Tuesday, May 23, 2006

Thoughts 'n reflections

Had occasion last evening to meet and talk with Ed Crane, founder of the Cato Institute. Cato is a well respected think tank in DC that has as its mission the promotion of good old fashion liberty.

Liberty is one of those concepts that seems to elude most people today. People like to scream about their 'freedom' but seem perfectly happy to stand by and watch as the underpinnings of that freedom get whittled away to nothing. The liberties of free speech and expression and the right to keep and bear arms are probably the two most prominent liberties being eroded today, but the liberty to start and run a business without excessive state interference (i.e. licensing, fees and taxes) is all but gone. The liberty to decide how to save for your retirement has been gone since the New Deal. The liberty to keep what you earn, likewise, is about gone. These - and many others - are liberties which Americans don't seem to miss. Perhaps that is because they don't realize they ever possessed them in the first place.

Every time the government gets involved - or increases its involvement - in affairs that affect my life and how I live it, I (we) lose another little bit of my (our) liberty.

Responsibilities are the flip side of rights. Rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin. You cannot have one without the other. Thus, if the government becomes so involved in our lives that we no longer have any individual responsibilities, we will no longer have need of any individual rights.

The problem is, for many people, being told what to do and how to do it is comforting and far preferable to having an opportunity to do as one pleases. This attitude is not the one that built America, rather it is the one that will accompany its decline and fall.

Monday, May 22, 2006

In case you're wondering

People with whom I've spoken who support gun control always ask, "Why does the NRA oppose even small increases in gun control?"

The answer is this: The proponents of gun control are in an all or nothing fight. They either don't understand the end game of gun control, or, they won't admit it. But no matter how they bob and weave, there can only be one end for gun control - a comprehensive ban on the private ownership of firearms.

Let's look at the gun control idea du jour: one-handgun-a-month (OGM). Like every other gun control scheme, this is supposed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and psychopaths. Unfortunately, also like every other gun control scheme, it only affects those who obey the law. Thus, if Philadelphia implements an OGM, the bad guys will go outside the city to get them. If Pennsylvania implements OGM, people will go out of state to get them. So, what do we do then? Obviously, the federal government needs to impose a nationwide OGM law. But what if that doesn't bring down crime? Will they say it didn't work and we should repeal the law? No, silly, we need to stop selling handguns in the U.S. But what if rifles and shotguns pick up the slack? Naturally, we need to stop selling rifles and shotguns. Then, when people still die, they'll tell us that we need to confiscate those guns still in private hands. Thus we see the ineluctable end of "gun control".

This is not arguing the slippery slope. This is over forty years of fact.

Gun control is a fallacy. It has never worked. It never will work. It CANNOT work because you will never get rid of the guns.

We need to ask why places like D.C. with a complete ban on the ownership of handguns has the eighth highest murder rate in the nation. We need to ask how New York City went from the top five to #140.

The real problem is political correctness. To truly understand the problem is to necessarily point a finger at the communities where this slaughter is taking place. But, according to the political and academic classes that would be racist and an exercise in blaming the victim. Until we start telling ourselves the truth, nothing will get better. NOTHING.

God save the Republic.

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

More mud for the water

The CIA, like every other national intelligence organization around the world, operates in a highly compartmentalized fashion. This is necessarily so because information about one intelligence source could be prized from another source if one or the other were compromised.

Thus, sources who may work next to each other in the defense ministry of country X would not likely know that the other was an intelligence source for the U.S.

Additionally, the CIA analysts who see the raw intelligence from one source may not see the raw intelligence from another source - again, for security purposes. So, it is not only possible, but highly probable that no mid-level CIA analyst could ever know the whole picture.

Now, if source 'A' tells his CIA contact that Saddam does have WMD and source 'B' tells his CIA contact that Saddam does NOT have WMD then the decision about the 'real situation' is going to be one of weighing the relative merits of sources and the potential for damage if such and such a description of a situation is, in fact, true.

So, at the end of the day, the people who make the decisions see much more than any mid- to high-level CIA analyst.

Claim that President Bush lied about WMD and you necessarily exclude certain intelligence we had. Claim that Saddam had them and you run into the inconvenient fact that we've not found any.

Hate the President all you like, but don't fool yourself that there was no intelligence support for the decision he made.

I need someone to explain to me...

Why this is not the end of the United Nations:

The U.N., after receiving much criticism and complaint from the liberal democratic West has 'reformed' its human rights committee...and named Cuba to it.

Someone please explain to me why I - or anyone - should listen to or pay for anything that emanates from Turtle Bay.

It is said that "the third time's the charm".

If that's true, who's up for a "League of Democracies"?

Sunday, May 07, 2006

Truth will win...eventually

The Philadelphia Inquirer, the Mayor of Philadelphia, the commissioner of the Philadelphia Police Department, the television news...and on and on and on...

These are the people lecturing us that gun control will save the lives currently being lost to violent crime in Philadelphia.

They are respected voices. They are influential voices. They are also voices of capitulation and cynicism.

These people say that guns are the problem and that new gun control laws will fix that problem.

However, they don't like to mention the following inconvenient FACTS:

1. Currently:

-Purchasing any firearm with the intention of reselling it to someone who is legally prohibited from owning it...

-Reselling a handgun without notifying the State Police...

-Selling a firearm to anyone legally prohibited from owning one…

-Purchasing a handgun without going through the proper background check...

-Possession of a handgun by anyone under 21 years of age...

-Possession of a firearm by anyone convicted of a felony...

-Possession of a firearm by anyone on probation or parole...

-Carrying a firearm without a license…

-Assault…

-Battery…

-Attempted murder…

-Murder…

Are all violations of Pennsylvania law – and most are felonies.

Ask (and then answer) yourself – honestly - what new law is going to stop activities that are already illegal from the start?

Well, I guess we could ban all handguns and allow no one to have them because they cause crime and mayhem.

Except…

Currently, in the city of Philadelphia there are over 30,000 people who have permits to carry concealed handguns. Interestingly, among these thirty thousand people, the number of crimes committed is so small, the Police Department doesn’t even track them. The number of gun-related crimes committed by permit holders is – at worst - in the single digits and is rumored to be ZERO.

Now, if guns are the problem, why haven’t these thirty-thousand people racked up a sizeable body count?

The answer is: Because guns aren’t the problem.

The longer people fool themselves that more laws and the restriction of other people’s rights are going to solve the problems that face our inner cities, the longer the blood will flow in areas like Kensington and the South West of Philadelphia.

The truth will set you free.

Thursday, May 04, 2006

Once again...

Just to refresh my own memory, it helps to write this out:

ANYONE who accuses the President of 'lying' about WMD in Iraq and/or 'deceiving' us into the war in Iraq is guilty of the exact thing of which they accuse the President; namely, cherry-picking intelligence to support and conform to a pre-determined course of action.

There was ample evidence that Saddam had WMD. There was significant evidence that Saddam had no WMD.

At the end of the day, the President had to make a decision. He decided that there was no conclusive evidence that Saddam did not have them - and he would not give Saddam the benefit of any doubt.

You may not like the decision he made. You might have made a different decision than he did.

BUT...to accuse him of lying is to assert that he knew without doubt that Iraq DID NOT HAVE any WMD.

That assertion is patently false.

Believe what you like, just don't fool yourself that you have any facts to support your position.

Feelings are not facts. Just because you think he lied doesn't make it so.

Wake up!

Tuesday, May 02, 2006

Immigration doodles

There is so much crazy talk out there. And when I hear people saying, “It’s really quite simple” the hair on the back of my neck stands up.

I don’t think the immigration issue is that cut-and-dried. For many, it’s about national security pure and simple. For others, it’s about human rights. Personally, I think it’s about the political ramifications of economics.

While I am very fond of over-complicating things, it seems to me that there is a lattice work of issues here which impact each other.

However, I am unable to put it all together in one essay, because I lose my place so often when thinking about it.

Therefore, let me just tackle a couple of threads.

First, national security. The individuals who perpetrated the 9/11 atrocities did not sneak across the Mexican border, they did not have to. They were educated, middle-class men with money enough to fly in. However, today they might have to cross the U.S.-Mexico border because of upgraded security at airports. Further, we know that they procured fake government documents via an underground network created by and for illegal Mexican immigrants. It is impossible to achieve anything like ‘security’ when you cannot or will not control your borders.

Second, the rule of law. If we turn a blind eye to those entering the U.S. illegally, then why should anyone follow the prescribed path to legal status? What message do we send when we ignore our own laws? On the other hand, to round up and deport (actually, forget deport – just round up and take the names of) all 12,000,000 illegal aliens in the U.S. might be impossible. So then, do we send an even worse message by attempting to enforce the law – and failing? Alternatively, if we were determined to round them up, we would necessarily have to enact and employ laws so draconian that the people of the United States might demand their recision; which puts us back at being unable to enforce the law. Finally, it has been noted that something like 75% of the people in Los Angeles County jails are illegals. They perpetrate a sizeable portion of the street crime in many communities.

Third, foreign relations. Our embrace of NAFTA was more about keeping Mexico going than it was about U.S. economics. The economics of NAFTA made some sense for us, but it was far more a case of trying to prop up a neighbor which, if it collapsed, would send not thousands of people into our country on a daily basis, but tens of thousands. That it is in our best interests to give Mexico a “safety valve” and look the other way on illegal immigration may have been a compelling argument in 1996. But, 9/11 fundamentally changed the rules. Furthermore, Mexico has begun to behave like a trans-national welfare queen. It is estimated that the amount of money sent home by immigrants in the U.S. is equal to around 25% of Mexico’s annual GDP. While railing against the racist and inhumane immigration policies of the United States, they have taken no meaningful steps to reform their economy or political system. (To be fair, though, NAFTA and other U.S. policies have enabled Mexico to avoid making tough decisions and reforms) While we’re on it, let’s not forget their titanic hypocrisy when we compare the immigration laws of the two countries (of course, if the more draconian of their laws date to about 1996, then the U.S. probably insisted on them. We'll take Mexicans, but not Hondurans.). Be that as it may, today, in 2006, our options are increasing unpleasant. It begins to look like, regardless of what we do about illegal immigration, we can either prepare for a Mexican civil war, or we can prepare to make Mexico the 51st state. How’s that for a choice?

Fourth, the economy. This is where it gets tricky – and this is where you find the disconnect between Washington, D.C. and Main Street, USA. Let’s be clear: I am certainly not an economist - I’m just thinking things through as best I can. I am probably all wet on this, but I just know we’re not being told the whole story. I’ve heard this guy quote a study that says that illegal immigration hurts the U.S. because these people suck up social services, welfare, correctional and educational dollars from a system that they don’t pay into. I’ve heard that guy quote another study that says they do pay some taxes and they support businesses where they live such that they are a net gain for us. I don’t know. There is nothing definitive. But on the face of it, it certainly would seem that they get a pretty good deal from the U.S. taxpayer.

The President has said that we need these people because they do jobs that Americans won’t. I find that sentiment insulting to Americans and demeaning to immigrants. But I think I know what he’s really trying to say. On April 7th, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that unemployment in March was 4.7%. Because there is always a certain number of people who either can't or won't work, economists generally consider 5% unemployment to be ‘full employment'. So, the question isn’t whether Americans will do these jobs, but rather, what Americans are you going to find to do these jobs?

Consider this: If we were to wave a magic wand and make the illegals go away today, many businesses in the agricultural, hospitality and construction sectors, along with the lawn care/horticultural industry - among others - would have to go into the regular labor market to find help. It is not impossible that for many agricultural firms, labor costs could triple. These companies would find themselves priced out of the market and would either go under or leave the U.S. Now, it would likely be the case that prices for agricultural products would actually go down were this to happen. But, not everyone would benefit. Firms which support these farms could be badly hit. Also, hotels, restaurants, lawn care and construction firms – which cannot easily leave - would see a dramatic spike in costs. Raising prices to cover this, sales would suffer. Businesses in these areas would then curtail spending, hurting their supporting industries. Eventually, consumer level spending would slow down; and if consumer spending slows down enough, the rest of the world will slow down their funding of our trade and budget deficits. A recession would be a real possibility. And a recession means angry voters. (Ah, the political angle rears its ugly head)

Now, let’s say we don’t make the illegals vanish, but make them all citizens. (Poof!) I get the feeling that one dirty little secret nobody wants to talk about is that citizen-employees can demand considerably higher wages than can illegal aliens. In this scenario, unlikely though it may be, a significant portion of the economy might be faced – overnight – with 10(?), 20%(?) higher labor costs. The old devil, inflation, is ever nigh.

Thus, in my imaginings, it would seem that while we must gain control of our borders and have an accurate list of who’s here, the flow of immigrants must continue and their legalization (deporting them is practically impossible) will need to be such that an orderly, predictable and s-l-o-w ratcheting up of labor costs occurs. While we don’t want to admit it, the damning truth is that ‘We the People’ are not going to accept, “I told you so” if our ‘solution’ to illegal immigration contributes to an economic downturn. Which brings us to…

Fifth, politics. Because ‘something’ will always irritate ‘someone’; and these ‘someones’ vote, politicians go to great lengths to do nothing. At the same time, in order to convince the electorate that they are earning their pay – and ought to be reelected, they will go to great lengths to look like they’re doing something. Combining these two is the real art of politics. Regrettably, this combination almost always makes for really bad ideas. While, from the purely economic point of view, losing agricultural and other businesses that cannot compete is a natural and unavoidable part of the market economy, from the political/policy side the question is: Do we want to let these businesses go over seas or fold-up? If you're in Minnesota, you might say, yes. If you're in Southern California, however, you might say, Hell, no!! In the end, however, while you may postpone the inevitable, the laws of economics will always hold and prevail. Thus, my belief is, if they're going to die anyway, don't waste money and effort trying to keep them going. That's what an economist might say. But, politicians make policy - and economists make lousy politicians. In all likelihood, because the current spotlight on security won't let them, Congress won't be able to pull a smoke-and-mirrors trick like they did in 1986. So, if I were a betting man, I'd lay money that you will see huge subsidies to every last even potentially affected group in exchange for real immigration reform. Politically palatable? Yes. Smart? No.

Hey, like I told you, I’m just tossing out ideas. I don't have solutions, but without much more info, we are not going to even have a chance to make good decisions. If I’m totally wrong and this is a simple issue, great! I’d love for things to be simple, but in my experience they rarely are.

Happy 90th

...to Bernard Lewis. Arguably, the greatest Orientalist of the last 100 years, he has been a voice of reason in the cacophany that is the 'discussion' of Iraq.

He has written that Islam today needs a dose of democracy; and while that dose would ideally have come from within, its introduction, however effected, is beneficial.

He may not feel that the invasion was the best idea or that it has been prosecuted particularly effectively to date, but, he recognizes that the rationale behind it was and is valid - and that it may well have been necessary - for us.

While George Santayana said it first, Lewis puts it better:

"...make no mistake, those who are unwilling to confront the past will be unable to understand the present and unfit to face the future."

Monday, May 01, 2006

An open letter...

To those of the Muslim faith and particularly to the people of Iraq:

We don't want to be in your country. We don't want to kill you. We don't want to take your land. We don't want to rule you. We don't want to steal your oil.

We DO want to make sure that you run your own country - so that criminally insane people like Saddam & Sons don't have access to weapons that make it possible for them or their low-life friends to attack us. We wish that this whole thing hadn't happened. But, because the U.N. failed to do its job, we had no other way to find out what threat your country represented to us.

We want to leave as soon as possible. YOU will determine how quickly we leave.

God Bless.

The People of the United States

Whatdya think?

I believe that, for many years, people on the political left in our country circumscribed their world of ideas by worshipping the sainted memory of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Any policy prescription had to be in line with his 1930's 'New Deal' to stand a chance of enactment.

Today, I think I'm starting to see the same pathology on the right. Since his death, I'm hearing more and more about "Reagan Republicans" and who is "Reagan-esque".

This is dangerous.

Reagan was the right man for his time; and his goal of reducing the size of government remains a noble one. But it was only one of his goals; the first of many. To make a diminution of government the ultimate goal and the highest good is to display a gross ignorance of fundamental political philosophy and can legitimately be pointed to as an abdication of our commonly understood social contract.

The right and the left both want roughly the same outcome, but believe in different processes to achieve that outcome.

Personally, I believe that as much good as the government can do, it will unintentionally do far more harm. But, let’s be vigilant that we don’t fall victim to the same kind of intellectual sclerosis that has brought political discourse in the country to a standstill.

At the end of the day, we the people allow the politicians to bullshit and talk down to us. We need to start demanding thorough answers to the pressing questions of our time.