A Right to Ignorance

On Tuesday, a federal court struck down much of Texas's new abortion sonogram law. The court concluded that it is unconstitutional to compel women to listen to information regarding abortion that isn't "medically relevant and that they (patients) don't wish to hear." The ruling was heralded as a victory for doctors and women. Under the ruling, doctors are no longer required to provide medical information deemed unnecessary to the termination of the pregnancy. Texas officials have made it known that they intend to appeal the ruling.

The ire directed towards the new abortion law is based on the objection that the law unfairly compels physicians to collect information regarding a medical procedure, namely by performing a sonogram, and places too great an onus on women contemplating getting that procedure by requiring them to listen to it. It is asserted that women have the right to request and receive an abortion with as little information about the procedure as necessary. Essentially, they simply need to know where the clinic is and what time it opens.

The debate over the abortion law is an anomaly. No one objects to x-rays regarding sore knees or aching backs. Very few demand medical treatment with as little information collected or provided as possible. Indeed, many physicians would be considered negligent if they declined to collect information concerning a medical condition and provide that information to a patient before offering it. But then, pregnancy is a peculiar medical condition. Most often a patient is very much aware of her medical condition before she walks into a doctor's office. She knows she she is pregnant and she knows the cure, at least by name. She does not need an x-ray to tell her she are pregnant. What she might not know, and what she may not want to know, are the details. She simply wants to be rid of the problem with a little muss or fuss as possible.

Abortion has always been a psychologically difficult medical procedure to contemplate. Numerous studies have been conducted that identify the often troubling psychological consequences that occur after an abortion is received. Many women suffer from depression and remorse in the years following having an abortion. For abortion advocates, front loading the procedure with details will only make a difficult decision even more difficult. There is concern that many women will forgo obtaining an abortion if they are required to listen to details before receiving one. A women strolling down to the clinic in anticipation of receiving an abortion might have second thoughts if she is required to confront the details of what she is seeking. She might conclude that an abortion is not quite the casual procedure she anticipated. She might even have second thoughts about getting an abortion if she learns all of what it involves.

Why any of that should disturb abortion rights advocates escapes me. If the law is allowed to stand abortion will be no less safe or legal. It might become more rare. Hasn't that been the stated goal of abortion advocates from the beginning? Or have they really meant that abortion should be safe, legal, and easy?

If information is the enemy of abortion, what does that say about its allies?

Good News and Bad News

There was good news and bad news in Washington today. The Congressional Budget Office predicted that over the next ten years annual budget deficits will shrink by $3.3 trillion. The bad news is that, despite the savings, the annual budget deficits are predicted to total roughly $3.5 trillion over the next decade. The debt now stands at $14.6 trillion. Even if the deficit shrinks according to CBO predictions, it is expected that the debt will increase by $8.5 trillion over those same ten years. Deficits aren't really a problem. Borrowing money is painless. It is paying off debt that hurts.

Many in Washington, particularly those in the White House, are no doubt pleased by the news. It is proof that they are effectively addressing the situation. Their steps to reduce the deficit are working, or at least are predicted to work (you never know if you will need another bail out or stimulus package). Of course, the news is only good news if you ignore the larger situation and simply consider less of a deficit a good thing. It is predicted, I would say it is certain, that massive federal spending will continue unabated. Cuts will be made and savings will be found but they will in no way be sufficient to stop the financial bleeding. The debt will continue to go up. As the debt goes up the costs of carrying that debt will go up. Interest on the debt cost the U.S. $202 billion last year. Even in Washington that is a lot of money.

If the CBO predictions are borne out we are still looking at yearly deficits of nearly $350 billion over the next decade. That is not good news. The debt is the real problem, not deficits. Deficits can be easily, if painfully, taken care of. The government is perfectly capable of passing a balanced budget. They are simply unwilling to. The reason they are unwilling to is that it would amount to collective political suicide. That is why the debt will continue to go up.

There is a third way to address deficits apart from raising taxes or cutting spending. That is to hold government spending flat and wait for the economy to catch up. That option is nearly as bad to elected officials as the first two. While not quite as bad as cutting spending or raising taxes, it would mean saying no to interest groups and voters.

The debt is an economic issue, but it above all else a political issue. It is the politics of spending that drive the problem. Politicians like to spend. Arguably, they need to spend if they want to be reelected. They are compelled to support spending desired by their constituents. It is the very nature of their job. They are also driven by ego. They want libraries with their name on it. The want the gratitude of their constituents. They want the grandeur of being responsible bridges, harbors, and highways. They want history to know who they were and what they have done. The rely on the largess of government to achieve those ends. Getting Johnny a recommendation to West Point or a smoothing over a constituent's social security problem is no longer enough. Projects are needed. Money must be distributed.

Any solution to the debt crisis will involve members of Congress telling their constituents how much more they will have to pay, what they cannot have, and worse, what they will lose. That is the real problem behind addressing the debt. The vanity and ego of politicians only contributes to it.

So, the good news out of Washington is that deficits are likely to decrease. The bad news is that they are not going to disappear. Even if the economy rebounds, unless there is a dramatic increase in revenue or a historical cut in spending, the debt is going to continue going up: just more slowly than anticipated. I suppose less of a bad thing can be a good thing if you look at it just the right way.

Love is Blind

Governor Rick Perry is hot on the campaign trail. Speaking to enthusiastic crowds, Perry is fine tuning his message and honing it to a sharp edge. Recently, Perry gave a speech in which he said the American people are in search not of a candidate who loves America, but "is in love with America." We can infer from that speech that Perry is in love with America. Anyone not completely caught up in Perry's rhetoric should be disturbed. I know I am.

I, for one, do not want a president, or any politician for that matter, who is in love with America. I want a person who is responsible, thoughtful, pragmatic, and flexible enough to handle the challenges our nation faces, and will face in the future. I want a president who is motivated by principal, not passion. I want a president who will be able to reflect coolly on issues, calmly gather facts, and reach decisions through deliberation. I do not want a president motivated by desire and animated by emotion. I want a president who is faithful to the Constitution and understands his responsibilities under it, not a president in pursuit of the nation's adulation or a place in history. I want a president who will do what he thinks is right for the nation, not what he thinks will make the nation happy or garner its affection. I do not want a president with a vision. I want a president with a clear grasp of things and his feet planted firmly on the ground.

I want such a president whether I agree with what he does does or not. America should want that too. You cannot persuade emotion. You can not reason with it. You cannot negotiate with it. A president who acts on principal and out of duty is a man with whom one can discuss issues and reach agreement. A president who would act out of emotion or in pursuit of an ideal is a dangerous man who will follow his heart, even if it leads to ruin.

America more than ever needs a clear headed chief executive who is willing to risk the ire of a nation accustomed to being flattered and getting its own way. America needs a leader who will tell the public that it cannot, and should not, always get what it wants. America needs someone who will tell the people what they need to hear, not what they want to hear. In short, America needs a president. It does not need a lover.

I live in Texas and have voted Republican in every presidential election since I came of age. Perry is starting to make even me nervous. Many will brush off Perry's statement as just a throw away line in a stump speech. They shouldn't. Perry is running to be President of the United States. He is trying to send a message. We should pay attention to what he says, even if he doesn't.

A Brave New World

Over the years scientists have been working diligently to unlock the secrets of human genes. They have already discovered thousands of genes related to physical biology and appearance. Recently, scientists discovered that there are over 1,000 genes affecting human intelligence alone. They do not have the puzzle solved. They do not even have all the pieces. What they do have is the awareness that human intelligence is at least in part the product of genetic make up. They also have the determination to solve that puzzle.

It has been learned that the relationship between genes and intelligence is a complicated one. The hundreds, if not thousands of genes that affect human intelligence work in a complex fashion that will take a great deal of time and effort to unravel. Nevertheless, the field has been advancing steadily over the years and optimism is high. Researchers are enthusiastic about the future. As scientific method improves and data accumulates more and more of human biology will become comprehensible to scientists. That comprehension will eventually lead to knowledge. Knowledge will inevitably lead to manipulation, and therein lies the problem.

While the field has been heralded, and rightly so, for the promise it holds in improving the lives of people suffering from genetic disorders, it also has a dark side. Genetic testing has the potential to evolve into a method for manipulating the appearance, aptitude, and abilities of human beings, if only through selection. If intelligence can be determined before birth, who will settle for a child of average intelligence, let alone low intelligence? I suspect few parents, certainly those who could afford genetic testing, would be satisfied with a child of modest height, a precarious genetic make up, or with a tilt towards obesity if they get the choice.

If my concerns seem overly dramatic, I would like to point out another recent development in the news. A new blood test has been developed that allows the sex of a child to be determined as early as seven weeks into gestation. That discovery was also heralded as great progress. According to the report in the Dallas Morning News the test will "lead to to more widespread use by parents concerned about gender-linked diseases and those who are merely curious, as well as people considering the more ethically controversial step of selecting the sex of their child." Such a test would be eagerly welcomed in places like China where parents have a keen interest in the gender of their child.

We are now able to determine the sex of developing child. We have already developed tests that can identify genetic and physical disorders and will soon be able to know much more. We are on the thresh hold of identifying physical and intellectual potential before birth. If we can get a handle on manipulating genes a whole new horizon will open up: it could someday be possible to design people.

If physiological characteristics can be discerned before birth, who would embrace a handicapped child or a child of low physical potential? What parents aspire to have average children? If intelligence can be determined before birth, who would choose to have a child of substandard intellect? Chances are no one would. But if the day comes where selection is possible, will we have a society, perhaps even a world, populated by smart and physically adept human beings? If that day comes, who will work in the factories? Who will harvest our crops? Who will pave our roads? We cannot have a society made up exclusively of Alphas. We will need Betas, Gammas, Deltas, and Epsilons too. (Well, maybe not Epsilons. That is what immigration is for.) Fortunately, genetic screening will likely be expensive and beyond the reach of most people, genetic engineering even more so. That should ensure a steady supply of workers and provide a supporting cast.

If my concerns seem exaggerated I suggest one look to China where biological selection is already at work. For some time, the image of "1984" has haunted our society. Now we have "A Brave New World" to consider. The new discoveries in genetics will not allow us to design people, at least not yet, but it will give us an ability to genetically screen people before they are born. We may not be able to design the people we want any time soon but we will have taken a significant step towards being able to identify the people we don't want. When you think about it, that is almost the same thing.

Maybe He Means It

Texas Governor Rick Perry has been in the press quite a bit lately. Most recently he attended a prayer rally called "The Response: A Call to Prayer for a Nation in Crisis" at Reliant Stadium in Houston. Evangelicals were there in abundance. No doubt that is why Perry was there. In addition to the unease any appeal to prayer by a public figure generally causes, the presence of many religious groups on the margins of society distinguished the event out as one of particular concern. Evangelicals such as John Hagee, known for his declaration that Hurricane Katrina was an act of divine vengeance and that the Catholic Church is the "Whore of Babylon" and groups like the International House of Prayer (not to be confused with the International House of Pancakes) whose leader, Mike Bikel, has called for a campaign of "spiritual warfare" against abortion and gay marriage were there. The list of speakers was long and troublesome one. Perry's presence at the conference raised eyebrows among many Republicans. Some are questioning why Perry, an early front runner for the Republican nomination, would seek to divert attention away from the economic crisis in Washington by attending a controversial prayer conference. All evidence indicates that the economy will be the major issue in the next presidential election.

Pundits, as well as many GOP political brokers, are shaking their heads. It is difficult to fathom why Perry would seek to carve out a place so far to the right and plant his flag so firmly on social issues when it is not necessary to do so.
With all the turmoil in the Middle East and the painstaking negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis, is it helpful for Perry to quote Scripture and declare that God gave Israel to the Jews? With all the technical and scientific deficiencies plaguing our public schools, shouldn't he give the issue more thought than to argue that creationism should be taught along side evolution? With so many other issues facing the nation, why would Perry seek to make a stand on moral issues, particularly issues likely to be divisive in the extreme?

Perry's appeal to evangelicals is counterproductive given the economic challenges the nation is facing. Perry has a strong economic platform to run on and no challenger to the right of him. To invoke divine guidance and rail against abortion and same sex marriage threatens to polarize an electorate increasingly united in its unease at the current state of affairs. Moreover, it serves to detract from Obama's growing vulnerability by giving him the opportunity to pose as a bulwark of moderation and reason, if not sanity, in the face of religious mania. The farther to the right Perry runs the closer to the center Obama will appear.

I do not understand what Perry is seeking to gain in his fundamentalist fervency. He has little to gain from it and much to lose. His conservative credentials are already impressive. I, like many political observers, have been inclined to see Perry's actions as some sort of political maneuvering. But it might not be maneuvering at all. Perry might sincerely believe that we can petition the Lord to come to our aid in our time of need and that God will continue to bless the U.S. as a light unto the world only so long as we uphold our covenant with Him. If that is the case, I wish him luck and would suggest he get himself a good agent. I see a job as a commentator on the FOX network in his future.

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul

President Obama is asking vigorously for an increase in the debt limit that is threatening to bring the United States to a halt, and perhaps fiscal ruin. The House is proving resistant to his demands. The president is promising to make cuts in order to reduce future deficits. Republicans are reluctant to accept Obama's word. They want real cuts now as a condition for signing off on raising the debt limit. All the while, the clock is ticking. It will go off on August 2nd.

Raising the debt limit will not solve any problems. It will get us past the immediate crisis but it will just make the future budget problems all the more difficult. Moreover, whatever spending cuts are made to get the measure passed will almost certainly be contested, as will any concessions made, when the next budget is put forward. Even if the Republicans succeed magnificently in their plans to cut spending, a balanced budget will remain elusive. The deficit and, much worse, the debt will remain regardless of what is agreed upon in Washington and it is the debt that is the real problem. It is because of the debt that we had to pay $164 billion in interest last year. It is because of the debt that we are having this discussion today. As of June this year, the U.S. national debt totalled $14.46 trillion. Unless the U.S. does something about the debt, the spending problem in Washington will never go away. Every year the government will have to set aside over $150 billion off the top of whatever it takes in just to make payments. Even if the government gets back into the black, payments will have to be made and interest will have to be paid. That will make any black ink that might arise more difficult to maintain and less than it would have been otherwise.

Amid the discussion over raising the debt limit is the plight of those who rely on government spending for their well being. They are the ones most at risk. They are at one end of the budget debate. Financial ruin is at the other. You can be assured that the debt limit will be raised. Even the most doctrinaire republican will not bring the country to ruin or cast people into the street in order to protect a principal. The only question is what it will take to garner GOP support.

There is no way to address the debt unless we can rid ourselves of deficits. By raising the debt limit we only make deficits more likely and as a result make future more perilous. In seeking to avert present pain we are assuring future pain that likely will be much worse. By borrowing money we have no hope of paying off any time soon we are robbing the future. We are robbing Peter to pay Paul. We are robbing our children in order to cover our expenses. As important as the deficit and meeting our current obligations are, the debt is the larger problem. Every dollar added to the debt is a dollar that will demand interest. Every dollar paid in interest will be one less dollar our children will have to spend as the debt is carried forward.

What is Geography Worth?

The result of the tests recently administered by the National Association of Educational Progress reinforced the already depressing statistics on public education in the U.S. The National Assessment of Educational Progress, as the test is called, is among other things known as the "nation's geography report card."

Only 20 percent of high school seniors tested were judged to be "proficient or better", slightly more than when the last test was given in 2010. 27 percent of eighth graders were judged to be so. Many were discouraged, not just by the continuing poor performance of the U.S.'s educational system, (typical of contemporary thinking in the U.S., the system was blamed), but by the low geography scores in particular. "Geography is not just about maps" said David Driscoll, chairman of the National Assessment Governing Board, "it is a rich and varied discipline that, now more than ever, is vital to understanding the connection between our global economy, environment, and diverse cultures." While I didn't take the time myself to follow the thread that connects geography to the global economy, Driscoll is correct. Geography is important. It is unfortunate that disciplines such as geography feel compelled to state their case in terms of their benefit to the economy but such are the times we live in.

It is noteworthy that in the attempts to put forward the importance of geography a much more potent opportunity was missed. A better understanding of geography on the part of the American public might have prevented a few reckless adventures on the part of the U.S. Throw in a smattering of world history and billions of dollars and thousands of lives could be saved.

You can blame teachers if you like. That would be the easiest thing to do. But it has been some time since teachers and schools have had control over what is taught in their classrooms. As troublesome as that is, they increasingly have less control over how things are taught in their classrooms. The blame lies elsewhere. It lay in an effort to identify just the right mix of facts and methods needed to create the effective little economic and scientific engines needed to drive America through the 21st century. If scores in geography are poor it is because the emphasis on geography is small. One can only imagine what the results of a national assessment on literature or art would be. Fortunately, literature and art are not essential to maintaining America's competitive edge. If they were, chances are we would be doomed.

Traps and Snares

Unease is growing in the nation with the mounting national debt. Tension is Washington is rising as Republicans and Democrats try to find agreement on what to do about it. Democrats persist in arguing for the need to increase revenue, something they should have thought of before they went on a spending spree. Republicans insist on cutting spending. The zealous in both camps are reluctant to compromise even though, by most accounts, without a compromise nothing will be done. Meanwhile, the debt clock is ticking. If the debt limit is not raised by August the United States could go into default.

So badly have the talks gone so far that Republicans have walked out on negotiations. Their prospects are looking increasingly poor. They have refused to consider any tax increases. They are making a stand on cutting spending. The Democrats have expressed willingness to cut spending but only over the long term and in conjunction with increased revenue, i.e., higher taxes. Score one for the Democrats. Their willingness to "compromise" portrays them as pragmatic and flexible while the Republicans' principled opposition casts them as rigid and doctrinaire, even in the face of catastrophe. If the Republicans persist in their objections it is likely they will be seen as the ones responsible for any financial collapse. After all, if a deal is not reached it would be because the Republicans refused to budge. Should budget talks break down it is quite possible that the Republicans will be left holding the bag. That is the trap.

The Republicans came to victory in the last election largely due to their opposition to higher taxes and government spending. To give in to any tax increase or go soft on government spending would be to give up their single greatest weapon and undermine virtually everything they ran on. If they accede to a budget compromise that raises taxes or fails to reduce spending in any significant way what will they be able to run on in 2012? If government spending is firmly taken into hand republicans will be able to acquiesce to some tax increases. They might even burnish themselves and gain a touch of political responsibility for doing so. But in the absence of any significant cuts in spending the only result of a tax increase will be to allow the government to continue in its profligacy. In that event Republicans will have accomplished nothing. They will have abandoned their principals simply in order to buy some time. That is the snare Republicans face.

Democrats have few good options themselves. To unilaterally proceed to raise taxes would be to take the ire of voters upon themselves. To give in on spending would jeopardize their standing with the many millions of Americans who count upon government spending, not just to keep themselves above water, but for their livelihoods as well. There is also the more subtle threat reduced spending poses to progressives. To reduce federal spending is to hinder federal power. Without the velvet glove of money, only the iron gauntlet of law remains.

When it comes to raising taxes, republicans and democrats are in very different positions. Democrats can raise taxes without jeopardizing their political base. Republicans cannot. Because of this, democrats have more room to maneuver on the issue. Democrats can support increased taxes and keep their base content, as long as those taxes fall on the usual suspects. Republicans do not have that luxury. Most republicans oppose higher taxes of any kind. Unless a deal can be reached where only democrats will pay higher taxes, republicans will need something big to abandon their anti tax position. Simply keeping the government running will not be enough. If Congress cannot step up and do something to avert a train wreck perhaps Republicans should consider just getting out of the way.

The real test of the political resolve to address the debt will come in the fall of 2012. That is when we will learn how determined politicians are to tell the public the truth about spending and find out how willing the public is to accept what it will take to get the national debt under control.

Many years ago I learned the lesson that the first thing you should do if you find yourself in a hole is stop digging. Just digging more slowly won't help. That is a lesson that Congress and the president need to learn.

Are They Sure?

It was reported this morning in the Dallas Morning News that, according to the most recent census, the Asian population in the Dallas/Fort Worth metropolitan area increased by a whopping 75 percent over the last ten years. Indians, Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, and other Asians are increasingly present throughout the greater Dallas area.

The list of numbers provided to illustrate the growth was impressive. The Asian population of Dallas increased by 35 percent over the last ten years to almost 120,000. They now represent 5 percent of the total population of Dallas. In Tarrant County the Asian population increased from 52,594 to 84,561: a growth of 60 percent. There are 31,890 Indians living in Collin County. There are 29,128 Vietnamese living in Tarrant county. There are 6,473 Koreans living in Denton County.

Rockwall County is located just northeast of Dallas. It is the smallest county in the greater Dallas area. It also experienced a growth in its Asian population. According to the census, there are now 62 Japanese living in Rockwall County. What I want to know is are they sure? Are they certain that there are not 61, or 63? Maybe one was out visiting one of the 23 Japanese who live in Kaufman County.

Holding the Poor Hostage

It is wisely ordained by nature that private connections should prevail over universal views and considerations, otherwise our affections and action would be dissipated and lost for want of a proper limited object.

-David Hume

Leonard Pitts, an editorialist with the Miami Herald, has taken umbrage with those critical of government and resentful of their tax burden. Pitts makes the familiar and rarely challenged argument that government is necessary to any civilized society. He is correct. Government is indeed necessary. No one, at least no one not on the fringe of society, is arguing otherwise. It is a common rhetorical tactic to paint those critical of government spending as "anti government" and who, in their anti establishment zeal, seek to toss the baby out with the bath water. In fact, it is nothing of the sort.

The government is Washington is a behemoth. What it does not control, it regulates. What it does not regulate it manipulates. What it does not manipulate, it influences. Washington, specifically the people who run it and support it, has an insatiable appetite for control. There is no wrong it does not seek to right. There is no suffering it does not seek to ameliorate. There is no problem it believes is beyond its grasp. It is the desire to ease the plight of mankind and improve the world that progressives see when they examine themselves and their motivations. It is their efforts to reshape the world for the better that they behold when they look upon what they have achieved in Washington. To criticize their policies is to impugn their judgement. To criticize the efficacy of those policies is to impugn their efforts. This is why so many take criticism of the government so personally. To criticize the government is to criticize them.

The discussion over the size,scope, and cost of government is a discussion that needs to be had. The first item on the list of that discussion is the plain and simple fact that as things stand, the government of the United States cannot afford to pay for all the obligations it has taken upon itself. That is not a partisan position. It is an economic fact. The numbers prove it. Once that is established the hard part begins. Based on the money we have, what can we afford? Just as a parent who cannot afford to buy her child a new coat is not a miserly or indifferent parent, a government that cannot afford to provide subsidised health care to every one who needs it is not a miserly or indifferent government, despite what you may hear in the media. The heart and soul of politics is making decisions. It is the government that has to make decisions regarding what can and should be paid for and what cannot. It is the public that has to decide whether those decisions are good ones, or at least ones they can live with.

The first step toward this end is distinguishing between what we need government to do and what we want government to do. As many correctly point out, we need government. We need it to maintain police and fire departments. We need a military to defend us. We need agencies to ensure the water we drink is clean, that our buildings don't fall down, and that we are not swindled by banks. We need to pay taxes to make sure the government can do those things. But even those things are not immune from politics and budget pressure. If a town needs to choose between paying for a new sewer line or buying a new fire truck a decision has to be made. That decision will have to be made in a larger political context. If they can only afford one or the other, which will it be? That is what politics is about. To say the town needs both is not the same as to say the town can afford both. The problem in Washington is that paying for policies is too often subsequent to passing them. If they don't have the money when they get to the check out counter, and they haven't in a long time, they just pull out the credit card.

Where Pitts and others frequently err is on two fronts. First they overly dramatize the results of spending cuts. In Pitts' case he uses the example of a man so in need of medical treatment and so unable to afford it he robs a bank in order to be sent to prison where he can receive that treatment. A heart rending story indeed but a poor one to frame massive federal legislation around, even if you multiply it by a few thousand. Tragic stories of suffering are never difficult to find. But there are other more efficient and cost effective remedies for helping those in need than government policy. The problem is the best of those remedies lay in the private sector and have little appeal to those who want more from their beneficence than the satisfaction of helping others.

Neither would every budget cut result in people being cast into the street or going hungry. Not all government spending is for the benefit of those in need. Not by far. Only a little over 16% of the 2010 federal budget went to unemployment and welfare. Even a modest reduction in the other 84% would have significant results. The government took in $2.4 trillion last year. It spent spent $3.52 trillion. Some believe that each one of those 3.52 trillion dollars spent was necessary. There are even some who argue that more needed to be spent. It is quite a stretch, indeed it is ludicrous, to argue that making an effort to reduce the deficit, never mind addressing the debt, will result in people robbing banks or taking other desperate measures to obtain needed services. There is no reason for assistance to the poor and disabled to be any higher on the list of things to cut than foreign aide, defense, agriculture, tax breaks, economic subsidies, or any other item in the budget. To make the argument that the poor, the children, the blind and the crippled will be the ones to suffer if the budget is cut is simply to use them as human shields to protect government spending.

Decisions have to made regarding spending. Government has to distinguish between what it wants, what it needs, and what it can afford. Washington has proved to be extraordinarily unable to make a distinction. It has been trying to fund everything while persistently taking on new obligations. It simply cannot afford to do so. That is not politics. It is economics. The United States has become a junkie addicted to government spending. And, like a junkie, we need to quit. If we quit we will be miserable, at least for a time, but we will be better for it. If we don't quit, we will die. As anyone who has been in that position can tell you, as hard and unpleasant as the decision seems, there is only one choice.

The interest payments on the national debt last year totaled 202 billion dollars. $202 billion is a lot of money. We will pay more in interest this year. A lot could have been done with that money. Nothing was done with it. It was simply sent to our lenders. With hard work, sacrifice, and a willingness to curtail our hopes and dreams of what government can do for us the day could come when we can pay off the debt. If that day comes, we will have an extra couple of hundred billion dollars to spend. That will be the time for talking about all the wonderful things government should do for us. We can all have top notch schools, community clinics, and spanking new firetrucks. Best of all, we could sleep at night knowing they were paid for. But that day will never come until we can start balancing our budgets.

Pitts says he doesn't begrudge others for his tax money. That is fine. He is a good man. The problem is that it is not his tax money. It belongs to everyone. It is commendable to give your money away to help those in distress or pay for things you think are important. Sacrifice and charity are two of mankind's most noble traits. Compelling money from people and distributing it, (after you have covered your expenses naturally), is neither noble nor compassionate and adds nothing to a person's moral stature. Neither does it in any way make those whose money is taken away more charitable. It is little more than a business transaction undertaken to satisfy the sensibilities of those who feel things should be different.

Many people take some satisfaction in that by paying their taxes and supporting government programs they are helping those in need. They evidently feel that by simply paying their taxes and voicing their support they are doing their part to make society a better place, as if every poor person helped and every indigent person treated is in some small way due to their willingness to support programs and pay their taxes. Perhaps that is why they get so angered when social spending is cut: it makes them feel as if it is they who are being less charitable. If government cuts spending it does not mean that those in need have to go without. It does not make Americans less charitable or caring. It means that Americans will have to take the obligation of caring for others upon themselves. Clearly that is an obligation many people would rather not have.

We have been borrowing money to maintain an illusion of what Washington should be. If we do not stop, that illusion will become a delusion.

Yesterday Stone Wall, Tomorrow the World.

When the United Nations Human Rights Commission meets next year in Geneva it is expected that it will take up the issue of gay and lesbian rights. Last year a resolution was introduced to the commission that would make abuse on the basis of sexual orientation a human rights violation. That is the resolution the commission will take up when it meets. The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission is excited. They called it "a historic opportunity to advance (homosexual) issues in a international human-rights law." It is indeed a historic occasion. Never before in human history has the argument been put forth that being able to consummate your desire for a person with whom you share genitalia without abuse or condemnation is a human right.

Despite the frequent use of the term on the part its supporters, the gay rights movement is not about love. The right to love whomever you want has never really been an issue. Indeed, to frame the issue in terms of love is a red herring. Some of the greatest literature in Western history has involved deep and enduring love between people of the same gender. What is, and always has been the issue, is the right to have sex with whomever you want, and, more recently, the right to marry whomever you want. It is the sexual component that has historically engendered the animosity directed toward homosexuals. It is the the social, legal, and religious challenges posed by an increasingly public and defiant homosexuality that lay behind much of the present day animosity.

Homosexuals have made great progress in the U.S. over the years. They are now able to express their love and desires openly, and legally, throughout the U.S. with little or no fear of legal retribution. They openly hold prominent positions in communities and in statehouses and Congress. They serve on boards of directors. They lead churches. They are frequently celebrated in the media and in Hollywood. In short, they are everywhere and do everything. The last lines of resistance, adoption and marriage, are rapidly being breached. Total victory is at hand. While pockets of resistance still exist and skirmishes still occur, they are no real threat to gays. Where disapproval of homosexuality appears it is quickly challenged, pilloried, and mocked. Hollywood is captured. State Houses have fallen. Washington is under siege. Gay rights in the U.S. are here to stay.

With victory in the U.S. largely achieved, homosexuals, along with their advocates and supporters, are taking their show on the road. Their objective is nothing less than global recognition of the rights they have demanded and obtained in the U.S. They want the world to catch up. Homosexuals and their supporters want to "connect the full range of human rights to sexual orientation, and to condemn the discrimination on its basis" said Paula Ettelbrick of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission. They want to make the pursuit and satisfaction of one's sexual desire for a person of the same gender a human right.

If the U.N. sees fit to make abuse based on sexual orientation a violation of a human right it will have acquiesced to a back handed attempt to establish sexual orientation as a human right. You cannot violate a right that does not exist. Sexual orientation will have taken a seat beside speech, liberty, and religion in the pantheon of human rights. If adopted the resolution will be yet another cudgel in the hands of the enlightened with which to to beat a backward and ignorant world.

Homosexuals are a group unlike any other the U.N. has been asked to confer human rights upon. Homosexuality cuts across every religious, racial, and ethnic demographic and encompasses both genders. The only thing that distinguishes homosexuals as group is their singular desire to have sex with people of the same gender as themselves. It is the right to consummate that desire without judgement or consequence that the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission wants to establish. One should be warned that there are many peculiar romantic and sexual desires. Quite a few them are found to be objectionable by the majority of people on this planet. If the pursuit and satisfaction of romantic and sexual desire is deemed a basic human right the future will be a bumpy one.

There are 193 nations in the U.N. Many do not tolerate homosexuality. Most do not embrace it. According to gay and lesbian activists, that needs to be changed. A good first step to bringing about that change will be to have the U.N. pass a resolution. It does not matter in the least that the rights of homosexuals can only be established if the right of people to organize their communities and maintain their customs, religious beliefs, and traditions is eclipsed. That is not an issue to those trying to perfect the world. For them culture, religion, and tradition are not bulwarks, they are obstacles.

Who Was Gettysburg?

It was reported this morning in the Dallas Morning News that only 12% of high school seniors nationally were able to demonstrate proficiency on the National Assessment of Education Progress. The government found it encouraging that 8th graders did a little better. 20% of them demonstrated proficiency. Students taking the test scored most poorly on the section dealing with history. "The history scores released today show that student performance is still too low" said Education Secretary Arne Duncan. Interestingly, perhaps in a reflection of the current national obsession with the economy, students did best in economics, 42% of them were deemed proficient in the field.

Educators, with reason, blamed the system for the poor results. They assert that the No Child Left Behind program has compelled them to change emphasis from teaching history and science to focusing on reading and math. This is reasonable enough considering you cannot learn much about history if you cannot read and you would have a hard time making progress in science if you cannot do math. But what is neglected in all the measuring is the distinction between a necessary cause and a sufficient cause. Reading and math are necessary to a good education, but they are not sufficient. Other subjects are required. History is one of those subjects. History is also the subject students did most poorly on.

In the clamor over national competitiveness, attention has been turned to scientific and technological knowledge. History, literature, art, and other such subjects are pushed aside in the effort to ensure America's technological "edge" in the 21st century. Learning history will not make us more competitive. Only science can do that. As a result, less than a third of the eighth graders tested could list one advantage the Colonial Army had over the British in the Revolutionary War. Only twenty two percent could identify China as a participant in the Korean War. Ignorance of history was pervasive. From colonial history through the Civil War to the Great Depression, students' lack of knowledge was on display. Where more recent events were involved, students were better able to demonstrate a basic knowledge of dates, locations, and events, although many frequently erred in placing them in context.

None of this is likely to change anytime soon. History is one of those subjects that is commonly agreed to be important to any good education. It is also a subject where there is little agreement over what should be taught and how it should be taught. Debate inevitably arises over what merits discussion, what merits mention, and what can or should be excluded. A lot has happened in North America over the last four hundred years. All of it cannot be brought up in a few high school history classes. It certainly cannot be discussed. What compounds the problem is that even the narrow and abbreviated history that is taught is not being learned.

Kids don't care about the French and Indian War. What possible advantage could come from knowing about such a thing? It is not as if a potential employer is ever going to ask an applicant about it. It would be a waste of time trying to explain how history can broaden one's horizons and thereby make the world more comprehensible or how literature can give one insight into what it means to be human. Education is a tough enough task. There is no need to make it any tougher by introducing fuzzy topics likely to bewilder students. It is much better, and easier, to abstract history into a matter of numbers, dates, and brief descriptions that can be memorized and repeated.

History and the humanities are just not seen as important as science and technology. After all, even if students knew when, where, and what was at stake at the Battle of Gettysburg would that make them more productive citizens? Or would such knowledge just take up valuable space?

It's Not Just About Ethics.

As anyone who has not been in a coma the last few days is aware, Rep. Anthony Wiener has gotten himself into trouble. After a week of steadfast denial and claims of being the victim of a plot to discredit him, Wiener admitted that he had sent lewd pictures of himself to a woman he met on face book as well as engaged in "several inappropriate conversations" on Twitter. He also admitted to engaging in "intimate sexual banter" with women on the Internet and over the phone. He stated that he did not know what he was thinking when he did so. I am not a psychic and I have never met Weiner but I will venture he knew exactly what he was thinking when conversing with the women he met. What he was not thinking about is that he is a married U.S. congressman and that the chances of him keeping his actions a secret were slim at best. Wiener did not avail himself of one of the discreet high class services that cater to the powerful and famous in Washington. He did not even seduce a staffer. He conducted himself like a hormone fueled teenager and engaged in sexual "banter" and sent lewd pictures of himself to a woman he met on face book.

Weiner's conduct is not simply a matter of ethics. It is a matter of self discipline, character and judgement as well. For a man in Weiner's position, with his tastes and predilections, self discipline is vital. But he did not even have the self discipline to do what it takes to keep his sexual inclinations off the Internet.

Despite whatever excuses Wiener might give for his actions, he did not yield to a temptation. His action was not an aberration as he claimed. He admitted he had engaged in sexual chat with others he had met on line. His action was part of a pattern of behavior. You do not just wake up one morning and decide you want to engage in sexual chat on line and send provocative pictures of yourself to people you meet on face book. Such desires are the product of cultivation and indulgence. Wiener's actions reflect a preoccupation and a weakness of character, not a simple lapse of judgment. Even if he claims, as he inevitably will, that he is suffering from some disorder or another that would change nothing. His conduct was beyond the pale. A letter from his therapist saying he is cured would do nothing to erase the stain he left on Congress.

Wiener's culpability extends far beyond the simple act of emailing lewd pictures of himself to a woman he met on line. Weiner may not have broken any laws but he exercised the poorest of judgement and demonstrated the weakest of characters not simply by committing the actions he did, but by lying about them afterwards. Like so many before him, Weiner decided that when all else fails, tell the truth and throw yourself on the mercy of the public. That might be an effective tactic in Hollywood where character and judgment are are not required to do one's job. But Washington is a different matter. The U.S. Congress is one place where character, self discipline, and judgement are essential: at least it should be.

It would be unfortunate if the lesson drawn from Wiener's downfall is the need for more discretion on the part of politicians in their sexual dalliances. Perhaps the next time character comes up as an issue in an election people should pay closer attention rather than shrugging it off as somehow irrelevant. Wiener lied to the public. He lied to his wife. We call people who lie liars. Why should we trust him if he says he has learned his lesson? Why should we trust any politician who, after being caught in a lie, says he has learned his lesson? Politicians of weak judgement and character cannot be relied upon and, in their efforts to hide their shortcomings, are more often a risk to their constituents than an asset.

It is commonly asserted that how a person conducts himself in private is of no concern to the public. It is asked what business is it of ours if a person is engaged in adultery, frequents prostitutes, or indulges in on line porn out of the public eye? The same question can be asked regarding other moral shortcomings. What business is it of ours if a person lies or exhibits cowardice in private? Does it really matter if a man is covetous, vain, or cheats at cards behind closed doors? The answer is it depends. If the person in question is a U.S. congressman the answer is yes. Vice is vice whether it is manifested in public or private. Immorality and weak character may be hidden or restrained in public but if they are privately indulged they will only become more entrenched. When coupled with a weak will, vice can exceed restraint. Wiener's inability to stop himself from acting recklessly out of his desires is a case in point. Wiener's job is to legislate on behalf his constituents. His constituents should very much care about his character.

If we want to be rid of lurid scandals and unethical behavior in Washington we should either abandon moral and ethical standards altogether or more diligently take the measure the of the politicians we elect. Either way we will wind up with politicians who have nothing to hide. Wiener's actions were not the result of lax ethics or inadequate rules. Neither were they the product of a bad decision. They were the result of questionable character and poor judgement. That is why Wiener is unfit to serve in Congress.

Who Cares About New Hampshire?

In an editorial this morning David Leonhardt, a columnist for the New York Times, makes a complaint about the nation's primary system that has frequently been made before, and will frequently be made again. Leonhardt criticizes a primary system that begins in two of the least populated and representative states in the U.S., New Hampshire and Iowa. Leonhardt, and many others, argue that New Hampshire's and Iowa's place at the front of the line distorts presidential elections by compelling candidates to appeal to an almost exclusively middle class and rural population, i.e. an electorate unrepresentative of the U.S. at large. They are on the average older, more likely to have health insurance, slower to reproduce, and perhaps worst of all, whiter than the nation at large.

What is important to voters in New Hampshire and Iowa is understood by Leonhardt and others to be peculiar to the narrow demographics that make up those two states. When presidential aspirants appeal to the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire they stake out positions and policies calculated to gain the support of voters in those two states. Given the deep aversion to "flip flopping" on the part of candidates, positions adopted at the start of the campaign will be carried through to the general election. It would not do to say one thing to voters in New Hampshire and another thing to voters in California. To deal with this, the increasingly sophisticated art of obfuscation is required: another malady of modern politics.

This lament is borne of a very low estimation of the American public. It presumes that the vast majority of voters in the U.S. are either uninformed, lazy, or slow witted. Candidates, and as importantly their financial backers, seem to assume that voters in the rest of the United States reserve their opinions until the victories and electoral votes start piling up. It is a discredit to the U.S. electorate that this assumption has merit. To sacrifice or abandon one's political beliefs in order be on the side of a winner is lazy and opportunistic.

There is nothing necessarily undemocratic or unfair about the way the presidential primary system is set up. The political sensibilities of voters in New Hampshire should not in any way influence voters in Nebraska. Once the vagaries and generalities about "putting people to work" and "getting the nation moving" are gotten past the real issues emerge and those issues are not general or vague. Just as farm policy has little import to voters in Michigan, manufacturing and industrial policy have little import to voters in New Hampshire and Iowa. However voters in New Hampshire feel about free trade, voters in Michigan are likely to feel different. If voters in Michigan want to abandon their opinions in order to climb on a bandwagon launched in New Hampshire that is their prerogative, but they should not blame New Hampshire or the "system" for it. They are in no way obliged.

To those around the nation who feel they are being cheated or short changed by the early primaries in New Hampshire and Vermont I ask who cares what voters in Vermont and New Hampshire think? Why should voters in Alabama care one whit who voters in New Hampshire think is the best candidate? If voters around the nation are firm in their political positions and at all informed they will not, or at least should not, be swayed by what voters in New Hampshire think. A vote in New Hampshire does not count any more than a vote in Texas.

If the assumption that voters in New Hampshire and Vermont set the table for the rest of the nation is valid, do not blame the system. The system does not vote. Blame the voter. If voters in Ohio are inclined to base their votes on what voters in New Hampshire think they are only short changing themselves. Very few, however, are willing to blame voters for anything, certainly not in public. That is why every unexpected result and every brow raising victory is greeted with arguments that the system is askew and should be reformed. The system is not to blame. If anything is to blame it is the voter. But let's keep tinkering with the primary system. If we can somehow get it just right there should be fewer surprises. The most electable candidate will win every time, and who doesn't want the most electable candidate to win?

At this point in the campaign it is not really about voters at all. It is about money and backing. Presidential hopefuls are looking for momentum and all that it brings with it. They want to demonstrate "electability" and the first step takes place in New Hampshire. The answer to the question of who cares about New Hampshire is presidential hopefuls do. The answer to the question of why anyone else should care about New Hampshire is because presidential hopefuls do.

Tending the Farm

Over the last 20 years residents in many parts of Dallas have come to rely upon federal money to help maintain their communities. Federal money has been distributed to organizations such as the Ferguson Road Initiative in Dallas to help support groups like Crime Watch as well as to finance graffiti clean ups, and drug education programs. Money was also used to fight crime through paying for increased police staffing and patrols and to maintain city services that would otherwise suffer for lack of funds. The "Weed and Seed" grants, as they are known, are intended to help weed out drugs and crime and seed the communities with services and projects to foster the bloom of revitalization. The results have been mixed. Many communities have seen a drop in crime and a rise in property values (not always a blessing). Others have not.

The Weed and Seed program was enacted under President George H.W. Bush to revitalize communities through five year grants distributed to foster development and improve services. Some communities are already under their fourth five year grant. For 20 years communities like Far East Dallas have been weeding and seeding. They have pulled roots and tilled the soil. But they still rely on the government to provide the fertilizer and the seeds.

The Weed and Seed program is facing dissolution. Money is tight in Washington and a few corners are being cut. The Weed and Seed program is in one of those corners. In Dallas, of Ferguson Road Initiative's current annual budget of $400,000, $156,000 is from Washington. By many accounts, the Ferguson Road Initiative has done well, just not well enough to make itself irrelevant. Without continued federal funding it will have to cut programs and, even worse, lay people off.

Alice Zaccarello, the executive Director of the Ferguson Road Initiative claims the cuts will impact all of Dallas, not just her neighborhood. "I don't think the general population realizes that when Weed and Seed can reduce crime in high-crime areas, then every other area in the city of Dallas benefits." That might be true under the casuistry that what benefits one benefits all. But in reality of the hundreds of square miles that make up the City of Dallas a drop in crime or up tic in property values in Fergsun Road will be unnoticed.

When groups like the Ferguson Road Initiative in Far East Dallas need federal funds to stay afloat it is a sign that the nation has become overly dependent upon the federal government. This is in part a result of short sighted thinking on the part of the federal and local government. They tend to think in terms of simple dollars and conflate money with results. It is also a result of calculation on the part of many in Washington to bring more and more economic and political activity under the purview of Washington. Federal money is often a snare designed to entrap state and local governments and bring them further into reliance upon Washington.

The Ferguson Road Initiative needs federal money. A lot of people need federal money. The Founding Fathers would be astounded to find that in only a little under 250 years, states and cities have become so enfeebled that they cannot operate without federal support.

Crime and Punishment

Jose Arturo Guerra is a senior at South Texas University. It was discovered that he is in the United States illegally. It is quite possible he will be deported. His fate will be decided Wednesday at his immigration hearing.

This is not Guerra's first brush with immigration law. In 2005 Guerra's visa expired while he was home visiting in Mexico. Not willing to apply for a new one, Guerra decided to sneak back into the U.S. He was apprehended and sent home. Undeterred, he made a second attempt and succeeded. It was not until last December that Guerra's status was discovered and his problems began. What has complicated Guerra's immigration problems is that when he was apprehended the first time he falsely claimed to be a U.S. citizen. That claim could disqualify him from ever becoming a one.

Guerra and his supporters are making the case that not only would his deportation be unfair, it would be financially foolish. They are questioning whether it would make sense to deport someone after spending thousands of dollars to educate him. Once again, they are missing the point. The thousands of dollars that were spent on Guerra's education would not have been spent had his immigration status been known. The money spent to educate him was spent under false pretenses. It is not as if that money would have been wasted had it not been spent on Guerra. It would simply have gone to someone else, ideally someone here legally.

Guerra is not a victim here. His predicament is entirely his own fault. He was apprehended entering the country illegally. Even though he knew that what he was doing is illegal, he made a second attempt. Guerra compounded his actions by wrongfully claiming he was a U.S. citizen, a much more serious offense.

Pity for Guerra should be reserved. He is not being banished to a life of misery and desolation in the wilderness. He has family in Mexico. If it is true, as was reported, that Guerra hardly knows them, that is not a problem the U.S. should be concerned with. Indeed, whatever hardships and deprivations Guerra might face in Mexico are not due to U.S. immigration policy. They are matters to be taken up with the Mexican government.

Jose Guerra is a poster child for immigration reform. He is intelligent, hard working and ambitious. It would be easy to see him as a victim of fate or circumstance. But he is not. Guerra's problems are due to his violation of U.S. law. There are punishments for breaking the law. The punishment for entering the U.S. illegally is deportation. The U.S. has laws on immigration. An important job of government is to make sure that laws are obeyed. Guerra knowingly violated U.S. law. He was caught and now he is being punished. There is nothing unjust about it. That is precisely how the system is supposed to work. If you do not like U.S. immigration laws, change them. In the mean time, like all laws, they should be enforced.

Guerra was hoping that he would not be caught and that, if he was, his transgression would be overlooked. He was mistaken on both counts. Everyone who enters the country illegally hopes that they will not be caught. The porous nature of our border encourages that hope. Everyone who is caught hopes they will not be punished. The haphazard enforcement of immigration laws encourages that hope.

Whatever the lamentations of immigration activists, Guerra is not being persecuted. He is being punished for violating the law. He is not being sent to jail. He is being sent home.

How Much Time is Left?

The clock has started ticking in the Levant. It is set to go off in September when the Palestinians will seek recognition as a state by the U.N. General Assembly along the lines of the 1967 border. Given the make up of the U.N., it is likely that recognition will be had. If it is granted Israel will find itself in a difficult position. Should a Palestinian state be recognized, Israel would overnight find itself an occupying power. Not that it would matter much. Israel has shown little but disdain for the U.N. and its resolutions over the years. Nevertheless, a formal recognition of the 1967 borders would officially make Israel a transgressor in violation of international law. That would be a serious blow to Israel's international standing (such as it is) and severely complicate its desire for continued expansion. It might even occasion sanctions.

Naturally, Israel and the U.S. were critical of the move. Israel condemned the action as a threat to the peace process. It insists that any resolution of the issue must go through Jerusalem, a sensible enough demand since any agreement would ultimately have to be one Israel could live with. The U.S. disapproved of the action since not only would the move undermine its efforts to find a solution to the problem: a project it has been working on intermittently for over 40 years, it would potentially place it in conflict with its most important ally in the region. U.N. recognition of a Palestinian state would be much more than another rebuke of Israel. The international recognition of a Palestinian State along the lines of the 1967 border would change the whole dynamic of Palestinian Israeli negotiations. Israel could find itself in the position of negotiating to keep land rather than to give it away.

As a new era is emerging in the Middle East the U.S. is finding itself in an increasingly awkward position. After advocating democracy, self determination, and pluralism throughout the region it is reinforcing ethnic division in Israel and being pressured to throttle the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people. As the U.S. twists and turns it is inviting the charge of hypocrisy and risking the ire of emerging regimes, to say nothing of alienating a whole new generation of Arabs.

By all means the Palestinians and the Israelis should keep talking. But it should be kept in mind that it is the Palestinians who are suffering while the talking is going on. If the Palestinians can be persuaded to wait, perhaps in a decade or two we might have an agreement, assuming there is anything left to negotiate. But time is not on the Palestinians' side. The longer negotiations go on, the less there is to negotiate. If Palestinians cannot get satisfaction at the hands of Israel or the U.S. they should not be blamed for seeking it elsewhere. If Israel wants negotiations to go through Jerusalem it should make it possible for them to go through Jerusalem rather than stop in Jerusalem.

If you look at a map of Israel at its founding in 1948 and compare it with a map of Israel in 1967 it is clear that even if Israel was persuaded to return to the 1967 borders, it is still coming out very much ahead. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has condemned the proposal claiming that a return to the 1967 border would render Israel indefensible. Against whom? The Palestinians would have no army and Jordan poses absolutely no threat to Israel. Whatever danger Israel faces, it is not from the east unless you include Iran. When it comes to Iran, the Jordan River is no barrier. The most probable reason for Israel's insistence on a military presence along the Jordan River is to keep the Palestinians in a bottle. As for terrorism, a Palestinian state would have every incentive to prevent infiltration by Hezbollah or other radical organizations. The presence of such groups would give Israel ample pretext to intervene and reoccupy the West Bank and thereby doom any chance of a sovereign Palestine along the Jordon River.

The only threat the Palestinians hold to Israel is their presence. Israel wants to get rid of them. There is very little room in a Jewish state for non Jews. It will drive out the Palestinians it can and build a wall around the ones it can't. The Palestinians are not just fighting to get a state of their own, they are fighting for a place to live. Short of being allowed citizenship in Israel, the only place Palestinians will be secure in their lives, property, and possessions is in a state of their own. Israel ought to appreciate that.

What if the Rebels Don't Win?

Rebels in Libya have begun to turn things around in their fight against Gaddafi's troops. After weeks of stalled fighting it was reported that they had gained ground and made progress in their struggle to break the siege of Misrata by capturing an airport and pushing government troops, aka Gaddafi's troops, from the western suburbs. Rebel victories have been few and far between since the rebellion began, much to NATO's dismay.

Western support of the rebels has been increasing since fighting first broke out. After the rebellion began, the West quickly imposed more sanctions on the Libyan government. When the increased sanctions didn't work, a "no fly" zone was implemented and the Libyan air force was quickly grounded. When the "no fly" zone didn't succeed in tipping the balance, combat air support was provided. Libyan tanks, artillery, and mechanized forces were soon hobbled. Since March 31st, NATO has carried out more than 2,400 air strikes, including some aimed directly at Gaddafi's himself. Still, the rebellion is foundering.

The fighting has been going on for nearly three months since riots first broke out in Benghazi. The U.S. and its allies are determined to help the rebellion succeed. Indeed the only reason the fighting has lasted this long is because of NATO air support and military assistance. Given the level of support being provided, if the rebellion doesn't succeed, the West will suffer a major black eye. Dictators in the region and around the world would take heart.

The U.S. and NATO have invested themselves heavily in the struggle. They have expanded their mission from protecting rebel forces to providing combat air support and interdiction. NATO has struck at government troops, supply routes, and logistics and command centers. It has been hitting targets of its own choosing for some time in cities like Tripoli. It has even targeted Qaddafi himself. By investing themselves heavily in the success of the rebels, Western military prestige is on the line. A rebel defeat would be a NATO defeat. After a string of impressive air campaigns by the West, its perfect record is in jeopardy. If one country can withstand a NATO onslaught, others can. The West is determined that an example not be set.

If the rebels do manage to win, it will not be due to the legitimacy of their cause or their military prowess. It will be due to Western military efforts. If they succeed, they will have the U.S. and NATO to thank. In the eyes of the West, that would be a very good thing.

What Limit?

According to a report in this morning's New York Times the federal government has reached its $14.3 trillion debt limit. That would not be a problem, well, not as big a problem anyway, if the government did not need more money to get it through the year, but it does. Discussion is under way on what to do about it. Republicans want spending cuts. Democrats want to increase revenue. It is anticipated that a compromise will be reached. A compromise will have to be reached. It is inconceivable that taxes could be raised or spending cut enough to put the nation back in the black any time soon.

There is talk in Washington that something will have to be done. Unfortunately, such talk is rarely little more than symbolic. When Washington speaks about addressing spending it is trying to send a message that it is serious about addressing the issue even, or especially, if it is not serious about it. Nevertheless, it is a necessary message to send, not just to the public, but to our lenders as well. You know you are in trouble when lenders begin to get squeamish about lending you more money.

The government is in serious financial straights. There will be stern countenances and grave pronouncements but the debt limit will be raised. A balanced budget is flat out of the question. In 2009 the government had a $1.84 trillion deficit. Last year it ran a deficit of $1.26 trillion. It is anticipated that the deficit for this year will be a more modest $929 billion. Even if the trend continues, it will be many years before black ink is seen. The debt is going to go up as sure as the sun is going to rise. The only question is by how much.

A debt limit that can be raised when it becomes inconvenient is not a limit. It is at best a hurdle. Until we can pass a balanced budget why even talk about addressing the debt?

What if the Rebels Don't Win?

Rebels in Libya have begun to turn things around in their fight against government troops. After weeks of stalled fighting it was reported that they had gained ground and made progress in their struggle to break the siege of Misrata by capturing an airport and pushing government troops, aka Gaddafi's troops, from the western suburbs. Rebel victories have been few and far between since the rebellion began, much to NATO's dismay.

Western support of the rebels has been increasing since fighting first broke out. After the rebellion began, the West quickly imposed sanctions, more sanctions that is, on the Libyan government. When the increased sanctions didn't work, a "no fly" zone was implemented and the Libyan air force was quickly grounded. When the "no fly" zone didn't succeed in tipping the balance, combat air support was provided. Libyan tanks, artillery, and mechanized forces were soon hobbled. Since March 31st, NATO has carried out more than 2,400 air strikes, including some aimed directly at Gaddafi himself. Still, the rebellion is foundering.

The fighting has been going on for nearly three months since riots first broke out in Benghazi. The U.S. and its allies are determined to help the rebellion succeed. Indeed the only reason the fighting has lasted this long is because of NATO air support and military assistance. Given the level of support being provided, if the rebellion doesn't succeed, the West will suffer a major black eye. Dictators in the region and around the world would take heart in knowing that even in the face of Western support, a rebellion can be beaten.

The U.S. and NATO have committed themselves to the struggle. They have expanded their mission from protecting rebel forces to providing combat air support and interdiction. NATO has struck at government troops, supply routes, and logistics and command centers. It has been hitting targets of its own choosing for some time in cities like Tripoli. It has even targeted Gaddafi himself. Because it has invested itself heavily in the success of the rebellion, Western military prestige is on the line.

If the rebels manage to win, it will not be due to the legitimacy of their cause or their military prowess. It will be due to Western military power. Because of that, any new government in Libya will carry a stigma. A rebel defeat on the other hand would be a NATO defeat. After a string of impressive air campaigns by the West, its perfect record is in jeopardy. If one country can withstand a NATO onslaught, others can. The West is determined that an example not be set.

The West's insistence on levelling the playing field in Libya and elsewhere is disingenuous. Wars, civil or otherwise, are not supposed to be fair fights. They never have been.

There is a Growing Choice

There is a troubling political undercurrent in Afghanistan. Recently President Karzai has been making moves to improve his country's relationship with neighboring Pakistan. In a meeting with Pakistani officials, both countries pledged to work at building closer ties. Included as part of those warming ties, Karzai was encouraged to move Afghanistan closer to Pakistan and China and by extension move away from the U.S. This makes sense if you look at a map. Pakistan and China are in the neighborhood. Afghanistan has to live in that neighborhood.

As the recent execution of Bin Laden demonstrates, Pakistan can be a problematic neighbor. Despite that, Afghanistan and Pakistan have much in common, not the least of which is religion. The greater concern however is China. China is a growing power in the world. As China's scientific expertise and economic prowess increase it is beginning to challenge U.S. hegemony around the world. It is doing so quietly without pageant or posturing.

The U.S. has expertise and markets but it brings with it a lot of baggage. There are many countries in the world where doing business with the U.S. is at best a necessary concession. China does not concern itself over political or social demands, it travels light. China is about business, not human rights or democracy. China is not seeking to change the world or reform nations and people. That is why China has been able to quietly expand its influence where similar U.S. activity would inspire headlines and protest.

There is a growing choice in the world. The U.S. is becoming only one option for nations seeking to grow their economies and improve trade. The spectacular growth of Chinese economic power is a catalyst for its growing involvement in world affairs. As its economic power and technical expertise grow, China is becoming a potent global competitor to the U.S. It also has an abundance of natural resources and a growing market that in time will dwarf the U.S. On top of that, its political savvy and military ability are increasing.

If countries do not need U.S. markets or U.S. protection why do they need the U.S.? Why suffer the pestering and prodding of the U.S. if you can simply do business with someone else? Why get caught up in the geopolitical intrigue of the U.S. if you do not have to? Why put up with a lecture if you can just take a check?

The day might soon come when nations will have a choice between orienting themselves towards the East or the West. When that day comes the U.S. will be at a distinct disadvantage. Politics aside, how can you compete when you are in debt to your competitor to a tune of $1 trillion. Yes, the U.S. has principals and values. But you cannot put those in the bank.

What is Winning a Presidential Election Worth?

The scrambling has already begun for next year's presidential election. Well, republican scrambling has begun. It is not expected that there will be much scrambling in the democratic party. With the primary season still months away potential candidates are not looking for votes. They are looking for money. Votes won't count for another year or so. At this point, a candidate's status is measured by the money he is able to raise. The more viable a candidate is perceived to be, the more money he can expect to raise. The more money he raises, the more viable he becomes.

It has been reported that President Obama might be able to raise as much as $1 billion for his reelection campaign. That's right, $1 billion. No republican is even close. Well, perhaps Donald Trump can find a few hundred million but that would likely have to come out of his pocket, not his supporters'. The RNC brought in $7 million in March. Mitt Romney, one of the early GOP front runners, is hoping to raise $50 million over the next couple of months.

There are many things wrong with America at the moment that could significantly be improved with $1 billion. The irony of liberals spending a billion dollars in order to elect a president who will spend hundreds of millions of dollars to advance their cause is lost on them. But what is a billion dollars in the larger scheme of things? Obama has already spent more than a trillion dollars to help improve his chances for reelection. If it takes another billion to keep him in office, to many that is a bargain.

I suppose it all comes down to what winning a presidential election is worth to a person. For some it is all but priceless.

Every Silver Lining Has a Dark Cloud

There is troubling news from Egypt. According to a recent Pew Center poll, the majority of Egyptians favor ending the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel that was signed 32 years ago. When the treaty was signed between the two nations it was heralded as a mile stone. It showed that there could be peace between Arabs and Israelis. Now, after the fall of the Egyptian government, that treaty could be in peril.

Democracy in the Middle East has long been a goal of U.S. policy. For years the U.S. has prodded nations in the region to move towards more open and representative government. In the last several months the U.S. has become almost giddy at the prospect of finally achieving its political goals in the region. But, as the recent Pew Center poll has revealed, the move towards democracy in the Middle East is not without its perils.

Over the last several decades, negotiations with the Arab world were simple. We only needed to reach agreement with the leader of a nation. Once an agreement was reached, the leader of that nation could be relied upon to observe that agreement whether the people of that nation approved or not. Those days are quickly coming to and end. Those days will be missed.

The Pew Center poll revealed many troubling issues on the horizon. While the poll revealed that the vast majority of Egyptians, 77% according to the poll, are happy Mubarak is gone, the joy on the part of Egyptians is not simply due to personal dislike. A key element of that dislike was Mubarak's foreign policy.

During his tenure, Mubarak became an important and reliable partner for the U.S. in the region. However, only 32% of Egyptians approve of U.S. policy in the Middle East. Only 20% of Egyptians view the U.S. favorably. 43% of Egyptians asked want cooler ties with the U.S. against only 15% who want closer relations. The majority of Egyptians are angered over Israel's treatment of Palestinians. It gets worse. Another poll revealed that 37% of Egyptians had a "very favorable" view of the Muslim Brotherhood, a hard line Islamic party and that 62% of the people felt that the law should more strictly follow the Koran. As if that weren't enough, over half of those polled feel that the 1979 peace agreement signed between Israel and Egypt should be annulled.

What should also be disturbing from the U.S. point of view is that a large majority of Egyptians are satisfied with their religious leaders. Even though religious fundamentalists in the nation are still on the margins, that can change very quickly. Unlike the U.S., Muslims tend to adhere to their religion and listen to their religious leaders. It cannot be assumed that Egyptians will abandon their mosques if their mullahs start to tilt toward the right. Muslims are not Episcopalians.

Before the uprising it didn't matter much how ordinary Egyptians felt about Israel and U.S. policy in the region. Soon it will. Both Israel and the U.S. are going to have to keep that in mind. According to the poll, most people in Egypt are looking forward to a new government. The question is whether we should.

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.