Minding Other People's Business

Washington might be busy with Iran, the economy, and the upcoming elections, but they are not too busy to take time to tend to the nation's children. In these tough economic times school districts across the nation have been tightening their belts. This is a problem for those who make it their business to keep an eye on America's school children because one of the programs frequently targeted by school districts for cutting is physical education.

There is growing concern that the nation's children are increasingly sedentary and over weight. According to the Centers for Disease Control, approximately 17% of children between the ages of 2 to 19 years in the U.S. are obese. Representative Franklin Pierce of Washington state, along with 84 other members of Congress, wants to increase pressure on the nation's schools to do something about it. They are proposing that when Congress takes up the issue of education reform later this year that pressure be placed on school districts to increase their efforts in curbing obesity among students. This would be accomplished through compelling schools to compile yearly reports documenting time devoted to student physical activity. The reports could then be collected and provide a basis for comparing schools across the nation in regard to how fit their students are. The theory is that schools could use the information to create plans to assist the larger and more idle of their students become less so. Naturally, school districts will be evaluated based on the numbers they provide.

While almost every school in the nation provides opportunity for physical activity, (think of recess), only five states require physical education in their schools. 48 states have standards for physical education yet only 32 require their schools to comply with those standards. With 17% of the nation's children considered obese, Washington, or more precisely those who make it their business to mind the nation's business, has taken notice. Using economic casuistry those disturbed by the growing number of lethargic and flabby children have sought to put a price on obesity. A leading advocate of national physical education reform, Representative Joe Baca, D-California, has calculated that obesity will have cost the nation $1 trillion by 2030 if nothing is done. A price according to Baca that would bankrupt the nation. He and like minded advocates see the problem as stemming from the absence of any federal law requiring schools to offer physical education. That is what they are seeking to remedy.

We live in a time when economics has become a national obsession. Many have devoted their careers to teasing out the economic costs and benefits of human activity. Once those costs and benefits are identified they become the grist for policy. Morals, ethics, customs, traditions, virtually every aspect of human behavior has developed  an economic facet. Smoking is not bad because it will kill you. It is bad because it costs the nation money. Ignorance is not bad because it crimps human potential, but because it hobbles economic potential. Now obesity has been made an economic issue. It is not bad because it is unhealthy and unsightly. It is bad because it costs the nation money. 

If little Billy is fat, doesn't do his homework and plays video games all day what business is that of mine? What business is that of Washington's? In a free country a person ought to be able to sit on their couch and eat ice cream and candy all day if they want to, even if it drives some people nuts. Only casuistry of the highest order can make a person's weight a matter of national concern.

Don't Blame Politics

With the GOP nomination process in full swing, politics in the U.S. are in high gear. Candidates are trying to stake out positions and lock up key constituencies. This frequently entails bold promises and solemn oaths as to what they will achieve once they are elected (no one runs for the nomination anticipating defeat). Essential to winning any political contest is distinguishing yourself from your opponents. Distinguishing yourself from you opponents these days means convincing the electorate that you are bolder of vision, stronger of will, and more capable in action than the other candidates. This results in a more partisan and aggressive politics. It is this more partisan and aggressive political process that many are increasingly finding distasteful. They pine for more amicable and less ideological days, when  politicians would have gentlemen disagreements that would be addressed through polite discussion. There is much to this position. The political process has indeed become more acrimonious and partisan over the years but this is not due to politicians or parties. Indeed it has little, if anything, to do with our political system at all. It due to division among the electorate. It is the electorate that has become more partisan, not the parties. Politics have become more and more acrimonious because the line between private and public business is growing  finer all the time.

Emotion and sentiment have become integral parts of our political process.  We want passion on the part of politicians. We want leaders who feel strongly about issues. We want our government to share our sentiments. The problem here is that emotions and feelings do not lend themselves to calm, rational discussion. They touch on the most personal and intimate parts of the human psyche. It is possible to have a calm and detached discussion over fiscal policy. It is not possible to have such a discussion over an issue like abortion. The public may be willing to sit patiently through a political discussion over interest rates but if the topic turns to a more personal subject such as what their children should learn in school their emotions will stir.

This would not be so much of a problem if personal and more intimate matters were treated locally or in isolation, at least they would not be grist for presidential campaigns. But the power of the federal government and the near unlimited reach of the courts have made even the most personal aspects of our lives matters of national concern. You may still be able to think, say, and believe what you like in the privacy of your home but once you step out the door your actions and words are circumscribed by law. In public you are obliged to conform your speech and actions to the prevailing public sentiments.You may teach your child what you like at home but once that child is in school she will learn how to think along socially and culturally acceptable lines. The contentiousness that attends national politics is over which sentiments will prevail where the lines will be drawn.

When political discussion veers from legitimately governmental issues such as finance or foreign policy into social issues such as "diversity" and "values" the water quickly becomes roiled. "Diversity" and "traditional values" are not policy positions. They are open brackets free to be filled by the hopes and fears of people, just like "growing the economy" or "getting spending under control" are not economic policies. They are little more than slogans crafted to calm the fears and soothe the concerns of the electorate. As such they too are simply blank space to be filled by the public.

There always has been profound disagreement over the proper limits and scope of government. The further the government reaches into the personal beliefs and private lives of individuals the more contentious the disagreement. The more power government has over our lives the higher the stakes in any election. The higher the stakes the more bitter the contest becomes. Political parties do not cause conflict. They reflect it. Political partisanship is not the problem with American politics. Disagreement over policy is healthy. Parties should not be condemned for it. Parties are institutions created to organize the political process and make it coherent. They are an attempt to bring order out of chaos.

What is the problem is that the stakes in any national election are enormous. The federal government affects trade and commerce. It sets the direction of the courts.  It allocates resources and sets social policy. It influences education. Indeed it touches every aspect of our lives.  If the blame over increasing partisanship is to placed anywhere, it is squarely on the shoulders of those who put government at the very center of American society. We are no longer content with a chief executive whose job is to administer the government. We want a leader with a vision. We want a champion to fight for our cause. National elections have ceased to be about politicians and parties. They are about visions.

It is an admirable evasion to lay our selfish and shortsighted political system to the charge of parties and politics. The truth is parties and politics do not create division, they reflect it.

My Business is Not Their Business

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

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

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

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

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

Interest Groups Are Not to Blame

Interest Groups Are Not to Blame

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Stand on Principal Now?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the Problem With Bigamy

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

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

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

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

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

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