It's Not Raining in Texas

Every night I watch the news hoping to hear that there might be some rain in the forecast for central Texas. Every night I am disappointed. The drought has gone from a "severe" one, to an "exceptional" one - the highest and driest rating we have for a drought. If the drought continues, I fear we will soon approach a whole, new category; "Biblical" drought.

Governor Perry and the Bible

Governor Rick Perry was designated a "Defender of Jerusalem" this week, a title that, no doubt unintentionally, places him in the company of those noble and valiant knights that fought so hard, so many years ago to defend and protect Jerusalem from the Muslim infidels. Granted, this an obscure award from an obscure group. Nevertheless, this is the sort of recognition Perry was seeking as he explores running for president in 2012. In his praise of Israel, Perry stated his biblical belief that God had given Israel exclusively and eternally to the Jews. I hope this does not mean that Perry also believes that the world was created in six days, Jonah was really swallowed by a whale, and Noah and his family, along with all flora and fauna, were preserved amidst a great flood aboard the Ark. As an avowed devout, and pious protestant, Perry presumably believes that one should not pick and choose which accounts in the Bible to accept literally and which to reject; which makes his statement all the more troubling. Unless Perry is seriously considering running for president as a fundamentalist Protestant, he should find some other basis for his support of Israel: unless he believes God was in cahoots with the U.N. That might be another idea which could cost him in the election.

The Understandable vs. The Reasonable

Usually, after incidents like the one recently, where a gunman (why are they never referred to as "gunperson"?) kills people in a gym, a shopping mall, school, etc., there is clamor for more gun control and restrictions. Outrage is an understandable response in the wake of a terrible shooting, but seldom a reasonable one. Why is it that after reading a report about a traffic pile up that kills several people on a highway, or an errant truck driver killing a family, there is no clamor for restricting or banning cars and trucks? Because this would be an unreasonable outrage. If a truck driver falls asleep and runs his truck into a school bus and kills twenty children, there will be horror and shock, but no calls to ban trucks; toughen restrictions and tighten regulations perhaps, but not to ban them. This is because trucks are necessary and useful and banning them (or cars for that matter) would do more harm than good. Therefore, the question of whether to ban trucks is an understandable one, but not a reasonable one.

The argument to ban guns after some outrage is an understandable one. But the debate to tighten gun control laws, or simply ban them entirely, should be a reasonable one. A reasoned discussion over firearms and their regulation or prohibition would not be a bad thing. Reasonable discussion is never bad thing.

But reasonable discussions are difficult to hold in the wake of an outrage or tragedy. This is inevitable. As are the demands of the outraged and aggrieved that something be done to prevent similar tragedies from ever happening again. There are calls that the offending product or activity or be banned or severely restricted. This is understandable. But something being understandable does not make it reasonable. The desire to ban guns in the wake of a terrible shooting is an understandable response. But the belief that banning guns would stop violent crimes and murders is unreasonable. It might reduce them as those criminals who decide to obey guns laws search for alternative weapons and methods, and upset spouses mull over their choices, but it will not stop them.

The understandable might be reasonable, but then again, it might not.

He's the President, not our father.

I recall years ago reading an anecdote about Eisenhower. After giving a speech not long after he was reelected, a young man asked Eisenhower that, as president, what was he going to do to help him get a job. Eisenhower gave the man a puzzled look and said, "Nothing son. I am the president. I am not your father." Not satisfied with that answer, I imagine the young man voted for JFK in the next election.

Tony Soprano for president?

I agree that there is a dire problem in the health care industry. I have had to rely upon the charity of hospital emergency rooms. I am simply unsure that national health care is the best, or even a good solution to this problem. I am inclined to prefer some sort of plan where the government would subsidize private insurers so as to make it easier for them to expand coverage beyond those who can generate profits. But, this would limit government control over health care; and government never does anything for free. In this regard, the government is not unlike the Mafia. You have a problem and the Mafia says it can help, but, there will be strings attached; and they will want a piece. Faced with a problem, you approach the government. The government says it can help, but there will be strings attached; they too, demand a piece. In each case you will get help, but at a price you are likely to regret.

If we are going to rely on the government to help us with our problems, I would like to nominate Tony Soprano for president. Who better than Tony to get us a job, get a us a car, negotiate better terms on our loans, and get us the best health care benefits? (Imagine how our negotiations with foreign nations would improve.) If we have to pay someone to fix our problems, why not pay someone who can deliver? If Tony can't fix our problems, they can't be fixed. Who would say no to Tony?

The Rich are Different

I have heard, as I am sure many have, complaints made about health care that the rich get better health care and treatment than the rest of us. Evidently, many people resent the idea that the health care they receive, or would receive under a national health care plan, would be inferior to the health care available to the rich (and members of Congress I might add). I do not understand why this is an issue. Everything the rich have is better than what we have. They live in bigger houses in nicer neighborhoods. They drive nicer cars and take better vacations. Their husbands and wives are better looking than ours. The reason for this is that they are rich. If the rich can't have better things, including better health care, what is the point of being rich?

Suspects and Citizens

The White House has proposed easing restrictions on tracking those who visit federal Internet sights. While most restrictions on tracking visitors to those sights remain in place, the restrictions lifted can be reinstated if the government determines a "compelling interest" to do so. Who decides which interests are compelling? The government of course. The technology available to monitor the public has been improving for some time. It is claimed that it is in the interest of businesses to know who buys or uses their products and services, and where and how often those products and services are used or purchased. The reason given is that this tracking is helpful to businesses to better meet the needs and desires of the consumer. Cameras have been installed at intersections and along roads to monitor traffic flows and catch scofflaws; also for our benefit. Schools, airports, malls, federal buildings, and countless others, use cameras to monitor who enters, who leaves, and when. We are told this for our safety (and no doubt theirs as well.) Private companies monitor who uses the Internet, when they use the Internet, and which sites they visit. This is done for the benefit of the users, and of course, by web sites that want to know who visits their websites, how often and when and to make it easier to visit their site - often whether we want to or not. Unless one uses cash, tints his car windows (border line illegal), and obscures his licence plate(definitely illegal), does not use a phone or the Internet, does not enter shopping malls, public buildings, or travel further than they are willing to walk, someone is going to know what you are doing, where you are and have been, and, most likely, how and when you got there. In the future, that someone might just be the government.

Such monitoring usually has been ignored or tolerated, and in the cases where it is done to "protect us", embraced. Now, the federal government wants in on the action. The technologies developed by the private sector to "better serve" the public are proving irresistible to the government. We are told that this monitoring is increasing so the government can better serve and protect the public. But who knows what technologies will be available tomorrow, who will be using them, and for what purpose? I find cameras in airports and public buildings reasonable, but still irritating. I am troubled by cameras at intersections, and in public places. I am apprehensive about phone taps and tracking Internet use. I am downright scared of GPS monitoring chips and developing technologies that would allow police to see and hear through walls.

The police dramas where the criminal is caught because of a traffic camera, a credit card, or a phone call, serve the reinforce notion that tracking and monitoring are in the interests of public safety. Some people have already installed security cameras in private homes so as to better protect against child abusers, burglars, and thieves. Is it possible the government might take a cue from this? After all, isn't catching rapists, molesters, and terrorists more worthy of government surveillance than catching red light runners and scofflaws?

Who knows what security concerns in the future will be claimed to require surveillance? Who decides which people will be the targets of that surveillance? And who will decide which interests will be "compelling" and why? The government, of course. This is why the Constitution was written; because you cannot predict what the government will want or do tomorrow. Surveillance and monitoring were once restricted only to those suspected of committing or plotting a crime. Cameras do not, and cannot, distinguish between the innocent and the guilty. They watch everyone, all the time. Neither will software monitoring government sites distinguish between innocent and suspicious visits. It will track everyone who visits a site. Do they suppose only criminals and terrorists will visit those sites or enter public buildings? Apparently, we are all suspects. Now, where did I leave my tinfoil hat?

Tax Breaks

Just a brief comment on "tax breaks." Tax breaks are not gifts. Giving someone back what was theirs to begin with is not a gift. When the government gives us a tax break, what they are doing is simply taking less of our money. They are not giving us anything that wasn't ours to begin with. They are just taking less of it. While there is some room for gratitude at the gesture, it is hardly cause for thanks. Moreover, breaks are not permanent, they are merely a pause or respite. At any time, the government can simply take back its gift. A mugger giving you back part of what he stole is not a gift. Neither is the government giving you back some of what it took.

Climate Change and the Last, Great Dinosaur War

There was an article in this morning's paper concerning the dire consequences that can be expected from continued global warming. Aside from the environmental challenges expected, there is concern that there might be serious economic and social consequences, perhaps even violence and war. As nations and populations struggle with growing food and water shortages, it is feared that the resulting rise of tensions could provoke conflict between nations and people in the struggle over dwindling resources. I have a different theory. War is not just a potential result of climate change, but, more importantly, it is a source as well. Let me explain.

After studying the evidence, I have concluded that dinosaurs did not die off due to climate change brought about by an asteroid or meteor. What killed the dinosaurs was the fallout and nuclear winter that followed a terrible war fought between the different dinosaur nations. That war was the result of the great struggle between dinosaurs for markets and resources. It was the total destruction brought about by that war which wiped out the dinosaurs and destroyed their civilization. The lack of any evidence of dinosaur civilization is testimony to the violence of that war.

The scale and ferocity of the war drastically altered the environment and ushered in the Ice Age. Many of the few remaining dinosaurs found the new climate inhospitable for large reptiles and so decided to evolve into mammals. In time, some of the more restless mammals decided to evolve into apes. And so the apes ruled the world. After awhile, some apes grew dissatisfied with their lives and decided to evolve once again, this time into cavemen. Time passed and eventually some of the more ambitious cavemen decided to evolve into what we know as modern man. The rest is history. Had the dinosaurs never fought that last, horrible war, the climate never would have changed and they would still be running the world. There is a lesson here, but I'm not quite sure what it is.