What is the Problem With Bigamy?

The Dallas Morning News regularly runs a column called Crime Stoppers. In the column, a list of people currently wanted by the Dallas police department is published a long with a photo of the person and the charge they are wanted on. The crimes typically cover a wide range of offenses, from public intoxication and burglary to armed robbery and murder. (I have not yet discerned how or why particular people are chosen for an appearance in the column.) In this morning's paper, there was a listing I have not seen before. Sean Block, age 30, is wanted for bigamy.

It is surprising that in this enlightened age of homosexual marriage that there are still laws against bigamy. Certainly the idea of traditional marriage as one between one man and one woman is not a barrier. If two men decide they want to get married, many demand that the state accede to their request. Many courts have upheld the legitimacy of gay marriage and conferred upon it the same rights and privileges accorded to traditional marriage. Any infringement of that right usually must be able to withstand a high level of scrutiny.

Laws against miscegenation, adultery and fornication have long gone by the board. So why are laws against bigamy, to say nothing of polygamy, allowed to stand? Is it because bigamy undermines the idea of marriage as a union between one man and one woman? That cannot be it. That barrier has been breached. Could it be because polygamy is contrary to what is written in the Bible? That is a laughable proposition. Since when have the courts cared what is in the Bible? Could it be because polygamy is seen to undermine the morals or threaten the health of the community? Certainly that is not the case. Morality we are told is simply a subjective set of beliefs that do not bind anyone but the person who feels them and there is no evidence that bigamy is any more of a threat to public health than monogamy. Moreover, as is often chanted by the left, you cannot legislate morality. Essentially, the reason bigamy is illegal is because most people, liberal and conservative alike, (albeit for very different reasons), object to it. So strong are the feelings against bigamy that any religion that embraces it or group that advocates for it is scorned. Tolerance, religious or otherwise, does not extend to bigamy.

It can, (and likely one day will), be argued that bigamy hurts no one. Where bigamy is the result of coercion or involves minors it becomes a matter where the law is obliged to step in. If a bigamous marriage is the result deceit there is already a legal remedy. It is called divorce. Where bigamy involves consenting adults, there is no basis for legal interference, especially if it is rooted in religious tradition. Simply put, bigamy is illegal because most people object to it. It is an institution that runs contrary to Christian tradition and the moral sensibilities of an overwhelming majority of Americans. But why should it matter what most people or particular religions think? As we have been told time and time again, just because something offends people or violates a religious tenet is no basis to make it illegal.

Often in the U.S., when it comes to moral issues it doesn't matter what the public thinks. As far as the law is concerned, public opinion is not important. Why should it matter how Americans feel about polygamy? By the standards of modern relativism, traditional marriage is simply one of the last remnants of an antiquated notion of religion and moral propriety. If we are to keep making progress towards the ideal society, cobwebs such as bourgeoisie notion that marriage should be confined to a union between two consenting adults must be swept away. If Jane can marry Betty, why can't Robert marry Sarah and Ruth?

Custom, tradition, and community sensibilities have been steadily eroding as foundations of law. Without them, we are left with only reason to guide us. Reason alone is not a sufficient basis for drafting law. It never has been. This is because simply following a line of reasoning can lead not only to places one doesn't want to go, but also to places one never imagined to go.

Doing What They Can.

Struck by the catastrophe in Japan following the recent tsunami, countries around the globe have been coming to Japan's aide. Supplies, money, and assistance are arriving daily. The scope and depth of the destruction that followed the earthquake has moved the world. Now, the fashion industry is seeking to be of assistance.

The fashion industry has decided to take a little time out of its busy schedule to hold the Fashion and Friends for Japan Auction. Many of those attending the auction won't even open their own car doors. The industry will put up for bids delights such as a week long stay at Dianne Furstenburg's Harbor Island beach house along with a complimentary shopping spree. (It is unlikely Dianne will be there to host her guests.) The opening bid for that treat is $16,000. Also up for bids is the opportunity to meet Anna Windsor and attend a Vogue Magazine photo shoot, opening bid $6,750. Other prizes on the block include a style consultation with Rachel Zoe, opening bid $3,250. Money raised from the auction will go to help Japan.

Like their colleagues in Hollywood, the fashion industry desires a sheen of compassion. Also like their colleagues in Hollywood, they want it without having to actually do anything but make an appearance or a gesture and look fabulous while doing so. This arrangement is perfectly natural to those who expect something from their giving. If you are going to shell out a few thousand dollars to help a worthy cause you should at least get a style consultation or a shopping spree out of it. I would love to know what becomes of the losing bids. Do the checkbooks stay open or are they closed and put away?

Dianne Furstenburg has decided to let people stay at her house for a week. Rachel Zoe has agreed to give some fashion advice. What are you doing to help people in Japan? If anyone is still on the fence and needs a little extra incentive to give, my schedule is wide open. I'd be happy to give you some fashion advice. For a good enough donation you can stay at my apartment.

They Will Pay With Their Lives. We Will Not.

Yesterday, a Palestinian missile struck an Israeli school bus injuring the driver and seriously wounding a child. The Palestinian group Hamas claimed credit for the attack. In response, Israel launched attacks of its own on Palestinians in Gaza. Hamas has launched numerous rockets at Israel recently. While the attacks have done little damage and caused few casualties, they have infuriated Israel. It has run out of patience.

Fourteen Palestinians have been killed so far as a result of Israeli retaliation. Seven of those killed were Palestinian militants. One was a policeman. Six were civilians. Three of the civilians killed were killed by tank fire. Two of the Palestinian civilians, one an 11 year old boy, were killed at a cemetery while attending a funeral. More Israeli attacks can be expected. No one in Gaza is safe. That some of those killed were Hamas fighters should not really make much of a difference. Israel makes no distinction between its soldiers and civilians. A soldier killed by Palestinians is no more tolerable to Israel than a civilian being killed. It would not be a surprise if Hamas does not make that distinction either.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu growled that "whoever tries to harm and murder children will pay with their life", and he meant it. Well, he meant it in a sense. No Israeli is going to pay with their life for the 11 year old boy killed at the funeral. No Israeli will even pay a shekel for that. That is because the deaths of Palestinians have to be placed in perspective. Circumstances need to be taken into account. If a Palestinian child is injured or killed in an Israeli raid it is unfortunate, but it has to be placed in the context of the larger struggle. Israel may not deliberately kill children, but it still kills them. Every Israeli death on the other hand, whether deliberate or incidental, whether man, woman, child, civilian, or soldier, is a crime and must be avenged.There are no mitigating circumstances. There never are and there never will be.

Palestinians who kill Israeli children will have to pay with their lives. Israelis who kill Palestinian children will be excused. You can say that there is a difference between the deliberate killing of a child and an incidental killing of a child. You would be right. But that difference is only observed where Israeli forces are concerned. Palestinians receive no credit if a rocket they fired at a military target veered off course or if a group of Israeli soldiers they fired upon turned out to be civilians. An Israeli tank firing an errant round (I would assume it was an errant round but one can never be sure), and kills Palestinian children is at best an unfortunate incident. At worst, it is "justice". Just as you cannot fire rockets and missiles at cities and not expect to kill civilians, you cannot fire tank cannons or drop bombs on cities and not expect to kill civilians.

Netanyahu was correct when he asserted that anyone who kills or harms a child should be punished. He is in error if he believes that only the deaths of Jewish children merit retribution. It should not matter whether the child is Jewish or Arab. Palestinians deserve justice as much as Israelis do.

The problem is that Palestinians cannot bring Israelis to justice. All they have is vengeance. Until an Israeli appears in a Palestinian court, the only recourse for Palestinians is violence. Six Palestinian civilians including an 11 year old boy have so far died in Israel's retaliation to Hamas' missile attack. It is certain more will die. The Palestinians will want justice as well. It is unlikely they will get it. Because they will not get it, neither for the lives they have lost nor the property they have had seized or destroyed, future violence is assured. Some say the Palestinians deserve what they get because they started it, but that is a matter of perspective. It greatly depends on where you draw the start line.

Israel commonly misconstrues justice with vengeance. It should not be a surprise that Palestinians do so as well.

Sleight of Hand

News reports are coming out of Libya daily. Each day there are accounts of the fighting between loyalists and rebels. Some days, the reports reads like a box score: this town has changed hands, this many tanks were destroyed, this much land has been gained or lost. More often than not, where the Libyan Army is competently led and not decimated by allied air forces, it triumphs.

What is interesting about the reports is that government forces are rarely referred to as the Libyan Army. They are commonly referred to as Gaddafi's troops. They are not Gaddafi's troops. They are the Libyan Army. In an AP report this morning nine paragraphs were written on the fighting in Libya. Not once was the Libyan Army referred to by name. Perhaps it is because an army is a legitimate institution authorized to act in defense of a nation. "Troops" lack that legitimacy because they are typically construed acting at the behest of whoever is leading them, not the nation. An army is made up of troops. An army serves a nation. An army does what it is told to do. We are not bombing and killing Ghadaffi's troops, we are bombing and killing Libyan troops.

While there are armed militias fighting along side the Libyan Army, the army is the main force in the field. Those with allegiance to the government of Libya are not described as loyal to the government or the country, but loyal to Qaddafi. Qadaffi may be in charge of the army and command its loyalty but it is not his army, it is the Libyan army.

By many accounts, Libya does not even have a government. It has a "regime". "Government" implies established and legitimate authority. "Regime" connotes a capricious and authoritarian rule. A rebellion against a "regime" is a much less problematic cause to support than a rebellion against a legitimate government. But this is a sleight of hand. All governments are regimes. A regime is simply a system of rule or government. (If you don't believe me you can look it up in Webster's Dictionary). All governments seek to preserve themselves and their authority against rebellion. Most governments will use force if necessary to put a rebellion down.

The United States has had its own experience with rebellion. In 1861 the South rebelled against the Union. The North was not interested in negotiating with the rebels. It did not seek compromise. It waged war. We should be grateful that the British were not more aggressive in their support of the rebels. Had the British been more active in their support of the Confederacy chances are the rebels would have won. Americans should also be grateful there was no U.N. when the Civil War was fought. The brutality of that war, particularly by the North, would surely have prompted U.N. intervention.

Qaddafi is the internationally recognized leader of Libya. He is not a usurper or a conqueror. The forces aligned against Qaddafi are rebelling against the government of Libya. You can support Qaddafi, although I suspect you won't, or you can oppose him. You can cheer for him, although I suspect you won't, or you can jeer. Either way you are taking a side with or against the legitimate authority of the Libyan government.

I Bet You Didn't Know This

In the latest yearly jobs report by Parade Magazine, different professionals were listed according to their salaries. A gemologist in Kennewick, Washington earned $60,000 last year. An Air Force officer in Peoria, Arizona earned $103,000. A food truck owner in Salt Lake City, Utah earned $43,000. A Fed Ex pilot in Illinois made $148,000. A ballet dancer in New York City made $16,800. What was of particular interest was that an astrologer in Phoenix, Arizona made $177,250 last year: more money than everyone on the list except for the plastic surgeon in Las Vegas. He made $1 million last year.

Ironically, a meteorologist in Warwick, Rhode Island made $90,000 last year, slightly more than half of what the astrologer made. Both astrologers and meteorologists are concerned with predicting the future. If you want to know whether you should go ahead with your plans for that outdoor wedding, if income is a sign of talent, you might want to consider ignoring the meteorologist and consult the astrologer.

So, if your child hasn't yet decided on a career and they are not cut out to be a surgeon or a pilot, you might suggest he become an astrologer. Not only is it a time honored profession, it can be a well paying one. Whatever you do, do not let him go to New York City and become a ballet dancer unless he is exceptionally good. Even a food truck driver can make more money than a ballet dancer.

I am curious what a good phrenologist can make in a year.

Pastor Rob Bell

Pastor Rob Bell is making waves in evangelical circles. He is even being accused of heresy, specifically evangelical heresy. In his book Love Wins , Bell asserts that God's love will triumph over sin, regardless of how grave the sin might be and even if a person does not repent and ask to be saved. That is an outrage to many evangelicals to whom God's wrath is a central tenet. Bell really hits a nerve when he asserts everyone will be saved. This is where he parts ways with most evangelical protestants. What is the point of having rules if there is no punishment for violating them? What is the point of Hell if no one is sent there?

Bell is no St. Augustine. He is a man with a Masters of Divinity degree who has founded his own church. He may draw thousands on Sunday, but that does not make him a theologian. Along side nearly two thousand years of Church history and exhaustive work on the part of real theologians, Bell posits his own interpretation of Christianity. In the free for all that has come to characterize modern protestantism, that is certainly his prerogative. In the religious circus that frequently makes up world of evangelical Christianity it is not surprising. The only check on evangelical heresy is the congregation. As long as people come in on Sunday and leave some money behind it really doesn't matter what the pastor preaches. Stature in the evangelical world is measured by congregants and donations, not orthodoxy.

Pastor Bell is not asking questions that have not already been asked. The questions of salvation, grace, sin, and repentance have been at the heart of Christianity since its founding. Many of the greatest minds in history have wrestled with the subject. Now Rob Bell, an evangelical pastor in Michigan, has weighed in. Bell argues that God's love can transcend sin. Of course it can. Outside of the fire and brimstone world of evangelical protestantism, that is not an issue. The issue is whether people want mercy, whether they are willing to humble themselves and admit they need it, and whether they are sincerely willing to ask for it.

I only want to know why people should care what Pastor Rob Bell thinks? Anyone can pick up a Bible and interpret it by their own lights. That is a major reason why for centuries the Church prohibited people from reading the Bible. Pastor Bell is no Martin Luther. He is an evangelical pastor from North Carolina. No one should live in fear of Bellism.

Obama Has Some Explaining to Do.

When President Obama addresses the nation on Monday he will seek to explain the reasoning behind the air campaign launched against Libya. When the campaign commenced it was announced that the purpose of the operation was to protect Libyan civilians from air attacks by forces loyal to Gadhafi. After air defenses were knocked out, the Libyan air force was soon swept from the skies. It was then announced that the next step would also be to protect civilians, this time from the tanks and artillery of Libyan army. Loyalist ground forces in the open were quickly decimated. Still, Gadhafi's forces refused to yield and pressed onward. It was assumed by some that, deprived of air power and hobbled by the loss of mechanized units and supplies, loyalist forces would vacate the field. They didn't. While a rebel collapse was avoided, they are still largely on the defensive. That might change very soon. The rebels might be out manned and outgunned, but they now have a top rate air force.

The United States is frustrated by the lack of rebel success so far in defeating the Libyan military, so it has decided to go over to offense. Instead of simply interdicting the Libyan air force, coalition aircraft have begun supplying air support to rebel troops on the ground. They have already attacked government forces blocking the rebel advance on Tripoli as well as loyalist troops threatening the rebel held city of Benghazi. The U.S. is considering bringing in attack helicopters to assist rebel troops. Rather than simply grounding Gaddafi's air force and protecting civilians, the United States is now assisting rebel forces fighting in the field. What began as a mission to ground the Libyan air force and protect civilians has become one of providing combat air support for rebel troops.

How far are we willing to go the ensure rebel success? Are we prepared for the event if the rebels lose? Can we afford to build another nation if the rebels win? I would say President Obama has some explaining to do.

Just Stopping By

Former Governor Sarah Palin was the most recent of the Republicans exploring a run at the presidency in 2012 to visit Israel. Yesterday, Palin had dinner with Prime Minister Netanyahu after a quick visit to Jerusalem. Palin's trip was described as a personal visit. While in Jerusalem she toured the holy sites. It has become routine for presidential hopefuls to pay homage to Israel. Israel has a special place in the heart of many Americans. Even employed politicians, such as Governor Perry of Texas, have found time to stop in and pay respects.

As is common while in Jerusalem, Palin visited some of the holy sites. She visited the Mount of Olives and stood before the Wailing Wall where she was "overwhelmed" to touch the "cornerstone of our faith", as if the Wailing Wall was the cornerstone of the Christian faith. She also spoke glowingly of America's close ties with Israel. It is curious given the tumult in the Middle East that Palin found no time to speak on events in the region: a strange silence for someone seeking to establish her foreign policy credentials.

Neither did she find time to visit any Muslim Holy sites while in Israel. Had she put in the effort she might have learned that Islam and Christianity have more in common than most people realize: certainly more than fundamentalists of either faith might think. Few Americans, and even fewer Evangelicals, are aware that when Islam first appeared in the late 6th century it was viewed not as a new religion, but as a heretical Christian sect. The reason for that misunderstanding is that, unlike Judaism, Islam recognizes Jesus, albeit as a great prophet, not the Son of God. Islam also recognizes the Virgin Mary and the miraculous birth of Jesus. Indeed, Mary is one of only two women mentioned by name in the Koran. Of course, the Immaculate Conception and the veneration of the Virgin Mary by any religion do not carry much weight with evangelicals.

Israel is a fetish for evangelicals. Evangelicals are a key constituency for any Republican hoping to win the nomination. Therefore, any Republican contemplating a run for the presidency must pay homage to Israel. While many recognize the pragmatic relationship between the U.S. and Israel, the obsequiousness on the part of some U.S. leaders, such as that displayed by Palin, does absolutely nothing to further our interests in the Middle East. America's near blind loyalty to Israel only encourages Israeli intransigence and undermines our ability to be an objective broker in the region.

A visit by an American politician to a Muslim holy site would be a significant gesture to demonstrate America's lack of antipathy for Islam. After invading two Muslim nations and bombing another, it seems the least an American leader can do is to visit a mosque and show respect. It wouldn't have been difficult. The Dome of the Rock was just up the hill. In fairness, Palin's trip to Israel was described as a private visit. Whatever her motives, she clearly did not go there to explore her faith.

For the record, I am an Orthodox Christian. If any church has good reason to bear a grudge against Islam, it is the Orthodox Church. It was our churches that were overrun by Muslims, not the Baptists' or the Pentecostals'.

Shariah Law is Law

Many in Pakistan, including its president, are angry over the release of an American contractor accused of killing two Pakistani motorcyclists. The contractor, Raymond Davis, was freed and allowed to leave the country after paying the victim's families an unspecified amount of money. The arrangement was made with local tribal leaders with the help of the Pakistani government. The families of the two slain men agreed to accept "blood money" instead of pursuing the matter in court. After the agreement with the victim's' families was reached, Davis quickly left the country. Although the agreement was made in accordance with Shariah law it was not made in a Shariah court under Islamic judges as Shariah law requires. Once word got out, Islamic groups, as well as rank and file Pakistanis, became furious and took to the streets.

The U.S. has often looked askew at Islamic law, particularly Shariah law. Shariah law is frequently perceived in the West as antiquated and, in some cases, even barbaric. Normally, the U.S. would protest if one of its citizens were to be subjected to Shariah law. Yet, in this case, to circumvent Pakistani law, the U.S., with help from the Pakistani government, made an appeal to local leaders to negotiate terms for Davis's release under Shariah law. Those terms were agreed upon and Davis was released.

Many of the rules, procedures, and punishments permitted under Shariah law are repugnant to American sensibilities. For example, under Shariah law it is permissible for a husband to beat his wife so long as no marks are left. It is almost impossible to imagine a circumstance under which the U.S. would support an appeal to Shariah law on behalf of one of its citizens. I say almost impossible because it does happen, much to Davis' relief. Before Davis' case I would have said impossible, as I am sure many would have.

The U.S. is a staunch advocate of the rule of law, and it remains so. It can be flexible regarding which law when the situation demands. In Davis' case, it was decided that a more advantageous outcome could be attained under Shariah law than secular law so secular court was avoided. So, Davis is free, the U.S. is relieved, the victim's family is satisfied, and Pakistanis are furious. It is a win, win, win, lose situation.

Like "reform", when the U.S. speaks of the rule of law it usually has something very particular in mind. In any event, we should not expect the U.S. to support another appeal to Shariah law any time soon.

What I Saw in America: The Anti-federalists on our Financial Crisis

What I Saw in America: The Anti-federalists on our Financial Crisis

Stop Me Before I Spend Again.

Many Republicans ran in the last election promising to abolish the practice of earmarks. Earmarks are provisions inserted into bills that set aside funding for particular projects with little or no congressional oversight.Those that won promised they would adhere to their pledge, and they did. When the new congress convened it banned earmarks. Now, many in Congress are attempting to maneuver around their promise by pressuring agency heads to steer money their way. You can't really call it a kick back, but it is close. The political reality in Washington is that unless you can deliver jobs and money to your constituents you are perceived as having little use.

There is a tendency to rely upon rules to to modify behavior. Congress cannot muster the will to stop spending, so they pass rules to try and force themselves to stop. But they will not stop because the American public demands spending. Despite the growing antipathy to federal spending among the electorate, people still expect the government to do things for them and as they see it, the job of their congressman is to make sure those things are done. As long as there is an appetite for bacon there will be a market for it.

Congress can pass all the rules it wants to try and control itself but unless the people step up and demand that government cut back, the spending will not cease. Spending is not an institutional problem, it is a political problem. Congress cannot be reformed by changing the rules, it can only be reformed by changing the culture. As has been shown time and time again, if there is a will to spend, a way will be found to spend.

It is not Washington that has the spending problem, it is the American people. Until the American people elect a congress that will not pilfer the treasury and spend beyond its means, we will have a congress that pilfers the treasury and spends beyond its means. There are only two ways to stop the bloated spending by the government. You can either adopt a stern constitutional amendment to prohibit it, or find an electorate that will not tolerate it.

Not if They Quit

Cigarette taxes will soon be going up. Washington is planning to more than double cigarette taxes from 39 cents per pack to $1.01 a pack. The increased tax is expected to bring in $33 billion over the next four and a half years. One problem in the move that Washington has not considered is that if the tax succeeds in reducing smoking, that $33 billion it anticipates collecting will evaporate. If the tax increase works, fewer people will smoke which in turn means that they will no longer buy cigarettes. If they do not buy cigarettes, they will not pay the tax and that $33 billion the government anticipates the higher taxes will bring in will not appear.

The extra revenue the government hopes to bring in through the tax increase has already found its way into the budget. Plans are currently being made on what it will do with the extra money. But if fewer people smoke, the money that the government anticipates having in the future will not be there. The taxes will not be paid if people don't buy cigarettes. The government cannot have it both ways. They cannot rely on increased revenue by raising taxes on cigarettes while trying to get people to quit.

As a smoker, the government has given me a strong incentive to quit. If I succeed, it will not be because of cost or health concerns, but out of spite. Perhaps the best reason of all to quit is to help put all of the nags who are employed to agitate against tobacco out of work. If I get a few more years above ground and cheat the government out of some tax money for doing so, that will just be gravy.

Once the government gets rid of the smokers and the chewers they are going to have a hole in their budget. They will have to find something else to tax. There is no telling what that might be. You can be confident that whatever it is, it will be something that tastes good or is fun to do.

First they came for the smokers but I didn't care because I was not a smoker. Then they came for the obese but I didn't care because I was not obese.

Slip of the Tongue?

Vice President Joe Biden was in Moldova recently. He was greeted by thousands of people waving Moldovan and American flags. While there he urged the country to fight corruption. He also urged Moldovans to embrace political reform. Moldova is a small, land locked nation of four and a half million people about 800 miles east of Berlin. To encourage the nation to embrace reform, Biden stated that the U.S. was willing to provide support if the country would move for closer relations with the European Union and the U.S.

Biden went a little bit further in his comments. He told Moldovans not simply to embrace reform, but to embrace pro-Western democratic reforms. It has been clear for sometime that when an American politician speaks of reform what he means is a pro-Western democracy. Many in the U.S. believe that democracy is the highest form of political development. Marx was on the right track, he just had the wrong system.

Perhaps Biden was just trying to entice Moldova by hinting that if it moves closer to the U.S. it can expect to be rewarded. No doubt Biden believes that all real political reform leads to democracy and all democracies are good neighbors. Conventional wisdom aside, democracies do go to war. Neither does economic reform lead to capitalism nor capitalism to wealth. Even if it did, capitalism is certainly no guarantor of peace. The struggle for markets and resources has led to endless intrigue and countless wars.

Biden did not simply encourage reform, he encouraged reform in a manner most suitable to the U.S. and the West. It is not difficult to see why many leaders around the globe bristle when the U.S. chides them to reform. Perhaps Biden's call for "pro-Western reform" was a slip of the tongue. Perhaps not. It might have simply reflected the belief that all real reform is pro-Western. We are rich and powerful. We must be right. On the other hand, Biden's comments might have reflected a desire for more markets and a more pliable world to pursue our interests in.

Protests and Funerals

Many years ago as a undergraduate at a small Catholic college, I took a class on English Literature. It turned out to be one of the most instructive courses I ever took. I have long forgotten the details of the class but a few of the things I learned have remained. Most important of those things was an approach to literary criticism. The core of assessing literature, according to the professor, was determining what was being expressed in a work and how it was being expressed. Great literature addresses great subjects. Great subjects are those that transcend time and place. They address things all men have grappled with ever since men first began thinking and feeling. Subjects such as love, hate, hope, and fear are timeless. Every man has access to them because every man has experienced them. They exist in the lives of all men regardless of time, place, and circumstance.

Feelings, on the other hand, make for poor literature. They also make for poor art. Feelings have little relevance beyond those who happen to feel them. Art made to express the artist's feeling about a particular subject bring little insight. Such art is more about the artist than the subject. In emotive art, the artist seeks to express how she feels about a subject, not to inspire reflection or provide perspective to the viewer. The viewer may share the artist's sentiments or he may not. In either case, little, if any, insight is gained. The viewer is pleased, irritated, or indifferent. Such art rarely rises above sentiment. Good art is not about the artist's feelings.

Secondly, great art requires talent. Talent is the language of the the artist. Talent allows the artist to explore and articulate his subject. An artist without talent can no more create a good piece of art than a man with a poor vocabulary can write a good novel or carpenter without talent build a good house. A talentless artist may envision great things but he will be unable to express them in the manner they deserve. One could attempt to explore the Passion of Christ or man's struggle to find purpose in the universe, but if one can only pile rocks upon each other or put a crucifix in a jar of urine one will never be able to explore the greatness or plumb the depths of their subject.

The same distinction can be applied to the spate of offensive protests occuring at military funerals.There is what is being expressed, and there is how and where it is being expressed.There should be no restraint on what is expressed, no matter how objectionable or repugnant, but there is room for restraint on how and where it is expressed. There are other ways to express one's opposition to policy than shouting taunts and insults at families trying to bury their loved ones. Protesters should find those ways.

People's right to protest should be unlimited. But how they protest and where they protest are different matters. To claim a right to offend and insult mourners at military funerals is not to insist on a right to free speech. It is demanding a right to scorn. To disparage mourners at military funeral is not speech. It is spite.

No one is telling people that they cannot protest. They are only being told that they cannot disrupt a funeral. That is not censorship. The only thing that the protesters are being denied is the right to shock and offend mourners. No one is stopping them from expressing their views and opinions. No one is stopping them from writing a play or creating a work of art. No one is stopping them from circulating a petition or marching on city hall. No one is stopping them from holding a rally or running ads. If the protesters are too inarticulate and too limited in their horizon to express their opinions other than through offending people at a funeral, that is their problem.

Up There Somewhere

Nine boys were killed Wednesday in Afghanistan when a NATO helicopter mistakenly fired on them. The attack took place after a NATO military base in the area had been rocketed earlier in the day. General David Petraeus, commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, apologized for the attack.

The military base that was the target of the rocket attack sits in a valley. The rockets were fired from one of the hills overlooking the valley. The location of insurgents who fired on the base was not known in any detail. According to the troops on the ground, the insurgents were simply up in the hills. All that the helicopters had to go on was what the troops on the ground had told them. After the helicopters arrived, they fired indirectly on the "assessed point of origin", i.e. where it was thought the rocket fire came from. Indirect fire means you cannot see what you are shooting at. The helicopters were not actually shooting at insurgents. They were shooting at an area where insurgents were suspected of hiding. Also, according to NATO officials, the helicopters were returning fire, yet nothing was said about the helicopters receiving fire. The troops on the ground may have been fired at, but the helicopters weren't. The helicopters were not returning fire, they were firing.

There probably were insurgents up there somewhere. But there were also nine boys up there collecting firewood. The military forces in the valley did not know that because they did not go up the hill to look for who had fired on them. They called in the helicopters. The helicopters did not know that there were nine boys down there collecting firewood because no one told them and they did not look. They launched rockets and fired machine guns at where insurgents were suspected to be lurking but they did not actually look to see if there were any insurgents. The helicopters just presumed that whoever fired the rockets was still loitering about and that there were no civilians near by.

So, nine boys are dead because NATO did not want to put soldiers at risk by sending them up a hill where the enemy might be hiding or send helicopters in too close where they might have been shot at. This does not seem the way an army should fight. An army, at least an army trying to win the hearts and minds of a population, should not put civilians at risk in order to protect soldiers. It should do just the opposite.

NATO might have spared itself a few casualties but in doing so it killed nine boys and fueled the animosity of Afghans already angered at growing civilian casualties. Perhaps the families of those nine boys will accept General Petraeus' apology. Perhaps everyone who has lost a family member, a limb, or a livelihood will accept an apology. It is worth a try. If that doesn't work, there is always money.

General Petraeus stated in his apology that the deaths never should have happened. He is right. They shouldn't have. If the soldiers had climbed the hill rather than wait for helicopters, chances are those children would still be alive. Asking soldiers to climb a hill and find the enemy is not asking too much of them. It is their job.

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.