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.

No They Can't (Swim)

Some parents are upset at the North Garland High School in Texas. They are upset because their children were cut from the swim team. The reason they were cut is because they cannot swim. When the coach of the swim team attempted to transform the swim team into an actual, competitive swim team, rather than an adjunct of the YMCA, parents became upset. They were counting on the swim team to teach their children to swim. The North Garland High School has over one hundred members on it's swim team. The team, despite it's overwhelming superiority in numbers, does not perform well in competition. In order to make the team manageable, and competitive, the coach decided to whittle down the team. He also decided that, for the first time, he would hold tryouts for the team.

The first kids to go were those who could not swim. Now parents are angry because they feel their children have been mistreated. The Assistant Superintendent said he would talk to the coach and see about getting the kids back on the team. It seems as though, for some parents, being able to swim is a flimsy criterion for making the swim team. Let us wish North Garland the best of luck in the upcoming season.

We Can Blame Obama, but....

Federal health care will work says Obama. If it doesn't, he is willing to take the blame. Fair enough. The problem is, if national health care doesn't work, we will be stuck with it. He will be gone someday, but federal health care will endure. We are not buying a dress or a pair of pliers. If a national health care plan is enacted and doesn't work out as promised, we will not be able to return it. And, even if we could, we would never get our money back.

What if it Was You?

A man is in custody after FBI agents and police raided his apartment recently in New York City. We are told he is suspected of having links to al-Qaeda. We are told little else. We do not know his name, where he is being held, or the particular crimes he is accused of other than "being an associate" of al Qaeda. The crimes he is suspected of plotting, according to authorities, are unclear. If the man is tried before a secret tribunal or in a closed court, we might never know. All we do know is that a suspected terrorist was taken into custody. In these days of heightened paranoia and increased reliance on the government to protect us, that is often enough. I suspect many will be satisfied we are safer now that this unknown man is in custody for plotting unspecified crimes. Many perhaps, but hopefully not all.

What if someday the government comes for you? What if it is claimed that you are plotting a terrible outrage, so terrible in fact that the threat and scale of your plot, and the methods used to thwart it, cannot be revealed lest it inspire other malcontents and evildoers, and help them to evade detection in their plotting? You might be detained and interrogated in secret and your location be unknown to all but your interrogators. You will simply have disappeared. You could neither publicly contest your imprisonment or challenge the evidence gathered lest its existence and the methods used for its acquisition be revealed. Perhaps the verdict would be announced, perhaps not. If it were announced, chances are it would simply be stated that a "terrorist" had been apprehended, tried, convicted, sentenced and imprisoned in an undisclosed location. The public would be satisfied that violence had been thwarted and that they are safer than they had been before.

We are not there yet, but arguments have been made and the ground prepared. It might take only one spectacular outrage to rally the public and push us to the point where the rights of the accused are viewed as obstacles to public safety rather than bulwarks of our liberty. Society is hardly defenseless. It has police and prisons to protect it. The indiviual only has the law and his rights. Unfortunatley, those laws and rights are increasingly seen as burdens when the lives and the safety of our communities are at risk.

The odds are if we surrender our rights, we will never get them back. We need those rights because the individual will always have more to fear from society than society has to fear from the individual. Nevertheless, it seems the era of "Perry Mason" has been replaced by the era of "Law and Order."