Of Britiain and Europe

Once again, Britain is threatening to upset the plans of those who would have a single, united European state. British Prime Minister David Cameron has called for a renegotiation of the European Union treaty it signed 1973. Cameron seeks to reclaim for Britain some of the political and economic power it ceded when it joined the union. Like Caesar, Napoleon, and Hitler before them, the European Union had hoped to subdue Britain and bring it under the continent's administration. Like Caesar, Napoleon, and Hitler before them, the European Union has failed in that goal. What is it about the British that makes them so inimical to continental control? Perhaps it is their long and storied tradition of independence and liberty. Perhaps it is the wretched weather. Whatever it is, even after all these years, we here in the U.S. can still on occasion look to Britain for inspiration.

We Have Nothing to Fear but Fear Itself

In the wake of the recent tragedies in Newtown and Aurora, pollsters have been hard at work. Surveys have been conducted measuring the scope and depth of the public's reactions to the shootings. A University of Chicago poll found that three out of four respondents reacted to the shootings in Connecticut with "deep anger." Fifty four percent said they felt "deeply ashamed" that such violence can happen in the U.S. Other polls found that roughly a third of Americans "felt" that there were too many guns in the U.S. Remarkably, according to an Associated Press-GFK poll, Americans are more disturbed at the shootings in Newtown, Ct. than they were after 9/11. Taken together, polls show that Americans are angry, embarrassed, and afraid. Politicians and gun control advocates are well aware of how Americans feel. Those who have long labored to curtail and, in some cases, ban the possession of firearms in the U.S. are seeking to strike while the iron is hot. To this end, President Obama is taking a novel approach. The president has asserted that one right, in this case, the right to keep and bear arms, should not be allowed to eclipse other rights. He argues that a person's fundamental rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are violated when that person is killed.

In a recent speech Obama made the spurious argument that the right to keep and bear arms infringes upon the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. He stated that the victims in Newtown and Aurora were denied their rights when they were killed. The president continued by arguing that people who are shot on street corners are being denied their constitutional right to peaceably assemble. He could just as well have said the victims were denied their rights to privacy and free speech as well. The fact is that people who are killed are denied everything. As Clint Eastwood noted poignantly in Unforgiven, "Killing a man is a hell of a thing. You take away all he's got, and all he's ever going to have." Death negates everything. Strangely, President Obama did not extend his logic beyond guns to include other implements of death. After all, a person's rights are violated just as much if he is killed with a hammer as by a gun.

Even if we grant him the argument that being murdered denies a person their due rights, the fact is that guns do not deny anyone anything. Murder is the real culprit, not guns. It is only when a person is killed that their rights cease to exist. The possession of a gun by one person in no way infringes upon the rights of another any more than the possession of a sofa infringes upon the rights of another. If a person chooses to deny another person his fundamental right to life, or any other right  such as the right to peaceably assemble, by killing him there is ample recourse in the law. You simply cannot argue that the ability of one person to violate the rights of another is unconstitutional. If that were the case then the right to own a restaurant can be abridged because it grants the owner the ability to deny the right of some citizens to eat there. Under the president's logic, it would be possible to deny people the right to own a vehicle since if a driver kills another in an accident, he has violated her fundamental right to to life. The fear of dieing in an auto accident can make people reluctant to venture onto the roads thereby denying them their right to liberty. By allowing the right to  protest publicly you impinge upon the rights of others to engage in commerce. You could even make the case that the right against self incrimination should be limited because it can deny a victim her right to justice.

Yes, it is true that rights can conflict. They have, they do, and they always will. Where the president errs is in asserting that it is his responsibility to sort constitutional conflicts out. When rights clash it is up to the courts to reconcile them, not the president or Congress. President Obama should know that. He was a law professor after all. His speech was a rhetorical flight of fancy that put over 300 years of jurisprudence to shame.

When one person violates the rights of another it becomes a matter of law. A crime is committed. The remedy is the enforcement of the law.  If I violate my neighbor's right to liberty I am prosecuted. If I violated by neighbor's right to pursue happiness, I am taken to court. If I violate my neighbor's right to life, I am arrested. There are ample laws to protect a person's rights just as there are ample remedies available if those rights are violated. When one person kills another they are not violating the victim's rights, they are committing a crime. To say that killing a person is a violation of that person's constitutional rights not only makes a travesty of our constitution, it makes a travesty out of logic as well.

Banning firearms is akin to banning automobiles. Even though the vast majority of vehicles are owned and operated responsibly, there are horrible and unnecessary injuries and deaths due to the dangerous actions of drivers. Legally owned and operated vehicles cause death and injury on a massive scale. Last year, 32,376 Americans died traffic related deaths compared with 8,563 who were killed by guns. Many of those who died on the roads were killed due to the carelessness of others. Others died as a result of the criminally reckless actions by other drivers. Ask how many Americans have lost a friend or family member to an automobile accident. Ask how many Americans have lost a friend or family member to guns. Then ask Americans which they are more afraid of, guns or automobiles.

Despite the clear danger that automobiles pose to our safety, no one is proposing that automobile ownership be curtailed, let alone banned. The response has been to craft regulations to make cars safer and increase sanctions against those who operate their vehicles recklessly or illegally. No one is proposing that the ownership of automobiles and trucks be curtailed.to prevent death. Licensed, yes. Establishing an age limit to operate, yes. Requiring routine inspections and punishing criminal operation of vehicles, yes. But restricting their possession, no. Even MAD does not propose that car ownership be restricted.

You say that automobiles are necessary and that we have to live with the dangers they present. But there were times when firearms were necessary, despite the risks attendant to possessing them. There still are. In any event, you do not forfeit constitution rights when they are deemed unessential to ordinary life.

Individual rights have frequently proved a hindrance to government objectives. The right to privacy restricts the government's ability to gather information. The rights against unreasonable searches and seizures hinders the government's ability to collect evidence of a crime. The right to have an attorney obstructs the government's ability to interrogate suspects. This is because constitutional rights do not exist to facilitate the operation of government. Neither do they exist  to serve some common good. Quite the contrary. They exist to preserve the liberty of citizens, not to benefit society or improve the efficacy of government.

The president asserts that we have the right to go about our lives free from fear that we will be killed. He states that our rights are violated when we are killed. To that end he wants to rid us of our constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The debate on firearms is being driven by emotion, not reason. It is being driven by fear. The chances the average, law abiding citizen being killed by a firearm are remote. Nevertheless, it is not uncommon for that same citizen to feel he is somehow in jeopardy because someone else was shot, yet feel perfectly safe in their vehicle even as they drive by a fatal wreck.

Yes we have a constitutional right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We have laws to ensure that those rights are protected. That is why we have government to protect those rights. But what can we do if it is the government that is threatening our rights? We can only rely on the courts (or citizen militias if you are inclined to that way of thinking). It is the function of the courts to sort out what rights citizens have and do not have, not the president. The president should not be allowed to usurp the power of the courts. His job is not to interpret the constitution. His job is to defend it. Over the last century there have been many attempts by a president to circumvent the constitutional restraints on their power. Some have succeeded, some have failed. We witnessed President Bush's effort to circumvent the Constitution by denying prisoners the right to challenge their detention in court. We are now witnessing an attempt by President Obama to circumvent the Constitution by asserting the power to define and prioritize rights.

The recent mass shootings were spectacular. Through the sensational efforts of the media, the American public has been saturated with the images and details of the killings. Because of this, the American people have become afraid. We want steps taken to make sure these things will not happen again. When the lives of our children and loved ones are at stake, emotion runs high. But emotion makes for bad law. As is frequently the case, we are prepared to surrender our liberty if we are persuaded that by doing so lives will be saved. This is a misstep that has undone free societies since the beginning of time. Long after danger has passed, the restrictions will remain in place.

The president was careful to follow his reasoning to its logical conclusion. Our rights only mean something if we are alive to enjoy them. If we accept his argument, then every right, even the Constitution itself, must be subordinated to the safety of the individual. Laws would be measured by the extent to which they protected or endangered the life of a citizen. That is a recipe for a government no thinking American would want to live under. The law exists to protect citizens from each other. The Constitution exists to protect people from the government.

Since its very inception, the Constitution has endured numerous assaults borne of fear. From the Alien and Sedition Acts to the internment of Japanese Americans in WWII and segregation, fear has led many Americans to abandon parts of the Constitution. We may like to think that now, in the 21st century, we are no longer subject to unconstitutional spasms of fear. We are. Recent events prove that. Increasingly, Americans are being told that we have a choice. We can live in a free country, or a safe country. What they do not seem to realize is that in a country where people are not free, no one is safe.

People should not have to forfeit their rights when those rights are abused by others. I should not have to suffer the loss of my right to privacy if someone else takes advantage of that right to plot a crime. My right to free speech should not be curtailed because it can be abused by others to spew hatred and fear. My right to assemble peaceably should not be denied because it can spawn a riot. You do not deny citizens their right to privacy because privacy allows some the secrecy they need to hatch plots. I should not have to give up my automobile if a driver runs his vehicle through a crowd of children. Law abiding citizens should not be denied their right to keep and near arms because firearms are used by others to commit crimes. In our country you are supposed to punish the guilty, not the innocent. It is when the public is in a frenzy to restrict rights that rights are most important.

Who Would Pay a Carbon Tax? Everyone.

The idea of a carbon tax is gaining popularity in may circles. From environmentalists to pundits the idea is catching on. The theory behind a carbon tax is that by raising the cost of using carbon based energy sources consumption would go down and innovation would go up. Naturally, if the cost of using coal, oil, and gasoline go up, people would be less inclined, and able, to use them. As important, as the cost of using carbon based energy sources goes up, there would be motivation to use alternative energy sources to the extent that higher carbon prices either spur innovation, or, more likely, the cost of using alternative energy sources becomes more reasonable in comparison. By diminishing our dependence on carbon based energy sources we will not only clean up our environment and improve air quality, we will also will also increase our geopolitical maneuverability by reducing our need to maintain cordial relationships with nettlesome regimes on whom we rely for energy. Free from our need to do business with such countries we could at last pursue our interests unfettered by economic necessity. This is not only an illusion, it is a dangerous illusion.

First, let me address the notion that increasing energy costs will improve life in the U.S. Central to this notion is the belief that increasing gas prices will only affect traffic and environmental matters. The air will be cleaner. Our cities will become denser and with that mass transit will become more feasible. People would take to riding trains or riding buses when they travel rather than drive their cars. In short, the U.S. would finally become more like Europe. We will have dense urban centers surrounded by pastoral county sides spotted with quaint villages. In those dense urban centers people will ride the subway or take buses to get to work. After work, they will stroll around their tight, urban neighborhoods or take a short walk down the the corner grocer to pick up what they need for dinner. Along the way they can stop and chat with their neighbors who they have come to know since they have abandoned the solitary life of auto driving. This is a picture that might be found in dense cities like New York or Boston. It is also a picture that will never be found in the sprawling cities west of the Mississippi.

This is a dangerous notion primarily because the price of gasoline is not limited to drivers. If carbon tax was limited to only those who used automobiles or ran factories, there might be some merit to the idea of a carbon tax. But it is not. The indirect costs of higher fuel prices would be considerable. Cities would have to raise taxes to offset the increased costs if higher fuel prices. City fleets would cost more to operated. City buildings would cost more to heat and cool. Roads would cost more to pave. Power plants would cost more to operate. Utility rates would have to rise.

Then there is the economic ripple effect of higher fuel costs. Everything that is hauled, towed, and carried from one place to another would become more expensive. Whether it is hauled by train, carried by truck, or transported by plane, the cost of moving that item would go up. When the cost of moving an item goes up, the cost of buying that item goes up. Even if you live in a solar powered house and wear canvas shoes you will wind up paying for higher energy costs. Everyone will.

If a carbon tax is expanded to include everything that relies upon fossil fuel for its production and maintenance, then a whole new frontier is opened up. Fertilizer relies on oil for its production. Plastic relies upon oil for its manufacture. Roads rely on oil to be paved. Buildings rely on oil and coal to be heated and cooled. Factories rely on the electricity produced by power plants to operate. There just are not enough alternative energy sources in the U.S. to keep our industry running. Until we have wind powered factories served by solar trains and trucks and staffed by workers driving electric cars, we will need oil and coal. Even if a viable new source of energy was discovered tomorrow, none of us will live to see it replace the carbon based fuels that keep the U.S. running. If a practical automobile that ran on alternative fuel was designed it would still take years for it to become affordable enough for the average American to afford it. Even then it is unrealistic to think that the average American would purchase a new car when it wasn't necessary. Of course, the government could make it necessary through coercion. Most likely, it would. Liberty, economic or otherwise, is rarely a barrier to those who would remake the world.

The other benefit heralded by many is the freedom energy independence would provide the U.S. in foreign affairs.Up to now, the U.S. has had to maintain cordial relationship with countries and regimes on which it relies for energy. We have frequently had to do business with nations that have political objective at odds with our own. Most of our difficulties in the Middle East stem from our inability to dispense with dealing with energy producing nations in the region. If it weren't for oil, the U.S. could simply underwrite and defend Israel and write the rest of the region off. Lacking any economic leverage and military potency, the Muslim world could be safely ignored and left to its quarrelsome self. This too is a dangerous fantasy.

Even if the U.S. is able to somehow to achieve energy independence in the near future, the rest of the world will not. Fossil fuels will be in great demand by the world for a long time to come. Just because the U.S. no longer needed to buy oil from the Middle East, economically expanding nations like India and China would. If the U.S. chose to use its energy independence to free itself from the Middle East brier patch, it would only create a vacuum that would quickly be filled by others. As long as the Middle East needs to sell oil to the U.S., it has to do business with us. Without economic leverage of our market, we will only have diplomacy and military force to affect matters in the region, which is to say we will only have military force. If, and when, that military force is balanced, whether by Iran, China, or some other power, we will have no leverage in the region. That alone is a prospect that should keep neocons awake at night.

A carbon tax would be felt by every American. The increased costs generated by a carbon tax would be felt disproportionately by those least able to afford it. Many Americans do not have room in their budgets to pay for the highers costs that would inevitably result. There is nothing in this country that will not be affected. Plastic bags, tires, fertilizer, surgical gloves, shoes, you name it, will all become more expensive because, even if a commodity does not require a carbon based product for its manufacture, transporting it does.

Those at the forefront of the alternative energy and carbon tax movements do not fret over what it will cost the nation. They can afford a dollar here and fifty cents there. Much of America can't. Policy makers and pundits will still be able to fill up their gas tanks and afford to turn the AC down to 70 in the summer time. Most Americans will not. Many in the political class can park their cars and take the subway to work or walk to the local grocery store. Most of America can't.

The U.S. economy in inextricably bound up with oil and other fossil fuels. It will continue to be so for decades to come. If you want to throw the economy in the tank, raise gasoline prices by $1 a gallon or the cost of electricity by a few cents a kilowatt and see what happens.

Ideas are nice and clean. They smoothly take into account all variables and possibilities. It is only when they come into contact with reality that trouble begins. When reality doesn't conform with the idea something has to give and it is always reality that has to yield.  The idea of a carbon tax makes sense in the mind of the person who holds it. The consequences of trying to impose that idea on reality are simply details to be worked out by the technocrats. As for society, it will believe whatever it is taught to believe and act however it is taught to act. They will gladly bear the burdens a carbon tax would place upon them once they learn all the marvelous things that tax will do for them and behold all the marvelous new technology that would ensue even if they have to get by with less. At least that's how the theory goes.

No Bonus for Statesmanship

Politicians in Washington are frequently criticized for being more concerned with their political careers than the needs of the nation. Such is the case in the ongoing debate over the budget crisis. The numerous obstacles to reaching an agreement on avoiding the "fiscal cliff" are attributed to members of Congress looking to satisfy  important constituencies in their districts thereby preserve their careers. This is sometimes referred to derisively as "pandering". It is no such thing. It is representing your constituents. It is what members of Congress are supposed to do.

Why is Congress so reluctant to curtail federal spending? Because the American people have come to rely on government spending for their living and well being. From cancer research, to defense contractors, to social welfare programs, to college students, to the elderly and farmers, along with virtually everything else you can think of, all Americans rely on federal spending in one way or another. Every dollar spent by Washington has a constituency. When it comes to federal spending, one man's pork is another man's bacon. A congressman from New York might see the reasonableness of curtailing farm subsidies whereas a congressman from Nebraska might see AIDS research as a legitimate target for trimming. There are 435 members in the House representing 435 different districts. There are 100 members of the U.S. Senate representing 50 different states. Each of those districts and states has its own peculiar concerns. It is when the particulars come up that consensus to solve the budget crisis breaks down.

Everyone, well, almost everyone, agrees that something needs to be done. You can find agreement that spending needs to be cut and revenue must be raised. It is in determining how that revenue will be raised and where cuts are to be made that bipartisanship evaporates and politics enters the equation. Reforming Social Security, for example, generally has broad support in the nation and in Washington. But when the issue comes up it quickly becomes mired in the specifics. Will some people be required to pay more? If so who? How much? Will benefits have to be cut? If so, whose will be cut and by how much? The same can be said of raising revenue. There is popular agreement that the wealthy should pay more in taxes. In itself, that is certainly not an objectionable proposal. They should. But where the issue becomes sticky is in determining who is "wealthy" and how much more and in what manner they should be required to pay. How much money can a family of four earn before it is considered "wealthy"? What is a fair rate they should be taxed at?

Hard choices have to be made in Washington. That means hard choices have to be made by the public. Americans have to decide what they need, what they can do without, and what they can get by with less of. It is fantasy to believe that taxes can be raised enough to cover the deficit, let alone pay down the debt. The level of taxation required to achieve those goals would spawn a rebellion. Some entertain the notion that an economic turn around would refill the nation's coffers. That is highly unlikely. First, it would require an economic turn around of historical proportions. Secondly, it would require that spending remain constant long enough for revenue to catch up. Thirdly, and perhaps most unlikely, it would require Washington to apply any surplus to paying down the debt rather than than indulge their pent up frustrations and pursue their ambitions. That is the least likely scenario because the career of a politician depends on tending to the interests of her constituents, not the interests of the nation. Even if it can be demonstrated that a particular policy or project will benefit every American except the members of a particular congressman's district, you can rely on that congressman to oppose it. Compounding this is a tendency for members of Congress to see what is good for their district as good for the nation. Setting aside billions to upgrade a harbor is ensconced in the notion that the nation will benefit from a refurbished harbor, not just the district that harbor is in. This is a fashionable conceit in many congressmen because it allows them to justify steering federal money to their own districts under the guise of helping the nation's economy.

It is wholly unrealistic to expect politicians to fall on their swords. It has common to portray congressmen who adhere to policies that benefit their districts as small minded. That is a mistaken view. Politicians who look after their constituents are doing their job. You should not expect politicians to fall on their swords and deny their constituents for the benefit of people to whom those politicians are not unaccountable to. That is precisely why Congress has consistently relied upon setting future limits and consistently avoided them when they are reached. By setting a limit they get credit for tackling the problem while avoiding the painful task of actually doing anything about it. They once again have promised to get spending under control: tomorrow.

The so called "fiscal cliff" is nothing more than a past promise to get government spending in hand by setting the clock. Now that the clock is going off, many in Washington want to hit the snooze button. If and when they do, the nation should not snuggle up and get cozy.  The alarm is set to go off again in February when it is predicted that the next debt ceiling will be reached. At that time, the $2.314 trillion allocated by the federal government that was supposed to last until October will be spent. The president says the debt limit must be raised if the country is to avoid fiscal calamity. Of course the debt limit has to be raised. What choice do we have? The only thing to be worked out is what concessions Congress can squeeze from the White House before it gives in. The struggle over the debt ceiling is in the details.

There is no bonus for statesmanship in Washington. You either keep your constituents satisfied or you lose your job. As it stands, there is little chance that the deficit can be taken in hand without a great many Americans becoming dissatisfied and a great many politicians in Washington becoming unemployed. If you want to learn how the country got into the mess it is in today I suggest you look in the mirror. Odds are you will see one of the culprits.

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.