Don't Count Your Chickens Yet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't Ask the Monkeys

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Setting a Bad Example

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

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

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

Getting to a Real Discussion Over Abortion

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

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

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

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

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

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

One Man?

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

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

Whose Egypt?

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the Matter With Them?

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.