Expensive Jobs

White House officials proudly reported this morning that over 640,000 jobs have so far been created under the $787 billion Federal Stimulus Package. "There is no doubt jobs are being created and saved" said Earl Devaneey, chairman of the Recovery Board. (I imagine Obama's is one of the jobs hoping to be saved.) Some dispute those numbers saying the number of jobs created is less than the administration claims. But let us for a moment take the administration at its word. That comes out to well over $1,000,000 a job. Many of the jobs created are temporary; their existence is predicated on continued federal funding if they are to continue past the "recovery." I assume that the federal government is counting on the taxes collected from these new jobs to help staunch the bleeding at the treasury. Even still, the net loss to the government is staggering, especially given the nature of many of the jobs created. The administration can say what it will about the recovery it is seeking credit for. But $1,000,000 a job, to my mind, is not a bargain. Nor is it something to brag about.

With economic recovery well under way, the administration can now focus on its health care goals. I am surprised the administration has not concluded that the best way to provide national health care and aid the economy would simply be for the federal government to hire every one in the country without a job or health insurance. That would be the surest way to provide health care to all as well as dramatically reduce unemployment. Money certainly doesn't seem to be an object.

The Problem of Settlements

It was reported this morning That Israel has rebuffed President Obama's criticism of its plan to expand Jewish settlements in the West Bank. The Palestinians, naturally, are upset at Israeli expansion into territory they consider to be theirs. Danny Danon, of the Likud Party, scolded Obama, declaring that Obama "should not interfere with the rights of Jewish people to live in Jerusalem." The issue, however, is not so much the right of Jews to live in Jerusalem, but the right of Palestinians to live in Jerusalem. The expansion of Jewish housing and settlements is a critical issue. Every Jewish settlement is one more place where Palestinians cannot live, or sometimes even travel through.

Of course, it needn't be this way. The government could build houses and apartments, and provide schools, jobs, and services for all the residents of West Bank, Jewish and Palestinian. But this is unlikely. The first reason is Palestinian hostility toward Jews and Israel. They don't want Jews encroaching on Palestinian towns and cities or taking what they believe to be their land. It is natural that every new Jewish house, apartment, and school would be contested by the Palestinians.

The second reason is Israeli intolerance. Every new settlement built by Israel is a Jewish settlement. Every piece of land seized by Israel becomes Jewish land. Palestinians cannot live in Jewish settlements, nor can they build on Jewish land. Often, they cannot even travel through Jewish territory. The result is everything in Israel is either Jewish, or Palestinian. Everything taken by Israel is taken from Palestine. Everything taken by Palestine is taken from Israel. Little, if anything, is shared. Indeed, one reason for the grudging acquiescence to Palestinian territories was to enable Israel to rid itself of them.

Many seemingly intractable contests over land between peoples have been resolved. Often, the resolution of the conflict was identified by finding a way for the contesting people to share the land and resolve their disputes politically by sharing power. Sharing the land in Israel is evidently not an option. Neither is sharing power. The possibility of an equitable division of the land between Israelis and Palestinians is remote, particularly given the continued expansion of Israeli settlements. Continued Israeli expansion increasingly leaves Palestinians with two options: submission or violence. As futile and suicidal as Palestinian violence may be, the day might come again when it is seen by many as preferable to submission.

Red Cross Treasures

It was reported this morning that the Red Cross, facing a large deficit, is going to auction off decades worth of it's treasures. A considerable number of the more than 135,000 objects and books it has collected over the years will be sold on the block.

It is unfortunate that while Congress is debating a health care bill that will cost billions, an agency such as the Red Cross, a group with a well established track record of aiding the poor, the ill, and the suffering, is struggling to keep itself afloat. There are many groups with long and proven histories of providing health care and aid to the ill, the suffering, and the poor. Moreover, these groups get more out of every dollar than the federal government could ever hope to. So why are they being ignored and forgotten amidst the clamor for national health care reform?

No doubt, some of these private charities have religious affiliations which renders them anathema to public funding. The aid and care these organizations provide matters not. Their religious affiliation excludes them from federal funding. Perhaps it is believed that their religious affiliation taints their care. Perhaps it is feared that the charity and aid these organizations provide is simply a form of propaganda used to gain converts to their beliefs. Whatever the motives, it is believed by many that any public funding of the care provided by private and religious charities is not worth the protests, animosity, and lawsuits of the professionally aggrieved who quarrel over religion and "values" to the point of obsession.

But what of the many private, secular, and charitable organizations? What of the March of Dimes? What of the Shriners? What of all the other private organizations and charities that exist to help the poor, the suffering, and the ill? In many cases, they too, like religious organizations, are cable of providing more with less than any governmental service or bureaucracy can ever hope to provide. Why are these organizations being overlooked and neglected? Imagine what the Shriners could do with a a few million dollars; or Habitat for Humanity. Weigh this against the hundreds of millions being proposed in Washington for a national health care plan.

Most likely, private organizations and charities are shunned because they are unsuitable vehicles for government policy. Private groups have their own charters, procedures, and guiding principals. Where these groups refuse to reorganize or accommodate themselves to the political sensitivities of government, they are avoided. Lip service may often be provided for the admirable services offered by such groups, but funding is denied. If only a fraction of the funding proposed for national health care was redirected to private organizations that have proven themselves able and willing to tend to the public, much of the health care "crisis" that exists in this country would be alleviated.

The crux of the matter is the government never gives anything away. Federal money brings with it strings. Those strings are pulled by bureaucrats and politicians. Groups that would not allow themselves to be regulated or manipulated by government are of little benefit to politicians and interest groups beyond photo opportunities and press releases. Perhaps more importantly, many private groups and charities are largely beyond the reach of those who want to control and manipulate society to serve their own ends and ideals. And so, while the Red Cross has to auction some of its most treasured possessions to stay afloat, billions of dollars are on the table in Washington. But then again, national health care is not simply about aiding the poor, the suffering and the ill. It is also about helping politicians, special interests, and the middle class.

Clinton and Democracy in Afghanistan

It was reported this morning that Secretary of State Clinton declared that the U.S. will not provide any more civilian aid unless the Afghan government takes steps to curb the rampant corruption that the government has exhibited. "We are going to expect more from the Afghan government...we've got some very specific asks (sic) that we will be making." It was also reported that Obama is expected to "announce" a troop increase later in the week.

It is of note that Clinton "declared", and Obama "announced." It is also of note that the U.S. aid Clinton threatened to withhold was civilian aid. Military aid is not in jeopardy. Clinton stated that U.S. aid was contingent on the Afghan government having ministries that the U.S. can hold accountable. Evidently the Afghan government, in addition to being accountable to the people of Afghanistan, must be accountable to the U.S. as well.

Part of the problem in Afghanistan is that the U.S. in not simply insisting upon an accountable and responsible government for the sake of the Afghan people, but for U.S. interests as well. Moreover, the only form of government that can be accountable and responsible, by U.S. standards, is democratic government. For a country which has never known democratic government, and lacks the social and political infrastructure for it's existence, it hardly seems reasonable to expect democracy to take root in the matter of a few years. Democracy is a little more complicated than passing laws and erecting voting booths. A democratic government does not create a democratic people. A democratic people create a democratic government. If the U.S. goal in Afghanistan is to create a democratic people, we had better be prepared for a very long occupation.

A Question of Arson

Controversy in Texas is growing over the execution of Cameron Todd Willingham. Willingham was convicted of setting a fire in 1991 that resulted in the death of his three daughters. Since Willingham's execution in 2004 questions have arisen over the methods used to determine the cause of the fire. The methods used to determine the source of the fire in Willingham's conviction have been discredited in the eyes of many arson investigators. Despite the growing controversy, Governor Perry is standing by the conviction and the methods used to secure it.

It was reported that Perry and unnamed others dismiss the controversy by asserting that, even if the methods used to determine the source of the fire were flawed, "there was ample other evidence of Willingham's guilt." Since Willingham is dead, even with the new evidence, or lack thereof, it is unlikely he will appeal his conviction.

Health Care Hurdle

A major obstacle is developing in the debate over health care in Congress. That obstacle is the issue of abortion. Opponents of abortion are pushing hard to exclude it from coverage under any national health care plan. Abortion proponents are pushing for its inclusion. Obama has taken steps to keep himself above the struggle by stating that, while he is not "trying to sneak in funding for abortion," neither is he trying to restrict insurance "choices" available to women. There are several bills being proposed that seek to untangle abortion coverage from the national health insurance plans under discussion.

At the core of this struggle, as with so many others, is the issue of federal money. Government comes with government money. Politics come with government. If federal money is going to be used in any health insurance reform, then politics will be unavoidable. Neither the government, nor the people, are going to be satisfied by simply creating a national health care plan. They are going to demand influence, if not control over its coverage and policies. There are many interested parties in the health care debate. Some have financial interests, some have political interests, some have medical interests, and some have personal interests. These different interests, and the conflicts they engender, are inherent in any plan proposed by government. More importantly, these are issues that are never "solved" because they are always in motion. Even if Congress somehow manages to assemble and pass a bill that can appease and satisfy enough people, and thereby garner their support, any consensus reached will not be permanent because interests and issues change. Sex change operations, euthanasia, and cosmetic surgery all loom on the horizon. Each new issue will generate new conflict and require a new consensus.

It is assumed (or perhaps just hoped), that in time, national health care, if passed, will simply blend into the economic and social landscape and thereby become part of our political furniture. Controversies will fade, as will the hard feelings that preceded and followed its passage. But there is little chance this hope will be realized for two reasons. The first is, health care is a much more emotional and personal issue that affects far more people more deeply than other government programs such as food stamps or social security ever will. Unlike most federal programs, national health care will be an issue that will affect all Americans throughout their lives. Countless accidents, illnesses, and mishaps, bring nearly every American into contact with the health care industry at one point or another. The convenience, cost, and quality of that care will be the critical measures of public satisfaction with it. And, so far, we have only the administration and its supporters' word that we will be satisfied.

Secondly, health care is a dynamic industry. New medicines, techniques, procedures, and tests, are constantly being developed and improved. The medical and pharmacology industries move at a much quicker pace than the government could ever hope to. Bureaucrats have never been able to keep pace with society. They are even more outmatched by science and technology. The inertia and inefficiency of government will ensure the gap between technology and policy is never closed.

The current controversy over abortion is but one example of the political consequences that can be expected under any federal health care plan. But there are other issues as well. Many issues actually.

Health Care Morass

An issue recently brought before a city-sponsored diversity task force in Fort Worth, Texas was whether health care insurance provided by the city to its employees should include coverage for sex-change operations. The city of Fort Worth is currently under siege by gay rights advocates and others for a controversial raid made by police on a gay bar. That raid was later deemed improper. An internal investigation of the raid is currently underway. According to the article printed in this morning's Dallas Morning News, the issue of extending insurance provided to city employees to cover sex changes put forward by a diversity task force was "greeted warmly" by the city.

The issue at hand is one that bodes ominous for national health care. The line between necessary health care and procedures, and desired health care and procedures, is one that should be crossed with great apprehension, if at all. There are a wide vary of procedures available to those unhappy with their appearance and condition. Breast lifts, tummy tucks, face lifts, hair implants, nose jobs, and numerous other procedures are available to those dissatisfied with themselves and their appearance. Increasingly, such procedures are not viewed as motivated by vanity, but rather necessary to self esteem, and, by extension, psychological well being. Yet, despite the angst and psychological discomfort such conditions may cause, they are very rarely medical conditions that pose a threat to health or require medical treatment. As far as I know, no one has ever died, or needed to be hospitalized, because they were unable to afford getting a sex change operation, let alone a face lift.

For some time, medicine has striven to keep up with the demands made by those with low self-esteem, anomie, and out sized egos. The demand for the psychological comfort and ease that medical and cosmetic alterations and improvements can provide is unlikely to wane in the future. Apart from the costs to any public health care plan that such procedures pose, there is also the matter of using taxpayer money to assuage and accommodate the egos and insecurities of the vain and self conscious through funding those procedures. I suspect many taxpayers would be uncomfortable with the idea that their money was being used to fund sex change operations. But then again, few seem very interested in what taxpayers think anymore.

Feeling that one is somehow living in the wrong body and that they have the wrong genitalia is not a medical condition. It is a psychological condition.

Tipping Teachers

In this morning's Dallas Morning News, it was reported that the $300 million spent to encourage teachers here in Texas, and thereby improve student achievement, hasn't worked out. Despite the money, student academic performance has not improved. Some attribute this to the fact that the bonuses offered were not enough. Others asserted the poor results were due to the fact the money was spread to thin and resulted in incentives too small to motivate teachers. In essence, teachers were not offered enough money to motivate them to do what they are already being paid to do.

In some professions it is customary to offer bonuses to improve service. One tips a waiter, a doorman, or a parking valet to encourage them to do their job with more enthusiasm. One does not offer bonuses to policemen or fireman for doing thier job well because they are expected to do the job they are paid to do to the best of their ability. One does one expect a policemen, a fireman to do their job poorly because they feel they are not being paid enough. If one is robbed, or one's house burns down, for the police or the fire department to claim that it was the result of poor pay and lack of motivation would not be accepted as an excuse.

To blame the unfortunate state of public education in the United States on poor teacher pay is also unacceptable. Teachers choose their profession. They know what they can expect to be paid. To take the job and then blame their lack of enthusiasm and effectiveness on a lack of financial incentive is a cynical attempt by the teachers unions to shift attention from the sad state of education in the U.S. today. It also creates a mercenary aspect to a profession that has traditionally prided itself as a calling.

The mechanical pedagogy and standardized curriculum increasingly prevalent in public schools today is a practice almost guaranteed to produce little enthusiasm on the part of students and teachers and so produce poor results. To treat education as simply a body of facts and set skills to be transmitted by people whose credentials are based more on methodology than knowledge, is to stultify education. Education is an activity that should be participated in by both the teacher and the student. It is not an object to be given and received.

Treating education as a body of facts to be learned according to a standardized method has the appeal of objectifying education and making it more amenable to measure and manipulation; both of which in turn have an appeal to a nation preoccupied with statistics and standards. They also have an appeal to a profession increasingly sensitive to criticism, for it allows blame to be shifted from how well they perform their jobs, to the standards and conditions they are "forced" to practice under.

Many private schools operate with teachers paid far less than public school teachers and a fraction of the resources available to public schools. That private schools are able to select their students is little excuse. Many public schools perform well. Not all public schools are struggling with low achievement. For those schools that are struggling with low achievement, to blame low pay and lack of incentive is more a reflection on the teachers in those schools than the teacher's unions might care to admit.

There are many reasons behind the poor performance of students in schools these days. Teacher motivation is but one. Even if the desired effect of motivating teachers through paying incentives is achieved, it is unlikely it will do anything to motivate students or parents. Very few of the problems faced by schools can be redressed by simply paying teachers more.

Of Guilt and Execution

There has been no small amount of controversy here in Texas regarding our system of justice. The recent execution of Cameron Todd Willingham, whose guilt has come into question, has added to this controversy. Over the years, the release of prisoners, some of whom where on death row, whose verdicts were overturned or found not guilty after review, has become disturbingly common. Many are rightfully upset and demand changes in the legal system to ensure that only the guilty be convicted and punished. This is a special concern in states like Texas that have the death penalty. As bad as it is to convict and imprison an innocent man, it is many times worse to execute an innocent man.

The matter of determining guilt has a long, sometimes amusing, but more often disturbing history. Very few in history have been indifferent to the prospect of punishing or condemning an innocent man. Virtually every society has had some system for determining innocence and guilt. Here in the West, Trial by Ordeal was once popular. If someone was suspected of committing a grievous crime, they were threatened with a terrible peril, such as being burned alive or crushed with a stone. The theory behind this was that God would never allow the innocent to suffer and so would intervene if the accused was innocent. Indeed, the more gruesome the ordeal, the greater the opportunity for God to demonstrate His mercy and judgement. The often horrible death of the accused was taken as proof of their guilt. One of my favorites was a method adopted to sort out cases of suspected witchcraft. In these cases, a method was adopted where the accused woman would have a stone attached to her whereupon she would be dropped into a lake. The theory in this case was that, since witches were believed to float, those who somehow floated back to the top would be condemned of being witches. Those who drowned, or nearly drowned, were absolved. The confidence of the people in the efficacy of these methods allowed them to sleep peacefully, even after the most terrible of ordeals.

One system in particular that grew in favor was trial by combat. Here, the questions of right and wrong, truth and lie were to be settled in a feat of arms. Under this approach it was believed that right (good), would always triumph in a contest with wrong (evil). In cases where the combatants were manifestly unequal, such as if a woman or an elderly man was party to the dispute, a champion would be allowed to fight in their stead. In time, the use of champions grew in popularity to the point where few, if any, would fight in their own behalf. A lucrative trade developed for skilled men of arms to hire themselves out to settle disputes. These champions had little interest in the dispute they were hired to settle. There job was to win. It goes without saying that such a system was not a very reliable way of determining guilt and innocence. Nevertheless, it is this fine tradition that led in part to our modern adversary system. The men at arms who championed the claims of those seeking justice would eventually be replaced by lawyers. Swords and maces would be replaced by writs and motions. Nevertheless, the adversarial nature of the system, and the confidence that in a contest, right will prevail over wrong, and that truth will triumph over error, would endure.

The problem (and benefit) at the core of our legal system is its adversarial nature. The lawyer's job, like the champion of old, is to win. It is the prosecutor's job to convict and it the defense attorney's job to acquit. This system encourages zealousness on behalf of the prosecution and the defense, the result of which is that truth becomes only one factor to be considered among several. As Judge Jerome Frank once wrote,"the lawyer aims at victory, at winning the fight, not aiding the court to discover the facts." Like in the contests between champions of old, it is believed that amidst the struggle, the invisible hand of justice will prevail.

In regard to the state, prosecutors receive evidence from police and investigators, and when they believe that evidence has merits, they prosecute. It is part of their job assess the evidence they receive to determine its truthfulness and significance, but it is not the only part. Their primary job is that the suspect, once accused, is found guilty. It is the instances where prosecutors become so focused on proving the person they are prosecuting is guilty, rather than objectively assessing and weighing the evidence, that the most egregious errors occur.

A prosecutor's zeal for a conviction, and, or the ineptitude or indifference of a defence council, has on occasion lead to the conviction of an innocent man. The fact that the measure of good prosecutors is their conviction rate does little to temper their zeal. Defense attorneys, in their turn, are measured by their acquittal rate. No one is measured according to how many actually guilty people are convicted and how many actually innocent people are acquitted. There may be no way to know. The jury is there to decide whether the prosecution has made its case beyond a reasonable doubt and so decide whether the accused has been proved "guilty" or "not guilty." Innocence is a subject beyond their purview.

Perhaps in the future technology and forensics may advance to the point where guilt or innocence will be a simple matter of lab results. Yet, even in that case, trials would still be necessary to verify that the methods were used properly and applied appropriately. We have come a long way since sword fights, crushing people, and throwing them into lakes, but we are still well short of certainty. Until technology is able to advance to the point where its results are irrefutable, and, more importantly, its use, application, and interpretation are indisputable, doubt will, and should remain. And where there is doubt, there should be no death penalty.

In cases where evidence and procedure are questioned, or new facts brought to light, we should not hesitate to review them when a man's life is at stake. Legal systems have always been flawed and always will be flawed. This is why we should stop executing people, especially where there is any controversy whatsoever, legal or otherwise, surrounding the conviction. The execution of Cameron Todd Willingham may be a case where a guilty man was executed for his horrible crimes. But, due to the inherent flaws in our legal system, we cannot be assured that an innocent man might not be executed in the future. It is because of this possibility that we should cease executing people. If it has not already happened, it will happen that, someday, an innocent man will be executed. And because he will be executed in our name, that blood will be on all of our hands. We should not sleep peacefully, as our forbears did, so long as this is a possibility.

Health Care Behemoth

There was a report in the morning's Dallas Morning News about the health care bills winding their way through Congress. The bills are all mind numbing in their complexity. More significant is the wording in the various bills. The proposals being put forward all contain the words "must", "have to", and "required to." As much as the bills proposed are portrayed as simply seeking to provide health care to people who need it, they increasingly represent an attempt to coerce health care agencies, insurance companies, and business into meeting the political goals of Washington. Washington has decided it wants to provide health care to all. It cannot fulfill its promise because it cannot afford to do so. Congress therefore is seeking instead to coerce the insurance companies, the health care industry, and the private sector, into making good on its promise.

Employers with payrolls over $500,000 would be compelled to provide insurance to their employees. Larger companies likely will raise prices in order to offset the cost. For those unable to raise their prices, the costs will have to be absorbed. If it is not possible to absorb the costs, then they will have to be reduced in other ways, such as trimming the payroll or outsourcing jobs. There is no free lunch.

The "rich", those making over $500,000 a year, will have their income taxes raised. This is always a popular proposal with the "middle class." But it should be remembered that when the federal income tax was first enacted, it too was limited to the "rich." Now, all but the very poor pay it. A maze of federal regulations is being discussed on how to manipulate the tax code to assist the middle class in meeting the obligations that will be imposed upon them. The problem here is that the tax code can always be manipulated. In the future, as the cost of health care rises, and it will, there will be pressure to raise and expand those taxes. It is inevitable that the health care taxes imposed on the "rich" will someday be extended to the middle class.

With a health care system run by the secretary of health and human services, it is also inevitable that politics will be injected into health care. No good can come of that. Treatments and procedures would all acquire a political significance. Abortion, while the most salient, would not be the only one. Different lobbying and special interest groups would all demand a say in coverage, treatment, and the allocation of federal funds.

If it could be guaranteed that federal involvement in health care would be limited to underwriting health care, the prospect of its involvement would be less menacing. Such a guarantee is impossible. Even if the government today promises to stay out of the managing of health care, it cannot be guaranteed that this will not change in the future.

Where government money goes, government follows. Where government goes, politics follow. It is a law of nature. No politician can argue otherwise. No person should believe otherwise.

Dallas is Watching You

The city of Dallas recently announced the instillation of cameras along a busy street in a popular part of the city. The cameras were heralded as "an added measure measure of security to residents and workers." A system of 11 cameras will monitor the area. Unlike many surveillance cameras, these cameras will be actively monitored by the Dallas Police Department. Naturally, police welcomed the new system, as did residents and merchants. There is not a crime problem in the area. The monitoring devices are simply intended to keep it that way.

It is not surprising that law enforcement welcomes any new device or technology that aids them in deterring crime and apprehending those who violate the law. After all, that is their job. Nor is it surprising that many seem willing to sacrifice their privacy for the peace of mind such monitoring offers to provide. There has been a growing, and for many, welcome trend in this direction for some time. As law enforcement technology improves, there is a demand to use that technology, not simply to apprehend criminals, but to deter them. The problem, as I see it, is that every one within the range of such surveillance is monitored. The innocent are watched as well as the suspicious. Because cameras cannot distinguish between the two, everyone is treated as a suspect and potential criminal. Being watched doesn't seem to bother people as much as it once did, but it should.

Technology is neutral. It can be employed by those with sinister intent as easily as by those with benign intent. There is no way of knowing what will be considered worthy of surveillance in the future. Nor is there anyway of knowing what technology will be available, what use will be made of that technology, or who will be using it. The prospect of a near omniscient state is not as far fetched as it once was. Some might shrug off such concerns by believing the people, the government, and the courts would prevent any such scenario from developing. Given the welcome such technology frequently receives from the public, clearly they cannot be relied upon as an effective deterrent. The enthusiasm displayed by government to employ surveillance technology is evidence that they are an unreliable defense of privacy and liberty. The security claimed needed by the state makes law less of an obstacle than it might have been in the past, particularly when laws can be changed. The courts have proved increasingly willing to acquiesce to the needs claimed necessary by the government to protect the people and the nation.

The question I have, and many should have, is what guarantee do we have that the monitoring technology we have, and will have in the future, will not be extended to ever larger segments of society and to ever more crimes deemed worthy of prevention through surveillance? If such technology proves effective in reducing crime in one neighborhood, why not use it to deter crime in the city at large? And if it is effective for a city, why not the country? A camera on every street and inside every building would go a long way towards reducing crime in this country; or a least towards identifying and apprehending suspects.

Threats come and go. They always have. Liberties and rights, once lost, tend to stay lost.

Our Violent Society

There was an editorial in this morning's Dallas Morning News by The Reverend Gerard Britt Jr., vice president of policy at Central Dallas Ministries concerning the scourge of youth violence in the U.S. Reverend Britt chronicles the disturbing statistics concerning the growing violence among teenagers, and society in general over the last twenty years. Rev. Britt partly attributes public alarm over the sometimes terrifying acts of violence among youth to sensationalist reporting on the part of the media. There may be something to this.

But Rev. Britt also acknowledges the real rise in such crime. He also laments society's response to the rise in violence by emphasizing law enforcement as a primary tool in combating this violence. He advocates the position shared by many in this country that youth violence is a national problem that must be addressed nationally by exploring how, since U.S. society as a whole contributes to rise of violence, the problem should be addressed nationally. This is where I take issue with Rev. Britt.

Certainly there is an epidemic of youth violence in the U.S. But I am not responsible for it. Neither are my neighbors. Neither is my family or my friends. I am sure many Americans across the U.S. would be hard pressed to find any connection between their lives and youth violence. To make a connection between me and youth violence in Chicago or Baltimore is a stretch beyond credulity. Yet, Rev Britt makes that connection effortlessly.

For Britt and others, society is responsible for the rise in violence. I am part of society, ergo, I am responsible. There is an irresistible appeal of this argument to the universally and socially conscious. Nevertheless, it is a position that does little to address the problem, and even less to solve it. The appeal of this argument is that it provides an opportunity for many to involve themselves in issues and policies across the nation. Secondly, and more importantly, the "universal" nature of this problem requires the intervention of society, which all too often is synonymous with government. To say society must get involved is, to the liberal mind, to say that government must get involved. How else can the narcissistic, selfish, and small minded millions in this country be made to participate in the measures and programs advocated by the socially progressive?

Violent youth are not the product of an "unjust" or "oppressive" society. They are the product of a society increasing bereft of normative values (what used to be called morality) and an absence of attentive, responsible parenting and socializing institutions. Our youth are not neglected or ignored by society. They are neglected and ignored by their parents, families, and neighbors.

Poverty and ignorance have always existed. They always will exist. Oppression and discrimination have always existed. They, too, will always exist. Violence on the scale we are experiencing in this country has not always existed, and need not exist. The question to be asked is what is it about our modern, liberal society that is fueling this violence. After decades of undermining the ethics, morals, and institutions that, since the beginning of time, have served to socialize individuals and make communal living possible, liberals are concerned, if not shocked, to find a society in which ethics, morals, and socializing institutions are increasingly ineffective.

Immigrants and English

Yesterday, Ernestina Mondragon sat behind a desk in Oak Cliff, Texas. She, her interpreter, and her lawyer had called a press conference to explain her indignation, and her lawyer's, at a ticket she received recently for "driving without being able to speak English." She had been pulled over after she had made an illegal U-turn. When the officer approached her, he discovered that she should could not speak English, and so wrote her a ticket.

Many are upset at this. The officer who wrote the ticket has been reprimanded and is under investigation. Unmentioned in the article was whether the fact that Ms. Mondragon's inability to speak, and presumably read, English might have contributed to her error. The interesting thing in the article was the fact that Ms. Mondragon has lived in the U.S. for eighteen years. It seems that even after almost two decades, Ms. Mondragon has not learned enough English to explain herself to a policeman. If this is the case, it is hardly an encouraging anecdote for the pro-immigration movement. Not satisfied that the ticket has been dismissed and the officer reprimanded, she will likely seek some financial compensation for the indignation she suffered. She has already retained an attorney. (Who says America is no longer a land of opportunity?) Perhaps if she wins her lawsuit she will have the time and money to finally get around to learning English; presuming she wants to learn English. She clearly doesn't feel she needs to.

Years ago, I lived overseas while in the military. It was only a matter of weeks before I was out learning the language and customs of the country where I had been posted. Others soldiers, less curious and enthusiastic than I was, were content to stay on the base. If they learned any of the language, it was rarely more than was needed to harass women they found attractive and insult men they found irritating. They were disinclined to learn the language because they didn't need to. They were able to work and socialize amongst themselves, so there was no need to know the local language. Secondly, they were able to get what they wanted, or needed, through merchants who catered to them and their inability to speak the language. Classes were offered on the base for anyone who wanted or needed to learn the language. Few wanted to. Even fewer needed to.

The question we should be asking here in the U.S. about immigration and the need to know English is, of the growing numbers of immigrants in the U.S. who do not speak English, how many of them cannot do so because they haven't had the opportunity to learn it, and how many simply because they haven't needed to learn it?

Cowboys and Owners

I sat down to watch a football game today. The Cowboys were playing the Falcons. Despite growing up in New England, I have always been a Cowboys fan. But I am not much of a fan anymore. When I was young, I knew the name of every starting player on the Cowboys, both offense and defense. I even knew the name of the coach. Year in and year out I cheered the Cowboys. But not so much anymore.

I began to lose interest in the NFL with the advent of free agency. Once players began changing teams, and teams began changing uniforms, names, and cities, I started losing my interest in the NFL in general, and the Cowboys in particular. And why shouldn't I? Over the years it seems the only constants with the Cowboys, other than a quarterback and a handful of other players, is that they are still in Dallas (well, near Dallas) Jerry Jones is still the owner, and they still have a star on their helmet. I used to root for players such as Bob Lilly, Harvey Martin, Walt Garrison, and Roger Staubach. I even knew the names of all the starting offensive linemen. Had Bob Lilly or Walt Garrison been traded, I would not have known what to do. (If Roger Staubach had been traded, I probably would have gone to live in a hole somewhere.) I would have been torn between rooting for whichever team they had been traded to, and the Cowboys. For me, Bob Lilly, Roger Staubach, Walt Garrison, and all the others, including Coach Landry, were indistinguishable from the Cowboys. They were the Cowboys. For the longest time, I did not know who owned the Cowboys, nor did I care.

Now, each year, players come and go. Coaches, and uniforms change. Players you hated and booed the season before, you are expected to cheer simply because they are now on your team. A team can change it's name, and the city it plays in. It can win the Superbowl one year, and three games the next. As fluid as the NFL has become, I do not understand how a fan can root for a team year after year. In regard to the Cowboys, I am still a fan. But increasingly, I no longer understand what is it I am supposed to root for. The star on the helmet? One thing is for sure: I am not going to root for Jerry Jones, or his shiny new stadium.

The Matter of Truth

There was an editorial in this morning's Dallas Morning News by Jonathan Last concerning the "wisdom" of crowds. Drawing on some sociological studies, Last throws his support behind those who advocate the idea that crowds are often better at determining truth than any individual can be. Apart from the scant historical evidence for this assertion, (crowds once believed the world was flat and that the Earth was the center of the universe), Last continues writing in support of this idea. He cites the not inconsiderable scientific support for this idea.

While there are some areas of social and political life where this theory may be valid, one should be cautious in embracing it. There are many areas of social life where truth is not a matter of opinion. In such cases, the theory can be misleading, even harmful.

The Heavy Burden of the Obese

There was an interesting article in the paper this morning. First, I learned that there exists a group called "The Obesity Action Coalition." They are an interest group that advocates for the rights, and evidently, the dignity of the obese. Secondly, I learned that they are upset.

Recently, a man fell critically ill in Topeka, Kansas. An ambulance was called for. When the ambulance arrived, the medics discovered that the man would not fit inside the ambulance. Even if he would fit, they were unable to move him because he was too heavy. He weighed over 1,000 lb.s. They had to use a forklift to load the man onto the bed of a flatbed truck to get him to the hospital, where another forklift was used to unload him. It turns out that the growing obesity of Americans is causing some difficulties for the medical profession beyond simply providing for their care. Special ambulances are sometimes needed for their transportation. Once at the hospital, special beds, wheelchairs, walkers, and bathrooms may be required. The cost of these needed provisions and accommodations has caused medical providers to consider adding additional fees. They want to pass the costs of these accommodations along to the patients who require them. That is why the National Obesity Coalition is upset.

The National Obesity Coalition believes that since health care is a right, singling out the obese and requiring them to pay more for health care services is unfair, even discriminatory. They believe that the accommodations required for the care of the obese are no different than the accommodations required for the needs of any other patient and that it is the job of the health care system to provide them.

Proponents of the added fees point out that many obese patients welcome the special accommodations made for them and do not mind paying the extra fees if it means that they can receive needed care and save them the indignity of having to be transported to the hospital on the bed of a flatbed truck. Since obesity is a growing problem in the U.S., the cost of caring for the obese and making provisions for them is only going to increase. There is concern over who should be responsible for these added costs; the medical providers, the insurance companies, or the people who require those services. Naturally, no one wants to pay. But someone has to. If national health care is enacted, we might all have to pay; unless Congress decides to start taxing people by the pound.

The interesting thing is, there are cures for obesity.

Politics of the Bible

There was an editorial in this morning's Dallas Morning News concerning the struggle over the interpretation of the Bible and the political and social ramifications of the various interpretations. While the Bible has for many centuries been the subject of theological debate, it is now increasingly becoming the subject of political and social debate, and as a result, a common object of public scorn.

The question of who started this debate is a matter of opinion. Conservatives claim it was begun by liberals who chose passages and proffered interpretations perceived to support their social and political views. Liberals accuse conservatives of initiating the struggle and claim their response is simply an attempt to counteract interpretations they believe were chosen to support conservative views. Some point out that the debate over scripture dates back to the founding of the church. They are the correct ones.

Debate over scripture is nothing new. It dates back to the very founding of Christianity. Christ had barely risen before debate began regarding the significance and meaning of His life, His words, and His resurrection. Eventually, when the Gospels were collected, debate began began over their interpretation, and even which Gospels were to be included in the New Testament. Some were accepted. At least one was rejected. The establishment of the Church was not simply the movement of the early Christians to organize and tend to the faithful, but the result of the need to establish a coherent faith and doctrine, as well as to provide a way to resolve disputes over the interpretation of scripture when they arose.

What has changed is the context of the debate. In the years following Christ, there were a great number of arguments and disagreements over such things as which apostle was to be considered the greatest authority, and so given greatest weight, and how the Gospels should be understood and applied, how inconsistencies in the Gospels were to be reconciled, even which books and epistles should be included in the Bible. Similarly, there was debate over the proper understanding and interpretation of parables, epistles, and allegories. As importantly, there was debate over who should be allowed to participate in those discussions. Despite the disagreements and debates, there was agreement that the discussion should not be a matter of public opinion. The debate was restricted to theologians within the Church. It was believed that only pious men, steeped in theology and knowledgeable in the history and origins of the Church, should have any standing to participate in discussions over the interpretation of scripture.

Over the centuries, many of the greatest minds in Western civilization weighed in on the debate. Yet, where once learned and pious men such as St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom were looked to for insight into scripture, today, everyone feels enabled, and, in some cases, encouraged to have their own interpretations and opinions. It was inevitable that once the Church was no longer viewed as the arbiter of scripture and its authority was compromised, interpretation of scripture would fragment. And so it has. From one church, there were two. From two, we had three. Three led to four. And on it went until today there are hundreds, if not thousands of churches; each free to interpret and apply scripture as they see fit. Indeed, today it seems anyone can start their own church, and often does. A drive through the Texas countryside will reveal any number of odd and eccentric churches, each with its own theology and interpretation of scripture.

Given this, it is not surprising the public is disinclined to give great weight to the arguments of any church or religious figure, even the Pope, who pronounces on a theological or doctrinal issue. If a church has doctrine that one finds inconvenient or burdensome, one can simply find another church. If a liberal is confronted with a church that possesses a doctrine that they are uncomfortable with, they are free to find another. Conservatives are free to do so as well. The fragmentation of Christian beliefs, much to the amusement of many who hold religion in scorn, has marginalized Christianity in particular, and religion in general, as an authority on any issue of concern to the public. If churches and Christians in the U.S. find themselves marginalized and in disagreement over social issues and policy, they have only themselves to blame. It is they that have made themselves irrelevant.

Christ was not a liberal or a conservative. He was careful to avoid interjecting himself into the politics of His day. He spoke to individuals and addressed their souls individually. He called neither for political change or social reform. He endeavored to teach men and women how to live in a way that would bring them closer to God. He did not call upon them to right the wrongs of the world; only the wrongs in their own soul, because all good in the world flows from good souls; not good laws or good institutions.

The Bible as we know it was not given to us by God, it was given to us by the Church. The fragmentation of biblical interpretation is the direct result of the fragmentation of the Church. The fragmentation of biblical interpretation is the cause of the religious circus often on display in politics today.

Corporate Blogging

There was an editorial in this morning's Dallas Morning News about the growing institutionalization of blogging. There is growing consensus that blogging has "become more corporate, more ossified, and increasingly indistinguishable from mainstream media." We are told that "the era when political comment on the Web (was) dominated by solo bloggers writing for free is gone." It is reported that many of blogging's most successful writers have been, and are continuing to be, "absorbed" by large, commercial sites.

Evidently, I am at risk of wasting my time since, according to the article, the interest in independent political bloggers is declining and is expected to continue to decline in the growing shadow cast by large, corporate sites. As if that weren't enough, it is said that the door is rapidly closing on the aspirations of independent bloggers to be hired by any large, professional, blog service since many of the best bloggers have already been snatched up. This is frustrating news for many of us Blog writers still aspiring to fame and fortune.

One result of independent bloggers being hired by large, professional sites, the article continues, is that political blogging is becoming increasingly standardized and indistinguishable from mainstream reporting. The importance and allure of the unorthodox, and sometimes quirky insights and opinions expressed by independent Bloggers is in jeopardy of being washed away in the growing swell of mainstream media's expansion in the Blogosphere. The good news is that there are still bloggers out there who do not write for fame and fortune, well, some anyway. I suspect many political bloggers, such as myself, write because they are dissatisfied with the coverage and reporting of "mainstream" media. Where this is the case, the allure of being hired by a large, professional site, is not quite as appealing as it might be to others.

I would certainly welcome being paid to write my Blog. But I enjoy the freedom of choosing what I want to write about, how to write about it, and, not least of all, when to write about it. I would not welcome having to conform my interests and tailor my opinions to suit the editorial tastes and market concerns of an employer. It is not that I am an idealist. It is simply that I hold my principals at a higher price than people have offered to pay for them.

Curious Meaning of Words

I came across an old definition of "consummation" this morning. According to Samuel Johnson, it once meant "Death; end of life." Given the poor state and dim view of marriage in this country, in the minds of some, and many in Hollywood, this definition is not quite obsolete.

Religion and History

The Texas State Board of Education took issue Thursday with a proposal to include more coverage of religion in U.S. government and history classes in school. Despite that fact that even a cursory reading of American history reveals considerable religious influence on movements and policy, some on the Board of Education feel the inclusion of religion is largely irrelevant and unnecessary.

If understanding religion is unnecessary to understanding the past, it is unnecessary to understanding the present. The myopia of this view serves to distort history and handicaps students in their understanding of society and the world. The widespread ignorance among many concerning religion, and its history and role in society, is a large factor in the bewilderment, unease, and even animosity of many towards religious beliefs and concerns, except, of course, where those beliefs and concerns run parallel to policy. It is this ignorance of religion that the Texas State Board of Education proposes to address by trying to sidestep the issue.

Religion is at risk of becoming an eccentricity, sometimes useful, sometimes irrelevant, and sometimes harmful, depending on the person and which religion is being considered. It seems that where there is disagreement over religion and its place in society and history, it is often concluded that the best approach to the subject is to avoid it.

Sowing the Wind

America and the West are discussing the need to increase pressure on the government in Tehran, and even overthrow it if required, due to its nuclear efforts. Meanwhile, the Americans and Israelis are exploring their military options and preparing plans to attack Iran if it is deemed necessary. Plans are being made and plots are being hatched. None of this is remarkable or objectionable if one is an American or an Israeli. Plans have long been made and studied in the U.S. on how to contain the Islamic regime in Tehran. But what if one is Iranian? How should an Iranian view the plans and preparations to "contain" it? It is not as though the U.S. and Israel have never launched attacks or worked to undermine governments when it was perceived that their national security interests were at stake.

It is odd that Iran is viewed as the chief threat in the Middle East. The U.S. has invaded and occupied two of Iran's neighbors. There are thousands of U.S. troops, and hundreds of U.S. aircraft nearby in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are dozens U.S. warships patrolling not far off Iran's shore. And still, Iran is the threat. Israel has a formidable air force and threatens to attack Iran if necessary. Despite its bluster, Iran has little effective means to attack Israel, and none to attack the U.S. It has only a modest ability to defend itself. Yet, Iran is the chief danger to peace in the Middle East.

Israel has launched numerous "preemptive" and "defensive" attacks on its neighbors. Iran has attacked no one. But, Iran is the threat to peace in the Middle East. The U.S. has railed against the government in Tehran and worked to undermine it. We have demanded Iran honor and faithfully adhere to international laws and treaties while we have often been selective in our adherence and enforcement, and creative in our interpretation of those laws and treaties. Yet, Iran is condemned. Each war fought by Israel, with the possible exception of its recent invasion of Lebanon, has ended to the benefit of Israel. Yet its survival is seen in jeopardy.

Iran claims it is being singled out for it's actions and policies. The U.S. claims that Iran is being devious in its plans and dishonest in its statements. Perhaps the U.S. and Israel are correct in their concerns and prudent in their preparations. But still, it is hard to blame the Iranians if they feel they are being treated unfairly. As they say, just because you are paranoid doesn't mean no one's out to get you.

Having a nuclear weapon would not allow Iran to take over the world or destroy it's enemies. It would not even allow Iran to take over it's neighbors. Surrounded as they are by Israel, India, Russia, and Pakistan, and with U.S. in Afghanistan, Iraq and offshore, all with nuclear weapons, whatever territorial ambitions Iran may have, if any, would be unlikely to succeed. Militarily, even with a nuclear weapon, Iran is hopelessly outmatched. The only use Iran could make of a nuclear weapon would be for self defense or an act of spite. If Iran ever decided used a nuclear weapon, it would certainly be destroyed. While some in Iran may boast and threaten, is difficult to believe the government in Tehran would accept the destruction of Iran for an act of spite. And let there be no doubt, it would be destroyed.

The greatest benefit of possessing nuclear weapons to Iran, other than the boost to its collective ego, is that those weapons would make Iran less susceptible to attack and threats from the West. Perhaps if Iran felt less threatened and more secure, its ego, fears, and ambitions would be easier to assuage. It might at least be more willing to sit down and talk to it's adversaries.

There are many that are impatient and suspicious of Iran's motives and abilities and reluctant to "waste" time negotiating. They advocate confrontation, even military action. But we should resist their calls. An attack on Iran, to put it in terms befitting the region, would be the act of sowing the wind.

It's Not About Fighting

Recently, thousands of flamboyant, rainbow flag waving protesters marched in Washington. Their demand? The right serve openly in the military. There is a certain irony here. One of the most stridently liberal and anti-military demographics in the country is demanding the right to serve in the military.

The issue of gays in the military is not, or at least ought not be, about the ability or willingness of gays to serve their country. No doubt many are able and willing. It is about the close quarters and the forced intimacy of military life. The prospect of sharing a shower, a room, or a tent with someone who may be attracted to you and find you sexually appealing can be uncomfortable and unpleasant, especially if those sentiments aren't shared or welcome. How many women (even liberal women) would feel comfortable dressing, showering, and sleeping among men? Very few I imagine. That is why men and women have separate showers, bathrooms, dressing rooms, and barracks. The unease about gays in the military is not about "homophobia." It is about human nature, and human nature has long been the greatest frustration to idealists. One does not "get over" human nature.

If the demands of gay rights protesters to serve openly in the military are ever met, I imagine there would be a great deal of celebration in the gay and lesbian community and among it's supporters. I wonder if the military might want to set up enlistment booths at gay pride rallies to take advantage of the celebrants' patriotism. How many of the celebrators do you think would enlist? How much of their anger do you suppose is caused by their frustrated patriotism and desire to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, rather than the fact that someone refused one of their demands?

As a side note, I look forward to the day when polygamists march on Washington to demand tolerance, respect, and the right to "love" as they please.

Confident Liberals

I sometimes wish I were as confident in my beliefs and opinions as many liberals seem to be. I can never seem to shake the constant suspicion I have that I have overlooked something or not thought something fully through. Because of this, I constantly keep an eye out and an ear open for information I might not have considered. If I had the surety and conviction of liberals, I could save a lot of time. Perhaps enough that I could attend rallies and protests more often.

Banned Bits of Beef

Japan recently suspended beef imports from a Tysons meatpacking plant in Lexington, Nebraska for including beef parts banned under a trade agreement between Japan and the U.S. The shipment included parts of spinal bones. Spinal bones contain tissue implicated in the transmission of mad cow disease.

Tyson apologized, saying the inclusion of the spinal parts had been made by mistake and was the result of a mix-up. They said that those parts were not supposed to be shipped to Japan. So, where were those parts supposed to be shipped?

Nobel Prize

It was announced this morning that President Obama was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to ban nuclear weapons, protect and improve the world's environment, champion the cause of justice, and several other worthy and laudable goals. I have to admit, I was a little surprised, as I am sure many were. I had always been under the impression that the Nobel Prize was awarded to people who had achieved or accomplished great things. Evidently, sometimes it enough to merely attempt great things.

Reagan ended the Cold War. He wasn't even nominated.

Crime and Political Crime

A new category of crime was created Thursday when the the House voted to extend "hate crimes" to include those committed on the basis of the victim's sexual orientation. The need and merit of "hate crime" legislation has long been deemed necessary to deter attacks based on race, color, religion, or national origin. The brutal martyrdom of Matthew Shepard was cited as an impetus for this law. The need for the expansion of the hate crime law was considered necessary due the threat such crimes pose to the "very fabric of America." Brigands, brawlers, and brutes will have to be much more careful who they assault and rob in the future lest they commit their outrage against one of the select groups covered under hate crime legislation. The safest bet for thieves and thugs now would be to lurk outside golf courses and assault and rob the heterosexual white men observed leaving.

I have decided that if I am ever threatened or attacked, I will claim to be gay so as to deter my attackers. It is my hope, as well as society's, that those confronting me will not only be aware of the added penalties should they persist in their attack, but that they would be deterred by them. If it is believed that I am just some straight, white guy, why not risk beating or robbing me? It would be the safest bet for any criminal concerned by "hate crime enhancements."

From my experiences, and statistics I have seen in the past, most people who assault other people are rarely concerned with the possible consequences of their actions. This is due to the fact that many of them are drunk or otherwise impaired, flat out ignorant and angry, or determined to harm their foe regardless of the consequences. Of those who give their crime some thought before they commit it, they commonly believe their preparations and planning will allow them to escape apprehension and so the deterrence of possible penalties for their crime is minimal. Those who anticipate or fear being caught are the ones disinclined to commit crimes.

I am a straight, white male. I am not young or rich and I do not have a high paying job. I do not live in a swank, manicured neighborhood. I am not politically connected and have no friends in the statehouse or on the bench. I am just some guy. I am disturbed and a little offended by the idea that, simply because I am white, heterosexual, and male, I am somehow more privileged and so deemed less worthy or in need of added protection provided under hate crime legislation. If I am beaten or robbed, my gender, race, and sexual orientation will be of no consolation.

Of course, I just might be missing the point. It might be the case that "hate" crimes, (as opposed to "love" crimes?) are not intended to simply protect groups determined to be under protected or in jeopardy, but to symbolize public resolve and concern for their well being. Under this interpretation, crimes determined to have been committed on the basis of gender, ethnicity, race, or sexual orientation are understood as threatening to undermine the social fabric and upset the political order. If this is the case, we should relabel "hate crimes" to reflect what they really are; "political crimes."

Kids and Violence

The Justice Department yesterday issued a report stating that more than 60% of school children in the U.S. were exposed to violence, directly or indirectly in their daily lives. In addition to those who had actually witnessed or been themselves victims of "violence" were those who heard about violence against friends and relatives and "threats to the school." It did not say whether watching cartoons or the evening news, or reading the paper were included as witnessing or learning about violence. A criminal justice professor at Northeastern University criticized the study as being too broad and inclusive. I have to agree.

As a child, I grew up with two brothers and fights and scuffles often occurred. Today, I suspect those scuffles and fights would be considered family violence, particularly when extortion and threats were involved. On more than one occasion I was threatened with violence from my older brother if I did not desist from some activity or behavior he found irritating. Demands were often made for a toy or a seat on the swing and, if I did not comply, threats were made. On occasions he would actually hit me, (assault me in today's parlance). I in turn made threats against my younger brother and sought to extort toys, candy, and other things kids find valuable, and threatened violence if he did not comply.

I would often watch the evening news and was, at times, encouraged to do so. It was felt that exposure to what was going on in the world would give me a broader understanding of current events. Of course, my parents were present in order to explain those events and answer any questions I might have. I can still recall images of the Vietnam war, as well as two wars in the Middle East. Perhaps it was those experiences that kindled my interest in world events.

I also was exposed to considerable violence every Saturday morning watching cartoons in which people and animals were regularly victims of extraordinary acts of violence. The unbridled violence and evil machinations of Wile E. Coyote no doubt desensitized and hardened me to violence. Yet, despite my exposure to such mayhem, I never dropped an anvil on any body's head.

In school I was often the victim of violence and was on occasion, an instigator of violence, both verbal and physical. It was not uncommon for me to be taunted or physically assaulted with a push or a hit in the arm. At times, I was the aggressor, taunting, pushing and hitting others. Sometimes, I simply heard of violence afterwards; how Jimmy pushed Tommy off the swing, or Steve punched Robert over a cross word. Other times, a particularly malicious and violent student would even assault his victim by throwing a rock at him; the grievous crime, as I understand it, of of aggravated assault. I no longer recall the specifics of many of those incidents but undoubtedly they are buried in my subconscious and influence me in sinister ways.

I recognize things have changed since I was a kid. Knives, guns, severe beatings and sexual abuse are more common than the rocks, dirtballs, scuffling and curiosity of my youth. And I have no doubt violence has increased. But when I see grim statistics such as 57% of children report having been assaulted, 13% report being bullied, I have to question the broad criteria being used to establish and measure violence and abuse among today's children. Given the broader definition today concerning what constitutes violence and assault, and the natural tendency of parents and children to be overly sensitive to insults, taunts, and the sometimes malicious and vengeful nature of children towards each other, I am not surprised that the statistics are so high. Also, because the survey was conducted over the phone and parents were allowed to speak for their children, the numbers should not have been unexpected.

I would have to agree with those who feel the study was too broad and the definition of violence too vague. If one was cynical by nature, one might conclude that the study was predetermined to find the shocking levels of violence that were determined to occur. That the study was conducted by university researchers explains much of this. University professors and graduate students are known to be much more flexible and creative in establishing criteria for their studies. It might also be suspected that university professors and graduate students are much more sensitive to the issue of bullying than most.

If the right criteria are established, the results sought are almost guaranteed to be found. If I were to conduct a study on bullying and violence among children, the last groups I would ask would be professors, graduate students, and parents. I would go to the schools and playgrounds, talk to the school nurse, and, if need be, visit emergency rooms and determine it for myself.

All of this begs the question; if the data is correct, why are the numbers concerning violence and abuse among children so high? Have they always been this high, or is this a modern phenomenon? Why have guns and knives replaced rocks and sticks? If it is a modern phenomenon, what is it about modern society that encourages such behaviors? In short, what has changed? Why is it that in today's enlightened culture of "values" such as tolerance, acceptance and moral neutrality, so much violence exists among our youth? As important, are these statistics going to be a pretext for greater government involvement in society and our schools?

Strategy and Politics

General McChrystal has come under attack for voicing his concerns over military strategy in Afghanistan. McChrystal's remarks came following a statement by Vice President Biden concerning the proper strategy regarding the conflict in Afghanistan. The general disagrees over the strategy to be pursued.

Many of the greatest military blunders and disasters in history have occurred when political objectives were allowed to trump military objectives. The decision to take or defend a particular piece of ground or city is best decided by military commanders who are not only better able to determine the proper objectives of military forces, but better able to assess whether, and how those objectives can be achieved with the forces available.

When political objectives are introduced into military strategy, the expertise of the military is undercut. Cities and terrain are ordered to be taken or secured based on their political significance rather than their military value, and wars and battles are lost. It is inevitable that military commanders will begin to chafe under the objectives of politicians.

Many of the greatest military blunders in history occurred when political objectives were elevated over military ones. Hitler's obsession with Stalingrad is a prime example. The decision to take Stalingrad was a political one made by Hitler over the objections of his military commanders. Hitler dismissed the advice of his generals. He considered them incapable of understanding the larger picture. Hitler believed the political victory gained by taking Stalingrad would end the war and overruled his generals' objections and concerns. The result was that Germany lost the battle of Stalingrad and never regained the initiative.

By switching the objective in Afghanistan from defeating al'Qaeda to propping up the government, the military's objective was changed from what it is trained to do and what it does best, fighting wars and winning battles, to one it has been notoriously unable to do; build nations and defeat guerrilla movements. While it is improper for military commanders to publicly object to orders given to them, sometimes it is understandable, even justified.

Government the Provider

The assumption by the federal government of the responsibility for providing for the needs and desires of the public is reaching ever new levels. To the responsibilities it has taken upon itself to protect the public from harm, want, ignorance, and poverty, it now seeks the power to protect them from illness and injury. If it is not the intent of Washington to make the public completely dependent upon government for its safety and well being, it will certainly be the result. There long has been a growing reliance of the public upon the largess and protection of the federal government. Under Obama and liberals in Washington, it is hoped that this reliance can be consummated.

Over time, the federal government has been transformed from the last resort of the hungry, the hopeless, and the defenseless, to the first resort. Where people once relied upon their neighbors, their friends, their churches, and their communities for succor, it is now all too common to seek aid from the government. (If the need is especially dramatic, the aid of Hollywood can still be hoped for.)

If the government can make itself truly indispensable to the public, the long hoped for dream of liberals will be realized. For, where there is dependence, there is control.

Brave New World

Democrats are preparing to take up health care legislation in the House and the Senate. As they do so, Obama made a speech at the White House to 150 doctors who gathered to hear him speak. Presumably, those 150 doctors are all in favor of Obama's plan for health care reform, (All in their labs coats. 150 doctors can't be wrong?) The Democrats once again stated that there goal was not to take over the health care industry, or even manage it. Their goal is to simply to lower the cost of health care, maintain the quality of that care, and expand it to the millions who either do not have it, or do not have enough of it; all while not bankrupting the government.

Now, I admit I have only a rudimentary understanding of economics. But, from the little I know, it is generally not economically prudent to expand and improve service while reducing the cost of that service. Generally, businesses that succeed at offering a service or product at a low price, such as Walmart, or Target, do so by keeping wages low and scouring the world for low cost products to sell. But Obama and his health care reformers insist that neither is an option in regard to health care. He avows that wages for health care professionals will not be reduced, and that the quality of health care will remain at the level we have become accustomed to, if not improved. We had better hope this is true. It is not as though we can import medical services from China and India. Doctors, drugs, and machines perhaps, but not services.

If Obama succeeds in expanding health care to everyone who needs or wants it, maintains the quality and availability of that care, can satisfy the health care professionals that they can continue to ply their trade and make a living that they have become accustomed to, without undue interference from government, and more importantly, reduce the costs of that care, he will truly deserve the thanks of a grateful public. But, what if he can't? What if there are some things Obama has overlooked? What if some of the predictions and assumptions made by the administration don't pan out? In that case, we will have to rely upon the alacrity and agility of the government to respond to the unanticipated. They have never let us down in the past. Why would they in the future?

After Obama has solved the health care crisis, perhaps he will finally be able to address the fundamental basis for many of the social and economic ills and injustices found in society. Perhaps, like he has in so many other areas, Obama can succeed where so many others have failed. Perhaps Obama can be the one to finally overcome the shortcomings of human nature and bring about the peace and harmony that has eluded so many others who have sought to bring it about and failed. There is a sense by some that we are truly on the threshold of something wonderful and beautiful. Can a brave new world finally be within our grasp?

When Money Doesn't Help

It was reported this morning that, despite the massive spending by the federal government, the U.S. jobless rate has continued to increase and now stands at nearly 10%. More than 250,000 jobs were lost in September, more than the 200,000 that were lost in August as joblessness reached its highest rate since 1994, under the Clinton Administration. The government's response to this increase in joblessness is to extend the government stimulus package (aptly named since it seems to be doing little more than stimulating the government), and spend even more than than the nearly $800 billion already spent to rescue the economy. Evidently, the administration believes that if spending vast sums of money and increasing the government's role in the economy doesn't work, the solution is to spend even more money and increase the government's role in the economy even further; a sure way to reduce the deficit.

Amidst these grim statistics, it was reported that the health care industry added 19,000 jobs over that period. It is of note that one of the few bright spots in the economy is the major target of the Obama administration and the one that is claimed in most in need of reform.

The government doesn't create wealth, it absorbs wealth. I recall reading once that a definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expect different results. While this definition was a source of amusement when I first heard it, it is no longer so. The private sector is the primary source of wealth in the economy, and it is being threatened with more regulation and increased taxes. But, I'm sure a man as gifted and intelligent as Obama, has figured out a way to expand the government, increase regulation, and raise taxes, while stimulating the economy at the same time. At least, let us hope so.

Why the Second?

The Second Amendment is the one amendment to the Constitution that the Supreme Court and many on the left have been inclined to read narrowly and in context. The Court, over the decades, has been willing to take an expansive interpretation of constitutional rights and overlook intent and context. The right to privacy, for example, was found hiding in the Constitution. The right to abortion, in turn, was found lurking in the right to privacy. Federal intervention to end segregation was originally found constitutional under a broad interpretation of the interstate commerce clause.

Over the years, many have cheered as the Court looked beyond intent, precedent, and context, to extend constitutional rights and liberties where none had existed before. Many hope that such an expanded an enlightened approach to the Constitution will continue, with one exception; the Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms." The Second Amendment has been mired in strict literalism for years. For some reason, even the most expansive and liberal interpreters of the Constitution seem to stick at the Second Amendment.

Those inclined to urge a broader view of the rights provided under the Constitution, often insist on a narrow and parsed interpretation of the Second Amendment. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is claimed to only be applicable in regards to militias, not a right possessed by individuals. We are told by the occasionally strict constitutionalists, that the people's right to keep and bear bear arms is entirely predicated on the necessity of a well regulated militia. Where there is no militia, there is no right to keep and bear arms. Under that narrow reading of the Second Amendment, the individual, qua individual, has no constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Where there is no specific mention of an individual right to keep arms, despite what it says in the Constitution, none is inferred.

Many modern constitutional rights have been inferred and deduced from an expansive reading of the Constitution. Penumbras and emanations over the years have flowed from the Constitution like water from a fountain. Why the insistence on a literal and parsed interpretation of the Second Amendment? Why is a document construed to be flexible enough to include rights unimaginable and inconceivable to the Founders interpreted so narrowly on this one issue? This is not a rhetorical question. I really would like to know.

Economic Bulldozer

In an editorial in this morning's Dallas Morning News, the author takes issue with recent attempts to control immigration and penalize those here in the country illegally. In defense of the Dream Act, William McKenzie makes the common economic argument concerning the economic benefits of immigration, both legal and illegal. But in places like Texas and Arizona, we are not talking about computer programmers, engineers, or doctors. We are primarily talking about uneducated and unskilled workers whose chief benefit to the economy is to keep wages low.

He also cites the common, and, in, my opinion, flawed argument that laws against illegal immigration do not stop it and therefore it is near worthless to try and improve, let alone enforce those laws. The merit of this argument is beyond me. Are laws against robbing banks worthless because they do not stop people from robbing banks? Does that mean we should give up and legalize bank robbing?

There certainly is room for compassion regarding the plight of illegals living in the U.S. But there is room for irritation as well. Not everyone who enters the U.S. brings valuable skills with them. Those who do not do little to increase the productivity of the U.S. and actually, in many cases, provide a net loss where social, governmental, and educational services must be expanded and tailored to meet the needs of immigrants.

There is also the argument that, even if many immigrants lack the skills and education to contribute to the U.S. economy, their children will acquire the skills lacking on the part of their parents and become productive and contributing members of the U.S. But much of this argument is speculative. It is assumed, or perhaps just hoped, that the children of illegal immigrants will grow up to be engineers, doctors, architects, etc. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. Allowing millions of undocumented immigrants into to the U.S. on the statistical probability that some of them will, someday, acquire useful and needed skills and add to the economic vitality of the U.S. is a gamble. Because it is a gamble, the public should be made aware of the odds and the costs involved and decide if it is one they want to take. Unfortunately, the public is usually excluded from decisions regarding immigration.

Economics should be only one consideration in the debate over immigration. There are other considerations involved as well, e.g. the cultural, political, and social costs of immigration; and at what point does immigration become migration. But, as is increasingly common in the U.S., the economic considerations of policy are used to bulldoze all others. Perhaps the U.S. should consider altering its immigration laws to accommodate illegal immigrants trying enter the U.S. Perhaps we should also consider examining policy reforms to not only consider the aspirations of illegal immigrants, both those already here and those who want to come here, but to assess the ability of immigrants' to achieve those aspirations once they are here. Many people want to be doctors or architects. Few become doctors and architects. Regardless of one's opinion on the matter, the costs and benefits of immigration, economic or otherwise, is a discussion worth having.

There are many costs to immigration on the scale we are witnessing today. The economic cost is just one of them. Because it is the most "objective" and "scientific" analysis, the economic measurement has become the preferred one. The social, cultural and political costs are just as real. But, because they involve less quantifiable and "scientific" concerns, they are avoided, even shunned. Nevertheless, those costs are real, and we ignore them at our own peril.

Immigrants?

In the debate over immigration, it not uncommon for some to refer to the Pilgrims and those who followed them as immigrants. They were not immigrants. An immigrant is one who moves to a foreign nation to take up residence. A colonist is someone who moves to a foreign land to take up residence. The difference is colonists seek to retain their identity and allegiance to their mother country. The original Europeans who landed here in North America were not immigrants, despite the popular slogans to the contrary. They were colonists. They had no interest in assimilating with those who inhabited this land or learning their language and customs. While on occasion it proved useful to know the customs and beliefs of those who originally lived here, there was little effort to adapt to them. The settlers and colonists lived apart from the natives and had no desire to live amongst them. In time, they supplanted the natives through numbers and force and eventually took the land for themselves. It is unlikely the Iroquis and Choctaw viewed Europeans as immigrants any more than the Romans viewed the Gauls as immigrants; though no doubt we would.

Obama on the Watch

Even in the midst of his battles for health care reform, peace in the Middle East, containing Iran's nuclear ambitions, rebuilding Iraq, and stabilizing the U.S. economy, and other national crises and concerns, Obama recently found time to address the problems facing the U.S. from under performing school children. Obama has recently discerned that American school children are spending too little time in school compared to other nations and not learning as they should. Obama says he "just wants to level the playing field."

Apart from the fact that this isn't true, (it was reported that U.S. children spend more hours in the classroom than most, 1,146 in the U.S. against 1,005 in Japan), Obama has taken it upon himself to address the problem. Clearly, state and local governments are failing us by neglecting the problems caused by under performing school children. One might as well add parents to that list as they are, at least in theory, somewhat responsible for their children's education. Clearly, federal intervention is required

Education Secretary Duncan chimed in by criticizing that our school year is based upon an outmoded agrarian economy and should be brought into line with the modern, high tech economy. As is typical in the modern approach to economic and social problems, the fault, the lay in an incorrectly structured or poorly supervised institution. The solution, therefore, requires new policy to improve structure and better supervision to oversee its management. Enlightened policy with efficient supervision, management, and implementation is the solution to all problems.

History, customs, and traditions are often obstacles to progress in the minds of reformers, because they adhere to non "scientific" approaches. Traditions and customs, although comfortable and meaningful to the people who participate in them, operate in ways resistant to the rational, scientific approach of cause and effect. The horrors of Mao and Stalin trying to wrench their people from their traditional beliefs and practices were, in the minds of the reformers, more a testimony to the recalcitrance of the ignorant and malcontent than to any flaw in the idea.

Increasingly, here in the U.S., opposition to the plans and ambitions of progressives to reform and enlighten the public is viewed as a product of ignorance and the machinations of counterrevolutionary elements. The laudable motive of making our children more competitive by manipulating curriculum and attendance is not, in and of itself, objectionable. What is objectionable is that the plan being proposed is being proposed by Washington and based on the economic calculus of international trade. The Soviets, in their prime, would collect and analyze statistics to determine where their economy was under performing and allocate political and economic resources to address the shortcomings determined to exist. Data was collected and analyzed and solutions were proposed, and plans were implemented; and things just got worse.

Things will be different here, it is believed, because we are able to collect better data and so able to create better plans. Furthermore, our planners, unlike the Soviets, are beneficent and our public more enlightened and willing to accept the plans. This is likely to be so until the public concludes that the plans don't work and actually make things worse. How much further our educational system will have to decay before the public begins to realize this is any body's guess.

Is an Error Better Than a Lie?

There was an editorial in today's Dallas Morning News regarding when a misstatement by a politician represents a lie. A lie, according to the author, is "a willful misstatement of fact, uttered with the intent to deceive." The case in point was, once again, President Bush's claim that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. After the war, it was concluded that there were no such weapons, and no plans to produce or acquire them. Although prior to the war there was some plausible evidence that Iraq was actively pursuing, and perhaps even possessed such weapons, there was also considerable evidence that this was not the case. For whatever reasons, Bush chose not to take that evidence into account and demand more information. He was content with the information he had. Therefore, either President Bush lied about the existence of such weapons as a pretext to invade Iraq, or that he allowed himself to be misled into believing that such weapons existed or were actively being pursued. This leaves one with a choice; either Bush knew and lied about it, or he did not know, and was being misled. In short, either he lied or he acted in error.

I have long been uncomfortable with the assertion that President Bush was misled and so acted in error. It is the job of the president to know such things and Bush didn't. If it wasn't deceit, it was incompetence, either on the part of Bush, his staff, or the intelligence community. Why we should be more comfortable with incompetence than deceit eludes me.

Father William

"You are old, Father William," the young man said,
And your hair has become very white;
And yet you incessantly stand on your head
Do you think at your age, it is right?"

"In my youth," Father William replied to his son,
"I feared it might injure the brain;
But, now that I'm perfectly sure I have none,
Why, I do it again and again."

Whose Laws? Which Laws?

In a recent speech to the U.N., Obama urged the world to work with the U.S. to face the many challenges confronting the world. Global warming, starvation, genocide, and disease were among the scourges faced by the world's population mentioned by Obama. Amidst the global concerns and crises listed by Obama was his statement that Iran and North Korea should not be allowed to develop or possess nuclear weapons and that they should be held accountable under international law.

In regards to international law, the U.S. has historically been selective about which laws should be applied, which treaties are to be honored, under what circumstances, and to which nations. Weapons and tactics expressly outlawed by international laws and treaties have been overlooked and tolerated when employed by the U.S. and its allies. Treaties and conventions have frequently been ignored by the U.S., and other nations, when those treaties and laws proved inconvenient, or contrary to national interests. The cynical circumvention of international law practiced by the Bush administration to classify those captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan as "enemy combatants" rather than prisoners of war has yet to be recognized by the U.S. No one has been charged.

The legitimacy of law resides largely in its objectivity and universal application. To the extent that international law has rarely been applied objectively, and even more rarely universally, it lacks much of the normative power necessary to bind those subject to it and makes it more difficult for those laws to be viewed as legitimate. Because of this, any attempt by the U.S., or any other nation, to chide and condemn the actions of others under the obligations and duties imposed by international treaties and laws will, more often than not, be viewed as arbitrary and prejudiced by the nations being chastised. If the ban on the development and possession of nuclear weapons is to viewed as binding and actionable under international treaties and laws, the U.S. should begin by challenging those who have already violated those treaties and laws and not limit its ire to those who are only suspected of plotting to violate them.

The U.S. would be on surer ground if it made its demands and objections based on its real motives; national self interest. When the US. seeks to mask its self interest under the guise of "international law" it only adds to the cynicism with which "international law" is viewed by those nations which find themselves subject to it. When the U.S. declares its right to ignore or rescind treaties when those treaties prove inconvenient or contrary to national interests, it undermines the acceptance of treaties as binding. Perhaps if the U.S. declared its intent to recognize international law as binding on itself and its allies, and accept treaties as binding, whether they are convenient or not, it would have better standing in the world to insist on the compliance of others.

The Times They Are a Changin'

A federal court in Virginia recently threw out a $5 million verdict against anti-gay protesters who picketed the funeral for a dead marine in Maryland. Many were understandably upset at that ruling. Among the many who were upset at the offensive protest, were those who were more upset by the anti-gay message of the protesters, and the court ruling in their favor, rather than the hostility shown towards a young man who died serving his country.

Yet, despite the anger and frustration often on display at many rallies and protests, few have matched the deliberate offensiveness of the left. From the hateful protests against the Vietnam War (I can recall the "baby killer" signs) and the hostility displayed against those returning from that war, both dead and alive, to the orchestrated offensiveness often on display at Gay Pride rallies, the left is unmatched in it's attempts to shock the sensibilities and it's contempt for the public. Unlike the objectionable protest by the anti-gay protesters in Maryland however, the protests by the Vietnam and gay rights protesters were, and are, embraced by the left. The protest in Maryland was condemned by the right.

The offensiveness displayed towards those serving in Vietnam was greater than that displayed in Maryland because most who went were drafted, and so had no choice but to go and fight. However, despite the hostility, insensitivity, and down right cruelty of some of those protesting against veterans returning from Vietnam, both dead and alive, I cannot recall a single instance where protesters were sued for their actions.

As an American, I am angered by the offensiveness of such protests as occured in Maryland. As a conservative, I am troubled by the attempts to stifle them. It is well within the rights of people to take offense at the words and actions of others. But people should be wary of trying to prohibit those words and actions. As history has shown, the sides always change. You can never know whether, in the future, you will be the one protesting, or the one offended by the protests.

Better Living Through Taxes

There was an editorial in the morning's newspaper pillorying soda manufacturers, fast food merchants, and other purveyors of obesity and ill health. Using an impressive array of statistics, the author details the cost of "junk" food on the nation's health and the determined attempts by the "junk" food industry to expand its markets; a surprisingly common business activity in capitalist societies.

As much as this is a criticism of the food industry, it is more a criticism of consumers. They are the ones who purchase these products after all. While it is sometimes acceptable to criticize consumers, it is much less risky politically to criticize industry. Using the usual slight of hand, the author proposes raising taxes on "junk food" to reduce its appeal to consumers.

After presenting a litany of the costs to our economy caused by "unchecked obesity" and general ill health due to poor diet, the author urges action be taken against the merchants of sloth and gluttony in the form of stiff taxes, such as those which were imposed upon tobacco companies. This is a poor comparison. Twinkies, Big Macs, and soda pop do not kill people. All are products that, used in moderation, are neither addictive nor a threat to health. The problem is that they are often not used in moderation.

The author would have us believe that the lack of moderation is due to the sinister designs and manipulations of the junk food industry and that consumers are merely sheep being led astray. This is simply another example of the condescension by the self styled elite toward the common man. The common man is simply too lazy, or too ignorant, to act in his own best interests. That is why the government must be so active in making sure the common man is supervised and looked after.

The citizen must be productive and healthy if he is to be of any use to the economy. And, after all, that is the proper purpose of the citizen. To live a lifestyle one might find pleasant, and eat food that one finds enjoyable, is selfish and unpatriotic.

Health Care Reform: I mean, Health Insurance Reform

I didn't watch the news talk shows yesterday, but I read about them this morning. Obama's tour of the news shows were predominantly concerned with his proposals for "health insurance reform." I should have been paying closer attention. It seems I missed the transformation of the debate over health care reform, into a debate over health insurance reform. This is a clever, and perhaps cynical move on the part of the administration. If the debate over health care can be made into one over the policies and profits of health insurance companies, Obama has a much better chance of winning the debate. In his attempt to allow the public to "put their whole arms around it," Obama has selected a much better target for which to rally the public. Everybody likes health care. Nobody likes health insurance companies.