Wrong People, Wrong Place.

It was reported this morning that Israel is preparing to expel hundreds of small children born in Israel to migrant workers. Though the children were born and raised in Israel and speak Hebrew, they are not Israeli and do not belong there. Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu said the program was needed to stem a "flood of illegal immigrants." About 400 children and their parents are expected to leave. Netanyahu went on to say "We don't want to create an incentive for the inflow of hundreds of thousands of illegal migrant workers": a familiar enough argument, even if the numbers are exaggerated. But Netanyahu went on to say that the move was necessary to defend Israel's Jewish identity. That is also a familiar enough argument. But is familiar for quite different reasons. It is the argument that lay behind many of the most grievous crimes and savagery in history.

To get a sense of this argument one should try it on for size. Pick an ethnicity, race or religion and see how that argument sits on the ears. "We need to expel blacks to preserve our white identity." "We need to expel the Chinese to preserve our European identity." "We need to expel Catholics to preserve our Protestant identity." They don't quite seem to have the same ring about them.

If anyone should know the perils of defining a state along the lines of race, religion, or ethnicity, Israel should. The Jews have suffered from that more than most.

Rangel's Bungling

Representative Charles Rangel is in trouble. The long time Congressman from New York is facing 13 counts of wrong doing for his financial dealings and fiscal improprieties. He says he didn't do it. He also says he did do it but he didn't mean to: he wasn't paying enough attention. He even says he did it but that he is being singled out unfairly because many in Congress do what he is accused of doing. He is hoping one of those excuses will work.

Rangel's defense is common enough: there is nothing novel to it. It would be a rare thing for a member of Congress to admit to wrong doing before it was absolutely impossible to deny it. Even then, many would persist in their denial. Of all the accusations against Rangel, and there are a few, the one that is the most curious is the charge that he was hiding assets and failing to pay taxes. What makes this accusation so interesting is that Rangel is the former chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. If anyone in the nation should be willing to pay his taxes, it should be the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. If anyone should be familiar with tax rules and regulations, it should be the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. If he is not knowledgeable about tax laws and regulations, who is? If he is not willing to pay his taxes in full, who should? If Rangel made errors on his taxes, he is either incompetent or corrupt. For someone in Rangel's position, inattentive is the same thing as incompetent.

A man in Rangel's position has no reason to avoid paying his taxes. A man in Rangel's position should not even hire an accountant: he should just write a check when the bill is presented. If Rangel believes that the tax code is overly burdensome or unfair, he should work to change it. He should not try to circumvent it. He did chair the committee that writes tax code after all. Like many in Congress, Rangle is willing to pass laws he has no intention of living under, write rules he has no intention of following, and enact programs he will never rely upon.

Congress writes laws. That is what makes it so easy for them. That is what makes it so difficult for us. When members of Congress ignore the very laws they have written, there can be no good reason for it. There can be bad reasons. Rangel clearly cannot tell the difference.

Rangel has been in Congress for 39 years. He has worked to pass many laws. Evidently, Rangel believes some of those laws do not pertain to him. To seek to avoid laws that one has had a hand in enacting is a shameful thing. It is unfortunate that there is so little shame in Washington anymore. In the absence of shame, we will have to make do with ethics committees.

Absurdity

I recently received a sales call. Judging by the thick accent, I presume the call was made from outside the U.S. The caller read me my social security number and asked me to verify it. I was indignant. I asked him how he had gotten my social security number. Although he could speak English, the caller clearly had difficulty understanding it. After several increasingly frustrated requests on my part, the caller transferred me to his supervisor. When I asked the supervisor how they had obtained my social security number he told me he would be happy to answer my question: but first he needed me to give him my social security number.

The Desert is Getting Smaller

In this morning's Dallas Morning News, it was reported that Ismail Mohamed Salem's house has been destroyed. It was bulldozed by the Israelis. He is not alone. 45 other homes have been destroyed in Salem's village of El Arqib. In fact, the whole village was destroyed and its 300 residents made homeless. Salem is a Bedouin living in the Negev Desert in Israel and his village is in the way. The Negev Desert came under Israeli control after Israel's founding in 1948. The region is of some importance to Israel. In addition to being used as a training ground for the Israeli military, it also has a toxic waste incinerator, two rivers of open sewage, and serves as a dump for Tel Aviv.

Over the years, Israel has attempted to manage its Bedouin population. There are approximately 175,000 Bedouin in the Negev Desert. The Negev constitutes roughly 60% of Israel's land mass. It is inevitable that sooner or later Israel will get around to settling it in earnest. When they do, the Bedouin will have to move. Under Israel's Removal of Intruders law, non Israelis in the Negev can be evicted at any time. After living for generations in the Negev, Bedouin like Ismail Mohamed suddenly find that they are intruders and that they are to be removed.

To prepare the way for Jewish expansion, the ground must first be cleared. This has primarily been done by pushing the Bedouin into one of seven areas set aside for them in southern Israel (We used to call them Reservations.) So far, only about half of the Bedouin population has yielded to Israeli pressure to relocate. Those that have moved have found themselves living in poor, desolate communities with few jobs, fewer amenities, and no government services. Israel asserts that the communities are just fine. They have electricity, sewage and schools just like Tel Aviv does: as if the Bedouin were being moved to the suburbs rather than makeshift villages. What more does a person need? Who would not trade their dignity and what is left of their way of life for sewage, electricity, and schools, even rudimentary ones? Many Bedouin as it turns out. When Israel cannot tempt or coax the Bedouin off their land they bring in the bulldozers. Israel rarely, if ever, offers to buy the land. Salem, who is 70 years old, has had six homes destroyed by the Israelis over the years.

The Bedouin have lived in the Negev for over 1,000 years. After it acquired the Negev, Israel imposed military administration over it. The Bedouin who lived in the Negev were declared to be there illegally and their villages were deemed "unrecognized." Indeed, Israel went so far as to erase the Arabic names for the towns and villages on its maps and replace them with Hebrew names. Much of the Bedouin population was forcibly removed from their homes and concentrated in a few towns like Beersheba.

Israel claims they are simply cracking down on "unrecognized shanty towns." By cracking down they do not mean reviewing permits and issuing citations: they mean leveling with bulldozers. The reason the towns are shanty towns is because they are built without the resources and material available to other communities in Israel. For all intents and purposes, they are dusty, impoverished reservations set aside to hold Bedouin. They are not towns or villages in any proper sense of the word. They are hastily built settlements created to provide shelter and tend to the basic needs of the people who find themselves living in them. The reason they are not recognized is that Israel refuses to recognize them. Nearly 80% of Bedouin live in unrecognized villages and settlements. That means nearly the entire Bedouin population is subject to eviction and relocation.

For centuries, the Bedouin roamed freely across the desert, (images of Lawrence of Arabia come to mind), but no longer. The cramped life of the Bedouin is in large part due to the borders drawn after the defeat of the Ottoman empire in WWI. The new national borders established after the war curbed the traditional nomadic life of the Bedouin. For the Bedouin, those borders have become even narrower over the years.

The is very little room in Israel for people who are not Jewish. There is even less compassion. If Israel wants your land, they will take it. Israel's settlement policy has little to do with the safety or security of its population: the Bedouin have never posed a threat to Israel. It has nothing to do with the right of Jews to live in Israel: that right is not challenged by the Bedouin. It has to do with Israel's desire for racially pure communities. Israel's efforts to maintain its racial purity ensures that little room will be left for others. Like the Palestinians, the Bedouin are the wrong people in the wrong place and they are getting in the way. There is no place for the Bedouin in Israel.

Cut off from roads, water, electricity, schools and health care, and hobbled by onerous rules and regulations, Israel is doing its best to make those Bedouin who refuse to vacate their villages and lands feel unwelcome. It is difficult to see Israel as a victim here.

The Bedouin took up arms against the Ottomans in WWI. The defeat of the Ottoman Empire is what enabled Israel to be created. This is the thanks the Bedouin get. Israel has decided that the Bedouin have to move, and move they will, at bulldozer blade if necessary.

Mohamed Salem's story is a small one well off the front page. No doubt it was widely overlooked by many in the U.S., and that is unfortunate. But you can be assured it was not so widely overlooked in the Middle East. It is stories like Salem's (and there are many of them) that make Arab outrage at Israel comprehensible.

Few people have been able to get away with the sort of policies Israel has adopted. The Serbs and the South Africans must be scratching their heads.

Drawing the Line Somewhere

On Tuesday, the House acceded to President Obama's request for an additional $33 billion to pay for another 30,000 troops in Afghanistan. That $33 billion pushed the total bill to $59 billion. The vote in the House was 308-1. The lone dissenter was Rep Jim McGovern, D-Mass. McGovern cast his vote out of principal. "We're told we cannot pay to extend unemployment or keep cops on the street or teachers in the class room (neither of which are federal responsibilities), but we're asked to borrow another $33 billion for nation building in Afghanistan" groused McGovern.

McGovern decided to make his stand in a peculiar place. One of the few legitimate responsibilities of the federal government is to protect the United States from foreign enemies. One can disagree over whether U.S. policy in Afghanistan or Iraq is prudent or effective, but one cannot question the federal government's responsibility to handle it.

A quick glance at congressional spending reveals any number of places to make a stand. Congress is riddled with ear marks and pork. Among other things, Rep. Snyder, D-Ark requested $60 million for highways in his state. Rep. Norton, D.C. requested $15 million to shore up the Washington Marina. Rep Jerry Costello of Illinois requested $38 million for flood prevention in his district. Rep. Joe Baca, D-Ca, requested $1.3 million to widen a road. That is over $100 million for those representatives alone. The list of ear marks and pork is extensive.

There are 432 members in the House. Most of them have special projects in their district singled out for federal money. Most in Congress have a bushel of ear marks and a barrel of pork. $15 million here and $60 million there and pretty soon you are talking about real money. According to the Washington Post, 9,413 earmarks were set aside in 2010 for a total of $16 billion. McGovern himself has over 30 earmarks totaling more than a few million. To review a complete list would take a considerable amount of time: certainly more time than the average voter would care to spend. There certainly has to be another $17 billion in Washington under the couch cushions.

McGovern objected to a bill spending a mere $33 billion out of total budget of $3.5 trillion. Moreover, the bill on which he is making his stand deals with a war the U.S. is currently fighting. McGovern could have spit and found a better place to make a stand.

To Whom it May Concern

This morning I awoke to find out I was switched to the new blogger template. After trying most of the day to get back to my old format, (I am not very good with computers), I gave up. The new layout is the best I can do. I preferred the old one but I seem unable to do anything about it. I am simply another victim of capitalism. Evidently, the market was there for the new template. For people like me, there are few things more exasperating than having a product or service we did not ask for and do not want thrust upon us. The people who use blogger to post pictures of their children and vacations have triumphed over dreary people like me who use it simply to publish what they have written. To maintain two formats simply to accommodate Luddites like myself is a burden people at blogger are unwilling to bear.

I suppose I will have to do what most people do when they find a product or service that they have come to rely upon has been changed to a "new and improved" version: I will simply have to take it. In capitalism, like democracy, the majority prevails. And, like in democracy, when you lose in capitalism, there is no joy. But, unlike democracy, there is no court to take your economic grievances to. The market has the last word: if the government lets it of course.

At least it has a spell check.

Hope and Fear

Things are not going according to plan for President Obama. While he has succeeded in getting many of his ambitious proposals enacted, namely Health Care Reform, his success is not reflected in the polls. Things are going poorly in fact. So poorly that some Republicans anticipate gaining control of the House this Fall.

In April of last year, Obama's approval rating stood at an intoxicating 68%. Few presidents have ever achieved such numbers. In May of this year, his approval rating had dropped to a sobering 51%. More significantly, his disapproval ratings ratings rose from 20% to 40% over that same time period. CBS polls put Obama's rating at 38% approving and 43% disapproving. Harris Polls place the numbers at 49% and 45% respectively. Depending on the poll, Obama's approval varies from the mid 40s to the low 50s. According to Gallup, Obama's approval rating has been hovering around 47% for the last three months. Whichever poll you choose, it is still a long way from 68%.

What possibly could have happened? By almost any standard, Obama's presidency has been a success. Every major policy initiated by the president has been approved. Virtually every major problem in the U.S. has been addressed, from the economy and education to obesity. Trillions of dollars have been spent to bail out and stimulate the economy. What has gone wrong? That depends on who you ask.

Republicans would simply point out that familiarity breeds contempt and people have become familiar with Obama and his policies and his policies haven't worked. Democrats would claim that nothing has gone wrong and that things are improving, albeit more slowly than they had anticipated. They blame republicans, counter revolutionary elements, and logistics. Republicans, they claim, have been doing their best to obstruct and undermine the administration. Some are doing it out of principal the White House admits, but most are doing it out of spite. We are told that republicans and their counter revolutionary henchmen are trying to drag America back into the dark ages, which are usually identified as the years between 2000 and 2008 AD.

They blame logistics by citing the difficulty of spending a trillion dollars. They also argue that an economy the size of the U.S.'s takes time to turn around and that the problems laid on the lap of the administration were years in the making and cannot be expected to be fixed in a few short years, despite the promises made in 2008. A trillion dollars can only do so much. We are told that once the changes made by the administration kick in, the economy will be humming again: just as once the administration's overhaul of the health care industry takes hold, people will appreciate what Obama has done for them. As for the debt, we are assured the administration has a plan. Even though many predict we are rapidly approaching a cliff, the administration tells us not to worry about it. Once everything else is under control and the economy rebounds, the debt will virtually take care of itself. We can just grow out of it. In the mean time, given the souring mood of the electorate, democrats prefer the subject not come up.

Patience is called for by the administration and its supporters. Time is needed for the policies enacted by administration to take root. Once the revolution finally bears fruit, things will be better in the U.S. for everyone. People will be happier, healthier, and wealthier than they have ever been: unless the counterrevolutionaries take power in the next election.

While the numbers may vary, polls show that republicans have good reason to be optimistic for the fall. If democrats are not able to garner the hope of the electorate, they will need to shift public attention away from how bad things are, to how bad things will be if the republicans take over. If they can do so, they have a good chance in the fall. The republicans have it easier. Many people only have to open their mail or read the newspaper to find out how bad things are. Some only have to get out of bed. The trick for the republicans is to persuade people that they can fix things and not make them worse.

It will be difficult for democrats to run on what they have done in 2010. What they have done is not very popular. Neither can they run on what they will do if they achieve power. They have achieved power. Obama ran on hope in 2008. In 2010, many democrats will run on fear.

Pushing the Envelope

Alvin Greene is the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate in North Carolina. The unemployed military veteran is beginning to catch on. His awkward comments, such as suggesting that a line of action figures be modeled after him to create jobs, are largely gone. He is getting into a true campaign rhythm, uttering platitudes such as the "need to get Americans back to work" and "let's move South Carolina forward." Even with his revamped platform, he is still a long shot to win.

Greene's story is a remarkable one and has garnered no small amount of press. In a headline today it was announced that Greene was able to avoid embarrassing himself in his first major speech since winning his nomination. At least they spelled his name correctly.

In the article, it was mentioned as if in passing that Greene is facing a felony charge for showing obscene photos to a University of South Carolina student and asking her to his room. What the photos consisted of was not mentioned. Standards for nominating and electing candidates have been declining for years. Sexual affairs, fiscal improprieties, and lack of experience are no longer obstacles, even for the U.S. Senate. In a nation where a second rate comedian and failed radio host with no experience like Al Frankin can get elected to the U.S. Senate, anyone can. Anyone but Alvin Greene perhaps.

Greene's problem might be his timing. If he had waited a few more years before running, his chances would be much better. They used to advise politicians never to be caught in bed with a live man or a dead woman. Those standards have eased considerably over the years. Ted Kennedy was implicated in the death of a woman but had an illustrious career in the Senate. Alvin Greene only showed a woman some dirty pictures. It is only a matter of time until showing obscene pictures of yourself to a woman becomes a peccadillo, a speed bump at worst, for politicians. Until that time arrives, candidates such as Alvin Greene will be at a disadvantage.

It is likely that Greene could have killed the woman and chopped her into pieces and not harmed his chances of being elected. You have to give Greene credit for pushing the envelope though. It is men like him that pave the way for others.

The Other Debt Crisis

There is a debt problem in the U.S. People have been borrowing money at an alarming rate over the years, many beyond their ability to repay. Credit cards are identified as the chief culprit of the growing debt crisis. People have been borrowing money at a steadily increasing rate to satisfy their ambitions and cover their expenses: the "trap of easy money" as some call it. Many have run up debt to improve or maintain their lifestyle. Others have relied on credit cards to help themselves through college or to meet expenses and keep themselves afloat during difficult times. Whatever the reasons, personal debt is on the increase.

In Seattle, Washington the average debt per person is $26,646 according to Experian, a business and consumer debt reporting firm, followed closely by Dallas where the average consumer debt is $26,599. Denver, Atlanta, and Phoenix are other cities where the average consumer debt exceeds $26,000 per person. The national average is $24,775. Grim numbers indeed. But that is not the end of their financial woes. As of 2009, the per capita share of the national debt was $40,101. According to the latest U.S. census, the average annual income in the U.S. is $35,659. In a sense, the average tax payer is bankrupt.

In 2000, the national debt represented 79% of personal income in the United States according to Experian. In 2009, that percentage had grown to an astonishing 112% of personal income, up from an appalling 99% percent in 2008. It is going to get worse. The deficit is expected to grow to $1.5 trillion over the next year. Even if every household in the U.S. payed off their credit cards and mortgages, most Americans would still be in debt well beyond their ability to pay. Their share of the national debt is nearly insurmountable. While there has been a concerted effort over the years to get a grip on personal debt, there has been little effort to address the government's debt beyond oration and exhortation. Few seem to realize that the government's debt is ultimately our debt. The government does not spend its own money. It spends our money.

People have been willing, often reluctantly, to take the advice of experts and cut back on their spending and make sacrifices in order to make headway on their debt. Some simply have had no choice. The government has made no such effort. Quite the contrary. President Obama has been determined to spend even more and accrue new costs and obligations. The deficit increased by $960 billion last year alone. While President Bush began digging the hole we find ourselves in today, President Obama has decided to dig even harder. Worse, he seems to have concluded that the only way out of the hole is to keep digging. Maybe Obama believes that if he keeps digging, he will finally dig his way to China. That is where the money is.

Perhaps the government has been willing to pile up the debt because it it believes that no one will foreclose on it or repossess anything it has bought. They are right. The Chinese are not going to repossess our health care system. But they can ruin our credit and make it impossible for us to keep running our government as it has been running unless it makes drastic spending cuts or raise taxes exorbitantly. Neither prospect is likely. If our credit line is cut off, the effects would be disastrous given our budget. Even FDR himself would not be able spend his way out of that.

Personal debt is undermining the economy. Government debt will ruin it. If people are having difficulty paying their debts, how can we expect them to pay the government's? Who is going to cut up the government's credit card? Just as borrowing money has been the bane of many people, it will be the ruin of the U.S. If the government cannot borrow what it needs, it will get it from us. If you think creditors and banks are determined to collect what they are owed, wait until the government shows up at your door.

What Would Jesus Do?

Religious leaders recently descended on Washington to weigh in on the immigration debate. Scripture was thick as the Bible was quoted from Leviticus and Micah through Matthew and Luke. Contradictions, or seeming contradictions, abounded. We were reminded that we are obliged to care for the least among us. We were also reminded that we are obliged to obey the law. Atheists no doubt smiled as the Bible was often turned in on itself and exposed as a seeming jumble of contradictory injunctions. It is not difficult to find scripture to support virtually any position one might take: especially for amateur scholars and theologians. But there is a thread through all the injunctions and commandments that is too frequently ignored by those who expound scripture. That thread is that the commandments and injunctions are addressed to people, not governments.

There is an ethical imperative to help those in need as those who descended on Washington pointed out. But that imperative does not fall on governments or societies. It falls on each and everyone of us. We were not instructed to support candidates and policies to help those in need. We are to take care of those in need, not the government. We are to love our neighbors as our self, not the government. Jesus was careful to avoid enjoining the state to do any of the tasks or follow any of the commandments He placed before mankind. He consistently refused to be drawn into taking a position on policy. Perhaps the ultimate example of Jesus' refusal to involve himself in the political affairs of men is when He refused Satan's offer of the world. Certainly it was within Jesus' power to effect any political change He thought was merited. But He refused to do so. That is because Jesus did not come to right wrongs or remedy injustice. He did not come to establish a perfect state. He came for mankind, one soul at a time.

The answer to the question of what Jesus would do regarding immigration policy, abortion, gay marriage, or any other controversial issue confronting the nation is absolutely nothing. He did nothing two thousand years ago and most likely He would do nothing today other than what He did then. He would tell us to love our neighbors as ourselves, tend to the least among us, and give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's. If we did as Jesus asked, everything else would take care of itself and that is precisely the point. Nations and politics come and go. Issues come and go. But people remain and people are what it is all about.

Jesus did not come to fix the world. He came to fix our souls. Good laws and good societies come from good souls. There is no other place for them to come from. It is our job to love our neighbor and take care of those in need, not the government's. Voting democrat or republican and paying your taxes doesn't count.

Jesus didn't go to Rome and lobby the Senate. He did not propose policy or advocate for laws. He stayed in an obscure part of the empire and spoke with prostitutes and tax collectors. It is not a question of what Jesus would do. It is a matter of what Jesus did. We can learn a lot from Jesus.

Clockwork Students

In an editorial in this morning's Dallas Morning News, columnist William McKenzie sets out his ideas on how to improve education in the U.S. He begins with a nod towards President Obama's "Race to the Top" education plan. In particular, Mckenzie takes hold of the "parental engagement" role in that race. Parents, says Mckenzie enthusiastically, are the "new educational frontier."

"Lets deal first with why going after parents makes sense" McKenzie writes ominously. The reason we must go after parents is because parents will not come to us. McKenzie then sets out to make his case. Not just any case, but a thoroughly modern and scientific one. Anything less will not do.

McKenzie first notes that "A significant body of research shows students whose parents pay serious attention to their classwork end up with larger horizons than peers whose parents don't open the world to them." It is difficult to know what to do with this statement. Children whose parents are interested and involve themselves in their education and homework do better in school than their peers whose parents don't. There is nothing new here. Children whose parents involve themselves in their activities in general tend to be better adjusted and more content. It is as if, after years of statistical, pedagogical, economic, psychological, methodological, racial, ethnic, gender, and class studies and evaluations, parents have once again been added to the calculation: and it is a calculation. Studies, numbers, reports, and evaluations all point to the remarkable conclusion that parents have a large impact on their children's education. While it has long been suspected that parents play an influential role in their child's development, we finally have the numbers to prove it.

McKenzie's editorial is at times a tedious and tiresome exercise of belaboring the obvious. We are informed that by reading to children and getting them ready for school in the morning parents increase their children's chances of getting into college. It is also a pointless exercise because parents who do not read to their children or get them ready for school are unlikely to read the editorial page of the Dallas Morning News. Unless, of course, McKenzie is not writing to those parents but is instead writing to the rest of us in order to encourage us to take action. And by take action, he means find someway to encourage or compel those neglectful parents to change their ways. He cites Heather Weiss, director of the Family Research Project at Harvard University's Graduate School of Education who states that "what families do is one of the strongest predictors of a child's success." A fair enough observation. But Weiss doesn't stop there. She adds ominously that "the difficulty is how to translate that understanding into interventions that move the needle." By intervening to "move the needle" Wiess no doubt means change how parents raise their children. By "translate" we can infer that what she means is how we can bring that change about.

What this comes down to is a discussion over how best to change the way parents raise their children. It is one thing to discuss how best to raise children. It is quite another to discuss how we can change the way people raise their children. According to modern, scientific standards, many parents are doing an inadequate job raising their children. There is no way to change this without somehow getting between the parent and the child. The growth of "parenting programs" developed to address the perceived inadequacy of parents is disturbing on a number of levels. Perhaps none are so disturbing as the "Cradle to career" program advocated by Weiss.

The "Cradle to Career" program would be a "breakthrough" that would change the way children are raised in the U.S. The program would entail parents working in tandem with schools to raise their children. Indeed, part of a school principle's task would require him or her to assess how well that child was being "parented." Parenting that resulted in increased school performance would be "good" parenting and reflect positively on those principals in those districts where it occurred. Poor school performance would infer poor parenting and, we can assume, in a poor evaluation. Principals would be motivated to monitor how well children in their school were being "parented' and to intervene where that "parenting" was deemed to be inadequate.

In a chilling statement, McKenzie writes that "Districts that do parenting well make parental engagement part of the principal's annual review." Districts do not "do parenting." Only parents do "parenting." I am not even quite sure what "parenting" means. I do not think McKenzie or Weiss have given it much thought beyond the ability to equip children to perform tasks determined to be valuable or important by society. But to hold school districts and principals accountable for how well parents are raising their children is to give them a stake in how that child is being raised. That would be an intolerable intrusion into family life. Schools teach children. They should not raise them.

Raising children is one of the most private and personal activities that can be imagined. Some people raise "good" children. Some people raise "bad" children. "Good" parents can raise "bad" children and "bad" parents can raise "good children." Raising children is not a science. It is an art. Yet, again and again, from Obama to Weiss, to McKenzie, it is treated as a science. In ancient Greece, where the subject was first brought up, art was distinguished from science in that art required wisdom and virtue where science only required knowledge and skill. Science could be taught. Art could only be achieved. Good students cannot be produced any more than good children can be produced.

All of the laws, regulations, and codes in the world cannot create a good parent, a good student, or even a good person. To claim otherwise is hubris of the highest order. There is an arrogance on the part of those who think the world can be remade if only the the right laws can be crafted and the right policies adopted. Whether one goes after teachers, students, parents, textbooks, or curriculum, education will remain a subjective and elusive affair. It always has been subjective and imprecise and it always will be. This is because education involves people. People write text books and devise lesson plans. People read text books (or don't read them). People teach and people learn.

All of the planning and statistical analyses in the world will not result in a good education. Only good teachers and good students will result in good education. But we no longer recognize good as a standard. There are only goals and efficacy in achieving those goals. Education has become a system of clockwork teachers teaching clockwork students. The failure of the educational "system" is interpreted by people like McKenzie and Weiss as the result of flaws such as inadequate parenting or poor organization and curriculum by the schools. Those flaws can be rectified through incentives, adjustments, and programs to compensate for the unpredictable human factor in the system.

Too many beleive that, sooner or later, if we work hard enough we will finally get the bugs out of the educational system and at last get to where every student receives a good education and goes on to a fulfilling and productive career. And that is what getting an education is all about: getting a good job and being productive. Once that is achieved, we can move on to the next great challenge, whatever that may be.

To anyone who might wonder why it is society's or the government's business in the first place how parents raise their children, or how well a child does in school, it is because their business is no longer their business. Through economic casuistry, there is no such thing as personal business anymore. Everything that in any way touches upon the community or the economy is society's business. And society's business is the government's business. Government cannot be expected to stand idly by while parents raise ineffective children.

You cannot force parents to care about their child's education. You may be able to bribe or coerce schools to achieve goals and meet standards. You can even bribe and coerce parents to work with schools to achieve those goals and standards. But no amount of bribery or coercion can compel care. And, without care, all you are left with is coercion and bribery. That is no way to raise a child or run a school.

Education is not a commodity or a product. It cannot be produced or delivered. It is an activity that must be engaged in. To compel people to participate in education is like compelling people to play the piano. You might be able to teach them the notes and how to read music. You can teach them technique. But you cannot make them want to do it and you certainly can't make them any good at it: especially if they don't care or do not want to be good at it. They may be able to read music and reproduce what is written, but that is only technique. It is not education in any meaningful sense. You can teach kids to read and write. You can teach kids to remember what they read and repeat it. But you cannot make them want to read and write nor can you make them understand what they have read. Even parents can't do that. At some point, people enter the equation.

Education is a means to an end, it is not an end in itself. If the end is not desired, the means will be of little interest. Despite the best efforts of statisticians, social scientists, politicians, and teachers, some people will learn and others won't. It is human nature. All the methodology and science in the world cannot change human nature. That is what drives liberals crazy and gives humanity hope.

Parents are the new frontier writes McKenzie. Other frontiers await. New correlations will be found. New causalities will be deduced. New tools will be developed. We are on the verge of a brave new world.

Come on Down!

Washington has begun taking steps, very small ones, to demonstrate its seriousness about addressing the appalling national debt. After a spending frenzy, many in Washington are eager to put their profligacy behind them as they prepare for elections in the Fall. To this end, there is talk of raising the benefit retirement age from from 65, or 66 depending on exactly where you fall in the spectrum, to 70. No numbers were given on how much money such a move would be expected to save. It is very unlikely it will have any appreciable impact on the debt. The country is not going broke because too many people are retiring. But a step is a step and every step is a headline.

According to some, raising the age from 65 to 70 would be "politically acceptable" (a phrase which always brings to mind a party official addressing the Politburo), because it would have very little immediate effect. "Raising the retirement age- going out 20 years and not affecting anyone close to retirement, and eventually getting the retirement age to 70 - is a step that needs to be taken" said House Republican leader John Boehner. And a shrewd step that would be. Those receiving benefits would continue to receive them and those far from the the new retirement age would not pay much attention to it. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer sought to demonstrate the new resolve and sobriety of Congress when he stated that "we are lying to ourselves if we say we can maintain our current levels of spending... without bankrupting the country." Many in Washington have a knack for stating the obvious only after it is no longer possible to avoid it.

People are healthier and living longer than they ever have before. Life expectancy in the U.S. is 80.8 years at the moment. It is expected to rise to 81.9 by 2020. That means people will linger even longer and mooch off the government for an additional year unless something is done about it. And, if Obama's health care plan works out as claimed, we can expect even more people to live well into their eighties, if not beyond. The mooching problem will only get worse. Even if the retirement age is raised to 70, it will not be so bad. People can still hope for ten years to enjoy it.

There is greater glory in creating new programs than mending old ones. In its eagerness create new programs such as national health care, the government has neglected those programs that already exist. To off set the massive expenditures by Washington, some will soon have to work until they are 70 before they can retire. When you consider there are far more people in their 30's than there are in their 70's, it is a clever plan. Very few people in their 20's and 30's can even envision being in their 60's, let alone their 70's. Besides, future burdens have always been easier to bear than present ones.

It is always better to pass social programs than rely on them. In order to scrimp some savings, legislators in Washington are tinkering with a program none of them will have to rely upon. Where many once might have hoped they could retire with some good years left, they are now having to face the possibility of spending another five out of however many years they have left working.

The government has just been giving things away. Like in those late night furniture commercials, the government has been saying come on down! They will give us a whole new living room set with no money down and no interest for a year. But let there be no doubt, that furniture will be paid for along with the interest.

The government has only just begun to realize they cannot just keep spending money and giving things away. Many have always known that, sooner or later, someone is going to have to pay for all the government is doing for us. They just hope it is not now and not them. In the mean time, come on down! This sale can't last forever.

Parking on Henderson Avenue

There is a parking problem on Henderson Avenue in Dallas. Henderson Avenue has a host of fashionable night clubs and restaurants and is a popular night spot in Dallas. Even though Dallas requires some businesses to provide parking, there is just not enough to go around. The root of the problem, according to the Dallas Morning News is that trends are unpredictable. The city just cannot predict what areas will become trendy and when.

Dallas should not feel bad. No one can predict the future, particularly when it comes to people. Cities and governments might plan for the future, but they cannot predict it. Humans are unpredictable. You just cannot know what they will like or want in the future. There may be general patterns, but when it comes to specifics such as where they will want to shop or eat, all bets are off. This unpredictability is a major headache for planners. In frustration with this fact, modern planners have shifted from trying to predict the future to trying to manipulate it. That is just what Dallas has been trying to do.

To this end, city officials, police, and neighborhood groups met recently to address the problems on Henderson Street. According to Dallas police Deputy Chief Vincent Golbeck, "Its going to be a political, public safety, economic development issue." I have news for Chief Golbeck, it is going to be none of those things. The city may be able to address parking and safety problems on Henderson Street. But, as the Morning News pointed out, trends cannot be predicted. No one knows where the next hot spot will be. When it pops up, the city will have to go through the whole thing again. You just cannot predict the future.

Despite this fact, government never gives up. Over the years as faith in the efficacy of government has increased, government has steadily moved away from trying to predict the future to trying to manipulate it. Many cities have shifted from chasing trendy spots to trying to create them. They provide tax breaks, (the usual government tool), or manipulate zoning codes to attract businesses that are hoped will create the vibrant, eclectic neighborhoods so many cities crave. Every city wants a Greenwich Village. They will often go to great lengths to get one. But it just doesn't work that way. People will go where they want to go, not where the government or city planners want them to go. If you could just zone a Greenwich Village into existence, every city would have one. Dallas may want people to find some other way down to Henderson Avenue. But it will have to find some way to compel them if it is to do so.

Those ambitious souls with their visions of what society should be are notoriously impatient. When their vision of the future exceeds their patience, they act to bring that vision about. Whether it is health care, social justice, or trendy night spots, progressives will act to lead society to the future as they envision it. To that end they are forever planning and legislating. They will try to entice through manipulating ordinances and tax codes. If that fails, they will coerce.

The problem is often that the more reluctant people are to embrace the image of the future held out to them, the more determined progressives become. A determined progressive is one of the greatest enemies a free society can have, for they will not rest until society is bent to their vision.

Can You Spare a Dime?

With the upcoming gubernatorial election in Texas, lines are being drawn. Liberals have begun to line up after Bill White, while conservatives are mobilizing in support for Governor Perry. Like many neighborhoods across Texas, supporters in my small town have begun to declare themselves with yard signs and bumper stickers.

The other morning, as I walked the dogs, I came across a yard with a "Bill White for Governor" sign prominently displayed. Bill White is the Democratic candidate for governor in Texas. Now I know that many liberals, among other things, pride themselves on their "compassion" for the suffering and less fortunate. I presumed the owner of the sign shared those sensibilities.

I had been by the house many times before, but that morning the owner was out tending to his front yard. I asked him if he was a Bill White supporter. "Yes" he said. I told him I was disabled and unemployed, (both are true), and asked him if he would give me $20. After giving me a peculiar look, it only took him a moment to tell me no. I didn't really expect him to give it to me.

Most liberals would not hesitate to support a government plan to increase spending for the unemployed or disabled. Most would shrug off the spending of tax dollars to support the cause, even if it meant taxes would have to be raised or the government expanded and go further into debt. Many consider it a duty to tend to the needs of society's less fortunate. Most liberals are proud of their compassion and do not care how much that compassion costs. How many were willing to support spending hundreds of billions of dollars to create a national health care plan?

The gentleman I spoke with this morning might sincerely believe that government should be more compassionate and do more to help the disabled and the unemployed. All I know is that he would not give me a dime.

Liberals fancy they are the champions of the poor and the suffering. They are willing to go to great lengths and spend billions to demonstrate their commitment and compassion. It is easy to imagine the howls if the government proposed cutting welfare benefits or trimming WIC. Their zeal for increasing social benefits for the needy and disadvantaged is often on display, from bumper stickers to protests at the capitol. For many liberals, money is no object when it comes to funding social programs. They have no qualms about the government spending of billions of dollars to help those in need. But just ask one for $20. I dare you.

Anyone who voted for Obama or supports liberal candidates out of compassion for the homeless and less fortunate should contact me. I can take them down to the end of the park outside my apartment and I will show them some real, flesh and blood homeless people they can help. I do not expect anyone to contact me. Most people prefer to give at the voting booth.

Oil and Irony

This afternoon, I stopped by the live feed of the oil gusher in the gulf. After a few moments of watching oil spew from the sea floor, the feed was interrupted by one of the maddening ads that are proliferating on the web. What was amazing is that the ad was for the new Audi: the luxury car for demanding tastes. Can Audi be so blind as to run an ad for automobiles over a video of the worst oil disaster in human history? Evidently so.

The First Amendment

With the hearings taking place over Elena Kagan, there is naturally much discussion regarding the Constitution. One of the most contentious issues is always the First Amendment. The First Amendment is widely known as the amendment where we find the rights to free speech and privacy: two of the the rights most commonly wrestled over. It is the amendment in which abortion and flag burning are anchored. Privacy and speech are important, even vital to democracy. But as important as they are, they are not sufficient. There is another part of the First Amendment: the right to petition government for the redress of grievances. The right to petition government is one of the most important rights we have. It allows us to challenge government and seek remedy for those things we find burdensome or onerous. It is arguably the cornerstone of democracy. It is also the right most often eclipsed in the discussion over the First Amendment.

Every time a right is discovered or expanded by the court, political discourse on the matter ends and the issue is removed from public debate. The matter is settled and cannot be revisited except by the court itself. The public can longer petition the government for change. They certainly cannot petition the court. Redress is no longer available. If there is a grievance, it must be endured. Democracy shrinks as one more issue is removed from the public realm and placed beyond the reach of voters.

The right to petition government is vital to democracy because it gives those unhappy with law or policy the opportunity to change it. The Constitution guarantees that right. No loss is permanent in politics. Each election is a new occasion for the public to avail itself of that right and seek change. Democracy cannot exist without it. To that end, it is the job of the court to ensure that right is protected and available to all people. But what is to be done if the court itself abridges that right? What can be done if the court nibbles away at what the public can and cannot petition? Nothing.

It was never meant for us to take our grievances to the Supreme Court. That is what the statehouse is for. One of the most important jobs of the court is to ensure fair and equal access to the statehouse. But increasingly, access to the statehouse is not enough. People are impatient. Many cannot wait for the statehouse to come around to their point of view. Results are demanded. Political losses have become confused with the abridgement of rights. There is a fear and distrust of democracy among those who rely on courts to secure their political goals. Where democracy is feared and distrusted, it cannot endure.

When the court shifts from determining what the government can and cannot do to what the government ought or ought not do it confuses means with ends and so enters the realm of policy. Society is led down a path to wherever the logic and reasoning of the court takes it. The people must hold their breath every time the court convenes and hope for the best. Indeed, hope is often all they have when it comes to the court. There is no recourse if a decision made by the court runs contrary to the will of the people.

In unrelated news, in its latest release, the Congressional Budget Office announced that, despite the passage of President Obama's health care reform bill and the hundreds of billions spent by the administration to prop up the economy, the national debt will continue to rise. It turns out that the new health care plan passed by Congress will not save money after all. At least it will not save the government money anyway. As it stands, government debt will be be 62 percent of the annual economic output in the U.S by the end of the year. It is predicted to rise to 87 percent by 2020. According to testimony by CBO director Douglas Elmendorf, such a level of debt would be unprecedented. Worse still, it is predicted that the debt will be 109 percent of the GDP by 2025.
We needn't be alarmed though. President Obama is expecting a plan on Wednesday from the deficit commission he appointed. I am sure that as long as the plan does not entail curbing his ambitions or his appetite for big government, Obama will be happy to go along with it, provided, of course, that any painful cuts or reductions can be put off at least until after his reelection. In any event, Obama will be gone before the economy collapses under the weight of the debt. At least I am sure he hopes so.

Tax Breaks

The debt commission appointed by President Obama is scheduled to present its report on containing the national debt later this year. The debt commission is a bi partisan panel created to formulate strategy on dealing with the massive and growing national debt. The debt stands at $13 trillion and is growing fast.

If I had any say in the matter, I would suggest one simple plan. I would not raise taxes or cut spending. I would simply end every tax break, exemption, and subsidy in the nation. There would be no tax shelters, no breaks for children, no business write offs, no subsidies or exemptions: absolutely nothing for anyone. Every one would have to pay the full amount of what they owed each year, every year: every one, with absolutely no exceptions whatsoever.

I would recommend this plan not because I think it is fair. It is not. Nor would it make any significant headway in bringing down the debt: at least not anytime soon. I recommend this because it would be an effective way of bringing home to people how much government costs. If more people experienced how much government truly costs, they might just want less of it. That would be a meaningful first step in getting federal spending under control.

And therein lies the rub. People want more government than they are willing to pay for.

It Has to Be Some One's Fault

On Saturday, a branch fell from a tree in Central Park and killed a 6-month-old girl. The girl and her mother were posing for a picture in the park when the branch fell. The mother was critically injured. A law suit is already in the works.

The incident, according to the New York Times, was the latest in a string of "deadly episodes" in the park. Branches have been falling from trees in the park, "plummeting" to the ground and injuring passers by. According to accounts, there was no indication that the branch was a danger. It was "large and healthy" according to one official. Accidents have been occurring with "alarming frequency" according to the article. No numbers were given.

There is debate in New York City over who is at fault for the accident. The city admitted it did not know who was responsible for the tree. "The investigation is ongoing" said park spokesman Vickie Karp. The Central Park Conservancy, a private group that has maintained trees in the park since 1998, is also under scrutiny. Someone has to be responsible for that tree and its branches.

It was a tragic accident, no doubt about it. But it was a freak accident. So was the previous accident where, after an unusually heavy snow, a snow laden branch fell and killed a man. In the case of the woman and her baby, the branch fell from a tree that gave no indication that it was unhealthy or dangerous. It was one of the thousands of trees in the park. Notwithstanding the rarity with which branches fall from healthy trees, the odds of someone standing under a branch with their baby when it happens is hardly worth even considering. Central Park covers 136 acres. There are over 26,000 trees in the park. Each of those trees has many branches. The city of New York is not only responsible for those 26,000 trees, they are responsible for each and every branch on those trees.

The odds of being struck by a falling branch are extraordinary. It is frequently assumed that the greater the odds against something happening, the more likely someone is behind it when it does. Where the ancient Greeks and Romans saw the machinations of the gods when tragedy struck, modern Americans see liability. There can be no other explanation. It is believed that branches simply don't fall from trees and kill people. But they do. Just not very often. According to the Tree Care Association, there were 407 tree related deaths across the nation between 1995 and 2007. That is less than the number of people killed by lightening. About 90 people a year are killed by lightening.

I read of a case years ago where a man sued God for a misfortune he suffered. He actually won the case (God didn't show up for the trial). The judge congratulated the man on his victory and wished him luck in collecting. Perhaps the man ought to have sued the government instead.

Trees and branches fall all the time. But it is felt they should never fall on people. When it happens, someone should pay. There is already talk of the "death traps" lurking throughout Central Park. How many more trees and branches are going to have to fall on people before the government does something about it? Not many.

In unrelated news, a 12 year old boy at Benjamin Franklin Middle School in New Jersey suspected of being behind a case of cyberbullying was deemed innocent. A key in this determination is that the boy is a poor student and is unable to spell or form correct sentences. The text messages received by the girl were more or less grammatical: a feat beyond the young boy's ability. I suppose the good news at Benjamin Franklin Middle School is that one of their students is not stalking or harassing a young girl. The bad news is that they have a 12 year old boy who cannot spell or form sentences. All things considered, I suppose Benjamin Franklin came out ahead.

Government, Charities, and the Poor

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

-David Hume


In 2008, the United Way had to cut its budget. It came up $500,000 short in its fundraising goal of $12 million. It has come up short the last few years. In its mission statement, the United Way states its dedication to improving the lives of the unfortunate by providing education, income stability, and health care to those in need. While the federal government did not provide a mission statement, it too seeks to provide education, income stability, and health care to those in need.

The federal government budgeted $589 billion for social and welfare programs in 2008, (GDP in 2008 was $1.4 trillion). Only five percent of the almost $12 million raised by the United Way went to bureaucratic overhead. Only six percent of the funds raised by the Red Cross went to bureaucratic overhead. No figures were available as to how much of the $589 billion spent by the federal government went to bureaucratic overhead. The government does not keep track of those figures. Whatever the percentage was, you can be assured that it was greater than 6%.

$589 billion is a lot of money. You would think that spending $589 billion in one year would substantially improve the lives of those in need. But it didn't. Nor did the hundreds of billions of dollars spent the year before, or the billions before that. The government spends trillions and poverty grinds on. People are still hungry, homeless, and in need of medical care. National health care will be of little help to the poor. They do not have insurance so subsidies and insurance market places will make no difference to their plight.

If one tenth of the money spent by the government on the poor and those in need was instead given to proven charities such as the United Way, the Red Cross, or Habitat for Humanity, the lives of tens of millions of Americans would be significantly improved. Habitat for Humanity could provide tens of thousands of quality homes to those that need them. The government can only provide subsidized housing and rent assistance for homes and apartments for those able to navigate the bureaucratic maze. Once they receive assistance, it will be for homes and apartments in neighborhoods that no government official or lobbyist would ever consider living in.

There is no glory in letting charities and private organizations take care of the needs of Americans unless there is a photo opportunity to be had. There is no control either. The government is reluctant to let people take care of themselves and each other. The government wants to be needed. It needs to be needed. And so it insists on providing services no one on Capitol Hill would ever dream of availing themselves of.

Services provided by the government are at best cumbersome and inefficient, as anyone that has had to avail themselves of those services can testify. At worst they are bureaucratic swamps virtually impossible to navigate by those who seek to take advantage of them. The appeal of those services is the control they offer to government officials and lobbyists. For them, the prize is the power to manipulate society to their preferred goals. They measure their effectiveness by numbers and dollars. If people are helped, all the better for their newsletters and press releases.

There is little the government can offer the poor and the struggling that private organizations and charities cannot provide better. The thing is, you have to give to charities. They will not take. Government, on the other hand, will take. Many people tolerate government taking their money to help those in need because it is convenient. The poor and suffering are helped with no effort on the part of those paying their taxes. They simply pay their taxes and sleep better knowing those in need are being tended to.

When it comes down to it, liberals just don't trust people. They believe that if they take their hands off the rudder, society would revert to the petty, racist, homophobic, greedy, sexist, and selfish thing it was before they came along. If the government didn't collect taxes and help those in need, those in need would not be tended to: they would starve and sleep in the streets. People can not be trusted to take care of each other. For liberals, the only thing that can be counted to keep people from becoming heartless savages is government, specifically, a liberal government.

Charities have long existed. They have long helped people. But you have to give to charities. They do not take. You do not have to give to government. The government takes. It may be more convenient to let the government take care of those in need, but there is no virtue in it.

Tax Breaks

In this morning's Dallas Morning News was an article concerning tax breaks. In the article, it was mentioned how the earned income tax credit alone will cost the federal government roughly $49 billion in 2008. Tax beaks will "cost" the federal government billions of dollars this year. As is common, the topic of tax breaks was discussed as if the government was paying out money. It is not. Lowering taxes is simply the government taking less of what does not really belong to it in the first place.

When the government lowers taxes or grants tax breaks, the money is not lost. It certainly is not wasted. It stays with those who earned it. The money retained is either saved or spent. In either case, the economy benefits. The only thing that is lost is the government's ability to spend that money.

Many are critical of the idea of tax cuts. They argue that reducing taxes will only make the debt problem worse. They are right. But the massive federal debt is not due to deficient tax collection: tax revenue has been going up for years. It is due to reckless overspending by the government. The government has taken a spend first, collect later approach to managing the nation's affairs. The government determines how much it wants to spend before it determines how it will pay for it. Whatever it decides it wants to spend is spent. The difference between income and expenditures is worked out afterward through raising taxes and borrowing money.

Tax cuts cost the government nothing. Spending money costs the government everything. The government is not in debt because it is not collecting enough in taxes. It is in debt because it has been spending more than it has been collecting. To cite the national debt as a reason to resist tax cuts or to raise taxes is to punish tax payers for the government's fiscal recklessness.

If people are serious about demanding tax cuts, they will have to wean themselves off government and demand less from it. There is little indication that is likely to happen. Each year, people become more dependent on government and expect more from it: and that costs money. That is just fine with Washington. For many politicians in Washington, a nation dependent on government is priceless.