A Necessary Provocation

On Saturday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was given a gift by the leader of the Hezbollah while visiting Lebanon. The gift was an Israeli rifle in a felt lined box. The rifle was captured during Hezbollah's war with Israel in 2006. Ahmadinejad later went on to give a speech in a town near the Israeli border where he told a crowd that "the world should know that the Zionists will perish." Both Israel and the U.S. condemned Ahmadinejad's visit to Lebanon as an "unnecessary provocation".

Yesterday, Israel announced that it would end its temporary restrictions on building in East Jerusalem and resume construction on contested land seized during the 1967 Middle East War in defiance of U.S. and international calls not to. The move outraged Palestinian leaders and was quickly criticized as a blow to the peace process. Washington is disappointed. Israel is determined. The Palestinians are furious. The move was seen by many as a provocation.

Iran's threats are a danger to Israel's existence. Israel's actions are a threat to Palestine's existence. Although one cannot equate the call for Israel's destruction with a resumption of building on contested land, both moves are provocative and threats to the peace process. A major difference is that while Iran is blustering, Israel is bulldozing.

Ahmadinejad is known for his incendiary rhetoric. Israel is known for its resolve. The threat Iran poses to Israel is serious but not immanent: nor will it be for some time, if ever. His statement poses no real threat in the West Bank to the peace process. The resumption of building in East Jerusalem is concrete and immanent. It is a very dangerous threat to the peace process. Every new Israeli settlement, every Palestinian evicted and every Palestinian house destroyed strengthens the Hezbollah and their allies in Iran and makes it more difficult for Palestinian leaders to keep talking. At times it seems that Israel's idea of peace is Palestinian submission.

The moves by both countries were likely made with an eye towards placating hard line elements. Ahmadinejad's comments were quickly condemned as an "unnecessary provocation" by leaders in Israel and the U.S. Israel's actions, on the other hand, were described by Washington merely as a "disappointment".

In a sense, both actions were necessary. For Ahmadinejad to retain power, he must placate the hard right in Iran and the hard right demands a tough stance on Israel. Furthermore, it is very much to his advantage to keep domestic attention focused outward on Israel, and by extension the U.S. and off domestic issues. It gives him more latitude in his attempts to keep his grip on power. For Netanyahu and his government, the decision to resume building in East Jerusalem is a necessary provocation if they want to remain in power. Netanyahu needs the Israeli right if he is to stay in power and the Israeli right wants to build settlements. Both policies do much to increase tension in the region.

I suspect that Ahmadinejad is privately delighted by the news in Israel. He loses nothing when Palestinian land is seized and houses are destroyed, but he gains much. A contented, prosperous Palestine would be a great blow. Hard liners in the region need conflict and tension if they are to survive. Ahmadinejad's visit to Lebanon was far from unnecessary.

Immigration: It Is Not That Simple

In the sometimes contentious debate over immigration, it is frequently asserted that all Americans in one way or another abet illegal immigration. The argument by those who support, or at least sympathize with illegal immigration, is that the majority of Americans participate in it one way or another. Americans eat vegetables picked by illegal immigrants. Americans make use of the cheap labor illegal immigrants provide to hold labor costs down. Americans eat at restaurants staffed by illegal immigrants. In many more such ways Americans utilize the cheap labor afforded by illegal immigrants. They are correct. But where they err is in confusing participation with complicity.

When someone buys a house, that person cannot check whether the house was built using illegal immigrant labor. When a person eats at a restaurant, she cannot verify the immigration status of the kitchen staff. Neither can a hotel guest know whether the maid is in the U.S. legally. There are no signs marking whether the road one drives on is tended to by legal or illegal labor. One cannot ask park workers for their documents.

It is true that Americans benefit in many ways from illegal immigrants. But that does not make Americans complicit. When customers are able to walk down an aisle at the grocery store and choose between items labeled as to whether they were harvested by legal or illegal immigrants or hire a contractor knowing whether those in his employ are here legally or illegally, we will have a better idea as to the degree to which Americans support or oppose illegal immigration. When Americans can buy a house or rent an apartment with knowledge of whether it was built using legal or illegal labor we can gain insight into their views on immigration.

Until that day arrives, we can only assume and speculate. It is likely that day will never arrive. And, if that day ever arrives, it will be greeted with howls of protest from those who would conflate the choice such information provided with an invitation to racism and prejudice.

Many Americans, but certainly not all, do benefit from cheap labor provided by illegal immigrants. But that does not make them accomplices.

Believing It Doesn't Make It So

Andy Moreno is upset. Moreno, a senior, has been disqualified from running for homecoming queen at North Dallas High School. The reason Moreno was disqualified is that Moreno is a man. Moreno believes he should be allowed to compete for Homecoming Queen because, despite his male biology and physiology, he identifies himself as a woman. Technically Moreno is "transgendered". Transgendered is the term of choice for people in Andy's predicament. The school has told Moreno he is free to run for king, but he doesn't want to be a king. He wants to be a queen. Queer Liberation, a gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered rights group, is preparing to go to court to defend Moreno's right to be a queen.

Moreno asserts he is a woman because he believes he is a woman. For Moreno and his supporters, that is enough. However "male" and "female" are not social, psychological, or cultural designations. They are biological designations. But Moreno and his supporters refuse to yield to biology. They insist that biology is irrelevant.

Moreno is free to believe he is anything he wants. He can believe he is a woman. He can believe he is a wizard. He can believe he is Queen of England for that matter. But believing it does not make it so. Neither does feeling it. Moreno has the right to dress like a woman. He has the right to behave as a woman. He has the right to believe he is a woman. But he does not have the right to be a woman. That is a right no Earthly institution can grant.

The human mind may know no limits. But nature does. If people want to contest with nature, that is their prerogative. However, they should be prepared to lose. They always do. Andy Moreno may believe he is a woman. He may dress as a woman. He may behave as a woman. He may someday obtain status as a woman. He may even have surgery to appear as a woman. But he will never be a woman. That is not because of ignorance, intolerance or bigotry. That is because of nature. If Moreno has an objection with nature, he will have to take it up with a higher authority than North Dallas High School.

Moreno is not demanding that he be left alone or tolerated. He is demanding that he be embraced. In doing so he is not simply asking for something that belongs to him, he is demanding something be given to him. He is demanding the approval and respect of others whether they want to give it or not.

Moreno has vowed to fight on. He may think he is fighting North Dallas High School, but in truth he is fighting something out of his league. It is out of every one's league.

Biting The Hand That Feeds You.

With a poor economy and a sour electorate, many candidates have decided to try and redirect voter ire towards China. Candidates around the country have begun to run ads portraying their opponents as being soft on trade and selling the U.S. out to China. Many of the ads have been harsh. One run by democrat Jack Space of Ohio shows a giant dragon thanking his republican opponent for the help he has provided to China. Others show ominous pictures of Chinese factory workers, presumably laboring to undermine the U.S. Not a few show pictures of abandoned factories, implying that they are shuttered due to Chinese subterfuge and capitalist greed. Some ads have even found room for pictures of Chairman Mao. China is an easy target for politicians. If nothing else, it makes Americans feel better by absolving us, (and our leaders of course), of blame for our predicament. Besides, the Chinese cannot vote in the U.S.

The U.S. is indeed in a precarious position in regard to China, but there is plenty of blame to go around. Much of the blame that does not belong to corporations seeking to maximize profits falls on American consumers. After all, they are the engine driving the demand for cheap goods. Unless you are a carpenter or a true patriot, there is no reason to buy a $50 hammer made in the U.S. at the hardware store if you can buy a $15 Chinese hammer at Wal-Mart. The Chinese are simply doing what the U.S. used to do best, meeting demand at as low a cost possible. If there was no demand for cheap goods or services, there would be no need to import them. Even though China has engaged in practices and maneuvers designed to give them an advantage in trade, those maneuvers and practices are not the cause of the issue. Blame the economy or blame the consumer. Blame business or blame labor. Blame Washington or blame Wall Street. Just don't blame the Chinese. They are simply doing business. 19th century business perhaps, but business nevertheless.

Worse still, the U.S. is not simply importing hammers and concrete from China. It is importing money. There is serious concern in many quarters regarding the growing reliance of the U.S. on China to manage its debt and meet its budget. Campaign rhetoric about jobs and trade to the side, the issue of U.S. borrowing is a grave one. Many fret that it is giving China too much leverage over the U.S. There is also the concern that we are contributing to the rise of a wealthy, sophisticated new opponent on the world stage.

One result of this apprehension is the visceral attacks on China becoming popular in many political races. There are even hints by some that, if necessary, the U.S. can retaliate by reneging on its debt. The costs of doing that would most likely be more severe than continuing to carry the debt. Perhaps if the U.S. were truly self sufficient it might be a credible option. But the U.S. is not self sufficient. It needs trade or it will collapse. Trying to replace China as a trading partner, to say nothing of being a creditor, would be near impossible.

China has been instrumental in keeping the U.S. afloat for some time now. But its help has come at a great price. It is estimated that the U.S. is in China's debt to the tune of $1.7 trillion. Because the burden of the debt has not yet truly been felt, the U.S. has been content to go on about its business, so to speak. The trade deficit and mounting debt often comes down to the issue of who needs who more. Many argue that China needs the U.S. as a market for its exports. The idea that China needs America is of comfort to many. It is believed that China would never act against us because of it. Others note that the U.S. needs China to finance our economy. They are both right. But the harsh rhetoric emerging from politicians regarding China is dangerous. Not only does it distort a complex issue by reducing it to brief images and slogans, it amounts to biting the hand that feeds you. Until the U.S. can feed itself, it should refrain from biting that hand. Cheap hammers we can get anywhere. A trillion dollars is another matter.

China is a proud country. They will not react well to sustained abuse by U.S. politicians. To antagonize China for political gain is short sighted. But someone has to be blamed for the dismal economy. If all else fails, blame China and their Fifth Column in Washington. There will be time to make it up to them after the election.

If the U.S. was really serious about addressing the economic challenge China represents to the U.S., it should reconsider relying upon China to balance our checkbook. But, like hunger, no one suffers from future privation. Neither does one lose elections on future suffering.