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.