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.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
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?
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?
Sunday, October 25, 2009
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.
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.
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.
Friday, October 23, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, October 16, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
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.
Monday, October 12, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
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?
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?
Friday, October 9, 2009
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.
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."
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."
Thursday, October 8, 2009
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?
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?
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
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?
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?
Saturday, October 3, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)