Lift Up Your Hearts!

In an earlier post on the Lisbon Treaty, I stated

[I]n the U.S. we have seen state laws gradually subsumed more and more by national regulation, so that fleeing to Pennsylvania from a repressive law in New York is not as easy as it once was.  I'm not saying this is always bad, but it can be, and bears watching.

I"m watching, and here's an example I saw today.  The U. S. Supreme Court has nullified a Louisiana law allowing for a sentence of the death penalty following conviction for the rape of a child under 12.

However devastating the crime to children, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion, "the death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child." His four liberal colleagues joined him, while the four more conservative justices dissented.

There has not been an execution in the United States for a crime that did not also involve the death of the victim in 44 years, a factor that weighed in Kennedy's decision.... Kennedy said the absence of any recent executions for rape and the small number of states that allow it demonstrate "there is a national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape."

What's wrong here?  Why are the judges debating the heinousness of the crime, and why are they judging by perceived national consensus?  Shouldn't the question before the Court be, "Is there anything in the Constitution of the United States that prohibits the State of Louisiana from imposing this sentence?"

That, as they say, is why we pay them the big bucks.  Questions of the legitimacy of the death penalty and what might be suitable punishment for a man who repeatedly rapes a five-year-old girl can be debated by the voters and their representatives in each state.  The purview of those nine experts in Constitutional Law is the Constitution itself.

We throw the term "witch hunt" around pretty loosely, but when it comes to child abuse accusations, apparently it's more accurate than not, at least in one Canadian city, where school officials reported sexual abuse of one of their students on the basis of a psychic's suggestion.  As Random Observations noted, the last time we accepted that kind of evidence in North America was during the Salem Witch Trials of 1692.

In this case, the child's mother was able to refute the accusation successfully, because the nature of her daughter's disability, combined with the fact that her elementary school had "lost" her several times, had prompted her to equip the girl with a GPS and a continuous audio monitor that provided clear evidence that the accusation was false.  How many other parents could have proven their innocence so easily?

A local man makes his living selling political propaganda, including campaign buttons.  Like a mercenary soldier, he plays all sides.  He feeds off bumper sticker philosophy, thumb-your-nose attitudes, and mocking humor.  It's not exactly the world's most useful occupation, certainly not among the more charitable.  But from the reaction to his "If Obama is president, will we still call it the White House?" button, you'd think Jonathan Alcox was a substantially lower form of life than drug pusher or Mafia don, just barely above child pornographer.

Barack Obama does not deny—indeed, he profits from—his partially African heritage.  I fail to see anything at all racist about that button; if being aware of someone's ancestry is racist, then we all are, including Obama's supporters, and the term has no meaning other than as an epithet to throw at our opponents when we run out of rational arguments.  If truth is no longer a defense, what hope have we for justice?

In the interest of full disclosure, I love word play, and am thus predisposed to finding that button amusing.  I wouldn't wear one, but can see the humor and not the offense.

Alcox has other buttons that I find far more beyond the pale. For example,

Another one that Alcox said sells particularly well features George W. Bush next to a chimpanzee beneath the words "The dangers of cloning."

If the same button sported Barack Obama instead of George W. Bush, it would be no less offensive—but also no more.  Yet selling that button would push Alcox below the child pornographers in some eyes.

Now that's racism.

In honor of Father's Day, I present an article that's a bit more challenging than my normal light fare.  It's from John Mauldin's InvestorsInsight financial newsletter, and is actually an excerpt from a book called A Roadmap For Troubling Times by Louis-Vincent Gave.  The article is The Problem with the Euro, and the excerpt begins a bit down the page, at "The Change in Policy."

It's heavy going, but one interesting thing I took from it, thanks to some help from my own Personal Economist (aka Porter) is this:  Countries, unlike people and businesses, don't go bankrupt—because they can always print more money.  Yes, that brings on inflation and a whole host of problems, but it keeps them in business.  However, this is no longer true of the countries of the European Union.  France, which is struggling under a national debt of 70% of its GDP, can no longer cover itself by printing more francs, since its present currency, the euro, is outside of its control.  Many other European countries are in similar straits.

In the mid 1990s, Europe's leaders got together and, in essence, said: "wouldn't it be great if we all got to borrow at the same rate as Germany?" And everyone around the table agreed that this would be a good thing. The decision was thus taken to a) create a currency which would resemble the DM, b) that this currency would be managed by a central bank with a mandate very similar to the Bundesbank's and c) that countries around the Euroland would strive to harmonize their fiscal policies (Maastricht Treaty rules and Stability and Growth Pact) to ensure the long term survival of the Euro. At the time it was also envisaged that the collapse in interest rates in certain countries (Italy, Belgium, Spain...) would give a tailwind to growth which would allow governments around the more indebted EMU countries to tighten their belts and clean up their fiscal houses.

The collapse in interest rates happened, as yields converged to the German rate... but unfortunately, the clean-up in fiscal houses did not. In fact some countries like France cashed in the "growth dividend" and voted themselves greater benefits such as the 35-hour work week.

There is a credit gap between fiscally strong countries like Germany, Ireland, Finland, the Netherlands, and Austria, and fiscally weak countries like France, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Greece, Belgium, and those of Eastern Europe, and it is increasing.  This is manifested by the fact that the yields on bonds issued by the various governments differ despite the fact that they are all denominated in euros.  For instance, German bonds yield less than Italian bonds because they are perceived as less risky.  This difference is the "spread."

[A] widening of spreads represents the worst of both worlds for European banks. For a start, it puts their balance sheets under pressure. For seconds, it cuts down their income as the writing of CDS on Europe's weaker sovereigns slows to a crawl. For Europe's policy-makers, the widening of spreads poses a serious challenge which, if left unchecked, could cut to the very credibility of the Euro and the European construction exercise. It could also trigger a negative spiral such as the one we saw in the US whereby as the cost of borrowing increases on the weakest signatures, rolling over debt becomes more problematic, hereby inviting higher spreads etc.

This widening is a sign that the market is starting to acknowledge that the promises have not been kept. Thus, the best thing for Europe's governments would be to start keeping the promises that were made ten years ago. [Emphasis in the original] But of course, the main problem with that solution is that it implies that Europe's governments will have to tighten their belts over the coming quarters, i.e.: at the worst possible time in the cycle. After all, it is always hard for a government to pull back and shrink its size of the GDP cake... but in an economic slowdown, it is close to impossible.

It is all the harder to do when there is little political will for far-reaching reforms.... And we should make no mistake about it: reforming Europe's welfare states will take real sacrifices. Take pensions as an example: for years, most European countries have run a pay-as-you-go system whereby people of my generation will pay directly for the retirement benefits of my dad's generation.... In other words, Europe's pension systems are usually massive pyramid schemes; they work as long as the base grows and ever more people contribute to the bottom of the pyramid. The problem, of course, is that in a growing number of European countries, the base is no longer growing.

[T]he credit crunch which has thus far mostly only engulfed the US is starting to make its way into Europe. And soon enough, Europe's banks will likely be reporting losses and write-downs....

A few years before his death, Professor Milton Friedman declared: "It seems to me that Europe, especially with the addition of more countries, is becoming ever-more susceptible to any asymmetric shock. Sooner or later, when the global economy hits a real bump, Europe's internal contradictions will tear it apart." Today, one should question whether the "real bump" is being hit and whether Milton Friedman will end up being proven right.
 

This bears watching; the EU may have more problems than Ireland's rejection of the Lisbon Treaty.  I certainly hope this isn't Friedman's "real bump."  And that bit about the government pulling back and tightening its belt?  The United States isn't that much better than France when it comes to national debt vs. GDP.  Are any of our presidential candidates listening?

Here are some statistics, from the CIA's World Factbook, of the public debt as a percentage of GDP for several countries. (2007 estimates):  United States 60.8%, Switzerland 45.3%, France 64%, New Zealand 20.7%, Italy 104%, Brazil 45.1%, China  18.4% (though I'm not sure what this means in a place like China), Canada  68.5%, United Kingdom 43%, Greece  89.7%, Russia 5.9%, Germany 63.2%, Kenya 40.5%, Israel 80.6%, Egypt 105.8%, Japan 195.5%.  I'm not at all sure what to make of these figures.  Perhaps, like infant mortality statistics, they are so flawed by measurement and recording differences as to be meaningless.  But I note two things:  (1) The U.S. isn't the only nation with a debt problem, and (2) the world is doing a lot of robbing Peter to pay Paul—or, more accurately, robbing Peter's children to pay Paul's parents.

If you can tough it out through the financial matters, the article is well worth reading. 

Ireland's 3 million voters will decide on a document representing the 490 million people in the European Union.

You can look at it that way, and when you do, it sounds unfair that the success or failure of the Lisbon Treaty, which would create a new governing treaty for the European Union, should stand or fall based on what the Irish decide.  But so it is with democracy; in a close race, one person's vote can decide the fate of an entire country.  Not that it ever does, but it could.

I don't know enough to judge the Lisbon Treaty itself; it may be good or bad in the main, but I can say I am pleased that Ireland is standing by its own constitution, which requires that anything affecting the Irish constitution be decided by the Irish citizens themselves.  The Dutch and French people have already been railroaded by their own governments.

After voters in the Netherlands and France rejected a previous EU constitution in 2005, no other EU country dared to put such matters to their voters, instead pushing it through their national parliaments. Dutch and French voters have no direct say on the current treaty.

Certainly there are advantages to EU membership, but I'm glad that Switzerland has maintained its independence.  I first saw some of the negative consequences of joining the EU on a visit to France, where I learned that the culture of the small, independent French farmer is under attack by the EU.  The French government, appreciating the value of local, independent farms for both cultural and national security reasons, has been subsidizing the farmers.  I know government subsidies can introduce unfortunate market kinks—and I don't appreciate our own government's subsidies of large agribusiness corporations—but even a "small government" person such as I can see the importance of spending money to protect a valuable, endangered species.  But the EU says French farm subsidies are unfair to other member countries, and would rather have France import its food from Eastern Europe.

I know that some are hoping the EU will put a stop to Germany's draconian laws against homeschooling, and no one (except the German families) would like more than I to end that repression, but even I can't help feeling queasy at the thought of an external government dictating their laws.

The new treaty may be a good one for all I know, but I'm glad the Irish government has the courage (and constitutional responsibility) to let their own people vote on matters that will so greatly affect their future.

Not that democracy is everything.  People can all too easily be beguiled into voting against their own best interests, to say nothing of the best interests of their neighbors, their country, and the world.  That's probably the reason I hate to see the European countries giving up their independence.  Many freedoms can be more or less guaranteed by a governing body, or not, but when push comes to shove, true freedom rests on being able to say, "No, thanks" and walk away from a repressive situation, be it a job or a country.  That's why it's said that economic freedom is one of the most basic human rights there is, because it enforces the others.  A German homeschooling family can currently escape German's persecution by moving to England, as some have done.  They shouldn't have to do so, but they can.  But what if they couldn't?  What if the UK and France and Switzerland and Germany and Hungary and Lithuania were all subject to the same rules?  Well, they could come to the United States. Unless we, too, put ourselves under the authority of another governing body that might have different views on the rights of families.

Homeschooling is just an example, which I use because the right to educate one's own children is especially dear to me.  But there's a lot more to this issue than that.  Alliances among nations are tricky things.  Or among states; in the U.S. we have seen state laws gradually subsumed more and more by national regulation, so that fleeing to Pennsylvania from a repressive law in New York is not as easy as it once was.  I'm not saying this is always bad, but it can be, and bears watching.

In any case, I'll be eager to see how the Irish people decide.

Thanks to John C. Wright for bringing to my attention Story Time by Andrew Klavan, in City Journal.

Read it. It may frustrate you, it may make you despair, it may inspire you; it will certainly break your heart.

Where there is no vision, the people perish. (Proverbs 29:18)

Let me write a nation's songs, and I care not who writes its laws. (various attributions)

I don't enjoy reporting bad news, really.  It makes me sound old and curmudgeonly.  Okay, so I am old and curmudgeonly, but that's beside the point.  So today I feature an exciting story from the Philadelphia Inquirer:  Midwife Diane Goslin has emerged victorious from a court case in which the State of Pennsylvania accused her of practicing medicine without a license by assisting at home births.  (See my previous post.)  The author of the article, Angela Couloumbis, and the headline writer who created the title, Birthing Women Win Legal Decision understand that this victory is not about one person's profession, but about one of our most basic freedoms:  choosing where and with whom we will give birth to our children.

I could point out that some of the rejoicing may be premature: the State is considering appealing the decision, and the court only dealt with the charge of practicing medicine, not with the problem that Pennsylvania is not among the 22 states in this country that recognize the Certified Professional Midwife license.  There is cause for joy, to be sure, but not for letting down our guard.  But we'll take our victories one at a time, and be thankful for daily bread even if we're not certain of next week's provision.

Anything less would be curmudgeonly.

I don't yet know how I'm voting in the upcoming presidential election, though I do know it will be a matter of the least objectionable candidate rather than some ringing endorsement. Frankly, I find them all objectionable; the question is, Who will do the least harm? So I'm not endorsing any candidate at this point, but as I've said before, Barack Obama scares me because he's so charismatic he might very well succeed in implementing some very dangerous policies.

Tim at Random Observations once again has a thoughtful post, this time on why Obama scares him. Check it out.

Today's NEHGS eNews includes the following lovely passage written on July 4, 1632 by New England Puritan leader John Winthrop. (The website version the eNews link will take you to is currently a few issues behind, but will eventually catch up to the one to which I refer, which is Vol. 10, No. 19).

I have much difficulty to keep John Galloppe here by reason his wife will not come [to the New England colony]. I marvel at the woman’s weakness that she will live miserably with her children there, when she might live comfortably here with her husband. I pray persuade and further her coming by all means: if she will come let her have the remainder of his wages, if not, let it be bestowed to bring over his children, for so he desires: it would be above £40 loss for him to come for her.

Say what you want about the difficulties of family separation, and the desirability of reunion, and I will agree with you.  But I marvel at the arrogance, duplicity, bullying, and blackmail from a leader who was loved and respected by so many.  (Actually, it reminds me of a modern-day religous leader some of us know. Let the reader understand.  Perhaps more strong, innovative leaders than we'd like to believe are a curious admixture of high intelligence, charismatic personality, stubborn will, and arrogant self-righteousness.)

It's easy to dismiss the Yearning for Zion Ranch as a collection of kooks, but even kooks have rights in this country, or should. Innocent chidlren, especially, should have their rights firmly protected, including the right not to be torn from their homes without clear and compelling evidence of immediate danger.  Yet the State of Texas has abused the children of the Yearning for Zion families in just that way, on the strength of one anonymous phone call accusing one man of abusing his 16-year-old wife.  Over 400 children were turned over to strangers, subjected to medical examinations, and even though there was no evidence of abuse have still not been allowed to return home.

The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (not to be confused with the "mainline" Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, commonly called Mormons) certainly is bizarre, and if they are forcing people to marry against their wills (underage or not), if they are breaking the laws of Texas, they are in the wrong.  But living in an isolated community, wearing old-fashioned clothing, and teaching one's children that obedience is a godly virtue are not crimes, no matter how odd they might seem to mainstream America.  If the laws against underage marriage have been broken, let them be investigated and prosecuted with due process, not with hysteria and actions that will forever scar young lives.

"Laws against underage marriage."  Hmmm, I wonder where the activists are?  The ones who think it's so natural for children to have sex that they're pushing for condom distribution in middle schools?  The ones who insist 13-year-olds need access to abortions—without parental consent or even notification?  It's okay for young teens to be sexually active and have abortions, but not okay for them to marry and have children?  Now that's what I call a bizarre belief system!

Is it any wonder Americans are such poor money managers when you look at the behavior of our government? Or should I perhaps say that the other way around?

Only a few short years ago, the State of Florida was enjoying a large budget surplus, because tax revenues went through the roof thanks in part to all the rebuilding necessary after our four-hurricane year. Naturally (but stupidly), everyone clammored to spend the "excess." There were plenty of claimants for the money, but few indeed were the voices of reason, and they did not prevail. It should have been obvious to anyone with any sense at all that boom times don't last, and the years of plenty are when you put away your surplus to help you through the lean years.

Now the rebuilding is complete, and people are being more careful with their money, so Florida is hurting for sales tax revenue. Suddenly we are cutting programs, laying off public prosecutors, and—that whicih inspired this post—threatening to demolish the wonderful Road Ranger system that I wrote so enthusiastically about after I was stranded on the side of the highway, at night, in a non-functional car. If we had invested that surplus when we had it, we could be using it now to go along normally, and avoid the expense of restarted when economic conditions improve. Basic economics, Finance 101, just plain common sense.

Or not so common. God Himself had to teach Joseph this strategy, and then Pharaoh thought the idea so impressive he put Joseph in charge of the whole kingdom. But you'd think we'd have learned something from that story.

It's true that Barack Obama scares me.  He has so much charisma that I'm afraid an Obama presidency would actually succeed in implementing his harmful agenda.  I'm not saying that Hilary Clinton's and John McCain's agenda's aren't harmful—just that I think they're less likely to succeed in bringing them to fruition.

Nonetheless, there's no point in making too much out of his regrettable comment that small-town Americans "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment" because they are bitter about their economic circumstances.  True, the remark is offensive, out of touch, and just plain wrong, and Obama didn't improve the situation with his attempt at recovery.  "I didn’t say it as well as I should have,” he admitted, but “I said something that everybody knows is true.”

Senator, the problem isn't the way you said it, but that you believe it.  But you are not alone in believing what Hillary Clinton, most of the Democratic Party elites, too many of the Republican Party elites, Hollywood, and much of the media "know is true."  Clinton, attempting to capitalize on Obama's gaffe, explained that "Americans who believe in the Second Amendment believe it's a matter of constitutional rights," and "Americans who believe in God believe it is a matter of personal faith."  Perhaps that's just another example of unfortunate phrasing, but the attitude seems equally elitist and out of touch with the real people who actually believe in God and in the Constitution of the United States.

One of my frustrations in talking with people from other countries is running into comments that begin, "Americans..." followed by some statement of belief, action, or attitude that supposedly represents all or at least most of my countrymen.  More often than not, my insistence that "I am not that way, and neither is anyone I know" will not budge them from their certainty that what they see in our movies and television shows, hear from our politicans, and learn from our news media is the real America, while I and my family, friends, and neighbors must be some aberration.  That Americans tend to make the same mistake about people from other countries does not excuse such stereotyping.

The misunderstandings of foreigners, however, do not disturb me nearly as much as that those who seek to represent all Americans in the nation's highest office are equally out of touch with those who would be their constituents.  Barack Obama merely removed the mask.

John C. Wright is one of the latest entries in my feedreader, and frankly I've forgotten whom to credit and am too busy/lazy to try to figure it out.  But thanks, whoever you are.  John's entries are almost always well-written and interesting, and often give me a fresh perspective on issues.  His latest is too rich for me to give it more than a quick read at this point, but I'm posting it here so I won't lose it, and for the benefit of others.

And when the Laws of England Are Flat, and the Devil Turns on You? 

Fans of A Man for All Seasons may recognize the title; if not, there's a YouTube link to refresh your memory.  If you're told "this video is no longer available," try again; it worked the first time for me, and not the second, but the next time I had no trouble.

One of the reasons this post resonated with me is that this is the second time I've run into the idea that Classical Liberalism is nearly the opposite of what we call Liberalism today.  (The first was in a Teaching Company course on Western Civilization.)  That and the fact that it reminded me of this line from Dorothy Sayers' Gaudy Night:  "The first thing a principle does, if it really is a principle, is to kill someone."

Not a proper post today, but I must keep my readers checking in.  :)  A post on Random Observations led me to this Boston Herald essay by Michael Graham: Campus "Activism" Redefined.  As one commenter remarked, it's too late to be an April Fool joke.  Not content with co-ed dorms on college campuses, the latest push is for gender-blind dorm rooms. Whoopee!

To be fair, I think they're actually talking about letting you choose your own roommate regardless of sex, rather than yet another big shock when a freshman meets his or her roommate for the first time.  Still, it remains a stupid idea.

I suppose it's one way of dealing with the complications of housing homosexual and lesbian students, but I'd prefer colleges just get rid of the archaic roommate idea and provide single rooms for everyone who wants one.  They could solve the subsequent housing crunch by instituting very stringent and strictly-enforced visitation policies that would drive off campus everyone who thinks he's in college for sex rather than studies.

The article reminded me of a story I heard back when co-ed dorms were first being proposed.  One college dean—I have no idea who, or where—after listening patiently to the case as presented to him by a couple of student representatives, turned them down.

"You don't trust us," they complained.

"No, I don't," he replied.

"Why not?"

"Because one of you is male, and the other is female." 

The other day we were told, by one whose buisness it is to predict these things, that no matter who wins the upcoming presidential election, our taxes are going up.  He may be right.  If they're serious about stimulating the American economy, raising American taxes seems a foolish approach, but the public keeps demanding more services, and there's always a bill for services rendered.

So I got to thinking, at lunchtime, as I munched on my barbecue potato chips, about Switzerland.  They have some wonderful potato chips there, somewhat like our barbecue variety, but better—though that impression may have been due to Favorable Emotional Circumstances.  One day I made a hasty stop at the grocery store and grabbed some food for a train trip, only to discover, too late, that I had paid over $5 for a medium-sized bag of chips!

The bag I was munching from was more than half again as large, and priced at $2.50.  I actually paid half that; I generally don't by chips unless they're on sale.  It occured to me that a price tag of $7.50 would be a significant deterrent; I would probably still buy them for very special occasions, but casual purchasing would defintely be out.  Thus it would be in my best interest, health-wise, if the potato chip manufacturers decided to triple their prices.  But they wouldn't do it.  Without illegal collusion in the industry, competition would force the price back down immediately.

Unless the government stepped in.  Imagine a $5/bag tax on potato chips; applied to all, no one manufacturer could undercut the market, and suddenly Americans just might start reducing their consumption.  I only pick on potato chips because they are my own weakness, but let's not stop there:  corn chips, soda, candy, cookies, Happy Meals—all those top of the food pyramid, artificial ingredient, and preservative heavy "foods" that make up so much of our modern diet and have nutritionists and health professionals wringing their hands.

Sin taxes have their problems, I know.  The last thing I want to do is create yet another opportunity for organized crime to fluorish.  (Pssst!  Wanna buy an Oreo?) But it would be my favorite kind of tax:  likely to provide significant income for the government, yet completely avoidable simply by eating as we know we should.