shopping spree. (It is unlikely Dianne will be there to host her guests.) The opening bid for that treat is $16,000. Also up for bids is the opportunity to meet Anna Windsor and attend a Vogue Magazine photo shoot, opening bid $6,750. Other prizes on the block include a style consultation with Rachel Zoe, opening bid $3,250. Money raised from the auction will go to help Japan.

Like their colleagues in Hollywood, the fashion industry desires a sheen of compassion. Also like their colleagues in Hollywood, they want it without having to actually do anything but make an appearance or a gesture and look fabulous while doing so. This arrangement is perfectly natural to those who expect something from their giving. If you are going to shell out a few thousand dollars to help a worthy cause you should at least get a style consultation or a shopping spree out of it. I would love to know what becomes of the losing bids. Do the checkbooks stay open or are they closed and put away?

Dianne Furstenburg has decided to let people stay at her house for a week. Rachel Zoe has agreed to give some fashion advice. What are you doing to help people in Japan? If anyone is still on the fence and needs a little extra incentive to give, my schedule is wide open. I'd be happy to give you some fashion advice. For a good enough donation you can stay at my apartment.

They Will Pay With Their Lives. We Will Not.

2011-04-08T23:21:00.030-05:00

Yesterday, a Palestinian missile struck an Israeli school bus injuring the driver and seriously wounding a child. The Palestinian group Hamas claimed credit for the attack. In response, Israel launched attacks of its own on Palestinians in Gaza. Hamas has launched numerous rockets at Israel recently. While the attacks have done little damage and caused few casualties, they have infuriated Israel. It has run out of patience.

Fourteen Palestinians have been killed so far as a result of Israeli retaliation. Seven of those killed were Palestinian militants. One was a policeman. Six were civilians. Three of the civilians killed were killed by tank fire. Two of the Palestinian civilians, one an 11 year old boy, were killed at a cemetery while attending a funeral. More Israeli attacks can be expected. No one in Gaza is safe. That some of those killed were Hamas fighters should not really make much of a difference. Israel makes no distinction between its soldiers and civilians. A soldier killed by Palestinians is no more tolerable to Israel than a civilian being killed. It would not be a surprise if Hamas does not make that distinction either.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu growled that "whoever tries to harm and murder children will pay with their life", and he meant it. Well, he meant it in a sense. No Israeli is going to pay with their life for the 11 year old boy killed at the funeral. No Israeli will even pay a shekel for that. That is because the deaths of Palestinians have to be placed in perspective. Circumstances need to be taken into account. If a Palestinian child is injured or killed in an Israeli raid it is unfortunate, but it has to be placed in the context of the larger struggle. Israel may not deliberately kill children, but it still kills them. Every Israeli death on the other hand, whether deliberate or incidental, whether man, woman, child, civilian, or soldier, is a crime and must be avenged.There are no mitigating circumstances. There never are and there never will be.

Palestinians who kill Israeli children will have to pay with their lives. Israelis who kill Palestinian children will be excused. You can say that there is a difference between the deliberate killing of a child and an incidental killing of a child. You would be right. But that difference is only observed where Israeli forces are concerned. Palestinians receive no credit if a rocket they fired at a military target veered off course or if a group of Israeli soldiers they fired upon turned out to be civilians. An Israeli tank firing an errant round (I would assume it was an errant round but one can never be sure), and kills Palestinian children is at best an unfortunate incident. At worst, it is "justice". Just as you cannot fire rockets and missiles at cities and not expect to kill civilians, you cannot fire tank cannons or drop bombs on cities and not expect to kill civilians.

Netanyahu was correct when he asserted that anyone who kills or harms a child should be punished. He is in error if he believes that only the deaths of Jewish children merit retribution. It should not matter whether the child is Jewish or Arab. Palestinians deserve justice as much as Israelis do.

The problem is that Palestinians cannot bring Israelis to justice. All they have is vengeance. Until an Israeli appears in a Palestinian court, the only recourse for Palestinians is violence. Six Palestinian civilians including an 11 year old boy have so far died in Israel's retaliation to Hamas' missile attack. It is certain more will die. The Palestinians will want justice as well. It is unlikely they will get it. Because they will not get it, neither for the lives they have lost nor the property they have had seized or destroyed, future violence is assured. Some say the Palestinians deserve what they get because they started it, but that is a matter of perspective. It greatly depends on where you draw the start line.

Israel commonly misconstrues justice with vengeance. It should not be a surprise that Palestinians do so as well.

Sleight of Hand

2011-04-06T17:34:00.030-05:00

News reports are coming out of Libya daily. Each day there are accounts of the fighting between loyalists and rebels. Some days, the reports reads like a box score: this town has changed hands, this many tanks were destroyed, this much land has been gained or lost. More often than not, where the Libyan Army is competently led and not decimated by allied air forces, it triumphs.

What is interesting about the reports is that government forces are rarely referred to as the Libyan Army. They are commonly referred to as Gaddafi's troops. They are not Gaddafi's troops. They are the Libyan Army. In an AP report this morning nine paragraphs were written on the fighting in Libya. Not once was the Libyan Army referred to by name. Perhaps it is because an army is a legitimate institution authorized to act in defense of a nation. "Troops" lack that legitimacy because they are typically construed acting at the behest of whoever is leading them, not the nation. An army is made up of troops. An army serves a nation. An army does what it is told to do. We are not bombing and killing Ghadaffi's troops, we are bombing and killing Libyan troops.

While there are armed militias fighting along side the Libyan Army, the army is the main force in the field. Those with allegiance to the government of Libya are not described as loyal to the government or the country, but loyal to Qaddafi. Qadaffi may be in charge of the army and command its loyalty but it is not his army, it is the Libyan army.

By many accounts, Libya does not even have a government. It has a "regime". "Government" implies established and legitimate authority. "Regime" connotes a capricious and authoritarian rule. A rebellion against a "regime" is a much less problematic cause to support than a rebellion against a legitimate government. But this is a sleight of hand. All governments are regimes. A regime is simply a system of rule or government. (If you don't believe me you can look it up in Webster's Dictionary). All governments seek to preserve themselves and their authority against rebellion. Most governments will use force if necessary to put a rebellion down.

The United States has had its own experience with rebellion. In 1861 the South rebelled against the Union. The North was not interested in negotiating with the rebels. It did not seek compromise. It waged war. We should be grateful that the British were not more aggressive in their support of the rebels. Had the British been more active in their support of the Confederacy chances are the rebels would have won. Americans should also be grateful there was no U.N. when the Civil War was fought. The brutality of that war, particularly by the North, would surely have prompted U.N. intervention.

Qaddafi is the internationally recognized leader of Libya. He is not a usurper or a conqueror. The forces aligned against Qaddafi are rebelling against the government of Libya. You can support Qaddafi, although I suspect you won't, or you can oppose him. You can cheer for him, although I suspect you won't, or you can jeer. Either way you are taking a side with or against the legitimate authority of the Libyan government.

I Bet You Didn't Know This

2011-04-02T16:29:00.021-05:00

In the latest yearly jobs report by Parade Magazine, different professionals were listed according to their salaries. A gemologist in Kennewick, Washington earned $60,000 last year. An Air Force officer in Peoria, Arizona earned $103,000. A food truck owner in Salt Lake City, Utah earned $43,000. A Fed Ex pilot in Illinois made $148,000. A ballet dancer in New York City made $16,800. What was of particular interest was that an astrologer in Phoenix, Arizona made $177,250 last year: more money than everyone on the list except for the plastic surgeon in Las Vegas. He made $1 million last year.

Ironically, a meteorologist in Warwick, Rhode Island made $90,000 last year, slightly more than half of what the astrologer made. Both astrologers and meteorologists are concerned with predicting the future. If you want to know whether you should go ahead with your plans for that outdoor wedding, if income is a sign of talent, you might want to consider ignoring the meteorologist and consult the astrologer.

So, if your child hasn't yet decided on a career and they are not cut out to be a surgeon or a pilot, you might suggest he become an astrologer. Not only is it a time honored profession, it can be a well paying one. Whatever you do, do not let him go to New York City and become a ballet dancer unless he is exceptionally good. Even a food truck driver can make more money than a ballet dancer.

I am curious what a good phrenologist can make in a year.

Pastor Rob Bell

2011-03-28T17:01:00.039-05:00

Pastor Rob Bell is making waves in evangelical circles. He is even being accused of heresy, specifically evangelical heresy. In his book Love Wins , Bell asserts that God's love will triumph over sin, regardless of how grave the sin might be and even if a person does not repent and ask to be saved. That is an outrage to many evangelicals to whom God's wrath is a central tenet. Bell really hits a nerve when he asserts everyone will be saved. This is where he parts ways with most evangelical protestants. What is the point of having rules if there is no punishment for violating them? What is the point of Hell if no one is sent there?

Bell is no St. Augustine. He is a man with a Masters of Divinity degree who has founded his own church. He may draw thousands on Sunday, but that does not make him a theologian. Along side nearly two thousand years of Church history and exhaustive work on the part of real theologians, Bell posits his own interpretation of Christianity. In the free for all that has come to characterize modern protestantism, that is certainly his prerogative. In the religious circus that frequently makes up world of evangelical Christianity it is not surprising. The only check on evangelical heresy is the congregation. As long as people come in on Sunday and leave some money behind it really doesn't matter what the pastor preaches. Stature in the evangelical world is measured by congregants and donations, not orthodoxy.

Pastor Bell is not asking questions that have not already been asked. The questions of salvation, grace, sin, and repentance have been at the heart of Christianity since its founding. Many of the greatest minds in history have wrestled with the subject. Now Rob Bell, an evangelical pastor in Michigan, has weighed in. Bell argues that God's love can transcend sin. Of course it can. Outside of the fire and brimstone world of evangelical protestantism, that is not an issue. The issue is whether people want mercy, whether they are willing to humble themselves and admit they need it, and whether they are sincerely willing to ask for it.

I only want to know why people should care what Pastor Rob Bell thinks? Anyone can pick up a Bible and interpret it by their own lights. That is a major reason why for centuries the Church prohibited people from reading the Bible. Pastor Bell is no Martin Luther. He is an evangelical pastor from North Carolina. No one should live in fear of Bellism.

Obama Has Some Explaining to Do.

2011-03-26T15:59:00.022-05:00

When President Obama addresses the nation on Monday he will seek to explain the reasoning behind the air campaign launched against Libya. When the campaign commenced it was announced that the purpose of the operation was to protect Libyan civilians from air attacks by forces loyal to Gadhafi. After air defenses were knocked out, the Libyan air force was soon swept from the skies. It was then announced that the next step would also be to protect civilians, this time from the tanks and artillery of Libyan army. Loyalist ground forces in the open were quickly decimated. Still, Gadhafi's forces refused to yield and pressed onward. It was assumed by some that, deprived of air power and hobbled by the loss of mechanized units and supplies, loyalist forces would vacate the field. They didn't. While a rebel collapse was avoided, they are still largely on the defensive. That might change very soon. The rebels might be out manned and outgunned, but they now have a top rate air force.

The United States is frustrated by the lack of rebel success so far in defeating the Libyan military, so it has decided to go over to offense. Instead of simply interdicting the Libyan air force, coalition aircraft have begun supplying air support to rebel troops on the ground. They have already attacked government forces blocking the rebel advance on Tripoli as well as loyalist troops threatening the rebel held city of Benghazi. The U.S. is considering bringing in attack helicopters to assist rebel troops. Rather than simply grounding Gaddafi's air force and protecting civilians, the United States is now assisting rebel forces fighting in the field. What began as a mission to ground the Libyan air force and protect civilians has become one of providing combat air support for rebel troops.

How far are we willing to go the ensure rebel success? Are we prepared for the event if the rebels lose? Can we afford to build another nation if the rebels win? I would say President Obama has some explaining to do.

Just Stopping By

2011-03-22T22:54:00.050-05:00

Former Governor Sarah Palin was the most recent of the Republicans exploring a run at the presidency in 2012 to visit Israel. Yesterday, Palin had dinner with Prime Minister Netanyahu after a quick visit to Jerusalem. Palin's trip was described as a personal visit. While in Jerusalem she toured the holy sites. It has become routine for presidential hopefuls to pay homage to Israel. Israel has a special place in the heart of many Americans. Even employed politicians, such as Governor Perry of Texas, have found time to stop in and pay respects.

As is common while in Jerusalem, Palin visited some of the holy sites. She visited the Mount of Olives and stood before the Wailing Wall where she was "overwhelmed" to touch the "cornerstone of our faith", as if the Wailing Wall was the cornerstone of the Christian faith. She also spoke glowingly of America's close ties with Israel. It is curious given the tumult in the Middle East that Palin found no time to speak on events in the region: a strange silence for someone seeking to establish her foreign policy credentials.

Neither did she find time to visit any Muslim Holy sites while in Israel. Had she put in the effort she might have learned that Islam and Christianity have more in common than most people realize: certainly more than fundamentalists of either faith might think. Few Americans, and even fewer Evangelicals, are aware that when Islam first appeared in the late 6th century it was viewed not as a new religion, but as a heretical Christian sect. The reason for that misunderstanding is that, unlike Judaism, Islam recognizes Jesus, albeit as a great prophet, not the Son of God. Islam also recognizes the Virgin Mary and the miraculous birth of Jesus. Indeed, Mary is one of only two women mentioned by name in the Koran. Of course, the Immaculate Conception and the veneration of the Virgin Mary by any religion do not carry much weight with evangelicals.

Israel is a fetish for evangelicals. Evangelicals are a key constituency for any Republican hoping to win the nomination. Therefore, any Republican contemplating a run for the presidency must pay homage to Israel. While many recognize the pragmatic relationship between the U.S. and Israel, the obsequiousness on the part of some U.S. leaders, such as that displayed by Palin, does absolutely nothing to further our interests in the Middle East. America's near blind loyalty to Israel only encourages Israeli intransigence and undermines our ability to be an objective broker in the region.

A visit by an American politician to a Muslim holy site would be a significant gesture to demonstrate America's lack of antipathy for Islam. After invading two Muslim nations and bombing another, it seems the least an American leader can do is to visit a mosque and show respect. It wouldn't have been difficult. The Dome of the Rock was just up the hill. In fairness, Palin's trip to Israel was described as a private visit. Whatever her motives, she clearly did not go there to explore her faith.

For the record, I am an Orthodox Christian. If any church has good reason to bear a grudge against Islam, it is the Orthodox Church. It was our churches that were overrun by Muslims, not the Baptists' or the Pentecostals'.

Shariah Law is Law

2011-03-19T22:12:00.025-05:00

Many in Pakistan, including its president, are angry over the release of an American contractor accused of killing two Pakistani motorcyclists. The contractor, Raymond Davis, was freed and allowed to leave the country after paying the victim's families an unspecified amount of money. The arrangement was made with local tribal leaders with the help of the Pakistani government. The families of the two slain men agreed to accept "blood money" instead of pursuing the matter in court. After the agreement with the victim's' families was reached, Davis quickly left the country. Although the agreement was made in accordance with Shariah law it was not made in a Shariah court under Islamic judges as Shariah law requires. Once word got out, Islamic groups, as well as rank and file Pakistanis, became furious and took to the streets.

The U.S. has often looked askew at Islamic law, particularly Shariah law. Shariah law is frequently perceived in the West as antiquated and, in some cases, even barbaric. Normally, the U.S. would protest if one of its citizens were to be subjected to Shariah law. Yet, in this case, to circumvent Pakistani law, the U.S., with help from the Pakistani government, made an appeal to local leaders to negotiate terms for Davis's release under Shariah law. Those terms were agreed upon and Davis was released.

Many of the rules, procedures, and punishments permitted under Shariah law are repugnant to American sensibilities. For example, under Shariah law it is permissible for a husband to beat his wife so long as no marks are left. It is almost impossible to imagine a circumstance under which the U.S. would support an appeal to Shariah law on behalf of one of its citizens. I say almost impossible because it does happen, much to Davis' relief. Before Davis' case I would have said impossible, as I am sure many would have.

The U.S. is a staunch advocate of the rule of law, and it remains so. It can be flexible regarding which law when the situation demands. In Davis' case, it was decided that a more advantageous outcome could be attained under Shariah law than secular law so secular court was avoided. So, Davis is free, the U.S. is relieved, the victim's family is satisfied, and Pakistanis are furious. It is a win, win, win, lose situation.

Like "reform", when the U.S. speaks of the rule of law it usually has something very particular in mind. In any event, we should not expect the U.S. to support another appeal to Shariah law any time soon.

What I Saw in America: The Anti-federalists on our Financial Crisis

2011-03-19T12:08:00.000-05:00

What I Saw in America: The Anti-federalists on our Financial Crisis

Stop Me Before I Spend Again.

2011-03-17T09:47:00.046-05:00

Many Republicans ran in the last election promising to abolish the practice of earmarks. Earmarks are provisions inserted into bills that set aside funding for particular projects with little or no congressional oversight.Those that won promised they would adhere to their pledge, and they did. When the new congress convened it banned earmarks. Now, many in Congress are attempting to maneuver around their promise by pressuring agency heads to steer money their way. You can't really call it a kick back, but it is close. The political reality in Washington is that unless you can deliver jobs and money to your constituents you are perceived as having little use.

There is a tendency to rely upon rules to to modify behavior. Congress cannot muster the will to stop spending, so they pass rules to try and force themselves to stop. But they will not stop because the American public demands spending. Despite the growing antipathy to federal spending among the electorate, people still expect the government to do things for them and as they see it, the job of their congressman is to make sure those things are done. As long as there is an appetite for bacon there will be a market for it.

Congress can pass all the rules it wants to try and control itself but unless the people step up and demand that government cut back, the spending will not cease. Spending is not an institutional problem, it is a political problem. Congress cannot be reformed by changing the rules, it can only be reformed by changing the culture. As has been shown time and time again, if there is a will to spend, a way will be found to spend.

It is not Washington that has the spending problem, it is the American people. Until the American people elect a congress that will not pilfer the treasury and spend beyond its means, we will have a congress that pilfers the treasury and spends beyond its means. There are only two ways to stop the bloated spending by the government. You can either adopt a stern constitutional amendment to prohibit it, or find an electorate that will not tolerate it.

Not if They Quit

2011-03-13T11:54:00.022-05:00

Cigarette taxes will soon be going up. Washington is planning to more than double cigarette taxes from 39 cents per pack to $1.01 a pack. The increased tax is expected to bring in $33 billion over the next four and a half years. One problem in the move that Washington has not considered is that if the tax succeeds in reducing smoking, that $33 billion it anticipates collecting will evaporate. If the tax increase works, fewer people will smoke which in turn means that they will no longer buy cigarettes. If they do not buy cigarettes, they will not pay the tax and that $33 billion the government anticipates the higher taxes will bring in will not appear.

The extra revenue the government hopes to bring in through the tax increase has already found its way into the budget. Plans are currently being made on what it will do with the extra money. But if fewer people smoke, the money that the government anticipates having in the future will not be there. The taxes will not be paid if people don't buy cigarettes. The government cannot have it both ways. They cannot rely on increased revenue by raising taxes on cigarettes while trying to get people to quit.

As a smoker, the government has given me a strong incentive to quit. If I succeed, it will not be because of cost or health concerns, but out of spite. Perhaps the best reason of all to quit is to help put all of the nags who are employed to agitate against tobacco out of work. If I get a few more years above ground and cheat the government out of some tax money for doing so, that will just be gravy.

Once the government gets rid of the smokers and the chewers they are going to have a hole in their budget. They will have to find something else to tax. There is no telling what that might be. You can be confident that whatever it is, it will be something that tastes good or is fun to do.

First they came for the smokers but I didn't care because I was not a smoker. Then they came for the obese but I didn't care because I was not obese.

Slip of the Tongue?

2011-03-12T17:24:00.021-06:00

Vice President Joe Biden was in Moldova recently. He was greeted by thousands of people waving Moldovan and American flags. While there he urged the country to fight corruption. He also urged Moldovans to embrace political reform. Moldova is a small, land locked nation of four and a half million people about 800 miles east of Berlin. To encourage the nation to embrace reform, Biden stated that the U.S. was willing to provide support if the country would move for closer relations with the European Union and the U.S.

Biden went a little bit further in his comments. He told Moldovans not simply to embrace reform, but to embrace pro-Western democratic reforms. It has been clear for sometime that when an American politician speaks of reform what he means is a pro-Western democracy. Many in the U.S. believe that democracy is the highest form of political development. Marx was on the right track, he just had the wrong system.

Perhaps Biden was just trying to entice Moldova by hinting that if it moves closer to the U.S. it can expect to be rewarded. No doubt Biden believes that all real political reform leads to democracy and all democracies are good neighbors. Conventional wisdom aside, democracies do go to war. Neither does economic reform lead to capitalism nor capitalism to wealth. Even if it did, capitalism is certainly no guarantor of peace. The struggle for markets and resources has led to endless intrigue and countless wars.

Biden did not simply encourage reform, he encouraged reform in a manner most suitable to the U.S. and the West. It is not difficult to see why many leaders around the globe bristle when the U.S. chides them to reform. Perhaps Biden's call for "pro-Western reform" was a slip of the tongue. Perhaps not. It might have simply reflected the belief that all real reform is pro-Western. We are rich and powerful. We must be right. On the other hand, Biden's comments might have reflected a desire for more markets and a more pliable world to pursue our interests in.

Protests and Funerals

2011-03-07T08:36:00.042-06:00

Many years ago as a undergraduate at a small Catholic college, I took a class on English Literature. It turned out to be one of the most instructive courses I ever took. I have long forgotten the details of the class but a few of the things I learned have remained. Most important of those things was an approach to literary criticism. The core of assessing literature, according to the professor, was determining what was being expressed in a work and how it was being expressed. Great literature addresses great subjects. Great subjects are those that transcend time and place. They address things all men have grappled with ever since men first began thinking and feeling. Subjects such as love, hate, hope, and fear are timeless. Every man has access to them because every man has experienced them. They exist in the lives of all men regardless of time, place, and circumstance.

Feelings, on the other hand, make for poor literature. They also make for poor art. Feelings have little relevance beyond those who happen to feel them. Art made to express the artist's feeling about a particular subject bring little insight. Such art is more about the artist than the subject. In emotive art, the artist seeks to express how she feels about a subject, not to inspire reflection or provide perspective to the viewer. The viewer may share the artist's sentiments or he may not. In either case, little, if any, insight is gained. The viewer is pleased, irritated, or indifferent. Such art rarely rises above sentiment. Good art is not about the artist's feelings.

Secondly, great art requires talent. Talent is the language of the the artist. Talent allows the artist to explore and articulate his subject. An artist without talent can no more create a good piece of art than a man with a poor vocabulary can write a good novel or carpenter without talent build a good house. A talentless artist may envision great things but he will be unable to express them in the manner they deserve. One could attempt to explore the Passion of Christ or man's struggle to find purpose in the universe, but if one can only pile rocks upon each other or put a crucifix in a jar of urine one will never be able to explore the greatness or plumb the depths of their subject.

The same distinction can be applied to the spate of offensive protests occuring at military funerals.There is what is being expressed, and there is how and where it is being expressed.There should be no restraint on what is expressed, no matter how objectionable or repugnant, but there is room for restraint on how and where it is expressed. There are other ways to express one's opposition to policy than shouting taunts and insults at families trying to bury their loved ones. Protesters should find those ways.

People's right to protest should be unlimited. But how they protest and where they protest are different matters. To claim a right to offend and insult mourners at military funerals is not to insist on a right to free speech. It is demanding a right to scorn. To disparage mourners at military funeral is not speech. It is spite.

No one is telling people that they cannot protest. They are only being told that they cannot disrupt a funeral. That is not censorship. The only thing that the protesters are being denied is the right to shock and offend mourners. No one is stopping them from expressing their views and opinions. No one is stopping them from writing a play or creating a work of art. No one is stopping them from circulating a petition or marching on city hall. No one is stopping them from holding a rally or running ads. If the protesters are too inarticulate and too limited in their horizon to express their opinions other than through offending people at a funeral, that is their problem.

Up There Somewhere

2011-03-03T13:53:00.039-06:00

Nine boys were killed Wednesday in Afghanistan when a NATO helicopter mistakenly fired on them. The attack took place after a NATO military base in the area had been rocketed earlier in the day. General David Petraeus, commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, apologized for the attack.

The military base that was the target of the rocket attack sits in a valley. The rockets were fired from one of the hills overlooking the valley. The location of insurgents who fired on the base was not known in any detail. According to the troops on the ground, the insurgents were simply up in the hills. All that the helicopters had to go on was what the troops on the ground had told them. After the helicopters arrived, they fired indirectly on the "assessed point of origin", i.e. where it was thought the rocket fire came from. Indirect fire means you cannot see what you are shooting at. The helicopters were not actually shooting at insurgents. They were shooting at an area where insurgents were suspected of hiding. Also, according to NATO officials, the helicopters were returning fire, yet nothing was said about the helicopters receiving fire. The troops on the ground may have been fired at, but the helicopters weren't. The helicopters were not returning fire, they were firing.

There probably were insurgents up there somewhere. But there were also nine boys up there collecting firewood. The military forces in the valley did not know that because they did not go up the hill to look for who had fired on them. They called in the helicopters. The helicopters did not know that there were nine boys down there collecting firewood because no one told them and they did not look. They launched rockets and fired machine guns at where insurgents were suspected to be lurking but they did not actually look to see if there were any insurgents. The helicopters just presumed that whoever fired the rockets was still loitering about and that there were no civilians near by.

So, nine boys are dead because NATO did not want to put soldiers at risk by sending them up a hill where the enemy might be hiding or send helicopters in too close where they might have been shot at. This does not seem the way an army should fight. An army, at least an army trying to win the hearts and minds of a population, should not put civilians at risk in order to protect soldiers. It should do just the opposite.

NATO might have spared itself a few casualties but in doing so it killed nine boys and fueled the animosity of Afghans already angered at growing civilian casualties. Perhaps the families of those nine boys will accept General Petraeus' apology. Perhaps everyone who has lost a family member, a limb, or a livelihood will accept an apology. It is worth a try. If that doesn't work, there is always money.

General Petraeus stated in his apology that the deaths never should have happened. He is right. They shouldn't have. If the soldiers had climbed the hill rather than wait for helicopters, chances are those children would still be alive. Asking soldiers to climb a hill and find the enemy is not asking too much of them. It is their job.

Don't Count Your Chickens Yet

2011-02-26T08:47:00.063-06:00

Turmoil in the Middle East shows no sign of abating. If anything, it threatens to get worse. Thousands continue to take to the streets, and stay in the streets, demanding everything from democracy to jobs. Protesters in Tunisia are calling for the resignation of the prime minister and new elections. Tens of thousands in Egypt continue to demand reforms. In Jordan, Iraq, Bahrain, and Yemen, people are calling for better government services and an end to corruption. Even in Saudi Arabia, the bastion of conservative Islam, protesters are popping up.

In their eagerness to report the growing unrest in the region, many in the media are misleading the public. The U.S. government is doing little to correct this. The monarchy in Saudi Arabia, though cautious, is not in jeopardy. The 4,000 people in Jordan who turned out to protest are no real threat to the government there. Compounding the issue is that protesters across the region are not all clamoring for the same things. Some want jobs. Some want an end to corruption. Some want greater autonomy. Some want power. Some want Islamic republics. Some want democracy, at least democracy as they understand it. In Libya, protesters clashed with a government the U.S. opposes. In Bahrain, protesters clashed with a government the U.S. supports. The only thing many of the uprisings have in common is their dissatisfaction with the status quo.

It is not uncommon, indeed it is historically typical, for mass uprisings to lead to authoritarian governments. Demands for power and reform are not demands for liberty. Many groups are well aware that if they pose their resistance in terms of democracy and rights they can garner the support of the U.S.: provided their uprising is in the U.S.'s interest. At the moment, most of the uprisings in the Middle East are in the U.S.'s interest. The results may not be. The toppling of the Shah in 1979 gave us Khomeini. Elections in Gaza gave us Hamas.

Representative governments are just that, representative. They exist to represent the will of the people, whatever the will of the people may be. It can be expected that there will be a push for constitutions in any new democracies that might emerge. The theory behind such a push is that a constitution would cement a democratic victory and prevent backsliding into authoritarian rule. In order to resolve sectarian and ethnic tensions in the absence of a strong central government, a representative scheme would have be devised in which each group or sect would have a seat at the table. That alone should be enough to dampen the high hopes now current in the West. A group that took to the streets to achieve its goals will be unlikely to give those goals away at the bargaining table. If they are to give something up, they will want to be paid.

Democratic governments are not political ends. They are political means. Any democratic governments that emerge in the Middle East will be precarious. Once in place they will face the difficult task of sorting out the grievances that led to the uprisings and meeting the demands of the people. People did not take to the streets in support of a political theory. They took to the streets in response to corruption and ineptitude and out of the desire for better lives. If the new governments prove unable to satisfy the demands of the people, unrest will return. If it does return, there is no way of knowing what the demands would be then. It should be remembered that Hamas gained power by meeting the needs of a people weary at the corrupt and inept rule of the Palestinian Authority.

Constitutions, especially new ones, are flimsy barriers to authoritarianism. Democratic governments are no barrier. The only real guarantor of a democratic government is a democratic people. A democratic government does not create a democratic people. There is very little history of representative government in the Middle East and less tradition. In countries that have never known representative government or individual liberty, democracy will have to be built from scratch.

In some ways, the hardest part is just beginning. In a democratic Middle East, the U.S. and Israel will no longer be able to simply negotiate with the leader of a state. We will have to negotiate with the people as well. People can be much more demanding and unpredictable than a government. Incidents such as the Israeli boarding of an aide ship heading for Gaza, the bulldozing of a Palestinian village, or an errant rocket attack can be minimized and controlled where governments are insulated from the sentiments of the people. A government beholden to the people will not be as insulated.

While we should be optimistic at the events unfolding in the Middle East, it should be kept in mind that democracy does not bring prosperity. There are many poor democracies. Democracy does not end corruption or inefficiency. Experience has shown it is often riddled with both. Democracy does not bring social harmony. Democracies are prone to turmoil. Democracy does not ensure peace. Democracies go to war as well as autocracies. There are few problems in the Middle East that will be solved through democracy. Still, it is a step in the right direction and it should be applauded.

Don't Ask the Monkeys

2011-02-20T12:12:00.058-06:00

Researchers at the Oregon National Primate Center conducting studies of fat monkeys have determined that obesity among primates is deleterious to their health. A group of monkeys was fed a steady diet of fatty and sugar laden food in order to make them obese. Some of the monkeys were kept locked in their cages to simulate the lack of physical activity that often accompanies over eating. "We were trying to induce the couch potato style" said one researcher. As expected, the monkeys gained weight. Some became obese. Monkeys were used because, in addition to their similarity to humans, their diet and activity are easily controlled and monitored. More importantly, they do not lie about what they eat.

Several conclusions were made from the study. First, eating poorly and physical inactivity leads to weight increase. Secondly, monkeys, like people, prefer rich, fatty foods and tend to eat when they are bored. Lastly, it was observed that obesity in monkeys leads to health problems such as diabetes.

Arguably, there are few reasons to study obesity. We know what causes it and we know what results from it. The only thing we are not sure of is why people seem complacent about it. Most people who are overweight know they are overweight. With few exceptions, they also know why they are overweight and that being so is not good for their health.

There is really nothing mysterious about the phenomenon of obesity. People are prone to doing things they should not do. They lie when they know that lying is wrong. They watch TV when they know they should be working in the yard. They spend time on facebook when they know they should be doing something else. They eat potato chips by the bag full when they know no good will come from it. The phenomenon of doing something we know is harmful or that we should not do is a subject that has perplexed thinkers for thousands of years. The only thing that has changed is the perception of the problem.

Human behavior has shifted from being a philosophical and theological problem to a psychological and physiological one. I doubt scientists will have better luck in getting to the bottom of why people conduct themselves as they do than St. Augustine and Aristotle did. If anything, they will accomplish less. Aristotle and St. Augustine sought to understand human behavior. Scientists only try to explain it.

Scientists are searching for a cause or trigger: a gene, a brain chemical, an environmental factor, something to explain obesity. They will not find one. What they should be looking for is character and self discipline. Every one should be looking for those. In the mean time, we will keep spending time and money trying to understand what any good high school football coach already knows: if you want to lose weight and get in shape put down the cup cakes and start moving.

It is unclear to me why the study was conducted. If the purpose of the study was to learn the consequences of poor diet and inactivity, it was a waste of time. We know what those consequences are. If the study was aimed at learning the cause of obesity, it was an equal waste of time. We know what causes obesity and, as importantly, we know how to get rid of it. The only thing we are unsure of is why some people don't seem willing to do anything about it. We will not get the answer to that from studying monkeys. Monkeys don't know any better, people do.

Setting a Bad Example

2011-02-11T14:48:00.052-06:00

It is reported that hospitals and medical businesses have begun to adopt strict rules intended to weed out smokers in their midst. Increasingly, they are refusing to hire people who smoke or use tobacco. Some employers are reaching beyond the workplace and administering urine tests to screen out tobacco users. Two reasons are given for the adoption of strict policies against tobacco use. First is the concern over appearances. It is felt by some in the medical profession that smoking by health care workers sets a bad example. Secondly, there are economic concerns. People who use tobacco tend to have more health problems than those who don't. Because of that, they increase health care costs and diminish productivity when they fall ill. In this reasoning, the medical profession is simply falling into line with the economic casuists in evaluating human behavior in terms of costs and benefits.

While the move can be considered as part of the growing impatience with tobacco users in this country, there is a more troubling component to this thinking that even those who do not use tobacco should be concerned about. If health and economic productivity are to be prime measures of human behavior, the door which is being pushed against will be kicked wide open. Many habits and behaviors work against health and undermine economic productivity. Chief among those are eating poorly and not exercising. The health and economic costs of obesity in the U.S. exceed the costs of tobacco. Over 30% of Americans are currently obese. Obesity is defined as being 30 or more pounds overweight. While the number of smokers goes down every year, the number of obese goes up. People who are overweight are more prone to injury and illness and more likely to miss time at work than those who are not overweight. From diabetes and heart disease, to bad knees and fatigue, overweight people cost time and money.

If the health care industry is going to ban tobacco use by employees in order to set a good example, they should do something about overweight doctors and nurses as well. They should consider penalizing health care workers who are over weight. They should also prohibit them from eating hot dogs, french fries, and other unhealthy foods. If a doctor smoking a cigarette sends a bad message, what message does an overweight doctor eating a cheeseburger send?

Getting to a Real Discussion Over Abortion

2011-02-10T09:12:00.045-06:00

A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine reported significant progress has been made in prenatal surgery in the struggle against spina bifida. Over 1,500 children a year are born with it. Spina bifida is a condition where the spinal cord does not fully close and, among other things, can lead to paralysis. The study was warmly welcomed by scientists, researchers, and doctors. Dr. Terry Buchmiller, former Chief Resident in Pediatric Surgery at the Children's Hospital in Boston, stated that it culminated a "wonderful, almost several decade journey of trying to improve the outcome of a debilitating condition". She went on to herald the procedure as "potentially life changing." Others applauded it as a promising step in the evolving field of prenatal surgery.

There has been great effort put into treating children in the womb. One of the most significant advances in the field has been prenatal surgery. Researchers and doctors have long labored to find ways to treat children and correct their problems before they are born. Fetal surgery offers hope. Not only does it offer hope to children facing the challenge of spina bifida, it also holds promise of treating neurological problems as well as bladder defects and sickle cell anemia. It is anticipated that as the field develops, other conditions and disorders will be treatable before birth. In the case of treating spina bifida, the results were so good that the study was halted early so that the procedure could be adopted immediately.

As prenatal medicine evolves, women contemplating aborting their still developing children due to serious medical concerns have hope. The painful choice between giving birth to a child who will face a lifetime of serious, and at times difficult, challenges and terminating that child will become less common as the threat of those challenges diminishes. As a result, the decision whether to give birth will become easier for some and more complicated for others.

For those who want to give birth, the decision will be easier because their child will likely face fewer challenges over the course of their lives. Indeed, some children will face no challenge at all. For those inclined to abort a handicapped baby, (or fetus if you prefer), the decision whether to abort will be more difficult as they must weigh the potential burden of a disability against the promise provided by advancing medical science. As prenatal care advances, physical deformity and other challenges will no longer be the the threat they once were. Less and less will they be reasons for terminating a pregnancy. For those who are merely harboring a fetus, prenatal medicine is irrelevant.

As doctors increasingly become able to treat children in the womb, the reasons for having an abortion will become fewer. If the day ever comes when the only reason for having an abortion is because a woman simply does not want the child, the argument over abortion will have reached its core. On that day we will finally be able to have a real discussion over the issue.

It is a strange world indeed where some doctors labor to treat children in the womb while other doctors endeavor to destroy them.

One Man?

2011-02-01T12:03:00.031-06:00

A Detroit immigration judge ordered 88 year old retired auto engineer John Klayman deported. Four years ago he was stripped of his citizenship after admitting that he killed a Jew while serving with German security forces in Russia in 1942. He later denied it.

I would not be surprised if Klayman did kill a Jew. I am sure he killed many people and committed numerous crimes during WWII. German security forces in Russia were particularly savage. Many villages were burned to the ground and their inhabitants killed, sent to camps, or left to starve. The Germans even shot dogs in their kennels. But Klayman is not being deported for committing an atrocity or participating in a massacre. He is being deported for killing a man in the middle of a world war nearly 70 years ago on a day when thousands of men were killed. If he had admitted to killing a Gypsy or a Pole on that fateful day in 1942 he might have gotten away with it. But he didn't, and now he is being deported.

Whose Egypt?

2011-01-31T14:39:00.054-06:00

Things are not going particularly well for the U.S. in the Middle East. The "democratic" governments the U.S. has striven to create in Iraq and Afghanistan are fragile and rely heavily on the U.S. Without continued American support and financial aide the odds of those governments lasting a year would be slim. Over ten years after the U.S. toppled the regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan order in those countries is precarious. Iran remains a growing threat in the region and perhaps beyond. Talks between Israel and the Palestinians are proving resistant to U.S. efforts to move them along. Now, our single most important Arab partner in the Middle East is in turmoil. Over a half century of U.S. involvement in the region and billions of dollars have not yet produced the Middle East we have hoped for.

For decades the U.S. has striven to produce a stable Middle East. We thought we had learned a lesson from the Iranian Revolution. The lesson we thought we had learned was that support for autocratic regimes was counter productive, even dangerous. We thought that if we could bring democracy and economic progress we could create a stable, and perhaps even friendly, Middle East. If nothing else we could finally take the region off the front page. The results of our efforts are not very good. Despite the history of our attempts we have yet to learn that as difficult as it is to create a democracy where there is no tradition of one, it is even more difficult to maintain one. In the absence of a democratic people, a democratic government is a fleeting and dangerous thing.

One of the few bright spots in the Middle East has been Egypt. Over the years Egypt has changed from a Soviet client and a near implacable enemy into a moderate and reliable partner, albeit a not very democratic one. Egypt made peace with Israel. It has worked with the U.S. on issues in the region. It has cooperated with Israel in restraining Hamas. We have come to rely on Egypt as a stabilizing force in the region. All that is now in jeopardy.

We invaded Iraq and sought to create a democracy. We invaded Afghanistan and sought to create a democracy. We assumed the people in Afghanistan and Iraq wanted democracy, but we didn't really ask them. We have wanted a democracy in Egypt for a long time. We have come close but our reach has continually exceeded our grasp. We know what kind of Egypt we want. We will have to wait to see what kind of Egypt the Egyptians want. Egypt is not ours. It belongs to the Egyptians. Little good will come out of U.S. interference. No good will come out of Israeli interference.

Throwing our lot in with an unpopular regime rarely ends well. The U.S. should learn from its past mistakes and let the Egyptians sort things out. We may not wind up with the Egypt we want, but we should do what we can do to have an Egypt we can live with. At the moment, there are few good options for the U.S. If we support the government and it endures we risk tainting it and feeding the ire of anti-western elements. If we support the government and it collapses we undermine our influence in the region and would likely garner the animosity of the new leadership. If we do nothing we will only make western leaning governments in the region more timid.

It is possible there is going to be a new Egypt once the dust settles. It would be best for the U.S. to stick to platitudes and cautions for the time being. If democracy triumphs, the U.S. should hold off celebrating. In the U.S., people see democracy as an end. For a large part of the rest of the world however, democracy is a means to an end. There are many people who embrace democracy not out of principle, but because they see it as a vehicle for their ambitions.

What is the Matter With Them?

2011-01-27T09:35:00.033-06:00

Some conservative state legislators around the nation are hurling themselves against the Constitution. In addition to a movement to circumvent the 14th Amendment and deny automatic citizenship to those born in the U.S., a move is now afoot to allow states to nullify federal laws they find burdensome or odious. The movement is aimed primarily at the recently passed health care law. Idaho, Texas, Alabama, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and several other states are exploring the right of nullification. Nullification is an 18th century doctrine that asserts that states have the authority to determine for themselves what the Constitution permits and what their obligations are under it.

The Constitution is in many parts vague and undetermined. Over two hundred years after it was written and adopted, struggles persist as to what it precisely allows and forbids the government to do. Nevertheless, many issues have been settled. One such issue is federal supremacy. The Civil War was fought over the issue. The side that argued for state supremacy lost. Against the resounding victory of the North and well over a century of Supreme Court rulings, some states are asserting the dusty and obscure concept of nullification. While states have an important role in what is put in the Constitution, once an amendment has been adopted or a federal law has been established, the states are bound to observe it. Hundreds of thousands died and cities were burned to the ground to make that point.

History has never been a strong point in American political life. Almost every generation has felt itself unique and unbound by the past. For the last century political and social movements have battered the Constitution. Frustrated by the halting pace and inertia of society, one group after another has assailed the laws, customs, and traditions of the land in their zeal. Sometimes this has been for the good. Universal suffrage and overturning segregation are two issues that redound to the nation's, and the Court's, credit. Sometimes time it has been for the worse. The 18th Amendment banning the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol and Supreme Court rulings upholding segregation are examples that speak poorly of American political sensibilities.

Progressives have historically been the ones who, in their political impatience, pushed for new and elaborate interpretations of the Constitution. To their discredit, some conservatives are beginning to take their political dissatisfaction out on the Constitution. Two issues stand out in recent events. Both are flimsy at best. The move to deny citizenship to some born in the U.S. is in clear violation of text, history and precedent. The growing movement to assert states' right to nullify laws they find unconstitutional is equally against history, tradition, and text.

People can, and do argue over what the Constitution says. They always will. However not everything written in the Constitution is ambiguous. At least conservatives have frequently made that argument. Yet some have taken to parsing words, ignoring clear text and turning over rocks looking for obscure and antiquated interpretations and precedents. That they are doing so is a discredit to themselves and a disservice to the nation. Conservatives claim to be the champions of tradition and law, yet some of them are beating the bushes for legal loopholes and engaging in constitutional spelunking. What is the matter with them?

Is That a Threat?

2011-01-25T10:04:00.022-06:00

Two reports were released Monday. One was from the Center for American Progress. The other was from the Southern Poverty Law Center. The reports addressed the efforts by state and local authorities to augment and enforce national immigration laws. Both reports take a dim view of recent efforts to crack down on illegal immigration. Both reports also sought to warn states and local governments of the legal strain and financial pitfalls that they can expect should they pass such legislation.

Attempts to curb illegal immigration, such as the recent case in Farmers Branch, Texas where the city has passed a law declaring that anyone who knowingly rents to illegal immigrants is guilty of harboring, have engendered protracted legal fights. Farmers Branch has already lost the first round and is preparing for the second. Legal fights cost money. According to the Center for American Progress, $9 million has been spent so far by five cities defending their immigration ordinances. As new laws and ordinances are passed, new suits will be filed and more money will be spent defending them. State and local governments have been put on notice that they will have to keep spending to defend themselves and their laws.

There are many issues that surround immigration reform. Where politics and insults have failed to stem the growth of immigration reform movements, economic pressure has been brought to bear in the threats of boycotts. In Farmers Branch, a new strategy is being developed by those who oppose efforts to crack down on illegal immigration. They will seek to impoverish the city through endless litigation.

Those who support liberal immigration policy claim they are simply trying to inform communities of the legal consequences that can be expected should those communities try to enforce immigration law, just as those who organize boycotts claim they are merely trying to make communities aware of the financial costs of such policies. What they are really doing is threatening those communities.

A lot people have become disdainful of the democratic process. Many do not trust voters. Some hold voters in contempt. Others are simply too impatient. They are the ones most apt to turn to the courts to achieve their political goals. They are the ones who, if they cannot persuade the public to adopt preferred policy, will coerce them to adopt it. That is precisely what the Immigration Reform Law Institute and Center for American Progress are trying to do. They are trying to coerce Farmer's Branch into changing its laws.

Liberals might see themselves as reformers and progressives, but they are not. They are elitist and heavy handed. Their confidence in their beliefs and sensibilities is absolute. They know what they want and they will do whatever they feel is necessary to achieve it. If they cannot get the results they want at the ballot box they will bribe, coerce, and threaten. They will harp on rights and freedom but you will rarely, if ever, hear them speak of liberty.

The controversy in Farmers Branch and other communities seeking to crack down on illegal immigration begs the question: how can you have the right to rent an apartment or have a driver's licence when you do not even have the right to be here?

They Didn't See This Coming

2011-01-15T10:38:00.065-06:00

There is bad news for all you astrology fans and adherents out there. It turns out astrologers have been screwing up for centuries. It has been discovered that the Earth does not move in a smooth orbit. It wobbles. Due to its wobbly orbit, the Earth has shifted alignment since the Zodiac charts were first written. The charts are now a month off. That means that when astrologers say the stars are in Pisces they are wrong. The stars are really in Aquarius. Worse still, it turns out that they have overlooked a thirteenth constellation, the Ophiuchus Serpent Bearer (Nov. 30 to Dec.17). Astrologers either haven't noticed or they haven't cared. For them the Earth is the center of a static universe and everything in the universe has something to do with us. No doubt that is one of the reasons astrologers can't get astronomers to return their phone calls.

While the news may have been greeted with a shrug by many, not a few are upset. The adjustment necessitated by the new constellation has overturned their lives. Some Libras have discovered they are really Scorpios. They have been living a false life. "I don't feel like a Scorpio" said one bewildered believer at hearing the news. Others are defiant. Despite the news, many who believe in astrology are undeterred in their beliefs. They don't care what a bunch of astronomers say about the stars. Shelley Ackerman, spokeswoman for the Federation of Astrologers, (yes, they have a federation), sought to calm believers telling them the discovery changes nothing. Reason and science have failed to rattle astrology followers but a new constellation and a wobbling planet just might. She noted that "every few years a story like this comes out and scares the living daylights out of everyone, but it will go away as quickly as it came." Leaving aside the assertion that everyone is scared by the news, even if the story goes away the Ophiuchus Serpent Bearer constellation won't, at least no time soon. Neither will the Earth stop wobbling nor the stars stop their rambling.

Some astrologers are going to ignore the new constellation and pretend the Earth does not wobble. Their charts and their signs are just fine the way they are. Numerologists and occultists on the other hand have hit the jack pot.

Curiously, even the best astrologers didn't see this coming. How could they? Astrologers don't use telescopes. Now if the stars will stay put, no one else finds a new constellation and we can figure out a way to keep the Earth from wobbling we shouldn't have any more problems until we get the next update from the universe. We should get that in a few hundred years.

Capitalism At Its Finest

2011-01-13T18:27:00.027-06:00

The upcoming Superbowl in Dallas has been sold out. It has been sold out for a long time. Well over 100,000 tickets, officially ranging in price from $600 to $1,200 have been sold. Cowboys Stadium will be packed to the rafters. Standing room only tickets have been sold so that fans can stand in the aisles. Some seats proposed for the end zone had to be nixed due to concerns by the Fire Marshal.

Not content with a packed stadium, Cowboys owner Jerry Jones is looking to sell still more tickets. Jones wants to make even more money off the game as well as boost his Texas sized ego by having the largest crowd to watch a game in the history of humanity. The largest crowd in NFL history was the 1980 Superbowl at the Rose Bowl where 103,985 people were in attendance. Cowboys Stadium only holds a little over 90,000.

Since the stadium is already filled, to boost revenue and increase attendance, the Cowboys are planning to sell tickets for fans, or customers as the case may be, to watch the game in the parking lot of Cowboys Stadium on big screen TVs. NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said the parking lot tickets would give fans "more opportunities to experience Superbowl Sunday." More precisely, it will give fans the opportunity to pay for the experience of watching TV on a January afternoon in a parking lot. The tickets are going fast. I would be surprised if Jones did not assume concession rights for the parking lot as well. If so, fans will have to leave their grills and coolers at home.

Evidently there are thousands of football fans willing to forgo a comfortable afternoon on the couch and pay good money to sit outdoors in a parking lot on a Winter afternoon. Such is the allure of the "Super Bowl Experience". Nothing says Super Bowl like a parking lot in Winter. If parking lot tickets for the Superbowl are a success, it is likely the idea will catch on. The day could come when people across the nation will pay to sit in parking lots for big events. I might finally be able to attend an Oscars ceremony.

Jerry Jones has been looking to make money ever since he bought the Dallas Cowboys. He has done a splendid job. Not only are the Cowboys making a fortune, through Jones' efforts the league is making record money as well. Selling parking lot tickets is capitalism at its finest. If someone ever builds a Capitalist Hall of Fame, Jerry Jones is a shoe in. He makes P.T. Barnum look like a piker.

One can only wonder where people are going to park.

An Odd Turn of Events

2011-01-06T15:37:00.035-06:00

For well over a generation many conservatives have insisted on a strict interpretation of the Constitution. They have decried Roe v. Wade and the laborious stretching of the Constitution that led to it. They have protested against what they see as the abridgement of Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. In the case of gun rights, conservatives argue that the Second Amendment is unambiguous. The amendment states that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged." Only casuistry of the highest order has been able to find that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" means no such thing.

Virtually every time the Court has read the Constitution broadly or interpreted it in a novel way, conservatives have howled. Yet, in a peculiar twist, some conservatives are abandoning their customary insistence on history, text, and intent in favor of an expansive, i.e. liberal approach.

A group of Republican state representatives from across the country is proposing legislation that would allow states to restrict state citizenship to legal residents and U.S. born people who meet certain criteria. One criterion proposed is as that a child born in the U.S. would need at least one parent without "allegiance to a foreign country" to be considered a citizen: a criterion with extensive ramifications for those who hold duel citizenship. They are seeking a new, broad interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment in hopes of stemming the rising flood of illegal immigrants. And they need a broad one indeed.

The Fourteenth Amendment states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." It goes on to say that no state may abridge the rights bestowed by citizenship. There is nothing ambiguous there. All persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States. All persons born in a state are citizens of that state. The Amendment says nothing about the status of parents. It is clear that the Founders made no distinction between legal and illegal residents. When the Constitution was written there was no such thing as an illegal resident.

Despite that, a move is underway by many conservatives to stretch the Constitution and move beyond what is written the text. They are insisting that, despite what is written in the Constitution, state citizenship be granted only where people meet the state's definition of citizenship. The only wiggle room provided in the Fourteenth Amendment is the requirement that those born be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and that they reside in the state where they are born. That is not very much room at all. They might be able to snare border babies and those who are merely passing through but anyone who has stopped and pitched tent and has a child has given birth to a citizen.

Another proposal being put forward would ask states to provide birth certificates to distinguish between those born to legal immigrants from those born to illegal immigrants. The U.S. Constitution makes no such distinction. Every one born in the U.S. is a citizen of the U.S. Every person born in a state is a citizen of that state. Proposing as they are that states are allowed bestow citizenship only on those born to to immigrants in the country legally is as liberal an interpretation of the Constitution as any that has ever been made.

Text and tradition are against them. Nevertheless the movement is gaining steam. It is now conservatives that are insisting on a broad interpretation of the Constitution and ignoring the written word and original intent. They are the ones now engaging in constitutional gymnastics. It is indeed an odd turn of events.

If conservatives want to stem the tide of illegal immigration they should find another way than abusing the Constitution.

Real Progress

2011-01-03T08:58:00.012-06:00

There is a paucity of minority candidates running for mayor in Dallas, Texas. In fact, according to the Dallas Morning News, there are no serious minority candidates for the job. Recent mayoral elections have had some. This year there are none.

Several reasons are proposed for the lack of minority candidates. One reason is the relatively poor pay that comes with the job. The mayor in Dallas earns only $60,000 a year. Political analyst Micheal Sorrel of Paul Quinn College in Dallas states that "There are few people out there ready to give up large sums of money in order to serve." Another reason given was the lack of power wielded by the mayor. Weak mayoral offices do not have the appeal that strong ones do. Real power in Dallas is held by the city manager.

If it is true that many potential minority candidates are unwilling to take a pay cut to serve in the relatively menial job of mayor it would be remarkable testimony to racial progress in Dallas.

What About The Others?

2011-01-02T12:57:00.034-06:00

Last week, the 9/11 Health and Compensation Act was passed. The act provides $4.3 billion in additional health benefits to the first responders to the 9/11 attack. 343 firefighters lost their lives trying to put out the fires and evacuate people from the burning buildings. Many more were injured. 23 police officers and 15 EMTs also lost their lives. More than a few have, and are suffering due to health issues and psychological problems following the attacks. New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg hailed the passage of the act and Washington's action to "get this done for America." Not to do so, he added, would have been a "tragic failure."

The 9/11 attacks were terrible and the loss of life subsequent to those attacks was horrific. But to say the bill was passed for America is a stretch. The benefits of the bill are restricted to those injured and killed due to the attack and their families. No one else in the nation will benefit from it. Nearly 400 firefighters and rescue workers died in New York on 9/11. Across the nation, 105 other firefighters died that same year. More still were injured. Everyone one of those firefighters had people depending on them. Everyone of them had family and friends. They were all risking their lives and doing their job. Yet only those killed and injured at the World Trade Center merited federal attention.

Since 9/11 nearly 1,000 firefighters have died in the U.S. trying to put out fires and save lives. Many perished and were injured last year fighting forest fires out west. None of them or their families are in line for any federal compensation. If the act was truly passed for the benefit of America, as Bloomberg claims, it would take them into account, but it doesn't. The fact is it was passed for New York City. Bloomberg was just being modest. The New York City Health and Compensation Act might have been a harder piece of legislation to sell, but it would have been more accurate. Fire fighters and rescue workers elsewhere will have to wait until enough of them die or become ill before they get attention from Washington. But they will all have to die or become ill at once. A couple here or there won't be noticed.

It could just be that Mayor Bloomberg is one of those New Yorkers that confuse their city with the United States.

Help Wanted

2010-12-29T09:43:00.007-06:00

France is making an effort to boost its intelligence community to counter increasing threats at home and abroad. It was announced that, despite France's current economic challenges, the General Directorate for External Security would receive a 13 percent budget increase in order to improve its ability to detect and deter threats France faces at home and abroad.

At the top of the list the agency is planning to establish a new national intelligence academy. It is also planning to add 500 people to its payroll. Those positions would center around linguists, surveillance experts and crypto-mathematicians to counter the evolving and complex threats worldwide. Software experts, surveillance agents. and network engineers are a priority. Said one expert, "a major evolution is underway."

Lest anyone in France not trained in espionage or on the cutting edge of computer technology currently looking for work be discouraged, the agency is also hiring warehouse workers. A successful spy agency needs people to stock chairs and lamps as well as network engineers and exploding pens.

Why Waste Vice?

2010-12-21T10:34:00.018-06:00

Texas is seeking to drive up lottery sales. Revenue is down. The state has come to rely on the lottery to help balance the budget. Not enough people in Texas are playing. Only one out of three people in Texas is playing the lottery. The state needs more people to play.

People in Texas, and elsewhere, are constantly encouraged to play the lottery. There are bill boards, print ads, and television commercials enticing people to play. We are asked to wonder if today might be our lucky day. Naturally, the only way to know whether it is your lucky day is to buy a lottery ticket and find out. The state doesn't care whether you can afford to play. The state doesn't care if you have better things to spend your money on. The state doesn't care if you have a gambling problem. The state just wants you to play. They also want you to lose.

The lottery is a swindle by any standard. The odds of winning a three number ticket are a thousand to one. The odds of winning the jack pot are higher than that of being being hit by lightning. Much higher. You might as well follow an armored car and hope some money falls out the back. The odds never improve no matter how many times you play. In the case of scratch offs, the game is fixed. The state knows how many tickets are printed, how many winning tickets there are, and how much will be won.

The state gambles too. It gambles that not too many winning tickets will be sold too quickly. Ideally, just enough winning tickets are sold for just enough in pay outs that people will be more encouraged to play rather than become discouraged. Lottery boards are constantly tinkering to find the ideal balance to generate maximum profits and ensure maximum enthusiasm. It is not uncommon for people to become more excited over the lottery after they have won something. Even if it took them $100 to find a $20 winning ticket, they are still delighted. With customers like that, how can you lose?

In Texas, gambling used to be considered a vice. It still is, unless the state is running the game. If the lottery is not able to bring in the revenue needed to run the state, there is always prostitution and drugs. People are going to visit prostitutes and use drugs anyway, why not make money off it? People are prone to vice. There is no reason not to take advantage of that. If that is an idea that bothers some people, the state could simply set aside some of the money it takes in by selling drugs to offer counseling and rehabilitation. Some of the money raised by prostitution could be set aside to fund shelters for abused women. That should make everybody happy, and the state richer. Why waste vice when you can make money off it instead?

The lottery is a swindle, but it is a state sponsored swindle. That is the difference. Texas needs people to gamble and it needs them to lose. Texas made $3.74 billion last year with the lottery. In 1995, more than 70 percent of Texans played the lottery. Less than half that many are playing today. Rather than being pleased that fewer Texans are wasting their money buying lottery tickets, the state is concerned.

Texas wants people to gamble. You thought Texas was a conservative state.

Good Timing

2010-12-17T09:40:00.015-06:00

On Thursday, the House approved a controversial bill that would extend President Bush's tax cuts. The bill is now headed to President Obama's desk. It would be difficult for the timing to be any better. The bill extends the tax cuts for two years. That means the next debate over the cuts will be in 2012. 2012 is an election year. It is a big election year. Obama will be running for reelection in 2012. I have never been good at predicting the future but I will hazard a guess that taxes and the economy will still be issues of concern to voters in 2012. I will also guess that the prospect of ending or continuing Bush's tax cuts will be an issue as well. Short of a war or a catastrophe, the economy should be the major issue in 2012. If it improves significantly, President Obama will point that out every at every opportunity. If it does not improve, republicans will point that out at every opportunity.

If the economy is improving in 2012 many will credit the tax cuts. It will be said that lower taxes spurred the recovery and raising them will only harm it. If the economy is still foundering, it will be difficult to make an argument for letting the cuts expire. Whether or not the higher taxes that will result if the policy is allowed to expire will help or hinder the economy, they will not be popular: higher taxes never are. Election years are the years when politicians want most to be popular. The only circumstance under which letting the cuts expire will not cause a lot of controversy is if the economy is thriving. If the economy is thriving many would not complain, at least not complain loudly, if some taxes were raised. People could afford it. Not only that, people could afford principal and fairness as well. Election years are the best years to grant tax cuts. They are the worst years to raise taxes. 2012 is an election year.

Tax cuts and economic policy are complicated issues except at election time. At election time they are simple: do you want to pay higher taxes or not? Obama hailed the tax cuts. He pretty much had to.

Can We Rely on Voters?

2010-12-13T08:51:00.046-06:00

Some legislators in Texas are growing leery of allowing voters the option of straight party voting on election ballots. They are considering a bill to ban it. "Straight ticket voting is detrimental to our system" asserted State Senator Jeff Wentworth, R-San Antonio. He and others feel it undermines democracy by making voters lazy. Wentworth wants to go so far to make straight ticket voting illegal. It is viewed as a "luxury" that is making voters complacent. That may be so but complacence is a prerogative that belongs to the voters.

American citizens have the right to vote. They are free to exercise that right in the manner they see fit. Voters do not have to be intelligent, coherent, or informed. They do not even have to be able to read. They just have to be registered. There was a time when voters were required to pass a literacy test. The assumption was that voters needed to be able to read if they were to be at all informed. They had to be informed if they were to be able to make an intelligent decision. That the rule was abused to keep segments of the population from voting changes nothing. The rule was sound in its merits. People no longer have to read to be informed. We have long had television and radio to serve that purpose. The Internet has become important but it still requires at least a modicum of literacy. For better or worse (more often worse), we also have interest groups to keep the public informed. Perhaps worst of all, people do not have to know the Constitution. They needn't even be familiar with it. There is no civics test. They do not need to know how the government works or what its responsibilities are. They do not need to know how many branches of government there are. They just need to know where the voting station is. All this makes them potential dupes and easy prey for political opportunists.

In a typical Texas election there are a great number of names on the ballot. Once one moves past the top of the ticket there is a plethora of choices for state representatives, judges, commissioners, constables, justices of the peace, and more. One has to be a political junkie to keep track of all the races and candidates. The easiest way to sort it out is through voting a straight ticket. If you are inclined to believe Republicans would do a better job managing state affairs you can pull the lever. If you believe the Democrats would be better, you can pull the other lever. That is why we have political parties in the first place. Political parties are ways to organize politics and make it coherent for voters. At least they used to be.

Straight ticket voting saves voters time and energy. They do not have to educate themselves on all the issues or candidates. They cannot educate themselves on all the issues and candidates. People have traditionally relied on parties to sort out issues for them. If Wentworth is uncomfortable with that he is in the wrong business. He hopes that by banning straight ticket voting he will be able to force voters to be more attentive. He wants to make them think in the voting booth. It is a commendable effort. But even if Wentworth succeeds he will have done nothing to make voters more educated or responsible. He will likely only irritate and confuse them.

There are very few, if any, voters in Texas that are informed on all the issues in the state, let alone candidates and policy positions. To force them into choosing candidates office by office will do nothing to preserve the integrity of the system. It will do nothing to make voters more informed or responsible. If anything, it will do little more than reduce the number of votes cast as voters begin to lose interest the further down the ballot they go. Some results at the bottom of the ballot would likely resemble football scores.

Wentworth does not trust the voters. He believes many are uninformed and therefore led astray by straight ticket voting. He may be right. Voters have jobs and families. They have bills to pay. They have lives to live. They do not have the luxury of analyzing policy, assessing candidates, and examining issues in every race. They rely on political parties to keep things sorted out. If the system is not working, it is not the fault of the public. They do not have, and they never will have, the time to examine politics issue by issue and office by office. The public relies on political parties to patch everything together. That is what parties are supposed to be for. A better way would be to strengthen parties at all levels, local to national. That would not make voters any more responsible either but it would help make the political system more coherent. But parties are increasingly under fire, both in Texas and across the nation. Some legislators in Texas think that a political free for all would benefit the state. I doubt that they have thought the issue through.

Eliminating straight ticket voting would not fix any of the short comings of popular elections in Texas. It would not make voters any more informed or responsible. It would just make elections more tumultuous and voting more random. It is difficult to see how Texas would be better off for that.

A Little Over the Top

2010-12-09T10:26:00.028-06:00

On Wednesday, General Han Min-Koo, chairman of South Korea's Joint Chiefs of staff called North Korea's recent shelling of Yeonpyeong Island an "intolerable act against humanity." Humanity suffered four casualties. Two marines and two civilians were killed.

In today's Dallas Morning News, columnist William Murchison cheered the state of Connecticut for imposing the death penalty on Steven Hays. Hays was convicted of beating Dr. William Petit with a baseball bat and raping and strangulating his wife to death. Afterward, Hays tied the Petit's two daughters to their beds and set the house on fire. The girls died. Their father escaped. Murchison described Hays' actions as an outrage against "every known moral premise."

The shelling of Yeonpyeong Island was not an intolerable act against humanity. It was an unprovoked attack that killed four people. Humanity was not shelled by the North Koreans. Yeonpyeong Island was. Hays did not violate every known moral premise. He raped and strangled a woman, beat her husband with a baseball bat, and burned her two daughters to death.

The resort to histrionics is unnecessary. North Korea's shelling was a blatant act of aggression. There is no need to exaggerate. It is clear enough that North Korea's actions were dastardly. There are words enough to describe the shelling without resorting to breathless condemnations. Similarly, it is clear enough that Hays' actions were an outrage. Despite the heinous crimes he was convicted of, the fact is Haynes did not violate every known moral premise. He violated two, maybe three if you count arson as a violation of a moral premise. He raped and he murdered: two of the most viscous crimes a person can commit. They are terrible enough. There is no need to exaggerate or pile adjectives and adverbs on top of them.

To leap to dramatic exaggerations is unnecessary, even deleterious. Adolf Hitler himself did not violate every known moral premise. He did not cheat on his mistress and he was loyal to his friends: as long as they remained his friends. He even had a dog. If we use up our gravest condemnations on family murders and the shelling of islands, we will have nothing left for real outrages. We will be left like teenagers and have to describe future crimes and outrages by putting "way" in front of our exclamations. If the shelling of an island that results in four deaths is an intolerable act against humanity, then genocide must be a way intolerable act against humanity. If the rape and murder of a woman and her two daughters is an outrageous violation of every known moral premise, what is left for monsters like Jeffery Dahmer and John Wayne Gacy?

If our adjectives and adverbs are going to be worth anything in the future we need to try and conserve them. They are already worn thin. Murchison is an editorialist. He should leave embellishment to to others. Min-Koo is a general. He should know the difference between an unprovoked shelling and an intolerable crime against humanity. We need to save some words for later when we might truly need them.

Stepping Towards Paradise.

2010-12-03T16:46:00.019-06:00

While attention may be focused on federal spending, tension on the Korean peninsula, and the Middle East, the government is still at work on other fronts. On Thursday the House took action on the pressing problem of volume in television commercials. A bill was proposed that, among other things, would restrict the volume of television commercials. The sponsor of the bill, Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif. was motivated by her own family's "earsplitting" experiences that, according her, nearly "blew them out of the house." Another bill headed to the president's desk is meant to address the crisis of childhood obesity by giving the government control over what sorts of food may be sold in schools. There is enough government that little in the nation is neglected.

It may be argued that television broadcast volume is a legitimate federal concern. Part of the FCC's job is to tend to the television. Part of Congress' job is to tend to the FCC. Despite Eshoo's hyperbole, television volume should not be on the FCC's list. If it must be on the FCC's list, it should be at the bottom. Commercial volume is annoying. It is not a threat to the health, sensibilities, or morals of the American public. It is a nuisance that already has a solution: the volume control. No doubt that is why Eshoo felt compelled to try and elevate the problem through exaggeration. Few would be motivated to support government relief from annoying volume. But "earsplitting" volume that nearly blows one out the door is another matter. Surely something ought to be done about that.

Childhood obesity on the other hand is more than a nuisance. It is a large and growing problem in the country. The House evidently agreed with Michelle Obama and others that our children are being overwhelmed by fatty foods. Candy and snack food makers have moved to fill the slot in our public school system once occupied by drug dealers. Like the furtive drug dealers of old, snack food machines, hamburgers, and pizza are luring our children into a downward spiral of deprivation and misery. If action is not taken now, millions of children will suffer the taunts of others and the miserable fate allotted to the overweight.

The epidemic of obesity plaguing the nation is not due to the food that is sold or provided to Americans, it is about the food purchased and consumed by Americans. People eat hamburgers and pizza because they like to eat hamburgers and pizza, not because people sell them hamburgers and pizza. You can put all the fruit and vegetables you like in front of people but if people don't want to eat it, they won't. Since most Americans like hamburgers, pizza, and candy they would bristle at attempts to prevent them from eating them. A more subtle approach is required. That is why the advocates of leanness are seeking to maneuver America into health by making it more difficult to eat poorly. If children have nothing but healthy food to eat, they will have to eat healthy food. In time, they will learn to enjoy it. If children eat healthy food, they will grow up to be healthy and thin. If they are trained properly, they will remain healthy and thin. That is the theory any way.

Over the years, the public has increasingly looked to the federal government to do for them what they ought to be doing themselves. Parents are the ones who should be making sure their children eat right and exercise, not the government. People should turn down the volume on their TV if it is too loud, not the government. The more government does for people, the less people have to do for themselves. If we can get the government to turn down the volume and keep our kids from eating candy and drinking soda pop at school we will have taken another step towards paradise.

I am surprised that it hasn't occurred to the government that if they turn down the volume for the public the obesity problem in the U.S. might get worse. People won't have to get off the couch if they can't find the remote. On the other hand, if the volume is lowered, people might be reluctant to get up and visit the refrigerator lest they miss the commercials. I suppose it is a toss up.

A Commendable Start

2010-12-01T08:15:00.031-06:00

It is anticipated that when the White House deficit commission unveils it proposals today there will be a lot of upset people across the nation. Along with proposals to raise taxes, many programs and services that Americans find useful and have come to rely upon are facing cuts or elimination. One such program is the mortgage interest deduction popular among home owners. It is argued that the mortgage interest deduction costs the federal government $100 billion in lost tax revenue every year. Kay Weeks, president of the MetroTex Association of Realtors in Dallas, TX predicted that the public will be angry. She argued that the millions of upset voters who shook up Congress in the recent elections will be even more upset. I suspect she is correct. People who voted out congressmen because they felt the government was too big and spending too much money surely did not do so to end up paying more in taxes. Less government is one thing. Paying more for less government is quite another.

In a bold move, the commission is hoping that if the proposals hurt everybody, they will be more easily accepted. It is proposed that the social security retirement age be raised to 67. Cost of living increases will be lessened. Tax credits for mortgage interest would be reduced. If adopted, the proposals would be felt. Some of the proposals would hit people twice. Raising gasoline taxes as proposed will be felt at the pump. It will also be felt at the grocery store and the shopping mall where businesses will pass along increased shipping costs due to higher fuel taxes to consumers.

Eliminating tax breaks is certainly warranted in many cases, but it should not be construed as cutting spending. It is increasing revenue. Not collecting something is different from giving something away. Tax breaks do not give anyone anything they did not already have. It is arrogance of the highest order for the government to assert that by not taking something it is in fact giving something away. It carries the implication that what we have is not really ours and if the government decides it wants it or needs it, it can take it. In a sense, by letting you keep what is yours, the government is just being magnanimous.

The billions the government anticipates it will gain by adjusting the tax code are billions that will not be in the hands of consumers or businesses. That is bad news for the economy. Unless it is stuffed in a mattress or buried in the back yard, money in the hands of consumers is a good thing. Whether it is spent, saved, or invested, the economy benefits. If they spend it, the economy grows. Customarily, when money changes hands, profit is made. If people do not spend it they will save or invest it. If they save it, banks have more money to lend. By lending money banks not only make money, they make it possible for others to earn money by making it available to people who need it to purchase things. If they invest it the economy will gain by allowing businesses to expand and modernize, resulting in new opportunities and a growing economy, assuming it is not stolen by avaricious executives and corrupt financiers.

Raising business taxes is always problematic. Business is often seen as distinct from the rest of society. But it isn't. It is an integral part of it. Without business there would be no economy. If it weren't for capitalism, the economy would still be in the middle ages. One assails business at their own peril. Moreover, higher business taxes are typically passed along to consumers. Where the burdens of higher taxes cannot be passed along they have to be compensated for. Sometimes this is done by laying off workers. Sometimes it is done by raising prices or reducing quality. Some businesses go so far as to relocate overseas.

The real drawback of lower taxes from the government's point of view is that it has less money to spend. It matters little to the government how much money individuals or businesses have other than what it represents as tax revenue. The government's real concern is how much money it has, not the tax payer. Low taxes are a boon to citizens but they are a hindrance to government.

The government needs to take a long hard look at spending. They need to reduce it. The Fiscal Commission has made a commendable effort to do so. Programs and services are going to have to be cut. People are going to be upset. Some are going to be hurt. But is arrogant to describe tightening the tax code as curtailing gifts as some are doing. Taking less is not giving. Paying taxes is a transaction. The public provides money to the government. In return, the government provides services to the people. It is likely in the near future the public will be paying more and getting less. Weeks is correct. The public will be angry. Anyone would be.

The issue at hand is not about government. Some of what the government does is necessary. Some of what the government does is beneficial. Some of what the government does is wasteful. Some of what the government does is harmful. That is what is going to have to be sorted out. If that can be done, the task of identifying where cuts should be made will be easier. It will still be painful but the country will be stronger for it. Neither is the issue simply about taxes. Taxes have to be collected if the government is to operate. The government has to operate if we are to have a civilized society. At the bottom, the issue is about what we want and expect from government and what we are willing to pay for it.

We cannot expect the government to do what we want it to do at the price we have so far been willing to pay. If the U.S. is able to right itself the effort will have been in vain if the American public does not reconsider what it expects from government. If it is unable or unwilling to do so, at the first glimpse of black ink the frenzy will resume.

Patriots?

2010-11-30T09:27:00.028-06:00

Yesterday President Obama called civil service workers patriots and asked them to take to take a two year pay freeze. Pay raises have become taken for granted by public employees. For the first time in modern history, they are being asked to forgo one. They are angry. They believe that is no way to treat patriots. That may be so but they are not really patriots. Obama was flattering them. They are employees.

Soldiers may be patriots. On occasion, politicians might be patriots. Civilians may be patriotic. Police and firemen are courageous. Pulling children out of a burning building is heroic, but it is not patriotic. We rely on firemen and medics to rescue us. We rely on policemen to protect us. We trust that heroism will be there when we need it. We certainly do not rely on their patriotism. I would rather have a heroic fire department than a patriotic one. I am sure most Americans would. Soldiers may be patriots but are not necessarily so. Volunteering to enlist is not the bar for patriotism. Sacrificing to serve one's country is a patriotic thing. Enlisting to acquire job skills or get money for college is not.

People who go to work at government offices are not patriots. They certainly are not heroic. Most are complacent bureaucrats safely ensconced in recession proof jobs with benefits envied by most of the workforce. If they are unhappy and feel they are being mistreated they can quit. I'll wager they won't. They will only redouble their effort to get what they feel is due to them.

Government workers do not work for themselves. They work for us. If we cannot afford them their annual pay raises then they should not get them. The U.S. is going broke. Costs have to be cut. The tax payers should not have to bear the burden alone. When it comes to cutting costs, the government cannot exclude itself. Government workers forgoing pay raises is no more unjust than autoworkers doing so. Saying we cannot afford to provide their automatic pay raises is not unpatriotic. Far from it.

In a capitalist country, no one can or should take their job for granted. No one should be entitled to automatic pay raises regardless of performance. Besides, if government workers received their raises on the basis of performance, many would not have received a raise in years. If their jobs were tied to performance, many would be lucky to have jobs.

Going to to work is not patriotic. Neither is doing your job. It is a responsibility. Government workers, like most other workers, agree to take their job with the understanding that they will be paid a certain amount for doing a specific task. For the most part, they are not highly trained professionals. They are clerks and bureaucrats, not patriots. If the government cannot afford to give them their automatic pay raises for just showing up to work and doing their job, they should not get them. They are free to find employment elsewhere if the job becomes unbearable. My bet is they won't. Even without an automatic pay raise, they would be hard pressed to find a job where as little was demanded of them for the pay and benefits they receive. They know it. Besides, nothing was said about the next automatic pay raise. It would not be at all surprising if the next raise they get compensates them for the one they are being asked to forgo. If their union is worth its dues, the next raise will be. That is why they might grumble and threaten, but they will not quit. They might decide to do their job with less alacrity and enthusiasm, but who would know?

True patriots go beyond what is expected of them. They risk life and property for love of their country, not for money. Just as a young man who enlists in the military simply to gain money for college, learn a skill, or just get away from home is not a patriot, a person who shows up for work in the Department of Agriculture for no other reason than that is their job is not a patriot.

From what I read and hear, I think most people don't know what a patriot is. It has become little more than a term of respect. If bureaucrats want to be patriots and have the respect of the nation, they will have to earn it. Good luck. If bureaucrats are patriots, what are we to call those who do more than put in forty hours a week in an air conditioned office for a paycheck?

We are on the verge of losing a good and a noble concept. If all patriotism required was displaying a flag, going to work, and publicly avowing your love for the nation and its troops, it would be a cheap thing indeed. A true patriot risks life and property for his country. The government is going broke. Being asked to forgo an automatic pay raise does not seem like much to ask of a patriot, especially when one considers how such an action would be a benefit to the nation.

People should take the time to look up "patriot" in the dictionary. Then they should look up "employee".

Don't Buy Me Donuts

2010-11-26T14:55:00.015-06:00

There is unease brewing across the nation at the earmark ban adopted by Republicans in Congress. Apart from the Democrats who have yet to embrace it, many local governments and private groups are uneasy. They have come to rely upon earmarks to get things done. So have people. Projects across the nation are in jeopardy. Ship channels need to be dredged, commuter lines need to be expanded, libraries need to be built. Because state and local governments have been eviscerated by Washington, those governments have become dependent on federal funds. Suddenly, those funds have been identified as "pork" spending. In Dallas, for example, the Trinity River Project to expand light rail in the city is in trouble. It should be. It would take casuistry of the highest order to make the case that improved public transportation in Dallas in any way benefits taxpayers of the nation. Nevertheless, Dallas wants the Trinity River Project and they need the federal government to help pay for it.

One would be hard pressed to find people concerned about light rail in Dallas outside the city. (Texas being Texas, it would not be much easier to find people in Dallas concerned about light rail.) But that really doesn't matter. Virtually every district has a project in jeopardy. Because of that, every district has something in common. They all want federal funds. That is the appeal of earmarks. The costs are borne by the nation but the benefits are reaped by individual politicians. The costs are abstract. The benefits are concrete. The debate over earmarks may be one of principal but the community center built by earmarks can be pointed to and touched.

Most Americans have come to the conclusion that there is a spending problem in Washington. Earmarks have become a symbol of that problem, nothing more. Earmarks are not bankrupting the country. Entitlements, bail outs, and the ambitions of Washington are. If every earmark was scrubbed from the federal budget, the deficit would be only scratched, no more.

Even if a a district was able to muster the integrity to elect a congressman who not only would promise to oppose earmarks, but refuse them, the primary result of that action would be to put that district at a disadvantage. The taxpayers of that district would still be paying for earmarks, they just wouldn't be getting any return on their money.

The problem with earmarks, and government spending in general, is not one of laws or institutions. It is one of politics. And political problems can be laid on the lap of voters. Voters expect their representatives to deliver, not just votes on issues important to them, but money as well. If their representative cannot deliver the goods, they will find one who can. I cannot think of a single instance where a politician was chastised by his constituents for bringing too much money home to his district.

The public is the one with the spending problem, not the government. Congressmen wouldn't scramble to bring home money if they didn't benefit from it at the polls. The public has become like the overweight husband who asks his wife not to buy donuts because if she buys them he will eat them. But, if she doesn't buy donuts, her husband is miserable and takes it out on her. What is a poor woman to do? If she has to choose between a fat but happy husband and an angry, thin one, more often than not she will choose a fat and happy one, even if she has to borrow money to keep him fat and happy.

The public wants to blame politicians for the massive spending taking place in Washington. They need to blame Washington because they refuse to accept that they are the ones responsible. No one in Washington is forcing money on the public. Quite the opposite. The public clamors for it. At the bottom, if the public wants a smaller, cheaper government they will have to reduce their demands upon it and learn to do some things without it.

So long as the public loves donuts, it will elect people who will get them donuts. Free donuts are the best donuts of all. And if it means a politician must provide the public with donuts to keep his job, he can be counted on to do so.

There are 435 congressional districts in the U.S. that need to be kept happy. Each representative is only concerned with one. The other 434 are not his responsibility. Until a politician actually loses an election for bringing money home to his district, ending earmarks will remain a dream.

It will be interesting to see how many of those in Washington who favor ending earmarks will run for reelection on what they did not bring home.

The Right Decision

2010-11-19T10:12:00.062-06:00

President Obama is to be commended for holding his ground regarding the civilian trial of Ahmed Ghailani. Ghailani was acquitted Wednesday of all but one of the 280 charges he faced surrounding the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa that killed 224 Americans. The decision has angered those who opposed a civilian trial for Ghailani. Obama resisted attempts to move Ghialani's trial to a military court. Ghailani did not go free. He still faces 20 years to life for his conviction on the count of conspiracy. I will wager he gets the maximum sentence allowed.

Innocent until proven guilty is not a slogan. It is a principal. Guilty people are not put on trial. Accused people are. The government cannot simply claim a person is guilty. They have to prove it in court. The rights of the accused in a civilian trial are weighted to balance the power of the state and protect his rights. A person confronted by the power and resources of the state, or in this case, the federal government, is at a distinct disadvantage. This is even more so when the public has been convinced of his guilt. Rights are instrumental to justice, they are not obstacles. Without rights, individuals can be crushed by the state.

Civilian trials of accused terrorists are not threats to national security. If the issue of sensitive information arises, the proceedings can be closed. Yet even if proceedings are closed, the accused's rights are retained. Chief among the procedural disadvantages Ghailani would have faced in a military court is that there would have been limited public scrutiny to ensure he was not placed in even greater jeopardy or legally mistreated. The only defender the accused has is usually himself a member of the military. There is no jury in a military trial. The court decides innocence or guilt. There is always the threat of a conflict of interest. In a trial such as Ghailani's where the stakes are high and the world is watching, the government should ensure that proceedings are above board. The best way to do that is to conduct them in open court for everyone, even our enemies, to see.

The advantages of a civilian trial gained by Ghailani will disappear if future proceedings are closed. In that case, we will hear of the progress of the trials and be made aware of at least some of the evidence. We will also hear of their defense. But we will only know what is released by the court. We will not know, and may never know, what the court has chosen to retain. The public will be told of the verdict and the sentence pronounced. The public might be satisfied. It should not be.

There was no need for a military trial for Ghailani. A lengthy, public trial was to the government's advantage. It gave them the opportunity to display the crimes Ghailani was accused of one by one for all the world to see. It was also an opportunity for the United States to demonstrate its commitment to justice and the rule of law, in other words, why we are the good guys. The decision to hold a civilian trial for Ghailani was about more than Ghailani. The system, despite the 279 findings of not guilty, worked. He will be going to jail for a very long time. It is about the people down the line. Those in custody may be guilty. They may not be. If secrecy and exclusion become standard practice, we will never know for sure. It is customary to believe a person is guilty when the state tells us they are. The state is not always right. Time and again it has been shown that the state makes mistakes. Not everyone accused of a crime is guilty. Some are innocent. That is what trials are for, to separate the guilty from the innocent. More precisely, that is what juries are for.

A public trial was good enough for Timothy McVeigh. It is good enough for Ghailani and others like him. As terrible as the crimes terrorists are accused of, this is not Nuremberg. If the government is afraid accused terrorists might be acquitted in civilian court, it should reassess its evidence. If particular evidence is sensitive, close the proceedings when the situation demands. Just give them a public trial. The people deserve one as much as accused terrorists do.

As unlikely as it is, Ghailani might just have been not guilty of 279 of the things that the government accused him of. The jury felt so and they were there. The government makes mistakes. It always has and it always will. Despite what the public may be led to believe, people are not guilty until a jury or court says they are. As it stands, Ghailani is not guilty of all but one of the things the government accused him of.

Some argue that a military court would have found Ghailani guilty on all of the counts brought against him. That might be true. But Ghailani is not a soldier. He is not in an army. He did not violate the Geneva Conventions. He is a member of a criminal organization who was complicit in blowing up an embasy and killing Americans. He has no business in a military court. To call what he did a war crime would stretch the definition of war crimes to include virtually any politically motivated attack on life and property.

Justice demands that the guilty be punished. It also demands the innocent go free. The purpose of a trial is to determine between the one or the other. That is why trials are so important. That is why they should be denied in only the gravest of circumstances. Legal rights are rarely appreciated until they are needed. If they are not protected, they might not be there when you need them.

Holdig public trials for accused terrorists is not a mistake. If nothing else, it gives the United States the opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to civil rights and the rule of law. Short cuts and legal maneuvering to achieve our ends will tarnish our principals and send the wrong message to the world and our enemies. It is when those principals are inconvenient that our commitment to them is most important. If we are to hold our principals out as an example for others, it is best we follow them. A military trial would have sent a message of U.S. resolve. A civilian trial sends a message of U.S. commitment to justice and civil rights.

Many are irate at the the jury's decision. Some have gone so far as to condemn it as jury nullification. They point to the "hard evidence' brought against Ghailani. They claim the jury system not just failed, it failed utterly. They are incredulous that in the face of "irrefutable" evidence, a jury would "defy logic" and find Ghailani not guilty. As unlikely as it might seem to some, Ghailani might not have been guilty of 279 of the things the government accused him of. That was the conclusion the jury reached after hearing the evidence. Despite what the public might be led to believe, no one charged with a crime is guilty. They are not guilty until a jury finds them so. That is what trials are for.

The court did not fail. It worked just as it should. President Obama did not fail either. He did just as he should. He upheld the Constitution. Many wanted Ghailani dead. They were hoping the government would kill him. They were convinced of his guilt before he even entered the court room. They are the ones most disappointed by the decision. In lieu of his execution, they will have to be satisfied with him merely spending the rest of his life in prison.

Not a Bad Deal

2010-11-15T01:07:00.017-06:00

It was reported Sunday that the U.S. was able to secure from Israel a 90 day freeze on settlement construction in the West Bank. The freeze does not include construction in East Jerusalem. Construction in East Jerusalem is a major point of contention. Israeli construction there and elsewhere had brought peace talks to the brink of collapse when Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas threatened to withdraw from the talks unless settlement construction stopped. Israel declared the freeze was a "one time only" deal.

In return for acceding to the U.S. request for a temporary halt in construction, the U.S. agreed to provide Israel 20 advanced fighter jets and other unspecified aid. The U.S. will also continue to oppose Palestinian statehood. When you consider that in 90 days when the freeze ends Israel is free to resume construction, it is not a bad deal. They have committed to nothing.

There is the possibility that an agreement can be arrived at between Israel and the Palestinians in 90 days. Given Netanyahu's resolve to build in the West Bank and Palestinian determination to keep that from happening, the chances of a deal being reached are remote. Years of negotiating have not resolved the issue. 90 days will not help much. The best that can be reasonably expected is the exchange of a few scraps of land, an agreement to keep negotiating, and perhaps a slightly less ambitious Israeli development plan for the near future.

If Israel resumes construction in the West Bank when the freeze ends, and it will, they will still get the aide, the fighter jets, and continued U.S. support in the U.N. They would have gotten them anyway. Israel could march the Palestinians into the sea and still rely on the U.S. for support and they know it.

At least Israel is willing to talk. They don't have to.

Pork or Bacon?

2010-11-10T08:56:00.058-06:00

Republicans in Congress are at odds over ear marks. Established Republicans, other than for an occasional gesture or grumble, are comfortable with earmarks. It is how Congress gets things done. Legislators energized and indebted to Tea Party supporters however are causing friction with their vow to curtail the long tradition of earmarking. Curbing or halting earmarks was a central position among many of those who ran for Congress by running against Congress. Republican South Carolina Senator Jim Demint asserted that "Americans want Congress to shut down the earmark favor factory." When asked their opinion on earmarks in principal, voters have repeatedly expressed their disapproval. So have their representatives. Therein lies the problem. Pork spending is not a principal. It is a political way of life.

There is indeed something unsavory about representatives pilfering the treasury in order to purchase the support of their constituents. But when it is their representative or senator bringing money back home, many people take a very different view. $50 million for a new highway or bridge may be a source of irritation when read about in the newspaper. People may mutter or complain about government pork if that money is being spent elsewhere. However, if that money is to be spent in their district, principal often yields to opportunity. They will be the ones that benefit from the new highway or bridge, not others. Not only will they get a new highway or bridge, they will get the economic benefit of that $50 million being spent in their communities. Government pork is usually a matter of perspective. One man's pork is another man's bacon. While pork has long been a source of disgruntlement among the electorate, bacon is always welcome.

Members of Congress are each beholden to their districts, not the nation. If they want to get reelected, they have to satisfy the voters of that district. Esteem in the eyes of the nation is of little benefit if the voters in your district are unhappy with you. A favorable editorial in the Washington Post or the respect of the Cato Institute is of little use to a congressman in Wyoming at election time if her constituents are restless.

The quickest and easiest way to satisfy voters is to bring home the bacon. Because every member of Congress wants to be reelected, they all have something in common. Staying in office is one, if not the only, true bipartisan goal in Washington. Because it is bipartisan, most in Congress are willing to work together and seek compromise. They may squabble over details and take umbrage over a scandalous or especially extravagant project. But to the extent they all benefit, more often than not they are willing to accommodate each other.

DeMint is seeking to take aim at "pet projects." The difficulty with Demint's objective is there is no standard by which projects can be judged. A bridge to nowhere or a study of the sexuality of chickens may jump out, but such examples are not common. The vast majority of projects funded are deemed useful, at times even necessary, by those who request the funding. A museum in Missouri or a new highway in Arkansas may be of no value to voters in New York, but they are of value to Missouri and Arkansas. A congressman from New York may gain some advantage from criticising "pork" spending on such projects because he can afford to. He does not rely on voters in Arkansas or Missouri to get reelected. He might be willing to make a trade though.

Very few can, or would argue against a cancer research center or a military base. While there might be dispute over particulars, cancer research centers and military bases are necessary. They have to be somewhere. And, if they have to be somewhere, best it is in your district. The same with other spending. If Washington is going to spend a hundred million dollars to improve the nation's infrastructure, why not start in your district? Every member of Congress has something in his district that needs to be built, repaired, or stimulated. As for the cost, job security in Congress is priceless.

There are ways to curb pork spending. One way would be giving the president a line item veto. That will not happen in our lifetime, or the next. Another way would be to establish and independent panel to review earmarks and assess their merit, assuming agreement could be found on who would sit on that panel, how they would be selected, and what the criteria were as to what precisely constitutes pork spending. The time that would take would all but ensure nothing was passed by Congress, another good reason for an independent panel. Getting a grip on earmarks is on the list of things to do. It might be accomplished right after we succeed in sending a manned mission to Mars.

In any event, earmarks constituted only a minuscule portion of federal spending in the 2010 budget. They should be nowhere near the top of the list.

Defiant in Irrelevancy.

2010-11-04T17:39:00.067-05:00

A look at the election results in Texas is informative. There are 32 congressional districts in Texas. Republicans won 23 of them. One they did not win is the district anchored by Austin. To anyone who has spent time in Austin over the last 40 years, that is not in the least surprising. Austin is famous, or infamous depending on your political tastes, for its liberalism. For many in Austin, being liberal is not only assumed, it is expected. It is not a political inclination. It is a way of life. One of the unofficial slogans for the city is "Keep Austin Weird." By weird, they mean idiosyncratic. By idiosyncratic, they mean liberal.

Over the course of a year in Austin, numerous festivals and events are held. Almost all of them fancy themselves as eccentric. Even though many of the festivals, such as Eeyore's Birthday Party, began as informal, eclectic gatherings, they have since become models of organized spontaneity. They are not populist gatherings, they are institutions. Concerts, rallies, parades, marches, and runs, many complete with corporate sponsorship, are held throughout the year to demonstrate Austin's unique flamboyancy. Each one is more assertive than the next. Gay rights, abortion, and immigration are sure ways to gather a crowd of noisy and self righteous protesters. Whether it is a bike race, a rally, a march, or a music festival (the favorite), an enthusiastic and indignant crowd can be counted on to show up.

With the election results in, many in Austin are gnashing their teeth. Not a few are defiant. They are determined to man the barricades lest conservatives seek entry to the city. For those conservatives who live in the city, discretion is often a must. Despite the endless boasts of tolerance by the liberal residents of Austin, little is to be found. Their tolerance rarely extends beyond their sympathies. A careless remark or an inappropriate t-shirt worn in the wrong place risks a verbal assault. If nothing else, it is assured of garnering hostile looks, rudeness, and slow service at Starbucks. Liberals' confidence in their sensibilities breeds in them arrogance that is unpleasant to behold.

Despite the democrat's defeat in the statewide election, liberals in Austin are unbowed. They will not admit defeat. Why should they? They did their part. They did not lose the election. The rest of Texas did. Austin will hunker down behind its walls and seek to defend them against conservative encroachment. Behind the walls, liberals scowl at the capitol and the infidels who have occupied the temple. They console each other and mock those who oppose them. All the while they will be planning the next march or music festival in the hope that it will rally the dispirited and bring in new volunteers.

The democratic victory in Austin only reassures liberals there of their superiority. The city sees itself as a cosmopolitan island surrounded by a sea of rednecks, racists, and rubes and the election results prove it. What they don't see is that they have become largely irrelevant in state politics: republicans avoid it and democrats take it for granted other than to pass through to raise money and wave. A democratic candidate would have to be a former concentration camp guard or a child molester to lose the vote in Austin. Even then it might be close.

Now Comes the Hard Part

2010-11-03T10:18:00.082-05:00

With the election results in, it is a fine morning if you are a Republican. The Republicans did very well yesterday. Not only did they gain control of the House of Representatives, they picked up four seats in the Senate and narrowed the Democratic majority to four votes. They also picked up seven governorships, likely even more once the results become official. Now when Obama speaks of his willingness to work with Republicans, he will have to mean it.

For Republicans, the hard part begins. With their victory, the burden of fixing America is on them. They have two years to demonstrate to the voters that they did not make a mistake. Chief among the challenges Republicans face will be fixing the economy. The Democrats still have the votes to thwart Republicans in Congress. If the Republicans over reach and incite Democrats, little will get done in Washington. That is just fine with me, I believe we have enough laws and regulations to at least get us through my lifetime. However, most Americans have come to rely upon Washington to fix things. They rely on Washington to help get them jobs and make sure their children eat right, or, more precisely, to make sure other people's children eat right. The expect Washington to remedy injustice, and ensure that they will be able to retire in comfort. They want Washington to make their neighbors behave and not call them names. Whether Congress is run by Republicans or Democrats, it still must meet the expectations of the public and expectations are high.

The demands of Americans on the federal government are often unrealistic and dangerous. They are unrealistic because there is really not much 536 people in Washington can do to fix a nation with a population and an economy as large as ours. Nor can Washington educate our children or get us jobs. High expectations are dangerous because each failure by the federal government leads to more demands made upon it. If the federal government is unable to fix the economy over the next two years, there will be clamor for even more government, not less. Government failures rarely result in demands for less government.

There is another danger Republicans face as a result of the election. The more ambitious they are, the less likely it is that they will achieve any of their goals. They will need to be patient and pragmatic. If their goal is to repeal Obamacare, they will fail. They just do not have the votes to do so. Additionally, outside the Republican core, the antipathy towards federal health care is not sufficient to sustain a prolonged struggle to repeal it, especially a bitter one.

The best approach for republicans regarding health care will be to nibble at it. If republicans focus on nibbling at health care they will force democrats to defend it piece by piece. Although there is antipathy among the general electorate towards Obama's health care plan, some of what is contained in it is popular, at least in principal. Providing health care to people who need it but cannot afford it is a difficult thing to criticize, especially when you consider the program has not yet been felt. At this stage it is still largely an idea, and not a bad one. Even if national health proves to be a disaster, it is not a disaster yet.

A full scale assault on Obama's policies would allow democrats to defend the popular aspects and over look the unpopular ones. Republicans could be easily side tracked and put on the defensive if they can be portrayed as indifferent to people in need. It would not be difficult for democrats to find people in difficult circumstances who are benefiting from the legislation and put them on TV. Republicans would be seen as doctrinaire and heartless. If health care becomes a contest between angry people and suffering people, suffering people will win.

Republicans should adopt a tactical approach and force democrats to defend their policies and legislation piece by piece. If they are compelled to defend them piece by piece, especially the least popular ones, they will suffer for it. Whether or not Republicans have the patience to nibble will be an important factor in their success.

To simply tilt at windmills and harangue Obama and Democrats will do Republicans no good. Neither will proposing ambitious policies only to fail. The problem is many Republicans ran on bold promises to undo what Obama and the Democrats have done. In an ideological struggle Republicans may gain in the short term among the more enthusiastic of their supporters, but they will risk alienating a major portion of the electorate.

For better or worse, most Americans simply want to earn a comfortable living and be left alone. If the economy improves and Republicans can reduce the burden of government by lowering taxes and reducing regulation, they stand to gain mightily. If the Republicans try to change the nation by picking fights and proposing an ambitious agenda they will only incite Democratic opposition and sour the public. The Democrats are chastened but they are not defeated.

If Republicans want to build on their success they will need patience. They need to focus on achieving small victories and avoid mud fights and spectacular defeats. That will be no small task given the zealousness of the Tea Party supporters who will claim credit for the Republican victory. They have won at Concord, but it is still a long way to Yorktown. Militias and citizen soldiers will not be enough. They will need a disciplined army under unified leadership before it is through.

Necessary Force?

2010-10-30T09:12:00.011-05:00

In the news today, a jury in Winnfield, La. yesterday found a former police officer not guilty of manslaughter in the death of Baron Pikes. Pikes died after officer Scott Nugent used a taser gun on him repeatedly. Pikes was even tased as he lay on the ground with his hands cuffed behind his back. The reason for the repeated tasings according to Nugent is that Pikes refused orders to get up. Nugent tased Pikes again later while in the back seat of the police car for refusing to get out when ordered. In all, Pikes was tased eight times. Nugent was later fired for his actions.

Pikes was not armed and posed no threat Nugent. It was not mentioned in the article why a trained police officer felt it necessary to resort to using a taser against a hand cuffed man, even when that man was sitting in the back seat of his patrol car. Perhaps Nugent had just had his nails done and didn't want to risk breaking or scuffing them. Maybe he just didn't want to get his dress dirty.

Greetings from the Hills

2010-10-28T19:40:00.027-05:00

A Palestinian girls school in Nablus was burned recently. Written on the side of the one of the charred buildings was the message "Greetings from the hills." The message was written by one of the Israeli settlers who live in the hills overlooking Nablus. It was not an isolated incident. Olive groves belonging to Palestinians are frequently targeted by Israeli settlers who uproot and burn the trees. The groves are the mainstay of the local Palestinian population. Israeli authorities are looking into the incident. They look into every incident.

There were no apologies and no remorse among the settlers who live in the hills overlooking Nablus and other Palestinian towns and villages in the West Bank. Indeed, there was satisfaction and the promise of more such actions. Said one settler, "my efforts will be to assure that [the Palestinian's] future won't be here because this land belongs to the Jewish people." For settlers and their supporters, there is room for only one people in Israel and that people is the Jews.

As the West has moved steadily over the decades towards plurality and multiculturalism, many in Israel cling to an earlier time, and that time was over 3,000 years ago. The West has fallen and risen over the millennia. Empires have come and gone. The West will fall and rise again. Israel, or at least the idea of Israel, has endured and will endure. There is nothing anyone can do to change that, least of all the Palestinians and their girls schools and olive trees.

God has chastised Israel in the past. If He is ever moved to chastise Israel again, it is unlikely to be at the hands of the Palestinians. It almost certainly won't be by olive groves and girls schools.

Cultural Ends and Means

2010-10-22T12:47:00.059-05:00

Angela Merkel, chancellor of Germany, caused a stir recently with her comments about diversity. She criticized the doctrine that people of diverse and disparate cultures and religions can live side by side in harmony. (The fact that she is German added to the controversy.) She said that multiculturalism has "utterly failed". Her comments quickly drew the ire of multiculturalists around the world.

Some attributed her remarks to the dark streak of ignorance and fear that is always lurking just below the surface of civilization. Those resistant to the idea of multiculturalism are seen as victims of a limited horizon: a horizon constricted by the familiar and the customary. Whether through habit, fear, or ignorance, those who refuse to embrace multiculturalism are viewed as being on the wrong side of history. The world is moving towards multiculturalism and people have to adapt.

Multiculturalism is heralded as an engine of progress. For its advocates, it represents the transcending of narrow and parochial views in favor of cosmopolitan ones. The benefit is new perspectives and an added richness brought about by exposure to new customs and ideas. Society is shaken out of its complacency by the contrast between the established culture and that brought by immigrants. Things that had previously been taken for granted and assumed are reevaluated. Some gain new luster, some are discarded as anachronistic or counterproductive. Society is improved and reinvigorated. This is the view held out by advocates of multiculturalism anyway. This view has merit but it overlooks much.

Culture is not an abstract idea. Cultures are not merely differences of language or simple habits and tastes. They are not fashions or adornments. They are complex systems of beliefs, customs, and behaviors. They are sources of identity. Culture is what differentiates one people from another. Disparate people can live side by side. Disparate cultures are another matter entirely. Beliefs are personal. Cultures are public.

It is important to distinguish between values and beliefs and the expression of those values and beliefs. Different people can share the same values but rely upon different means to express them. Where this is the case, multiculturalism can be a benefit. When social values are shared, the introduction of new perspectives and approaches can deepen and enrich them. Cultures which share the same values can coexist even where the expression of those values differ. One culture may show respect for its elders through gift cards or a night on the town. Another culture may demonstrate its respect through ritual dance. The difference between the two may be jarring, but it is possible for them to coexist because, at their core, they express the same values and sentiments.

When values and beliefs are not shared the real tension ensues. For example imagine of a culture where elders are ridiculed and mocked. Could such a culture exist alongside a culture where elders are respected? Can a culture that exalts the natural world coexist with a culture that strives to exploit it? Can a culture in which women are secluded from men exist alongside a culture in which women are encouraged to mingle among men? A culture in which privacy is jealously guarded can be offended and bewildered by cultures in which privacy is merely an afterthought. A community that observes a strict sense of decorum is easily unsettled by a culture that embraces life with abandon.

Yet even if values are shared, turmoil can occur. Small differences, such as whether eye contact is a sign of respect or an act of contempt, can cause considerable friction. A gregarious, emotive culture will coexist with a formal and reserved one only with difficulty. Different cultures may coexist physically, but they cannot coexist socially without disturbing each other and breeding resentment. One will have to yield. The question is which? The guest or the host?

Where one culture offends the sensibilities of another, coexistence is problematic. If there is tolerance, it will be a resigned tolerance if only because the effort to remove or suppress the offending culture would cost more than what is hoped would be gained by the effort.

Proponents of multiculturalism frequently assert that their support is based on principal. However, those principals are selective. The principals they choose must fit within their sensibilities. They are not in the least reluctant to resort to law and compulsion to challenge principals they find objectionable. They may feign to respect diverse cultures and customs but let one adhere to a culture or religion whose customs and traditions violate multiculturalist sensibilities and one will soon feel their disdain.

To pretend that culture is simply a matter of taste and expression is simplistic. Contrary to popular belief, multiculturalism is more complicated than pride days, parades, and the international food court at the mall. But to multiculturalists who believe they have transcended custom and social mores and live in a world above and beyond the parochial concerns that plague the rest of mankind, it is the future. For them, multiculturalism is not a means to an end, it is the end. To modern elites, culture is theater and all values are subjective but their own.

A Necessary Provocation

2010-10-16T09:40:00.045-05:00

On Saturday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was given a gift by the leader of the Hezbollah while visiting Lebanon. The gift was an Israeli rifle in a felt lined box. The rifle was captured during Hezbollah's war with Israel in 2006. Ahmadinejad later went on to give a speech in a town near the Israeli border where he told a crowd that "the world should know that the Zionists will perish." Both Israel and the U.S. condemned Ahmadinejad's visit to Lebanon as an "unnecessary provocation".

Yesterday, Israel announced that it would end its temporary restrictions on building in East Jerusalem and resume construction on contested land seized during the 1967 Middle East War in defiance of U.S. and international calls not to. The move outraged Palestinian leaders and was quickly criticized as a blow to the peace process. Washington is disappointed. Israel is determined. The Palestinians are furious. The move was seen by many as a provocation.

Iran's threats are a danger to Israel's existence. Israel's actions are a threat to Palestine's existence. Although one cannot equate the call for Israel's destruction with a resumption of building on contested land, both moves are provocative and threats to the peace process. A major difference is that while Iran is blustering, Israel is bulldozing.

Ahmadinejad is known for his incendiary rhetoric. Israel is known for its resolve. The threat Iran poses to Israel is serious but not immanent: nor will it be for some time, if ever. His statement poses no real threat in the West Bank to the peace process. The resumption of building in East Jerusalem is concrete and immanent. It is a very dangerous threat to the peace process. Every new Israeli settlement, every Palestinian evicted and every Palestinian house destroyed strengthens the Hezbollah and their allies in Iran and makes it more difficult for Palestinian leaders to keep talking. At times it seems that Israel's idea of peace is Palestinian submission.

The moves by both countries were likely made with an eye towards placating hard line elements. Ahmadinejad's comments were quickly condemned as an "unnecessary provocation" by leaders in Israel and the U.S. Israel's actions, on the other hand, were described by Washington merely as a "disappointment".

In a sense, both actions were necessary. For Ahmadinejad to retain power, he must placate the hard right in Iran and the hard right demands a tough stance on Israel. Furthermore, it is very much to his advantage to keep domestic attention focused outward on Israel, and by extension the U.S. and off domestic issues. It gives him more latitude in his attempts to keep his grip on power. For Netanyahu and his government, the decision to resume building in East Jerusalem is a necessary provocation if they want to remain in power. Netanyahu needs the Israeli right if he is to stay in power and the Israeli right wants to build settlements. Both policies do much to increase tension in the region.

I suspect that Ahmadinejad is privately delighted by the news in Israel. He loses nothing when Palestinian land is seized and houses are destroyed, but he gains much. A contented, prosperous Palestine would be a great blow. Hard liners in the region need conflict and tension if they are to survive. Ahmadinejad's visit to Lebanon was far from unnecessary.

Immigration: It Is Not That Simple

2010-10-14T10:59:00.021-05:00

In the sometimes contentious debate over immigration, it is frequently asserted that all Americans in one way or another abet illegal immigration. The argument by those who support, or at least sympathize with illegal immigration, is that the majority of Americans participate in it one way or another. Americans eat vegetables picked by illegal immigrants. Americans make use of the cheap labor illegal immigrants provide to hold labor costs down. Americans eat at restaurants staffed by illegal immigrants. In many more such ways Americans utilize the cheap labor afforded by illegal immigrants. They are correct. But where they err is in confusing participation with complicity.

When someone buys a house, that person cannot check whether the house was built using illegal immigrant labor. When a person eats at a restaurant, she cannot verify the immigration status of the kitchen staff. Neither can a hotel guest know whether the maid is in the U.S. legally. There are no signs marking whether the road one drives on is tended to by legal or illegal labor. One cannot ask park workers for their documents.

It is true that Americans benefit in many ways from illegal immigrants. But that does not make Americans complicit. When customers are able to walk down an aisle at the grocery store and choose between items labeled as to whether they were harvested by legal or illegal immigrants or hire a contractor knowing whether those in his employ are here legally or illegally, we will have a better idea as to the degree to which Americans support or oppose illegal immigration. When Americans can buy a house or rent an apartment with knowledge of whether it was built using legal or illegal labor we can gain insight into their views on immigration.

Until that day arrives, we can only assume and speculate. It is likely that day will never arrive. And, if that day ever arrives, it will be greeted with howls of protest from those who would conflate the choice such information provided with an invitation to racism and prejudice.

Many Americans, but certainly not all, do benefit from cheap labor provided by illegal immigrants. But that does not make them accomplices.

Believing It Doesn't Make It So

2010-10-13T14:35:00.035-05:00

Andy Moreno is upset. Moreno, a senior, has been disqualified from running for homecoming queen at North Dallas High School. The reason Moreno was disqualified is that Moreno is a man. Moreno believes he should be allowed to compete for Homecoming Queen because, despite his male biology and physiology, he identifies himself as a woman. Technically Moreno is "transgendered". Transgendered is the term of choice for people in Andy's predicament. The school has told Moreno he is free to run for king, but he doesn't want to be a king. He wants to be a queen. Queer Liberation, a gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered rights group, is preparing to go to court to defend Moreno's right to be a queen.

Moreno asserts he is a woman because he believes he is a woman. For Moreno and his supporters, that is enough. However "male" and "female" are not social, psychological, or cultural designations. They are biological designations. But Moreno and his supporters refuse to yield to biology. They insist that biology is irrelevant.

Moreno is free to believe he is anything he wants. He can believe he is a woman. He can believe he is a wizard. He can believe he is Queen of England for that matter. But believing it does not make it so. Neither does feeling it. Moreno has the right to dress like a woman. He has the right to behave as a woman. He has the right to believe he is a woman. But he does not have the right to be a woman. That is a right no Earthly institution can grant.

The human mind may know no limits. But nature does. If people want to contest with nature, that is their prerogative. However, they should be prepared to lose. They always do. Andy Moreno may believe he is a woman. He may dress as a woman. He may behave as a woman. He may someday obtain status as a woman. He may even have surgery to appear as a woman. But he will never be a woman. That is not because of ignorance, intolerance or bigotry. That is because of nature. If Moreno has an objection with nature, he will have to take it up with a higher authority than North Dallas High School.

Moreno is not demanding that he be left alone or tolerated. He is demanding that he be embraced. In doing so he is not simply asking for something that belongs to him, he is demanding something be given to him. He is demanding the approval and respect of others whether they want to give it or not.

Moreno has vowed to fight on. He may think he is fighting North Dallas High School, but in truth he is fighting something out of his league. It is out of every one's league.

Biting The Hand That Feeds You.

2010-10-10T11:28:00.045-05:00

With a poor economy and a sour electorate, many candidates have decided to try and redirect voter ire towards China. Candidates around the country have begun to run ads portraying their opponents as being soft on trade and selling the U.S. out to China. Many of the ads have been harsh. One run by democrat Jack Space of Ohio shows a giant dragon thanking his republican opponent for the help he has provided to China. Others show ominous pictures of Chinese factory workers, presumably laboring to undermine the U.S. Not a few show pictures of abandoned factories, implying that they are shuttered due to Chinese subterfuge and capitalist greed. Some ads have even found room for pictures of Chairman Mao. China is an easy target for politicians. If nothing else, it makes Americans feel better by absolving us, (and our leaders of course), of blame for our predicament. Besides, the Chinese cannot vote in the U.S.

The U.S. is indeed in a precarious position in regard to China, but there is plenty of blame to go around. Much of the blame that does not belong to corporations seeking to maximize profits falls on American consumers. After all, they are the engine driving the demand for cheap goods. Unless you are a carpenter or a true patriot, there is no reason to buy a $50 hammer made in the U.S. at the hardware store if you can buy a $15 Chinese hammer at Wal-Mart. The Chinese are simply doing what the U.S. used to do best, meeting demand at as low a cost possible. If there was no demand for cheap goods or services, there would be no need to import them. Even though China has engaged in practices and maneuvers designed to give them an advantage in trade, those maneuvers and practices are not the cause of the issue. Blame the economy or blame the consumer. Blame business or blame labor. Blame Washington or blame Wall Street. Just don't blame the Chinese. They are simply doing business. 19th century business perhaps, but business nevertheless.

Worse still, the U.S. is not simply importing hammers and concrete from China. It is importing money. There is serious concern in many quarters regarding the growing reliance of the U.S. on China to manage its debt and meet its budget. Campaign rhetoric about jobs and trade to the side, the issue of U.S. borrowing is a grave one. Many fret that it is giving China too much leverage over the U.S. There is also the concern that we are contributing to the rise of a wealthy, sophisticated new opponent on the world stage.

One result of this apprehension is the visceral attacks on China becoming popular in many political races. There are even hints by some that, if necessary, the U.S. can retaliate by reneging on its debt. The costs of doing that would most likely be more severe than continuing to carry the debt. Perhaps if the U.S. were truly self sufficient it might be a credible option. But the U.S. is not self sufficient. It needs trade or it will collapse. Trying to replace China as a trading partner, to say nothing of being a creditor, would be near impossible.

China has been instrumental in keeping the U.S. afloat for some time now. But its help has come at a great price. It is estimated that the U.S. is in China's debt to the tune of $1.7 trillion. Because the burden of the debt has not yet truly been felt, the U.S. has been content to go on about its business, so to speak. The trade deficit and mounting debt often comes down to the issue of who needs who more. Many argue that China needs the U.S. as a market for its exports. The idea that China needs America is of comfort to many. It is believed that China would never act against us because of it. Others note that the U.S. needs China to finance our economy. They are both right. But the harsh rhetoric emerging from politicians regarding China is dangerous. Not only does it distort a complex issue by reducing it to brief images and slogans, it amounts to biting the hand that feeds you. Until the U.S. can feed itself, it should refrain from biting that hand. Cheap hammers we can get anywhere. A trillion dollars is another matter.

China is a proud country. They will not react well to sustained abuse by U.S. politicians. To antagonize China for political gain is short sighted. But someone has to be blamed for the dismal economy. If all else fails, blame China and their Fifth Column in Washington. There will be time to make it up to them after the election.

If the U.S. was really serious about addressing the economic challenge China represents to the U.S., it should reconsider relying upon China to balance our checkbook. But, like hunger, no one suffers from future privation. Neither does one lose elections on future suffering.

Fading Hope and Little Change.

2010-10-09T17:04:00.016-05:00

There is great interest in next month's election. Many Republicans anticipate picking up a good number of seats, even a majority in the House and Senate. Many Democrats fear it. President Obama is one. A Republican victory would be a significant hindrance to his ambitions and a major blow to his ego. Obama is convinced he is a man of destiny. A Republican victory would demonstrate otherwise.

Obama has been campaigning hard for fellow Democrats. Obama's presidential campaign centered around hope and change. Obama asserted that under his administration, things would get better. The "failed policies of the past" would be replaced by new policies that would bring about jobs and prosperity. They haven't. Things are still not well with the U.S. The failed policies of the past have given way to the failed policies of the present.

Two years ago when he was running for president, one of Obama's stock lines was that the Republicans had driven the economy into a ditch. The economy is still in a ditch. The Democrats have been in power for two years. They cannot blame the Republicans, although they are trying to desperately. The fact is they have no one to blame but themselves. Obama said he could get fix the economy. He hasn't. In fact, Bloomberg predicts that the unemployment rate will be higher at the end of Obama's term than it was when he took office. The unemployment rate was at 7.7% when Obama took office. It is now at 9.6%. Things are so grim at the moment that even the government is laying off workers

The hope that Obama promised two years ago has faded after two years of economic malaise. The change Obama promised has been elusive. Partisan conflict in Washington is worse than it has been in many years. Obama's monumental ambition and heavy hand in pushing his agenda have increased antagonism in Washington, not lessened it. Despite the rhetoric of the White House, resistance to Obama's agenda was largely based on principal, not on spite. It was the White House and the democrats who sought to portray opposition to the administration's agenda as based on politics and petulance. After all, Obama had won the election by such a large margin, clearly America embraced him. And, if America embraced Obama, it must have meant that they embraced his agenda. To oppose Obama verged on opposing America.

The administration can point its finger and make excuses for the struggling economy. They can comb the statistics finding nuggets of positive news. But Americans are still struggling, not just to find jobs, but to keep them. The ones with jobs might feel a little better with Obama's assurances, but to those without jobs and those struggling to make ends meet, statistics and press releases matter little.

Obama spoke about hope and change. People elected him because they hoped things would change. Thing haven't changed. Things have gotten worse. After being in charge for two years, the car is still in the ditch. Try as he might, Obama can't blame the Republicans for that.

We know how America feels about the economy. It will not be long before we find out how America feels about Obama and the democrats.

Interest Groups Are Not to Blame

2010-10-04T14:17:00.048-05:00

It was reported this morning that spending by interest groups for next month's Congressional elections is five times what it was two years ago. $80 million has been spent so far alone for next month's election. The amount will go up. Government is bigger now than it was then. It also controls more than it did then. Of the many who associate interest group spending with corruption, the increase in spending is blamed on last year's ruling by the Supreme Court that freed groups from campaign financing rules that greatly crimped funding by large groups such as business, manufacturers, and medical associations. Additionally, the ruling removes the requirement that campaign donors be identified. Predictably, the left is in an uproar since they often are at a disadvantage when it comes to raising campaign funding from large, well funded sources. But they really have no one to blame but themselves.

Over the course of the last century, Washington has become the center of the economic and political universe largely due to the efforts of the left. Decisions made there affect every facet of American life. From agriculture and education to manufacturing and finance, there is very little that is not under federal purview. Because of this, very few people, institutions, and businesses can afford to be indifferent to what goes on in Washington. Decisions made there can affect not just factories and businesses, but whole industries and communities. It should not be surprising that many people and groups are not content to simply read about legislation in the newspaper.

Washington has also become the center of the social universe. Marriage, and child rearing, for example, have become matters of federal concern thanks to the left. What your children eat, or don't eat; read or don't read are no longer issues of concern only to parents. They are public issues. Because they are public issues, they are political issues.

It is the left that works so diligently to find the political aspect of everything in a manner that would impress communists and Jesuits. Once that aspect is located, it is to be manipulated in a manner suitable to their sensibilities. What the left didn't, and still doesn't, understand is that they do not have a monopoly on government manipulation. The tools and institutions put in place to achieve the ambitions of the left do not belong to them. They belong to whomever happens to be in office. It is naive of the left to believe that their opponents will never be in charge of the programs and institutions they have worked so hard to create. It is the right that is being naive if they believe that once they are in charge, they will stay in charge.

One of the chief consequences of the federal behemoth created by the left is the struggle for its control. The greater the stakes, the greater the struggle. The greater the struggle, the more money it will cost. If the left is at a disadvantage it is their own fault. They are the ones who raised the stakes by expanding federal government.

The vast amount of money that is being spent, and will be spent, on elections should not be blamed on selfishness or avarice on the part of interest groups and their constituents. Interest groups and, by extension their constituents, are simply trying to influence an institution that has come to have a great deal of power over how and under what conditions they can operate. It is all but impossible to go about one's affairs and be indifferent to what is going on in Washington. Whether one is a farmer, an auto worker, a lawyer or a doctor, what goes on in Washington can significantly affect one's life and livelihood. Some might be content to go the the polls every other year and cast a vote and cross their fingers. Those who aren't should not be blamed or criticized for looking out for their own interests.

Any law with the size, reach, and budget of the new health care act is a bonanza for lobbyists. So much money is involved and so many issues, industries and people are affected by it that it will attract lobbyists like a dead possum attracts flies. Countless people will want something out of it. Countless more will want to avoid something in it. Everyone will seek to find some advantage in it. All of them will spend great deals of money to achieve their goals. If politicians in Washington wanted to find a better way to increase campaign donations and guarantee job security for lobbyists than passing gargantuan legislation like the health care and financial bail out acts, they would be hard pressed.

Lobbyists and interest groups are not to blame for the financial circus that surrounds elections. Whenever an election touches on a major issue or portends change, those who might be affected mobilize. Washington is the problem. Washington is the Mount Everest of politics. Lobbyists and interest groups are simply Sherpas hired to help people to the top.

Who is the Finger for?

2010-09-28T19:24:00.017-05:00

A new sculpture recently went up in front of the stock exchange in Milan, Italy. It is causing no small amount of controversy. Many find the sculpture offensive. The artist claims that the sculpture is intended to mock the Nazi salute. I don't see it.

Nevertheless, I believe the sculpture is entirely appropriate, except for one thing. It is facing the wrong way. Given the recent economic difficulties in Europe, the sculpture should be turned around to face the stock exchange. As it is, it appears that the stock exchange is flipping off the public in an act of contempt. On second thought, that just might be the point.

Someone should see about getting one of those for Wall Street. Washington too. They could put it right in front of the Capitol.

It is Not Rocket Science. It is Harder.

2010-09-21T08:46:00.020-05:00

George Washington University recently completed a study on obesity and concluded that not only is obesity a large health problem, it is also a financial burden. The reason it is a financial burden is because obese people cost more than thin people.

The report concluded that an obese woman, in addition to suffering the indignity of being obese, can expect to lose $4,870 each year in wages and productivity. The average obese male loses $2,646 in wages annually. The study also found two thirds of Americans are overweight or obese. There are other costs as well. Those costs include medical costs, and short term disability. Obesity even affects our national security. The typical obese male requires an additional $23 in gasoline to transport his bulk to and fro. An obese female requires an additional $21 making us more dependent on foreign oil.

It is hoped by some that the findings of the study will be additional motivation for Congress to tackle the issue. It is likely the government will do so. Once an issue gains status as an issue affecting the economy, the government usually gets involved. Only the federal government can address a national problem and it is argued that obesity has become a national problem.

It is not a national problem. It is a personal problem that unfortunately is all too common. It is not a matter of education as some like to claim. Neither is the problem a lack of information. Everyone knows that if you eat too much and do not exercise you will get fat. It is not a secret. Everyone knows that you can lose weight by eating less and exercising more. The wide spread growth of nutritional information on food products places a wealth of information in the hands of consumers. Even McDonald's provides nutritional information on the food it serves. If that labeling is not helpful it is because people do not take the time to read it or don't care. Neither problem will be solved by more government or blue ribbon panels.

The problem is people. Losing weight and getting fit can be difficult. It requires time and effort. Many people do not want to spend time and effort. That is why the market for miracle weight loss plans and magical drinks and pills is so lucrative. This is where the government comes in. It is believed that the government can succeed where willpower, state of the art machines, magical pills and drinks cannot. After all, if we put a man on the Moon (the Gold Standard of the efficacy of government), we can get people to lose weight.

Obesity does not just happen. People do not wake up one morning 50lb.s overweight. It takes time and lack of effort. Government is not going to change that. Just because we put a man on the moon does not mean we can get Johnny, or his parents to eat right or lose weight. We can't even get Johnny to do his homework.

Getting people to lose weight is not rocket science. It is harder. Science deals with identifiable and quantifiable principles that can be manipulated and measured. Obesity deals with people and human nature. All of the regulations and policies in the world cannot change human nature. Obesity may be a case of cause and effect. Human nature is not. Human nature is the x factor in all social planning. We can tell people how to lose weight, but we cannot make them do so.

Taxing food and penalizing the obese will not make people thinner. It will just make them poorer. There is already a correlation between poverty and obesity. We might just make things worse. If junk food become illegal, only criminals will eat junk food. There will be a lot of new criminals and many of them will be fat.

Not Your Father's Immigration

2010-09-13T20:29:00.073-05:00

When immigration is put into historical context, the issue appears less alarming. As is commonly noted, the U.S. is a nation of immigrants. It always has been.

In the 17th century, thousands of European immigrants (sometimes referred to as colonists) arrived in North America and forever changed it. Thousands more began arriving soon after. It was not long before tens of thousands had arrived. Later, hundreds of thousands began arriving. Between 1836 and 1914, over 30 million new immigrants arrived. In 1907, 1,285,350 arrived on our shores: an impressive number considering the population of the U.S. was just 87 million at the time. As was the case in earlier waves, the vast majority of those immigrants were from Europe. Indeed, Europeans comprised the majority immigrants entering the U.S. as late as 1970 when they made up 60% of all new arrivals. By 2000, the proportion of immigrants arriving from Europe had dropped to 15%.

The number of immigrants arriving in the U.S. has gone up dramatically over the decades. 250,000 immigrants arrived in the 1930's. 2.5 million arrived during the 1950's. Another 7.3 million arrived during the 1980's. From 1990 through 2,000, 10 million more arrived. In 2010, 25% of all people in the U.S. under 25 are immigrants or children of immigrants. Measuring immigrants in the U.S. is an inexact science. It is likely the numbers are higher.

All immigrations are not alike. Every wave has been different. Most were unwelcome. Each changed America; some dramatically, some subtlety. What distinguishes modern immigration from the earlier ones is that the earlier immigrations all ended. Millions of Irish immigrated to the U.S., then they stopped coming. Millions of Germans came to the U.S. But they stopped coming too. The same can be said about Chinese, Hungarian, and Dutch immigrants. Each period of mass immigration was tumultuous. There was friction and hostility between the new immigrants and the citizens of the communities in which they put down stakes. But over time, immigration subsided and the new immigrants settled in and assimilated into U.S. culture. They really didn't have a choice. Cut off from reinforcements and lacking modern communications, it was inevitable they would eventually blend with their new communities. While there are still enclaves where Dutch, Chinese, and Italian are spoken and festivals are held, the Dutch, Chinese, and Italians who came to the U.S. have long since become indistinguishable from any other American: they are American.

The current wave of immigration from Mexico is distinct from earlier waves of immigration to the U.S. in several ways. Not the least of the differences is the geographical proximity of immigrants to their home country. Also, the U.S. has become much more accommodating to immigrants. Services are provided and concessions are made that would have been unimaginable to immigrants in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Technological advances, like television, radio, telephones, and the Internet all work against assimilation by allowing new immigrants to effortlessly retain cultural and emotional ties to their homeland.

Perhaps the biggest difference between current immigration and earlier waves is that it is not stopping. In 1970, immigrants were 4.7% of the population. That number has been going up steadily. In 2010, the percentage had risen to 10%. It will keep going up. There is no way of stopping it: at least no civilized way to stop it. But it can be brought under control.

To get a sense of the magnitude of immigration, consider California. In 1970, European Americans comprised 80% of the population of that state. In 2008, that percentage had dropped to 42.3%. A change of that size cannot be overlooked or shrugged off. Getting immigration under control does not mean machine guns, mass deportations and concentration camps. It means enforcing laws that already exist and taking steps to reduce illegal immigration into the U.S.

Immigration is not a force of nature. It is a human phenomenon. Something can be done about it. The question is what. We cannot know what we should do unless we talk about it. We cannot talk about it if one side is continually accused of racism and xenophobia. It is possible to have a discussion about immigration without resorting to insults and invectives. It is uncommon, but it is possible.

The U.S. Census Bureau predicts that by 2050, 25% of the U.S. population will be of Hispanic decent. While some current studies report that immigration, legal and otherwise, is slowing, mostly due to the poor economy, it is not stopping. It will never stop. We are conducting a social experiment of immense proportions that is transforming our nation. Nevertheless we are told not to worry and that everything will work out fine: it always has before. But this is not our father's immigration. It is something new and unprecedented. No one knows how it will turn out. That is why so many are apprehensive.

We cannot stop immigration. We should not stop immigration. But we should get it under control. In order to get it under control we need to try to stop illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is by definition uncontrolled immigration.

Slow Going in Afghanstan

2010-09-12T16:14:00.014-05:00

In this morning's Dallas Morning News, there was an article written by Rod Nordland about Afghanistan and the deteriorating security situation there. The U.S. has been hoping to be able to turn over security in the country to Afghan forces. It has been training Afghan soldiers to that end for several years. The transition has been going more slowly than planned. What was of particular interest in the story was the photograph that accompanied it.

In the photo, a U.S. soldier and his Afghan counterpart are in an alley, their attention focused down the street. The U.S. soldier lays prone, looking through his sight, weapon ready to fire. The Afghan soldier is standing in the street straddling his weapon, arms folded. The photo could be hung in any basic training barracks as an example of how not to man a position: and people wonder why we have been in Afghanistan so long.

That U.S. soldier will be going home soon. When he does, that Afghan soldier will be standing in the street by himself. At least he didn't have his hands in his pockets. Some of the training must be sticking.

The Wrong Lesson

2010-09-08T08:57:00.052-05:00

As the U.S. economy continues to languish and the federal debt mounts, debate swirls around how the government should respond. Democrats continue to urge more deficit spending. When in a pinch, the example of FDR spending the U.S. out of the Great Depression is brought to the fore. Yet despite FDR's impressive New Deal spending in the years leading up to WWII, the results were mixed. More important was the massive deficit spending that occurred as the war picked up steam and the economic boom that followed. There is a school of thought that understands deficit spending as a form of investment. Even though the economic crisis of the 1930's and increased federal spending that followed can be compared and evaluated with the current situation, the effect of WWII on the economy cannot.

The real explosion in deficit spending by FDR came in response to WWII. Certainly, a great deal of money was spent during the depression. The U.S. debt increased by $33 billion fighting it in the 1930's. But that is dwarfed by what was spent fighting WWII. Over the course of the war, the debt grew by $222 billion. During the Great Depression, millions of people were put to work, but they were put to work building dams and paving roads. During WWII, people were put to work making and building things, real things like ships, tanks, and trucks while gaining skills that would be useful after the war. Millions of men were put to work in the military and merchant marine. Millions of women were put to work making and doing things that had been done by men who were no longer available to do them. Even people of the fringe of U.S. society like African Americans gained employment in record numbers.

After the war, the U.S. economy continued to thrive as it labored to rebuild Europe and Japan and tend to needs neglected during the war. The industrial capacity gained in the war served the U.S. well. Millions of dollars were made and millions of people were put to work making and selling cars, construction material, and machinery to a world in desperate need of such things. Service men who had been taken off the farm and out of small towns and mills had a taste of the world and headed off to college to pursue careers and opportunities unimaginable to them prior to the war.

Yes, government spending was important during the Great Depression. But while it kept many Americans above water it did little else. It was WWII that pulled the U.S. out of the Great Depression and created an economic boom that lasted decades, not the New Deal. The government spent mightily during the depression: more than it had ever spent before. But it was the spending caused by fighting a world war that made the real difference and transformed the U.S. into a modern economic power. It was the economic boom that followed the war and the explosion of college educated workers caused by the GI bill that created the middle class that has become the paradigm of U.S. prosperity, not the New Deal

The wistfulness of many for the New Deal is just that. To point to the New Deal and ignore WWII is a common flaw on the part of those nostalgic for the days when government expansion was at its height. The transformation of the U.S. into a progressive and cosmopolitan culture was a result of the changes brought about by a generation of college educated Americans no longer limited to the horizon afforded by life on a farm or in a factory. That transformation was not brought about by politicians, bureaucrats and planners. It was brought about by people seeking to improve themselves and their lives.

It is true the government was instrumental in bringing about that college educated generation through the GI bill. But the GI bill was only effective in conjunction with a generation that wanted to attend college and take advantage of the opportunities that education would offer. But there is a lesson here as well. Government is much less effective when it comes to making people do what they are disinclined to do. Government cannot create engineers no matter what it spends. It can only help people who want to be engineers become engineers.

Many hail the New Deal as a model for stimulating the economy and urge a reprise. Few credit world war. But one cannot use the New Deal as a model and ignore WWII. The New Deal mitigated the suffering caused by the Great Depression. It did not end it. If we hope to see an economic recovery even approaching the one that followed WWII we need to find away to spur an explosion of economic activity like that which followed the war. Raising taxes and expanding government are not the ways to do it.

Government spending dropped dramatically after WWII. We are not fighting a world war. Even if the economy recovers due, or despite, the record spending of the Obama administration, government will not shrink after the crisis is over. It will remain and the costs and bureaucracy associated with it will remain as well. There will be no after.

Yes We Can!

2010-09-07T10:47:00.028-05:00

President Obama has taken his political revival show on the road. He has been energetically stumping for Democrats across the nation. His political ambitions depend on democrats keeping the majority in both houses. As the likelihood of a republican victory in the Fall increases, so does Obama's stridency. Speaking at a rally in Milwaukee, Obama criticized Republicans as the party of "no we can't" much to the delight of the crowd.

Obama's ridicule of republican opposition to his policies should not be dismissed out of hand by GOP hopefuls looking for victory in the Fall. To the contrary, there is much to it that should be embraced. Obama and the democrats claim that they can raise taxes without hampering the economy. They claim that they can increase the size and scope of federal government without impinging upon liberty. They claim they can expand health care to include everyone who needs it without bankrupting the nation or compromising quality or availability. They claim that the government can continue to run up monstrous deficits without undermining the economy. It can't.

Everything is not possible. Government cannot keep spending money it does not have. Government cannot give people everything they want or do for them everything they want done. Obama tells us we can keep on spending. The numbers tell us we can't. Obama tells us the government can keep on regulating without hampering the economy. History tells us that is not the case. Obama believes we can tax, spend, and legislate ourselves to prosperity. Someone needs to tell him we can't. Obama frequently refers to what he likes to call "the failed policies of the past", but he is blind to the failed policies of the present.

To argue that the United States cannot sustain its current level of spending is not a policy position or a campaign tactic. It is simply a fact. According to the early polls, the race between Democrats and reality will be a close one.

Golfing for the Troops.

2010-09-03T20:19:00.030-05:00

The Fields of Honor Foundation is a group that seeks to provide scholarships for the children and spouses of military men and women disabled, injured or killed serving the nation. The group was inaugurated in 2007. On Labor Day, the group will be holding a celebrity golf game, Patriot Golf Day, to raise money for the foundation. Former president George W. Bush will be among the notables participating in the event.

It has become customary for groups seeking to raise funds for a cause to make it as easy and comfortable as possible for celebrities to attend. Think of Hollywood fundraisers. Celebrities dress up and attend galas where they are feted and fawned over in the name of some charity or cause. They are not asked to do anything in particular for the cause. They are just asked to show up and look fabulous. Everybody wins. Celebrities get publicity and acquire a sheen of compassion and social awareness. Organizers get the satisfaction of throwing a ritzy event. The poor, the ill, and the lamed get some money raised on their behalf.

For people such as athletes and politicians whose fame does not lend itself as well to swank parties and posh events, golf is a popular method of raising money. Like Hollywood galas, in golf events everybody wins. The charity or cause hosting the event gets publicity. The unfortunate get some money raised on their behalf, and the participants, in addition to getting some publicity themselves, have the satisfaction of helping people in need while spending an afternoon on the golf course.

So on Labor Day, the children and spouses of killed and disabled troops will have some money raised to help them attend college, and former President Bush will have an afternoon on the golf course. After starting the war in which the troops whose families he is raising money for were injured, maimed, and killed, the least President Bush can do is play a game of golf for them. I mean it. It is the least he can do short of taking a nap or tending to the garden.

Many people live in a strange world where misfortune and injustice can be ameliorated through playing golf or attending a party. I wish I lived in that world.

It is in the Rules

2010-09-02T08:48:00.021-05:00

Representative Eddie Johnson of Texas took steps to ease the controversy surrounding the revelation that she used funds from the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation to award scholarships to friends and family. She used personal funds to reimburse the foundation for what she had spent. Johnson claimed that she had no idea that the Foundation had rules prohibiting the dispersal of funds to family members. "Had I known that this was against the law I wouldn't have done it" she said. Johnson is a member of the Black Caucus Foundation. Perhaps she should get around to reading its rules sometime.

"The debt has been repaid in full" said Johnson. Perhaps it has, in a sense. By using the Black Caucus Foundation funds to help friends and family, Johnson violated the foundation's rules against nepotism. Moreover, the students who received the funds were ineligible since they did not live in Johnson's district. Repaying the Black Caucus is only a step on the part of Johnson to get out from under the controversy. While the funds have been repaid, the impropriety remains. You cannot just write a check for that.

This is certainly not the first time a member of Congress has run afoul of a rule made by a committee on which they sit. The defense of choice in those instances is ignorance: they were not aware of the rule or that it applied to them. To make this defense is tantamount to admitting to incompetence. Another popular defense is that the error was made unbeknown to them by a member of their staff. This is also an admission of incompetence, or at least mismanagement, since members of Congress are responsible for their staff. In the minds of many congressmen, it is better to be seen as incompetent than corrupt. There is a much higher tolerance for incompetent politicians than for corrupt ones. Johnson's political future depends on that remaining so.

Questionable Victory

2010-09-01T09:40:00.007-05:00

The city of Dallas recently won a victory in court concerning its new policy of allowing cabs that run exclusively on natural gas to skip to the head of the line at Love Field. The victory was hailed as an important step towards reducing air pollution and lessening America's dependence on oil.

The problem is that many independent cab drivers and small taxi companies cannot afford to switch their cars over to natural gas or purchase new cabs that do. Their cars will continue to run on gasoline and they will have to wait in line longer to obtain a fare. As a result, cabs that contribute to air pollution and do nothing to reduce America's oil consumption will have to idle longer waiting in line for a fare and burning more gasoline and generating more pollution as they do. I suppose if the new policy is a success air quality in Dallas will improve, if only by a fraction. But its unemployment rate will rise, if only by a fraction.

14% Idiots

2010-08-31T16:05:00.032-05:00

A recent Newsweek poll revealed some alarming news about the mind of the American electorate. In the poll, republicans were asked if they believed that Obama "sympathizes with the goals of Islamic fundamentalists and wants to impose Islamic law around the world." 38% percent believed that it is probably true. Another 38% believed it was probably not true. 14% of republicans polled believed it was "definitely true." According to the results, the majority of republicans harbor significant doubts about Obama's religion and motivation.

The most worrisome part of the poll is that people were not simply asked if they believe Obama sympathizes with Islam. They were asked if he sympathizes with Islamic fundamentalists, which are a breed apart. It is the fundamentalists that want to make women wear burkhas, impose strict Islamic law, and destroy the West, not the rank and file.

Obama is one of the most liberal presidents the United States has ever had. If he is a Muslim, he is a very poor one. He has consistently supported abortion rights. He has labored to expand rights for gays and lesbians. He has successfully nominated two women to the Supreme Court. One of those women is Jewish. On every social issue that has arisen since his inauguration, Obama has stood firmly on the left. His appointments to the Supreme Court have impeccable liberal credentials and are solidly against even the most subtle encroachment of religion upon public life. Obama could not be elected dog catcher in Saudi Arabia. Despite all this and more, a great many Americans suspect Obama might secretly be not just a Muslim, but a supporter of fundamentalist Islam. If I had to guess, I would say, if anything, he is a closet Episcopalian.

A recent Newsweek poll revealed that 14% of republicans are idiots and that the majority of republicans should keep their opinions to themselves on the subject of Obama's religious sympathies lest they appear to be idiots too.

The Heavy Burden of Vanity

2010-08-28T09:28:00.037-05:00

In an editorial in this morning's Dallas Morning News, columnist Jennie Sawyer took up the common lament among women about the pressure put upon them to look beautiful and young. Feeling the stress from advertisements, commercials, and magazine covers, many women respond to the taunts of beautiful, fit young women in skimpy clothing with emotions ranging from embarrassment to to anger. Sawyer is no different. But, while women may suffer more acutely from swimwear advertisements and beauty layouts, they do not suffer alone. People everywhere suffer from the taunts of ads.

Many Americans, myself included, are hounded mercilessly by images and advertisements for luxury cars, fine wines, and expensive watches: all carefully crafted to make those without such items feel inferior. But one needn't limit oneself to luxury ads. Living in Texas, one measure of a man's virility is the size of the truck he drives. Throughout the day I am harassed with advertisements depicting handsome, muscular, rugged men with full heads of hair doing all sorts of rugged, manly things and driving rugged, manly trucks. (In an act of machismo, one such man almost ran over my dog yesterday.) Nor are men free from the pressures of physical beauty. I do not recall ever seeing a short, pudgy, balding man in an ad for cologne or BMWs. Even the pest control guy and the auto mechanic are handsome and muscular in ads. I have seen Michael Jordan's ad for men's briefs. I have not seen Charles Barkley in any such ad. Neither have I ever seen a fat man with a hairy back shaving in a razor commercial. Hair care, grooming, and physical fitness know no gender.

Yes, women suffer from advertisements that hold out improbable goals for physical beauty. Men do as well. But men also suffer from advertisements that depict physical prowess and financial success. Men do not have to worry about simply being old and fat. They also have to worry about being poor, impotent, of low status, not having a big enough truck and, of course, going bald. As for thin, beautiful women, while women may be pressured to be one, successful men are expected to have one.

The real issue is not why men and women are subjected to images promoting unrealistic ideas of beauty or status. The question is why do we feel pressured by them? You can be assured Mother Teresa never lost a moment of sleep due to her wrinkles and that Ghandi never rued not having a Dodge Ram pick up.

Many, if not most of the burdens of living in a society such as ours are chosen. Once we move beyond the realm of what is needed, we enter into an infinite realm of desire and vanity. If one finds the burdens of trying to be young, fit, rich and appealing too heavy to bear, one can put them down. That so few are able or willing to do so is testimony to the fact that is has always been more difficult to give up one's ego than to satisfy it. I suspect that is one reason why Mother Teresa is a saint and the rest of us are not.

Is there a Correlation?

2010-08-25T09:09:00.025-05:00

In a report issued Tuesday, the National Association of Realtors stated that July home sales in the U.S. have fallen over 25% to their lowest level in over ten years. Coincidentally, tax credits for new home buyers ended in July.

When the tax credits were in affect, home buyers benefited. Home builders benefited. Realtors benefited. Neighborhoods benefited. The economy benefited. Arguably, only the government did not benefit. I say arguably because it is not certain that government lost. They may have lost some tax revenue, but new homes and residents are not quite the burden many might think. Those new residents will have to buy things. The people who built and sold those homes made money doing so. They will pay taxes on the money they made. They will also buy things with the money they made. The people who sell things will make money. The government makes money when people buy and sell things: local government anyway.

Now that the tax credits have expired, national home sales have declined 27.2% since June and now stand at their lowest point since 1999. Mark Dozier, chief economist with the Real Estate Center, said matter of factly that the decline in sales "just means that the tax credit induced a higher than normal sales volume and we should expect sales to be lower without the credit." In other words, lower taxes boosted the market. Now that taxes are higher, the market has cooled.

Tax breaks and credits have served to stimulate a variety markets and activities across the U.S. Tax increases have retarded them. With the expiration of the tax credits, the government is hoping to recoup some of its losses. It is almost as if the government believes that money it surrendered in tax breaks belongs to them and was more like a loan than a gift: if allowing people to keep their own money can be construed as a gift. Gifts once given belong to those who receive them. Tax breaks are not gifts. They do not belong to the tax payers. The government expects to get its money back.

There is a correlation between lower taxes and economic activity. If the government wants to encourage a particular activity, it lowers taxes. When the government wants to discourage something, it raises taxes. This correlation, unfortunately, is often only recognized in proportion to its convenience.

It is true that lower taxes curtail the government's ability to do its job. There is a down side to that since some of what the government needs to do is important. Roads, and national defense for example are things best left to the government. But there is also an upside in increased economic activity. The trick is finding the balance. Key to finding that balance is determining just what it is that people want and expect from government and how much they are willing to pay. The best way to find that out is to ask them.

Left to its own, in a choice between a vibrant economy or big government, Washington will take big government every time.

Making Progress

2010-08-21T09:38:00.043-05:00

After aircraft were used in a dastardly surprise attack on the U.S. in which many thousands of Americans lost their lives, America went to war against a fanatical enemy. There were a large number of residents and citizens from that nation residing in America at the time. Those residents and citizens, as well as those who simply traced their origins to the country who attacked, came to be viewed with deep suspicion, even hatred. Their patriotism was questioned to the point where many of them were rounded up and put into special camps where the U.S. could keep an eye on them.

The majority of those put into the camps were loyal Americans. More than a few wound up in the military where they served their nation honorably: some with great distinction. In time, the U.S. came to see its error and realized it had misjudged and overreacted in its treatment of those who were rounded up and scorned. Very, very few of those rounded up were in fact enemies of the United States. Still, it took a long time for Americans to look on those people with anything but dislike and distrust.

I am writing of the Japanese of course. After Pearl Harbor, until recently the most terrible attack on the U.S., Japanese in the U.S. were viewed with suspicion and hostility. They were offensively caricatured and mocked in the press and vilified throughout the country. For many, even being suspected of being Japanese was enough to incur wrath and the risk of being rounded up and placed in a camp. (My great Uncle was called in for an interview and possible relocation to one such camp because his last name was construed as being of Japanese origin. When a big, strong Polish man walked though the door, they quickly realized their mistake). Even after we had had our revenge on the Japanese, the hatred remained for long time, and still does in some parts. It is unimaginable that a Shinto shrine would have even have been proposed in the U.S. for decades after Pearl Harbor.

Many years later, the U.S. came to see the error of its actions and that it had made a mistake in viewing all Japanese as potential enemies, less still its religion. We have even apologized for our treatment of Japanese Americans. It was vowed that the U.S. would never resort to such hysteria again. We have almost succeeded in upholding that vow.

While the government has been careful to avoid portraying its current opponent in general racial or religious terms, many in the media, and among the public, have had no reservation in doing so. Not a few are making a good living from stoking the notion. They are the ones apt to see the current struggle as a war against Islam, or at least against "radical" Islam. But, as the current controversy over the proposed Mosque in New York illustrates, that distinction is rarely made. In the minds of many Americans, we are at war with Islam and because we are at war with it, Islam and its adherents cannot be trusted.

Mosques and Muslims are viewed with great suspicion. Even leaving aside the proposal to build a mosque in New York near Ground Zero, it is likely that a proposal to build a mosque or madrasah anywhere in the U.S. or an attempt by Muslim communities to adhere to their traditions would be viewed with trepidation, if not hostility. We have made progress though. No one is proposing rounding up Muslims and putting them into camps: except on facebook and Fox News. We have come a long way from the days of Manzanar; just not quite as far as many would like to think.

My only beef with Islam is I want Constantinople back. If not Constantinople, at least the Haggai Sophia.

Who Really Pays?

2010-08-19T16:09:00.034-05:00

The state legislature in Austin, Texas is preparing to take up immigration legislation when it meets later this year. It is predicted there will be immigration laws proposed similar to the tough new laws enacted in Arizona. People on both sides are bracing for a fight. Because of the often delicate nature of the issue, both sides prefer to focus on the economic costs of immigration. Fortunately, there is much to focus on.

There is a significant difference in the debate at the national and state levels. At the national level, immigration is an issue on the agenda. While there is rhetoric about the need to address the issue, there is little sense of urgency. With elections in the fall, many members on both sides are reluctant to get into a serious debate on the topic. Concern over the issue is most often expressed in generalities, such as the need to "do something", or "reform" immigration laws.
At the state level, things are more concrete. The Texas state legislature is preparing to take up a bill similar to the one recently passed in Arizona. The House State Affairs Chairman, Burt Solomons, stated that the committee is preparing legislation that will "focus on what the real costs are for state services." Those costs are significant.

The director for the Health and Human Services Commission in Texas told the committee that the cost of illegal immigration to Texas is nearly $100 million a year. Money is tight in Texas at the moment. Texas is facing a budget deficit of $1.3 billion over the next fiscal year. The budget will have to be cut. By law, TX must pass a balanced budget. The state constitution requires it. Every dollar spent on immigration is a dollar that cannot be spent elsewhere, and that $100 million is sorely needed elsewhere.

The federal government can spend as much money as it wants, whether it has it or not. The states cannot. States like Texas can only spend the money they have. To meet the rising costs of illegal immigration, Texas must either raise taxes or cut spending. Either option costs the residents of Texas. As illegal immigration increases, the costs associated with it increase.

Because the effects and costs of illegal immigration are more keenly felt by the states, states have begun taking action. While the immigration issue for many is an abstract issue of rights, language and ethnicity, it is also a concrete issue of dollars and cents. While Washington debates and postures on the issue, states are writing checks and spending money they don't have or is needed elsewhere. But when states and local governments take action on the issue, they are widely condemned, and even taken to court.

Many of the costs borne by state governments are mandated by the federal government. In the case of illegal immigration, states are compelled to pay much of the costs for those here in violation of federal law. According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, last year the federal government spent $28.6 billion in illegal immigrant related costs. State and local governments spent $84.2 billion. Lawn care companies and poultry farms might come out ahead when it comes to illegal immigration,, but states and cities don't. If Washington is unwilling or unable to enforce laws against illegal immigration, it is only fair that the burden of paying for the breach of immigration law should fall on the federal government. If the federal government is not willing to act, it should not grudge the states for trying to reduce the burden resulting from the failure to enforce federal law by enforcing it themselves.

Usually, if a state ignored federal law, there would be a swift reaction from Washington. Certainly, if a state flouted federal law there would be a stern response. Oddly, immigration appears to one case where the federal government at times seems less concerned that the law be enforced than that it be ignored. It even goes so far as to threaten states that seek to enforce it.

Given the scale of the problem, one would think that any help states and cities could give to the federal government would be welcomed, not scorned. But one would be wrong. If immigration law is onerous or objectionable, it should be changed, not ignored.

You Cannot Limit the Unlimited

2010-08-16T08:05:00.040-05:00

Increasingly, there are fewer and fewer limits to what we expect from government. We expect the government to provide us with health care. We expect the government to help us to get a job and support us if we cannot. We expect the government to help us with our mortgage and pay our bills. We expect the government to make sure we are not harassed at work. The government has been more than willing to encourage us in this notion. Indeed, it peddles it. Every two years politicians promise to help us realize our wishes and desires and to protect us from adversity. Every four years we are offered competing visions of America and what it can be: what it should be.

In the U.S., we are told that everything is possible. Hunger can be abolished. Equality can be achieved. College can be in the grasp of every one who wants it. Health care can be had by everyone who desires it. Whatever the desire or need of the people, the government promises to help us satisfy it. Happiness and prosperity are promised for all. Sometimes, however, those promises are more than just campaign sweet talk. Sometimes they are sincere goals. Sometimes they are open ended, unlimited promises: such as to end injustice or guarantee quality health care and jobs to every American. All that is needed is the right people and the right policies.

Unlimited goals require unlimited power. If the goal of the government is to provide us everything we want, it will need the power to achieve that goal. Limits on government come to be perceived as limits on the people and obstacles to their happiness, or at least their contentment. But this is only true true where the people have come to rely on government to achieve their desires. If the government cannot intervene in society, people cannot intervene in society. This is an intolerable limit to the visionaries who consistently attempt to nudge society closer to perfection.

When politicians are elected on the promises they have made regarding what they will do for us, we expect them to deliver on those promises. If the law prevents or inhibits the fulfillment of those promises, it is argued that the law must yield. Unlimited promises cannot be met by limited government. Given the choice between tailoring our desires and needs to meet the power of limited government, or expanding the scope and power of the government to meet our needs and desires, time and time again we have chosen to expand the government. Every expansion of government is simultaneously an expansion of government power. Government cannot give us what we want unless it has the power to do so. The more the public demands or accepts from government, the more power government will need to satisfy the public. The more power claimed by the government, the less liberty we have.

Needs are limited. Desires are not. A government dedicated to fulfilling our desires has to be an ever expanding government and so will continually push against any barrier erected to block its expansion. In order for the government to fulfill the demands of the public it must have the power to do so. The greater the demands placed on government, the greater the power needed by government to satisfy them.

Tolerance and Dignity?

2010-08-14T10:25:00.013-05:00

A protest erupted in Israel when Muslim gravestones at the Ma'Man Cemetery in Jerusalem were knocked over in order to make way for Israeli expansion. Muslims were outraged. Despite the fact that the cemetery dates back centuries (some claim it dates to the 6th century), Israel claimed that the headstones were a ruse and recently placed to thwart Israeli expansion. Muslims contend that, while many of the headstones were newly placed, they were replacements installed in a recent effort to renovate the cemetery. Stephan Muller, the spokesman for the Jerusalem Municipality, derided the protest, claiming it was a "despicable, and frankly sad publicity stunt in an attempt to block Israeli expansion." Some Muslims claim the the matter of the headstones is irrelevant. They assert that even if the headstones were newly placed and no burials have taken place in a long time, if Muslims had ever been buried there, the ground is sacred. The dispute is likely to be settled with soldiers and bulldozers rather than historians and archaeologists.

Ironically, the building proposed for the site is the Center for Human Dignity-Museum of Tolerance. If Israel winds up unable to build the museum on that site, they should find another place for it. Such a museum is sorely needed in Jerusalem.

Where are the Jobs?

2010-08-13T21:03:00.012-05:00

Yale economist Robert Schiller is not very optimistic about the economy. "There is a significant likelihood of (a second) recession if the government doesn't do something" he was quoted as saying in a report by Moneynews.com. Many point to the dismal job statistics as a key factor behind the poor economy. Despite the massive spending by Congress, jobs are still hard to come by these days. "Job growth in the private sector hasn't improved as we would have expected" said the chief economist at Wells Fargo, John Silvia.

Despite the nearly $1 trillion spent, unemployment is at 9.5%. Economic growth for the second quarter was 2.4%, down from the unimpressive 3.7% registered in the first quarter. Schiller recommends more spending by the government. If $1 trillion can't stimulate the economy, let's spend two.

The government should do something. It should get out of the way. Massive spending and increased regulation have not helped. Some argue it has only made things worse. Government does not generate wealth, it spends it. As a rule, government programs cost more to maintain than they produce and government employees cost more in tax revenue than they generate. Even if we put aside the issues of efficiency and effectiveness, government is expensive, very expensive.

Reducing taxes leaves more money in the economy which is precisely where it needs to be if the economy is to improve. If businesses are to hire people, they need to sell things. If people are to buy things, they need money. If people are to have money, they need jobs. Taking money out of that cycle through higher taxes does nothing to improve it. Neither does hobbling it through regulation. Injecting more money into that cycle by lowering taxes has a much higher probability of improving it. Government money can help in the short term by keeping the cycle from freezing up but it is not a solution. Persistent government spending only deforms the cycle. The only real solution is to restore the cycle to its natural state.

It was once said that the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expecting different results. Government spending and expansion have not helped. Why it is believed that more spending and more regulation will work is beyond me, but, then again, I am not economist at Yale. If we are to rely on the government to get us out of this recession, I suggest that the government simply hire everyone who is out of work. If the government did so, not only would it take a huge bite out of unemployment and provide quality health care to many, it would simultaneously stimulate the economy when those new workers went out to buy things. Perhaps best of all, tax revenue would increase since all of those new employees would pay taxes on their income. Sure, the debt would increase, but so what? It is not likely anyone will ever get elected on a platform of cutting the debt, not when you can get elected for generating jobs.

If the government is going to spend a couple of trillion dollars to improve the economy, it should just cut out the middleman and put that money in the hands of the people on whom the economy relies. But it won't because the government is the middle man.

Money not collected by the government remains in the hands of those who earned it where it is either saved, spent, or invested. Each benefits the economy. A healthy economy generates jobs.

Taking the Measure of Government

2010-08-11T08:21:00.058-05:00

In one of many editorials and speeches written and made across the nation on the subject, columnist Paul Krugman this morning took issue with those who would limit or curtail government's authority. He is critical of those who rail against government as wasteful and pernicious. Krugman makes the argument that government is useful and necessary if we are to live in a stable, sanitary, and modern society safe in our person and homes from criminals and enemies and protected from the buffeting winds of fortune and circumstance. No one is seriously saying that the government should not pave roads, arrest criminals, regulate banks, or defend the nation. There are many things the government is needed for. The question is what things? Should the government pay for abortions? Health care? Should the government provide subsidies and, if so, how much, to whom, and for what purpose? Those and similar questions are the ones that people are posing.

The federal government exists to do those things people and states cannot do for themselves, even if it does many of those things inefficiently and clumsily. It also does things that the people and states can do for themselves but only with difficulty. For example most people and communities are quite capable of tending to each other. For many reasons, they prefer the government to take care of those things.

Often it is easier for people to let the government take care of things they feel should be taken care of. It is more convenient to let the government look after your neighbor or the homeless guy on the corner than to do it yourself. That is just fine with government. Government is populated with people who like to take care of things. Every one wins: except when those things are done poorly or at an exorbitant cost. By the time that is realized, it is too late. If you pay a contractor to remodel your kitchen and he does a poor job and insists he needs more time and money to complete what he said he could do, chances are you would fire him. If the job was done poorly enough, you might even seek getting your money back. Unfortunately, you cannot fire the government if it does a poor job, nor is there any hope of getting your money back.

The government continually assures us it knows what it is doing and that we can rely upon it to do those things it said it can do for us competently. This would not be a major source of dissatisfaction if it did those things we wanted it to do and did them well. But it doesn't. It often does things many Americans don't want it to do and when it does them, it frequently does them poorly. Yet, every time the government fails, we are told that only the government can fix what the government did poorly and we should trust them to get it right the next time, and the time after that. They will do it as often as necessary to get it right, even if it takes forever. The problem may be real and require repair but the solution eludes the government. Usually, the government claims it can solve the problem if it is given more authority, as if the solution to faulty government is more government.

Some people want the government to take care of things because they are unable or unwilling to take care of things. Others want government to take care of things because they want to take care of things. They feel that what the government controls they control. Sometimes they are right. They are the most frustrating. When people in Virginia or an editorialist in New York become upset over how Texas manages its public school system, there is nothing they can do about it. But there is something the federal government can do about it. The result is that the people of Virginia and the editorialist will insist that the federal government step in and take care of it. If and when the problem is solved to their satisfaction, they will applaud themselves and find some new issue beyond their reach for the government to resolve. If, for some reason, the federal government is restrained from acting, they will argue that the government should be allowed to act, indeed, is obligated to act. If the federal government lacks the authority to intervene, it will be demanded that it be given that authority so as to enable it to do what it is felt should be done.

There are people who become indignant when they find the government lacks the authority to do what they want done. Limits on the government are perceived as limits on the people: specifically people like them. This is a dangerous error. It is dangerous because the line between what people want and what people need is a fuzzy and shifting one. Editorialists in New York and lobbyists in Washington might want Texas or Virginia to act in ways that suit their sensibilities, but that does not mean that Texas or Virginia are in any way obligated to act. When reformers and crusaders are thwarted in their ambitions and desires, they turn to the federal government and demand it affect the changes they seek.

Paul Krugman believes that many states and localities are acting recklessly by attacking "big" government. He believes that Washington needs the power to do what needs to be done. That is fine as far as it goes. People are entitled to believe what they want. Moreover, Krugman has the good fortune to have a job where he can persuade people as to the merits of his opinions. Most people do not have that good fortune. It is those people who, in their frustration at what others are doing, seek the government to compel others to change their ways. It is the people who live in California and New York and are frustrated at how Texas manages its affairs and powerless to do anything about it that urge the federal government to step in.

The public ire on display at rallies across the nation is not a campaign against government. It is a campaign against big government. That is a distinction that must be preserved. Some of what the government does is necessary and beneficial. Some of what it does is pernicious and wasteful. To simply argue that government is good or bad gets us nowhere. Despite the rhetoric on both sides, at its core the debate over "big" government is not one about government. The argument is about what the proper scope of government should be and what it should be allowed to do. That is an argument well worth having and one that should be settled at the ballot box. The only obstacle is whether the Supreme Court will continue to allow room for public debate on issues and not step in to resolve political disagreements by fiat. But that is a whole different subject.

Creating the Society We Want

2010-08-10T11:59:00.017-05:00

In todays's Dallas Morning New's, John Ellis Price takes the U.S. education establishment to task for failing to meet the needs of students, and by extension the nation. If students do not go to college, they will not get good paying jobs. Neither will they gain the technical or scientific expertise the U.S. needs to maintain its superiority over the world. Just as bad, lower income means less revenue. Progress requires money. Price laments that the U.S. does not have a "college-going culture." The solution as he sees it is to create one.

How does one go about creating a "college going culture"? How does one go about creating any kind of culture? The solution as Price and many other progressives see it is to create one through coercion and bribery: two methods that have served them well over the years. You provide tax breaks to encourage desired behavior and penalties to discourage undesired behavior. If the right balance is struck, the desired outcome is almost guaranteed. For Price, the desired outcome is a "college going culture."

To this end, Price proposes a series of plans and methods such as praising college attendance and demanding high performance. It is assumed that by expecting achievement and success from children we can assure ourselves that children will achieve and succeed. Somewhere, ability and aptitude must enter the equation but Price does not address those factors. Like many, Price believes that everyone can achieve their goals, whether it is to be a plumber or an astronaut, if they are encouraged and educated correctly. The trick is to find just the right balance of propoganda, coercion, and bribery.

A major flaw in Price's proposal is that the children who tend to do poorly in school more often than not come from the lower income strata of American society. The homes most of these children come from are not affluent at all. Because of this, those homes are largely immune to manipulations of the tax code and deaf to the exhortations of men like Price.

Price's scientific approach to the problem no doubt is largely due to the wealth of statistics available on the subject. Statistics represent correlations and it is widely believed that correlations can be manipulated. Price cites the group CEOs for Cities that a simple 1 percent increase in the number of children who attend college in 51 U.S. cities would lead to an increased revenue of $124 billion nationally, $4.6 billion in Dallas alone. If this can be achieved, cities "will reap a 'talent dividend'" of many billions nation wide. The next step then would be to find a way to increase the number of college graduates by 2%, and then three. Presumably the bulk of those additional degrees would not be in philosophy or English literature. Such degrees would be almost guaranteed to lead to a drop in income. We can assume that Price was speaking of technical and scientific degrees: pursuits that will inevitably lead to further statistical evaluations of American society.

Price's diagnosis of the problem along with his solution is made possible by the growth of statistical information and the quickly growing faith in the efficacy of policy to manipulate those numbers. The opaqueness and unpredictability of human motivation and behavior is ignored in light of statistical correlations. But the power of statistics to guide policy is an illusion. Human beings are not mice in a lab, nor are they balls on a slope. There may be a pattern to human behavior, but there is not causality. People may at times accept being enticed or prodded, but they will not be coerced or compelled without resistance.

Price is a man that has a vision of what society can and should be. Like so many progressives, Price believes that society should be led to achieve that vision. What society is must be brought into harmony with what society should be. Ideally, society can be persuaded to adopt that vision. If it will not, we can attempt to bribe it into compliance. If that fails, we must resort to compulsion to bring it into line.

If for some reason Price's vision is achieved and everyone graduates from college, who is going to work at Walmart? I suppose we can always count on philosophy and English majors to pick up the slack.

Viagra for Teachers

2010-08-09T16:25:00.027-05:00

It was reported this morning that the Milwaukee Teachers Union is fighting the school board over Viagra. The school district is facing a financial crisis. In an effort to cut costs, the school board decided to discontinue funding Viagra in its health plan. The Milwaukee Teachers Union is upset. The school district had tried to cut costs in April by laying off 682 employees but that effort was unsuccessful. In that instance, the Teachers Union triumphed. In a new effort to cut costs, the school district targeted Viagra.

The Teachers Union argues that Viagra is necessary to treat "an exclusively gender related-related condition" and banning its coverage would in effect discriminate against men. This is not exactly true. While one gender may have a reason to use it, both genders benefit from it. For Viagra to be truly useful, at least two people are required. Both genders can benefit from Viagra or suffer from its absence. Leaving that aside, the essence of the argument is that Viagra is necessary and should therefore be covered. But sexual dysfunctional is not a medical condition that in any way affects a person's health or impedes that person's participation in society. While impotence can be a frustrating and even humiliating occurrence, it in no way jeopardizes a person's health. Humiliation, frustration, and embarrassment are not conditions that require medical treatment, though if the pharmacology industry creates a drug for those, they will be.

Unless a child is desired, sexual intercourse is not necessary. Even then, it is not essential. Science had provided alternatives. Properly understood, there is no need for Viagra at all. There is only desire for it. There is no ailment, condition, or illness that requires sexual intercourse as a treatment. Perhaps the closest one can get to a "necessary" requirement for it is if it is deemed necessary to save a marriage or relationship. But that is not a medical condition.

There is a growing confusion in society between necessary and desirable medical procedures. No matter how badly a face lift or a tummy tuck is desired, they are not necessary in any medical sense. Insecurity and vanity are not the same thing as as need and necessity. There are no limits to human vanity and desire. They are wealth creating engines that drive our economy. Most often, they are characteristics that spur the economy to keep up with their constant permutations. They also drive health care. Plastic surgery is a constantly evolving field almost exclusively driven by vanity. Sexual dysfunction is another. When the desire to look younger or have better sex become confused in the mind of an individual with the need to look younger or have better sex, psychological turbulence results. It is seen as unfair that the "rich" benefit while the rest of us languish. It is not fair that Hugh Hefner can get all the Viagra he needs or Angelina Jolie can get all the surgery she wants while we cannot. It is believed that everyone has the right to look younger, better and have great sex. We don't any more than everyone has the right to be tall, thin, or look like a GQ underwear model.

Life is full of little injustices. Some people are good looking. Others are not. Some people are tall. Others are not. Some people have good sex. Others do not. Every one wants those things but everyone doesn't get them. When a procedure or drug offers a remedy to our insecurities or a solution to our desires, everyone wants it. The problem is that not everyone can afford it: unless a way is found to make it affordable. A way has been found. That way is health insurance. If health insurance can be bent to include the desires of people rather than simply the needs of people, the floodgates will be opened. With national health care, there will be relentless pressure to expand it to include the desires of the vain, the frustrated, and the insecure. Politicians have always found it difficult to say no. Health care will be no different. The candidate who promises a breast lift to every woman who wants one and Viagra to every man who needs it will have a distinct advantage over the candidate who says we cannot afford it.

If anyone ever discovers a pill that will retard the aging process, unless that drug is cheap, the nation will go broke in a week. More broke I mean.

It Is Their Money Too

2010-08-05T09:14:00.009-05:00

As the ocean of stimulus money flows over the nation, curiosities and anomalies keep popping up. Recently the city of Euless, TX became a source of acrimony in Washington over the city's plan to use a part of the $454,000 in federal stimulus funding it received to replace light bulbs at a series of local softball fields. The project was one of a hundred singled out by Senators as wasteful and mismanaged.

The criticism took officials in Euless by surprise. They had simply taken advantage of a program the federal government made available. The lights needed changing and the government was giving away money. It made perfect sense. There was nothing duplicitous or underhanded about it. The United States may not have needed new lights at a softball field, but Euless did. Still, many grumble that officials in Euless did not look at the big picture. They only saw what the city of Euless needed. Rather than contemplate the national economy, Euless decided to spend the money and fix something that needed fixing.

It is not as though the money was wasted. According to the Energy Department, 2.8 jobs were saved by the spending. That has to count for something.

Wrong People, Wrong Place.

2010-08-02T15:52:00.014-05:00

It was reported this morning that Israel is preparing to expel hundreds of small children born in Israel to migrant workers. Though the children were born and raised in Israel and speak Hebrew, they are not Israeli and do not belong there. Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu said the program was needed to stem a "flood of illegal immigrants." About 400 children and their parents are expected to leave. Netanyahu went on to say "We don't want to create an incentive for the inflow of hundreds of thousands of illegal migrant workers": a familiar enough argument, even if the numbers are exaggerated. But Netanyahu went on to say that the move was necessary to defend Israel's Jewish identity. That is also a familiar enough argument. But is familiar for quite different reasons. It is the argument that lay behind many of the most grievous crimes and savagery in history.

To get a sense of this argument one should try it on for size. Pick an ethnicity, race or religion and see how that argument sits on the ears. "We need to expel blacks to preserve our white identity." "We need to expel the Chinese to preserve our European identity." "We need to expel Catholics to preserve our Protestant identity." They don't quite seem to have the same ring about them.

If anyone should know the perils of defining a state along the lines of race, religion, or ethnicity, Israel should. The Jews have suffered from that more than most.

Rangel's Bungling

2010-08-01T08:08:00.026-05:00

Representative Charles Rangel is in trouble. The long time Congressman from New York is facing 13 counts of wrong doing for his financial dealings and fiscal improprieties. He says he didn't do it. He also says he did do it but he didn't mean to: he wasn't paying enough attention. He even says he did it but that he is being singled out unfairly because many in Congress do what he is accused of doing. He is hoping one of those excuses will work.

Rangel's defense is common enough: there is nothing novel to it. It would be a rare thing for a member of Congress to admit to wrong doing before it was absolutely impossible to deny it. Even then, many would persist in their denial. Of all the accusations against Rangel, and there are a few, the one that is the most curious is the charge that he was hiding assets and failing to pay taxes. What makes this accusation so interesting is that Rangel is the former chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. If anyone in the nation should be willing to pay his taxes, it should be the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. If anyone should be familiar with tax rules and regulations, it should be the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. If he is not knowledgeable about tax laws and regulations, who is? If he is not willing to pay his taxes in full, who should? If Rangel made errors on his taxes, he is either incompetent or corrupt. For someone in Rangel's position, inattentive is the same thing as incompetent.

A man in Rangel's position has no reason to avoid paying his taxes. A man in Rangel's position should not even hire an accountant: he should just write a check when the bill is presented. If Rangel believes that the tax code is overly burdensome or unfair, he should work to change it. He should not try to circumvent it. He did chair the committee that writes tax code after all. Like many in Congress, Rangle is willing to pass laws he has no intention of living under, write rules he has no intention of following, and enact programs he will never rely upon.

Congress writes laws. That is what makes it so easy for them. That is what makes it so difficult for us. When members of Congress ignore the very laws they have written, there can be no good reason for it. There can be bad reasons. Rangel clearly cannot tell the difference.

Rangel has been in Congress for 39 years. He has worked to pass many laws. Evidently, Rangel believes some of those laws do not pertain to him. To seek to avoid laws that one has had a hand in enacting is a shameful thing. It is unfortunate that there is so little shame in Washington anymore. In the absence of shame, we will have to make do with ethics committees.

Absurdity

2010-07-28T15:23:00.019-05:00

I recently received a sales call. Judging by the thick accent, I presume the call was made from outside the U.S. The caller read me my social security number and asked me to verify it. I was indignant. I asked him how he had gotten my social security number. Although he could speak English, the caller clearly had difficulty understanding it. After several increasingly frustrated requests on my part, the caller transferred me to his supervisor. When I asked the supervisor how they had obtained my social security number he told me he would be happy to answer my question: but first he needed me to give him my social security number.

The Desert is Getting Smaller

2010-07-28T13:50:00.099-05:00

In this morning's Dallas Morning News, it was reported that Ismail Mohamed Salem's house has been destroyed. It was bulldozed by the Israelis. He is not alone. 45 other homes have been destroyed in Salem's village of El Arqib. In fact, the whole village was destroyed and its 300 residents made homeless. Salem is a Bedouin living in the Negev Desert in Israel and his village is in the way. The Negev Desert came under Israeli control after Israel's founding in 1948. The region is of some importance to Israel. In addition to being used as a training ground for the Israeli military, it also has a toxic waste incinerator, two rivers of open sewage, and serves as a dump for Tel Aviv.

Over the years, Israel has attempted to manage its Bedouin population. There are approximately 175,000 Bedouin in the Negev Desert. The Negev constitutes roughly 60% of Israel's land mass. It is inevitable that sooner or later Israel will get around to settling it in earnest. When they do, the Bedouin will have to move. Under Israel's Removal of Intruders law, non Israelis in the Negev can be evicted at any time. After living for generations in the Negev, Bedouin like Ismail Mohamed suddenly find that they are intruders and that they are to be removed.

To prepare the way for Jewish expansion, the ground must first be cleared. This has primarily been done by pushing the Bedouin into one of seven areas set aside for them in southern Israel (We used to call them Reservations.) So far, only about half of the Bedouin population has yielded to Israeli pressure to relocate. Those that have moved have found themselves living in poor, desolate communities with few jobs, fewer amenities, and no government services. Israel asserts that the communities are just fine. They have electricity, sewage and schools just like Tel Aviv does: as if the Bedouin were being moved to the suburbs rather than makeshift villages. What more does a person need? Who would not trade their dignity and what is left of their way of life for sewage, electricity, and schools, even rudimentary ones? Many Bedouin as it turns out. When Israel cannot tempt or coax the Bedouin off their land they bring in the bulldozers. Israel rarely, if ever, offers to buy the land. Salem, who is 70 years old, has had six homes destroyed by the Israelis over the years.

The Bedouin have lived in the Negev for over 1,000 years. After it acquired the Negev, Israel imposed military administration over it. The Bedouin who lived in the Negev were declared to be there illegally and their villages were deemed "unrecognized." Indeed, Israel went so far as to erase the Arabic names for the towns and villages on its maps and replace them with Hebrew names. Much of the Bedouin population was forcibly removed from their homes and concentrated in a few towns like Beersheba.

Israel claims they are simply cracking down on "unrecognized shanty towns." By cracking down they do not mean reviewing permits and issuing citations: they mean leveling with bulldozers. The reason the towns are shanty towns is because they are built without the resources and material available to other communities in Israel. For all intents and purposes, they are dusty, impoverished reservations set aside to hold Bedouin. They are not towns or villages in any proper sense of the word. They are hastily built settlements created to provide shelter and tend to the basic needs of the people who find themselves living in them. The reason they are not recognized is that Israel refuses to recognize them. Nearly 80% of Bedouin live in unrecognized villages and settlements. That means nearly the entire Bedouin population is subject to eviction and relocation.

For centuries, the Bedouin roamed freely across the desert, (images of Lawrence of Arabia come to mind), but no longer. The cramped life of the Bedouin is in large part due to the borders drawn after the defeat of the Ottoman empire in WWI. The new national borders established after the war curbed the traditional nomadic life of the Bedouin. For the Bedouin, those borders have become even narrower over the years.

The is very little room in Israel for people who are not Jewish. There is even less compassion. If Israel wants your land, they will take it. Israel's settlement policy has little to do with the safety or security of its population: the Bedouin have never posed a threat to Israel. It has nothing to do with the right of Jews to live in Israel: that right is not challenged by the Bedouin. It has to do with Israel's desire for racially pure communities. Israel's efforts to maintain its racial purity ensures that little room will be left for others. Like the Palestinians, the Bedouin are the wrong people in the wrong place and they are getting in the way. There is no place for the Bedouin in Israel.

Cut off from roads, water, electricity, schools and health care, and hobbled by onerous rules and regulations, Israel is doing its best to make those Bedouin who refuse to vacate their villages and lands feel unwelcome. It is difficult to see Israel as a victim here.

The Bedouin took up arms against the Ottomans in WWI. The defeat of the Ottoman Empire is what enabled Israel to be created. This is the thanks the Bedouin get. Israel has decided that the Bedouin have to move, and move they will, at bulldozer blade if necessary.

Mohamed Salem's story is a small one well off the front page. No doubt it was widely overlooked by many in the U.S., and that is unfortunate. But you can be assured it was not so widely overlooked in the Middle East. It is stories like Salem's (and there are many of them) that make Arab outrage at Israel comprehensible.

Few people have been able to get away with the sort of policies Israel has adopted. The Serbs and the South Africans must be scratching their heads.

Drawing the Line Somewhere

2010-07-27T17:55:00.026-05:00

On Tuesday, the House acceded to President Obama's request for an additional $33 billion to pay for another 30,000 troops in Afghanistan. That $33 billion pushed the total bill to $59 billion. The vote in the House was 308-1. The lone dissenter was Rep Jim McGovern, D-Mass. McGovern cast his vote out of principal. "We're told we cannot pay to extend unemployment or keep cops on the street or teachers in the class room (neither of which are federal responsibilities), but we're asked to borrow another $33 billion for nation building in Afghanistan" groused McGovern.

McGovern decided to make his stand in a peculiar place. One of the few legitimate responsibilities of the federal government is to protect the United States from foreign enemies. One can disagree over whether U.S. policy in Afghanistan or Iraq is prudent or effective, but one cannot question the federal government's responsibility to handle it.

A quick glance at congressional spending reveals any number of places to make a stand. Congress is riddled with ear marks and pork. Among other things, Rep. Snyder, D-Ark requested $60 million for highways in his state. Rep. Norton, D.C. requested $15 million to shore up the Washington Marina. Rep Jerry Costello of Illinois requested $38 million for flood prevention in his district. Rep. Joe Baca, D-Ca, requested $1.3 million to widen a road. That is over $100 million for those representatives alone. The list of ear marks and pork is extensive.

There are 432 members in the House. Most of them have special projects in their district singled out for federal money. Most in Congress have a bushel of ear marks and a barrel of pork. $15 million here and $60 million there and pretty soon you are talking about real money. According to the Washington Post, 9,413 earmarks were set aside in 2010 for a total of $16 billion. McGovern himself has over 30 earmarks totaling more than a few million. To review a complete list would take a considerable amount of time: certainly more time than the average voter would care to spend. There certainly has to be another $17 billion in Washington under the couch cushions.

McGovern objected to a bill spending a mere $33 billion out of total budget of $3.5 trillion. Moreover, the bill on which he is making his stand deals with a war the U.S. is currently fighting. McGovern could have spit and found a better place to make a stand.