The Times They Are a Changin'

A federal court in Virginia recently threw out a $5 million verdict against anti-gay protesters who picketed the funeral for a dead marine in Maryland. Many were understandably upset at that ruling. Among the many who were upset at the offensive protest, were those who were more upset by the anti-gay message of the protesters, and the court ruling in their favor, rather than the hostility shown towards a young man who died serving his country.

Yet, despite the anger and frustration often on display at many rallies and protests, few have matched the deliberate offensiveness of the left. From the hateful protests against the Vietnam War (I can recall the "baby killer" signs) and the hostility displayed against those returning from that war, both dead and alive, to the orchestrated offensiveness often on display at Gay Pride rallies, the left is unmatched in it's attempts to shock the sensibilities and it's contempt for the public. Unlike the objectionable protest by the anti-gay protesters in Maryland however, the protests by the Vietnam and gay rights protesters were, and are, embraced by the left. The protest in Maryland was condemned by the right.

The offensiveness displayed towards those serving in Vietnam was greater than that displayed in Maryland because most who went were drafted, and so had no choice but to go and fight. However, despite the hostility, insensitivity, and down right cruelty of some of those protesting against veterans returning from Vietnam, both dead and alive, I cannot recall a single instance where protesters were sued for their actions.

As an American, I am angered by the offensiveness of such protests as occured in Maryland. As a conservative, I am troubled by the attempts to stifle them. It is well within the rights of people to take offense at the words and actions of others. But people should be wary of trying to prohibit those words and actions. As history has shown, the sides always change. You can never know whether, in the future, you will be the one protesting, or the one offended by the protests.

Better Living Through Taxes

There was an editorial in the morning's newspaper pillorying soda manufacturers, fast food merchants, and other purveyors of obesity and ill health. Using an impressive array of statistics, the author details the cost of "junk" food on the nation's health and the determined attempts by the "junk" food industry to expand its markets; a surprisingly common business activity in capitalist societies.

As much as this is a criticism of the food industry, it is more a criticism of consumers. They are the ones who purchase these products after all. While it is sometimes acceptable to criticize consumers, it is much less risky politically to criticize industry. Using the usual slight of hand, the author proposes raising taxes on "junk food" to reduce its appeal to consumers.

After presenting a litany of the costs to our economy caused by "unchecked obesity" and general ill health due to poor diet, the author urges action be taken against the merchants of sloth and gluttony in the form of stiff taxes, such as those which were imposed upon tobacco companies. This is a poor comparison. Twinkies, Big Macs, and soda pop do not kill people. All are products that, used in moderation, are neither addictive nor a threat to health. The problem is that they are often not used in moderation.

The author would have us believe that the lack of moderation is due to the sinister designs and manipulations of the junk food industry and that consumers are merely sheep being led astray. This is simply another example of the condescension by the self styled elite toward the common man. The common man is simply too lazy, or too ignorant, to act in his own best interests. That is why the government must be so active in making sure the common man is supervised and looked after.

The citizen must be productive and healthy if he is to be of any use to the economy. And, after all, that is the proper purpose of the citizen. To live a lifestyle one might find pleasant, and eat food that one finds enjoyable, is selfish and unpatriotic.

Health Care Reform: I mean, Health Insurance Reform

I didn't watch the news talk shows yesterday, but I read about them this morning. Obama's tour of the news shows were predominantly concerned with his proposals for "health insurance reform." I should have been paying closer attention. It seems I missed the transformation of the debate over health care reform, into a debate over health insurance reform. This is a clever, and perhaps cynical move on the part of the administration. If the debate over health care can be made into one over the policies and profits of health insurance companies, Obama has a much better chance of winning the debate. In his attempt to allow the public to "put their whole arms around it," Obama has selected a much better target for which to rally the public. Everybody likes health care. Nobody likes health insurance companies.

No They Can't (Swim)

Some parents are upset at the North Garland High School in Texas. They are upset because their children were cut from the swim team. The reason they were cut is because they cannot swim. When the coach of the swim team attempted to transform the swim team into an actual, competitive swim team, rather than an adjunct of the YMCA, parents became upset. They were counting on the swim team to teach their children to swim. The North Garland High School has over one hundred members on it's swim team. The team, despite it's overwhelming superiority in numbers, does not perform well in competition. In order to make the team manageable, and competitive, the coach decided to whittle down the team. He also decided that, for the first time, he would hold tryouts for the team.

The first kids to go were those who could not swim. Now parents are angry because they feel their children have been mistreated. The Assistant Superintendent said he would talk to the coach and see about getting the kids back on the team. It seems as though, for some parents, being able to swim is a flimsy criterion for making the swim team. Let us wish North Garland the best of luck in the upcoming season.

We Can Blame Obama, but....

Federal health care will work says Obama. If it doesn't, he is willing to take the blame. Fair enough. The problem is, if national health care doesn't work, we will be stuck with it. He will be gone someday, but federal health care will endure. We are not buying a dress or a pair of pliers. If a national health care plan is enacted and doesn't work out as promised, we will not be able to return it. And, even if we could, we would never get our money back.

What if it Was You?

A man is in custody after FBI agents and police raided his apartment recently in New York City. We are told he is suspected of having links to al-Qaeda. We are told little else. We do not know his name, where he is being held, or the particular crimes he is accused of other than "being an associate" of al Qaeda. The crimes he is suspected of plotting, according to authorities, are unclear. If the man is tried before a secret tribunal or in a closed court, we might never know. All we do know is that a suspected terrorist was taken into custody. In these days of heightened paranoia and increased reliance on the government to protect us, that is often enough. I suspect many will be satisfied we are safer now that this unknown man is in custody for plotting unspecified crimes. Many perhaps, but hopefully not all.

What if someday the government comes for you? What if it is claimed that you are plotting a terrible outrage, so terrible in fact that the threat and scale of your plot, and the methods used to thwart it, cannot be revealed lest it inspire other malcontents and evildoers, and help them to evade detection in their plotting? You might be detained and interrogated in secret and your location be unknown to all but your interrogators. You will simply have disappeared. You could neither publicly contest your imprisonment or challenge the evidence gathered lest its existence and the methods used for its acquisition be revealed. Perhaps the verdict would be announced, perhaps not. If it were announced, chances are it would simply be stated that a "terrorist" had been apprehended, tried, convicted, sentenced and imprisoned in an undisclosed location. The public would be satisfied that violence had been thwarted and that they are safer than they had been before.

We are not there yet, but arguments have been made and the ground prepared. It might take only one spectacular outrage to rally the public and push us to the point where the rights of the accused are viewed as obstacles to public safety rather than bulwarks of our liberty. Society is hardly defenseless. It has police and prisons to protect it. The indiviual only has the law and his rights. Unfortunatley, those laws and rights are increasingly seen as burdens when the lives and the safety of our communities are at risk.

The odds are if we surrender our rights, we will never get them back. We need those rights because the individual will always have more to fear from society than society has to fear from the individual. Nevertheless, it seems the era of "Perry Mason" has been replaced by the era of "Law and Order."

What's Wrong With "No"?

There are a few points I feel need to be made regarding the current debate over health care reform. The first is the criticism often made of the Republicans as the party of "no." I do not see this to be the criticism it is intended to be. Sometimes, the answer should be "no." "No" is the proper response to to an unsolicited or burdensome offer. If someone offers to paint your house or sell you a condo, most likely you would not negotiate; you would say "no." To say "no" is not necessarily a response borne of stubbornness or petulance. It can also be a response out of principal or genuine disinterest.

Secondly is the argument made by those who cite the success of social security and point to the contentious debate that preceded its enactment. This argument assumes that social security has been a success and vindicated by history. The the threat it poses to the economy, and the continuous debate over the need for its reform suggests it is not the success it is claimed to be.

Thirdly is the scorn exhibited by health care reformers toward smokers and the threat they pose to health care and society. Smoking is only one threat to public health, and certainly not the largest. Will the ire of the public some day turn to the obese, the indolent, and the reckless? The costs these groups, and others, present to health care vastly exceeds the cost represented by the ever dwindling number of smokers. The necessity of obtaining health care, and the political power over it that would result from any national health care plan, would be an irresistible tool to those who seek to modify and correct the behavior of others.

The president's willingness to take the blame if federal health care doesn't work out as he assures us is of little solace. The program, if enacted, will be here long after he is gone; indeed, long after we're gone. Not every policy advocated by the president, or bill proposed in Congress merits negotiation. Sometimes, the proper response is "no."

Can the People be Trusted?

At their best, liberals make it possible for people to achieve what they want. At their best, conservatives make it possible for people to choose what they want. Unfortunately, they are rarely at are rarely at their best. Conservatives can be clumsy in their attempts to encourage people and often rely too heavily on enticing people through incentives and tax relief. Liberals tend to be impatient and too quick to resort to regulation and coercion out of frustration. Neither are very good at discerning what people want. It is hard enough to figure out what your spouse wants, yet we are inclined to believe we can know what the nation wants - and how to get it.

There is a difference between trusting people to do the right thing and compelling them do the right thing. Foremost is determining what the right thing is. Conservatives (as opposed to Republicans) tend to trust people to know the right thing, and are optimistic that, if allowed the room, people will do it. They seek to maintain the liberty necessary for people to pursue goals of their own choosing and live their lives in a manner that makes sense to them. They trust that people will act decently and with restraint in the pursuit of those goals. Liberals, despite their professions of looking out for the people and championing their interests (or perhaps because of it), are sceptical of the people's ability to recognize the right thing and pessimistic about people's inclination to do it. They are predisposed to mistrust the willingness of people to act with decency and restraint, and doubt the people's ability to discern beyond their own interests and do what should be done. They prod, bribe, exhort, manipulate, legislate, and if all else fails, threaten in an attempt to overcome what they see as the failings and shortsightedness of the citizens. Moreover, liberals believe people, unsupervised, cannot be relied upon to acquire and maintain the proper sentiments and "values" necessary to the harmonious society they envision. In their unceasing vigilance, liberals constantly meddle with society by monitoring speech, text books, curriculum, opinions, beliefs; virtually everything said, done, and believed, lest people stumble into intolerance and error.

Liberals do not trust the efficacy of tax breaks or deregulation because they do not trust people to behave or spend appropriately, i.e. not to behave and spend in a manner contrary to their own best interests as those interests are understood by liberals. Simply put, liberals do not trust people. They fear that without the constant guidance and restraint of government, people would act, believe, and spend their way into misery and oppression. Conservatives do not trust government. They resist attempts by the government to encroach upon concerns and issues more properly left to individuals and trust that people will act appropriately in their own interest. Clearly, not all Republicans are conservative, nor are all Democrats liberals.

The risk of liberty is that others might act in ways and pursue goals that you disapprove of. The benefit of liberty is that you can act in ways and pursue goals that others disapprove of. The question is whether the risk is worth the benefit.

The Time has Come

Evidently, Obama has come to disdain the legislative process. The difficult and complex process of drafting law, and the negotiations necessary for it's passage, were condemned by Obama in his health care speech as "games" and "bickering." He demands action, and he demands results. Not just any results though; but the results he wants. His strategy seems to be to set himself apart from, and perhaps even above the government and pose as some sort of champion fighting on behalf of the beleaguered populace suffering under the indifference of petty and selfish rulers. The suffering of the people grows as burghers, councils, and princes haggle and contest prerogatives, jurisdictions, and perks. A champion is sought and finally found to relieve the suffering and do what needs be done. Obama would be that champion.

Opposition to Obama's health care plan is frequently portrayed as motivated by pettiness, partisanship and ideology carried out under spite. What compassionate, reasoned person would possibly oppose such a good and noble plan as to extend health care to those who need it? Only the wicked and the ignorant could oppose the laudable plan of providing health care to those unable (and in some cases, unwilling) to obtain it. While Obama seeks to enlighten those who oppose his plan out of ignorance through his many speeches and press releases, he lashes out at those who oppose him out of "partisanship." He scolds and harangues those who oppose his plan for political reasons, but demonstrates his nobility and high mindedness by asserting his patience and willingness to work with those willing to work with him.

But his patience has limits. If Congress will not give him what he wants, or rather, as he claims, what the people want, he will seek to bully it in the eyes of the public until it yields. It has been argued that the obeisance of congress to "special interests" should not be allowed to frustrate the great calling of national health care. Under the rhetoric of those clamoring for national health care, Congress is increasingly being portrayed as weak and venial. This serves to enhance the view of the president as the one person who can be trusted to do what is right and necessary for the country.

I am concerned as to what lengths Obama is willing to go to achieve his ambition. Many times in history, kings and consuls have been frustrated by the limits to their powers presented by legislatures and laws. And many times in history have those kings and consuls, when their ambitions were thwarted by senates or councils, taken their frustration to the public where the pettiness and lack of vision on the part of those that opposed them was condemned. I do not mean to compare Obama to a king or an emperor. The problem lay more with the office and what people have come to demand of it than whomever happens to be in it. The more that is demanded from the office, the more power it will assume to meet those demands. The more ambitious the man in that office, the more readily will power be accumulated. The more power that is accumulated, the greater the demands made upon the office. The greater the demands, the more power that will be needed to satisfy those demands; and on and on it goes until the office becomes the lodestar of government.

If Obama truly sees the legislative process as a "game," we should all be troubled. Drafting and enacting law is not a game. It is a difficult and complex process in which many interests and objectives must be weighed and balanced. Enacting a law is not supposed to be easy. It is supposed to be difficult and we should be thankful it is. The more difficult it is to pass a law, and more time required for it's passage, the more confident we can be that that law has been thought through and has a reasonable chance of accomplishing what it was enacted to do. Perhaps more importantly, we can be a little more confident that the need which engendered the law is a truly a need that can be redressed by law.

Health Care Hammer

It is turning out that national health care may not be the bargain many are hoping for. Despite the common view that a national health plan would be a low cost option available to those who need health care insurance but cannot afford it, it is in danger of becoming a mandatory obligation that would cost many Americans thousands of dollars a year. A plan has been proposed in Congress that would fine people up to $3,800 for failing to buy health insurance. Plans have already been proposed that would coerce money from employers, drug and medical manufacturers, and labs to pay for the government's proposals to help those without insurance, as well as those struggling to keep their insurance. But every tax on business is ultimately a tax on consumers.

Fearing that squeezing the health industry might not be enough to provide the funds needed for national health care, some in Washington are exploring the need to squeeze the public. While there is the veneer of legitimacy in the idea of making the public pay for a public benefit (I have always understood health as a private benefit, despite the casuistry of health care advocates), it is unclear what that benefit will be, and whether the public will be willing to pay for it after they know what it is. Naturally, there is talk of offsetting some of the cost to taxpayers through manipulating the tax code, but giving some people back some of their money at the end of the year is unlikely to ease the burden of regular payments to their insurers. The real cost of a national health plan to the American taxpayer will be staggering. Merely trying to obscure those costs within the massive federal budget by legislative slights of hand will do nothing to reduce those costs.

There are many factors that make up the cost of health care. The addition of a new federal bureaucracy to handle health care will do nothing to diminish those costs. Perhaps even worse, to the economic considerations that must be made by private insurers, will be added the social and political considerations demanded by activists and and imposed by government underwriters. Procedures and treatments will inevitably acquire a political component as different groups and interests jockey for attention and coverage.

National health insurance will be another hammer to beat the market, and society, into compliance with the vision held by liberal idealists. At least the hope is that the market can be beat into compliance, rather than beat to death. If the public can be led to believe that they are getting an essential good at a bargain, they will take it. No doubt, once the public comes to rely upon the government for health care, the program will become a juggernaut; unstoppable and invulnerable. My fear it that if liberals achieve their vision of a public dependent upon the charity, beneficence, and supervision of government, it will be impossible to wean them.

Democracy in Afghanistan

It was reported this morning that there were significant irregularities in the recent presidential elections in Afghanistan. Voting fraud and intimidation were evident in abundance. Why is it taking so long for democracy and free and fair elections to take hold in Afghanistan? Afghanistan has already had eight years. Just because it took us here in the U.S. over two hundred years to work out the kinks and irregularities in our electoral system; even with a head start, doesn't mean that Afghanistan shouldn't be able to sort it out in eight.

Government Still at Work

In an article printed this morning, it was reported that a disabled Vietnam veteran in Houston received a service dog to help him in his disability. But he did not receive it from the government, even though he applied to the government nearly eight years ago.

The Department of Veteran's Affairs Web site states that they "routinely" provide dogs to veterans who need them. What the Web site does not say is that it takes years after applying for the dog for the veterans receive them. The reason for this delay, according to the Department, is that they must "conduct studies on the dog's benefits and the problems promoting the service." One might think that studies regarding the benefits of providing service dogs, (I assume they were speaking of the benefits to the veteran, rather than the dog), and how the program would be promoted, would have been completed before the program was initiated. But one would be wrong.

After waiting nearly eight years for the government to provide him a dog, despite his undisputed need and eligibility, the veteran turned in frustration to a private group, which was able to provide him with a dog. Even though the government program to provide disabled veterans with dogs was initiated eight years ago, they are evidently still working out the procedures and rules. One can envision the office where these rules are being studied as bureaucrats read files and studies, craft memos, establish rules and procedures, and hold meetings to discuss the implementation of those rules and procedures - and then hold more meetings to discuss any changes that might need to be made.

It should be kept in mind that providing disabled veterans with dogs is a small program with a simple and uncontroversial objective. The motives behind it are good and the need is unchallenged. Yet, even with this going for it, the government is still unable to effectively administer this program. But I suppose the government will do a much better job administering health care since it will be a larger program with broader goals, a much greater budget, and many more people working on it.

Patriotism and Health

It was inevitable that the discussion concerning the social and economic costs of illness, injury and disease would become a political one. Under the economic casuistry now in fashion, virtually every aspect of personal and social behavior is quantified in terms of its costs and benefits to society. While smoking was initially the most salient behavior subject to this new economic calculus, it was only the first. Obesity soon was added to a growing list of behaviors and lifestyles found to be contrary to good health, and so harmful to the economy.

If health care becomes national policy, then keeping people in good health, and thereby controlling costs, would become a matter of national policy. Once the taxpayers become responsible for providing health care to the public, the obsession over healthy habits and lifestyles would only increase. The issue of public health would no longer be simply a medical matter, but a political and economic one as well. Every group with a health care axe to grind would seek to grind it in Congress. Reports concerning the costs and benefits of different "lifestyles" and "habits" would proliferate. There would arise a whole new industry dedicated to a new health care casuistry that would determine the economic costs and benefits of various habits and lifestyles. Habits and lifestyles that would save money; good. Those that cost money; bad.

There was a letter to the editor in this morning's "Dallas Morning News" that I fear presages the inevitable result of this new health care casuistry: that maintaining one's health is patriotic. Those whose behaviors and lifestyles would increase the costs of health care, or undermine productivity, would be considered as acting against the public good, ergo unpatriotically. True patriots would live lifestyles that saved the government money and increased productivity. Perhaps the day might even come when tribunals exist to evaluate the health habits of individuals to determine who was contributing, and who was detracting, from the public health and thereby decide who was acting patriotically, and who wasn't. Those found to exhibit counterrevolutionary lifestyles and behaviors would be consigned to ill health and public scorn.

Obama in the Classroom

It is conventional wisdom that children are impressionable and caution should be exercised as to what they are allowed to see, read, hear and listen to. They are also easily awed. Most parents are aware of the awe a policeman, a fireman, or even a lion tamer, can inspire in schoolchildren. Imagine the awe that the President of the United States will inspire. It is unlikely the children will even listen to the president, but rather will sit in rapt fascination - as no doubt will many of the parents and teachers.

Children lack the power of critical thought and objectivity. The president is no doubt is aware of this and so will condescend to speak in terms the children will understand. What is it that is hoped children will take away from this? That they will devote themselves to reading and paying attention in school? Do they really expect the enthusiasm of these children to last over the entire course of their trip into adulthood? The awe will remain long after the details of Obama's talk are forgotten.

When a fireman speaks to children, the children want to become firemen. If an astronaut speaks to children, they want to be astronauts. My hunch is that after Obama speaks to the children, they will all want to grow up to be president. The corollary to this is that these children will gain an enthusiasm for government and an interest in "public service" and help ensure a new generation enthusiastic about government and aspiring to "serve their country."

It is argued by some that what the president has to say is important, even to children. But what can the President of the United States possibly have to say about education and "values" that teachers, parents, coaches, and clergy cannot say better? Perhaps the president's real motives lie beyond the children that will ostensibly make up his audience. It is likely that Obama's real audience will be the reporters and cameras that will be there in abundance.

Everything the President of the United States does is political. From ribbon cuttings to planting trees, there is an unavoidable political component. In today's environment of constant media coverage and scrutiny, everything from the president's choice of ties, to the gesture of his hands, is evaluated in terms of how it might add or subtract from the message, and how that message will be perceived. Despite the portrayal of Obama's talk as a genuine, unpolitical, and sincere attempt to encourage academic achievement and perseverance on the part of school children, there will be an unavoidable political component to his speach. Regardless of the press releases, it is likely that Obama's real message will be that he cares deeply about all Americans, even the children, and that he wants nothing but to help us, therefore we should trust him.

Clearly, nothing human is foreign to Obama. There is no suffering that is not felt by him; no struggle that is unknown to him; no dream that is not shared by him. His compassion and concern know no limits and therefore he deserves nothing less than our support, our enthusiasm, and our trust in his noble struggle for a better America; and indeed, a better world. But it will take more than a talk to children to persuade me.

Federal Health Care vs. Charity

Imagine, for a moment, if some of the untold millions of dollars and countless hours being spent on the behalf of the federal health care proposals were spent instead on some of the many charities and private foundations that exist to help the poor and those in need of medical care. Imagine what the Shriners or Habitat for Humanity could do with only a fraction of the money being spent to lobby the government on health care, let alone the money that would be spent should a federal health care plan be passed. Why are so many concerned by the state of health care and the plight of the poor willing to overlook what could be achieved by supporting private charities and foundations with the same zeal that they support federal health care? No doubt for the same reason politicians are.

My guess is that the those involved in lobbying for health care reform are strongly disinclined to support any plan that might deny them the influence and control over policy they seek. Meeting a need is not enough for those "concerned" over health care in the U.S. They demand influence as well. And, why spend millions if one cannot get the credit, not to mention the thanks of a grateful public?

The great advantage of shifting the responsibility for the poor, the suffering, and the ill to the government is that it allows the rest of us to go on about our lives without the burden of having to do anything ourselves other than pay our taxes.

Power of Legislation

Just because a law is passed to address a problem, does not mean the problem is addressed. Passing a law against racism does not end racism. Passing a law to address hunger does not end hunger. Unfortunately, many in Washington seem to believe that once they pass a law or adopt a new regulation, their work is done. It doesn't matter if the issue has been properly or effectively addressed. They pass legislation, allott funds, delegate responsibility, then move on to the next issue. If they are pressed about the issue, they state that they have "taken action" and so demonstrated their resolve. If the issue at hand is unemployment, they will avow their determination to draft or enact legislation or point to the steps they have already taken to address it. If the legislation is enacted, they claim victory, point to the merits of their actions, and consider their duty done and conscience clean.

Similarly, many advocacy groups will demand legislation to address some issue they find of concern. They insist that a law be passed to discourage or limit an objectionable behavior or that new regulations and laws be passed to encourage more helpful activities or address some pressing issue. If those laws are passed, and the regulations are enacted, they too will consider their mission accomplished, at least for the time being, and claim victory in their newsletters.

After the laws are passed, the regulations enacted, and the policies adopted, it is left to the bureaucrats to administer and enforce those regulations and policies, which they do with a numbing disinterest and inefficiency. This is of little concern to Congress or the lobbyists who labored for the adoption of those laws and policies however, since their job was to get them enacted, not to see if they are helpful or effective.

Liberal Paradise

I used to live in Washington, D.C. As anyone familiar with the social and economic make up of Washington knows, the distance between neighborhoods in Washington is small, but the difference between them is great. Not far from the Capitol and the swank neighborhood of Capitol Hill, is the liberal paradise of Anacostia. I suspect very few of those who work or lobby on Capital Hill would ever consider visiting, let alone living, in Anacostia or any of the other, less trendy parts of D.C. All the wonders and bountiful fruits of liberal compassion and beneficence are on display in Washington. The clear and powerful examples of liberal government at work can be viewed on the street corners and amidst the litter, graffiti, broken windows, and decrepit buildings that not only make up much of Washington, but many other cities as well.

To the noble and beautiful souls in the liberal bastion of Washington that believe so sincerely in the blessings offered by government, and work so hard to extend those blessings to the unfortunate and mistreated, I would suggest that they venture out from their bourgeois cocoons and spend time in the communities and neighborhoods they are trying so hard to serve and see how well their noble intentions and sentiments are being translated into reality.

Why All the Bitterness?

There recently have been statements and editorials critical of the strident and sometimes hostile outbursts occurring on the web and at public rallies across the nation. Many have expressed dismay at the growing animosity in public debates. Recent harsh comments concerning Ted Kennedy and his legacy are a case in point.

It is my opinion that one reason for the rising hostility in political discourse is the centralization of power in Washington. When major policy decisions are made by people far removed from those affected by them, it can often be a source of resentment to those who must live by those policies. Insofar as those decisions are seen as made by others (which is usually the case), there is a natural resentment on the part of those burdened by those policies. This resentment is exacerbated by the sense that there is little, if any, chance that those policies can be affected by those unhappy with them.

If one is unhappy with a decision made by their city council, it is easy enough to go down to city hall and protest, or hold a rally in the park. There is a greater sense of efficacy on the part of the citizens because they feel they can have an impact on local policy. However, the further one travels from local government, the more difficult it becomes for citizens to affect policy. And, the less affect citizens can have on policy, the greater the potential for frustration and bitterness.

The chance that a dissatisfied or disgruntled citizen can have any impact on federal policy is infinitesimal. This frustration can be offset somewhat if the unhappy citizen is able to find a group that shares his dissatisfaction and so add his ire to theirs. Often though, the frustration borne by the unhappy citizen is shared by the interest group. This is because the same obstacle that frustrates the citizen can frustrate the interest group. Only a large, well funded interest group, such as the AMA or the Urban League can have any hope of affecting policy. And, when the individual throws his lot in with a large interest group, he soon finds that he has as little ability to affect the policy of that interest group as he did with the government. If, on the other hand, the individual chooses to throw his lot in with a smaller interest group better tailored to his grievance, he soon finds to his dismay that his voice is linked to a group with only minimal ability to affect policy beyond holding rallies and issuing press releases.

I believe that the frustration, bitterness, and sometimes plain petulance on display in various rallies and protests across the nation is a result of the growing sense of powerlessness on the part of communities and individuals to influence policy decisions that affect them. People have come to believe that they must yell louder and display greater outrage to have any chance of being noticed. One does not have to yell or wave his arms in a small room to be listened to. Like the fan who dresses and acts outrageously at a game hoping that, if he does so, the camera might be more inclined to focus on him, if only for a moment, protesters hope that if they yell loudly enough, or behave shockingly enough, their voices might be heard; if only for a moment. The impotence of individuals and small groups to affect national policy is a major source of the bitterness on display at many rallies. This bitterness, and the hostility borne by it, is something the federal government, by it's very nature, cannot address.

Miracles and Parlour Tricks

A conservative blog site asked readers to submit their suggestions for the top ten conservative movies of all time. Many of the movies nominated were were not surprising; Patton, Ben Hur, Forrest Gump, even Batman. I nominated one myself. The post got me thinking about some movies I have enjoyed over the years. One in particular came to mind; "The Ruling Class" starring Peter O'Toole. "Ruling Class" is about the scion of a wealthy, aristocratic family in England. After the scandalous death of the Earl, the family is desperate to keep the estate in the family. The problem is that the only heir to the estate (Peter O'Toole) is in a lunatic asylum for believing he is Jesus Christ. Desperate, the family calls in a prominent psychiatrist (the local "Master of Lunacy") to cure O'Toole so he can assume control over the estate.

The psychiatrist confronts O'Toole and asks him that, if he is truly Christ, would he mind showing him a miracle. O'Toole obliges and asks the doctor to hold out his hand. The doctor does so. "There is your miracle" pronounces O'Toole, "the miracle of the human hand." The doctor sneers at O'Toole's offering and demands a "real" miracle and asks O'Toole to levitate the sofa. O'Toole sighs; "every day you see a thousand miracles, and yet you insist on cheap parlour tricks." How many of us, surrounded as we are by countless wonders and miracles, still demand that God prove himself by performing some cheap parlour trick?

It is of note that after he is "cured", O'Toole's character takes his place in the House of Lords, and becomes a murderer.

Government Stimulus Package?

After reading an article this morning, I wish I could say I was surprised at reading that much of the "federal stimulus" money is to be distributed, not to the people, but to government. Federal funding is to be used to pay for a great variety of projects such as repaving streets, repairing seismic, volcano, and stream gages, changing light fixtures, and planting trees. Cities and states all around the country are compiling lists of projects and programs to be resuscitated and implemented with federal funds. The federal government can't seem to give money away fast enough. $199 million for a border checkpoint in Nevada, $15 million for another checkpoint in North Dakota (none for Laredo. Politics?). The government seems unable to give the money away fast enough. In its rush to distribute money, the government even sent checks to 200 prison inmates in Texas.

From what I have read, under the stimulus package nearly one trillion dollars is going to be spent, and most of it by the federal government. While some of it is being spent by non-government agencies, most is not. We are simply witnessing the phenomenon of government giving money to itself while telling us that they are spending it for our benefit. My impression is that what the Obama administration is most interested in stimulating is the federal government. It is not called a federal stimulus package for nothing. The objective seems to be to invigorate government as a catalyst for economic activity and further entrench it in the economic, political, and social life of the nation. As they say, to a man with a hammer, every problem is a nail; and Obama has a hammer.

Federal money is like heroin; once you become addicted to it you cannot imagine living without it. And the federal government is determined to keep us hooked. One result of the Obama administration pushing money on state and local governments is that it will increase their dependence on federal government. This is a sound strategy if what you're selling is federal government.

What torture?

From what I have read, there is still debate concerning whether "torture" is a useful or necessary tool in our war on terror. I have placed quotation marks around the word "torture" because it is a subject of debate. Methods that some consider torture are embraced by others as legitimate interrogation techniques. The higher the stakes, the more blurred the line becomes. It has been argued that the nation's security is at stake and so aggressive interrogation, if not torture, is warranted. While torture for torture's sake has often occurred, it has seldom reached the scale of torture in behalf of a grand or noble cause such as the salvation of the soul or the security of the state.

The word "torture" has been parsed and debated. The presence or lack of of physical disability or maiming, the length and degree of pain inflicted, the degree of psychological stress applied, the extent of horror threatened, all weigh in the debate over what constitutes torture. I would suggest that the measure of torture be whether we would tolerate such methods to be used against our soldiers and citizens. If we would not, we should reassess our use of those methods.

The necessity of torture has often been argued in cases where the stakes are high. Soviet torture of peasants suspected of hoarding grain was claimed necessary to prevent starvation. Torture of heretics was claimed necessary for the salvation of their souls. Torture of prisoners has often been claimed necessary to prevent an outrage or calamity from occurring. Threats to the security of the state or realm have often fallen into this category, as well as the fear of imminent attack. It is unclear how effective torture has been in these instances since those being tortured are often inclined to spill their guts, so to speak, to satisfy their tormentor, whether their confession is truthful or not.

What is clear is that the diminution of torture over time, with some notable exceptions, indicates that its usefulness as a method or instrument of gathering information and preserving public order and safety has fallen into disfavor. Perhaps this is in part due to the phenomenon that the fear of torture is often more effective than the torture itself. So why torture? In order to instill the fear of torture, some have to be tortured so as to demonstrate the resolve of the interrogators. In this case, those tortured are not tormented for the sake of information, but to intimidate other prisoners and potential trouble makers into compliance. This is a motive that civilized people ought to find reprehensible.

Torture, as a practice, is evidence of cruelty and sadism more often than resolve. Those who are intrigued, rather than appalled, by accounts of torture are the ones likely to torture pets and become serial killers; or aspire to work for the CIA. Those who tolerate torture display a numbness toward humanity troubling for its absence of compassion. Those who support torture exhibit a callous indifference and a cold cruelty out of step with civilization.

It is worth noting that torture of suspects is just that, torture of suspects. We are not just torturing terrorists, but those only suspected of being terrorists. Presumably, the determination of whether they are terrorists or not is only made after they are tortured. I fear that if I was tortured, I might even confess to being a terrorist.

Vanishing Work Ethic

There was an editorial in this morning's "Dallas Morning News" by Steven Malanga regarding the vanishing Protestant ethic in the U.S. Malanga attributes the erosion of the traditional protestant ethic of hard work, responsibility, and restraint to the decline of the social and ethical principals on which this nation was founded. He also convincingly makes the argument that the decline of thrift and modesty lay beneath the rise of consumerism and avarice. I would only add covetousness to his list as a factor in undermining the principals on which this nation was founded.

I found the article to be well written, thorough, persuasive, and vaguely familiar.

Safety in the Workplace

On Thursday it was reported that a complaint was filed against porn companies accusing them of "unsafe behavior" in the workplace. What prompted this complaint was that unprotected sex is practiced in porn movies and so constitutes an unsafe work environment. This complaint was filed by Micheal Weinstein, the head of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, an AIDS advocacy group. Weinstein filed the complaint with the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health. I am curious whether Weinstein made this discovery through research or by accident. It is of note that the complaint was not filed by the workers in the porn industry, but by a group that evidently considers it part of its job to watch porn movies. Weinstein added that he will not stop "until there is a policy of requiring condoms to be used in porn." He threatens to keep watching porn movies until he is satisfied that safe sex is being practiced. And, if the policy is adopted by the porn industry, presumably he will keep watching porn movies to verify compliance. Good work if you can get it. The article did not say whether the AIDS Healthcare Foundation receives any federal funds for its operation. If it does, it is likely that taxpayers might be uncomfortable with knowing that some of their money was being used to "monitor" the porn industry.

The discovery that safe sex is rarely practiced in porn movies brings to mind the scene in "Casablanca" where Renault is "shocked" to find out that there has been illegal activity going on in Rick's Cafe.

Economics of Vice

After watching T.V. one evening, I was struck by a recurring theme; the appeal to vice. Every cardinal vice has become a marketing tool. Lincoln Town Cars, gated communities, swank jewelers all appeal to our vanity. Sofa recliners appeal to our sloth. Stock brokers and investment companies appeal to our avarice. Beer adds and singles lines cater to our lust. Talk shows and social progressives urge us to "take pride" in ourselves. "Gourmet" foods and exotic chocolates appeal to our appetites. It seems as though a large part of our economy caters to habits and behaviors once identified as sin. There are profits to be made off sin. The hallmarks of virtue are restraint, humility, and modesty, and there is little money to be made off of them - no one would get rich off the Amish.

I suspect this may be one reason why many in the United States have so little patience with traditional, religious beliefs; even to the point of mockery. Beliefs that discourage vice are an obstacle to American consumerism. How does one persuade a pious and humble family that they need a new car, a vacation to Las Vegas, or that Miller is the beer for them? How can one persuade a devout Catholic that he needs a new bedroom set or cosmetic surgery? Sincere religious beliefs often interfere with commerce and profits. The virtues of capitalism are the virtues of wealth. And the rewards of wealth are vice; or at least what used to be understood as vice.

Religious faith can also be an obstacle to political ambition and social "progress." Since faith transcends society and politics, it provides a context within which society can be measured and judged. Faith is a point of reference outside the reach of the ambitious, the mundane and acrimonious, and so is scorned and mocked by the ambitious, the mundane, and the acrimonious. Whatever bits and pieces of religion that cannot be crammed inside the secular world of politics, economics, and values, are dismissed as eccentricities, or prejudices.

If there is one thing social progressives cannot abide, it is the ethical and moral standards of right and wrong that under girds religion. It seems that liberals and progressives live in fear of judgement and would rather change the rules than change their behavior: which would explain why those liberals and progressives reluctant to abandon religion are in constant search for a religion that will suit their beliefs and lifestyles.

I am not arguing that we should abandon democracy, capitalism and free markets in favor of puritanism. Nor am I arguing for law based on scripture. I am simply suggesting that progressives and liberals recognize that not everyone is as hostile or ambivalent toward faith and morality as they are, and that room should be allowed in society for traditional faith and religion; even if it cuts into profits.

It was once said the the wage of sin is death. Even if that is true, for many the profits of sin are worth it.

How Much for Your Virtue?

A man once propositioned a woman. "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?" he asked. "Yes I would", replied the woman. "Would you sleep with me for $10?" "No sir. I would not! What kind of woman do you think I am?" "I think we have already determined that," he answered. "We are simply haggling over the price." There is a lesson here. One does not preserve one's virtue by demanding a higher price for it. Neither does one preserve one's political principles by demanding a higher price for their abandonment.

Health Care Camel

What seems to be lost in the debate over health care reform is the politicization of health care that would inevitably result from a government run health care plan. We should keep in mind the old adage that once a camel gets his nose under the tent, the rest of him will soon follow. Once politics is introduced into health care, political pressure would soon be brought to bear. Would national health care cover abortion? Cosmetic surgery? Sex change operations? If so, there would be pressure from the right. If not, there would be pressure from the left. There would be debates over which diseases would have priority and which conditions required more federal coverage. Some diseases and conditions no doubt would be more politically fashionable than others.

Like every other federal program and entitlement, pressure will be applied as each disease, condition, and injury would generate lobby groups to advocate on its behalf for more federal coverage, and treatment. It is unlikely that the federal government would be able to withstand the pressure brought against it by drug manufacturers, health care organizations, and advocacy groups. AIDS groups would find themselves in a political contest with breast cancer groups for federal coverage and treatment. A bureaucratic jungle would be created to manage and distribute federal dollars to this or that region, and treatment for this or that disease or injury. Whose disease, condition, or injury would be more important and worthy of federal coverage and treatment? Mine or yours?

Every federal bureau and agency is replete with horror stories regarding mismanagement, incompetence, and red tape. (One only need look at the federal response to hurricane Katrina.) With all the complexities regarding medicine and pharmacology, do we really believe the government is competent to manage health care? Moreover, it is extraordinarily unlikely that the government would able to resist the lobbying efforts of health care groups, patient rights groups, and the different health advocacy groups for more or better coverage; let alone master the intricacies of medical treatment and care. The result would inevitably be a federal behemoth under which all would suffer, from taxpayers to those sick or injured. That is, for all but those able afford private insurance. While Obama might try to reassure the public that the government would not involve itself in health care beyond underwriting and supervising, this is extraordinarily unlikely. Welfare, medicaid, and medicare, despite the beneficence and altruism of their motives, all have political components and are regularly subject to political debate and posturing.

It is the nature of bureaucracy to expand. What's worse is that where government goes, politics follows. Why would health care be any different? I am reluctant to take the assurances of the administration that the health care plan it proposes will be limited and no threat to existing health care insurance. Like many, I fear that once the camel gets his nose under the health care tent, the rest of him will soon follow.

Political Values

I would like to comment on the fashionable belief that personal “values” can, and should be distinguished from political “values”. Leaving aside for the moment the questionable distinction of morality (or values if you prefer) and ethics from political values, it seems to me personal indiscretions and marital infidelity on the part of elected officials should be considered in the light of judgment. In these days of near omniscient media surveillance and scrutiny, any politician who would cheat on his or her spouse, surreptitiously sneak away for personal reasons,or otherwise deceive or mislead the public, exhibits, if nothing else, poor judgment. Judgment is an integral part of leadership. It is key in deciding what should be done, what can be done, and how it should be done. The risks for a politician carrying on such behavior demonstrates an irresponsible, if not reckless, sense of judgment. Morality and ethics aside, poor judgment is a legitimate basis for evaluating the fitness of an elected official. In regard to ethics, why should a person who is willing to deceive and betray the person closest to him; the person to whom he made a solemn vow of fidelity and honor, be trusted not to deceive and betray that great group of strangers known as the public?

Let's All Read the Constitution

There was an editorial in this morning's paper lamenting the aristocratic nature of the Senate and the rules and procedures that shield that institution from the electorate. The issue that seemed to be irritating the author this morning was how the public is shut out of the process of choosing replacements for those senators who leave their seats during the course of their terms. The fact that governors choose the replacement rather than an election being called, strikes the author of the editorial as "undemocratic." I have news for that author, not only is it "undemocratic", it is supposed to be. In fact, the senate itself was supposed to be undemocratic.

Under the Constitution, a profoundly undemocratic document, three interests were to be represented by the new government in Washington: the people, the states, and the nation. It was the job of the president to represent the nation. The presidency was never intended to be a "democratic" institution. Indeed, to this day the president is not elected by the public, but by the electoral college. Senators, up until the adoption of the 17th Amendment in 1913, were elected by state legislatures, not the people. This was because the job of the senate was to represent the states; not the people of the states, but the states. It was only the House of Representatives that existed to represent the people - which is why it holds the preponderance of legislative power. Because it was the job of senators to represent the states, it was left to the governors of the states (elected by the people of those states) to fill any vacancies in the senate that might occur.

The reason for the numerous barriers to popular rule placed in the Constitution is that the Founders were men that knew history. The Founders knew that every democracy that had ever existed, from the ancient Greeks to the Italian city states, had ended in tyranny and disaster. Being educated men, they knew there was little reason to believe democracy would do any better here in the United States than it had done elsewhere. Therefore, they decided to apply the lessons they had learned to create a republic - a form of government that had a much better track record in history. A republic differs from a democracy in that power rests in the hands of those appointed by the public, rather than the public itself. The distance between the public and the government provided by a republic allows a greater measure of objectivity by the government in assessing and addressing the needs of society and buffers it against the passions and desires of the electorate. The lessons the Founders had learned they sought to apply in the Constitution. The Constitution does simply protect the people from government, it also protects the government from the people. Government can be bended to serve interests that may, or may not be, in the interests of the public. A government that seizes your property, restricts your liberties, and levies taxes is no less onerous simply because it is a popularly elected government. Many of the provisions established to limit the scope and authority of government were enacted with an eye towards preventing government from being co-opted by powerful interests and factions.

The only reason we had to believe that we would not suffer the fate that befell earlier democracies is the one thing we have that they didn't: a constitution. If the Constitution finally falls before the populist onslaught, the one thing that was designed to keep us from falling into tyranny and license will be gone, and with it, the hope that we will not suffer the fate of every other democracy. Too many Americans and, more disturbingly, their representatives, often seem surprised, or worse, indignant at what is written in the Constitution. I fear if I hear one more college student or editorialist rail against a constitutional provision because they believe they know more than Jefferson and Hamilton did, I will spit.

Political Dialogue in the Arena

I read a blog recently listing (and explaining) the different types of conservatives. This list included "cultural" conservatives, "fiscal" conservatives, "social" conservatives, etc. What I found interesting was that all of the types listed were defined by their different policy objectives. Some were defined by their stand on issues of immigration, some by fiscal policies they preferred, still others by their cultural objectives. Presumably, the different types of liberals could be categorized similarly; "social" liberals, "economic" liberals, etc. This is exactly the sort of thing that I believe is wrong with political discourse in this country. When political discourse begins with conclusions, e.g. abortion should be legal, or taxes should be cut, there is little room for discussion. Discussion should result in conclusions, not begin with them. When was the last time anyone heard a thoughtful, rational discussion over abortion? I cannot recall ever hearing one; unless one considers the absence of shouting and insults a thoughtful, rational discussion. This is because when people enter the discussion, their minds are already made up and they are determined to hold on to their conclusions at all costs.

If anyone has watched a political discussion on a Sunday morning talk show, it is evident that only rarely, if ever, do the participants enter the discussion with an open mind. Their objective, more often than not, is to "win" the discussion over their opponents, rather than explore or elucidate and issue. "Winning" in this context means persuading the listener that they are right and their opponent is wrong. However polite the conversation might be, it always comes down to who is right and who is wrong. Has any of the panelists ever changed their mind as a result of these discussions?

I believe this is why people are so reluctant to publicly discuss controversial issues and would rather yell and posture. The fear is that their message might be lost against the clamor and indignation of their opponent, or that their calmness and rationality might be construed as a lack of conviction. Calm, deliberative discussions do still occur. I have even had a few of them. But they occur outside the glare of of the media. Like gladiators who might share a laugh or express friendship for one another while waiting their turn to fight in the arena, once they enter the arena, their objective is to win.

It's Not Raining in Texas

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

Governor Perry and the Bible

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

The Understandable vs. The Reasonable

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

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

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

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

He's the President, not our father.

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

Tony Soprano for president?

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

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

The Rich are Different

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

Suspects and Citizens

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

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

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

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

Tax Breaks

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

Climate Change and the Last, Great Dinosaur War

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

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

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

Which Do We Want?

So, the government is going to help us get a new car. They are also going to help us get a job and, with the help of Justice Sotomayor, they will make sure no one picks on us or calls us bad names. They are going to be the sort of parents every kid wants growing up. Imagine if everyone could vote for the sort of parents they wanted. You could choose parents that told you had to get a job and buy your own car. Parents that told you that you had to mow the lawn and pull your own weight around the house. Or, you could choose parents that would get you a car, that would pick up after you, and let you sleep late on the weekends. Parents that would protect you from bullies and people who would call you bad names. Which parents do you think would get more votes? The grumpy old conservatives who tell us we have to get a job, buy our own stuff, and pull our own weight? Or the loving liberals, who tell us that we are special, and that if we ever need help with our rent, groceries, car payments, anything at all, we just need to ask? And all they ask for in return is that we vote for them and agree to live by their rules. I suppose the answer would depend on who you asked. Many, if not most children are happy to accept their parents' generosity, even if it means they have to live by their parents' rules. Some, however, come to resent their parents' charity and chafe at the idea of having to live by their rules. Those are the kids that would take a job, save their money, and move out as soon as they were able. Some parents dote on their children and dread the day when their children no longer need them. Other parents take pride in their children's independence and cheer them on as they leave home to begin their own lives.

Of course, we are not children. We do not choose our parents. But we do choose our representatives. Like parents, some politicians dote on their supporters and dread the day they are no longer loved or needed. They are the ones who offer to protect their supporters from bullies, get them jobs and free health care; even to help them buy a new car. Other politicians take pride in an electorate that can manage its own affairs, get their own jobs and buy their own cars. So, are we like children who want the government to take care of us, get us a job, keep us safe, protect us from bullies,and pick up after us so long as we agree to live by their rules? Or do we look forward to the day when we no longer need to rely on the government, and can at last handle our own affairs?

Thanks for the car and the job. Now I need a girlfriend

Evidently, the "cash for clinkers" program is working even better than expected. People are finding it hard to resist the government's offer to help them buy a new car. Now, whenever an American steps outside to admire his new car, he will thank the government, and the Democrats in particular, for their help. I suspect that might have been the true motive all along. If that wasn't the motive, it was at least an incentive. I suppose everyone who gets a job, a car, or a house over the next four years will have Obama and the Democrats to thank. Now, if Obama would just get me a girlfriend.....

Jail: Your Rent is Due

Another anecdote of our government at work: as budgets have been trimmed and pruned over the course of this recession, some states facing budget shortfalls have decided to start charging their prison and jail inmates rent. In New York, a bill has been introduced that would charge "wealthy inmates" $90 a day for "room and board." Arizona now charges prisoners $1.25 per day for meals. In Teney County Missouri, officials want to charge inmates $45 dollars a day to help pay for its new jail in Branson. Several other states are now exploring the possibilities of trying to squeeze income from their prisoners. Aside from the sordidness and desperation evident nationwide as local, and state governments scrounge for funding to keep themselves in the business of governing people, I can only wonder: if the inmates are unwilling or unable to pay their rent, will they be evicted? Or will they be sent to jail?

Educational Commodities

In the ongoing, and seemingly endless discussions over the quality of education, there seems to be a fundamenatlal flaw in the debate. All too frequently, education is discussed as if it were a commodity, i.e. something to be produced and distributed; bought and sold. Poor grades are understood to be the results of a poor product and/or poor distribution. There was once a time when education was understood as an activity, i.e., something one did. The teacher engaged in the activity of teaching; the student in the activity of learning. Somewhere, somehow, education became a noun. Education became something the teacher gives and the student receives. Thus, education reform has come to revolve around making a better product and improving its distibution. Distributing education would seem to be a dead end. It has become simply a body of facts to be retained and retrieved if and when they become useful or necessary. Traditional basics of education, e.g. history, philosphy, and literature, have become largely useless in our modern economy since they are of limited efficacy in the creation or distribution of wealth. The result is a population adept at creating wealth and commodities, but clumsy in its accumulation and appreciation of art and culture. Without art and culture, economic activity becomes a near mindless, and endless pursuit of wealth and comfort.

It Has Come to This

There was an article in this morning's paper regarding where to hold the trials of the detainees held in Guantanamo. Many have expressed unease and dismay at the prospect of suspected terrorists being brought to their state. Many, but not all. Workers at the Standish Maximum Security Prison in Michigan said they would welcome the suspects "with open arms." The reason for this welcome is that the influx of prisoners would "save their jobs". Evidently, prison business is slow in Standish due to the recession. Perhaps they should use some of their federal stimulus money to instigate a crime wave so as to prop up the local economy.

Bureaucratic Overhead

I want to share something I read in this morning's newspaper. Frustrated with the backlog of traffic fines, the city of Dallas decided to take action. People who owe fines will be prohibited from registering their vehicles until their fines are paid. The city figures it is owed about $550,000. However, after "administrative fees", the city expects to collect only about half that amount, or $225,000. Some argue the fees will be lower, perhaps only half of that half, so only $110,00 will be lost. This is only one program in one city. How much else is lost everyday in this country due to bureaucratic overhead? The numbers must be staggering. This is the government that so many people seem to be pinning their hopes, dreams, and ambitions upon. So, after all is said and done, the people can expect to lose 1/2 to 1/5 of their dreams and hopes due to government overhead. Assuming, that is, government is able to pass legislation that truly addresses the people's hopes and dreams, rather than the government's. Seems like a swindle to me.

Hate the Sin, Tax the Sinner

According to what I've read, now that we have largely squelched the threat that tobacco posed to our society, a move is afoot to take on the growing "crisis" of obesity. It has been discovered that an alarming number of Americans are technically "obese." We are told that this is not simply an ascetic problem, but a public health problem. And, since it is a public health problem, it affects our economy. Studies have been done showing how obesity leads to higher rates of illness and injury. When people are sick or injured, not only do they cost society money in terms of using up valuable health care "resources", but, as importantly, they cost us money because the ill and overweight are more inclined miss work; therefore costing the economy.

There has been a tendency over the years to evaluate everything in terms of how it affects the economy. Ignorance is no longer a liability borne by the ignorant, it is also borne by the economy. Likewise, poor health is no longer simply a burden to the person who is ill, it is a burden to the economy because the ill often cost more to maintain than they produce. Where once we were told that smoking or being obese were bad because they harmed your health, we are now told they are bad because they harm the economy. This is simply part of a trend whereby nearly everything is evaluated in terms of its affect on the economy. Ignorance is bad not simply for the ignorant, but the society that must suffer their ignorance. At least the original casuists had the salvation of the soul as their objective.

Today's casuists are only concerned with the economy. What's more, it is not simply the obese, ill, and ignorant that are in jeopardy of losing their soul and being punished for their economic impiety, those that lead them into sin shall be judged as well. Companies that entice the wayward into sin, such as fast food restaurants and tobacco merchants shall also be singled out for economic judgement and condemnation. The penalty for economic impiety is taxation. Those whose sins have hurt the economy shall be charged for their errant ways. As they say, hate the sin, but tax the sinner.

If they are serious about addressing obesity, perhaps they should tax people by the pound. For that matter, they should give a tax break for every grade completed.

Drop Outs and Ethical Failings

There were two articles in this mornings paper that caught my attention. The first was a proposal put forward by the education chief here in Texas that businesses not hire school age dropouts. According to the official, this would "force teenagers to stay in school or continue their education elsewhere." I thought this might serve to underline my argument against intrusive and overbearing government. As if the disadadvantages of dropping out of high school were not already enough, it is proposed that drop outs be condemned to unemployment as well as ignorance. This should be a relief to immigrants, retired people, and those unemployed already desperate enough to consider taking the jobs traditionally filled by high school dropouts. The enlightened goal of ensuring, at least a high school education (for what that's worth), as stated by the official, a would be effected by force-albeit, economic force. One would think that any policy or goal that had to be forced on the public was one that should be reconsidered.

The second article was about some Texas Tech faculty members objecting to former Attorney General Gonzales being hired by the University. Their objection is that Gonzales "demonstrated significant ethical failings." Presumably, those faculty members objecting to the hiring of Gonzales would oppose any Bush administration official hired by the university since the Bush administration, as a whole, demonstrated significant "ethical failings". I am curious whether those facultly members consider the support of any objectional or controversial policy as an ethical failing, or just those policies they disapprove of.

Imperial Presidency

I would like to take the opportunity to mention an apparently little known, if not forgotten piece of Constitutional trivia: the presidential oath of office. The oath is a brief one. In it, the President declares that he will will do his best to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States". The oath states nothing about ending injustice and poverty, managing the economy, providing health care, or any one of the numerous missions and tasks presidents have taken upon themselves over the last century. It is my belief that President Bush should have been impeached. So far from defending the Constitution was the Bush administration, it actively worked to undermine it.

Granted, the presidency has evolved. It has also mutated to become the center of U.S. government. Many of the Founders were wary of the presidency becoming "monarchical" and went to considerable lengths to limit its powers and duties. The presidency poses the single greatest threat to liberty of any of the three branches of government. It is the one branch that does not require consensus to act but responds to the will of one man. To increase the power of the presidency is to increase the power of the man who occupies that office. History has shown that to increase the power in the hands of one man is a dangerous venture for any republic.

I suppose we should be grateful that the Constitution lasted as long as it has. Perhaps many of us will not live long enough to see it gutted entirely. I hope I am one.

Spy on Your Neighbor

There was another article in this morning's paper concerning Janet Napolitano and the Department of Homeland Security. In the article, Napolitano stated that "counter terrorism efforts should include the public" and that the "challenge is not just using federal power to protect the country" but to enlist a "much broader societal response to the threat that terrorism poses." This is just a fancy way of asking Americans to spy on their neighbors. So, not only is Uncle Sam watching you, your neighbor is watching you as well.

Federal Allowance

I read an article in this morning's paper that a bill is being proposed in Congress that would "force states to write laws to prohibit (text)messaging in vehicles or risk losing 25 percent of their annual federal highway money." There should have been another article printed along side it headlined "Jimmy forced to clean out garage or risk losing 25 percent of his allowance."

Rethinking Conservatism

Since Republicans tend to be slightly more inclined to conservatism than Democrats, I would like to offer them a suggestion. Republicans should be less inclined to pin their platform on issues than on process. This is not simply because the antithesis to "helping the poor" and "looking out for the elderly" is one unlikely to endear them to the public. The liberal argument that the federal government should do more to assist the struggling and the downtrodden should be met with the argument that by decentralizing government, people would gain more control over their own lives and communities, and less control over other peoples' lives and communities. They would have more liberty to address the concerns that they find most pressing in a manner that they see fit, rather than how Washington sees fit. Each community, or state would have the power set their own priorities and to determine which problems are the most pressing as well as how best to address those problems. A truly "empowering" platform would be to actually restore power (if only some. I am not delusional enough to think Washington would cede much of it's authority) to those who must live by the policies and laws passed in their name. It would seem difficult for liberals to criticize a platform that gave political power to the "people." No doubt, it would be opposed. But the opposition to decentralizing government would seem to imply distrust and condescension toward the electorate liberals claim to champion on the basis that people and communities would be unwilling or unable to address their needs and concerns in a fair or just manner. It difficult to see how this criticism and distrust of the public would would endear them to the electorate. Of course, it is quite likely that some communities would enact laws or pass ordinances that other communities would find unpleasant, even perhaps, offensive. But this too could be turned into a "teachable moment" on the virtues of toleration. Toleration is quite distinct from approval and/or acceptance. Indeed, toleration is worthless if one is not willing to tolerate what he disagrees with. An attempt to allow local and state governments greater sovereignty as to which issues to address and how best to address them would be an opportunity to test the toleration liberals claim so proudly to possess. Liberals may champion the little guy, but they don't trust him. As a conservative I say, Power to the People!

Creeping Ideology

Ideology, properly understood, is the interpretation of reality according to an idea; that is, when an idea is considered not a product of society or history, but the source. Capitalism is simply one system of economic organization. Representative government is simply one way of organizing the political life of a society. Capitalism, or "free markets" as it has come to be known, has become, at least as far as U.S. foreign policy is concerned, the only proper way of economic organization. Capitalism may be the best way of organizing the economic activity of society- if one's criterion is the creation of wealth- but it is only one way. The same can be said of representative government. Representative government, despite the claims of its adherents, is simply one way of organizing the political activity of a society. Even though capitalism and representative government have very peculiar origins and histories, they have become exemplars of political and economic organization. And, as exemplars, they are in jeopardy of becoming ideologies. U.S. foreign policy has steadily evolved from the advocacy of these principals, as not simply the best way of organizing society, but the proper way. Furthermore, the pragmatic and historical origins of these systems is in danger of being forgotten in the clamor for their worldwide adoption. It is in this sense that capitalism and democracy have become ideological, i.e. good for all societies at all times. In the case of capitalism and representative government, their particular origins can largely be attributed to the rise of protestantism and individual determination. Neither of which, incidentally, can be considered universal principals; at least by those who do not adhere to protestantism and individual determination. The same can be said of social class, race and gender. They too become ideological when the struggles of race, religion, or gender are understood not simply as products, but as sources of history and social organization.

The problem with ideology is all the complexities and peculiarities of society and history are collapsed into one idea. In the case of capitalism and representative government, history has become understood as the quest for wealth and the struggle for liberty. In the case of race and gender, history is understood as the struggle against oppression and for freedom and equality. The solution for every nation mired in poverty is free markets. The solution for every nation riven by social, religious, or ethnic turmoil is democracy. This is, to say the least, an oversimplification of the world and history.

Arrogance of the Left

A little noticed, or mentioned, fact is that the most brutal and savage regimes of the 20th century; Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, were both left wing regimes. Although Nazi Germany is often viewed as a right wing regime, this is an error. "Nazi" was an acronym for the National Socialist Worker's Party (the key words there being "socialist workers"). Both regimes believed that it was possible to remake society. Under both regimes, society was measured against an ideal. For the Soviets, it was a social ideal. For the Nazi's, it was a racial ideal. In both cases, when measured against the ideal, society was found wanting. The violence and brutality of those regimes was the result of them trying to remake society to match the ideal.

It is a characteristic of the Left to latch hold of an ideal, be it economic, racial, social, sexual, etc, and measure society against that ideal. And when society is found wanting, as it inevitably will, the advocates of the ideal will take upon themselves to remake society in the image of that ideal. And when society proves resistant to the efforts to remake it, pressure will be used to bring it into line. This pressure need not be stormtroopers or secret police. It can also be applied more subtly through economics and law. This is the nature of the pressure brought by the left in it's unceasing efforts to create, if not the "perfect" society, at least a "better" society. It is the belief that society can, and should be remade and perfected according to their ideals that constitutes the arrogance of the left.

Health Care Fairy Tale

One solution to the health care "crisis" would be to make the market more friendly to private insurers. This option, however, would serve to prevent gov't encroachment upon a heretofore largely government free industry. Because private sector reforms would limit the gov.t's control over the industry, it has little appeal to Congress. Nothing the gov't does is free. Like a character from an old fairy tale, someone in distress is offered a benefit with an obligation attached. At first the obligation seems removed and even acceptible given the need. When the need passes, the burdensome nature of the obligation is finally realized-to the great regret of the person who accepted the offer. Like the victim in the fairy tale, in our distress we are tempted by an offer that seems to good to be true; free health care. And, in our distress, we are tempted to accept it without considering the true cost. Unlike a fairy tale however, there would seem to be little hope for a happy ending.

Liberal Compassion

A great source of irritation for me is when celebrities chastize conservatives for their perceived lack of compassion. Clearly, celebrities do not see the irony of attending charity galas or awards shows wearing gowns and suits, and sporting jewelry that could feed and support an untold number of poor for a year. How many celebrities are content to simply write checks or vote Democrat to alleviate their sense of guilt for having so much while many have so little? How many, after making an appearence at some soup kitchen or downtrodden neiborhood, are whisked away in their limos to their posh estates after publicly demonstrating their "compassion"? How many celebrities are content in thinking that, because they support liberal candidates and policies, they have demonstrated their compassion and met their obligation to the poor? Why would people let themselves be shamed by a celebrity? I will not.

Local v. Federal Gov't

One reason people should be wary of gov't is the power it posseses. An unruly neighbor, an offensive employer, an insensitive clerk; none of of these can deprive you of your liberty. While some private institutions such as a bank, can deprive you of your property, this is only possible through the law; and law is made by the gov't. No private enterprise that I am aware of can deprive you of your liberty. The government can. The gov't can take everything you own and put you in prison. Though the gov't can only do what the law allows it to do, this is of little solace since it makes the law. What it cannot do today, it could do tommorow. That was why the Constitution was written; to limit what the federal gov't can do rather than states or municipalities. The further decisions are made from the people affected by the law, the less control people have over it, and the less responsive gov't is. An oppresive local gov't is easier to remedy than an oppresive national gov't. Even taking the horrors of Jim Crow into account, we have less to fear from local gov't than federal gov't. If all else fails, it is easier to find a new town or state than a new country.

Celebrity Compassion

It is always curious to me whenever I see or hear a celebrity or public figure scold the public over it's perceived lack of compassion. Why are celebrities incapable of seeing the irony in their attending "charity" events or awards show wearing gowns and suits, and sporting jewelry that could feed and house several struggling families for a year while declaiming some injustice or another? How many of them are willing to help out at a soup kitchen or clean up a blighted neighborhood other than as a publicity event; after which they are whisked away by their drivers to their posh mansions? How many are willing to support a cause other than by simply writing a check? How many celebrities are content to pass by panhandlers and beggars without offering a dime, let alone getting out to see if they can be of assistance? Very many. I suspect that many celebrities vote Democrat to alleviate their guilt and conscience. How many of them realize that, like Scrooge, they are content to alleviate themselves from the need to help the struggling and the poor by supporting a government that claims to have the interests of the poor and downtrodden at heart? After all, are there no poorhouses, no orphanages, no job centers? Is there not welfare and Social Security? Those sensitive and compassionate celebrities ought to put their heart, and time where their money is and actually help the poor rather than chastising conservatives for their lack of "compassion."

Love Thy Neighbor

Since it is Sunday, I feel a religious observation is not out of order. I would like to comment on the comandment to love our neighbors as ourselves. This is a commonly cited but, I feel, frequently misunderstood commandment. We are not commanded to love mankind as ourselves, but our neighbors. "Mankind" is easy to love. It is an abstraction. "Mankind" does not leave it's trash in your yard or mow it's lawn on Sunday morning. Mankind does not steal your paper or play it's music too loud. Your neighbor is possibly the most difficult person in the world to love,(short of your spouse). That is why we are commanded to love him. Just as it's easy to feel compassion for the poor but resent the beggar on the corner, it is easy to love mankind but hate your neighbor.