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.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, June 28, 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
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.
-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.
Monday, June 21, 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Obama is Shrewd.
President Obama is shrewd. He is presiding over what is becoming the greatest environmental disaster in U.S. history. Public anger is growing in the face of the so far hapless efforts to stop the leak. Every day, things get worse. Everyday, people get angrier. Anger at BP is starting to spill over to the government, and not without reason. It is the government that was supposed to be overseeing off shore operations. It is the government that is responsible for establishing rules regarding off shore drilling and safety procedures. It is the government's job to ensure compliance with those procedures. It is Obama's job to make sure the government does its job. The Offshore Horizon blew up and sank on President Obama's watch.
Obama has decided the best way to manage the crisis is to go on the offensive. He cannot stop the leak, but he can be angry about it. And angry is what he is. "We will make BP pay" growled Obama. He swore to hold BP accountable for the disaster and vowed to ensure BP pays for it. Not just the clean up mind you. But for everything, from the loss of tourism dollars along the coast, to the losses suffered by fishermen and tour boats as well. Everyone who who is harmed by the spill will be made whole. Obama swears it.
It is not enough for Obama to issue another one of his mea culpas here. He is not going to take responsibility for this one. Lapses in airport security are one thing. Environmental disasters of Biblical proportions are another. Obama has concluded the best way out of this is for him to be even angrier than the public. He knows that if he can be angrier than the people who are taking the spill on the chin, chances are they will throw their anger in with his rather than hold it against him. They are angry, but the president is even angrier. The president is with the people. He feels their suffering and he shares their anger and frustration. It is almost as if he is as much a victim as they are.
President Obama is shrewd.
Obama has decided the best way to manage the crisis is to go on the offensive. He cannot stop the leak, but he can be angry about it. And angry is what he is. "We will make BP pay" growled Obama. He swore to hold BP accountable for the disaster and vowed to ensure BP pays for it. Not just the clean up mind you. But for everything, from the loss of tourism dollars along the coast, to the losses suffered by fishermen and tour boats as well. Everyone who who is harmed by the spill will be made whole. Obama swears it.
It is not enough for Obama to issue another one of his mea culpas here. He is not going to take responsibility for this one. Lapses in airport security are one thing. Environmental disasters of Biblical proportions are another. Obama has concluded the best way out of this is for him to be even angrier than the public. He knows that if he can be angrier than the people who are taking the spill on the chin, chances are they will throw their anger in with his rather than hold it against him. They are angry, but the president is even angrier. The president is with the people. He feels their suffering and he shares their anger and frustration. It is almost as if he is as much a victim as they are.
President Obama is shrewd.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
In Need of Drones
Unmanned drones are in great demand these days. They have proven to be of tremendous value in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are inexpensive to operate and provide greater flexibility that fixed wing aircraft or helicopters. They are small and stealthy and can stay aloft for much greater time than piloted aircraft. They come in all shapes and sizes. Some are even small enough to fly through a window. Their information gathering abilities are second to none.
The effectiveness, flexibility, and low cost of drones gives them enormous appeal. Some are asking that they be used to monitor pipelines. Some are requesting their use to collect storm data. Most notably, they are being requested to help monitor the U.S. Mexican border. The latest addition to the list is local police. Local police have begun requesting drones to assist them in their duties. They want to use drones to track fleeing suspects. They also want to use them to capture the license plate numbers of speeders.
Has it really come to this? Have we become so enamored with technology that we are not satisfied unless the highest and most sophisticated technologies are employed to every instance? Does every sprain require an X-ray? Does every automobile require satellite navigation? Can life be lived without an Ipod? Do we need pilotless drones to run down suspects and catch speeders?
The fundamental and eternal danger with technology is not what it can do. It is to what purposes it will be applied. The same technology that allows terrorists to be tracked at night in the forrest can track me in my back yard. Law has become a flimsy bulwark for privacy and individual liberty, and the Constitution is no longer the defense it once was. The government certainly cannot be relied upon. Neither can the public. I, for one, am going to make it a point to keep my windows closed.
The effectiveness, flexibility, and low cost of drones gives them enormous appeal. Some are asking that they be used to monitor pipelines. Some are requesting their use to collect storm data. Most notably, they are being requested to help monitor the U.S. Mexican border. The latest addition to the list is local police. Local police have begun requesting drones to assist them in their duties. They want to use drones to track fleeing suspects. They also want to use them to capture the license plate numbers of speeders.
Has it really come to this? Have we become so enamored with technology that we are not satisfied unless the highest and most sophisticated technologies are employed to every instance? Does every sprain require an X-ray? Does every automobile require satellite navigation? Can life be lived without an Ipod? Do we need pilotless drones to run down suspects and catch speeders?
The fundamental and eternal danger with technology is not what it can do. It is to what purposes it will be applied. The same technology that allows terrorists to be tracked at night in the forrest can track me in my back yard. Law has become a flimsy bulwark for privacy and individual liberty, and the Constitution is no longer the defense it once was. The government certainly cannot be relied upon. Neither can the public. I, for one, am going to make it a point to keep my windows closed.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Looking for a Few Victories
Things have not been going particularly well recently for President Obama. The impotency of the administration to do anything about the oil spill in the Gulf must be a tremendous frustration for an administration that has become accustomed to getting its way and staying on top of things. Despite Obama's speeches, admonitions, and threats, oil is still pouring into the Gulf. Iran has proved no less stubborn in thwarting the administration. They, like the spill in the Gulf, have proved resistant to the administration's attempts to affect the situation. Obama's numerous speeches and somber warnings have done nothing to thwart Iran's continuing nuclear efforts. The situation in Israel is worse than it has been in many years. The economy is still foundering. The situation in Afghanistan has shown little improvement. The list goes on.
Obama is increasingly indignant with those deemed to be behind the growing calamity in the Gulf. He has been delivering one harsh speech after another while his calculated anger grows. Meanwhile, the situation in the Gulf continues to deteriorate and the sense of the government's inability to do anything about it mounts.
In the Middle East, tension is growing. Iran's defiance has only increased. Obama's inability to rally erstwhile allies such as Turkey to the cause is a sign of America's decreasing influence in the region. The failure to make progress in Afghanistan reflects the limits of U.S. power to bring about its stated goals. His diffidence in pursuing U.S. interests around the world has emboldened nations like China to pursue their own agendas rather than deferring to the global principles and conventions the U.S. has long championed.
Obama seems determined to get back into the win column and shore up his image as a take charge president. To this end he is once again going after the tobacco companies and has dispatched his wife on a mission to "support the troops." Obama's move to go back to the well and make another effort to crush the tobacco industry is a politically safe and increasingly popular tactic. No one supports the tobacco industry but the people who work in it and those who are addicted to it. It is all but impossible to mount a defense for it beyond appealing to the principles of liberty and the free market.
Few any longer recognize the individual liberty to live one's life as one sees fit: especially if that lifestyle is ill advised. You cannot live your life if your lifestyle is seen to adversely affect society or economy. This amounts to a blank check to regulate the behavior of people and meddle in their lives since virtually everything a person does or doesn't do has an impact on the economy. Liberty is no longer an effective defense. Your life and health are no longer your own. You are part of a collective to which your will and appetites must be subordinated. Any appeal to free markets would be wasted on the Obama administration. The poor regard for markets of any sort held by the administration has become abundantly clear over the last two years.
Despite Obama's efforts to change America's behavior and the world, things really haven't improved. People still over eat. People are still greedy and indifferent. Iran is still pursuing nuclear weapons. North Korea still has nuclear weapons. The economy is still languishing. The Middle East is awash in tension and conflict. Oil still continues to flow unabated in the Gulf. His health care victory has not garnered the thanks of a grateful nation but spawned acrimony and conflict. Perhaps worst of all, people are still smoking.
Obama needs a victory. He needs to reestablish himself an effective champion of the people so he has decided forcefully vent his indignation on two industries currently held in very low regard by the public: the tobacco and oil industries. The tobacco industry has become an easy target. Concepts like free markets, liberty, and individual choice stand little chance these days against public indignation and government ire. Smokers and tobacco users will be punished for their sins. Not directly mind you, even that is a step the administration is unwilling to take, but indirectly through slight of hand. He will tax the tobacco dealers into poverty and regulate them into oblivion. The veneer of free markets and liberty must be preserved, but no longer than is absolutely necessary to eviscerate the tobacco industry and strangle its market. As for the free market, over the last two years Obama has clearly demonstrated his lack of faith in the market's ability to manage its affairs and meet the needs of the public.(In fairness, the market recently has done an extraordinary job of creating that impression.)
Little needs to be said of Obama's determination hold the energy industry accountable for the disaster in the Gulf. Despite the government's complicity in the matter: they are the ones, after all, who license and ensure compliance with environmental safety measures and spill prevention procedures, Obama is determined to keep the public eye firmly fixed on the energy industry rather than the government that is supposed to be overseeing that industry.
To refurbish his Commander in Chief image and underline his support for the military, Obama dispatched the First Lady to Camp Pendleton to meet with Marines wounded in Afghanistan and Iraq at Camp Pendleton. By dispatching the First Lady, the administration is simultaneously able to demonstrate its support for the troops and deflect criticism for its handling of the two wars. No one can criticize the First Lady for meeting with injured troops. She will not provoke questions and criticisms of the war effort. She is not to blame for their condition.
Obama is moving vigorously, as is his wont, to keep the public from focusing on any one issue or problem. Any lingering on a particular issue is to Obama's detriment. He has done much, but he has accomplished little. He knows a recent victory is worth ten past failures.
Obama is increasingly indignant with those deemed to be behind the growing calamity in the Gulf. He has been delivering one harsh speech after another while his calculated anger grows. Meanwhile, the situation in the Gulf continues to deteriorate and the sense of the government's inability to do anything about it mounts.
In the Middle East, tension is growing. Iran's defiance has only increased. Obama's inability to rally erstwhile allies such as Turkey to the cause is a sign of America's decreasing influence in the region. The failure to make progress in Afghanistan reflects the limits of U.S. power to bring about its stated goals. His diffidence in pursuing U.S. interests around the world has emboldened nations like China to pursue their own agendas rather than deferring to the global principles and conventions the U.S. has long championed.
Obama seems determined to get back into the win column and shore up his image as a take charge president. To this end he is once again going after the tobacco companies and has dispatched his wife on a mission to "support the troops." Obama's move to go back to the well and make another effort to crush the tobacco industry is a politically safe and increasingly popular tactic. No one supports the tobacco industry but the people who work in it and those who are addicted to it. It is all but impossible to mount a defense for it beyond appealing to the principles of liberty and the free market.
Few any longer recognize the individual liberty to live one's life as one sees fit: especially if that lifestyle is ill advised. You cannot live your life if your lifestyle is seen to adversely affect society or economy. This amounts to a blank check to regulate the behavior of people and meddle in their lives since virtually everything a person does or doesn't do has an impact on the economy. Liberty is no longer an effective defense. Your life and health are no longer your own. You are part of a collective to which your will and appetites must be subordinated. Any appeal to free markets would be wasted on the Obama administration. The poor regard for markets of any sort held by the administration has become abundantly clear over the last two years.
Despite Obama's efforts to change America's behavior and the world, things really haven't improved. People still over eat. People are still greedy and indifferent. Iran is still pursuing nuclear weapons. North Korea still has nuclear weapons. The economy is still languishing. The Middle East is awash in tension and conflict. Oil still continues to flow unabated in the Gulf. His health care victory has not garnered the thanks of a grateful nation but spawned acrimony and conflict. Perhaps worst of all, people are still smoking.
Obama needs a victory. He needs to reestablish himself an effective champion of the people so he has decided forcefully vent his indignation on two industries currently held in very low regard by the public: the tobacco and oil industries. The tobacco industry has become an easy target. Concepts like free markets, liberty, and individual choice stand little chance these days against public indignation and government ire. Smokers and tobacco users will be punished for their sins. Not directly mind you, even that is a step the administration is unwilling to take, but indirectly through slight of hand. He will tax the tobacco dealers into poverty and regulate them into oblivion. The veneer of free markets and liberty must be preserved, but no longer than is absolutely necessary to eviscerate the tobacco industry and strangle its market. As for the free market, over the last two years Obama has clearly demonstrated his lack of faith in the market's ability to manage its affairs and meet the needs of the public.(In fairness, the market recently has done an extraordinary job of creating that impression.)
Little needs to be said of Obama's determination hold the energy industry accountable for the disaster in the Gulf. Despite the government's complicity in the matter: they are the ones, after all, who license and ensure compliance with environmental safety measures and spill prevention procedures, Obama is determined to keep the public eye firmly fixed on the energy industry rather than the government that is supposed to be overseeing that industry.
To refurbish his Commander in Chief image and underline his support for the military, Obama dispatched the First Lady to Camp Pendleton to meet with Marines wounded in Afghanistan and Iraq at Camp Pendleton. By dispatching the First Lady, the administration is simultaneously able to demonstrate its support for the troops and deflect criticism for its handling of the two wars. No one can criticize the First Lady for meeting with injured troops. She will not provoke questions and criticisms of the war effort. She is not to blame for their condition.
Obama is moving vigorously, as is his wont, to keep the public from focusing on any one issue or problem. Any lingering on a particular issue is to Obama's detriment. He has done much, but he has accomplished little. He knows a recent victory is worth ten past failures.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
The Problem With Law
Eric Balderas is a Harvard University student from San Antonio, Texas. He is also an illegal immigrant. He was detained recently at a Texas airport and is facing deportation to Mexico. Immigration advocates are up in arms. Anti immigration activists are scrambling to address the embarrassment and awkwardness of their insistence on tough immigration laws. Balderas is studying molecular and cellular biology at Harvard on a full scholarship. His goal is to become a cancer researcher.
Balderas bears some of the blame for his predicament. Despite his claim that he is a "private person", Balderas attended the "Coming Out Day" organized in March where those in the U.S. illegally publicly announced their violation of U.S. law. In essence, they dared the government to enforce the law. The government accepted the dare and enforced the law. Balderas is paying the price for his action. Nevertheless, Balderas' plight reflects a fundamental problem with law.
Law, particularly English law, has long contained the element of equity. Equity allows particulars and circumstances to be taken into account in the application of law. The particulars in Balderas' case are his motivation, his intelligence, his work ethic, and his achievement. Unfortunately, those factors are only rarely taken into account by the law as it has come to be understood.
Equity has been criticized, with reason, as subverting the basic fairness of law, viz that the law applies equally to all people at all times. To take person or circumstance into account is to open the door to a subjective application of the law. In a sense, it allows judges to interpret and apply the law as they see fit. The benefit to this approach is that it allows flexibility and fairness. While the law remains the same, the particulars surrounding the law do not. Different people violate the same law in different ways, under different circumstances, to different ends. Under this concept of law, a man who robs a bank to obtain funds needed for an operation to save the life of his child can be treated differently than a man who robs a bank to support his drug habit,. The same law is broken but the circumstances are very different. Equity allows the particulars of the case to be considered. The man who robbed the bank for drug money could be judged differently than the man who robbed it to save his ill child. There is a sense of fairness understood to apply here.
This approach has fallen into disfavor. Historically, the prerogative allowed under equity has often been abused. The most egregious examples would be the cases where white defendants were given minimal sentences for crimes committed against blacks whereas blacks who committed the same crimes against whites in were sentenced severely, even hung. To the minds of most southerners, this was not wrong. Indeed, justice demanded it. Blacks and whites were different. Justice demanded that they be treated differently. The outrage such "justice" engendered led to support for impartial, objective application of the law. Murder is murder and all murderers should be punished the same regardless of time, place, and circumstance.
The result was a new inflexibility due to a swing back towards, uniform, "objective" application of the law. Judicial discretion and jury sentencing became viewed with suspicion as subjective and partial. As a consequence, mandatory sentencing laws became popular. They removed judicial discretion in an effort to apply the law uniformly and without regard to person or circumstance. Law was no longer allowed to take particulars into account. The law would be applied to junkies and desperate parents alike. Judges and juries became part of a machine. Facts were to be put in. Laws would be applied. Justice would be administered. Sentences would be selected and handed out.
This is the situation we frequently find ourselves in today. Because of the mistrust of courts, juries, and judges, the law is to be applied mechanically. Balderas is to be treated like any other illegal immigrant. To do otherwise would be "unfair". The law will not admit a distinction between a Harvard University student and a migrant farm worker. The irony here is that those most upset at Balderas' situation are the same who originally championed the objective application of the law over judicial discretion. It is those who opposed the taking of particulars into account who are now demanding that particulars be taken into account.
You cannot be forever amending the law to take into account changing particulars and circumstances. Laws will always be imperfect. Forever piling laws on top of laws will not change the situation one bit. Either you trust judges and juries to make distinctions, or you don't. Either you trust authorities to make decisions and apply the law fairly, or you don't. In essence, you either trust people, or you don't. You cannot demand discretion when it suits you and forbid it when it doesn't.
Anglo American law had a mechanism for resolving situations like Balderas'. That mechanism was equity. Equity allowed the particulars of a case to be taken into account. Particulars require consideration and judgement. In short, equity requires people. Because we came to distrust the human element, we attempted to eliminate equity through a blind, machine like application of the law and mandatory sentences. Now, when a case arises were equity is needed, it is not there. Balderas' case does not demand a new law. Indeed, that is the last thing we need. Neither does it demand the law be rescinded. What it demands is equity. What equity requires is faith in human judgement.
Law is impersonal. Society is not. People can make distinctions the law cannot. If you don't trust people to make a distinction between day laborers and graduate students, you should not complain when that distinction is not made.
Balderas bears some of the blame for his predicament. Despite his claim that he is a "private person", Balderas attended the "Coming Out Day" organized in March where those in the U.S. illegally publicly announced their violation of U.S. law. In essence, they dared the government to enforce the law. The government accepted the dare and enforced the law. Balderas is paying the price for his action. Nevertheless, Balderas' plight reflects a fundamental problem with law.
Law, particularly English law, has long contained the element of equity. Equity allows particulars and circumstances to be taken into account in the application of law. The particulars in Balderas' case are his motivation, his intelligence, his work ethic, and his achievement. Unfortunately, those factors are only rarely taken into account by the law as it has come to be understood.
Equity has been criticized, with reason, as subverting the basic fairness of law, viz that the law applies equally to all people at all times. To take person or circumstance into account is to open the door to a subjective application of the law. In a sense, it allows judges to interpret and apply the law as they see fit. The benefit to this approach is that it allows flexibility and fairness. While the law remains the same, the particulars surrounding the law do not. Different people violate the same law in different ways, under different circumstances, to different ends. Under this concept of law, a man who robs a bank to obtain funds needed for an operation to save the life of his child can be treated differently than a man who robs a bank to support his drug habit,. The same law is broken but the circumstances are very different. Equity allows the particulars of the case to be considered. The man who robbed the bank for drug money could be judged differently than the man who robbed it to save his ill child. There is a sense of fairness understood to apply here.
This approach has fallen into disfavor. Historically, the prerogative allowed under equity has often been abused. The most egregious examples would be the cases where white defendants were given minimal sentences for crimes committed against blacks whereas blacks who committed the same crimes against whites in were sentenced severely, even hung. To the minds of most southerners, this was not wrong. Indeed, justice demanded it. Blacks and whites were different. Justice demanded that they be treated differently. The outrage such "justice" engendered led to support for impartial, objective application of the law. Murder is murder and all murderers should be punished the same regardless of time, place, and circumstance.
The result was a new inflexibility due to a swing back towards, uniform, "objective" application of the law. Judicial discretion and jury sentencing became viewed with suspicion as subjective and partial. As a consequence, mandatory sentencing laws became popular. They removed judicial discretion in an effort to apply the law uniformly and without regard to person or circumstance. Law was no longer allowed to take particulars into account. The law would be applied to junkies and desperate parents alike. Judges and juries became part of a machine. Facts were to be put in. Laws would be applied. Justice would be administered. Sentences would be selected and handed out.
This is the situation we frequently find ourselves in today. Because of the mistrust of courts, juries, and judges, the law is to be applied mechanically. Balderas is to be treated like any other illegal immigrant. To do otherwise would be "unfair". The law will not admit a distinction between a Harvard University student and a migrant farm worker. The irony here is that those most upset at Balderas' situation are the same who originally championed the objective application of the law over judicial discretion. It is those who opposed the taking of particulars into account who are now demanding that particulars be taken into account.
You cannot be forever amending the law to take into account changing particulars and circumstances. Laws will always be imperfect. Forever piling laws on top of laws will not change the situation one bit. Either you trust judges and juries to make distinctions, or you don't. Either you trust authorities to make decisions and apply the law fairly, or you don't. In essence, you either trust people, or you don't. You cannot demand discretion when it suits you and forbid it when it doesn't.
Anglo American law had a mechanism for resolving situations like Balderas'. That mechanism was equity. Equity allowed the particulars of a case to be taken into account. Particulars require consideration and judgement. In short, equity requires people. Because we came to distrust the human element, we attempted to eliminate equity through a blind, machine like application of the law and mandatory sentences. Now, when a case arises were equity is needed, it is not there. Balderas' case does not demand a new law. Indeed, that is the last thing we need. Neither does it demand the law be rescinded. What it demands is equity. What equity requires is faith in human judgement.
Law is impersonal. Society is not. People can make distinctions the law cannot. If you don't trust people to make a distinction between day laborers and graduate students, you should not complain when that distinction is not made.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Geezer Bandit
On Monday, the "Geezer Bandit" pulled his his tenth bank heist in San Diego since August. He is called the "Geezer Bandit" because, by all appearances, he is in his seventies. He walked into a San Diego bank, pulled a revolver, and demanded money. According to authorities, after the robbery, the man fled. Some speculate that the "Geezer Bandit" is not in fact a geezer, but a man disguised as a "geezer".
Most people are able to spot a disguise. Unless the disguise is courtesy of a Hollywood make up artist, it would be easy to identify a disguise when right in front of you. Perhaps the teller was so rattled by the sight of the revolver, that they did not take the time to examine the man who was robbing them. Still, it is difficult to see how an old man could "flee." Most 70 year old men cannot run, let alone flee. If the man bounded out the door, that would be a good indication that he was wearing a disguise.
Anyone can rob a bank. It is not difficult. All you have to do is walk in and give the teller a note. You do not even need a gun. In many ways, robbing a bank is easier than making a withdrawal. Even a 70 year old man can do it. The hard part of robbing a bank is getting away.
How a 70 year old man can get away defies comprehension. Most men 70 years old move at a very slow pace. They certainly cannot flee. In some of his heists, the bandit was even carrying an oxygen tank. An elderly man with an oxygen tank would not be difficult to follow, let alone catch, even if he had a get away car parked right outside. (I cannot imagine a 70 year old man with an oxygen tank parking his get away car a block away.) Yet in ten robberies, no one has seen fit to follow him out the door. Evidently, no one has even looked out the window.
Many banks have security guards. These men are trained to prevent bank robberies. So far, they have been unable to prevent a 70 year old man with an oxygen tank from tottering out the door and getting away. Perhaps worse still, police in San Diego (presumably on alert due to the spate of armed bank heists) have been unable to respond in time to catch the Geezer Bandit. The bandit remains elusive even after 10 heists. Either banks in San Diego are hiring 80 year old security guards and near sighted tellers, or John Dillinger is alive and well in Southern California.
Most people are able to spot a disguise. Unless the disguise is courtesy of a Hollywood make up artist, it would be easy to identify a disguise when right in front of you. Perhaps the teller was so rattled by the sight of the revolver, that they did not take the time to examine the man who was robbing them. Still, it is difficult to see how an old man could "flee." Most 70 year old men cannot run, let alone flee. If the man bounded out the door, that would be a good indication that he was wearing a disguise.
Anyone can rob a bank. It is not difficult. All you have to do is walk in and give the teller a note. You do not even need a gun. In many ways, robbing a bank is easier than making a withdrawal. Even a 70 year old man can do it. The hard part of robbing a bank is getting away.
How a 70 year old man can get away defies comprehension. Most men 70 years old move at a very slow pace. They certainly cannot flee. In some of his heists, the bandit was even carrying an oxygen tank. An elderly man with an oxygen tank would not be difficult to follow, let alone catch, even if he had a get away car parked right outside. (I cannot imagine a 70 year old man with an oxygen tank parking his get away car a block away.) Yet in ten robberies, no one has seen fit to follow him out the door. Evidently, no one has even looked out the window.
Many banks have security guards. These men are trained to prevent bank robberies. So far, they have been unable to prevent a 70 year old man with an oxygen tank from tottering out the door and getting away. Perhaps worse still, police in San Diego (presumably on alert due to the spate of armed bank heists) have been unable to respond in time to catch the Geezer Bandit. The bandit remains elusive even after 10 heists. Either banks in San Diego are hiring 80 year old security guards and near sighted tellers, or John Dillinger is alive and well in Southern California.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Worth a Try
In 2008, as the economy continued to sour, President Bush proposed $100 billion in tax cuts. It didn't work. The economy continued to languish and the Republicans lost the White House. In 2009, Congress tried another approach. They spent nearly $1 trillion to stimulate the economy. That hasn't worked either. Republicans continue to urge tax cuts. Democrats continue to urge more government and more spending. Very few are advocating getting government out of the way by reducing federal regulation and leaving the economy alone. If cutting taxes and increasing spending haven't worked, why not try getting government out of the way and just let the economy recover on its own? Perhaps this is because no one gets credit for doing nothing.
Taxes have been cut, (or at least nibbled at), and vast amounts of money have been spent, yet one thing has remained constant: the government. Americans are industrious, innovative, and resilient. They want to work and they want to make money. They have historically been very good at both. We should get government out of they way and give them a chance. It is worth a try.
Taxes have been cut, (or at least nibbled at), and vast amounts of money have been spent, yet one thing has remained constant: the government. Americans are industrious, innovative, and resilient. They want to work and they want to make money. They have historically been very good at both. We should get government out of they way and give them a chance. It is worth a try.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, June 4, 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
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.
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.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, May 21, 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)