Why Not? It's for the Economy

Florida State Representative Ritch Workman has introduced a bill in the state legislature that would legalize dwarf tossing. Dwarf tossing is an activity where bar patrons compete to see who can toss a dwarf the farthest. Even though the sport, if you can call it that, is considered offensive by many, it is not considered so by all.

Workman is on a quest to "seek and destroy unnecessary burdens on the freedom and liberties of people." The ban on dwarf tossing in Workman's eyes impinges on the freedom of bars to hold contests, the freedom of bar patrons to watch those contests, and the little people who seek to participate in those contests. Moreover, Workman contends that the ban on dwarf tossing is archaic and just another example of "Big Brother government". In the battle over the ever increasing presence of the government in our daily lives, a line has been drawn. Workman also contends that to ban dwarf tossing would be an unnecessary hindrance to the local economy. In addition to those bar owners who welcome dwarf tossing competitions as a way to draw customers, at least some in the small person community welcome the bill for the employment opportunities it offers. Workman stated that the effect of the current ban is to "simply take away some employment from some little people."

The economy has become the paramount issue in U.S. politics. People need jobs. The nation and the economy need people with jobs. The government needs people with jobs. To be elected, politicians need to be perceived as capable of creating jobs.  To be reelected, politicians need to be perceived as having created jobs.  Things are becoming grim. Florida does not have hundreds of billions of dollars to throw at the issue. Like many states, it is strapped for cash. Because of this, Florida cannot simply spend money to keep people busy. It must take another approach. It is trying to stimulate its economy by, as conservatives like to say, getting government out of the way.

The economy in Florida as elsewhere is moribund. The more dire things become the more willing people and their legislators are to set aside their sensibilities and consider sources of revenue that would not have been entertained before. Dwarf tossing is a case in point. Some states have taken to charging inmates for room and board. Still other states have taken to gambling. Humans are an ingenious species. Many of them are hard at work looking for new sources of revenue. Decency, self respect, and propriety are falling prey to the ever growing need for money.

This will only get worse so long as people rely on government spending for their well being. There are those who welcome the increasing dependency of the public upon government. Such dependency serves to further ensconce government at the very center of American society. This might not be so bad, or perhaps as bad, if the government could afford to do all those things it has taken upon itself to do for us and do them well, but it can't.  And so, as government tallies its expenses and income it almost inevitably concludes that when they do not match, revenue must be increased. But the traditional methods of raising income through taxes and fees are becoming increasingly perilous to politicians. Other methods must be found. It is that search for additional revenue that sometimes leads government to the point of absurdity.

Tradition and moral sensibilities are fine things, but they are no match for an avaricious government or a demanding public. As for the freedom and liberty to enjoy or participate in the spectacle of dwarf tossing, that is entirely relative to the need for revenue. In the quest for money and social progress, decency and decorum are too often seen today as unnecessary burdens to the freedom and liberties of people, as well as obstacles to economic progress. Humans have always been prey to their baser instincts. Rather than seek to discourage  those instincts, the government has decided to make money off them instead. Why shouldn't it? When it comes down to it, the economy is the only thing that matters.

We are told that a ban on dwarf tossing impinges on the freedom of bar patrons to enjoy a spectacle. Worse, it is a hindrance to the local economy and hampers the employment opportunities of little people. What more reason do we need?

A Brave New World

Over the years scientists have been working diligently to unlock the secrets of human genes. They have already discovered thousands of genes related to physical biology and appearance. Recently, scientists discovered that there are over 1,000 genes affecting human intelligence alone. They do not have the puzzle solved. They do not even have all the pieces. What they do have is the awareness that human intelligence is at least in part the product of genetic make up. They also have the determination to solve that puzzle.

It has been learned that the relationship between genes and intelligence is a complicated one. The hundreds, if not thousands of genes that affect human intelligence work in a complex fashion that will take a great deal of time and effort to unravel. Nevertheless, the field has been advancing steadily over the years and optimism is high. Researchers are enthusiastic about the future. As scientific method improves and data accumulates more and more of human biology will become comprehensible to scientists. That comprehension will eventually lead to knowledge. Knowledge will inevitably lead to manipulation, and therein lies the problem.

While the field has been heralded, and rightly so, for the promise it holds in improving the lives of people suffering from genetic disorders, it also has a dark side. Genetic testing has the potential to evolve into a method for manipulating the appearance, aptitude, and abilities of human beings, if only through selection. If intelligence can be determined before birth, who will settle for a child of average intelligence, let alone low intelligence? I suspect few parents, certainly those who could afford genetic testing, would be satisfied with a child of modest height, a precarious genetic make up, or with a tilt towards obesity if they get the choice.

If my concerns seem overly dramatic, I would like to point out another development in the news. A new blood test has been developed that allows the sex of a child to be determined as early as seven weeks into gestation. That discovery was also heralded as great progress. According to a recent report in the Dallas Morning News the test will "lead to to more widespread use by parents concerned about gender-linked diseases and those who are merely curious, as well as people considering the more ethically controversial step of selecting the sex of their child." Such a test would be eagerly welcomed in places like China where parents have a keen interest in the gender of their child.

We are now able to determine the sex of developing child. We have already developed tests that can identify genetic and physical disorders and will soon be able to know much more. We are on the thresh hold of identifying physical and intellectual potential before birth. If we can get a handle on manipulating genes a whole new horizon will open up: it could someday be possible to design people.

If physiological characteristics can be discerned before birth, who would embrace a handicapped child or a child of low physical potential? What parents aspire to have average children? If intelligence can be determined before birth, who would choose to have a child of substandard intellect? Chances are no one would. But if the day comes where selection is possible, will we have a society, perhaps even a world, populated by smart and physically adept human beings? If that day comes, who will work in the factories? Who will harvest our crops? Who will pave our roads? We cannot have a society made up exclusively of Alphas. We will need Betas, Gammas, Deltas, and Epsilons too. (Well, maybe not Epsilons. That is what immigration is for.) Fortunately, genetic screening will likely be expensive and beyond the reach of most people, genetic engineering even more so. That should ensure a steady supply of workers and provide a supporting cast.

If my concerns seem exaggerated I suggest one look to China where biological selection is already at work. For some time, the image of "1984" has haunted our society. Now we have "A Brave New World" to consider. The new discoveries in genetics will not allow us to design people, at least not yet, but it will give us an ability to genetically screen people before they are born. We may not be able to design the people we want any time soon but we will have taken a significant step towards being able to identify the people we don't want. When you think about it, that is almost the same thing.

Getting to a Real Discussion Over Abortion

A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine reported significant progress has been made in prenatal surgery in the struggle against spina bifida. Over 1,500 children a year are born with it. Spina bifida is a condition where the spinal cord does not fully close and, among other things, can lead to paralysis. The study was warmly welcomed by scientists, researchers, and doctors. Dr. Terry Buchmiller, former Chief Resident in Pediatric Surgery at the Children's Hospital in Boston, stated that it culminated a "wonderful, almost several decade journey of trying to improve the outcome of a debilitating condition". She went on to herald the procedure as "potentially life changing." Others applauded it as a promising step in the evolving field of prenatal surgery.

There has been great effort put into treating children in the womb. One of the most significant advances in the field has been prenatal surgery. Researchers and doctors have long labored to find ways to treat children and correct their problems before they are born. Fetal surgery offers hope. Not only does it offer hope to children facing the challenge of spina bifida, it also holds promise of treating neurological problems as well as bladder defects and sickle cell anemia. It is anticipated that as the field develops, other conditions and disorders will be treatable before birth. In the case of treating spina bifida, the results were so good that the study was halted early so that the procedure could be adopted immediately.

As prenatal medicine evolves, women contemplating aborting their still developing children due to serious medical concerns have hope. The painful choice between giving birth to a child who will face a lifetime of serious, and at times difficult, challenges and terminating that child will become less common as the threat of those challenges diminishes. As a result, the decision whether to give birth will become easier for some and more complicated for others.

For those who want to give birth, the decision will be easier because their child will likely face fewer challenges over the course of their lives. Indeed, some children will face no challenge at all. For those inclined to abort a handicapped baby, (or fetus if you prefer), the decision whether to abort will be more difficult as they must weigh the potential burden of a disability against the promise provided by advancing medical science. As prenatal care advances, physical deformity and other challenges will no longer be the the threat they once were. Less and less will they be reasons for terminating a pregnancy. For those who are merely harboring a fetus, prenatal medicine is irrelevant.

As doctors increasingly become able to treat children in the womb, the reasons for having an abortion will become fewer. If the day ever comes when the only reason for having an abortion is because a woman simply does not want the child, the argument over abortion will have reached its core. On that day we will finally be able to have a real discussion over the issue.

It is a strange world indeed where some doctors labor to treat children in the womb while other doctors endeavor to destroy them.

Setting a Bad Example

It is reported that hospitals and medical businesses have begun to adopt strict rules intended to weed out smokers in their midst. Increasingly, they are refusing to hire people who smoke or use tobacco. Some employers are reaching beyond the workplace and administering urine tests to screen out tobacco users. Two reasons are given for the adoption of strict policies against tobacco use. First is the concern over appearances. It is felt by some in the medical profession that smoking by health care workers sets a bad example. Secondly, there are economic concerns. People who use tobacco tend to have more health problems than those who don't. Because of that, they increase health care costs and diminish productivity when they fall ill. In this reasoning, the medical profession is simply falling into line with the economic casuists in evaluating human behavior in terms of costs and benefits.

While the move can be considered as part of the growing impatience with tobacco users in this country, there is a more troubling component to this thinking that even those who do not use tobacco should be concerned about. If health and economic productivity are to be prime measures of human behavior, the door which is being pushed against will be kicked wide open. Many habits and behaviors work against health and undermine economic productivity. Chief among those are eating poorly and not exercising. The health and economic costs of obesity in the U.S. exceed the costs of tobacco. Over 30% of Americans are currently obese. Obesity is defined as being 30 or more pounds overweight. While the number of smokers goes down every year, the number of obese goes up. People who are overweight are more prone to injury and illness and more likely to miss time at work than those who are not overweight. From diabetes and heart disease, to bad knees and fatigue, overweight people cost time and money.

If the health care industry is going to ban tobacco use by employees in order to set a good example, they should do something about overweight doctors and nurses as well. They should consider penalizing health care workers who are over weight. They should also prohibit them from eating hot dogs, french fries, and other unhealthy foods. If a doctor smoking a cigarette sends a bad message, what message does an overweight doctor eating a cheeseburger send?

Why Stand on Principle 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. 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 the country. 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 independent statehood 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.

Time and again the U.S. has condemned violence, advocated for the supremacy of law, and argued for the authority of the U.N. to resolve disputes. We have consistently declared our policies in terms universal principle. We have made it point to appeal to the international community for support on important foreign policy issues. Yet time and again we have twisted and ignored those declarations when it was in our interest to do so. Time and again we have relied upon unilateral action when negotiations proved unproductive.

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.

The Palestinians and Israelis have been talking on and off for decades. All the Palestinians have to show for it is a limited authority over a shrinking patchwork of villages and cities. Arafat and the PLO deserve a lot of the blame for that, but not all of it. The Palestinians tried violence to achieve their objectives and they failed miserably. They have tried negotiating with Israel to achieve their objectives, and they are failing only slightly less miserably. If the Palestinians have grown frustrated it is understandable. They have decided to take a new path. After years of confrontation and violence the Palestinians have heeded the call and decided to sit down and talk. They decided to give peace and negotiations a chance. In their frustration at the fruitlessness of the talks and the worsening situation on the ground they did not take up arms,  they chose to do what nations are supposed to do, they have taken their case to the U.N. After all, that is just what the U.S. has consistently argued nations should do over the years. That is what the U.N. is for. They should not be condemned for it. They should be applauded.

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.

Yesterday Stone Wall, Tomorrow the World.

When the United Nations Human Rights Commission meets next year in Geneva it is expected that it will take up the issue of gay and lesbian rights. Last year a resolution was introduced to the commission that would make abuse on the basis of sexual orientation a human rights violation. That is the resolution the commission will take up when it meets. The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission is excited. They called it "a historic opportunity to advance (homosexual) issues in a international human-rights law." It is indeed a historic occasion. Never before in human history has the argument been put forth that being able to consummate your desire for a person with whom you share genitalia without abuse or condemnation is a human right.

Despite the frequent use of the term on the part its supporters, the gay rights movement is not about love. The right to love whomever you want has never really been an issue. Indeed, to frame the issue in terms of love is a red herring. Some of the greatest literature in Western history has involved deep and enduring love between people of the same gender. What is, and always has been the issue, is the right to have sex with whomever you want, and, more recently, the right to marry whomever you want. It is the sexual component that has historically engendered the animosity directed toward homosexuals. It is the the social, legal, and religious challenges posed by an increasingly public and defiant homosexuality that lay behind much of the present day animosity.

Homosexuals have made great progress in the U.S. over the years. They are now able to express their love and desires openly, and legally, throughout the U.S. with little or no fear of legal retribution. They openly hold prominent positions in communities and in statehouses and Congress. They serve on boards of directors. They lead churches. They are frequently celebrated in the media and in Hollywood. In short, they are everywhere and do everything. The last lines of resistance, adoption and marriage, are rapidly being breached. Total victory is at hand. While pockets of resistance still exist and skirmishes still occur, they are no real threat to gays. Where disapproval of homosexuality appears it is quickly challenged, pilloried, and mocked. Hollywood is captured. State Houses have fallen. Washington is under siege. Gay rights in the U.S. are here to stay.

With victory in the U.S. largely achieved, homosexuals, along with their advocates and supporters, are taking their show on the road. Their objective is nothing less than global recognition of the rights they have demanded and obtained in the U.S. They want the world to catch up. Homosexuals and their supporters want to "connect the full range of human rights to sexual orientation, and to condemn the discrimination on its basis" said Paula Ettelbrick of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission. They want to make the pursuit and satisfaction of one's sexual desire for a person of the same gender a human right.

If the U.N. sees fit to make abuse based on sexual orientation a violation of a human right it will have acquiesced to a back handed attempt to establish sexual orientation as a human right. You cannot violate a right that does not exist. Sexual orientation will have taken a seat beside speech, liberty, and religion in the pantheon of human rights. If adopted the resolution will be yet another cudgel in the hands of the enlightened with which to to beat a backward and ignorant world.

Homosexuals are a group unlike any other the U.N. has been asked to confer human rights upon. Homosexuality cuts across every religious, racial, and ethnic demographic and encompasses both genders. The only thing that distinguishes homosexuals as group is their singular desire to have sex with people of the same gender as themselves. It is the right to consummate that desire without judgement or consequence that the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission wants to establish. One should be warned that there are many peculiar romantic and sexual desires. Quite a few them are found to be objectionable by the majority of people on this planet. If the pursuit and satisfaction of romantic and sexual desire is deemed a basic human right the future will be a bumpy one.

There are 193 nations in the U.N. Many do not tolerate homosexuality. Most do not embrace it. According to gay and lesbian activists, that needs to be changed. A good first step to bringing about that change will be to have the U.N. pass a resolution. It does not matter in the least that the rights of homosexuals can only be established if the right of people to organize their communities and maintain their customs, religious beliefs, and traditions is eclipsed. That is not an issue to those trying to perfect the world. For them culture, religion, and tradition are not bulwarks, they are obstacles.

Change or Chess?

Things are changing rapidly in the Middle East. Popular uprisings are popping up though out the region. From Tunisia and Egypt to Syria and Yemen people have taken to the streets in opposition to autocratic rule. Even Saudi Arabia has experienced unrest. The U.S. claims to support the democratic aspirations of the Arab people. It has championed and applauded the toppling of autocratic governments and actively encouraged the rise of popular governments. In Libya the U.S., along with NATO, is participating in the unrest by providing military assistance to ensure the rebellion's success. I wonder if the U.S. has truly thought the issue through.

The U.S. very much wants to see Assad out of power and a democracy established in Syria. But what if a democratic Syria demands the Golan Heights back? We applauded the departure of Mubarek in Egypt only to find that Egyptians were not as content with Egypt's foreign policy as we had thought. There are already rumblings in Egypt regarding Israeli policy towards the Palestinians. There is even talk of abrogating the 1979 treaty with Israel. What if a democratic Egypt goes further and demands that Israel withdrawal from the West Bank? What if a democratic Arab world demands Israel return to the pre-1967 borders and pay reparations to the Palestinians? What will the U.S. do then? Will we still be as supportive of the political aspirations of the Arab people or will we act to stymie their desires?

In regard to the Palestinians, there is only one nation in the Middle East that stands to lose anything if an independent, sovereign Palestinian state is recognized, Israel. As it turns out, Israel is the only nation in the Middle East the U.S. is truly committed to. Because of this, the U.S. looks at events in the Middle East through the prism of Israeli concerns. U.S. and Israeli policy in the region has the potential to affect the nature of emerging regimes, to say nothing of a whole new generation of Arabs. The question is what that affect will be. Will it be to alienate the new democracies, or accommodate them? If the U.S. is reluctant to adjust its policy to reflect the new political realities in the Middle East it risks becoming marginalized, as the recent Palestinian effort to move beyond U.S. brokered discussions and appeal directly to the U.N. reflects.

While Israel has much at stake in the political turmoil in the region it has much to gain as well. By accommodating the Palestinians and agreeing to withdraw from the West Bank and consenting to an independent and sovereign Palestinian state Israel could go a long way in disarming its foes. A thriving, independent Palestine would remove the single greatest animus to Israel's existence which in turn would go a long way toward establishing an enduring peace in the region. By refusing to do so Israel is ensuring tension and conflict for generations to come. The U.S. has much at stake too. It can be a friend or an obstacle in the political transformation of the Middle East. More than 120 of the 193 nations that make up the U.N. have recognized a Palestinian state based along the lines of the 1967 border. Of the 73 that haven't, only the U.S.really matters.

Nothing will change regarding Israel without U.S. involvement. Everyone knows this. That is why the U.S. is in the middle of things. That is why the U.S. can be viewed in the region as either a help or a hindrance to the aspirations of the Palestinian people. Secretary of State Clinton stated that she hoped that the U.S. would be able to support the movement towards democracy in the region. "We are going to do as much as we can... to deal with the opportunities I see from Tunisia to Libya, and Egypt and beyond." That question is does the U.S. really care about the Arab people or does it see the Middle East as a chess board? Does it really welcome representative government or is it simply relishing an opportunity to reshape the Middle East in a manner more suitable to its interests? Do democracy and independence apply to the Palestinians or does the right to self determination end at the Jordon River?

It is unlikely that the people in the street in Egypt, Morocco, and elsewhere, consider themselves to be actors in political theater. I doubt that they have given mind to the geopolitical opportunities their protests may or may not provide the U.S. They are in the streets for change. What that change will be remains to be seen. Whatever their aspirations you can be assured they do not have the U.S.'s interests as a motivation. It is possible that the U.S. will be disappointed by events. But that does not mean that the people seeking change will be disappointed. When it comes down to it, they are the ones that matter. The U.S. threatens, prods, and entices them at its own risk. Whatever else protesters might be, they are not chess pieces in some strategic game. It would be a serious mistake to treat them as such.