What is the Matter With Them?

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

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

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

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

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

Is That a Threat?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They Didn't See This Coming

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

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

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

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

Capitalism At Its Finest

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

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

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

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

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

One can only wonder where people are going to park.

An Odd Turn of Events

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Real Progress

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

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

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

What About The Others?

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

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

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

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

Help Wanted

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

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

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

Why Waste Vice?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good Timing

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

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

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

Can We Rely on Voters?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Little Over the Top

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stepping Towards Paradise.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Commendable Start

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patriots?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't Buy Me Donuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Right Decision

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not a Bad Deal

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

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

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

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

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

Pork or Bacon?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Defiant in Irrelevancy.

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

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

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

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

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