I Bet You Didn't Know This

In the latest yearly jobs report by Parade Magazine, different professionals were listed according to their salaries. A gemologist in Kennewick, Washington earned $60,000 last year. An Air Force officer in Peoria, Arizona earned $103,000. A food truck owner in Salt Lake City, Utah earned $43,000. A Fed Ex pilot in Illinois made $148,000. A ballet dancer in New York City made $16,800. What was of particular interest was that an astrologer in Phoenix, Arizona made $177,250 last year: more money than everyone on the list except for the plastic surgeon in Las Vegas. He made $1 million last year.

Ironically, a meteorologist in Warwick, Rhode Island made $90,000 last year, slightly more than half of what the astrologer made. Both astrologers and meteorologists are concerned with predicting the future. If you want to know whether you should go ahead with your plans for that outdoor wedding, if income is a sign of talent, you might want to consider ignoring the meteorologist and consult the astrologer.

So, if your child hasn't yet decided on a career and they are not cut out to be a surgeon or a pilot, you might suggest he become an astrologer. Not only is it a time honored profession, it can be a well paying one. Whatever you do, do not let him go to New York City and become a ballet dancer unless he is exceptionally good. Even a food truck driver can make more money than a ballet dancer.

I am curious what a good phrenologist can make in a year.

Pastor Rob Bell

Pastor Rob Bell is making waves in evangelical circles. He is even being accused of heresy, specifically evangelical heresy. In his book Love Wins , Bell asserts that God's love will triumph over sin, regardless of how grave the sin might be and even if a person does not repent and ask to be saved. That is an outrage to many evangelicals to whom God's wrath is a central tenet. Bell really hits a nerve when he asserts everyone will be saved. This is where he parts ways with most evangelical protestants. What is the point of having rules if there is no punishment for violating them? What is the point of Hell if no one is sent there?

Bell is no St. Augustine. He is a man with a Masters of Divinity degree who has founded his own church. He may draw thousands on Sunday, but that does not make him a theologian. Along side nearly two thousand years of Church history and exhaustive work on the part of real theologians, Bell posits his own interpretation of Christianity. In the free for all that has come to characterize modern protestantism, that is certainly his prerogative. In the religious circus that frequently makes up world of evangelical Christianity it is not surprising. The only check on evangelical heresy is the congregation. As long as people come in on Sunday and leave some money behind it really doesn't matter what the pastor preaches. Stature in the evangelical world is measured by congregants and donations, not orthodoxy.

Pastor Bell is not asking questions that have not already been asked. The questions of salvation, grace, sin, and repentance have been at the heart of Christianity since its founding. Many of the greatest minds in history have wrestled with the subject. Now Rob Bell, an evangelical pastor in Michigan, has weighed in. Bell argues that God's love can transcend sin. Of course it can. Outside of the fire and brimstone world of evangelical protestantism, that is not an issue. The issue is whether people want mercy, whether they are willing to humble themselves and admit they need it, and whether they are sincerely willing to ask for it.

I only want to know why people should care what Pastor Rob Bell thinks? Anyone can pick up a Bible and interpret it by their own lights. That is a major reason why for centuries the Church prohibited people from reading the Bible. Pastor Bell is no Martin Luther. He is an evangelical pastor from North Carolina. No one should live in fear of Bellism.

Obama Has Some Explaining to Do.

When President Obama addresses the nation on Monday he will seek to explain the reasoning behind the air campaign launched against Libya. When the campaign commenced it was announced that the purpose of the operation was to protect Libyan civilians from air attacks by forces loyal to Gadhafi. After air defenses were knocked out, the Libyan air force was soon swept from the skies. It was then announced that the next step would also be to protect civilians, this time from the tanks and artillery of Libyan army. Loyalist ground forces in the open were quickly decimated. Still, Gadhafi's forces refused to yield and pressed onward. It was assumed by some that, deprived of air power and hobbled by the loss of mechanized units and supplies, loyalist forces would vacate the field. They didn't. While a rebel collapse was avoided, they are still largely on the defensive. That might change very soon. The rebels might be out manned and outgunned, but they now have a top rate air force.

The United States is frustrated by the lack of rebel success so far in defeating the Libyan military, so it has decided to go over to offense. Instead of simply interdicting the Libyan air force, coalition aircraft have begun supplying air support to rebel troops on the ground. They have already attacked government forces blocking the rebel advance on Tripoli as well as loyalist troops threatening the rebel held city of Benghazi. The U.S. is considering bringing in attack helicopters to assist rebel troops. Rather than simply grounding Gaddafi's air force and protecting civilians, the United States is now assisting rebel forces fighting in the field. What began as a mission to ground the Libyan air force and protect civilians has become one of providing combat air support for rebel troops.

How far are we willing to go the ensure rebel success? Are we prepared for the event if the rebels lose? Can we afford to build another nation if the rebels win? I would say President Obama has some explaining to do.

Just Stopping By

Former Governor Sarah Palin was the most recent of the Republicans exploring a run at the presidency in 2012 to visit Israel. Yesterday, Palin had dinner with Prime Minister Netanyahu after a quick visit to Jerusalem. Palin's trip was described as a personal visit. While in Jerusalem she toured the holy sites. It has become routine for presidential hopefuls to pay homage to Israel. Israel has a special place in the heart of many Americans. Even employed politicians, such as Governor Perry of Texas, have found time to stop in and pay respects.

As is common while in Jerusalem, Palin visited some of the holy sites. She visited the Mount of Olives and stood before the Wailing Wall where she was "overwhelmed" to touch the "cornerstone of our faith", as if the Wailing Wall was the cornerstone of the Christian faith. She also spoke glowingly of America's close ties with Israel. It is curious given the tumult in the Middle East that Palin found no time to speak on events in the region: a strange silence for someone seeking to establish her foreign policy credentials.

Neither did she find time to visit any Muslim Holy sites while in Israel. Had she put in the effort she might have learned that Islam and Christianity have more in common than most people realize: certainly more than fundamentalists of either faith might think. Few Americans, and even fewer Evangelicals, are aware that when Islam first appeared in the late 6th century it was viewed not as a new religion, but as a heretical Christian sect. The reason for that misunderstanding is that, unlike Judaism, Islam recognizes Jesus, albeit as a great prophet, not the Son of God. Islam also recognizes the Virgin Mary and the miraculous birth of Jesus. Indeed, Mary is one of only two women mentioned by name in the Koran. Of course, the Immaculate Conception and the veneration of the Virgin Mary by any religion do not carry much weight with evangelicals.

Israel is a fetish for evangelicals. Evangelicals are a key constituency for any Republican hoping to win the nomination. Therefore, any Republican contemplating a run for the presidency must pay homage to Israel. While many recognize the pragmatic relationship between the U.S. and Israel, the obsequiousness on the part of some U.S. leaders, such as that displayed by Palin, does absolutely nothing to further our interests in the Middle East. America's near blind loyalty to Israel only encourages Israeli intransigence and undermines our ability to be an objective broker in the region.

A visit by an American politician to a Muslim holy site would be a significant gesture to demonstrate America's lack of antipathy for Islam. After invading two Muslim nations and bombing another, it seems the least an American leader can do is to visit a mosque and show respect. It wouldn't have been difficult. The Dome of the Rock was just up the hill. In fairness, Palin's trip to Israel was described as a private visit. Whatever her motives, she clearly did not go there to explore her faith.

For the record, I am an Orthodox Christian. If any church has good reason to bear a grudge against Islam, it is the Orthodox Church. It was our churches that were overrun by Muslims, not the Baptists' or the Pentecostals'.

Shariah Law is Law

Many in Pakistan, including its president, are angry over the release of an American contractor accused of killing two Pakistani motorcyclists. The contractor, Raymond Davis, was freed and allowed to leave the country after paying the victim's families an unspecified amount of money. The arrangement was made with local tribal leaders with the help of the Pakistani government. The families of the two slain men agreed to accept "blood money" instead of pursuing the matter in court. After the agreement with the victim's' families was reached, Davis quickly left the country. Although the agreement was made in accordance with Shariah law it was not made in a Shariah court under Islamic judges as Shariah law requires. Once word got out, Islamic groups, as well as rank and file Pakistanis, became furious and took to the streets.

The U.S. has often looked askew at Islamic law, particularly Shariah law. Shariah law is frequently perceived in the West as antiquated and, in some cases, even barbaric. Normally, the U.S. would protest if one of its citizens were to be subjected to Shariah law. Yet, in this case, to circumvent Pakistani law, the U.S., with help from the Pakistani government, made an appeal to local leaders to negotiate terms for Davis's release under Shariah law. Those terms were agreed upon and Davis was released.

Many of the rules, procedures, and punishments permitted under Shariah law are repugnant to American sensibilities. For example, under Shariah law it is permissible for a husband to beat his wife so long as no marks are left. It is almost impossible to imagine a circumstance under which the U.S. would support an appeal to Shariah law on behalf of one of its citizens. I say almost impossible because it does happen, much to Davis' relief. Before Davis' case I would have said impossible, as I am sure many would have.

The U.S. is a staunch advocate of the rule of law, and it remains so. It can be flexible regarding which law when the situation demands. In Davis' case, it was decided that a more advantageous outcome could be attained under Shariah law than secular law so secular court was avoided. So, Davis is free, the U.S. is relieved, the victim's family is satisfied, and Pakistanis are furious. It is a win, win, win, lose situation.

Like "reform", when the U.S. speaks of the rule of law it usually has something very particular in mind. In any event, we should not expect the U.S. to support another appeal to Shariah law any time soon.

What I Saw in America: The Anti-federalists on our Financial Crisis

What I Saw in America: The Anti-federalists on our Financial Crisis

Stop Me Before I Spend Again.

Many Republicans ran in the last election promising to abolish the practice of earmarks. Earmarks are provisions inserted into bills that set aside funding for particular projects with little or no congressional oversight.Those that won promised they would adhere to their pledge, and they did. When the new congress convened it banned earmarks. Now, many in Congress are attempting to maneuver around their promise by pressuring agency heads to steer money their way. You can't really call it a kick back, but it is close. The political reality in Washington is that unless you can deliver jobs and money to your constituents you are perceived as having little use.

There is a tendency to rely upon rules to to modify behavior. Congress cannot muster the will to stop spending, so they pass rules to try and force themselves to stop. But they will not stop because the American public demands spending. Despite the growing antipathy to federal spending among the electorate, people still expect the government to do things for them and as they see it, the job of their congressman is to make sure those things are done. As long as there is an appetite for bacon there will be a market for it.

Congress can pass all the rules it wants to try and control itself but unless the people step up and demand that government cut back, the spending will not cease. Spending is not an institutional problem, it is a political problem. Congress cannot be reformed by changing the rules, it can only be reformed by changing the culture. As has been shown time and time again, if there is a will to spend, a way will be found to spend.

It is not Washington that has the spending problem, it is the American people. Until the American people elect a congress that will not pilfer the treasury and spend beyond its means, we will have a congress that pilfers the treasury and spends beyond its means. There are only two ways to stop the bloated spending by the government. You can either adopt a stern constitutional amendment to prohibit it, or find an electorate that will not tolerate it.

Not if They Quit

Cigarette taxes will soon be going up. Washington is planning to more than double cigarette taxes from 39 cents per pack to $1.01 a pack. The increased tax is expected to bring in $33 billion over the next four and a half years. One problem in the move that Washington has not considered is that if the tax succeeds in reducing smoking, that $33 billion it anticipates collecting will evaporate. If the tax increase works, fewer people will smoke which in turn means that they will no longer buy cigarettes. If they do not buy cigarettes, they will not pay the tax and that $33 billion the government anticipates the higher taxes will bring in will not appear.

The extra revenue the government hopes to bring in through the tax increase has already found its way into the budget. Plans are currently being made on what it will do with the extra money. But if fewer people smoke, the money that the government anticipates having in the future will not be there. The taxes will not be paid if people don't buy cigarettes. The government cannot have it both ways. They cannot rely on increased revenue by raising taxes on cigarettes while trying to get people to quit.

As a smoker, the government has given me a strong incentive to quit. If I succeed, it will not be because of cost or health concerns, but out of spite. Perhaps the best reason of all to quit is to help put all of the nags who are employed to agitate against tobacco out of work. If I get a few more years above ground and cheat the government out of some tax money for doing so, that will just be gravy.

Once the government gets rid of the smokers and the chewers they are going to have a hole in their budget. They will have to find something else to tax. There is no telling what that might be. You can be confident that whatever it is, it will be something that tastes good or is fun to do.

First they came for the smokers but I didn't care because I was not a smoker. Then they came for the obese but I didn't care because I was not obese.

Slip of the Tongue?

Vice President Joe Biden was in Moldova recently. He was greeted by thousands of people waving Moldovan and American flags. While there he urged the country to fight corruption. He also urged Moldovans to embrace political reform. Moldova is a small, land locked nation of four and a half million people about 800 miles east of Berlin. To encourage the nation to embrace reform, Biden stated that the U.S. was willing to provide support if the country would move for closer relations with the European Union and the U.S.

Biden went a little bit further in his comments. He told Moldovans not simply to embrace reform, but to embrace pro-Western democratic reforms. It has been clear for sometime that when an American politician speaks of reform what he means is a pro-Western democracy. Many in the U.S. believe that democracy is the highest form of political development. Marx was on the right track, he just had the wrong system.

Perhaps Biden was just trying to entice Moldova by hinting that if it moves closer to the U.S. it can expect to be rewarded. No doubt Biden believes that all real political reform leads to democracy and all democracies are good neighbors. Conventional wisdom aside, democracies do go to war. Neither does economic reform lead to capitalism nor capitalism to wealth. Even if it did, capitalism is certainly no guarantor of peace. The struggle for markets and resources has led to endless intrigue and countless wars.

Biden did not simply encourage reform, he encouraged reform in a manner most suitable to the U.S. and the West. It is not difficult to see why many leaders around the globe bristle when the U.S. chides them to reform. Perhaps Biden's call for "pro-Western reform" was a slip of the tongue. Perhaps not. It might have simply reflected the belief that all real reform is pro-Western. We are rich and powerful. We must be right. On the other hand, Biden's comments might have reflected a desire for more markets and a more pliable world to pursue our interests in.

Protests and Funerals

Many years ago as a undergraduate at a small Catholic college, I took a class on English Literature. It turned out to be one of the most instructive courses I ever took. I have long forgotten the details of the class but a few of the things I learned have remained. Most important of those things was an approach to literary criticism. The core of assessing literature, according to the professor, was determining what was being expressed in a work and how it was being expressed. Great literature addresses great subjects. Great subjects are those that transcend time and place. They address things all men have grappled with ever since men first began thinking and feeling. Subjects such as love, hate, hope, and fear are timeless. Every man has access to them because every man has experienced them. They exist in the lives of all men regardless of time, place, and circumstance.

Feelings, on the other hand, make for poor literature. They also make for poor art. Feelings have little relevance beyond those who happen to feel them. Art made to express the artist's feeling about a particular subject bring little insight. Such art is more about the artist than the subject. In emotive art, the artist seeks to express how she feels about a subject, not to inspire reflection or provide perspective to the viewer. The viewer may share the artist's sentiments or he may not. In either case, little, if any, insight is gained. The viewer is pleased, irritated, or indifferent. Such art rarely rises above sentiment. Good art is not about the artist's feelings.

Secondly, great art requires talent. Talent is the language of the the artist. Talent allows the artist to explore and articulate his subject. An artist without talent can no more create a good piece of art than a man with a poor vocabulary can write a good novel or carpenter without talent build a good house. A talentless artist may envision great things but he will be unable to express them in the manner they deserve. One could attempt to explore the Passion of Christ or man's struggle to find purpose in the universe, but if one can only pile rocks upon each other or put a crucifix in a jar of urine one will never be able to explore the greatness or plumb the depths of their subject.

The same distinction can be applied to the spate of offensive protests occuring at military funerals.There is what is being expressed, and there is how and where it is being expressed.There should be no restraint on what is expressed, no matter how objectionable or repugnant, but there is room for restraint on how and where it is expressed. There are other ways to express one's opposition to policy than shouting taunts and insults at families trying to bury their loved ones. Protesters should find those ways.

People's right to protest should be unlimited. But how they protest and where they protest are different matters. To claim a right to offend and insult mourners at military funerals is not to insist on a right to free speech. It is demanding a right to scorn. To disparage mourners at military funeral is not speech. It is spite.

No one is telling people that they cannot protest. They are only being told that they cannot disrupt a funeral. That is not censorship. The only thing that the protesters are being denied is the right to shock and offend mourners. No one is stopping them from expressing their views and opinions. No one is stopping them from writing a play or creating a work of art. No one is stopping them from circulating a petition or marching on city hall. No one is stopping them from holding a rally or running ads. If the protesters are too inarticulate and too limited in their horizon to express their opinions other than through offending people at a funeral, that is their problem.

Up There Somewhere

Nine boys were killed Wednesday in Afghanistan when a NATO helicopter mistakenly fired on them. The attack took place after a NATO military base in the area had been rocketed earlier in the day. General David Petraeus, commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, apologized for the attack.

The military base that was the target of the rocket attack sits in a valley. The rockets were fired from one of the hills overlooking the valley. The location of insurgents who fired on the base was not known in any detail. According to the troops on the ground, the insurgents were simply up in the hills. All that the helicopters had to go on was what the troops on the ground had told them. After the helicopters arrived, they fired indirectly on the "assessed point of origin", i.e. where it was thought the rocket fire came from. Indirect fire means you cannot see what you are shooting at. The helicopters were not actually shooting at insurgents. They were shooting at an area where insurgents were suspected of hiding. Also, according to NATO officials, the helicopters were returning fire, yet nothing was said about the helicopters receiving fire. The troops on the ground may have been fired at, but the helicopters weren't. The helicopters were not returning fire, they were firing.

There probably were insurgents up there somewhere. But there were also nine boys up there collecting firewood. The military forces in the valley did not know that because they did not go up the hill to look for who had fired on them. They called in the helicopters. The helicopters did not know that there were nine boys down there collecting firewood because no one told them and they did not look. They launched rockets and fired machine guns at where insurgents were suspected to be lurking but they did not actually look to see if there were any insurgents. The helicopters just presumed that whoever fired the rockets was still loitering about and that there were no civilians near by.

So, nine boys are dead because NATO did not want to put soldiers at risk by sending them up a hill where the enemy might be hiding or send helicopters in too close where they might have been shot at. This does not seem the way an army should fight. An army, at least an army trying to win the hearts and minds of a population, should not put civilians at risk in order to protect soldiers. It should do just the opposite.

NATO might have spared itself a few casualties but in doing so it killed nine boys and fueled the animosity of Afghans already angered at growing civilian casualties. Perhaps the families of those nine boys will accept General Petraeus' apology. Perhaps everyone who has lost a family member, a limb, or a livelihood will accept an apology. It is worth a try. If that doesn't work, there is always money.

General Petraeus stated in his apology that the deaths never should have happened. He is right. They shouldn't have. If the soldiers had climbed the hill rather than wait for helicopters, chances are those children would still be alive. Asking soldiers to climb a hill and find the enemy is not asking too much of them. It is their job.

Don't Count Your Chickens Yet

Turmoil in the Middle East shows no sign of abating. If anything, it threatens to get worse. Thousands continue to take to the streets, and stay in the streets, demanding everything from democracy to jobs. Protesters in Tunisia are calling for the resignation of the prime minister and new elections. Tens of thousands in Egypt continue to demand reforms. In Jordan, Iraq, Bahrain, and Yemen, people are calling for better government services and an end to corruption. Even in Saudi Arabia, the bastion of conservative Islam, protesters are popping up.

In their eagerness to report the growing unrest in the region, many in the media are misleading the public. The U.S. government is doing little to correct this. The monarchy in Saudi Arabia, though cautious, is not in jeopardy. The 4,000 people in Jordan who turned out to protest are no real threat to the government there. Compounding the issue is that protesters across the region are not all clamoring for the same things. Some want jobs. Some want an end to corruption. Some want greater autonomy. Some want power. Some want Islamic republics. Some want democracy, at least democracy as they understand it. In Libya, protesters clashed with a government the U.S. opposes. In Bahrain, protesters clashed with a government the U.S. supports. The only thing many of the uprisings have in common is their dissatisfaction with the status quo.

It is not uncommon, indeed it is historically typical, for mass uprisings to lead to authoritarian governments. Demands for power and reform are not demands for liberty. Many groups are well aware that if they pose their resistance in terms of democracy and rights they can garner the support of the U.S.: provided their uprising is in the U.S.'s interest. At the moment, most of the uprisings in the Middle East are in the U.S.'s interest. The results may not be. The toppling of the Shah in 1979 gave us Khomeini. Elections in Gaza gave us Hamas.

Representative governments are just that, representative. They exist to represent the will of the people, whatever the will of the people may be. It can be expected that there will be a push for constitutions in any new democracies that might emerge. The theory behind such a push is that a constitution would cement a democratic victory and prevent backsliding into authoritarian rule. In order to resolve sectarian and ethnic tensions in the absence of a strong central government, a representative scheme would have be devised in which each group or sect would have a seat at the table. That alone should be enough to dampen the high hopes now current in the West. A group that took to the streets to achieve its goals will be unlikely to give those goals away at the bargaining table. If they are to give something up, they will want to be paid.

Democratic governments are not political ends. They are political means. Any democratic governments that emerge in the Middle East will be precarious. Once in place they will face the difficult task of sorting out the grievances that led to the uprisings and meeting the demands of the people. People did not take to the streets in support of a political theory. They took to the streets in response to corruption and ineptitude and out of the desire for better lives. If the new governments prove unable to satisfy the demands of the people, unrest will return. If it does return, there is no way of knowing what the demands would be then. It should be remembered that Hamas gained power by meeting the needs of a people weary at the corrupt and inept rule of the Palestinian Authority.

Constitutions, especially new ones, are flimsy barriers to authoritarianism. Democratic governments are no barrier. The only real guarantor of a democratic government is a democratic people. A democratic government does not create a democratic people. There is very little history of representative government in the Middle East and less tradition. In countries that have never known representative government or individual liberty, democracy will have to be built from scratch.

In some ways, the hardest part is just beginning. In a democratic Middle East, the U.S. and Israel will no longer be able to simply negotiate with the leader of a state. We will have to negotiate with the people as well. People can be much more demanding and unpredictable than a government. Incidents such as the Israeli boarding of an aide ship heading for Gaza, the bulldozing of a Palestinian village, or an errant rocket attack can be minimized and controlled where governments are insulated from the sentiments of the people. A government beholden to the people will not be as insulated.

While we should be optimistic at the events unfolding in the Middle East, it should be kept in mind that democracy does not bring prosperity. There are many poor democracies. Democracy does not end corruption or inefficiency. Experience has shown it is often riddled with both. Democracy does not bring social harmony. Democracies are prone to turmoil. Democracy does not ensure peace. Democracies go to war as well as autocracies. There are few problems in the Middle East that will be solved through democracy. Still, it is a step in the right direction and it should be applauded.

Don't Ask the Monkeys

Researchers at the Oregon National Primate Center conducting studies of fat monkeys have determined that obesity among primates is deleterious to their health. A group of monkeys was fed a steady diet of fatty and sugar laden food in order to make them obese. Some of the monkeys were kept locked in their cages to simulate the lack of physical activity that often accompanies over eating. "We were trying to induce the couch potato style" said one researcher. As expected, the monkeys gained weight. Some became obese. Monkeys were used because, in addition to their similarity to humans, their diet and activity are easily controlled and monitored. More importantly, they do not lie about what they eat.

Several conclusions were made from the study. First, eating poorly and physical inactivity leads to weight increase. Secondly, monkeys, like people, prefer rich, fatty foods and tend to eat when they are bored. Lastly, it was observed that obesity in monkeys leads to health problems such as diabetes.

Arguably, there are few reasons to study obesity. We know what causes it and we know what results from it. The only thing we are not sure of is why people seem complacent about it. Most people who are overweight know they are overweight. With few exceptions, they also know why they are overweight and that being so is not good for their health.

There is really nothing mysterious about the phenomenon of obesity. People are prone to doing things they should not do. They lie when they know that lying is wrong. They watch TV when they know they should be working in the yard. They spend time on facebook when they know they should be doing something else. They eat potato chips by the bag full when they know no good will come from it. The phenomenon of doing something we know is harmful or that we should not do is a subject that has perplexed thinkers for thousands of years. The only thing that has changed is the perception of the problem.

Human behavior has shifted from being a philosophical and theological problem to a psychological and physiological one. I doubt scientists will have better luck in getting to the bottom of why people conduct themselves as they do than St. Augustine and Aristotle did. If anything, they will accomplish less. Aristotle and St. Augustine sought to understand human behavior. Scientists only try to explain it.

Scientists are searching for a cause or trigger: a gene, a brain chemical, an environmental factor, something to explain obesity. They will not find one. What they should be looking for is character and self discipline. Every one should be looking for those. In the mean time, we will keep spending time and money trying to understand what any good high school football coach already knows: if you want to lose weight and get in shape put down the cup cakes and start moving.

It is unclear to me why the study was conducted. If the purpose of the study was to learn the consequences of poor diet and inactivity, it was a waste of time. We know what those consequences are. If the study was aimed at learning the cause of obesity, it was an equal waste of time. We know what causes obesity and, as importantly, we know how to get rid of it. The only thing we are unsure of is why some people don't seem willing to do anything about it. We will not get the answer to that from studying monkeys. Monkeys don't know any better, people do.

Setting a Bad Example

It is reported that hospitals and medical businesses have begun to adopt strict rules intended to weed out smokers in their midst. Increasingly, they are refusing to hire people who smoke or use tobacco. Some employers are reaching beyond the workplace and administering urine tests to screen out tobacco users. Two reasons are given for the adoption of strict policies against tobacco use. First is the concern over appearances. It is felt by some in the medical profession that smoking by health care workers sets a bad example. Secondly, there are economic concerns. People who use tobacco tend to have more health problems than those who don't. Because of that, they increase health care costs and diminish productivity when they fall ill. In this reasoning, the medical profession is simply falling into line with the economic casuists in evaluating human behavior in terms of costs and benefits.

While the move can be considered as part of the growing impatience with tobacco users in this country, there is a more troubling component to this thinking that even those who do not use tobacco should be concerned about. If health and economic productivity are to be prime measures of human behavior, the door which is being pushed against will be kicked wide open. Many habits and behaviors work against health and undermine economic productivity. Chief among those are eating poorly and not exercising. The health and economic costs of obesity in the U.S. exceed the costs of tobacco. Over 30% of Americans are currently obese. Obesity is defined as being 30 or more pounds overweight. While the number of smokers goes down every year, the number of obese goes up. People who are overweight are more prone to injury and illness and more likely to miss time at work than those who are not overweight. From diabetes and heart disease, to bad knees and fatigue, overweight people cost time and money.

If the health care industry is going to ban tobacco use by employees in order to set a good example, they should do something about overweight doctors and nurses as well. They should consider penalizing health care workers who are over weight. They should also prohibit them from eating hot dogs, french fries, and other unhealthy foods. If a doctor smoking a cigarette sends a bad message, what message does an overweight doctor eating a cheeseburger send?

Getting to a Real Discussion Over Abortion

A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine reported significant progress has been made in prenatal surgery in the struggle against spina bifida. Over 1,500 children a year are born with it. Spina bifida is a condition where the spinal cord does not fully close and, among other things, can lead to paralysis. The study was warmly welcomed by scientists, researchers, and doctors. Dr. Terry Buchmiller, former Chief Resident in Pediatric Surgery at the Children's Hospital in Boston, stated that it culminated a "wonderful, almost several decade journey of trying to improve the outcome of a debilitating condition". She went on to herald the procedure as "potentially life changing." Others applauded it as a promising step in the evolving field of prenatal surgery.

There has been great effort put into treating children in the womb. One of the most significant advances in the field has been prenatal surgery. Researchers and doctors have long labored to find ways to treat children and correct their problems before they are born. Fetal surgery offers hope. Not only does it offer hope to children facing the challenge of spina bifida, it also holds promise of treating neurological problems as well as bladder defects and sickle cell anemia. It is anticipated that as the field develops, other conditions and disorders will be treatable before birth. In the case of treating spina bifida, the results were so good that the study was halted early so that the procedure could be adopted immediately.

As prenatal medicine evolves, women contemplating aborting their still developing children due to serious medical concerns have hope. The painful choice between giving birth to a child who will face a lifetime of serious, and at times difficult, challenges and terminating that child will become less common as the threat of those challenges diminishes. As a result, the decision whether to give birth will become easier for some and more complicated for others.

For those who want to give birth, the decision will be easier because their child will likely face fewer challenges over the course of their lives. Indeed, some children will face no challenge at all. For those inclined to abort a handicapped baby, (or fetus if you prefer), the decision whether to abort will be more difficult as they must weigh the potential burden of a disability against the promise provided by advancing medical science. As prenatal care advances, physical deformity and other challenges will no longer be the the threat they once were. Less and less will they be reasons for terminating a pregnancy. For those who are merely harboring a fetus, prenatal medicine is irrelevant.

As doctors increasingly become able to treat children in the womb, the reasons for having an abortion will become fewer. If the day ever comes when the only reason for having an abortion is because a woman simply does not want the child, the argument over abortion will have reached its core. On that day we will finally be able to have a real discussion over the issue.

It is a strange world indeed where some doctors labor to treat children in the womb while other doctors endeavor to destroy them.

One Man?

A Detroit immigration judge ordered 88 year old retired auto engineer John Klayman deported. Four years ago he was stripped of his citizenship after admitting that he killed a Jew while serving with German security forces in Russia in 1942. He later denied it.

I would not be surprised if Klayman did kill a Jew. I am sure he killed many people and committed numerous crimes during WWII. German security forces in Russia were particularly savage. Many villages were burned to the ground and their inhabitants killed, sent to camps, or left to starve. The Germans even shot dogs in their kennels. But Klayman is not being deported for committing an atrocity or participating in a massacre. He is being deported for killing a man in the middle of a world war nearly 70 years ago on a day when thousands of men were killed. If he had admitted to killing a Gypsy or a Pole on that fateful day in 1942 he might have gotten away with it. But he didn't, and now he is being deported.

Whose Egypt?

Things are not going particularly well for the U.S. in the Middle East. The "democratic" governments the U.S. has striven to create in Iraq and Afghanistan are fragile and rely heavily on the U.S. Without continued American support and financial aide the odds of those governments lasting a year would be slim. Over ten years after the U.S. toppled the regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan order in those countries is precarious. Iran remains a growing threat in the region and perhaps beyond. Talks between Israel and the Palestinians are proving resistant to U.S. efforts to move them along. Now, our single most important Arab partner in the Middle East is in turmoil. Over a half century of U.S. involvement in the region and billions of dollars have not yet produced the Middle East we have hoped for.

For decades the U.S. has striven to produce a stable Middle East. We thought we had learned a lesson from the Iranian Revolution. The lesson we thought we had learned was that support for autocratic regimes was counter productive, even dangerous. We thought that if we could bring democracy and economic progress we could create a stable, and perhaps even friendly, Middle East. If nothing else we could finally take the region off the front page. The results of our efforts are not very good. Despite the history of our attempts we have yet to learn that as difficult as it is to create a democracy where there is no tradition of one, it is even more difficult to maintain one. In the absence of a democratic people, a democratic government is a fleeting and dangerous thing.

One of the few bright spots in the Middle East has been Egypt. Over the years Egypt has changed from a Soviet client and a near implacable enemy into a moderate and reliable partner, albeit a not very democratic one. Egypt made peace with Israel. It has worked with the U.S. on issues in the region. It has cooperated with Israel in restraining Hamas. We have come to rely on Egypt as a stabilizing force in the region. All that is now in jeopardy.

We invaded Iraq and sought to create a democracy. We invaded Afghanistan and sought to create a democracy. We assumed the people in Afghanistan and Iraq wanted democracy, but we didn't really ask them. We have wanted a democracy in Egypt for a long time. We have come close but our reach has continually exceeded our grasp. We know what kind of Egypt we want. We will have to wait to see what kind of Egypt the Egyptians want. Egypt is not ours. It belongs to the Egyptians. Little good will come out of U.S. interference. No good will come out of Israeli interference.

Throwing our lot in with an unpopular regime rarely ends well. The U.S. should learn from its past mistakes and let the Egyptians sort things out. We may not wind up with the Egypt we want, but we should do what we can do to have an Egypt we can live with. At the moment, there are few good options for the U.S. If we support the government and it endures we risk tainting it and feeding the ire of anti-western elements. If we support the government and it collapses we undermine our influence in the region and would likely garner the animosity of the new leadership. If we do nothing we will only make western leaning governments in the region more timid.

It is possible there is going to be a new Egypt once the dust settles. It would be best for the U.S. to stick to platitudes and cautions for the time being. If democracy triumphs, the U.S. should hold off celebrating. In the U.S., people see democracy as an end. For a large part of the rest of the world however, democracy is a means to an end. There are many people who embrace democracy not out of principle, but because they see it as a vehicle for their ambitions.

What is the Matter With Them?

Some conservative state legislators around the nation are hurling themselves against the Constitution. In addition to a movement to circumvent the 14th Amendment and deny automatic citizenship to those born in the U.S., a move is now afoot to allow states to nullify federal laws they find burdensome or odious. The movement is aimed primarily at the recently passed health care law. Idaho, Texas, Alabama, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and several other states are exploring the right of nullification. Nullification is an 18th century doctrine that asserts that states have the authority to determine for themselves what the Constitution permits and what their obligations are under it.

The Constitution is in many parts vague and undetermined. Over two hundred years after it was written and adopted, struggles persist as to what it precisely allows and forbids the government to do. Nevertheless, many issues have been settled. One such issue is federal supremacy. The Civil War was fought over the issue. The side that argued for state supremacy lost. Against the resounding victory of the North and well over a century of Supreme Court rulings, some states are asserting the dusty and obscure concept of nullification. While states have an important role in what is put in the Constitution, once an amendment has been adopted or a federal law has been established, the states are bound to observe it. Hundreds of thousands died and cities were burned to the ground to make that point.

History has never been a strong point in American political life. Almost every generation has felt itself unique and unbound by the past. For the last century political and social movements have battered the Constitution. Frustrated by the halting pace and inertia of society, one group after another has assailed the laws, customs, and traditions of the land in their zeal. Sometimes this has been for the good. Universal suffrage and overturning segregation are two issues that redound to the nation's, and the Court's, credit. Sometimes time it has been for the worse. The 18th Amendment banning the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol and Supreme Court rulings upholding segregation are examples that speak poorly of American political sensibilities.

Progressives have historically been the ones who, in their political impatience, pushed for new and elaborate interpretations of the Constitution. To their discredit, some conservatives are beginning to take their political dissatisfaction out on the Constitution. Two issues stand out in recent events. Both are flimsy at best. The move to deny citizenship to some born in the U.S. is in clear violation of text, history and precedent. The growing movement to assert states' right to nullify laws they find unconstitutional is equally against history, tradition, and text.

People can, and do argue over what the Constitution says. They always will. However not everything written in the Constitution is ambiguous. At least conservatives have frequently made that argument. Yet some have taken to parsing words, ignoring clear text and turning over rocks looking for obscure and antiquated interpretations and precedents. That they are doing so is a discredit to themselves and a disservice to the nation. Conservatives claim to be the champions of tradition and law, yet some of them are beating the bushes for legal loopholes and engaging in constitutional spelunking. What is the matter with them?

Is That a Threat?

Two reports were released Monday. One was from the Center for American Progress. The other was from the Southern Poverty Law Center. The reports addressed the efforts by state and local authorities to augment and enforce national immigration laws. Both reports take a dim view of recent efforts to crack down on illegal immigration. Both reports also sought to warn states and local governments of the legal strain and financial pitfalls that they can expect should they pass such legislation.

Attempts to curb illegal immigration, such as the recent case in Farmers Branch, Texas where the city has passed a law declaring that anyone who knowingly rents to illegal immigrants is guilty of harboring, have engendered protracted legal fights. Farmers Branch has already lost the first round and is preparing for the second. Legal fights cost money. According to the Center for American Progress, $9 million has been spent so far by five cities defending their immigration ordinances. As new laws and ordinances are passed, new suits will be filed and more money will be spent defending them. State and local governments have been put on notice that they will have to keep spending to defend themselves and their laws.

There are many issues that surround immigration reform. Where politics and insults have failed to stem the growth of immigration reform movements, economic pressure has been brought to bear in the threats of boycotts. In Farmers Branch, a new strategy is being developed by those who oppose efforts to crack down on illegal immigration. They will seek to impoverish the city through endless litigation.

Those who support liberal immigration policy claim they are simply trying to inform communities of the legal consequences that can be expected should those communities try to enforce immigration law, just as those who organize boycotts claim they are merely trying to make communities aware of the financial costs of such policies. What they are really doing is threatening those communities.

A lot people have become disdainful of the democratic process. Many do not trust voters. Some hold voters in contempt. Others are simply too impatient. They are the ones most apt to turn to the courts to achieve their political goals. They are the ones who, if they cannot persuade the public to adopt preferred policy, will coerce them to adopt it. That is precisely what the Immigration Reform Law Institute and Center for American Progress are trying to do. They are trying to coerce Farmer's Branch into changing its laws.

Liberals might see themselves as reformers and progressives, but they are not. They are elitist and heavy handed. Their confidence in their beliefs and sensibilities is absolute. They know what they want and they will do whatever they feel is necessary to achieve it. If they cannot get the results they want at the ballot box they will bribe, coerce, and threaten. They will harp on rights and freedom but you will rarely, if ever, hear them speak of liberty.

The controversy in Farmers Branch and other communities seeking to crack down on illegal immigration begs the question: how can you have the right to rent an apartment or have a driver's licence when you do not even have the right to be here?

They Didn't See This Coming

There is bad news for all you astrology fans and adherents out there. It turns out astrologers have been screwing up for centuries. It has been discovered that the Earth does not move in a smooth orbit. It wobbles. Due to its wobbly orbit, the Earth has shifted alignment since the Zodiac charts were first written. The charts are now a month off. That means that when astrologers say the stars are in Pisces they are wrong. The stars are really in Aquarius. Worse still, it turns out that they have overlooked a thirteenth constellation, the Ophiuchus Serpent Bearer (Nov. 30 to Dec.17). Astrologers either haven't noticed or they haven't cared. For them the Earth is the center of a static universe and everything in the universe has something to do with us. No doubt that is one of the reasons astrologers can't get astronomers to return their phone calls.

While the news may have been greeted with a shrug by many, not a few are upset. The adjustment necessitated by the new constellation has overturned their lives. Some Libras have discovered they are really Scorpios. They have been living a false life. "I don't feel like a Scorpio" said one bewildered believer at hearing the news. Others are defiant. Despite the news, many who believe in astrology are undeterred in their beliefs. They don't care what a bunch of astronomers say about the stars. Shelley Ackerman, spokeswoman for the Federation of Astrologers, (yes, they have a federation), sought to calm believers telling them the discovery changes nothing. Reason and science have failed to rattle astrology followers but a new constellation and a wobbling planet just might. She noted that "every few years a story like this comes out and scares the living daylights out of everyone, but it will go away as quickly as it came." Leaving aside the assertion that everyone is scared by the news, even if the story goes away the Ophiuchus Serpent Bearer constellation won't, at least no time soon. Neither will the Earth stop wobbling nor the stars stop their rambling.

Some astrologers are going to ignore the new constellation and pretend the Earth does not wobble. Their charts and their signs are just fine the way they are. Numerologists and occultists on the other hand have hit the jack pot.

Curiously, even the best astrologers didn't see this coming. How could they? Astrologers don't use telescopes. Now if the stars will stay put, no one else finds a new constellation and we can figure out a way to keep the Earth from wobbling we shouldn't have any more problems until we get the next update from the universe. We should get that in a few hundred years.