Our Violent Society

Who is Adam Lanza? If someone had asked you that question two days ago you likely would have shrugged your shoulders and asked "who"? If I told you he was an intelligent but socially awkward 20 year old man from Newtown, Connecticut who had Asberger Syndrome you would likely have responded,  "Oh, why do you ask?" If I went on to tell you that he was an former honor student and that he was shy you probably would have asked me "So what?" If I asked you what Adam looked like you probably would have wondered if there was a point to these questions. If I asked you those same questions today you would know all these things and more about Adam. If I had waited and asked you two weeks from now, you would know just about everything there is to know about him.

Adam Lanza is famous, or notorious if that is a better word for you. The whole nation is talking about him. He is on the TV. He is in the newspapers. He is all over the web. Movie stars, rock stars, and fashion models know his name. Hollywood writers and producers are no doubt discussing him. His deeds will be grist for newspaper editors and pundits for a long time to come. He will be opined about on Sunday morning news panels. He will be the subject of conversation on talk shows. You can be certain he will be a prominent topic of conversation on shows like "The View". Adam will be discussed by lobbyists and interest groups either to take advantage of the carnage or to limit the damage caused by it. He will be analyzed by psychiatrists and sociologists. They will want to know what made him tick. Even the President of the United States knows Adam and is talking about him. Adam's name will be bandied about across the nation and brought up in state houses and in Congress as legislators ponder what caused this tragic event and how we can find ways to prevent the next Adam. His prosecution will certainly get considerable press coverage.

Two days ago, Adam Lanza was a socially awkward outsider going to school every day with his shirt buttoned to the top and carrying a briefcase, (we now know that about him too), overlooked by his neighbors and no doubt shunned and an object of ridicule by many of his classmates. Today, Adam is known across the nation. Even if the media makes an attempt to deprive Adam of his notoriety by refusing to mention his name, the deed has been done and Adam's goal has been achieved. He has made his mark on the world and achieved a place in history. Adam Lanza is here to stay. Even after Adam's name recedes into history, there will always be "the kid who shot up that school".

We can be sure that there are more Adams out there fermenting in their bedrooms and basements. They feel ignored. They feel they have been cheated. They feel they have been unfairly denied the chance to achieve their ambitions because the world is indifferent, or even hostile to them. They hate a society that seems to have no use for them. They believe that they are victims. They want revenge. The shooters at Columbine had their revenge. James Holmes had his revenge. Adam Lanza has now had his revenge. They have achieved what they never could have achieved otherwise by wreaking havoc. Just like Charles Whitman before him, history will know who Adam Lanza was.

The question that is being asked now is what can we do to prevent such a tragedy from happening again. It is the right question. Frankly, I don't know if there is an answer to it. Many, if not most, will concentrate on trying to keep guns out of the hands of people who would harm others, which means they will try to keep guns out of the hands of everyone since we cannot know where the next mass killer or murderous husband will come from or who he will be. That will be a futile effort. Murderers are mushrooms. They will appear when conditions are right.

The problem is not that there are too many guns in this country. There are other nations that have a high rate of gun ownership without the violence we have here in the U.S. In Switzerland and Israel, most homes have assault weapons. Indeed, they are required to. The problem we have in the U.S. is that there too many people who are willing to use them. Why that is so is the real question. It should be pointed out that Hollywood, despite the avowed anti-gun position of most in the movie industry, has made a great deal of money off of films in which gun violence is an integral part. How many people did Denzel Washington shoot and kill in "Man on Fire"? Liberal icon Henry Fonda shot and killed three children in "Once Upon a Time in the West". How much money has vocally anti-gun liberal Quentin Tarantino made by stacking bodies in his movies? (How many people can quote the hamburger scene in "Pulp Fiction" from memory?) In one of his more successful movies, Tom Cruise starred as a hit man who nearly achieves his goal to murder all the people on his list. He only falls short by one. The reason he failed is because the openly liberal actor Jamie Foxx shoots him dead. Woody Harrelson and Julliette Lewis starred as pathological murderers in celebrated liberal director Oliver Stone's "Natural Born Killers" where together they kill no less than 43 people between them. Then there the paean to guns and violence that is the "Matrix" series which is in a league by itself. What messages do such movies send? When will Hollywood put its money where its mouth is and stop treating violence and murder as entertainment? No time soon I suspect.

The rap music industry bears blame as well. Our youth are told that they should not turn their back or shrug off disrespect. Pride demands that sleights, whether intended or inadvertent, be atoned for. Insult must be avenged. Hip hop artists tell our kids that they should not tolerate disapproving glances or mutterings on the part of others. They portray violence and threats as legitimate responses to indignity. Popular rappers boast in their recordings of the revenge they have taken on those who did not accord them the respect they are due and warn others that the same fate awaits them. They proudly boast of all that their belligerency has gotten them in contrast to the anonymous and demeaning existence of those too timid to take what they are rightfully due.

It is easy to point to guns and blame them for the violence we have in the U.S. But, like clubs, knives, and spears before them, guns are simply tools. They can be used for good or ill. Left to themselves, guns are little more than paper weights. Guns have not become more dangerous over time. Guns are more difficult to obtain and safer than they have ever been. It is people that have become more dangerous. Why that is so is the question we should be asking. We should keep that question in mind as the debate over guns unfolds. We should  keep that question in mind when we are sitting in a darkened movie theater engrossed in the violence onscreen or sitting on our sofa in front of the TV watching the bullets fly and the bodies drop. We should keep that question in mind when our children are listening to their favorite raps stars boast of their murderous ways and the terrible revenge they will take on those who would wrong them.

There was a time when young social outcasts took refuge by retreating into their own, private worlds. They would play Dungeons and Dragons or collect comic books. Adam chose to pick up a gun. Guns did not seduce young Adam Lanza. Guns did not corrupt him or put ideas of revenge and carnage into his head. They were simply the tools he chose to carry out his plan. To focus on guns is to ignore the real problem. There is something increasingly wrong with our culture. It begins with radical individualism where each individual is the center of his own private universe. It is fueled when religion and morality are banished from public discourse leaving only the thin gruel of "values" to sustain our consciences. It culminates in the Nietzschean call to rise up and break the shackles put upon the strong by the weak and dare to impose one's will on the world.

We will look to Washington in vain for a solution. Murder, guns, and violence have taken root in the American psyche. If you want to know how they got there, a good place to start is Hollywood. Americans have always had guns, but they have not always shot up schools, cafeterias, and movie theaters. There is something else going on here. Gun control is only a prophylactic. It will do nothing to cure the disease. Death and mayhem are no longer horrors. Thanks to Hollywood, they have become entertainment. Those who would ban guns in the U.S. should ask themselves one question the next time they are watching a violent thriller: are they enjoying themselves?

Who Will Lead Us to the Promised Land?

With the presidential election just a few days away, both candidates are pulling out the stops. In politics, like boxing, there is no bank on punches. Emotions are high. Partisanship is high, higher than it has been in a very long time.Why? It is because there is so much at stake. The federal government touches upon every aspect of life in the U.S. The policies crafted and implemented by the modern president affect deeply private and personal aspects of people's lives. The president, with a stroke of a pen, can set policy on civil rights and gay rights. He can set policy on what your children should learn and what they should value. He can affect policy regarding what people should eat, what they should buy, and where they should live. He sets foreign policy. He establishes domestic priorities. He can tell people what they should think, what they should eat, and what they should believe. In short, almost every facet of life in America is under the purview of the White House. That is why emotions are running high.

Through the casuistry of modern liberalism, matters traditionally considered to be private have become subject to public intervention. Individuals can no longer be left to come to their own conclusions regarding social issues. They can no longer be trusted to determine their own morals and principals. They can no longer be relied upon to set their own priorities and pursue them in a responsible manner. They cannot be left alone to raise their children as they see fit. They are unfit to come to their own conclusions on what is fair and proper. They cannot be allowed to determine their own "values". They must be educated. They are too lazy and ignorant. They must be indoctrinated into the Idea. They must be enticed, prodded, and coerced. It does not matter whether the Idea is determined by progressives or conservatives. It is the mere ability of the government to determine the horizon of thought in the nation that engenders the struggle over its control. What people believe is important to them. If their beliefs are contradicted by public policy they will endeavor to bring social policy into harmony with their beliefs. Others might seek to withdraw from the controversy and live their lives according to their own values. The trouble with that is that progressives, conservative and liberal alike, want the hearts and minds of everyone. The existence of heretical beliefs, however marginal or isolated, is anathema to progressives. Everyone is obliged to embrace the Idea. Even those who seek to withdraw from public debate into their own homes and communities will find no peace for the government will pursue them.

You cannot have a government that affects so much of peoples' live without stirring their emotions. You cannot have a government charged to defend or advance public sensibilities without raising the stakes.You cannot raise the stakes and not expect a struggle over who controls the government. The higher the stakes, the more bitter the struggle, and the stakes have never been higher. Instead of campaigns centered on policy, we have campaigns based on emotion. We are not to support or oppose a candidate. We are called to embrace or fear him.

More than ever, politics is about "visions". Visions are unsubstantial things. Visions are unencumbered. They float freely in the mind. So are "feelings". They appeal to emotion, not intellect. They are not subject to reason. You cannot persuade emotion. You can only appeal to it. So if your feeling is that Obama's vision of a better America is more enticing than Romney's, cast your vote for him. If you think Romney's vision for America holds more appeal than Obama's, cast your vote him. Either will disappoint.

The real danger lays not in waste, cost, inefficiency,or turbulence. It lay in the inevitable failure of the Idea to transform reality and usher in the new age. It is there that the Idea achieves its true and terrible form because the Idea is not abandoned. In their frustration, the adherents of the Idea will become more tenacious in their efforts to overcome perceived obstacles. The Idea will become coercive. Progressives will seek to compel the public to embrace it. They see nothing wrong with compelling the public. Why should they? Everything progressives do is for the advancement of the public. In time, when the Idea begins to bear fruit, the public will thank them and wonder how they ever could have been so ignorant.

Romney has called his campaign a "movement". Obama claims Americans need a "champion" to fight for social justice (whatever social justice might require at the moment). Someone needs to remind the public that elections are campaigns. They are, or should be, about politics, not about movements and chivalry. Romney is not Moses.There is no Promised Land of Prosperity out there waiting for a leader to take us to. The middle class is not a damsel in need of a chivalrous knight to defend her. America is a country that, more than ever, needs a president, nothing more and nothing less.

In a recent editorial, Dallas Morning News editorialist Carl Leubsdorf asks what kind of America do voters yearn for. Like many people, Leubsdorf takes for granted that the presidency is at the heart of American life and contains the power to shape the country in any fashion the president chooses. As the presidency goes, so goes America. It is unfortunate that he is largely correct. That is why the Oval Office is so bitterly fought over. When people enter the voting booth on Tuesday, they will not be choosing who will preside over the government, defend the Constitution, and execute the laws . They will be choosing what kind of country they yearn to live in. If you want to know why politics have become so acrimonious, look no further.
 

Religious Mockery

In an editorial in Sunday's Dallas Morning News, William Salatin, a writer for Slate, asks why antisemitism is banned and pilloried while anti Islam and Christian hatred is allowed to flourish. That is a good question. Of course the history of antisemitism is a long and terrible one. Jews have suffered more for their religion than any other. That is why Western nations have become vigilant and striven to keep antisemitism on the margin. They have learned that when a religion becomes a target for scorn, the adherents of that religion become targets as well. So why is that lesson so quickly forgotten when it comes to Christians and Muslims?

When you mock or ridicule a religion the real target is not belief or faith. The real object is the adherents. You cannot lampoon prophets, saints, and texts without lampooning the people who believe in them. You cannot ridicule Judaism without ridiculing Jews. You cannot vilify Islam without vilifying Muslims. You cannot dedicate a web site to exposing the evil of the Catholic Church without condemning Catholics. You cannot make a buffoon out of Jesus without making buffoons of Christians. That is the real danger underlying religious mockery. By denigrating a religion you marginalize its believers. When you place a crucifix in a jar of urine you are symbolically putting all Christians in a jar of urine. That is why such offense is taken by the religious. If the Pope is a tyrant, then Catholics are sheep. If Mohamed was a lecher, what does that say about those who adhere to his teachings? If Mormonism is a cult, then Mormons are cultists.

There are any number of laws protecting people and groups from derision and hatred. Very rarely do those laws apply to people of faith. People are free to slather religion with hate. Because they do not apply to religions, they do not apply to believers. Religious people are frequently singled out as driven by ignorance and authoritarian zeal. They are suspect because their motivation comes from a source that has always been out of reach of the secular state. When their faith is in harmony with the sensibilities of society, they are welcomed. But the platitudes and vacuous calls for love and tolerance common at public and political events are little more than a neutered vestige of Christianity. Christ's charge to love your neighbor and his frequent calls for forgiveness are rallying cries for the religious left. His requirement that sin be recognized and admitted to and mercy must be asked for before it can be received is ignored. Christ's command that you live according to the word of God is shunned in favor of his admonition not to judge others.

The Islamic faith has become a target for hostility. Islam is perceived as a menace to the free world. Therefore Muslims are a menace. They are often portrayed as blood thirsty savages bent on death and destruction. They are frequently associated with terrorists and tyrants. They are lampooned and caricatured as ignorant, backward, dirty, and violent. Korans are burned. The long, crooked noses, hunched backs, scheming visages, and bony hands once reserved for Jews have become part of the common portrayal of the Islamic plotter. Certainly not all discussions of Islam are limited to its savageness. There is an effort by some to reveal the piety, humility, and compassion that runs throughout Islam. If one takes the time to look one can find the long tradition of tolerance and respect for other faiths. One will find calls for mercy and love. But just as a thousand acts of charity and love can be undone by one violent act, one thousand depictions of humble and peaceful Muslims can be undone by one hateful caricature or spiteful article.

It is not difficult to find images, anecdotes, and articles vilifying Islam. There are no doubt thousands of websites and publications dedicated to insulting and mocking Muslims. Just a few key strokes will take you right down into the sewer. Blogger Pamela Geller has gained a considerable following through her tirades against what she sees as the inherent wickedness of Islam. Many of those sites and publications style themselves as defenders of Christianity and Western values. They dedicate themselves to exposing the "evil" behind Islam: its goal to enslave the world and exterminate non believers. Such sites are little more than malicious rants. Most of them extend their vitriol beyond Islam to include all Muslims. They cherry pick their topics, combing the news for articles sympathetic to their point of view. Curiously, more than a few are willing to glide over the intolerant bile of Terry Jones and Jerry Falwell and treat it as simply a malignant growth on the Christian body. They turn a blind eye to the flagrant hatred and racism of Jewish Settlers. They ignore the Muslims bringing bread to their homeless neighbors in favor of the angry men burning flags and waving rifles.Their attention is tightly focused on Islamic extremism.

There are approximately 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. They constitute 23% of the world's population. The vast majority of them are peaceful and modest in their faith. The number of Muslim extremists among them is minuscule. Nevertheless, the entire faith and its 1.6 billion adherents are frequently tarred with one brush. Just as Mother Teresa and Martin Luther King can be forgotten by the secular left in their zeal to expose the "truth" about Christians, the Islamic emphasis on charity and the commandment to tolerate people of "the Book", i.e. Christians and Jews, is ignored in the focus on Islamic extremists.

If people want to discuss the rising tide of extremism in Islam, they should be encouraged. It is a subject that needs understanding. If people want to decry the violence perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists, they should not be silenced. But if people want to condemn and mock the Islamic faith and imply that Muslims are all potential terrorists, they should be addressed as what they are: intolerant, ignorant, and hateful.

Hatred for the religious is one hatred progressives are willing to tolerate. Indeed, they will fight for the right to hate religion.

Gambling for the Troops

Texas is once again finding itself in trouble over sagging lottery sales. While On Tuesday it was announced that its Veterans Cash lottery game was down 42% from this time last year. That translates into $4.7 million in lost revenue. The game was inaugurated in 2009 to help veterans by funding a wide variety of services from rehabilitation to counseling. All of Texas lottery ticket revenue is dedicated to education but one. The Veterans Cash lottery ticket was dedicated to helping veterans. This is of particular concern because 9 out of every ten dollars provided to the state fund for Veterans Assistance fund come from lottery sales.

A similar ticket issued in Illinois is also in trouble. "There's a lot you can do with these special interest games if you think about them differently" said Illinois' lottery superintendent Michael Jones. He has proposed gimmicks to improve sales such as allowing ticket buyers the opportunity to fire a howitzer.

"People are patriotic", said Texas state Senator Leticia van de Putte. "Maybe we should do a little more advertising." Maybe they are patriotic, but they are not patriotic enough to support more state funding for veteran's programs, schools, and roads. They need to be enticed by the prospect of making some quick money.

People want to help others. They want the homeless to have a place to live. They want the hungry to have food. They want children to be able to go to decent schools. The problem is that many don't want to have to pay more or do anything themselves. They want others to take care of the problem. The government is more than willing to accommodate them. The government makes it easy to ease your conscience by taking the burden of tending to others upon itself. All a citizen has to do is pay his taxes and his obligation to society is met. More than a few want something for their beneficence.What better way to help the homeless than to buy some cookies or attend a concert? Still others want a more public display of their generosity. What better way to help the hungry than to attend a gallery opening or a charity benefit? Now people will have another way to help. They can play the lottery.

No one is going to buy a lottery ticket to benefit veterans or fund schools. If they really wanted to do something they would volunteer or write a check to support the cause. They are going to buy a lottery ticket to win money. By dedicating proceeds from a lottery ticket to a program, the government is simply enticing people to gamble by allowing them to justify their gambling by putting a veneer of social benefit on it. People can go to a store and purchase $20 in lottery tickets and tell themselves that they are contributing to a worthy cause by doing so, that is if they give their purchase any thought beyond the simple habit and the hope of winning money.

If people truly cared about the causes and needs the lottery boards claims to be benefiting they would do something other than seek personal gain. There are any number of charities that would welcome the money. But where is the fun in donating to them? Where is the reward in that? Offering to dedicate some of the proceeds from lottery sales to worthy causes is not far removed from prostitutes offering to set aside some of their profits to help women's centers, or casinos offering to support homeless programs. In each case an effort is made to polish a vice and maintain its appeal and continued existence by trying to put a veneer of nobility on it. Vice is to be encouraged, in moderation of course, if it is for a good cause.

States want people to buy lottery tickets. Increasingly, they need people to buy lottery tickets. What can you do if greed and desperation are not enough? Simple: you seek to portray playing the lottery as a civil contribution. You can attempt to portray playing the lottery as an act of civil and moral responsibility if you like, but it does not change its essence. It is still gambling. Whatever the merits of the cause, the motivation is, and will always be, personal gain no matter what lottery players promise God and the fates regarding all the good and decent things they will do with their winnings. To use veterans as a marketing ploy to boost lottery sales is not only crass marketing, it is shameful.

So, even if you can't attend some celebrity gala or play around of golf for the troops, you can still do your part and buy lottery tickets. Who knows? You might even make yourself a nice pile of money to go with that warm feeling. It is not like you are being asked to wash cars or bake a pie. If everyone does their part we just might gamble our way to a better society.

If the state lottery board's plan works, a whole new vista will open up for lottery sales. I can see it now: lottery tickets for the homeless, pregnant teens, and the elderly. At least people will be able to put their money where there heart is.

Don't Feed the Animals

Last Thursday, the New York City Board of Health passed a rule banning the sale of large soft drinks in delis, movie theaters, and restaurants. The move was made in response to the growing girth of the citizens of that city. Establishments that feature self serve drink fountains would be prohibited from providing cups larger than 16 ounces. Other measures in the rule deal with the complicated issues such as chocolate milk and energy drinks. The rule was fought by businesses on the grounds that the banning of "super size" soda pop and other sugar laden beverages would cut into profits. A compromise was reached in which calories, ingredients, and nutritional content were juggled so as to allow some popular drinks like chocolate milk though the cracks.

It is remarkable that the city felt obliged to take up the task of involving itself in the diets of its citizens. Education has failed to curb the appetites of New Yorkers. Public service campaigns have failed. The omnipresence of sleek ads featuring thin, attractive models has failed to shame and entice New Yorkers into losing weight. Parents have failed to shape the dietary habits of their children in a suitably healthy manner. Progressives are at their wits end. The next best step is to intervene by limiting the options available to the consumer. Since people have demonstrated too great a willingness to eat what is put in front of them, steps have to be taken to limit what can be put in front of them. To that end, progressives are at work chiseling down the dietary options available to consumers.

The free market is based on supply and demand. People want super size meals, giant drinks, big, greasy cheeseburgers, and six inch thick pastrami sandwiches. That is why is why businesses sell them. People like sugar, salt, and fat in their food because it makes food taste good. The demand for a thing creates a supply. But the government has so far failed in curbing the demand for high calorie, fat laden food in amounts far greater than is needed to support life. They always will. Eating food you like in the amount you want is part of human nature. It has been a goal of humans since they first left the cave.

Most Americans are able to limit their appetites to what is, if not beneficial, is at least not harmful to their health. But a trip to the mall or the grocery store reveals that a great many haven't. What can be done about them? The growing mountain of data concerning the rate and economic costs of obesity is a gilded invitation for progressives to intervene. When data demonstrates that there is correlation between the activity of individuals, regardless of whether it occurs in public or in private, and the functioning of the community, the government has an obligation to step in. This is because for the progressive, whether liberal or conservative, there is no distinction between the public and the political. If it can be demonstrated that a particular activity or behavior has consequences extending beyond the individual, society has a duty to involve itself lest that activity or behavior disturb the public weal. Naturally, the particulars vary according to individual sentiment, but there is a common thread. The public must be protected from private heresy because private heresy, if left unchecked, can undermine society.

Ideally, the public can be educated into the idea. Thin is good. Obese is bad. These foods will keep you thin. Those foods will make you fat. Where education fails, the public must be prodded and enticed. Obese people are shamed and mocked. Thin people are celebrated and held up for emulation. Where prodding fails, coercion must be used. People must be forbidden to tread the path that leads to obesity.  But they cannot be left to themselves to follow the path to fitness and health. People must be shepherded down that path and, to ease the task, the path must be narrowed and straightened and the exits closed.

When you go to a zoo you cannot help but notice the signs telling visitors not to feed the animals. This is because the animals all have regulated diets created to maintain their health. If people are free to toss in whatever food they please, the animals will either neglect the food the staff provides them in favor of the french fries and hot dogs people will throw, or they will eat everything. Either way, the animal's health will suffer. The animal is incapable of distinguishing between what is healthy for it to eat and what is not. It does not know how much it should eat. If you throw donuts and carrots in the monkey cage, the monkeys will eat the donuts. They will eat what tastes good. Progressives believe that people are little better. They believe that if you put foot long hot dogs in front of Americans, Americans will eat foot long hot dogs. That is why action is needed to restrict what can be put in front of them. Despite the frequent  paeans to the rights and dignity of the individual, progressives do not believe that people can be trusted to conduct themselves appropriately on their own. They must be vigilantly watched, clearly guided, and constantly goaded lest they slip into barbarism and ignorance, or, in this case, obesity.

People are not animals. They can choose what they will eat and in what amount. If liberty is to mean anything you have to allow people to choose how they will conduct themselves. Just because people make poor decisions is no reason to restrict liberty. A progressive paradise would be a strange thing to behold. You would be free to marry whomever you wanted but you would not be free to eat whatever you wanted.

Don't let all the details and statistics fool you. It is really a simple plan. If the only thing Americans can eat is healthy food in modest amounts, the only thing they will eat is healthy food in modest amounts. For progressives, if people are unwilling or unable to make the right decision when confronted with multiple options, you have to narrow the list down to only those choices you approve of. They believe life should be reduced to a multiple choice test where all the wrong answers have been removed. Progressives have a plan for what America should be. One way or another, people will have to adhere to that plan.

The Edge of Reason

On Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Mark Wolf ruled that Art Kosilek, a convicted murderer serving a life term in Massachusetts, was entitled to receive gender realignment surgery at the tax payers' expense. Koselik believes he is a woman in a man's body and to compel him to remain in that body constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. It was asserted that the surgery was the only way Koslek's condition can be treated. To deny him gender realignment surgery deemed necessary to his mental well being is to deny him his right to health care. Despite the fact that Kosilek is still biologically and physiologically a man, the court sought fit to refer to him as a woman. The decision was hailed as a great step forward on behalf of transgendered people everywhere.

The trouble with the ruling is that Mark Kosilek is not being denied health care. If Koselik falls ill or is injured he has full access to the same health care every other prisoner is entitled to. What Kosilek is being denied is a sex change operation at taxpayers' expense. But feeling you are living in the wrong body is not a medical condition. It does not hinder your mobility. It does not cause physical pain. It does not threaten your health. It is not fatal if left untreated. Believing you are living in the wrong body is not a physical malady. It is a psychological condition.

It is increasingly common for people to seek medical treatment to attempt to address their dissatisfaction with their appearance. Many, if not most, Americans have something about themselves that they are unhappy with. They believe they are too short. They are losing their hair. They have stretch marks. They are overweight. They have bandy legs. There is something out there for almost everybody. Indeed, if movie stars like Angelina Jolie can be dissatisfied with their appearance to the point of getting surgery, anyone can.  For some people, dissatisfaction evolves into preoccupation. Preoccupation can lead to anxiety, even obsession.  However, if that obsession becomes so occluded so as to prevent a person from functioning normally, it is psychological issue, not a medical one.

With the advancements in surgery and treatment, many conditions that had to be endured in the past can now be treated. By and large, this is a good thing. Why endure the pain and physical restrictions of a damaged knee if you can solve that problem through surgery? Why suffer physical deformity if that deformity can be corrected or compensated for? There is no reason to.

Some deformities and injuries are so severe they can fairly be described as requiring medical treatment even if there is no jeopardy to a person's health. Decency and compassion require us to provide a remedy to those who have lost facial features if a remedy is available, even if the law doesn't. None of those factors apply to Robert Kosilek. He is healthy. He suffers no deformity. His mobility is not limited. He is in no physical pain. His appearance and genitalia are a source of anxiety to him alone.

Despite the cries of activists, Kosilek is not being denied health care. No transgendered person is. If they are sick or injured they have access to the same care that everyone else has. If Kosilek requires medical attention he will be provided with it, just as any other prisoner would. The court in Massachusetts veered onto a new path when it agreed that the only way to treat Koselik's disorder is through surgery. The ruling was predicated on the idea that Koselik's disorder did not require psychological treatment, but medical treatment.

The lack of equilibrium between Koselik's vision of himself and reality is the source of his psychological turmoil, not his gender. It is becoming more and more common in instances where a person's view of themselves and the world they live in is in conflict with reality, for progressives to insist that reality that yield. This is a futile endeavor. Reality yields to no one. In Koselik's case, he finds himself in conflict with nature. He is biologically a man. No court or law can change that. The only thing that can be changed is his appearance. Transgendered people can get surgery to change the way their body appears but that appearance will be a deception. Surgery can no more make a man a woman than it can make a duck into a goose.

Mara Keisling, Executive Director of the National Center for Transgender Equality lamented that in our society "transgender people are... denied health care access all the time." She is wrong. They are not. They have access to the same health care that everyone else has. Evidently, she is aware of the precarious nature of her assertion because she went on to add that at the bottom, transgendered people are victims of "insufficient training, insufficient competency, and insufficient humanity". Deficiencies in training and competency are easily accounted for. They can be addressed through legislation. But "insufficient humanity" is another thing entirely. That is the key. If society's treatment of transgendered people is really going to change it has to be through getting at the roots of the matter. You have to change society. To change society, you have to change the way people think.

When progressives speak of changing society, they usually mean that the government should change society. That is why there is continual insistence that politicians be leaders possessed of great visions of what the country should be like. But the thought of great leaders setting out to change the way people think should be abhorrent to Americans. The thought of courts changing the way people think should be abhorrent as well. It is the ideologue that sets out to change the world. It was Marx who sought to raise men to their true potential through transforming political and economic conditions to realize his vision of what the world should look like. The thought of remaking society in accordance with some plan has frequently been the cause for great barbarism and cruelty. It contains within it the idea that society can and must be molded if it is to come into its full and proper condition. If people resist progress, they must be prodded. When prodding fails, force must be used.

It is the mark of the ideologue that, when their vision of the world is in conflict with the world in which they live, it is the world that must yield and, that when their vision of what mankind should be is in conflict with mankind as it exists, then mankind must be brought into line. It is the idea that is paramount. It is the idea that is the measure of society. Society is merely the form the idea takes when it realizes itself in existence.Men can either cooperate with the idea or they can resist it. They cannot in anyway alter its nature. When the idea is on conflict with reality, people, being the stubborn thing that they they are, must to change. They must be educated into the idea. When "education" fails in the task, legislation is relied upon. If legislation fails, coercion is used. One way or another, the ideologue will endeavor to mold mankind to fit the idea.

"There are still people who believe that being a transgendered person is a choice, or exotic or bad" said Keisling. For those at the cutting edge of human progress, too many people are thinking incorrectly. For people like Keisling, society has a duty to change the way people think. If that doesn't give you pause, nothing will. Transgendered people like Koselik are biologically and physiologically male. The only place they are female is in their mind. They want to reshape their physiology reflect the image they carry of themselves.  The problem in the case of transgendered people is that gender is a biological distinction, not a psychic state. To call Koselik a woman is to subsume reality to feeling. Koselik's feelings about himself cannot change his gender. The most that can be accomplished is that Koselik will look like a woman. He will never be a woman. All the surgery and hormones in the world will not change that. Nevertheless, it is asserted that society is obliged to conform itself to the feelings of the individual. There was a time when one of the chief goals of psychotherapy was to adjust a person's psyche in order to bring him into harmony with reality. But that was when reality was believed to have a stable existence outside the human mind. Those days are gone.

There are those who argue that every newly discovered right is merely the logical extension of the one that went before it. It is argued that because A equals B, it must equal C as well. They are willing to follow this chain forever to wherever it leads, even if it leads to the absurd. To say that society is obliged to accommodate the personal feelings and emotions of its members and provide remedy to their psychic angst is to embark on a journey with no destination.

But let's be honest here. To force Koselik to serve his term with the genitalia he was born with is neither cruel or unusual. Koselik is not being denied health care. The issue of whether Koselik's is entitled to gender surgery  is not about him at all. It is about sending a message. It is about the state bestowing its imprimatur on transgendered people and giving them their place in the pantheon being built to "diversity".

It was recently reported that Voyager 1 is approaching the edge of the solar system. It will soon escape the influence of the Sun's gravity and enter the void of interstellar space. Like Voyager, we are approaching the frontier of  human reason. Once we pass through we will find ourselves in the void of desire, free from the gravity of tradition and history. It will be an endless wandering with no destination, propelled by emotion.

1,000 Mice Do Not Make an Elephant

Charles Blow, a columnist for the New York Times, recently wrote an editorial about the dismal plight of America's children. He cited a report issued by the Center for American Progress that reveals, among other things, that over half of the post secondary students in the U.S. drop out before graduating, that more than 20% of America's children live in poverty, and that half of the children in the U.S. receive no early childhood education. Nearly a quarter live in poverty. More than a quarter have chronic health conditions. (Many of them are just plain fat). No one expects the situation to improve significantly any tome soon

Against these statistics, Blow places the impressive statistics of other nations. China, for example, is expected to have over 200 million college graduates by 2030 (the current population of the U.S. is 314 million). Many will have degrees is useful fields such as science and engineering. To rectify the deteriorating in the U.S., Blow, like many others proposes that Washington take matters into hand.

China is a centralized state. Policy is decided by the central government and imposed on the nation. If the government in Beijing decides that the nation needs more engineers, the order goes out to the education system to produce more engineers. If Beijing decides that it needs more scientists, the order goes out to produce more scientists. The U.S. is not yet a centralized state. The economy moves to its own rhythm. If there is a shortage of engineers, the demand for them rises. When the demand for engineers rises, the rewards for becoming an engineer increase. When the rewards increase, students gravitate towards becoming engineers. If there is a glut of engineering graduates, the benefits of an engineering degree decrease and students will find another field. That is how things have always worked in the U.S. It has worked well enough for the U.S. to become the premier scientific, technological, and economic power in the world. But, if statistics are any guide, we are losing our edge. Something has changed. For those like Blow, what has changed is that there is a lack of focus on the part of the U.S. that can only be rectified by action in Washington.

Like with so many other issues, the cure for what ails America is government. The trick is to make an issue a matter of national concern. Once an issue becomes a national concern, Washington can step in. But how do you make an issue like high school education a matter of national concern? Through statistics, that's how. It is through statistics that all the nation's overweight children can be put into one basket and thereby become a single, national issue warranting intervention from Washington. It is through statistics that Blow and others determine that the physical, economic, and scientific deterioration evident in the nation's educational system are a national concern.

Children in the U.S. do not belong to the nation. They belong to parents. It is the parents' responsibility to raise their children, not the nation's. Something has changed in America over the last 50 years. The well earned victories of the Civil Rights and environmental movements have imbued progressives with a sense of omnipotence. They believe that there is no problem that cannot be rectified through the proper application of federal compulsion and enticement. They believe that people are fundamentally plastic and can be shaped into desired form through the proper application of government. And, despite the rhetoric of "systems" and the nation, we are talking about people: hundreds of million of people each with their own tastes, habits, plans, and ambitions.

Like all human endeavors, at the foundation of any system is people. The fundamental flaw of Marxism was that it believed that people were products of society. It asserted that if you changed the system you can change people. Marxism failed because it was mistaken. Society is the product of people. Progressives have sought to turn Marxism on its head by trying change people. They believe that if they change how people think and behave they can change the world. In that they are correct. Where they err is that they take the same road that led the Soviet Union to ruin. They believe that to change people you have to manipulate society, but not through a frontal assault as Marx advocated. You have to tease it towards perfection with legislation carefully crafted to channel people onto the desired path. Instead of the iron gauntlet of law, the velvet glove of regulation and economic manipulation is used. Progressives seek to change the nation's children and mold them into economically useful little engines capable of driving America forward. Children are to be subordinated to the needs of the nation, whatever those needs happen to be at the moment. We console ourselves in this endeavor by contemplating to all the marvelous rewards awaiting our children when they receive the fruits of their labor.

Statistics provide only the barest of sketches of groups acting according to identifiable patterns. When a correlation is discerned it is leaped  upon and shaped into a tool to with which to manipulate society with. They are outlines superimposed on hundreds of millions of individuals. People all want more and better. People all want to avoid deprivation and hardship. But that is about all you can say about them. They cannot tell  you what they want more of except in vague and often meaningless terms like "equality","justice", and a "good life". Such terms are empty brackets to be filled by individuals themselves. They cannot measure the ability or tell you the personal motivations that drive the individual. They measure patterns, not causality. Indeed, to assert a causality as the basis of human behavior is the hallmark of ideology.

The raising of a child is a parent's responsibility. Clearly, too many parents in the U.S. are doing a poor job. Progressives, liberal and conservative alike, want to push parents aside and have the government take up the burden. They are forever tinkering with rules, penalties, incentives, regulations, and laws in an effort to remake people in a fashion suitable to their idea of what society should look like. For over forty years they have been laboring at this task and achieved little. Still they persist. Just as the New Deal has become the paradigm of government intervention, civil rights laws have become the paradigm of social and cultural manipulation. But, like the New Deal, the equation is far more complex. There is no simple cause and effect when it comes to human behavior. People can be stubborn, irrational, lazy, and riddled with vice. No government will ever change that because government is a product of society and society is a product of people.

As the U.S. slowly slouches toward Babylon and a debt ridden, impoverished, poorly educated, two tiered society, people are increasingly clamoring that the government do something about it. But the government has already done something about it. It has made things worse. As Samuel Johnson once said, a thousand mice do not make an elephant. Progressives cannot craft policy for 300 million mice. They need elephants. To that end they are continually stacking mice.

In Defense of Interest Groups

With the upcoming election, fundraising is in full swing. Naturally, as candidates scramble for cash, they take care to say things they know that their supporters want to here. The more important or wealthy the industry or group, the more effort that is taken to keep it happy. This is traditionally known as politics. To some, it is known as pandering. Groups that are seen as pursuing general goods such as clean air and water are good interests.  Everybody likes clean air and clean water. Those groups and interests perceived to be acting in pursuit of their own good to the exclusion of others are called "special interests". Those who work to see that those interests are tended to are called lobbyists.

Before you condemn lobbyists and special interests keep in mind they come in all varieties. There are lobbies for children. There are lobbies for rape survivors. There are lobbies for those with leukemia, There are lobbies for business. There are lobbies for labor. There are lobbies for the environment,. There are lobbies for industry. There are lobbies for growth. There are lobbies for preservation. You name it, chances are there is a lobby for it. In the byzantine halls of Washington, if you do not have a lobby, odds are no one knows you exist. If they do not know you exist they don't care about your interests.

A law passed or regulation approved in Washington can cost and industry tens, even hundred millions of dollars. The government can encourage your industry through tax breaks and regulatory concessions. It can also constrict it and regulate it out of business. It can facilitate of your activity or it can stifle it. It can advance your cause or it can place a road block in front of it. Whatever you do or make the government can affect it. It should surprise no one that many groups seek to actively protect their interests as well as themselves and their activities from government meddling.

No one complains when a group sympathetic to their interests spends hundred of millions of dollars to advance their agenda. If a group hostile to your interests spends hundreds of millions of dollars they are condemned for seeking to bribe Washington to achieve their agenda. To call an advocacy group a "special interest" is an attempt to tarnish it by implying they are pursuing selfish ends at odds with the greater good of the nation, whatever that good might be. Is the AARP a special interest group or a lobby? That all depends on your point of view.

A special interest group is commonly construed as a group that pursues interests peculiar to itself rather than the good of all. For that reason "special interests" have come to connote selfishness and greed. Thus a group that lobbies on behalf of an industry to fend off environmental regulation is characterized as a "special interest" because it is pursuing its own good rather the good of everyone who uses the environment. Similarly, a group that pursues the interests of a particular profession are usually characterized as a "special interest" because they seek to advance the interests of that group. If you are going to call the Association of Manufacturers a "special interest" you have to be prepared call organized labor a "special interest".

Some interest groups are proud to wear the label of a special interest. That is largely because the group does not consider its ends to be at odds with the public's. Such groups exist to ensure that their objectives are being tended to They also believe that their goals are congruous with public's, or at least not in conflict. Breast cancer lobby groups rightly believe that the pursuit of their objectives in no way conflicts with any other groups objectives (except perhaps in the struggle over funding, But that is an entirely different matter.) Women free of breast cancer is good for everyone. Their interest is "special" in the proper sense of the word.

But when there are diverging interests, conflict usually arises. Environmentalists want to preserve forests. Logging companies want to exploit forests. Environmentalists want as many obstacles as possible placed in front of logging companies. If  logging companies wind up going out of business because if it, all the better. Naturally, logging companies see things differently. Because Washington can tip the scales in favor of one group or another, both are compelled to make sure their interests are represented in Washington. To do that they hire lobbyists and donate money to political campaigns. If you are an environmentalist, the logging lobby is a "special interest". If you are in the logging industry or benefit from it, it is the environmentalists that are the "special interest".

It is easy to point to an industry and or a profession and accuse it, and by extension its interests and the people hired to protect those interests, of being short sighted and selfish. Certainly there are times when that is precisely the case. But is not always the case, not by far. What is good for General Motors might not always be good for America. But what is good for General Motor can be good for the people who rely on it to make ends meet. Like much else in politics, what makes one interest special and another one not is often a matter of opinion. Before you throw the book at lobbyists stop and consider how many of the things that are important to you are represented by a special interest group.

Why Character Matters

Morals, or "values" as they have come to be known, has become a touchy subject when it comes to elections. When morality comes up, many, politicians especially, take umbrage.Sometimes it is in the open such as when one candidate accuses another of lying or ducking his obligations. Other times it is hinted at when one politician challenges another to come clean or an innuendo is made. Frequently, when the issue is brought up the person or group bringing it up is criticized for seeking to divert the race from substantive issues either through desperation or lack of substance.  This is frequently true, but not always. Whatever else they are, "values", and the willingness to adhere to them, are the measure of a man. Betrayal, defects in honesty and unwillingness to live up to one's obligations are moral defects. A man who cheats on his wife is disloyal. A woman who makes a claim she knows to be spurious or untrue is a liar. A person who fails to live up to his promises is unreliable. A person who puts personal gain over public obligation is untrustworthy. Such traits might not matter very much in your neighbor but they do matter in your president. 

Yes character matters. It matters very much. Character is about more than isolated acts, whether they be praiseworthy or contemptible. It is the measure of the entire man. It is not about particular decisions. It is about how decisions are arrived at. Being president is about making decisions. It is important what factors are considered and how they are weighed in a person's decision making. Politicians who arrive at decisions based on ambition or personal calculations should not be relied upon. They are not acting in the best interests of their constituents but out of expediency and hope of gain.

Character is not tangential to decision making. It is essential. Politics is about making decisions. Making decisions is a personal act. What a man thinks and does in private reflects his true character. When a politician seeks to hide his real character behind a public mask he is a dangerous man because he will go to great lengths to hide that character. He will lie, he will betray, he will coerce, he will bribe to keep his true nature from the public eye. The more ambitious the politician, the greater the lengths he will go to to keep his moral failures hidden and consequently the more distorted his decision making will become.

You can say that politics is less about morality than it is about virtue and you would be correct. Virtue is not about a man's inclinations and tendencies but how he meets his obligations and conducts himself regarding others. But virtue is a difficult thing to achieve in the absence of morality. It will rarely be achieved and hard to maintain for it requires great diligence, greater than most men are capable of. Moreover, it will be constantly under siege. It will always be one temptation, one opportunity, one weak moment away from buckling.

A gap between a politician's private behavior and his public persona make that politician vulnerable. Should that gap be discovered, many politicians (and nearly all public figures for that matter), will expend a great deal of energy to ensure it is not made public. What politician wants to be brought down by a dalliance with an employee or an illegitimate deal? A distinction can, and should be made between a lapse in judgement and a pattern of behavior. A one time tryst is a different thing than a series of trysts or an affair. A single special deal to help an important constituent is different than a pattern of granting favor for gain. A single lapse can be excused because all men are imperfect. All men at one time or another make a bad decision or act out of weakness or self interest. It is the pattern of a man's behavior that reveals his nature, not an isolated act. It is the pattern of a man's decisions that reveal his character. Patterns are only revealed over time. To single out one bad act or one moral lapse and use it to tar a man's career is unfair. To ignore a pattern of questionable judgment and morale lapses is reckless.

You cannot know how a person will conduct himself the future. The best you can do is know how he has conducted himself in the past . To know that you have to know a person's history. You can trust an honest man to continue to act honestly. You can trust a brave man to continue to act courageously. You can trust a faithful man to continue to act faithfully. You can rely on a man who has lived his life selfishly to continue being selfish. You can never be sure how a man lacking character will act. For him, everything relies on circumstance and calculation.

Ultimately, what a person says or does in public matters less than what he says and does in private because in private he reveals his true self. Yes it matters if a politician had an affair. If a man will betray his wife chances are he will betray the public, if only to keep it secret. Yes it matters what maneuvers and special deals a politician made to achieve office for it can reveal an overpowering ambition that will continue to entice dishonesty in order to keep that office or achieve greater office. No one knows the future. No one knows what challenges will emerge. No one knows what decisions a politician will make in the face of those challenges. You can know what sort of person will make those decisions. If you want to know what sort of person a politician is you have to look at how he lives up to his obligations and observes his word. In order to know that you have to know what he has said and what he has done over time.

You can, indeed you should, overlook the small things. There is a difference between getting a friend who is down on his luck a job and rewarding favored constituents with lucrative contracts. If a candidate says he is happy to be in Cleveland chances are he is just being polite. That is politics. By the same token, a single poor decision or dishonest action in a politician's past should be considered in context of time and place. But the large things: was he faithful to his wife? Did he take advantage of his position for personal gain? Did he step on others in his ambition? Those things matter, even more so if there is a pattern. Men do not shed their character once they achieve office. They might become prudent. They might exercise restraint. But they will not change. Because of that you have to pay attention to their character. A man with suspect character should be scrutinized, especially if that man would be president. You cannot know the future. The best you can do is know the man.

The failure to live up to one's "values" is human. Who among us has not failed at times to live up to his own standards? But there is a difference between falling short of one's "values" and abandoning them (or never holding them in the first place). To profess or champion "values" not sincerely held is dishonest. The willingness to abandon one's "values" when they become inconvenient indicates a weakness of character or an ambition that knows no limits. How can we know what sort of president a man would make if we don't know the man? How can we know the man if we don't know his character? How can we know a man's character if we don't know what is important to him? How can we know what is important to him if we don't look at what he has done?

Does it matter if a man who would be president is selfish? Does it matter if he is lazy? Does it matter if he is prone to yield to desire? Of course it does. No one can say otherwise. But how can you know such things unless you examine the man? Character is the sum of a man's actions over time. A man can claim any value he pleases (he cannot, however, claim to be loyal to his values since loyalty is itself a "value" and one value cannot support another), but his nature will be revealed by his actions over time. If a man has succumb to desire ten times you can be confident he will succumb again. If he has shirked his responsibility to his family, why wouldn't he shirk his responsibility to the public?

Olympic Porn

There is a growing backlash against NBC's recent video collage titled "Bodies in Motion". In the video, female Olympians are shown in slow motion as they jump, dive, run, and leap in tight and revealing "uniforms". Care is taken to ensure that none of the more delicate and personal aspects of the female anatomy are neglected. The video has been described as tasteless and offensive, even soft core porn. Female athletes, critics assert, should not be treated, or viewed, as sexual objects. (Well, not exclusively as sexual objects. Let's be realistic here). It is contended that is precisely what the video sets out to do.

The condemnation of the video is undeserved. Athletes are not required to wear the smallest and tightest uniforms available. They choose to. Many female tennis players wear the shortest of dresses knowing full well that those dresses hide nothing. Women's field hockey, another favorite in the video, is another a sport that has attracted the male eye with its short dresses and frequent tumbles in which those dresses fly upwards. Men have also displayed an interest in watching women's soccer no doubt due in part to the willingness displayed by some players to remove their tops to celebrate. In tennis, though it is becoming more fashionable for female players to wear shorts under their dresses, it is by no means universal. Dresses have all but disappeared in female skating. Only the cold of the ice keeps them in stockings. It is difficult to believe that swimsuits cut to 3 or 4 inches below the belly button make swimmers any faster in the water. For their own reasons, many athletes, male and female, choose to wear apparel better designed to titillate than serve any competitive purpose. If athletes want to compete in uniforms that look as if they might have been painted on, viewers should not be blamed if they take up the invitation to look.

Whatever the video's producers claim concerning its intent, the video has served to save many male viewers hours of time. Why sit through boring footage of swimmers warming up in their sweats if you can go straight to wet swimsuit shots? Why put up with large, overweight shot putters and hairy weight lifters if you can zip straight to pubescent girls in waist high tights prancing and bouncing about? Why waste time watching a whole gymnastic routine if you can cut to the crotch shots?

Whatever pretext or defense NBC might offer on their behalf, they knew exactly what they were doing when they created the video. NBC was not trying to create a new porn niche. The movement to sexualize athletes has been going on for some time (think of Michael Jordon's Hanes underwear ads). I am sure there is nothing on the video that has not already found its proper place in the world of porn. NBC was hoping to cash in by meeting a demand. In doing so they simply called attention to something that was already in plain sight. No, don't blame NBC for sexualizing the Olympics. It is the Olympics that sets the rules on uniforms, not NBC. NBC is just trying to make some money. If the NBA can get by with shorts extending to the knees and below, the Olympics ought to be able to get by without athletes competing in mini skirts, bikinis, bras, glorified jock straps, and hot pants. Needless to say, it won't even try.

Does it Really Matter What the U.S. Thinks?

On the issue of Iran, Israel is adamant. Under no circumstances will Iran be allowed to progress towards the capability of making a nuclear weapon. Israel has already made plans to take military action in order to ensure a nuclear armed Iran does not come into existence. Wheels in Israel have been set in motion. They have served notice. The U.S., however, is still calling for patience. It too will not tolerate a nuclear Iran but it believes more time, not much but more than Israel is comfortable with, is needed for sanctions to work. Harsh sanctions already applied to Iran are being felt in that country. More severe sanctions are in the wings. Nevertheless, Israel is not persuaded that time is on its side. It is prepared to act.

When it comes to Israel's decision to attack Iran, does it really matter what the U.S. thinks? What are we going to do if Israel acts against our wishes, brushes off international calls for dialogue, and bombs Iran? Will we chastise Israel? Will we call for a U.N resolution condemning the attack? Will we take the matter to the U.N. Security Council? Will we apply sanctions on Israel? Will we cut off or curtail aide? What if the U.N. does take action and proposes condemnation of Israel, or worse, calls for sanctions? Will the U.S. support that action? If your answer to all of these questions is no, you are correct. The U.S. will do nothing. It might seek to preserve a fig leaf of neutrality by wringing its hands and calling for calm. It might urge dialogue but it will not punish Israel. Despite relying heavily on the U.N. to support its geo-political strategy over the last decade, the U.S. is quite prepared to abandon it if it doesn't act in our interests. In the case of an Israeli attack, the U.S. likely would urge calm and call for a cessation of hostilities, (no doubt only after Israel's military objectives are achieved), but it will not rebuke Israel. Neither will it allow Israel to be rebuked if there is anything it can do abut it.

At risk is years of U.S. effort in the region. After decades of striving to achieve some small measure of objectivity in the Middle East, the U.S. will be placed in the spotlight. It will have to make a choice, Israel or the international community. The choice will be an easy one for the U.S. It will also be a costly one. In those countries where autocratic rulers have been overthrown and the new governments are seeking to establish themselves a choice will have to be made as well. How will they respond to an attack on another Muslim nation? Do they remain silent? Do they simply issue statements condemning it? Whatever the political and religious complexities in the region, the fact would remain that another Muslim nation was bombed in the dead of night.

It has been argued that a U.S. attack on Iran, despite public condemnations, would likely gain the secret approval of many Arab nations in the region fearful of a powerful and aggressive Iran. That may be so. But after years of undermining the authority and legitimacy of centralized governments in the region and working hard to give the "Arab street" a voice in public affairs, we cannot disregard how an attack on Iran will be viewed in that same "Arab street." It has to be considered that there is a distinct possibility that the rank and file in the Arab street will not have the same nuanced view of regional politics that their leaders do. An attack on yet another Muslim nation could easily unify a region in turmoil. It would be difficult for movements and governments, many of which are extraordinarily fragile and dependent on U.S. aid and support or their existence, to continue accepting that aid without appearing to be pawns in some larger U.S. plan. The nascent Arab Spring movement might have to push back against the West lest they be construed as part of some broader U.S. policy serving Israel's interests. Even worse would be if an Israeli hand is perceived to be involved. No Arab movement would likely succeed if it was suspected to be, even in the smallest and most indirect of ways, in cahoots with Israel or working to its advantage.

If the Middle East awakes one morning to the news that bombs are falling on Iran there will be turmoil. You can be sure there are many groups in the region that would move quickly to take advantage of that turmoil. The U.S. has many complex relationships and interests throughout the Middle East that must be weighed in any attack on Iran. The U.S. must consider the broader ramifications of an attack on Iran on its long term interests in the region. Israel does not. Israel has only its survival as a Jewish state on its mind. Moreover, it has time and again demonstrated that it is willing to go to any length to continue its existence as a Jewish state no matter what the U.S. might say or do. Whatever decision Israel comes to regarding its security, the U.S. will have to adapt in order to take that decision into account. It is unimaginable that the U.S. will abandon Israel if Israel comes to a different conclusion regarding Iran's capabilities and launches an attack. Because of that, it really doesn't matter what the U.S. thinks about what must be done regarding Iran. It only matters what Israel thinks.

If Israel attacks Iran it will be able retreat to its fortress afterward, confident in its ability to fend off the consequences of their attack and secure in continued U.S. support, political, military, and otherwise. The U.S. cannot retreat. It must remain engaged. Because of that it will have to pick up the pieces. Even if Iran is defeated, and it will be, life in the Middle East will be no easier for the U.S. If the government in Iran survives the attack we will find in them an even more determined and implacable foe. If the government does not survive the attack we will have another Middle Eastern nation in turmoil. But this time it will be a large, strategically and economically important nation. It will also be a nation more likely to turn east to rebuild than turn west into the arms of the nation that defeated it.

Yes, it matters what the U.S. thinks when it comes to Iran. But, at the bottom, it matters what Israel thinks even more.

Viva la Revolution

When it comes to the nation's children, parents are not pulling their weight. Numerous studies have shown how important it is for parents to be involved in raising their children. Whether it is the dietary habits of their children, the physical fitness of their children, or the academic achievement of their children, statistics show that parents are failing not just their children, they are failing the nation as well. As we have been told repeatedly, children are a national resource. The economy, and by extension the nation requires an abundance of educated and industrious citizens. We cannot have educated and industrious citizens if our schools do not produce them. Schools cannot produce them if parents do not provide the raw material, i.e. healthy, inquisitive, well motivated children. Too many parents are shirking their responsibility and failing to produce such children.

A break through study done by the Harvard Family Research Project determined that parents play an important role in their child's academic performance. Too many parents, however, are not performing well in that role. What can be done? How can we as a nation change the way parents raise their children? This is the problem vexing the modern progressive. We cannot yet intrude on a parent's right to raise their child as they see fit. Another way has to be found. The solution is to make children a communal resource. If children are a communal resource, the community has an interest in how they are raised and educated. Parents have a duty to the community to raise their children correctly. An uneducated, maladjusted child is every one's problem, or so we are told. Therefore the community is obliged to act when individuals fail in meeting their obligation to raise their children properly.

The advent of economic and social casuistry made possible by the modern obsession with statistics has made even the most personal behavior a matter of public concern. While lip service is paid to the right of parents to raise their children as they see fit, in practice there is no such right. A parent who neglects to monitor their child's diet or make sure their child not only attends school, but does her schoolwork diligently is failing society. Society cannot be expected to stand idly by while parents neglect their children. Our nation and its economy is at stake.

In an editorial this morning in the Dallas Morning News, Florencia Velasco Fortner, CEO of The Council of Spanish Speaking Organizations (Concilio) argues that the solution is to "revolutionize what is happening at home." We need to change how parents are tending to their children. To avoid the morass of social issues and the argument over the reach of government, she resorts to the modern method of objectivity by framing the issue in terms of economics. We are urged to "invest" in children, and in so doing we are offered the promise of economic reward. But no matter how the subject is framed, we are dealing with perhaps the most personal of all issues, the raising of our children.

Many parents are not good parents. Some are downright bad parents. This has always been the case. What is new is that how you raise your children is no longer your business. It has become society's business. Because it has become society's business, it has become the government's business. Fortner and her colleagues cannot tell you how to raise your children. Society cannot tell you how to raise your children. But the government can. And that is what this is all about. To the progressive mind, all issues are social issues and all social issues are ultimately political issues. Fortner cannot tell you how to raise your child, so she would have the government do it.

The issue of children can be couched in terms of society but without the ability to compel, society is a poor tool to affect change. Sure, you can talk about educating parents and getting them involved. You can talk about changing the way society approaches the issue.  But what if that is not enough? What if parents don't respond  to your coaxing and encouragement? What if nothing changes? Do you walk away? Or do you try and push parents aside to clear the road for progress?

Fortner and those like her belabor the obvious when they assert that parents need to be involved in the education of their children. But how do we get parents to become involved? The answer Fortner gives it that we need to "revolutionize what is happening at home". We need to overthrow the parents and install a new regime that will actively work with children from the bedroom to the school room. Those parents sympathetic, or at least indifferent to the revolution will be "engaged" in the education process. Parents who do not pass muster will be relieved of duty.

Seventy percent of a school aged child's time is spent outside of the classroom. In too many cases, it is argued that that time is spent unproductively due to negligent or downright poor parenting. To the progressive mind, this must not be allowed to continue. If parents are unable or unwilling to see to their child's educational development, then society must step in.

As society moves ever forward there is less and less space left to the individual. Health, hygiene, diet, even thoughts have become matters of public concern. It was inevitable that some would conclude that the raising of the next generation of Americans cannot be left to the haphazard care of parents. There is too much at stake. The dominion of parents over their children's development must be replaced and a new order ushered in where society's needs, whatever they may happen to be at the moment, take precedent.The future cannot be left to chance.

Civil War is Hell

There has been a great deal of press regarding the now official civil war in Syria. Harrowing reports emerge daily of the mounting casualties and horrific destruction taking place in that country. The U.S., its allies, and any other nation that can be roped into the conflict by the West are decrying the violence and calling for an end to hostilities. The onus for ending the war has been placed firmly on the government in Damascus but Syrian President Bashar Assad has so far rebuffed international calls for a cease fire. He has also rejected the idea of negotiating an end to the fighting. He is determined to end the conflict on his own terms. To that end he continues to pound rebel strongholds, indifferent to the mounting destruction and growing number of civilian casualties.

To contemporary Western sensibilities, the violence in Syria is appalling. Most in the West have become accustomed to the clockwork warfare made possible by advances in science. State of the art technology allows intelligence to be gathered  and targets to be selected in real time. Precision munitions allow those targets to be carefully destroyed with minimal collateral damage. For the U.S. anyway, massive artillery barrages, aerial bombardment, and large scale assaults are no longer necessary. In their stead we have a carefully plotted and tightly focused approach to war. Indeed, it is almost sterile. We did not need to carpet bomb Baghdad to achieve our objectives. Laser guided munitions and cruise missiles were quite enough. Easy as it is to be distracted by the technological wizardry available to the U.S., it is understandable if the modern spectator has come to view the siege and bombardment of cities as border line barbarism.

Civil war is hell. The U.S. of all nations should know that. The Civil War was the costliest and bloodiest war the U.S. ever fought. In one day at the Battle of Antietam, 23,000 Union and Confederate soldiers were injured and killed. It was the bitterest battle in the bitterest war in U.S. history. At the time of the Civil War, the population of the U.S. stood at little over thirty million. Most of those, 22 million, lived in Union states. By the time the war ended in 1865, it has been estimated that over 618,000 soldiers on both sides perished. There is no accurate count of civilian deaths directly attributable to combat, but the number was substantial. Conservative estimates put the number at around 50,000. The fact that most of the civilian deaths during the war were due to disease and hardship rather than the direct result of fighting should be of no solace.

The economic costs of the war were staggering, especially for the rebels. Cities were laid waste. Harbors and factories were destroyed. Rail road track were ripped up. Crops were burned. General William Tecumseh Sherman's March to the Sea alone resulted in over $1.3 billion in economic damage to the Confederacy by today's dollar. It was the birth of total war. What are the odds that the Union would have let U.N. inspectors, had the U.N. existed at the time, into Andersonville? How do you suppose the North would have responded to U.N. demands that it lift the siege of Richmond to allow in humanitarian supplies? Indeed, what is the point of a siege if you are going to let supplies in?

There was no television or internet in 1862. If there had been you can be sure that the carnage taking place in the Civil War would have been met with international outcry and urgent calls to end the violence. There was no U.N in 1862. Had there been there would have been resolutions passed calling for the suspension of hostilities and a negotiated end to the conflict. There might even have been economic sanctions placed on the Union. Perhaps there might have even been motions put forward to aid the Confederacy in order to "level the playing field". After all, the world's most powerful nation at the time, Great Britain, stood to gain considerably if the war ended with the Confederacy intact. Naturally, the Union rebuffed all calls for a suspension of hostilities or a negotiated settlement to the war. A government is not obliged to negotiate with rebels. For the Union, there was only one acceptable outcome to the war: total victory. It was willing to kill civilians and burn cities to the ground to obtain it.

After burning his way through the agricultural heartland of Virginia, Union General Phillip Sheridan surveyed the devastation caused by his troops and boasted that so thorough was his campaign that, to fly across the Shenandoah valley, a crow would have to carry its own lunch. The thought of hungry and homeless Confederate women and children only added relish to his victory. Many Union officers and soldiers no doubt looked on in delight as they watched the city of Richmond burn. General William Tecumseh Sherman, a hard drinking and notoriously violent Union commander who, after the war, earned additional laurels for his ethnic cleansing campaigns in the West, famously said "war is hell". That is a notion increasingly foreign to the comfortable Western mind. We forget that to our own peril. The West needs to remember that wars are not always cool, calculated events unfolding along carefully laid out lines. War, especially civil war, is nasty business. It always has been and it always will be.

Should We Give Him Another Chance?

Four years ago when Obama was running for election, the economy was at the forefront.  In 2008, Obama ran on hope. Hope for a better economy. Hope for less animosity in Washington. Hope for a better future for all Americans. How has that turned out? Not as well as many Americans expected. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, when Obama took office in January, 2009, unemployment was at 4.9%. Nearly four years later, unemployment is at 8.2%. For many Americans. the near future holds little promise. As for partisanship and animosity in Washington, it is as prevalent as ever and shows no sign of abating.

With a moribund economy and stubborn unemployment, Obama had his work cut out for him. After a year of hard work and massive spending, unemployment had risen to 9.6% and the economy remained flat. It was only in 2011 that President Obama's efforts began to bear fruit. Trillions of dollars and near historical government intervention in the economy had succeeded in bringing unemployment down to 8.2%. Obama recently pointed to the addition of 4.4 million new jobs over the last 28 months, curiously omitting the first 13 months of his tenure in which there was a net loss in jobs. That might seem like an impressive number but if you consider that in the midst of the "Great Recession" of 1981-82, 9.5 million new jobs were created, the number doesn't seem like much to boast about. Under Obama, we have run three straight years of trillion dollar deficits. The national debt has increased by over $5 trillion. That is a lot of money to pay for 4.4 million new jobs.

In 2008, Obama ran on the economy. He vowed to get America back on its feet. Four years later, President Obama is once again promising to fix the economy. He has boasted that the economy has improved, if only statistically. He asserts that the improvement in employment figures are a "step in the right direction". Four years and trillions of dollars have obtained only a few steps. Not really a bargain.  Three and a half years after he was elected deficits have increased, he debt has increased, unemployment still hovers at around  10%, the economy is treading water, the world is no safer, and the American public is more polarized than ever. Obama can't run on hope. He can't run on achievement. He certainly cannot run against government spending. Obama has to run against Romney. He has to run on fear. That is why he continually states his case in terms of how things will be even worse if Romney is elected.

Four years ago, Obama pledged to get the economy running. Many Americans were willing to look past Obama's liberalism and accept his promise of a better economic future. But instead of an economic recovery, what we got was gays in the military, social turmoil, massive debt, and a health care fiasco that is likely to cost trillions down the road. Instead of comity in Washington, we have discord. By championing the causes of gay rights and universal health care Obama has injected the government into areas that guaranty political struggle for generations to come. Instead of fiscal sobriety we are $4 trillion dollars deeper into debt. All of this was done with an eye towards being reelected. We have gone from "hope", to "things could be worse". Imagine what another four years will bring.

What if We Had to Vote?

Peter Orszag, former director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Obama administration, recently wrote an editorial in which he advanced the idea of making voting compulsory. Like many forward thinking commentators, Orszag laments the low voter turnout in the U.S. and sees it as diminishing democracy. The fewer the people who vote, the fewer the people who decide the direction of government and and the narrower policy becomes. To remedy the low turnout rates, averaging below 60 percent, (lower for state and local elections) Orszag advances the idea of making voting mandatory in the U.S. Orszag is one of those who see voting as not a right or a privilege, but a duty, and too many Americans are shirking their duty.

Those chagrined by the low voter turnout in the U.S. see it as undermining our democracy by leaving elections in the hands of a small slice of the American population. To the extent that elections are typically dominated by an unrepresentative segment of those eligible to vote, i.e. the White middle class, policy is often skewed in their favor. For those who perceive politics in the United States as a struggle of class, race, and gender, the scales have to be balanced, even tipped.

Orszag and others are correct. The more people who vote, the better our system works, but how do you get people who are disinclined to vote to go to the polls? You cannot throw people in jail for not voting. Pressure must be applied through other means. One method advanced by Orszag is to fine voters who shirk their duty. That is the stick. To soften the burden of mandatory voting some have floated the idea of adding a lottery funded by the fines placed on those who did not show up at the polls. By casting a vote voters would make themselves eligible to win a pot of money. That is the carrot. He suggests that the idea recently put forward by others that a cash incentive in the form of a lottery is worth consideration. Naturally the pot would be filled with the fines placed upon those who refuse to carry out their duty.

The flaw in this theory is that the quantity of votes cast is given greater importance than the quality of votes cast. Driving millions of unmotivated and uninformed voters to the polls will do nothing to improve government. Many would vote by lists given to them by special interests with little or no thought to the issues. Some would likely vote straight tickets out of reflex or simply to save time with little thought given to the candidates or understanding of the issues and only the vaguest understanding of policy. Free health care is good. Candidate Smith supports free health care. So a vote is cast

Orszag asserts that by compelling people to vote we can achieve two laudable objectives: it would decrease the influence of money on elections and ensure that winners would elected by a true majority. Secondly, any money spent to discourage voters from showing up at the polls to support your opponent would be wasted. Obliging people to vote would greatly reduce the effect of special interest groups in getting people to the polls. Since everyone would have to vote there would be no point in spending millions to get sympathetic citizens to turn out on election day. Any weight added by the increase of numbers would be problematic. It would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to sift the informed and motivated votes from the random and coerced ones. 

There is absolutely no reason to believe that our republic would be better off if people were driven and enticed to the polls. Padding elections with millions of uninformed and unmotivated votes would amount to giving winners a blank check. Politicians would claim that their positions were vindicated by the thousands and millions that cast votes for them when in truth it would be nothing of the sort.

Coercing people to the polls will not make our country or our government any better. More than likely it would make things worse. Who would they vote for? On what basis would they choose one candidate over another? Adding millions of uniformed, thoughtless, and reflexive votes would have the effect of writing government a blank check. There would be no additional scrutiny of politicians' actions or examination of policy. There would be no increase in voter awareness. There would simply be more votes cast.

Orszag concludes by stating that compulsory voting would "make our democracy work better" because it would be "more reflective of the population at large." It is unclear what he means by that. If he means ethnically, racially, and sexually his argument is based on a disturbing assumption. Such an argument presumes that each demographic has a peculiar and exclusive interest that can only be represented by politicians who share that distinction. If he means to ensure that the electorate be accurately represented by class and economic interest, he is flirting with a Marxist concept of class struggle except that, unlike Marx, he believes that some sort of compromise between competing interests can be found. That compromise might be construed as a "common interest", but it might also be little more than a demarcation line. Once the balance of power shifted, the struggle would begin anew.

There is a great deal of rhetoric about voting being a solemn duty. The fact is, it is not. It is a right and a privilege. As such, people are free to choose whether they want to claim their privilege and exercise that right. The choice is theirs.

Compelling and bribing people to cast a vote will not make our democracy work better. It would only make it look better.

It is not Prejudice. It is Prudence

To the indignation of many, the Boy Scouts of America continues to resist lifting its ban on openly gay and lesbian adults being scout leaders. However, with the decision by two high level scouting commissioners, James Turley and Randall Stephenson to oppose the policy, Gay activists are encouraged. The wall is cracking.

Much of the opposition to gay (open or otherwise) service in scouting is framed in terms of morals. Advocates on keeping the ban in place frequently point to the requirement that scouts be "morally straight". Others cite the right of private groups to determine who is eligible to be a member of that group and who is not. As opponents to gay scout leaders are finding out, both of those are losing arguments. Privacy is a flimsy argument for a group as large and as public as the Boy Scouts of America. Morals are seen as too subjective and too capricious to carry any weight in public. By the lights of these arguments, the BSA's ban on gay scout leaders is doomed. It is only a matter of time and money before they yeild. Interestingly, the most potent argument for keeping the ban in place is the one most frequently ignored: the argument based on common sense.

Even the most cursory of glances across the public landscape reveals a distinction that is so common it is rarely, if ever noticed. Mixed gender groups and activities involving children go to great lengths to restrict and regulate the interaction between adults and children of the opposite sex in any potentially intimate situation. As a society we have concluded that in many circumstances it is unsuitable for adults of one gender to supervise children of another because of the sexual ramifications apart from simple biology. We refrain from allowing adults and children to shower with each other or sleep alongside each other if they are of opposite sex and not related, even then we place restrictions on it. We do not allow adult men to escort young girls into the restroom or change alongside them at the swimming pool. It is usually a matter of policy to segregate the sexes where there is the opportunity for mischief. As history has shown time and again, scouting is an opportunity for mischief.

Keeping adults and children apart where there is an enticement to abuse is common sense. To do otherwise would be reckless. Naturally, gay activist groups bristle at the notion that homosexuals are more inclined to child abuse than any other group. Statistics bear them out on this. However, sexual orientation should not be the Scouts primary concern, abuse should.  The occurrences of adult men, of any sexual orientation, molesting children are few. Nevertheless, they do occur with alarming frequency. Even if the odds of any particular man being a sexual predator are small, it is significant enough that the possibility must be taken into account. The occurrences of adult women molesting children, while spectacular when they occur, are so statistically rare as to be hardly worth mentioning. Nevertheless, it too does occur and because of that, provisions have to be made

The issue is not whether gays and lesbians are capable of being scout leaders.  Of course they are. One does not have to be heterosexual to teach someone how to build a good Soap Box Derby racer or start a campfire. It is about the close quarters and the intimacy of scouting life. The prospect of sharing a shower, a room, or a tent with someone who may be attracted to you and find you sexually appealing can be uncomfortable and unpleasant, especially for a child. How many women (even liberal women) would feel comfortable letting their daughter dress, shower, and sleep among men even if the chance of molestation were negligible? Very few I imagine. That is why men and women have separate showers, bathrooms, dressing rooms, and barracks. When it comes to our children, thoughts and glances can be as alarming as anything else.

Wanting to avoid intimate situations involving children and adults who might find them appealing is not prejudice. It is prudence. The fundamental problem is that is is easy to make accommodations for gender. It is near impossible to do so for sexuality. Such concerns will naturally be brushed off by those in favor of lifting the ban. As far as they are concerned, guidelines and policies will be enough to keep everything above board and the children safe. It is believed that reason and rules will be enough to keep human inclinations in check. Even the Catholic Church has failed to quash human nature. It is unrealistic to believe that the Scouts will do any better.

The issue is not about the Scouts banning gay people from leadership positions . It is about banning openly gay people from leadership positions. There is a difference. If the kids don't know their scout leader is gay, their scout leader's sexuality is not an issue. The issue is about what kids should be taught about homosexuality. Many feel that openly gay scout leaders would be a valuable "learning opportunity" for kids. That may be. But the peculiar nature of the scouting experience due to the opportunities it provides for intimacy along with the importance of role models and bonding make it ill suited for a class on human sexuality.