Raising the Nation's Children

Some time back, the U.S. Preventative Service Task Force concluded that pediatric obesity programs can prove successful. Five years ago, they concluded otherwise. The change of heart was due to the success of pediatric obesity programs. The success was attributed to "intensive behavior programs." Those programs, however are "costly, hard to find and hard to follow." Task force chairman Dr. Ned Colonge stated that "this is a recommendation that says there are things that work." Gyms, exercise, and diet have been eclipsed by "behavior modification." One can expect that it will be only a matter of time before there is pressure to extend health care insurance to cover those behavior programs.

Implicit in the term "behavior modification" is the idea that obese children are unable or unwilling to lose weight by themselves or with the help of their parents and families. This idea is underscored by the increasing tendency to treat obesity as a predominantly medical condition. While obesity certainly has medical ramifications, it has only recently become a medical issue to be treated. In the report is the curious omission of the fact that most children neither buy their own groceries nor prepare their own meals. Every obese child has a sponsor.

Triumphantly, Cologne goes on to state that the report, published in the journal Pediatrics, means "insurers will no longer be able to say that they won't provide coverage because treatment works." Which also means that, under national health care, neither will the government. This will certainly be a relief to those unwilling to do what it takes to lose weight or do what it takes to raise children who are not obese but prefer to seek medical treatment for their condition. Insurance will soon cover it.

It is less and less common for obesity to be seen as an issue of character, motivation, and self control. Instead, the inability to forgo that second piece of pie or spur oneself to take a walk in the park is rapidly becoming a psychological condition requiring therapy and treatment. Once again, government studies and scientific reports are supplanting common sense. Says Dr. Cologne, "you don't have to throw your arms up and say you can't do anything...there are things that work." It is as if avoiding weight gain and losing weight have been medical mysteries that science has only recently begun to solve. Undoubtedly, the medical and psychological approach to obesity has its appeal to the overweight. It serves to remove from them the responsibility for their own predicament. In other words, being obese is increasingly being seen as no longer the fault of the obese person. Nor is it necessarily a situation that can be addressed by the person on their own. It is becoming a medical condition that requires treatment.

The scientific approach has its appeal to the scientific and medical communities as well. It represents a new frontier; a new facet of human behavior to be brought under the dominion of science. For many, human behavior is a puzzle to be solved. Once it is solved, it can then be understood. Once it is understood, it can be manipulated. The scientific analyses and reports issued concerning obesity rarely pay more than lip service to self discipline and common sense. Obese people know they are obese. They know why they are obese and they know what they have to do to lose weight. It is not a mystery. Where the new studies differ from common sense is that they uniformly give short shrift to human motivation by obscuring it amidst scientific data and technical jargon. Sitting on the sofa and watching TV does not make people obese. Eating too much and not exercising do.

Clockwork Orange was a book written many years ago attempting to point out the errors and dangers of an overly scientific approach to human nature. In the book, a violent and sociopathic character, after committing a string of horrors, was not imprisoned, he was "treated". His violence was not seen as due to his character and lack of conscience, but rather due to his flawed psychological make up. The solution was to readjust him. In the end, the "adjustment" failed to stick, and Alex returned to his violent and cruel ways because that is who he was: that was his nature. The point of the story was that people are not clocks: they are not things to be adjusted, manipulated, and corrected.

Neither is society a clock. The scientific approach to human behavior is becoming more and more fashionable. But society is not something to be adjusted, manipulated, or corrected. Neither are the obese. While people may be enticed or discouraged, it is ultimately up to them to evaluate their motivation and decide whether to change their behavior and habits. Government will never succeed in stopping someone from going back for seconds or make them take a walk in the park. Only the people themselves can do that. But that does not mean that the government won't try by seeking to "modify" their behavior.

Behavior modification is not a new concept. Indeed it is an ancient concept. For thousands of years parents, elders, and kin have sought to instill desirable behavior among their youths. While what precisely constitutes "desirable behavior" can and does vary from culture to culture, the concept is the same. What has changed is now behavior is a subject scientifically scrutinized, analyzed, and objectified. Sure, there were bad apples in the old days. There always have been and there always will be. Removing child development from the subjective sphere of family and kin and placing it in the objective sphere of psychology and sociology has yielded poor results. Society does not raise children. Family and peers do. Schools and government can train children. They can indoctrinate children. But the cannot raise them. Many progressive, both on the left and on the right, will disagree. To them I will only point to how quickly society has degenerated over the last 50 years despite their earnest attempts to raise a generation of responsible adults and good citizens who think and behave in a socially desirable way

Children are not a social group that needs to be studied and manipulated. They are a collection of individuals in need of rearing. The First Lady and others might think the nation can and should do more to affect how children are raised. It does take a village to raise a child. But neither an education system nor a government is a village. That is where the error lay. That is where the fundamental flaw in progressive thinking lay. Society and government are two very different things. Government is a product of society, not its source. A government does not create people. A people create a government.

Behavior modifications programs can and do work but only if people are truly willing to commit themselves to them. Just as alcohol and drug addiction programs can succeed, they also fail at an alarming rate. They are not magic. They only work in the presence of determination and commitment. We can neither expect nor create a determination to control diet and a commitment to fitness on the part of people, let alone children. All the governmental enticement and all the penalties and punishment in the world will not change that. Some children strive for academic achievement. Some don't. Some children strive for athletic achievement. Some don't. Some children have goals. Some don't. You can encourage the desire for achievement but you cannot create it. That is just how it is. That is how it always will be.

Don't Blame Lobbyists

It was reported awhile back that spending by interest groups in the last congressional election was five times what it was for the previous election. Nearly $100 million was spent by lobbyists and interest groups in 2010. The next election will likely cost even more. Government is bigger now than it was then. It also controls more than it did then. For the many who associate interest group spending with corruption, the increase in spending is blamed on the ruling by the Supreme Court that freed groups from campaign financing rules that had greatly crimped funding by large groups such as business, manufacturers, and medical associations. Additionally, the ruling removed 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 money 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. Over the last half decade the federal government has been steadily encroaching upon the personal aspects of American's lives. Because of that, decisions made in Washington affect every American in ways unimagined by the Founders. From agriculture and education to manufacturing and finance, from the bedroom to the workplace, 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, think or don't think, 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.

Ambitious government is a bonanza for lobbyists. So much money is involved and so many issues, industries and people are affected by broad laws such as the recent National Health Care Act that Washington attracts lobbyists like a dead possum attracts flies. Countless people want something out of Washington. Countless more will want to avoid something in Washington. Everyone seeks to find some advantage in Washington. All of them spend great deals of money to see that their interests are tended to. 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 recent 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.

War in the Middle East

Over a half century ago, Nikita Kruschev, an open enemy of the West, vowed that the Soviet Union would bury us.  It was not an empty threat. They possessed a massive army and hundreds of nuclear weapons with the means to deliver those weapons anywhere in the world in a matter of minutes, yet they did not start a war and neither did we. It was a stalemate. We spent over 40 years coexisting with a sworn enemy armed with nuclear weapons without going to war with them. The reason there was not a war is because the cost would have been enormous and outweigh any possible gain. Moreover, both sides knew they could not win. Because of that, both sides exercised restraint and did what was necessary to avoid open conflict. The struggle was by proxy and waged on the periphery.

On the contrary, Israel has acted aggressively with near impunity in the Middle East for the last 20 years because they knew if war broke out it would be manageable. They also knew they would win and that the costs would be acceptable. An Iran armed with a nuclear weapon and the ability to deliver it would change that. Israel could no longer be confident it would win a war, or at least escape with minimal damage as it has become accustomed to. Neither would the war be limited. It would have consequences far beyond the Middle East. Israel might not lose, but a victory over Iran could cost them a lot, more than they would like to pay. Certainly more than Israel has had to pay in the past.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the U.S., and by extension Israel, has had a relatively free hand in the Middle East. There is little, if anything countries in the region can do to check U.S. or Israeli military might. We intervene where we please when we please. A powerful and assertive Iran able to defend itself aggressively would alter the equation. More importantly, the virtual invulnerability of Israel would be pierced. Nuclear parity would mean that future attacks would likely have consequences for Israel far more serious than a simple, chaotic rocket barrage. It could mean real bombardment and real war. Parity in the Middle East would change everything.

Despite the growing stridency and heated rhetoric in Washington and Tel Aviv, Iran will not attack the U.S. The fact is it cannot attack the U.S. Neither will it attack Israel. Tehran will not start a war it knows it cannot win. To attack Israel would be tantamount to attacking the U.S. Even if it could fend off the Israelis they could never defeat the U.S.  The costs of such a war would exceed any possible gain to Iran. Indeed it would also would mean the Islamic Republic's destruction. They are bellicose but they are not fools. They will not start a war that would be the ruin of their nation. Perhaps they are hoping that if they do make a bomb they could gain a measure of immunity from Western attacks. If that is their goal and they succeed, we will have to abandon demands and threats and resort to real negotiations.That is what I suspect Iran's nuclear ambitions are all about. They want a seat at the head of the table.

There is much talk regarding the options of "preemptive actions" and surgical strikes", but what we are really talking about is launching a sneak attack on a sovereign nation. We are talking about an act of war.  No doubt it is hoped by those advocating a strike on Iran that it will howl and scream but not much more. It likely would unleash its allies in Lebanon and elsewhere, but it will not strike back by launching an attack on Israel or firing on U.S forces in the region. We are betting Iran will not take up the challenge and go to war. You can point to resolutions and talk of "red lines" all you like but if bombs start falling the first ones will hit the ground in Iran. I am not an international lawyer but as I understand it, dropping bombs on a country is an act of war. We might not call it a war, but it will be war.

Meanwhile Israel is flaunting international laws, treaties, resolutions, and conventions by seizing land, building outposts, expanding settlements, assassinating enemies, and possessing nuclear weapons. It is certainly doing its best to keep tensions in the region high. But I have gotten ahead of myself. As far as the U.S. is concerned, the rules, resolutions and laws that oblige other nations do not oblige Israel. Neither do they oblige us for that matter. The irony in all this is that if we enforced the U.N. resolutions that already exist regarding Israel it is unlikely we would be needing resolutions against Iran today.

Israel is making plans to attack Iran and destroy its nuclear facilities. They have asked Washington for heavy "bunker buster"  bombs to enable them to do so. They have also asked for refueling planes in order to allow their jets to reach their targets in Iran and drop those bombs. If we give them to Israel and Israel uses them to attack Iran we will not be able to stay outside the fray and claim innocence. If you give a person a gun so they can kill someone you are an accessory to murder. If you give a nation bombs and refueling jets so they can drop those bombs on someone you will be an accessory to war. We might claim innocence but no one would believe us. We might as well drop them ourselves. We probably will.

The current conflict with Iran is not about nuclear weapons or ensuring the survival of Israel so much as it is maintaining our free hand in the region. We do not want a stalemate like the one we endured for decades with the Soviets. Until someone can stop us, we will bomb as many countries and overthrow as many governments as we need to get our way. Amidst all the acrimony and accusations we should remember who is threatening who here. We are threatening to attack Iran. Iran is threatening to defend itself. If there is a war in the Middle East it will not be because Iran starts it. It will be because we do.

In our goal to bring peace to the Middle East we are threatening to attack a fourth nation in the region. Peace is looking more and more like submission every day.

Why I Quit Facebook and Why You Should Too

Facebook is a privacy nightmare. As you are sitting at home in your pajamas chatting with your friends, posting pictures, and playing your facebook games, facebook is watching. Facebook is always watching. Everything you type, like, or post is saved by facebook. You can hide and restrict access to pictures and posts from others, but you cannot hide them from facebook. You should not feel safe by taking advantage of the privacy options offered by facebook. They provide only a facade of privacy. Facebook can and does read your posts and look at your pictures. It knows who your friends are and what you like and don't like. It knows everything you have ever posted or clicked. If you posted your age and occupation, facebook knows it. If you announced your engagement or told your friends that you just got married, you also told facebook. Just had a new child? If you tell your friends on facebook, you have told facebook. If you click on a "Like Carrot Top" ad, (I don't know why anyone would), facebook knows it. If you click it or post it,  Facebook knows it. That was far more information than I cared to share. It is one thing to tell your friends that you lost 20 pounds. It is another thing to tell Mark Zuckerberg.

The last straw for me was the discovery that facebook follows you after you leave the site. Indeed, it stalks it members as they browse the net. Even when you are not logged into facebook it is tracking you.With the advent of supercookies a whole new front has opened up in internet privacy. It has long been common knowledge that web sites place trackers, known as "cookies" on the computers of people who visit their sites. Many sites, even reputable sites such as the New York Times, will not let you view their page unless you allow them to put a cookie in your computer. The cookie allows them to keep track of you every time you log into their site. When you leave the site, the cookie becomes dormant, just another piece of clutter in your computer. The cookie steps down and takes it place alongside all the other cookies in your computer until the next time you visit the site. They are the internet's version of caller ID. Supercookies however never step down. They never sleep. They follow you from site to site, page to page, and document to document. They allow the people who put them in your computer to recognize your computer when you log on to the web. It also lets them know what you have searched for, what you have looked at, and how long you have looked at it. It is as if whoever placed the supercookie in your computer is sitting next to you when you are on the web. Facebook uses supercookies to track its users. Worse, you can block and easily delete cookies. You are lucky if you can even find supercookies in your computer. Finding and deleting supercookies is well  beyond the ability of the casual computer user. They are built to burrow into your computer and hide.

The information facebook collects, and has collected, is a gold mine. Zuckerberg has become fabulously rich selling that information. It is estimated that there are 750 million facebook users  Facebook knows the name of all of them. For the most part, it also knows what they look like, where they work, where they live, their marital status, and whether they have children. If you visit a web page with a facebook share widget, facebook knows you were there. Through the "like" button, facebook also knows what they like, from cars and clothes to music and politics. If you clicked it or posted it, facebook knows it. By compiling the information shared on the site and selling that information, Facebook is an advertiser's wet dream. Do you like Dodge? Do you watch Law and Order? Do you like to fish? Do you like Barack Obama? If you clicked it, facebook knows it. That is why if you announce to your friends that you will be taking a vacation you will start getting advertisement on your page from travel agencies and hotels. It may be legal but it is reprehensible to delude people into thinking that what they are sharing is limited to their friends.

The new options provided by facebook in the face of the growing concern over privacy on the site, such as those that allow you to control who can view your posts and pictures are misleading. They only protect you from certain people viewing your site, not facebook. And that nifty feature that allows you to tag yourself and friends in pictures has, according to a study done by Carnagie Melon University, made facebook "a world wide photo database." The privacy tools offered by facebook are deceptive. They might be useful in keeping information you post out of public view, but they do not protect you from facebook. Even if you click the "only me" option, facebook will still peep and record. The information you share with your friends on your page is not enough for facebook. They want more. They want everything.

Having learned that, I decided to shave my profile down to the nubs: just my name, a single photo, and an email address. I did that not just to allow people to find me, but also to allow me to keep in touch with my facebook friends (if you can call them that). I thought I was safe from facebook's prying. I was wrong. Facebook was stalking me. The only way I could be free from Zuckerberg's smiling face and incessant peeping was to cancel my account, and so I did. I went over the wall and am alone online for the first time in a long time. Not only did I take a step to protect my privacy, I found that I had more hours in a day than I thought I had. I also in my own small way stuck it to the Man.

Facebook is already under pressure over its privacy policies. Among other things they are being pressured to inform users that their data is being mined and that they are being followed. Progress is slow. Facebook is understandably reluctant to give up such a lucrative marketing tool. I advise anyone who is skeptical of my remarks to google facebook privacy issues and see for themselves. (Just be careful. Google is also under fire for its privacy policies.)You will soon learn that I am not paranoid or hyperventilating. Facebook is in court all over the place. Sitting on the couch late at night in your pajamas, you might think you are having a private chat and sharing photos with your friends. You are not. Facebook is sitting right there watching and recording everything you type and post in order to sell it.You say that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy online. You are correct. But there is a difference between being watched and being followed. You might tolerate JC Penny watching you while you are in the store but you would not allow them to follow you home and rummage through your closet. You should not allow facebook to follow you and rummage through your computer. I won't.

There are reasons we draw the blinds on our windows, even if we are just watching TV or reading a book. We expect not to be spied on or followed. There are laws against it. As of now, those laws do not apply to the Internet. Fortunately, there is an increasing awareness of the threat the Internet and companies like facebook pose to privacy. I chose not to wait for Congress to protect my privacy from Mark Zuckerberg. I just deleted my account. There is a downside I have to admit. Without Facebook how can I let all my friends know how my colonoscopy turned out? On the upside I finished that book on my night stand in record time.

What Would Jesus Do?

Religion is rarely far from the surface when GOP presidential hopefuls convene these days. Values and faith have become staples in conservative politics. This is not at all surprising when one considers the weight protestant evangelicals carry when it comes to the Republican party. Neither is religion a stranger to liberal politics. Liberals have frequently appealed to religion to buttress their arguments for social justice and tolerance. Whether it is to condemn moral turpitude or to advance the tenets of tolerance, religion and scripture provide a useful prop to political arguments. The fact that religious groups citing scripture can be found on every side of virtually every social controversy is no small delight to those inclined to ridicule religion in America.

When it comes to social controversy,  scripture can be thick as the Bible is quoted from Leviticus and Micah through Matthew and Luke. Contradictions, or seeming contradictions, abound. We are reminded that we are obliged to care for the least among us. We are also reminded that we are obliged to obey the law. Atheists no doubt smile as the Bible is often portrayed as a seeming jumble of contradictory injunctions. It is not difficult to find scripture to support virtually any position one might take: especially for amateur scholars and theologians. But there is a thread throughout the New Testament that is all too frequently ignored by those who invoke scripture. That thread is that Christ's commandments and injunctions were addressed to people, not societies or governments.  

There is an ethical imperative to help those in need as religiously inclined progressives like to point out. There is also condemnation of sin and wickedness and a call to righteousness as religiously inclined conservatives like to point out. But Biblical imperatives, at least in the New Testament, do not fall on governments or societies. They fall on each and everyone of us. The Bible does not instruct us to support candidates and policies to further our ethical and moral sensibilities, no matter how praiseworthy they may be. We are to take care of those in need, not the government. We are to love our neighbors as our self, not the government. We are to shun sin and seek righteousness, not society. Jesus was careful to avoid enjoining the state to do any of the tasks or follow any of the commandments He placed before mankind. He consistently refused to be drawn into taking a position on policy. Perhaps the ultimate example of Jesus' refusal to involve himself in the political affairs of men is when He refused Satan's offer of the world. Certainly it was within Jesus' power to effect any political change He thought was merited. But He refused to do so. That is because Jesus did not come to right wrongs, punish sinners, or remedy injustice. He did not come to establish a just state. He came to save mankind, one soul at a time. 

The answer to the question of what Jesus would do regarding immigration policy, abortion, gay marriage, or any other controversial issue confronting the nation is absolutely nothing. He did nothing two thousand years ago and most likely He would do nothing today other than what He did then. He would tell us to love our neighbors as ourselves, tend to the least among us, and give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's. If we did as Jesus asked, everything else would take care of itself and that is precisely the point. Nations and politics come and go. Issues come and go. But people remain and people are what it is all about. 

Jesus did not come to fix the world, create a righteous society, or establish social justice. He came to fix our souls. Good laws and good societies come from good souls. There is no other place for them to come from. It is our job to love our neighbor and take care of those in need, not the government's. It falls on each and every one of us to struggle against sin and strive for righteousness, not the government. Voting democrat or republican and paying your taxes doesn't count. 

Jesus didn't go to Rome and lobby the Senate. He did not propose policy or advocate for laws. He did not demand that prayer be taught in schools or that everyone should have equal rights. He stayed in an obscure part of the empire and spoke with prostitutes and tax collectors. It is not a question of what Jesus would do. It is a matter of what Jesus did. We can learn a lot from Jesus. 

Neither the Ten Commandments nor the Beatitudes were intended to be a political platforms. To treat them as such misses the whole point of Scripture. Indeed, it taints the whole spirit of the New Testament and undermines the Gospels by dragging them into the political arena to be bent and twisted for worldly gain.

Wearing Out Our Welcome?

The window of opportunity for the U.S. to remake the Middle East is closing steadily. We have invaded and overthrown the governments of two nations in the region and bombed a third one out of its palaces. We are working diligently to undermine the governments of Syria and Iran. We have expressed our ideas of what the new regime in Egypt should look like only to find that vision is not shared by as many Egyptians as we had hoped. Iraqis and Afghans have already wearied of our presence. Elections in Gaza have proved absolutely no help at all. After the initial promise events offered, the dust is settling and the region is starting to become opaque to our ambitions. Where popular governments have been established, groups not enamored with U.S. values or overly sympathetic to our goals for the region are asserting themselves. We might have governments we can work for the moment but one election or uprising can change that.

At some point Arabs and Muslims might tire or even come to resent our military actions, our meddling, and our attempts to transform the region. Should that day comes we will once again find ourselves with few friends in the Middle East. Worse, we will find a Muslim world in search of new allies and supporters likely to be unsympathetic to U.S. ambitions. Whether it be India, China or worst of all Iran, many, not just in the Middle East but elsewhere too, would likely welcome the opportunity to do business free from sanctimonious posturing and the incessant prodding and poking that attends dealing with the U.S.

The U.S. is working hard to preserve the fig leaf of international support, but the efforts being made to constrain Iran and shape events in the Middle East are clearly of U.S. origin and in our interests. While the U.S. has decried Iranian actions, and asserts it is acting in the interests of the international community, Ukraine and India have signed lucrative deals with Iran to develop new oil fields and China is becoming increasingly reliant on Iranian oil. As it stands, Iran is China's second largest supplier of oil and China needs more oil everyday. Clearly there are many in the international community who do not share the U.S.'s alarm in regard to Iran.

The rise of China is increasingly giving the world an option of where to do business. Its military prowess is increasing and its global reach is expanding in conjunction with its interests, to say nothing of its wealth. Should the day come when the Chinese yuan replaces the U.S. dollar as a global currency the U.S. will be that much closer to being in second place as a world power.

China will never replace the U.S. as Israel's benefactor but it can replace the U.S. as a broker for peace in the region. As China's energy demand grows its interests in the Middle East will grow along with it. There it will find a host of increasingly disgruntled nations happy to do business with it. That will be a considerable advantage to China as it seeks new sources of energy and markets to feed its growing economy. China's idea of what a stable Middle East would look like might be different from ours. If India's economy continues to expand that will up the stakes even more. At least we will always have Israel, even if our markets shrivel and the world turns against us. For many in the U.S., that is enough.

People with causes such as those looking to assert their rights, advance their interests, or overthrow their governments, as well as sympathetic regimes attempting to cling to power might continue to turn to the U.S. for support, but everyone else will soon have a choice, not just in which direction to align themselves, but worse for the U.S., where to do business. I am sure at some point in the foreseeable future, a Chinese contract or naval base will be every bit the political and economic boon that a U.S. base is. Maybe more since it would come without the political baggage of a U.S. base. And when that day comes there will be at least one region in the world likely to welcome that choice.

China has every bit as much interest in a stable Middle East as the U.S. does. Should it develop a different idea of how to go about ensuring a stable Middle East than the U.S., things in the region could become even more complicated than they are now. It has already expressed its unease at the growing Western pressure on Iran and understandably so. General Zhang Zhoazhing, a professor at China's National Defense University, has stated that China "will not hesitate to protect Iran." Whether or not General Zhoazhing's statement reflects the policy of China's government it does reflect growing concern in China over U.S. policy in the Middle East. In addition to its large and growing economic stake in the region, China has ample experience of what it is like to be an object of U.S. containment strategies and economic pressure.

The last time any nation in the Middle East had a choice of where to cast its lot was when the USSR existed. Most of them chose the USSR. The next time Arab nations have a choice we cannot expect them to choose us. That might help explain the urgency with which we working to overthrow governments in the region that have been historically inimical to U.S. interests and replace them with regimes more sympathetic to our goals. Sixty four years ago the U.S. lost the Middle East by throwing its support behind the new nation of Israel. Through its inability to view the Middle East other than through the prism of Israeli interests the U.S. risks losing it again.

Endless Turmoil

Like many in the nation I have taken a keen interest in the administration's decision to require religious schools and hospitals to provide contraceptives, even if it violates their most fundamental tenets. Rather than attempt a recount of the controversy I will simply come to my point. Whatever the arguments made on behalf of national health care, it was never a simple matter of access and cost. It was above all a matter of politics. You cannot have the government involved in an issue and not have politics involved. Government is politics. The politicization of health care is inevitable.

What we are witnessing are the first battles in what will be an endless war over cost, coverage and inclusion. Contraception is just one of those battles. There are countless more to be fought. As long as the government is involved in health care that war will never end. It will be fought from election to election, issue to issue, and court to court.

Many seem to believe that once a law is passed, sooner or later the nation will come around and controversy will end. That might be the case with many issues, but certainly not all. That is not the case with contraceptives and abortion. It never will be. Those issues will never go away. Worse, there are many issues that are just coming into sight. Coverage for sex change surgery has already surfaced, as has the matter of coverage for same sex partners. More are not yet on the horizon but soon will be. Each new extension of coverage, each new procedure and treatment developed, each new medication discovered, will occasion political brawls as to whether and to what extent it will be covered. Each new administration will revisit the battles fought by earlier administrations. New battles will yield new results. New results will occasion new battles.

Leaving the issues of abortion and birth control aside, health care is a dynamic field. It is constantly in motion. Government will never be able to keep up. When that is coupled with the intimate and deeply personal nature of health care what we have here is a recipe for endless conflict and turmoil. As for changing birth control policy through the stroke of a pen, those cheering the administration should keep in mind that what one president can compel, another can forbid.

30 years after the Court overturned laws against segregation, people were not in the street arguing that the ruling be overturned. 30 years after women were given the right to vote, no one was in the street arguing that decision be overturned. Yet over 30 years after Roe v. Wade, society is still embroiled in the issue. That should tell us a lot about the matter. Clearly there is something about abortion that touches people at their very core.

Even if the rule is rescinded precedents are being set. The battle might be lost for abortion advocates but a new battle ground has been established.