Tension at sea

Tension is mounting in the Mediterranean as a second aide ship, the Rachel Corrie, is approaching the Gaza coast. Gaza is currently under an Israeli blockade. Free Gaza, the group supporting the Rachel Corrie, has asserted that the ship is carrying medical supplies and construction material to Palestinians in the Gaza strip. Both are in short supply in Gaza after a prolonged siege by Israel. Israel claims that the ship is carrying weapons and missiles for Palestinian guerrillas fighting Israel. Free Gaza denies that the ship is transporting weapons and is simply bringing needed aide. Despite international condemnation, Israel says it will intercept the ship. No doubt it is prepared to use force again if the Rachel Corrie refuses to yield. The ship is named after an American activist killed by the Israelis in 2003: an additional provocation.

There is a solution to the looming crisis. Israel could simply inspect the ship to verify the claim that it is not carrying weapons but needed supplies, as the crew of the Rachel Corrie claims. A refusal to submit to an inspection would provide a legitimate reason for the vessel to be boarded. If weapons are found, Israel would be vindicated. The ship could be seized, a plot to attack Israel would be thwarted, and Free Gaza would be exposed as a front for people seeking to harm Israel. If weapons are not found, Israel could allow the ship to proceed and thereby take a step to lessen the growing international criticism of their blockade of Gaza. But so far Israel is not willing to consider that option. The determination of Israel to maintain the blockade is absolute. They are willing to strangle Gaza until it submits to Israeli demands.

The determination of Israel to blockade Gaza verges on spite. Every man, woman, and child in Gaza must suffer until Hamas is vanquished. The blockade is not about Israel's security. Construction material and medical supplies in no way threaten Israel. It is about Israel's determination to crush Hamas. The strategy is to make life in Gaza so miserable that the people there will rise up in desperation and rid themselves of their elected leaders. Even if Israel succeeds in this endeavor, they will have done nothing to soften opposition to Israel in Gaza.

It is difficult to see how strangling Gaza is in Israel's self interest. A vibrant, fourishing Gaza is in everyone's interest. An impoverished and desperate Gaza is in no one's interest but Hamas. Israel has long had a public relations problem. It is doing absolutely nothing to improve its image. Perhaps when enough people in Gaza are finally homeless, hungry, ill, and injured, Israel will succeed in its effort to undermine the government in Gaza. But it will come at a high cost. Israel is not the victim here. Neither is Hamas. The people of Gaza are.

Violence in Israel.

There has been more violence and turmoil in the Middle East. More lives have been lost. Israel has acted aggressively in defending what it sees to be in its interests. Palestinians and their supporters have acted provocatively and pushed Israel into a corner. Israel reacted as it has become accustomed to: with force. It has become a predictable cycle. Palestinians and their supporters provoke Israel and Israel responds with force. The Palestinians always lose.

Opinion is slowly starting to turn in the Palestinians' favor. Israel's harsh responses have begun to cast them as a bully in the eyes of many. Rightfully so. There is no need to fire or launch commando raids on unarmed ships or commit air strikes on Palestinian villages to root out sporadic rocket fire. Israel has a sophisticated military. They have many options at their disposal. Bombs, tanks and artillery should not be high on their list. Still, the Palestinians seem to take some encouragement when Israel bombs or shells them. Indeed, it seems at times they deliberately seek to provoke Israel into a harsh and disproportionate response: a tried and true guerrilla tactic that Israel continues to fall for.

Violence has achieved very little for the Palestinians. More often than not, it has proved counterproductive. Provocation has had some success in the press, but has gotten them little on the ground. Perhaps it is time for the Palestinians to adopt a different approach to the problem. What the Palestinians need is an Arab Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King. What they do not need is Hamas or another Arafat.

What Rights?

Opponents of Arizona's tough new immigration law are attempting to borrow from the civil rights movement and adopt its tactics and methods. Workshops and seminars have been set up to train pro immigrant protesters on how to use those methods to further their cause. The attempt has been encouraged by civil rights activists. Amilcar Shabazz, chairman of the Department of Afro-American Studies at the University of Massachusetts said "I think it is genius." The attempt to re frame the question over illegal immigration as an issue of civil rights is a clever one. It is also deceptive.

Civil rights protesters in the 60's were laboring for the rights of African Americans due to them under the Constitution. They were systematically being denied fundamental rights that were given to all Americans. They were arguing for what belonged to them. Illegal immigrants, can make no such claim.

Illegal immigrants are just that, illegal immigrants. They are in the country in violation of U.S. law. They do not have the rights accorded to U.S. citizens. They do not have the rights due to legal residents. They do not even have the right to be here. African Americans were, and are, entitled to all the rights and privileges due to any other American citizen. Immigrants, especially illegal immigrants, are not.

What it comes down to is illegal immigrants are claiming the right to be in the U.S. in violation of U.S. law. There is no such right.

Why is No One Blaming him?

Last week, President Obama took responsibility for the environmental disaster in the Gulf. "In case you are wondering who's responsible, I take responsibility" he said. President Obama took the heat for the security lapses that led to the failed attempt to blow up an airliner last Christmas. "When the system fails, it is my responsibility to take the blame" he said solemnly. During the struggle over health care, when the plan looked like it was going to fail, President Obama took responsibility for the political circus that it engendered, saying he "misjudged" in his handling of the plan. When the economy failed to respond to the administration's frenzied attempts to spend it back into health, the president took responsibility for that too. It as been a common theme throughout Obama's presidency for him to "step up" and take the blame when things go wrong or don't go as planned.

Given all the missteps, failures, and errors Obama has taken responsibility for, why is no one blaming him? It is a credit to his political skills that Obama is able to come out of each admission looking stronger and more noble than before. He is uncannily able to take the blame without really taking the blame. Even more remarkable is how Obama is able to turn each failure by the government into an opportunity to expand the government. No failure is wasted by Obama. Every failure is an opportunity. The government always gets another chance.

"I'm confident that people are going to look back and say that the administration was on top of what is an unprecedented crisis" said Obama of the disaster in the Gulf. If there is one thing the administration is good at, it is appearing to be on top of a problem rather than behind it.

Scrounging for Jobs

Democratic Senator Charles Schumer recently introduced a bill that would require call centers to inform people when their call is transferred outside the U.S. Call center jobs are increasingly being moved overseas. The idea is that if callers are made aware that their calls are being transferred they will be displeased. Schumer introduced the legislation as a way to encourage call centers to bring those jobs back.

Things must be very grim indeed if a U.S. Senator is scrounging for jobs at call centers. I doubt Schumer has ever worked at a call center. If he had, he might not be so determined to save those jobs. But then again, as is so often the case, Schumer's effort is not so much about what he is doing as it is that he is doing something. If he succeeds in his effort, no doubt in his next campaign he will find occasion to mention how he acted to save U.S. jobs. Nothing will be said that the jobs he saved are often miserable jobs for marginal pay. In Washington, jobs are statistics.

Enforcing the Law

Police chiefs from around the country told Attorney General Eric Holder on Wednesday that immigration laws such as the one recently passed in Arizona will lead to an increase in crime. They argued that such laws would inhibit their ability to do their jobs because they would have to divert resources to enforce the new law.

They have a point. Laws create crime. Where there is no law against robbing banks, robbing banks is not a crime. Each new law creates a new offense. Each new offense requires police to investigate and apprehend those determined to have committed the offense. For police chiefs to publicly object to a law because it requires them to provide the manpower and resources to enforce it is unseemly. It is not their job to weigh the merits of the particular laws they are tasked to enforce or the legislation that created them. Certainly not in public. It is their job to enforce the law, not debate it.

Nevertheless, police will still have discretion in performing their job. Within limits, they do not have to arrest everyone they apprehend. Not every traffic stop results in a ticket. Sometimes a warning is enough. The discretion of local police officers to pursue people suspected to be in the U.S. illegally will be retained under the new law, even if it is not specifically provided for. Unless, of course, discretion is confused with license and it is forbidden lest racism rear it's ugly head.

When it comes down to it, to object to a law is to object to a crime. There is no trepidation in enforcing laws against burglary because there is consensus that burglary is a crime. There is trepidation concerning enforcing immigration laws because there is disagreement over what immigration policy should be. Many believe there is nothing illegal about illegal immigration. For them it is bad enough that there are laws against it. To enforce those laws is the very height of intolerance and chauvinism. To vigorously enforce those laws is an outrage.

It is the job of the police to enforce law, not debate it. If the job becomes too burdensome or objectionable, they are free to resign and find some other sort of work. They could even run for the statehouse if they feel strongly enough about the issue. In the mean time they should do their jobs and uphold the law: a job they are sworn to do. Citizens are not allowed to choose which laws to obey. Police are not allowed to choose which laws to enforce. Even less should police be allowed to choose which laws are worthy of enforcement, and which aren't. Discretion is one thing, disobedience is another.

On the bright side for pro immigration activists, Arizona's action is only a law. If they can gather the support, they can change it. They should be thankful the new policy was not implemented through the courts. If it had been, they would have a very different fight on their hands. As it stands, it is illegal to be in the U.S. illegally and there is a crime wave in progress. If you do not like the law, change it. Do not ignore it.

Banning guns.

Mexico's president recently chided the U.S. for the prevalence of weapons in Mexico. If America did a better job controlling its guns, many of them might not wind up in the hands of Mexican drug dealers and gangsters. Gun control has long a controversial subject: at least in modern times. Many decry the violence of American society and lament the casualties due to fire arms. They blame fire arms as if fire arms were the cause of the rising violence and death over the years and not the people who wield them. Yet the difficulty in the call to eliminate fire arms is they have legitimate uses. It is only when guns are misused that violence erupts. They can be used for sport or safety. Some people even enjoy collecting them: much to the chagrin of those absorbed by hatred for guns of all sorts.

Baseball bats kill people. Cars kill people in astounding numbers. Yet we often provide them to teens, along with the cell phones they talk on while driving. Knives kill people but we find them in abundance in every home. We are even provided with knives when we dine out: very sharp ones at some restaurants. Baseball bats are provided in to our youth despite the danger they pose in the wrong hands. The reason we allow knives, cars, and bats, but forbid hand grenades, machine guns, and bazookas is because there are reasonable uses for knives, cars, and bats. Driving, eating, and playing baseball are all respectable, even enjoyable, activities. Bazookas, grenades, and machine guns are another matter entirely. There is no reasonable need for a person to own a bazooka or a machine gun. We do not have to assault pill boxes or defend roadblocks. The Army does. That is why they have them.

Significantly, the thing that perhaps causes the greatest death, damage, and mayhem in our society is perfectly legal: automobiles. In California, there were 3,995 gun homicides in 2008. There were 34,000 trafic deaths reported in Califonia in 2009. A drunk driver that kills a family is a tragedy. A Wife killing her husband by driving over him will be well covered on the local evening evening news. Indeed, the story might be interesting enough for networks news to pick up. (For some reason, there is a comical aspect to a jilted or spiteful lover running over her ex.) But neither story will occasion a discussion about the need to regulate or control automobiles. Even the most horrendous traffic accident will not provoke a discussion over car ownership. Stabbings can be alarming, even painful, but no one will ever argue that knives should be banned.

America is obsessed with guns. Some devote their lives to banning them. Others endeavor to collect them. To some, guns are symbolic of freedom. To others they are emblematic of crime and murder. But at the bottom of the debate, guns are simply things, dangerous perhaps, but things nevertheless. Guns do not shoot people. People shoot people. The problem is not that people use guns to shoot other people. The problem is that people want to shoot other people.

As for U.S. guns winding up in Mexico, or anywhere else for that matter, the United States is a capitalist country populated by entrepreneurs. If there is a demand for guns in Mexico you can count on Americans to try and meet that demand. Perhaps Mexico should step up security on its side of the border.

Ban Knives?

In the last two weeks, 8 people have been killed and 41 injured, some seriously, by knife attacks in China. One had his hand chopped off. All the victims were either teachers or students. Many in China are alarmed at the attacks. So far, one of the attackers has been sentenced to death. Despite the violence, there has been no effort in China to ban knives and cleavers. It can be assumed that if the men had owned guns, those would have been used rather than knives and cleavers. As it was, the attackers relied upon the weapons at hand: knives, and cleavers.

This is something that should be borne in mind by those alarmed at similar attacks here in the U.S. where an assailant attacks multiple victims. Unlike the case in China, the weapons of choice in the U.S. are firearms. After each attack there has been an outcry against guns and efforts to ban them. The assumption is that banning guns would prevent such attacks. Even if guns were banned, it is unlikely that violence would cease: it would simply become more problematic as attackers searched for alternative weapons. There have already been incidences of mass attacks were vehicles were used.

Whatever the merits of gun control, and there are some, it should not be assumed that violence would cease where it is adopted. It wouldn't. Deranged attackers, disgruntled employees, unhinged postal workers, and jealous spouses would still plot and scheme. They would simply resort to different weapons. Perhaps they would push people out of windows or throw them under trains. Vindictive spouses might have to return to poisoning each other.

What lay behind attacks such as recent violence in China and the outrage at Columbine has nothing to do with guns or meat cleavers. It has everything to do with people. Restricting guns is an obvious first step, but it is only a stop gap. Law abiding citizens would have a harder time purchasing fire arms, but criminals would only be slowed down. They will still be able to acquire guns, despite laws against it. Criminals rarely have qualms about breaking the law. That is why they are criminals to begin with.

The use of violence to spectacularly lash out at coworkers, students, and society in general is a disturbing trend, but it is a recent one. Violence and murder have always existed, and they always will exist, just rarely at the level we experience today. If we really want to address the issue, we need to examine and try to understand what lay behind it. We must examine the alienation, frustration, and anger that permeates our society. We must seek to determine what it is about our society today that causes such outrages. People don't just attack students because they hate children. They attack students because it is spectacular. It is the result of a deranged mind seeking retribution and notoriety. Guns are no more behind attacks such as Columbine than meat cleavers are behind the attacks in China. The attack at Columbine was just more effective. If they had to, the attackers would have used baseball bats and sharp sticks. That might be of solace to some, but it shouldn't be.

The issue behind the attack in China is not about meat cleavers. It is about a man who attacked people with a meat cleaver. The issue behind gun violence in the U.S. is not about guns. It is about why so many people are willing to use guns.

Does It Matter What the Public Thinks?

Two recent polls gauged the American public's views towards immigration. Most Americans believe illegal immigration is an issue that needs to be addressed. According to a poll conducted by Mclatchy-Ipsos, 64 percent of registered voters nation wide approved of Arizona's tough new immigration law. A poll conducted by by the Pew Research Center found that 73 percent of Americans approve of laws requiring people to verify their legal status when asked. Two thirds of those polled felt it was reasonable for police to detain those cannot verify their legal status. Despite the findings of these polls, President Obama continues to criticize efforts such as the one made by Arizona as misguided. If we are to take Obama's word for it, the majority of Americans are misguided. Contrary to the will of voters, the Obama administration has gone so far as to file a law suit to block Arizona's new law. Someone needs to stop the voters of Arizona and Obama believes it is his job to do it. As if that weren't enough, even the U.N. has weighed in on the issue by taking time out of its busy schedule to condemn Arizona's law as promoting "ethnic chauvinism."

If the American public supports efforts to limit immigration and enforce immigration laws, and by all accounts it does, why is there so much resistance to it in Washington? It is likely that the reason for this is that the American public is only one factor in the equation. If we examine the debate over immigration, it is evident that they are not the most important factor. Numerous immigration lobbies oppose new restrictions on immigration. Business opposes tough new laws on immigration. Civil rights groups oppose strict laws on immigration. The thing these groups have in common is that they benefit from immigration, legal and otherwise.

Pro immigration activists benefit from immigration because, in Washington, numbers are power. The more immigrants, the greater the influence of the groups that claim to speak for them. Business benefits from immigration because it keeps wages low and profits high. Many in Congress oppose tough immigration laws because they rely on business and immigration rights activists for support. They are also very sensitive to their image in the national press. Stories and photos of illegal immigrants in distress do much to undermine resolution on the issue. Civil rights activists operate under the assumption that those in the country in violation of U.S. law have the same rights and privileges that citizens and legal residents do. They also benefit because the public display of their sentiments encourages support and donations. Additionally, they tend to oppose nearly everything the government does that in any way impinges on the license of individuals.

In the clamor over immigration reform it seems the only group that does not have a voice in Washington is the public. Sixty one percent of the American public is being stone walled by Washington. Health Care reform was passed with considerably less public support but was defended by many in Washington as meeting a need expressed by the public. The public is expressing a need that something be done over immigration. In this case, Washington isn't listening.

It wouldn't take much to address the issue. There are already laws on the books against illegal immigration. All Congress has to do is enforce them. But Washington isn't listening to the public. That is why tempers are rising across the nation. Arizona is listening to its voters. That is why Arizona is acting. If we are going to change the demographics of the United States, we should at least talk about it. But you can't just talk to the voters. You have to listen as well.

Maybe Washington believes this is just a phase voters are going through and that if they ride it out, the voters will forget about it and move on to something else. Maybe Washington thinks voters are confused and once they are straightened out, everything will return to normal. If they beleive this, they do so at their own peril. Immigration is not going away. Unless Washington does something about it, it is only going to get worse.

Building a Better Afghanistan.

In an editorial in this morning's Dallas Morning News, Stephen Biddle, a senior fellow at the Council for Foreign Relations, writes that the U.S. is wrong to put so much pressure on Hamid Karzai to reform the government in Afghanistan. There is tension between the U.S. and Karzai. The Obama administration is frustrated with Karzai's efforts to fight the insurgency in Afghanistan as well as his lethargic pace of reforming the government. The reason for the most recent flap is what the administration sees as Karzai's efforts to bolster his control in Afghanistan through electoral fraud and his attempts pack the Afghan Electoral Commission with loyal supporters. (Somewhat ironic given the current efforts to replace Supreme Court Justice Stevens.) The problem as Biddle sees it is larger than Karzai. The problem is the Afghanistan government itself.

Biddle is a critic of U.S. policy in Afghanistan. Like others, Biddle asserts that the U.S. is ignoring the elephant in the room. The problem as they see it is not so much who the leader of Afghanistan is, but the political culture there. Biddle is among the league of political leaders, intellectuals, and scholars who insist on giving advice to other nations on how to better run their countries. Biddle, like so many others, has his own ideas on how to make a modern, democratic, Afghanistan. Biddle's advice is more "carrots and sticks." More carrots to entice corrupt Afghan officials into reform, and, where carrots fail, more sticks. A better Afghanistan requires better government. Better government requires better laws. Better leaders enact better laws.

The fundamental difficulty with this approach is that it leaves people of the equation. It puts the cart before the horse as it were. Advocates of progress through better government frequently see society as the product of government, not the source. Government, as they understand, it is the product of laws. Good leaders will create good laws. Once the right leaders have been found and the right laws have been passed, democracy can be established. After that, it is only a matter of time before the people embrace it. Once the the people have been accustomed to the new laws, the new government will become part of the national fabric. According to this idea, if you want a democratic government, you need to find democratic leaders and pass democratic laws. The better the leaders, the better the laws. The better the laws, the better the government. Once a democratic government is in place, a democratic people will emerge. Once a democratic people have been established, an open culture will result, further bolstering the new democratic regime. Naturally there will be turbulence as people adjust to the new system and "hard line" elements fight against it. But, if the government perseveres, democracy will triumph.

Like so many other policies and programs, both domestic and foreign, people are treated as a constant. People are people according to this theory. All people have the same fundamental motivations and respond similarly the same to stimuli. All people want wealth and all people want freedom. Moreover, all people understand wealth and freedom in the same way. Wealth is always money, and freedom is always personal. Because of this, it is clear that capitalism is the best way to organize the economy of a nation because it is the best way to produce wealth. Democracy is the best way to politically organize society because it produces the most personal freedom. Everything else in society is subordinated to these ends. Culture, religion, and tradition will be tolerated where suitable but they must not be allowed to interfere with the goals of creating wealth and protecting personal freedom.

The problem is that people do not understand wealth and freedom the same way. Nor do they place the same emphasis on them. Some people have other things they value above wealth and liberty. Most often, those things consist of customs, traditions, and religious beliefs. If the accumulation of wealth is not a priority, capitalism has little appeal. A culture that values tradition and custom will be reluctant to embrace individual liberty. Where liberty is not embraced, democracy has little appeal. Indeed, where liberty is viewed as undermining the culture and traditions of a people, it is greeted with hostility.

Introducing positive law into cultures that have long relied on tradition and custom for political and social organization will often cause resentment and turmoil. Those with vested interest in maintaining traditional order will resist change. Those who embrace culture and tradition will see no reason to change. Those long comfortable with the social order will be cool to change because they dislike uncertainty and fear the unknown. Those who chafe under the traditional order might be likely to embrace change, but for the wrong reasons. Those with the most to gain from the promise of democracy, the neglected and the marginalized, most often see in it the promise for power. They do not embrace democracy because they find democratic principals appealing, but because they see in it an opportunity achieve their ambitions and redress the injustices they have had to endure. They have little interest in democracy other than as a way to obtain power. Commonly, where there is no democratic tradition in a culture, once power is obtained, democracy is soon found to be an inconvenience and jettisoned.

Changing the government in Afghanistan will not change Afghanistan. It will only change to government. What the United States is really after is changing the people of Afghanistan. Changing the government and building "democratic" institutions is simply a means to that end. It is not a very good means. The United States is trying to create the Afghanistan we want, not the Afghanistan the Afghans want. Therein lies the problem.

Building the Titanic.

In 1910, government spending accounted for 8% of the U.S. economy. Government spending for 2010 will be 48.48% of the U.S. GDP. That is the highest it has been since 1945 when it was 52.9% of the GDP. In 1945, the U.S. was fighting a world war. After the war, government spending dropped dramatically to 7.3% in 1948. It is extraordinarily unlikely government spending today will drop anytime soon. Even if it does, it will not drop significantly. Unlike in the 1940's, the U.S. is not fighting a world war. It is not even fighting a cold war. Counting the War on Terror, the 2010, defense spending as a percentage of the GDP in 2010 was 13%. The defense department could be abolished and the U.S. would still be in the red by almost $1 trillion

Government spending as a percentage of the GDP has risen over the last two years from 37.12% to 44.48%. That money was spent to prop up the economy and increase the size of government. According to the GPO, in 2012 the gross federal debt will be 100.6% of the GDP. The good news is that percentage is expected to drop to only 99.8%by 2014. If the federal government can exercise some fiscal restraint, that .2% can be used to start paying down the debt. At least it would be a good gesture.

What makes this grim news all the more grim is the extent to which the U.S. is dependent on the federal government. More than ever before the economy, and the public, are dependent on the federal government for their well being. Under the Obama administration, millions of Americans now rely upon government for their cars, their houses, their jobs, and their health care. Whole industries are being supported by Washington. If the federal government collapses under the weight of the growing national debt, it will take the nation down with it.

It didn't have to be this way. The federal government, as it was designed by the Framers, was to be a small and limited thing. It was created to do only those few things that the states could not do for themselves, e.g. provide for the defense of the nation, print money, and oversee trade. Neither the states nor their citizens relied upon Washington for their survival. For most of the nation, the federal government was something heard of but not seen or felt. There was little Washington could do to affect the lives or livelihoods of citizens short of starting a war. Indeed, Washington could have sunk into the swamp it was built on and most Americans would not have felt its loss.

The federal government began growing the day after the Constitution was signed, but it was not until the 20th century that it fully hit its stride. Since the New Deal of the 1930's, the federal government has expanded at a relentless pace. It is now the largest and single most powerful force in American life. There is no one and nothing outside its influence and grasp. There is no organization, institution or industry beyond its reach. Virtually nothing can be built, bought or sold without the government's approval or involvement. The government's move into health care was simply part of a long tradition of government expansion. Many will not rest until the federal government has filled every nook and cranny of American life. The government will have to keep expanding to meet the restless ambitions of those who would change the world.

America's fate is now tied to the federal government. Federalism was once a source of strength in the U.S., like bulkheads in a ship. That is no longer so. Those bulkheads that have not been removed have been weakened. We are now sailing like the Titanic. As large, luxurious and powerful as the ship may be, one iceberg can threaten to sink it. With the fiscal recklessness in Washington, we are steering straight for the icebergs.

The Other Costs of Immigration

Most of the debate concerning immigration today revolves around concrete and quantitative matters such as demographics, statistics, and economic analyses. These are easy to identify and measure. But there are other costs to immigration that are usually ignored when not evaded: the social and psychological costs of immigration. The psychological dislocation and social anomie that results from rapidly changing demographics is a subject rarely, if ever discussed. When it is discussed, it is most often treated as an abstract social phenomenon of interest to some and concern to others. When it emerges from the public, it is usually dismissed as backwardness or condemned as racism or ignorance. This mistake is a cause of much of the bitterness and condescension on display over immigration reform.

Coined by social theorist Emile Dirkheim in the 1950s, anomie is the condition of alienation caused by the disintegration of social codes. When the common mores and social codes of society begin to erode, the individual starts to lose his bearings. Things that he has taken for granted and values and customs that he has always relied upon as guides begin to disappear, and with them his comfort in the orderliness and predictability of his life. Such disorientation is commonly sneered at by advocates of social change as rooted in fear and ignorance or predicated upon simple routine and habit: shortcomings to be overcome in the new order. They feel it is the task of the indiviual to keep pace with society.

Immigration is almost always discussed in terms of numbers, costs and benefits. Any movement beyond the numbers is viewed suspiciously: as if beyond numbers lies only fear, emotion, and racism. But social disorientation caused by large and swift changes in demographics is a very real phenomenon. It is not a product of economic calculation as many on the right would have us believe. Nor is it a phantom or a product of ignorance and hate as many on the left would have us believe. It is a human response. It is human nature. It is very real.

Many on the Right believe that most things can and should be reduced to economic costs and benefits. Immigration is evaluated in terms of how it affects the economy. Where it is determined to benefit the economy, it is embraced. Opposition is viewed as ignorance and short sightedness. It is to be overcome through enlightening the public as to its self interest. They believe immigration is good for the economy. What is good for the economy is good for America. Therefore, immigration is good.

Many on the Left would have us believe that immigration is a matter of justice and fairness. They believe that immigration adds to the diversity of America. Because they believe that diversity is good, they feel immigration is good. Opposition is scorned as chauvinism or bigotry and is to be overcome preferably through indoctrination, or "education" as they often call it. Where indoctrination fails, compulsion through the law is relied upon.

Both sides commonly overlook human nature. They see society and culture as malleable and citizens as products of society. Change the law and you change society. Change society, and you change men. In order to change the law, one must control the government. That is why political contests have become more bitter and hard fought as the government grows ever larger in size and power. The more government controls, the more whoever is running the government controls. The more whoever is running the government controls, the higher the stakes in each election. The higher the stakes, the more bitter the contest.

At the bottom of the unease over immigration is human nature. People need predictability and familiarity. People need to believe that tomorrow will be like today and that others will be the same tomorrow as they are today. Without predictability, society becomes clamorous and confusing. Massive immigration undermines familiarity and predictability. Communities and neighborhoods change. Language changes. Customs and traditions change. Things that were once assumed or taken for granted suddenly become problematic. Some relish a carnival of langauges and customs. Most do not. Most people prefer predictabilty and tradition.

Where society is in constant flux it is difficult for many to adjust. When society changes more rapidly than people can adjust, resentment often results as people increasingly behold a world that is leaving them behind. Continuous immigration on the scale we are experiencing today provides little opportunity for communities and individuals to adjust. The resistance to change, and the slowness of people to adjust to it, as well as the resentment at having to change is more often attributed to ignorance and racism than natural human response. As is too often the case, when progressives find themselves in conflict with society, they insist that society yield.

Anomie is not the product of ignorance. It is part of human nature. It occurs in the wake of the detachment caused by changing circumstances that undermine the regularity and predictability of life. As the social world becomes increasingly unfamiliar to the individual, the individual no longer identifies with it. It becomes foreign to him; something that he must confront rather than participate in. Society becomes a challenge to the individual if he is to retain his identity and sense of self. The more quickly society changes, the greater the challenge.

Resentment at social change is not caused by racism, though racism can, and often does, contribute to it. It is the result of the frustration felt by those who feel they have no control over their lives and communities. It is the resentment by American citizens who feel that they are the ones being asked to assimilate and adapt to a new culture. They chafe at being the ones expected to adjust to meet new circumstances and meet the demands of a new culture they did not ask for and in many cases do not welcome. Asking people what immigration policy should be rather than telling them would be a good step towards giving people a sense of control over the issue. That sense of control would go a long way towards easing the resentment and bitterness that attend it.

Addressing public unease with immigration would require moving beyond numbers and statistics and entering the subjective world in which people live. But that is a messy and cluttered place filled with feelings, emotions, and sensibilities. It is a world opaque to reason and resistant to social planning. It is a world many wish did not exist. But it does exist and it must be taken into account. To do otherwise will only increase the alienation of the public from the government.

Immigration; Legal and Otherwise.

I suspect that if the Native Americans had a chance to do it all over, they would do a much better job protecting their borders and controlling immigration.

The Politics of Protest

Across the nation, protests continued over Arizona's new law cracking down on illegal immigration. Protesters with nothing to fear and nothing to lose from the new law took to the streets from Maine to California. The law makes it illegal to be in Arizona illegally. Being in the country illegally is already a violation of federal law.

Many are angered by the problematic nature of enforcing the law which they say will unfairly target Hispanics. Arizona has already made changes to the law to ease those concerns. Authorities will be restricted from using race or ethnicity as a basis for checking immigration status. Furthermore, checking immigration status will be in line with normal police procedure, the checking of a person's status can only be subsequent to police questioning. It cannot be the basis for it. Nevertheless, opponents of the law are not mollified. They have little faith in the police to adhere to the guidelines. They claim that the new law will lead to racial profiling. Groups across the nation have called for a boycott of all things Arizona. Some in Congress are calling on Major League Baseball to move its All Star Game from Arizona where it is scheduled to be played in 2011. According to former state senator Alfredo Gonzales, the goal of the boycott is to "is to as quickly as possible bring a shocking stop to the economy of Arizona." This from a person who once swore to serve the state he now seeks to undermine.

Many are also upset in the audacity of Arizona to pass such a law. They are outraged that Arizona has acted to put a stop to illegal immigration. Arizona state Representative Ed Ableser scoffed at Arizona's attempt to curb illegal immigration claiming that Arizona's move has "raised the bar on the definition of crazy and ridiculous."

The new law is popular in Arizona. In fact, 47% of Hispanics in Arizona support the measure. Arizona is one of the states most affected by the burdens and costs of illegal immigration. Some estimate that at present there are 283,000 illegal immigrants residing in Arizona. Others put the number as high as 500,000. More arrive every day. Arizona has a population of only 6.6 million so the number is more keenly felt than it would be elswhere. The growing rate of illegal immigration reflects not immigration so much as migration. Despite the common argument that illegal immigration is a boon to the U.S., The Federation for Immigration Reform estimates that the the net loss to Arizona from illegal immigration is $1.3 billion a year. It represents a household burden of $700 per natural born resident, regardless of ethnicity. One hospital near the Mexican border reported that its Emergency Room costs for treating illegal immigrants rose from $40,000 to $350,000 over the last four years.

People nationwide who are not affected in the least by the new law are clamoring for its repeal. For them it is a matter of principal. They object to immigration laws in general and see them as unfair and biased towards Mexicans. The fact that Swedes, Russians, Brazilians, and Malaysians are also subject to the new law is entirely lost on them. For them, any person who is able to sneak into the country has a right to be here. Every one who already resides in the U.S. illegally has a right to be here as well. Any attempt to curb illegal immigration or enforce the law is an abridgment of that right.

The zealousness and spite of pro immigration groups was on display in many of the protests. Demonstrators waved Mexican flags and shouted insults and obscenities at those they suspected of harboring contrary views: always a sure fire method of attracting sympathy for the cause. The anger of the protesters reflects a disdain for democracy. They rarely tolerate views contrary to their own. When their goals are thwarted they quickly turn to throwing tantrums and abusing those who disagree with them. They have little respect or patience for the legislative process. They know what they want and they want it now. They cannot understand how there can be principled opposition to their point of view. They suspect all opposition to be based on prejudice, ignorance, and selfishness. If they can gather enough people and yell loud enough, they expect the opposition to yield. If the state house refuses their demands, they turn to the courts. Appealing to voters is usually a last resort.

It is becoming more and more common for people to refuse to accept a loss. The new law in Arizona was passed with the support of majority of the people in Arizona. If the opponents of the new law can gather enough voters to elect enough legislators to change the law, they can do so. It is the nature of politics that some people always lose. It is also the nature of politics that no loss is ever permanent: unless, of course, courts are relied upon for victory. Supporters of untrammeled immigration lost in Arizona and people are upset. They do not like to lose. No one does. But because they lost in the statehouse, they are free to make their case in the next election. In the mean time they are obliged to obey the law.

When passion is high, some people are quick resort to the politics of protest. They rely on coercion to achieve their goals. Such methods are a danger to democracy. They want to punish the people of Arizona for adopting a law they object to. They are willing to damage the economy of Arizona as revenge for it passing a law they oppose. They threaten to do the same to any state that seeks to limit illegal immigration. Activists and protesters are trying to force Arizona to repeal the law. They are threatening to do everything they can to harm Arizona and any other state that adopts similar laws. They have little interest in what the voters in Arizona or elsewhere want. This is democracy as they understand it.

Batman on the Job.

In a bold move, President Obama announced that he had named Batman as Special Envoy. Bat Man's first stop was Cuba where he will try to improve relations between Washington and its long time adversary. "We have decided to see what we can do about mending our relationship with Havana" said one administration official. There was no word on what would be discussed in the talks. Bat Man's next stop is the Middle East where it is hoped he will be able to make progress on many of the thorny issues the U.S. faces in the region. According to an unnamed source in Washington, "Bat Man can be very persuasive. People listen to Batman. People respect Batman. He is a valuable asset to the United States. Nobody pushes the Bat Man around."

Cuban leaders in the U.S. welcomed the move. "If Washington had sent anyone else, we never would have agreed to the talks. We know the Batman is honest and fair. He can be counted on to do the right thing."

Oops. They thought it was dead.

Recently, a fetus in Italy that had been removed from its host was discovered not to be a fetus at all, but a baby. It was a baby because it was alive. A priest was praying over the recently discarded tissue when, to his shock, he noticed it was alive. He quickly notified hospital staff who tended to the infant they had recently, and unsuccessfully, tried to kill. Not only did the infant survive the abortion attempt, it stayed alive for another 20 hours. Despite the efforts of hospital staff, and the resiliency of the newborn baby, the abortion was ultimately successful. The infant died.

The fetus had been aborted at 22 weeks. Italian law allows abortion up until 20 weeks. Fetal tissue can be removed past 22 weeks if it is deemed necessary to the health of its host. Italian authorities are looking into the matter. It is being investigated as possible manslaughter. If it is shown that the aborted fetus was not in fact a fetus, but a child, charges could be filed. According to authorities, if nothing else, "we are dealing with a very grave case of abandonment."

What is of note is how the fetus came to be a child. Nothing had changed about the fetus. It was physiologically the same as it was when it was in its mother's womb. Essentially, the only thing that had changed was its location. It is almost as if the fetus was magically transformed into a child once it had been shifted 18 inches or so from inside the mother to outside. Development and viability often have less to do with the distinction than where the fetal matter happens to be at the moment.

This is not the only case in which fetal tissue survives the attempt to remove it. There are other cases. It is an interesting phenomenon. When abortions go wrong, sometimes the result is a baby. Modifying abortion laws would easily take care of the matter. It would simply be a matter of extending the legal definition of what a fetus is to include recently removed fetal tissue, whether it is functioning or not. No need to be squeamish. It is not as if we are killing babies.

If authorities are unsuccessful in their attempts to bring charges against the hospital, they should at least charge the physician who attempted the abortion with malpractice. What kind of doctor cannot kill a baby?

Too Much Information

In Oklahoma on Tuesday, the state legislature voted to override the governor's veto of two abortion bills. Among other things, one of the new laws will require doctors to perform an ultrasound and require the patient be provided with a description of the fetus and the procedure that will be used to remove it. The governor evidently believes the measure provides too much information for the patient to have to listen to. The governor's action seems to be based on the assumption that the more information the patient has about an abortion, the more difficult will be the decision to get one. Abortion rights groups are already moving to challenge the law: a curious move.

The reason this is curious is that it is a general assumption that the more information a patient has concerning a medical procedure, the better that patient will be able to decide whether to undergo it. Typically, a patient about to undergo a medical procedure is given a detailed description of the procedure that will be used and what it is hoped will be result. If, for example, a tumor was to be removed or a knee repaired, the doctor would describe the nature of the procedure and explain how he was going to go about it. Where x-rays are useful in explaining the problem, they are shown to the patient. Very few patients would refuse to look at x-rays or decline information offered by a doctor as to what is going to be done to them and what is hoped to be achieved by it. Indeed, many doctors would be considered negligent if they failed to provide information and options to the patient. The patient might decline to listen to the doctor or refuse to look at x-rays, but the information is provided.

Yet in Oklahoma, the governor decided that providing information about the procedure of getting an abortion and what would be involved would be too much for a patient to have to listen to. Some seem to think that if women are informed in any detail regarding the procedure of abortion they might be disinclined to get one. Even if this is true, why this should upset pro choice advocates is a mystery. The Oklahoma law will do nothing to undermine the stated goals of abortion advocates to keep abortion safe, legal, and rare. Abortion will not be made any less legal or safe by the law. It might make it more rare. Unless abortion advocates believe that ignorance, willful or otherwise, is necessary if abortion is to survive, their opposition to the measure is unjustified. If the proponents of choice believe that information works to their disadvantage, they should reassess the merits of their beliefs. It is a rare case indeed when information is seen as an obstacle to be avoided.

Making Illegal Immigration Illegal

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer contributed mightily to the growing conflict over immigration when she threatened to enforce the law. She signed a bill yesterday establishing the most restrictive immigration law in the country. Under the new law, it will be illegal to be in Arizona illegally. The law would require police to "make a reasonable attempt" to ascertain the legal status of a person if there is a "reasonable suspicion" regarding that person's immigration status. Immigrants would be required to provide documents proving they are in the country legally: documents they are obliged to possess. Additionally, it would allow laws suits to be filed against state and local agencies that are deemed to be abetting illegal immigration.

It is estimated that there almost 20 million immigrants in the U.S. illegally. Some put the number lower, others put it higher. Of those, 460,000 are in Arizona: an impressive number when you consider the population of Arizona is only six and a half million. The number of illegal immigrants is going up every day. Also, illegal immigrants tend to concentrate in certain areas making their impact greater than their overall numbers suggest. It is in the areas with high concentrations of illegal immigrants that the greatest costs and turmoil over immigration exists. Arizona's new law may seem drastic to people in Vermont, but it has great resonance in Arizona.

The new law was quickly condemned by many. The Catholic archbishop of Los Angeles breathlessly equated the new law to "Nazism." Mexico is also upset over the law. It expressed concern about the rights of its citizens, a concern less often observed at home than abroad. Mexican President Felipe Calderon called the law an obstacle to solving shared problems of the border region. Mexico's problems in the border region are very different than Arizona's. For Mexico, immigration is often a bonus. It relieves pressure in many poor areas of Mexico and provides a substantial flow of income from money sent home by Mexican immigrants in the U.S. One can only speculate what Calderon's response would be if the situation was reversed and tens of thousands of Americans were regularly stealing into Mexico. Pro immigrant groups are predictably up in arms. Relying as they do on numbers to make their case, stricter immigration laws might affect their memberships and political clout.

President Obama has criticized the law as misguided, even harmful. He chided Arizona, saying the law threatened to "undermine the basic notion of fairness that we cherish as Americans as well as the trust between police and communities" - as if enforcing the law was unfair. Fairness under law traditionally means the even application of the law regardless of person or circumstance. Exempting some people from obeying immigration laws is anything but fair. Mexicans should have to obey the same immigration laws that everyone else has to. As for undermining the trust between police and communities, if Obama was not speaking of the trust by illegal immigrants that they will not be apprehended and punished for violating immigration law, I am not sure what he was talking about.

The Arizona law reflects the frustration of many states with high illegal immigration. There are laws against illegal immigration, hence the title "illegal". The federal government has long been casual in enforcing those laws. It is state and local governments that have had to bear the brunt of the federal government's disinterest in enforcing immigration laws. Apart from the social and psychological dislocation caused by rapidly shifting demographics, there are concrete costs. Social services have had to be expanded to meet the needs of immigrants, many of whom are unskilled and illiterate, not just in English, but Spanish as well. Documents and services have to be duplicated to serve those unable to speak English: a not inconsiderable cost. School funding has had to be increased to meet the needs of the children of illegal immigrants: again, a burden that state and local governments often have to bear.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform estimates that the cost of educating the children of illegal immigrants in 2004 alone was $29.6 billion. Most of that additional cost was in places like Arizona and California with high concentrations of illegal immigrants. California spent $10.5 billion in 2007 to educate, incarcerate, and provide health care to illegal immigrants. It would be surprising if those costs have gone down. Against these costs are the benefits of cheap labor. But cheap labor has costs of its own, the most prominent of which is poverty. Additionally, local law enforcement has had to be increased to deal with many of the problems associated with porous borders, not least of which is drugs. There are numerous other costs associated with illegal immigration. Those costs are also largely borne by state and local governments.

There are many studies that exist concerning the costs and benefits of illegal immigration to the U.S. In 2007, the CBO concluded in regard to illegal immigration that "no agreement exists as to the size, or even the best way of measuring the cost at a national level." At the state level on the other hand, it is easier to measure the costs. They are closer to the problem and have a much better sense of the costs and benefits provided by illegal immigration. One conclusion that the majority of studies share is that it costs more than it benefits.

The federal government has done a poor job of securing the border and enforcing the law. In many cases, it has chosen to overlook the law, even at times intervening, as is the case in Arizona, to prevent its enforcement. Arizona is not seeking to change immigration laws, it is simply trying to enforce laws the federal government has enacted but proved reluctant to enforce. The governor stated that the new law "represents another tool for our state to use as we work to solve a crisis we did not create and the federal government has refused to fix."

Illegal immigration is a growing problem in the U.S., especially for those states forced to cope with large numbers of illegal immigrants. The majority of polls taken shows that most Americans believe that the federal government is not doing enough to curb illegal immigration. The numbers suggest they are right in their concern. Statistics show that the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. has increased sharply over the last two decades. It is estimated that 3.5 million people entered the U.S. illegally in 1990. In 2006, it was estimated that 12 million entered illegally. Despite recent information that the rate of illegal immigration has slowed due to the poor economy, the number is going up every day. If the federal government is unable, or unwilling to enforce laws against illegal immigration, it should not begrudge the states for trying to enforce them.

No doubt there will be many problems associated with trying to enforce the new law. What precisely a "reasonable suspicion" is or what constitutes a "reasonable attempt" will have to be worked out: assuming the law stands long enough for the issues to come up. Nevertheless, the effort by Arizona to gain control over its immigration problem is not unfair, racist, or tyrannical. It is simply trying to enforce the law and address a growing problem: a problem Washington should be taking care of, but isn't. If people object to immigration laws, those laws should be changed, not violated or ignored.

Illegal immigration is an active and growing problem. The longer it is not addressed, the worse it gets. Every year the issue gets put off the solution gets more difficult. The government needs to do something about it one way or the other. The federal government should help or get out of the way. Illegal immigration is not a pressing problem in many parts of the nation, but it is in Arizona. That is why Arizona is acting and Vermont is indignant. Therein lies the rub.

There are many who point out that laws against illegal immigration will not stop it. They are correct. But I would point out that laws against robbing banks do not stop people from robbing banks either, but that is no reason to ignore bank robbery. It is even less reason to legalize it.

Obama in the Polls

In the latest poll by Ramussen, 29% of those polled strongly approve of the job Obama is doing. 39% strongly disapprove. Last year, nearly 68% strongly approved of the job Obama was doing. Only 12% strongly disapproved. Recently, the numbers were even. 46% approved, 46% disapproved. Polls across the board show Obama's numbers have dropped significantly. Most polls show those numbers are not getting any better. Many show they are getting worse. Many democrats are facing uphill fights in the Fall elections. Even long time incumbent Senator Boxer is in trouble in California. The forecast for democrats this fall is not very bright.

By objective standards, Obama has had an extraordinary term so far. Every major effort he has undertaken, from the economy, to the environment, to his most recent triumph over health care has ended in success. In each of these efforts, Obama has claimed to have the public on his side and their interests at heart. So why are his numbers falling?

Obama's sagging numbers are probably due in part to two reasons. First of all, despite his bold promises and impressive spending, things have not improved very much. The modest gains in the economy have been hamstrung by the growing gloom concerning the future. It is becoming more and more difficult to ignore the implications of the mounting national debt. Perhaps a striking improvement in the economy would help to take people's minds off things. But there is little, if any improvement. So the people brood. Secondly, the massive expansion of the federal government is making people apprehensive. Government expansion would not be a bad thing if the government were efficient and responsive. But it is not. More and more of the economy is being swallowed by the government and disappearing into the federal swamp. The bigger government gets, the more people have to venture into the swamp. Most people like to avoid swamps.

Neither have things improved on the global stage. The world is no safer now than when Obama took office. Despite his peace prize, the world is no more peaceful now than it was two years ago. Obama has been unable to do very much to ease international tension or resolve conflicts. Fighting drags on in Iraq and Afghanistan. Palestinians and Israelis are still dieing, Africans are still starving, and the North Koreans still have an atomic bomb. What is worse, Iran is now two years closer to having a nuclear weapon.

Obama took office promising hope and change. Two years ago it seemed anything was possible. Certainly Obama felt anything was possible. But Obama and his supporters mistook their impressive victory for licence and attempted to remake America and the world. They have overplayed their hand. Along the way they have shifted from giving the people what they felt the people wanted, to giving the people what they felt the people needed. Obama's recent health care victory is a case in point. As the debate dragged on, the people grew more and more disenchanted. As disenchantment grew, Obama worked harder to get his plan passed. It was as if he was in a race against the public. Rarely has anyone ever had to work so hard to give away so much to so many.

The Democrat's flagging numbers should be a sign to Democrats, and Republicans as well, that it is perhaps time to stop telling the American public what it wants and ask them. It is not the job of the government to tell people what they want. It is the job of government to ask the people what they want and help them get it. Government should follow the people, not lead them. But that is a concept of government manifestly unsuited to a man like Obama. Obama sees it as his destiny to lead. His job, as he understands it, is to get the American public to follow him. Obama's sagging poll numbers indicate that the public is losing interest in where Obama is trying to lead them and becoming less and less willing to follow him.

Creep, creep, creep.

Many may have assumed that with the passage of health care reform, the issue was over. If they did, they are mistaken. Arguably, it has just begun. Issues that were pushed aside or avoided to achieve consensus are coming back into the light. Compromises made to ensure passage of the bill are already beginning to fray. Groups that were ignored or asked to hold their tongues in order to smooth passage of the law are speaking up. Said Jim Burroughs, a professor at George Mason University, "If people don't like the outcome [of health care legislation] they have another bite at it... to alter rules so they're more favorable to their policy point of view." Many groups are lining up for another bite at the apple.

The AARP is one of those groups. It is seeking to make sure that seniors receive the discounts that they have been promised. They are also concerned about the new rule that families cover children up until the age of 26 - an issue of concern for many older parents on tight budgets. Abortion rights groups are already at work trying to ensure new rules and regulations are drafted in a way to maximize abortion coverage. Pro life groups are vigilant and ready to intervene to the contrary. Obama's executive order covering federal funding for abortion will not last long. Orders, executive or otherwise, can be rescinded as easily as they can be issued. Drug makers are keeping a close eye on cost controls that were implemented in the new law and are ready to act if necessary. There are many more issues emerging all the time. Gay rights groups are already concerned about what the new plan will mean for them regarding access and consultation in the treatment of their partners. Health care has only just begun to creep its way into American life.

Under the new federal health care plan, health care has officially become a political issue. It is no longer an issue between doctors, patients, and insurers. The government now has to be taken onto account, and with it, lobbyists, activists, and voters. Each new election will bring new pressures and concerns to bear on the issue. One result is that health care will be in a constant state of flux. No government health care policy will ever be able to take into account the complexities of health care, the shifting demographics, or satisfy the needs and wants of everybody. Government will be forever trying to catch up. Every two years there will be a new discussion over health care. Additionally, new procedures and treatments will be developed. New drugs will be discovered. Costs will change. Insurance coverage will have to be continually modified to take these developments into account. It is near certain that those changes and modifications will be made in Washington with all the alacrity and deftness we have come to expect from government.

There will always be people upset and urging for change in policy. For every group that achieved a victory in the legislation, there is a group that lost. The victories won will never last. They will be fought over and over again. The people who are upset today will be running the system some day and it will be the turn of those now running the system to find themselves with the short end of the stick. Health care will become a fixture in many, if not all campaigns to come.

As personal and intimate as health care is to many voters, it is not an issue that will fade. As people move through their lives, their health care concerns will change. As they or loved ones become ill or are injured, their priorities will change. Health care will never be a static issue of budgets and staffing. It will always be a dynamic issue affecting millions upon millions of Americans. It is because of this that health care will never be behind us. It will always be in front of us.