My Business is Not Their Business

As the Christmas dust settles, the process of sorting out gifts begins. Those like me who received computer software and hardware now begin trying to figure out how to install and use those gifts. As I began the process I repeatedly ran into the same obstacle. I had hoped to simply follow the instructions and install the new software: a difficult enough task for one born before the age of computers. My dismay quickly turned to anger as I repeatedly ran into the same roadblock. That roadblock was the demand, not request, for personal information. I say demand because they did not ask for it. They required it in order for the software to be installed.

I have two computers, a lap top and an old desk top that can no longer get online. In addition to this blog I have two photo blogs.  I like to edit my photos on the desk top. Because of that, I tried to load my new photo software onto that computer. I was unable to because the software required me to go online to register it. They wanted me to go online to register it because they wanted to know who I was, where I lived. what kind of computer I have, where I got the software, and what I would be using it for.

There was a time when if you bought an item of substance a card was included that asked for information such as where you lived, where you bought it, your age, and so on. You could fill out the card and return it or you could throw it away. Either way your purchase was unaffected. That is still the case with many items. The blender you bought will work whether you return the information card or not. That is not the case when it comes to computer software. Software companies have consumers by the short hairs, as we used to say in the Army. Software companies are able to coerce their consumers by demanding information from them before the product can be used. If you do not want to provide that information you might as well throw your software into the trash.

It is not unreasonable for a company to want to know who buys their product, where they bought it, and how they intend to use it. It is unreasonable to demand that information. It should be enough for Broderbund to know that they sold a piece of software and where they sold it. Selling software, or any other product is a company's business. Knowing where and when it was sold is good business. Knowing who bought the product along with their age, race, and gender is pushing the envelope. Knowing information regarding who I am and how, where, and for what purpose I intend to use to use that product, might be good business as well. But it is first and foremost my business. If they want that information they are free to ask for it. To demand that information in order to install and use their product it is little short of extortion. They have their money. That should be enough.

I suppose when we lay the last shreds of our privacy on the alter of profit we can take comfort in knowing the economy is better off for it.  After all, the economy is the only thing that really matters any more. It is the stick with which we measure the world.

Interest Groups Are Not to Blame

Interest Groups Are Not to Blame

It was reported recently that spending by interest groups for the next Congressional elections will be five times what it was two years ago. $80 million has been spent so far alone on the next election. The amount will go up. Government is bigger now than it was then. It also controls more than it did then. Of the many who associate interest group spending with corruption, the increase in spending is blamed on last year's ruling by the Supreme Court that freed groups from campaign financing rules that greatly crimped funding by large groups such as business, manufacturers, and medical associations. Additionally, the ruling removes the requirement that campaign donors be identified. Predictably, the left is in an uproar since they often are at a disadvantage when it comes to raising campaign funding from large, well funded sources. But they really have no one to blame but themselves.

Over the course of the last century, Washington has become the center of the economic and political universe largely due to the efforts of the left. Decisions made there affect every facet of American life. From agriculture and education to manufacturing and finance, there is very little that is not under federal purview. Because of this, very few people, institutions, and businesses can afford to be indifferent to what goes on in Washington. Decisions made there can affect not just factories and businesses, but whole industries and communities. It should not be surprising that many people and groups are not content to simply read about legislation in the newspaper.

Washington has also become the center of the social universe. Marriage, and child rearing, for example, have become matters of federal concern thanks to the left. What your children eat, or don't eat; read or don't read are no longer issues of concern only to parents. They are public issues. Because they are public issues, they are political issues.

It is the left that works so diligently to find the political aspect of everything in a manner that would impress communists and Jesuits. Once that aspect is located, it is to be manipulated in a manner suitable to their sensibilities. What the left didn't, and still doesn't, understand is that they do not have a monopoly on government manipulation. The tools and institutions put in place to achieve the ambitions of the left do not belong to them. They belong to whomever happens to be in office. It is naive of the left to believe that their opponents will never be in charge of the programs and institutions they have worked so hard to create. It is the right that is being naive if they believe that once they are in charge, they will stay in charge.

One of the chief consequences of the federal behemoth created by the left is the struggle for its control. The greater the stakes, the greater the struggle. The greater the struggle, the more money it will cost. If the left is at a disadvantage it is their own fault. They are the ones who raised the stakes by expanding federal government.

The vast amount of money that is being spent, and will be spent, on elections should not be blamed on selfishness or avarice on the part of interest groups and their constituents. Interest groups and, by extension their constituents, are simply trying to influence an institution that has come to have a great deal of power over how and under what conditions they can operate. It is all but impossible to go about one's affairs and be indifferent to what is going on in Washington. Whether one is a farmer, an auto worker, a lawyer or a doctor, what goes on in Washington can significantly affect one's life and livelihood. Some might be content to go the the polls every other year and cast a vote and cross their fingers. Those who aren't should not be blamed or criticized for looking out for their own interests.

Any law with the size, reach, and budget of the new health care act is a bonanza for lobbyists. So much money is involved and so many issues, industries and people are affected by it that it will attract lobbyists like a dead possum attracts flies. Countless people will want something out of it. Countless more will want to avoid something in it. Everyone will seek to find some advantage in it. All of them will spend great deals of money to achieve their goals. If politicians in Washington wanted to find a better way to increase campaign donations and guarantee job security for lobbyists than passing gargantuan legislation like the health care and financial bail out acts, they would be hard pressed.

Lobbyists and interest groups are not to blame for the financial circus that surrounds elections. Whenever an election touches on a major issue or portends change, those who might be affected mobilize. Washington is the problem. Washington is the Mount Everest of politics. Lobbyists and interest groups are simply Sherpas hired to help people to the top.

Why Stand on Principal Now?

When he spoke at the U.N., President Obama asserted that a Palestinian state cannot come about by U.N.declaration or unilateral action. It can only come about through negotiation and mutual agreement. He is correct, well, in a sense anyway. Israel was created by the U.N. in 1948 after years of Jewish guerrilla warfare (some might call it terrorism) against British forces. British acquiescence to the creation of Israel only came about after years of fighting against Jewish guerrillas.  No one asked the Arabs who lived in Palestine for their approval. The United States was established through negotiations only after it had declared independence and then only after years of military struggle by colonial forces. International recognition came later. Blacks in South Africa achieved their goals only after decades of armed resistance and international sanctions gave the South African government little choice. Bosnia came into existence as an independent state after years of warfare and U.N. military intervention brought the Serbs to the negotiation table. Ukraine did not take its case for independence to the U.N. It declared its independence unilaterally. I could go on. Political negotiation for independence succeeds only rarely, and in those cases it succeeds only under particular circumstances, not the least of which is the presence of a civilized and restrained occupying force, as was the case with Gandhi against the British. Where a determined occupying force or colonial power holds the land, negotiations are all but worthless.  Pressure and action, military or otherwise, is required.

During America's war for independence the only thing the U.S. negotiated with the British about was the terms of their surrender. The British eventually agreed to U.S. demands but only after years of warfare wore the British down and brought them to the negotiation table. The same can be said of North African independence from the French. While violence did not force the British out of India, a sustained and determined opposition to British rule did. The lesson here is that for negotiations for independence to succeed there must either be good will or resignation on the part of the occupying power. Israel has neither good will for the Palestinians nor are they resigned to a Palestinian state, at least not any state the Palestinians would be content with. The fact of the matter is Israel is not interested in negotiating for the establishment of a Palestinian state because they do not have to. They face no military threat and, as long as they have the support of the U.S., it does not matter what position the rest of the world takes on the issue.

Without a resolution of the Palestinian problem there will never be real peace in the region. Without the possibility of an equitable arrangement for the division of land and the assignation of authority there will always be conflict because, without the possibility of a negotiated settlement, the only choices available to the Palestinians are violence or submission. Without international pressure and the threat posed by Palestinian statehood it is unlikely Israel would be talking to the Palestinians at all. Without international scrutiny I have little doubt that Israel would have herded the Palestinians into camps or driven them out of the country years ago: which would be irony indeed.

It is curious (well, not really), that the U.S. is so selective in condemning unilateral actions in other nations where people are struggling for independence and autonomy. It seems that much depends on the particulars. The U.S. was quick to embrace Kurdish autonomy when it was in our interest but our enthusiasm for it soon faded once we were in charge of Iraq. The U.S. was eager to embrace the break away republics of the former Soviet Union when they declared their independence. We did not insist that they pursue their independence through the U.N.  We did not hesitate to recognize Croatia when it declared its independence from Yugoslavia. You can be certain that if an ethnic or religious group rose up in Iran and demanded autonomy or independence the U.S. would be on the spot.

It is time the U.S. ceased claiming it is acting out of universal principle or international law and admitted that we are simply pursuing our interests and that it is not a coincidence that international laws and treaties more often than not correspond with those interests. U.S. policy would not have to change one bit. We would simply  claim our prerogative as the world's only super power to act as we see fit. We could without risk of being charged with duplicity or accused of insincerity avow our support of those nations and policies that are in our interest and condemn those that are not. We could candidly pursue our objectives and drop any pretense of neutrality and objectivity. We should tell the world that while we support the U.N. and recognize its authority we consider Israel to be unique and that the laws, treaties, and resolutions that bind other nations do not bind Israel. We should tell the world that the Arabs do not need another state, they have enough already. Lastly, we should tell the world that if they have a problem with that they know where to find us.

But I have gotten ahead of myself here. Palestine is not yet a nation and so has no standing in the U.N. They cannot invoke any of the rights and prerogatives that belong to all nations. That is what the Palestinians are trying to redress. That is what Israel and the U.S. are trying to keep from happening.

Why Not Legalize Drugs? I'll Tell You Why Not.

The topic of legalizing drugs recently came up at a GOP presidential debate. More than a few Americans, politicians among them, have come to the conclusion that the War on Drugs has been lost and that drugs should be, if not legalized, at least decriminalized. The theory most often put forward by advocates of this position is that the the fight against drugs has gained us little in the way of curbing the usage of drugs and nothing to stop the harm done by them. Indeed, some argue that the war on drugs has been a huge waste of time, money, and resources. Furthermore, they argue that it is the illegality of drugs that is the major cause behind drug related crime. This is a very peculiar and dangerous position to take for several reasons.

First, not all drugs are alike. Commonly when the topic of legalizing drugs comes up most people, at least European Americans, think first and foremost of marijuana. This is not remarkable. Marijuana is most often the subject of choice in the legalization argument for several reasons. One, it is a very popular drug used by a large and diverse population in the country. Secondly, it is a relatively harmless drug in the larger scheme of things. In many ways it is less harmful than alcohol. Additionally, marijuana is not addictive or a major source of crime and social disruption. People rarely beat their spouses or kill people in bars in a marijuana induced stupor. People do not prostitute themselves or break into houses to obtain money for a marijuana fix. Legalizing marijuana is unlikely to destroy lives or cause social devastation. Many people use marijuana with no detriment to their personal or professional lives. If all drugs were like marijuana those in favor of legalizing drugs might have a case. But they are not. Not by a long shot.

Others might have pictures in their mind of Hollywood parties where stars snort cocaine or upscale nightclubs where designer drugs are offered to select guests. This too is a dangerous illusion. The reality of dirty and desperate crack heads, shooters, speed freaks, and junkies rarely comes to mind when the discussion of legalizing drugs comes up. The crime associated with drugs on the street is usually only discussed tangentially in the debate and then only in regard to buying and selling, not using. This leads to an deceptive and naive treatment of the subject. Once one gets past the rich, the beautiful, and the comfortable, the reality of drug use quickly becomes sordid.

People in support of legalizing drugs envision that such a policy would benefit society in a number of ways. They claim crime would be reduced, and not just by erasing a category of crime from the books. By decriminalizing drugs we would shift what is now an officially legal problem, into a social problem. In any event one of the major sources of crime in regard to drugs would be unaffected: they would still not be free. People would still need money to buy them. People would still commit crimes to get the money.

Some like to make the point that legalizing or decriminalizing possession of drugs below a certain threshold, usually around what is considered sufficient for personal use, would be useful in clearing up much of the drug related clutter in our courts and jails. But, again, this is a very myopic view of the issue. Would the sale of drugs be decriminalized as well? If not, people would still violate the law by buying and selling them. The purchase and sale of illegal drugs is the major preoccupation of the legal system, not use or possession. People would not have drugs in their possession if they did buy them. They could not buy them unless someone was selling them. You cannot sell drugs unless you have drugs to sell. Cocaine and heroin are not indigenous to the U.S. They are imported. It is the importation and distribution of drugs that underlay most of the drug related violence in our country as gangs and syndicates struggle for control of markets. The consequences of usage while sometimes tragic, are usually seen as more of a social problem than anything else.

Legalizing the possession of pot is one thing. If you want to talk about legalizing marijuana lets talk about legalizing marijuana. If you mean drugs, then let's talk about drugs, real drugs like heroin and cocaine, and let's talk about how people will get their drugs and what will happen after they use them. Unless you are willing to also decriminalize the sale and distribution of drugs the larger problem will remain. People are dying in Mexico right now in a struggle over drug distribution. Legalizing possession of drugs in the United States will do nothing to solve that. It likely would make things worse.

Too often when the subject of legalizing drugs come up it is dealt with in the abstract. It is seen as a matter of numbers: the costs of interdiction; the costs of adjudication; the costs of incarceration, and so on. But the issue of drugs is greater than the sum of its parts. Decriminalizing drugs might reduce legal costs, it might not. Crime might go down, it might not.  It will remove none of the social and personal costs of drug use. If anything, it will make them worse as those who might otherwise be reluctant to venture into the world of drugs have one less reason not to do so.

Columnist George Will wrote a recent editorial in favor of legalizing drugs. He pointed out how the illegality of the drug trade drives up profit. Profit drives business. He notes that if it weren't for our current drug policies, a $5 rock of crack could be sold profitably for 25 cents. Lower prices would mean lower profits. Lower profits would lead to less violence. That is precisely the sort of detached reasoning common among those far removed from the world of drugs. For them drugs are a matter of statistics: a simple matter of cost and effect that, along with everything else, can be handled by the market. If George Will and others really believe that 25 cent cocaine and heroin sold legally will solve the nation's drug problem they are sorely mistaken.

Across the river from the Capitol in Washington, D.C. is the neighborhood of Anacostia. I would be surprised if George Will has ever been there, let alone spent time there. It is the poorest, dirtiest, most crime plagued part of Washington. I would be surprised if anyone on Capitol Hill visits Anacostia. If people  want to seriously talk about the merits of legalizing drugs they should make it a point to visit neighborhoods like Anacostia first and see what drugs have done for those communities. Then they should try and envision what those neighborhoods would look like if drugs were legal. Then they should consider what people would do to get the money they needed to buy their drugs. But they won't. There will not be people selling drugs on George Will's street. There will not be junkies shooting up behind George Will's house. There will not be people panhandling and begging for money to support their habit in George Will's neighborhood. There will not be speed freaks breaking into George Will's house to get money to buy their drugs.

But I forgot. If people could get their drugs for just a few dollars, they wouldn't need to commit crimes or prostitute themselves to get money for their fix. They could simply wash windshields at intersections and beg on street corners for the few dollars they need. Hospitals and cemeteries could pick up the stragglers. The rich and the beautiful could cavort safe from the fear of being apprehended. Everybody else could carry on satisfied that the the nation's drug problem has been solved.

Now that I think about it, it might be nice to invite the guys over for the game with a big bowl of nachos and a dime bag of heroin once in awhile, or take the wife out for a nice meal and a rock of crack. I suppose I should give the matter a little more thought.

What is the Problem With Bigamy

The Dallas Morning News regularly runs a column called Crime Stoppers. In the column, a list of people currently wanted by the Dallas police department is published a long with a photo of the person and the charge they are wanted on. The crimes typically cover a wide range of offenses, from public intoxication and burglary to armed robbery and murder. (I have not yet discerned how or why particular people are chosen for an appearance in the column.) In this morning's paper, there was a listing I have not seen before. Sean Block, age 30, is wanted for bigamy.

It is surprising that in this enlightened age of homosexual marriage that there are still laws against bigamy. Certainly the idea of traditional marriage as one between one man and one woman is not a barrier. If two men decide they want to get married, many demand that the state accede to their request. Many courts have upheld the legitimacy of gay marriage and conferred upon it the same rights and privileges accorded to traditional marriage. Any infringement of that right usually must be able to withstand a high level of scrutiny.

Laws against miscegenation, adultery and fornication have long gone by the board. So why are laws against bigamy, to say nothing of polygamy, allowed to stand? Is it because bigamy undermines the idea of marriage as a union between one man and one woman? That cannot be it. That barrier has been breached. Could it be because polygamy is contrary to what is written in the Bible? That is a laughable proposition. Since when have the courts cared what is in the Bible? Could it be because polygamy is seen to undermine the morals or threaten the health of the community? Certainly that is not the case. Morality we are told is simply a subjective set of beliefs that do not bind anyone but the person who feels them and there is no evidence that bigamy is any more of a threat to public health than monogamy. Moreover, as is often chanted by the left, you cannot legislate morality. Essentially, the reason bigamy is illegal is because most people, liberal and conservative alike, (albeit for very different reasons), object to it. So strong are the feelings against bigamy that any religion that embraces it or group that advocates for it is scorned. Tolerance, religious or otherwise, does not extend to bigamy.

It can, (and likely one day will), be argued that bigamy hurts no one. Where bigamy is the result of coercion or involves minors it becomes a matter where the law is obliged to step in. If a bigamous marriage is the result deceit there is already a legal remedy. It is called divorce. Where bigamy involves consenting adults, there is no basis for legal interference, especially if it is rooted in religious tradition. Simply put, bigamy is illegal because most people object to it. It is an institution that runs contrary to Christian tradition and the moral sensibilities of an overwhelming majority of Americans. But why should it matter what most people or particular religions think? As we have been told time and time again, just because something offends people or violates a religious tenet is no basis to make it illegal.

Often in the U.S., when it comes to moral issues it doesn't matter what the public thinks. As far as the law is concerned, public opinion is not important. Why should it matter how Americans feel about polygamy? By the standards of modern relativism, traditional marriage is simply one of the last remnants of an antiquated notion of religion and moral propriety. If we are to keep making progress towards the ideal society, cobwebs such as bourgeoisie notion that marriage should be confined to a union between two consenting adults must be swept away. If Jane can marry Betty, why can't Robert marry Sarah and Ruth?

Custom, tradition, and community sensibilities have been steadily eroding as foundations of law. Without them, we are left with only reason to guide us. Reason alone is not a sufficient basis for drafting law. It never has been. This is because simply following a line of reasoning can lead not only to places one doesn't want to go, but also to places one never imagined to go.

"Sensible" Immigration Reform.

Not long ago, supporters for immigration reform held a rally in Dallas, Texas. It was stated that the purpose of the rally was to urge support for "comprehensive, sensible and feasible" immigration reform. They had hoped to draw 100,000 for the event. They didn't.

The organizers of the rally chose a title designed to take the moral high ground. By calling for "sensible" and "feasible" immigration policy they implied that those opposed to their agenda are irrational and unrealistic.  The specific immigration reforms sought by the group were not clearly laid out, largely due to the wide range of participants in the rally, but they essentially revolved around loosening the restrictions on those who seek to enter the country and easing the pressure on those already here in violation of U.S. law. They advocate policy more accommodating to immigrants and immigration than the irrational and unrealistic policies they claim are being put forth by those seeking to stem the tide of illegal immigration that is sweeping the nation.

This begs the question of what exactly constitutes a sensible and realistic immigration policy. That is precisely what the debate over immigration is about. Advocates for immigration are certain that their policies are realistic and fair. Their opponents are just as certain in their position. Such debates cannot be settled through rallies and protest marches. They are best settled through the ballot box. The problem for immigration advocacy groups is that when the issue is left to voters, more often than not voters disapprove of immigration on the scale we are experiencing today. Because of this, pro immigration groups are reluctant to rely on elections and voters to bolster their position. It is also a significant reason why they often attempt to portray opponents of immigration as racists and xenophobes. Certainly policy should not be left to such people. 

There should be a discussion about immigration and what policy should be in regard to it. Unlike many supporters of immigration, I am inclined to believe the issue should be left to voters to decide whenever possible. It is their communities which are affected by immigration. It is they who must bear the burdens and suffer the turmoil caused by shifting demographics. Contrary to popular misconceptions, the vast majority of those who are concerned about the effect of immigration on the scale we are witnessing today are not xenophobes, jingoists, or racists. They are regular people holding jobs, paying bills, and raising families. They are the ones who pay the costs of unchecked immigration. Yet they are the ones most often excluded from the debate. They are the ones that, when they express their reservations or apprehensions about immigration, are likely to be chastised as hateful or ignorant.The exclusion of citizens from the immigration debate only fuels resentment towards the issue. That resentment sometimes boils over into protests. Where those protests are well organized they will often be portrayed as being machinated by selfish, hard hearted, and quite possibly racist elements. When the protests are motley or disorganized expressions of anti-immigration sentiments, it will be argued that most, if not all protesters are acting from ignorance, dark motives and prejudice.

It is citizens and communities that bear the greatest burden when it comes to immigration. They should have a say. But, as is often the case, the citizens are not trusted to act in accordance with the ambitions and desires of activists. Elections and referendums are to be avoided whenever the results sought are in doubt. In such cases, it is best to cut out the middle man and go straight to the statehouse. If the state house proves unsympathetic to the cause, policy should be taken to the court house. When citizens are excluded from political debate, resentment, frustration and spasms of indignation can be counted on. That frustration and resentment in turn will be used against the public by pro immigration groups when they portray themselves as struggling against an intolerant society. When elections cannot be counted on to achieve desired policy, other methods must be found. It is near certain that the rallies and protests planned are not intended to woo or change the minds of voters. The audience for such protests will be the media and the state house. If the marches and protests succeed, the public will read about the new policy in the newspaper. By then it will be too late for them to do much about it. Voters are rarely asked for their opinion on what constitutes rational and sensible immigration policy. More often they are told. That is the problem.

Sowing the Wind

Nations in the West are discussing the need to increase pressure on the government in Tehran, and even overthrow it if required, due to its nuclear efforts. Meanwhile, the Americans and Israelis are exploring their options and making preparations to attack Iran if it is deemed necessary. Plans are being made and plots are being hatched. None of this is remarkable or objectionable if one is an American or an Israeli. Plans have long been made and studied in the U.S. on how to contain the Islamic regime in Tehran. But what if one is Iranian? How should an Iranian view the plans and preparations to "contain" it? It is not as though the U.S. and Israel have never launched attacks or worked to undermine governments when it was perceived that their national security interests were at stake. When the U.S. or Israel threatens you, you had better pay attention.

Israel has launched numerous "preemptive" and "defensive" attacks on its neighbors. Iran has attacked no one. But, Iran is the threat to peace in the Middle East. The U.S. has acted to over throw the governments of three nations in the region and is maneuvering to make Iran's ally Syria the fourth. Yet it is Iran that is accused of destabilizing the Middle East. We have demanded that Iran follow international law and treaties and comply with U.N. resolutions while we have often been selective in the enforcement and recognition of those same treaties and resolutions and creative in our interpretation of them. Yet, Iran is condemned as defiant. Every war fought by Israel, with the possible exception of its recent invasion of Lebanon, has ended to the benefit of Israel. It has a military that is unmatched in the region yet its survival is seen in constant jeopardy.

It is odd that Iran is viewed as the chief threat to peace in the Middle East. The U.S has bombed Libya. It has invaded and occupied two of Iran's neighbors and overthrown their governments. It  has repeatedly threatened Iran and worked diligently to sabotage its economy and undermine its government. There are thousands of U.S. troops, and hundreds of U.S. aircraft nearby in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are dozens of U.S. warships patrolling not far off Iran's shore. And still, Iran is the threat. Israel has nuclear weapons, a formidable air force, and a powerful army. It has repeatedly used force to resolve its conflicts and has made it known that it is quite prepared to attack Iran. Nevertheless, Iran is the threat.  Despite its bluster, Iran has little effective means to attack Israel, and none to attack the U.S. It has only a modest ability to defend itself. Yet it is argued that Iran is the chief danger in the region.

Iran claims it is being unfairly singled out for it's actions and policies. The U.S. asserts that Iran is being devious in its plans and dishonest in its statements. Perhaps the U.S. and Israel are correct in their concerns and prudent in their preparations. But still, it is hard to blame the Iranians if they feel they are being treated unfairly. North Korea built a bomb and stated its willingness to use it and no one has threatened to attack them. Israel has nuclear weapons and there has not been a peep out of Washington.

Having a nuclear weapon would not allow Iran to conquer the Middle East or destroy it's enemies. It would not even allow Iran to take over its neighbors. Surrounded as they are by Israel, India, Russia, and Pakistan, and with U.S. in Afghanistan, Iraq and offshore, all with nuclear weapons, whatever territorial ambitions Iran may have, if any, would be unlikely to succeed. Militarily, even with a nuclear weapon, Iran is hopelessly outmatched. The only use Iran could make of a nuclear weapon would be for self defense or an act of spite. While some in Iran may boast and threaten, is difficult to believe the government in Tehran would accept the destruction of Iran for an act of spite. And let there be no doubt, it would be destroyed.

The greatest benefit of possessing nuclear weapons to Iran, other than the boost to its collective ego, is that those weapons would make Iran less susceptible to attack and threats from the West. Perhaps if the government in Iran felt less threatened and more secure, its ego, fears, and ambitions would be easier to assuage. It might at least be more willing to sit down and talk to it's adversaries.

There are many in Washington and elsewhere that are impatient and suspicious of Iran's motives and activities. They do not want to "waste" time negotiating. They would dearly love to add the government in Tehran to the list of toppled regimes in the region and change Iran's color on our maps. They advocate confrontation, covert activities, and even military action to undermine Iran's government and destroy its capabilities. They just flat out don't like Iran. But we should resist their calls. Iran is not Iraq or Libya. It would be a mistake to assume that the Iranian people will abandon their government and cheer if bombs and missiles start falling on their country. As for using "covert action" to sabotage Iran's economy or assassinate its leaders and scientists as some are advocating, that would be a peculiar policy to adopt for a nation that has spent the last decade fighting a crusade against terrorism. But then "terrorism" has often been a matter of perspective.

However an unprovoked attack on Iranian nuclear facilities might be portrayed in the press, it would not be a simple surgical strike or preemptive raid. It would be an act of war. It would also be the fourth Islamic nation attacked by the U.S and its allies in the last decade, a fact that would not be lost on the Muslim world.

Iran is a proud and ancient nation with a keen sense of self and it will fight back  It is also a sophisticated and powerful nation with a long reach. An attack on Iran, to put it in terms befitting the region, would be the act of sowing the wind.

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 conducting studies and spending 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.

A Right to Ignorance

Several months ago, a federal court struck down much of Texas's new abortion sonogram law that required doctors to perform a sonogram before giving an abortion. The court concluded that it is unconstitutional to compel women to listen to information that isn't "medically relevant and that they (patients) don't wish to hear." The ruling was heralded as a victory for doctors and women. Under the ruling, doctors are no longer required to gather or provide medical information deemed unnecessary to the termination of the pregnancy. Texas officials have made it known that they intend to appeal the ruling.

The ire directed towards the new abortion law is based on the objection that the law unfairly compels physicians to collect information regarding a medical procedure, namely by performing a sonogram, and places too great an onus on women contemplating getting that procedure by requiring them to listen to it. It is asserted that women have the right to request and receive an abortion with as little information about the procedure as necessary. It is felt by some that women only need to know where the clinic is and what time it opens.

The debate over the abortion law is an anomaly. No one objects to x-rays regarding sore knees or aching backs. Very few demand medical treatment with as little information collected or provided as possible. Indeed, many physicians would be considered negligent if they declined to collect information concerning a medical condition and provide that information to a patient before offering it. But then, pregnancy is a peculiar medical condition. Often a patient is very much aware of her medical condition before she walks into a doctor's office. She knows she she is pregnant and she knows the cure, at least by name. She does not need an x-ray to tell her she is pregnant. What she might not know, and what she might not want to know, are the details. She simply wants to be rid of the problem with a little muss or fuss as possible.

Abortion has always been a psychologically difficult medical procedure to contemplate. Numerous studies have been conducted that identify the often troubling psychological consequences that occur after an abortion is received. Many women suffer from depression and remorse in the years following having an abortion. For abortion advocates, front loading the procedure with details will only make a difficult decision even more difficult. There is concern that many women will forgo obtaining an abortion if they are required to listen to details before receiving one. A women strolling down to the clinic in anticipation of receiving an abortion might have second thoughts if she is required to confront the details of what she is seeking. She might conclude that an abortion is not quite the casual procedure she anticipated.

Why any of that should disturb abortion rights advocates escapes me. If the law is allowed to stand abortion will be no less safe or legal. It might become more rare. Hasn't that been the stated goal of abortion advocates from the beginning? Or have they really meant that abortion should be safe, legal, and easy?

If information is the enemy of abortion, what does that say about its allies?

Some Advice for Rick Perry

I have some advice for Rick Perry. Rick, you are running one of the worst campaigns in modern history. Despite having a tremendous amount going for you, your campaign is in trouble. You are the governor of one of the few states that are weathering the recession. Texas is a large and diverse state, economically, culturally, and socially. It is a protestant state and a Catholic state. It is a white state, a Hispanic state, an African American state, and an Asian state.  It is a cattle state, a farm state, an energy state, a high tech state, and a hub for international trade. It takes a great deal to run such a state successfully and you have done so admirably. Despite this, you are floundering badly, so badly in fact I feel I should offer you some suggestions.

First of all, your flat tax proposal is catchy but it does not hold up well under scrutiny. It is better than Herman Cain's "5-5-5" proposal, but not by much. Nothing is simple in politics or economics. Tax rates alone do not take circumstances into account. There is a tremendous amount of variety within each bracket that needs to be considered. First, not everyone making $100,000 a year is in the same boat. A single person making $100,000 a year can live well. The head of a household of five earning $100,000 a year with a mortgage, car payments, and a kid in college, not so well. The exemptions and deductions so often being railed against these days represent attempts to even things out. While there is a great deal of waste and absurdity in the current tax code, that does not mean the tax code is in and of itself unjust or harmful. It might be but if that is your point you are not making it well. If you insist on a flat tax code I would also suggest you find a way to distinguish between the guy who earned $10 million for developing a new microchip from the guy who made $10 million for throwing 25 touchdown passes or made the right gamble on pork futures. The company that made a bundle by developing a marvelous new diabetes drug should be distinguished from one that made a bundle by firing its workers and moving overseas. People who actually create, invent and discover things add to our economy. They should not be penalized for being successful.  Those who just move things around should pay more, but not the people who keep the U.S. moving forward. Naturally, you can fiddle with your proposal to take such particulars into account, but be careful, people won't like it. Besides, it is fiddling with the tax code that got us to where we are today.

Secondly, choose your issues carefully.  The economy is what is on the nation's mind right now, not whether creationism should be taught in schools. Talk about things like prayer and abortion only when you absolutely have to. If you feel compelled to talk about abortion, do not talk about "overturning" Roe v. Wade. That will start a fire bigger than the one we just managed to put out here in Texas a little while back. A more subtle approach is required. Talk about "handing the issue of abortion back to the voters where it belongs." It is saying the same thing but in a way that will not upset the majority of people who otherwise would not give the issue much thought. Handing issues to voters is a good thing. It shows that you trust them. People like to feel like they have a say in policy. You need to make the case that people who cling to Roe v. Wade do not want the decision overturned because they don't trust the public to see things their way. You should point out that liberals have no confidence in the public, indeed, they are often disdainful of the public and its beliefs. That is why they so often rely on the courts to advance their agenda. If you can portray your opponent as someone who doesn't trust voters enough to let them decide an issue, you will score big. But from what I have seen and read, you seem averse to subtlety.

Rick, there is no one running to the right of you. You do not need to speechify against abortion or gay marriage. Everyone knows where you stand. Your flat tax proposal has some appeal but it will not bear much weight. Your "hang em' high" approach to justice might resonate in Texas but it gives a lot of people across the nation the willies. Your defense of creationism is comic. Your stated belief in a literal understanding of the Bible is disturbing, especially as a basis for Middle East diplomacy. The Old Testament makes for a very bad foreign policy. When your name comes up you do not want people to think about abortion, the Bible, and executions. You want them to think about a better future.

 Rick, you need a new campaign manager.  You need one bad. You need a new press secretary too. Someone needs to get hold of your campaign and get it back on track. Better to shake things up now than go down in flames later. You might be rallying the faithful but you are frightening people like my mom. Indeed you are running so far to the right you risk making Obama seem like a moderate in comparison. That is no small feat. They way things are going, unless Obama gets caught in bed with a dead hooker you have to like his odds. I don't know who is running your campaign but you should fire him and hire me. If you want your campaign run into the ground I will do it for half of what you are paying the guy you have now.

Fixing the Tax Code Will Not Be Easy

The flat tax proposals that are currently being circulated have great appeal to some. According to flat tax advocates not only would a flat tax be fair, it would simplify the nearly impossible to comprehend tax system currently in place. It would be fair in that everyone pay the same rate. But it is a peculiar sense of fairness that drives the idea. Many would miss 20% (or whatever the final rate would be) of their income far more than than others would. At 20%, if you make $1,000,00 you are left with $800,000. You can live pretty easy on that. If you make $50,000 you are left with $40,000. The guy making $50,000 will miss that $10,000 a lot more than the rich guy would miss that $200,000. That is the problem with a flat tax. Even if that flat tax is adjusted by income bracket, depending on how large the brackets were, inequity would remain. An 8% tax rate would be felt more keenly by a person making $35,000 a year than a 10% tax on someone making $50,000.The same with sales taxes. Wealthy people have no trouble paying and extra eight or ten percent on a purchase. If you are middle class and out shopping to get your kids new clothes, that eight or ten percent can really hurt. As it stands, rich people pay more in taxes, in principle any way, because they can afford to do so.

A concise, simple, and streamlined graduated income tax would increase revenue while maintaining  fairness, depending on how you define "fair". Some people do not think it is fair to pay more in taxes simply because they have a lot of money. But, then again, "a lot of money" is a matter of perspective too. I think $75,000 a year would be a lot of money. To some people, that is a pauper's wage.

Much more radical than simply flattening tax rates are the proposals to get rid of, or at least radically curtail tax deductions and exemptions, sometimes referred to as "loopholes". Gone would be all the back alleys in the tax code through which clever and motivated people navigate in order to reduce, and sometimes avoid completely, their tax burden. If you make $100, 000 in a year and your tax rate is 25% you pay $25,000. That certainly seems fair but in reality it isn't. A single person renting an apartment with no children making $75,000 can live well. The head of a household with four children making $75,000 a year, not so well. Tax deductions are simply one way to try and even things out. That, is sometimes equated with fairness.

The flat tax idea is heralded as a plain and simple approach to the U.S. tax code. But government, like life, is never plain and simple except, perhaps, to the plain and simple. Government influences both the economy and society through a byzantine array of financial incentives, write offs, and penalties. On activities or behaviors it wants to encourage it bestows tax breaks and write offs. If the government wants to encourage investment it lowers the capital gains tax. If it wants to encourage college education it allows individuals to write off college related expenses. If it wants to encourage consumption, it lowers the sales tax rates. If it wants to encourage home ownership it allows mortgage deductions. Tax codes contain a laundry list of such items to encourage activity government desires and discourage activities it disapproves of. To rid the tax code of breaks, or incentives if you prefer, would hinder the federal government's ability to manipulate economic activity. Gone would be write offs for getting rid of old, inefficient machinery or automobiles. Gone would be write offs for college education. Gone would be deductions for making your house more energy efficient.

Certainly there is much in the tax code that can be adjusted. How could there not be? That is what politics is for. What those adjustments should be is what elections are for. To rid the federal tax code of all breaks, deductions, and penalties would be a large blow to the government's ability to direct and manipulate the economy and, indeed, life in the U.S. Perhaps that is the real goal. If that is the goal, the idea has merit. If the goal is fairness, the flat tax idea needs a lot of work.

There is an allure to a simple and easily understandable tax system. Many envision a day when the average person will be able, and willing, to sit down at home and figure out their taxes with a calculator. It is difficult to envision that day ever arriving. For that day to happen Washington will have to resist the temptation to manipulate the tax code. Odds are no one will ever see that day either. For to give up the power to manipulate the tax code would be to give up one of the government's best tools to manipulate society and garner favor. Then there is always the matter of what is "fair". If there is a definition of "fair" that can last for more than two years in Washington, that would be remarkable.

One Trick Pony

President Obama suffered a set back yesterday when the U.S. Senate rejected his proposal for $35 billion in additional stimulus spending. Last week, Obama failed to get a larger $447 billion plan through the Senate. According to the White House, the spending would have funded over 400,000 education jobs for one year. The funds would have gone to state and local school districts to allay budget shortfalls and thereby avoid layoffs. While publicly disappointed, there are those in the administration who welcome the opportunity that the GOP rejection provides. Democrats will certainly seek to use the rejection to portray republicans as a party of obstructionists that are indifferent to those in need. It is no doubt hoped that the GOP's new found commitment to fiscal sobriety will cost it with an electorate that is getting accustomed to having money thrown at it whenever things go bad.

The Democrats are becoming more savvy. Gone are the days of massive, trillion dollar bills and bail outs. In their stead we have smaller, carefully targeted spending bills aimed at specific objectives such as education and infrastructure. The administration is adapting. In addition to the 400,000 education jobs it is claimed the bill would have created, the president's $35 billion proposal that was vetoed yesterday would, among other things, have provided  funds to help pay the salaries of local police and firefighters. We are not talking about abstract economics here. By carefully targeting spending proposals the president is doing his part to make budget negotiations intimate. Against the vague and undefined specter of Big Government, Obama is pitting the image of school teachers, fire fighters, and bridges. Now, when Republicans reject spending proposals, they are not simply rejecting run a way spending by a bloated government, they are rejecting something concrete. In this instance they are rejecting spending to pay for teachers and firemen.

Obama's continuing push for ever more money puts republicans in a tight spot.  If the economy doesn't improve he gets to point the finger at republicans and chastise them for their miserliness and intransigence. If the economy does improve he will get the credit. He can claim that it was due to his aggressive spending policies. On the other hand, if republicans yield and support more spending they will become complicit in Obama's policies. Worse still, if republicans become complicit the party could split. The pragmatists  in Washington who accede to more spending could easily face aggressive challenges in the primaries next Fall from the right. If nothing else, they will lose a powerful issue to run on. There is the possibility that the economy will take off in the next few months. In that case, everyone could take credit, but let's be realistic here.

Three years into Obama's administration and the economy is still foundering. The president has spent money like no one before him and has very little to show for it. Nevertheless, there are those in the administration who have concluded that the solution is to spend still more. I have come to suspect that the tide of spending is not simply due to a sincere belief in the efficacy of the federal government to solve our nation's troubles. There is more to it, not the least of which is to assure the public that the administration is on top of things. Obama's actions may be wasteful and ineffective but they are actions nevertheless. The public needs to believe that the administration has a plan, and it does. It may not be a good plan, but economics has never been one of the electorate's strong points. Americans want to turn on the news and hear that the administration moving aggressively to solve our problems.

Obama is not going to reduce regulation. He is not going to lower taxes. He is not going to trim government. He is going to spend money. That is the only trick he has. But there is another important reason he will not do so. Such an action would pose a serious risk to him and his party. If he lowers taxes or lightens the burden of government and the economy recovers, it would be a serious blow to the liberal doctrines of governmental supervision and intervention. Just as an economic recovery would vindicate Obama's policies, continued or worsening economic deterioration would refute them. If he acts to lighten the burden government places on the economy and it recovers, it would be a vindication of conservative principals. Obama ardently wants an economic recovery but if he wants to be reelected he needs it on his terms.

If we ever resolve the financial crisis that is threatening our nation I would like to see a discussion over how it happened that state and local governments have come to depend on Washington to make ends meet. As for stimulus spending, if creating jobs was simply a matter of government spending, everybody who wanted a job would have one. In any event, we are not really talking about spending money at all. The government has no money. We are talking about borrowing money.

The easiest way in politics to demonstrate commitment to an issue is to spend money on it. Compassion in Washington is usually measured in dollars.The more you care, the more you spend. Obama is determined to show the nation that he cares and the Republicans don't. It is a pretty good plan. If he gets the money he wants he gets to continue in his role as the nation's benefactor and the champion of the downtrodden. If he doesn't get the money, he gets to accuse republicans of indifference, if not callousness.

Obama may have only one trick, but it is a good one.

Who Was Gettysburg?

It was reported not long ago in the Dallas Morning News that only 12% of high school seniors nationally were able to demonstrate proficiency on the National Assessment of Education Progress. The government found it encouraging that 8th graders did a little better. 20% of them demonstrated proficiency. Students taking the test scored most poorly on the section dealing with history. "The history scores released today show that student performance is still too low" said Education Secretary Arne Duncan. Interestingly, perhaps in a reflection of the current obsession with the economy, students did best in economics, 42% of them were deemed proficient in the field.

Educators, with reason, blamed the system for the poor results. They assert that the No Child Left Behind program has compelled them to change emphasis from teaching history and science to focusing on reading and math. This is reasonable enough considering you cannot learn much about history if you cannot read and you would have a hard time making progress in science if you cannot do math. But what is neglected in all the measuring is the distinction between a necessary cause and a sufficient cause. Reading and math are necessary to a good education, but they are not sufficient. Other subjects are required. History is one of those subjects. History is also the subject students did most poorly on.

In the clamor over national competitiveness, attention has been turned to scientific and technological knowledge. History, literature, art, and other such subjects are pushed aside in the effort to ensure America's technological "edge" in the 21st century. Learning history will not make us more competitive. Only science can do that. As a result, less than a third of the eighth graders tested could list one advantage the Colonial Army had over the British in the Revolutionary War. Only twenty two percent could identify China as a participant in the Korean War. Ignorance of history was pervasive. From colonial history through the Civil War to the Great Depression, students' lack of knowledge was on display. Where more recent events were involved, students were better able to demonstrate a basic knowledge of dates, locations, and events, although many frequently erred in placing them in context.

None of this is likely to change anytime soon. History is one of those subjects that is commonly agreed to be important to any good education. It is also a subject where there is little agreement over what should be taught and how it should be taught. Debate inevitably arises over what merits discussion, what merits mention, and what can or should be excluded. A lot has happened in North America over the last four hundred years. All of it cannot be brought up in a few high school history classes. It certainly cannot be discussed. What compounds the problem is that even the narrow and abbreviated history that is taught is not being learned.

Kids don't care about the French and Indian War. What possible advantage could come from knowing about such a thing? It is not as if a potential employer is ever going to ask an applicant about it. It would be a waste of time trying to explain how history can broaden one's horizons and thereby make the world more comprehensible or how literature can give one insight into what it means to be human. Education is a tough enough task. There is no need to make it any tougher by introducing fuzzy topics likely to bewilder students. It is much better, and easier, to abstract history into a matter of numbers, dates, and brief descriptions that can be memorized and repeated.

History and the humanities are just not seen as important as science and technology. After all, even if students knew when, where, and what was at stake at the Battle of Gettysburg would that make them more productive citizens? Or would such knowledge just take up valuable space?

It's Not That Simple

In the sometimes contentious debate over immigration, it is frequently asserted that all Americans in one way or another abet illegal immigration. The argument by those who support, or at least sympathize with illegal immigration, is that the majority of Americans participate in it one way or another. Americans eat vegetables picked by illegal immigrants. Americans make use of the cheap labor illegal immigrants provide to hold labor costs down. Americans eat at restaurants staffed by illegal immigrants. In many more such ways Americans utilize the cheap labor afforded by illegal immigrants. They are correct. But where they err is in confusing participation with complicity.

When someone buys a house, that person cannot check whether the house was built using illegal immigrant labor. When a person eats at a restaurant, she cannot verify the immigration status of the kitchen staff. Neither can a hotel guest know whether the maid is in the U.S. legally. There are no signs marking whether the road one drives on is tended to by legal or illegal labor. One cannot ask park workers for their documents.

It is true that Americans benefit in many ways from illegal immigrants. But that does not make Americans complicit. When customers are able to walk down an aisle at the grocery store and choose between items labeled as to whether they were harvested by legal or illegal immigrants or hire a contractor knowing whether those in his employ are here legally or illegally, we will have a better idea as to the degree to which Americans support or oppose illegal immigration. When Americans can buy a house or rent an apartment with knowledge of whether it was built using legal or illegal labor we can gain insight into their views on immigration.

Until that day arrives, we can only assume and speculate. It is likely that day will never arrive. And, if that day ever arrives, it will be greeted with howls of protest from those who would conflate the choice such information provided with an invitation to racism and prejudice.

Many Americans, but certainly not all, do benefit from cheap labor provided by illegal immigrants. But that does not make them accomplices.

Why Not? It's Good for the Economy

Florida State Representative Ritch Workman has introduced a bill in the state legislature that would legalize dwarf tossing. Dwarf tossing is an activity where bar patrons compete to see who can toss a dwarf the farthest. Even though the sport, if you can call it that, is considered offensive by many, it is not considered so by all.

Workman is on a quest to "seek and destroy unnecessary burdens on the freedom and liberties of people." The ban on dwarf tossing, in Workman's eyes, impinges on the freedom of bars to hold contests, the freedom of bar patrons to watch those contests, and the freedom of little people to participate in those contests. Moreover, Workman contends that the ban on dwarf tossing is archaic and just another example of "Big Brother government". In the battle over the ever increasing presence of the government in our daily lives, a line has been drawn. Workman also contends that to ban dwarf tossing would be an unnecessary hindrance to the local economy. In addition to those bar owners who welcome dwarf tossing competitions as a way to draw customers, at least some in the small person community welcome the bill for the employment opportunities it offers. Workman stated that the effect of the current ban is to "simply take away some employment from some little people."

The economy has become the paramount issue in U.S. politics. People need jobs. The nation and the economy need people with jobs. The government needs people with jobs. To be elected, politicians need to be perceived as capable of creating jobs.  To be reelected, politicians need to be perceived as having created jobs.  Things are becoming grim. Florida does not have hundreds of billions of dollars to throw at the issue. Like many states, it is strapped for cash. Because of this, Florida cannot simply spend money to keep people busy. It must take another approach. It is trying to stimulate its economy by, as conservatives like to say, getting government out of the way.

The economy in Florida as elsewhere is moribund. The more dire things become the more willing people and their legislators are to set aside their sensibilities and consider sources of revenue that would not have been entertained before. Dwarf tossing is a case in point. Some states have taken to charging inmates for room and board. Still other states have taken to gambling. Humans are an ingenious species. Many of them are hard at work looking for new sources of revenue. Decency, self respect, and propriety are falling prey to the ever growing desire for money.

This will only get worse so long as people rely on government spending for their well being. There are those who welcome the increasing dependency of the public upon government. Such dependency serves to further ensconce government at the very center of American society. This might not be so bad, or perhaps as bad, if the government could afford to do all those things it has taken upon itself to do for us and do them well, but it can't.  And so, as government tallies its expenses and income it almost inevitably concludes that when they do not match, revenue must be increased. But the traditional methods of raising income through taxes and fees are becoming increasingly perilous to politicians. Other methods must be found. It is that search for additional revenue that sometimes leads government to the point of absurdity.

Tradition and moral sensibilities are fine things, but they are no match for an avaricious government or a demanding public. As for the freedom and liberty to enjoy or participate in the spectacle of dwarf tossing, that is entirely relative to the need for revenue. In the quest for money and social progress, decency and decorum are too often seen today as unnecessary burdens to the freedom and liberties of people, as well as obstacles to economic and social progress. Humans have always been prey to their baser instincts. Rather than seek to discourage  those instincts, the government has decided to make money off them instead. Why shouldn't it? When it comes down to it, the economy is the only thing that matters.

We are told that a ban on dwarf tossing impinges on the freedom of bar patrons to enjoy a spectacle. Worse, it is a hindrance to the local economy and hampers the employment opportunities of little people. What more reason do we need?

Good News and Bad News

There was good news and bad news in Washington today. The good news is that the Congressional Budget Office predicted that over the next ten years annual budget deficits will shrink by $3.3 trillion. The bad news is that, despite the savings, those deficits are predicted to total roughly $3.5 trillion over that same span. The debt now stands at $14.6 trillion. Even if deficits shrink as the CBO predicts, they are not going to go away. The debt will continue to grow. It is expected that the debt will increase by $8.5 trillion over the next ten years. Deficits aren't really a problem. Borrowing money is painless. It is paying off debt that hurts.

Many in Washington, particularly those in the White House, are no doubt pleased by the news. It is proof that they are effectively addressing the situation. Their steps to reduce the deficit are working, or at least are predicted to work (you never know if you will need another bail out or stimulus package). Of course, the news is only good news if you ignore the larger situation and simply consider less of a deficit a good thing. It is predicted, I would say it is certain, that massive federal spending will continue unabated. Cuts will be made and savings will be found but they will in no way be sufficient to stop the financial bleeding. The debt will continue to go up. As the debt goes up the costs of carrying that debt will go up. Interest on the debt cost the U.S. $202 billion last year. Even in Washington that is a lot of money.

If the CBO predictions are borne out we are still looking at yearly deficits of nearly $350 billion over the next decade. That is not good news. The debt is the real problem, not deficits. Deficits can be easily, if painfully, taken care of. The government is perfectly capable of passing a balanced budget. They are simply unwilling to. The reason they are unwilling to is that it would amount to collective political suicide. That is why the debt will continue to go up.

There is a third way to address deficits apart from raising taxes or cutting spending. That is to hold government spending flat and wait for the economy to catch up. That option is nearly as bad to elected officials as the first two. While not quite as bad as cutting spending or raising taxes, it would mean saying no to interest groups and voters.

The debt is an economic issue, but it above all else a political issue. It is the politics of spending that drive the problem. Politicians like to spend. Arguably, they need to spend if they want to be reelected. They are compelled to support spending desired by their constituents. It is the very nature of their job. They are also driven by ego. They want libraries with their name on it. The want the gratitude of their constituents. They want the grandeur of being responsible bridges, harbors, and highways. They want history to know who they were and what they have done. The rely on the largess of government to achieve those ends. Getting Johnny a recommendation to West Point or a smoothing over a constituent's social security problem is no longer enough. Projects are needed. Money must be distributed.

Any solution to the debt crisis will involve members of Congress telling their constituents how much more they will have to pay, what they cannot have, and worse, what they will lose. That is the real problem behind addressing the debt. The vanity and ego of politicians only contributes to it.

So, the good news out of Washington is that deficits are likely to decrease. The bad news is that they are not going to disappear. Even if the economy rebounds, unless there is a dramatic increase in revenue or a historical cut in spending, the debt is going to continue going up: just more slowly than anticipated. I suppose less of a bad thing can be a good thing if you look at it just the right way.

Traps and Snares

Unease is growing in the nation with the mounting national debt. Tension is Washington is rising as Republicans and Democrats try to find agreement on what to do about it. Democrats persist in arguing for the need to increase revenue, something they should have thought of before they went on a spending spree. Republicans insist on cutting spending. The zealous in both camps are reluctant to compromise even though, by most accounts, without a compromise nothing will be done. Meanwhile, the debt clock is ticking. If the debt limit is not raised by August the United States could go into default.

So badly have the talks gone so far that Republicans have walked out on negotiations. Their prospects are looking increasingly poor. They have refused to consider any tax increases. They are making a stand on cutting spending. The Democrats have expressed willingness to cut spending but only over the long term and in conjunction with increased revenue, i.e., higher taxes. Score one for the Democrats. Their willingness to "compromise" portrays them as pragmatic and flexible while the Republicans' principled opposition casts them as rigid and doctrinaire, even in the face of catastrophe. If the Republicans persist in their objections it is likely they will be seen as the ones responsible for any financial collapse. After all, if a deal is not reached it would be because the Republicans refused to budge. Should budget talks break down it is quite possible that the Republicans will be left holding the bag. That is the trap.

The Republicans came to victory in the last election largely due to their opposition to higher taxes and government spending. To give in to any tax increase or go soft on government spending would be to give up their single greatest weapon and undermine virtually everything they ran on. If they accede to a budget compromise that raises taxes or fails to reduce spending in any significant way what will they be able to run on in 2012? If government spending is firmly taken into hand republicans will be able to acquiesce to some tax increases. They might even burnish themselves and gain a touch of political responsibility for doing so. But in the absence of any significant cuts in spending the only result of a tax increase will be to allow the government to continue in its profligacy. In that event Republicans will have accomplished nothing. They will have abandoned their principals simply in order to buy some time. That is the snare Republicans face.

Democrats have few good options themselves. To unilaterally proceed to raise taxes would be to take the ire of voters upon themselves. To give in on spending would jeopardize their standing with the many millions of Americans who count upon government spending, not just to keep themselves above water, but for their livelihoods as well. There is also the more subtle threat reduced spending poses to progressives. To reduce federal spending is to hinder federal power. Without the velvet glove of money, only the iron gauntlet of law remains.

When it comes to raising taxes, republicans and democrats are in very different positions. Democrats can raise taxes without jeopardizing their political base. Republicans cannot. Because of this, democrats have more room to maneuver on the issue. Democrats can support increased taxes and keep their base content, as long as those taxes fall on the usual suspects. Republicans do not have that luxury. Most republicans oppose higher taxes of any kind. Unless a deal can be reached where only democrats will pay higher taxes, republicans will need something big to abandon their anti tax position. Simply keeping the government running will not be enough. If Congress cannot step up and do something to avert a train wreck perhaps Republicans should consider just getting out of the way.

The real test of the political resolve to address the debt will come in the fall of 2012. That is when we will learn how determined politicians are to tell the public the truth about spending and find out how willing the public is to accept what it will take to get the national debt under control.

Many years ago I learned the lesson that the first thing you should do if you find yourself in a hole is stop digging. Just digging more slowly won't help. That is a lesson that Congress and the president need to learn.

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.

I no longer have access to my original Antifederalist blog  so I will be working here now. In addition to writing new posts, I will be re publishing my favorite articles from from my old blog. My old blog is alive and well. I just no longer can post to it. I do not know what happened. I do not work for blogger. I just write stuff.

My original blog can be found at http://antifederalism-agrippa.blogspot.com

A Right to Ignorance

A Right to Ignorance

Not long ago a federal court struck down much of Texas's new abortion sonogram law. The court concluded that it is unconstitutional to compel women to listen to information regarding abortion that isn't "medically relevant and that they (patients) don't wish to hear." The ruling was heralded as a victory for doctors and women. Under the ruling, doctors are no longer required to provide medical information deemed unnecessary to the termination of the pregnancy. Texas officials have made it known that they intend to appeal the ruling.

The ire directed towards the new abortion law is based on the objection that the law unfairly compels physicians to collect information regarding a medical procedure, namely by performing a sonogram, and places too great an onus on women contemplating getting that procedure by requiring them to listen to it. It is asserted that women have the right to request and receive an abortion with as little information about the procedure as necessary. Essentially, they simply need to know where the clinic is and what time it opens.

The debate over the abortion law is an anomaly. No one objects to x-rays regarding sore knees or aching backs. Very few demand medical treatment with as little information collected or provided as possible. Indeed, many physicians would be considered negligent if they declined to collect information concerning a medical condition and provide that information to a patient before offering it. But then, pregnancy is a peculiar medical condition. Most often a patient is very much aware of her medical condition before she walks into a doctor's office. She knows she she is pregnant and she knows the cure, at least by name. She does not need an x-ray to tell her she are pregnant. What she might not know, and what she may not want to know, are the details. She simply wants to be rid of the problem with a little muss or fuss as possible.

Abortion has always been a psychologically difficult medical procedure to contemplate. Numerous studies have been conducted that identify the often troubling psychological consequences that occur after an abortion is received. Many women suffer from depression and remorse in the years following having an abortion. For abortion advocates, front loading the procedure with details will only make a difficult decision even more difficult. There is concern that many women will forgo obtaining an abortion if they are required to listen to details before receiving one. A women strolling down to the clinic in anticipation of receiving an abortion might have second thoughts if she is required to confront the details of what she is seeking. She might conclude that an abortion is not quite the casual procedure she anticipated. She might even have second thoughts about getting an abortion if she learns all of what it involves.

Why any of that should disturb abortion rights advocates escapes me. If the law is allowed to stand abortion will be no less safe or legal. It might become more rare. Hasn't that been the stated goal of abortion advocates from the beginning? Or have they really meant that abortion should be safe, legal, and easy?

If information is the enemy of abortion, what does that say about its allies?

How Much Time is Left?

Thursday, May 19, 2011

How Much Time is Left?

The clock has started ticking in the Levant. It is set to go off in September when the Palestinians will seek recognition as a state by the U.N. General Assembly along the lines of the 1967 border. Given the make up of the U.N., it is likely that recognition will be had. If it is granted Israel will find itself in a difficult position. Should a Palestinian state be recognized, Israel would overnight find itself an occupying power. Not that it would matter much. Israel has shown little but disdain for the U.N. and its resolutions over the years. Nevertheless, a formal recognition of the 1967 borders would officially make Israel a transgressor in violation of international law. That would be a serious blow to Israel's international standing (such as it is) and severely complicate its desire for continued expansion. It might even occasion sanctions.

Naturally, Israel and the U.S. were critical of the move. Israel condemned the action as a threat to the peace process. It insists that any resolution of the issue must go through Jerusalem, a sensible enough demand since any agreement would ultimately have to be one Israel could live with. The U.S. disapproved of the action since not only would the move undermine its efforts to find a solution to the problem: a project it has been working on intermittently for over 40 years, it would potentially place it in conflict with its most important ally in the region. U.N. recognition of a Palestinian state would be much more than another rebuke of Israel. The international recognition of a Palestinian State along the lines of the 1967 border would change the whole dynamic of Palestinian Israeli negotiations. Israel could find itself in the position of negotiating to keep land rather than to give it away.

As a new era is emerging in the Middle East the U.S. is finding itself in an increasingly awkward position. After advocating democracy, self determination, and pluralism throughout the region it is reinforcing ethnic division in Israel and being pressured to throttle the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people. As the U.S. twists and turns it is inviting the charge of hypocrisy and risking the ire of emerging regimes, to say nothing of alienating a whole new generation of Arabs.

By all means the Palestinians and the Israelis should keep talking. But it should be kept in mind that it is the Palestinians who are suffering while the talking is going on. If the Palestinians can be persuaded to wait, perhaps in a decade or two we might have an agreement, assuming there is anything left to negotiate. But time is not on the Palestinians' side. The longer negotiations go on, the less there is to negotiate. If Palestinians cannot get satisfaction at the hands of Israel or the U.S. they should not be blamed for seeking it elsewhere. If Israel wants negotiations to go through Jerusalem it should make it possible for them to go through Jerusalem rather than stop in Jerusalem.

If you look at a map of Israel at its founding in 1948 and compare it with a map of Israel in 1967 it is clear that even if Israel was persuaded to return to the 1967 borders, it is still coming out very much ahead. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has condemned the proposal claiming that a return to the 1967 border would render Israel indefensible. Against whom? The Palestinians would have no army and Jordan poses absolutely no threat to Israel. Whatever danger Israel faces, it is not from the east unless you include Iran. When it comes to Iran, the Jordan River is no barrier. The most probable reason for Israel's insistence on a military presence along the Jordan River is to keep the Palestinians in a bottle. As for terrorism, a Palestinian state would have every incentive to prevent infiltration by Hezbollah or other radical organizations. The presence of such groups would give Israel ample pretext to intervene and reoccupy the West Bank and thereby doom any chance of a sovereign Palestine along the Jordon River.

The only threat the Palestinians hold to Israel is their presence. Israel wants to get rid of them. There is very little room in a Jewish state for non Jews. It will drive out the Palestinians it can and build a wall around the ones it can't. The Palestinians are not just fighting to get a state of their own, they are fighting for a place to live. Short of being allowed citizenship in Israel, the only place Palestinians will be secure in their lives, property, and possessions is in a state of their own. Israel ought to appreciate that.

Posted by Agrippa at Thursday, May 19, 2011

Traps and Snares

Sunday, July 10, 2011

Traps and Snares

Unease is growing in the nation with the mounting national debt. Tension is Washington is rising as Republicans and Democrats try to find agreement on what to do about it. Democrats persist in arguing for the need to increase revenue, something they should have thought of before they went on a spending spree. Republicans insist on cutting spending. The zealous in both camps are reluctant to compromise even though, by most accounts, without a compromise nothing will be done. Meanwhile, the debt clock is ticking. If the debt limit is not raised by August the United States could go into default.

So badly have the talks gone so far that Republicans have walked out on negotiations. Their prospects are looking increasingly poor. They have refused to consider any tax increases. They are making a stand on cutting spending. The Democrats have expressed willingness to cut spending but only over the long term and in conjunction with increased revenue, i.e., higher taxes. Score one for the Democrats. Their willingness to "compromise" portrays them as pragmatic and flexible while the Republicans' principled opposition casts them as rigid and doctrinaire, even in the face of catastrophe. If the Republicans persist in their objections it is likely they will be seen as the ones responsible for any financial collapse. After all, if a deal is not reached it would be because the Republicans refused to budge. Should budget talks break down it is quite possible that the Republicans will be left holding the bag. That is the trap.

The Republicans came to victory in the last election largely due to their opposition to higher taxes and government spending. To give in to any tax increase or go soft on government spending would be to give up their single greatest weapon and undermine virtually everything they ran on. If they accede to a budget compromise that raises taxes or fails to reduce spending in any significant way what will they be able to run on in 2012? If government spending is firmly taken into hand republicans will be able to acquiesce to some tax increases. They might even burnish themselves and gain a touch of political responsibility for doing so. But in the absence of any significant cuts in spending the only result of a tax increase will be to allow the government to continue in its profligacy. In that event Republicans will have accomplished nothing. They will have abandoned their principals simply in order to buy some time. That is the snare Republicans face.

Democrats have few good options themselves. To unilaterally proceed to raise taxes would be to take the ire of voters upon themselves. To give in on spending would jeopardize their standing with the many millions of Americans who count upon government spending, not just to keep themselves above water, but for their livelihoods as well. There is also the more subtle threat reduced spending poses to progressives. To reduce federal spending is to hinder federal power. Without the velvet glove of money, only the iron gauntlet of law remains.

When it comes to raising taxes, republicans and democrats are in very different positions. Democrats can raise taxes without jeopardizing their political base. Republicans cannot. Because of this, democrats have more room to maneuver on the issue. Democrats can support increased taxes and keep their base content, as long as those taxes fall on the usual suspects. Republicans do not have that luxury. Most republicans oppose higher taxes of any kind. Unless a deal can be reached where only democrats will pay higher taxes, republicans will need something big to abandon their anti tax position. Simply keeping the government running will not be enough. If Congress cannot step up and do something to avert a train wreck perhaps Republicans should consider just getting out of the way.

The real test of the political resolve to address the debt will come in the fall of 2012. That is when we will learn how determined politicians are to tell the public the truth about spending and find out how willing the public is to accept what it will take to get the national debt under control.

Many years ago I learned the lesson that the first thing you should do if you find yourself in a hole is stop digging. Just digging more slowly won't help. That is a lesson that Congress and the president need to learn.