Babbling Brooks

Today, David Brooks laments that neither the Kerry campaign or the Bush campaign have outlined what they are going to do for the country in the next four years. (In his usual partisan style, although his point is ostensibly the same for both candidates, he is far more critical of Kerry than of Bush.) But then he illustrates what can only be characterized as shocking ignorance or outright dishonesty - he suggests that the candidates should enunciate a new health care policy. You know, like Kerry did:

At the center of Kerry's ideas is his proposal to have the federal government reimburse employers 75 percent of medical bills over $50,000 that a worker runs up in a year. The reimbursement would, in effect, make the government a secondary insurer and ease costs for employers, workers and private insurers.

In exchange for the benefit, Kerry would require employers to offer insurance to every worker and to provide health programs that detect and manage chronic illnesses such as high blood pressure early enough to prevent the diseases from worsening.

The plan also includes the opportunity for uninsured Americans to buy into the same group insurance offered to federal employees, with subsidies for the working poor. Brooks has had about two months to pick up on this fact. I guess he's a bit slow on the uptake, as further evidenced by his remaining comments....

First, without getting into detail, Brooks recites a proposal that health care competition occur not "among health plans, networks and hospital groups - which just leads to zero-sum cost shifting. It should occur at the level of individual treatment, which would encourage not shifting costs, but improving value." This idea sounds positively Gingrichian - and it sounds a lot like eliminating health insurance. Brooks also endorses a proposal by Bill Frist for what he seems to believe is something new - the health savings account (which both exist, and simply update an old idea) - and for a insurance risk pooling plan which sounds both a lot like a watered down version of Kerry's reinsurance plan, and even more like the shuffling of costs Brooks just got through suggesting was such a bad idea.

The health savings accounts described above used to be available under a slightly different name, and were available to people who chose high deductible insurance plans. While there can be a benefit to that type of savings plan for somebody who is young, healthy, and not planning to have children - factors which would permit them to build, as opposed to rapidly deplete, their medical savings - public response was underwhelming. The Gingrich/Frist proposal is not an improvement.

The individual accounts provide a tax “subsidy” for health care at the marginal tax rate which results in health care funding that is inversely proportional to income, the poor paying more for health care than the rich.

That alone should cause us to reject this model of health care “reform.” The health policy literature is replete with other examples of the fundamental flaws of these medical savings accounts.

Of perhaps greater concern is the flexibility that will be allowed in the design of the high-deductible plans. Although the plans would limit out-of-pocket expenses for families at $10,000, this does not include payments made for outside-of-network services. To keep premiums affordable, insurers will fail to provide adequate reimbursement increases for providers, limiting the numbers of providers who are willing to sign the contracts. Also, to provide options with lower premiums, insurers are deliberately diminishing the number of providers available thus saving costs by limiting access. Those families that purchase plans with affordable premiums will find that they do not have the protection of the $10,000 stop-loss limit when they are forced in urgent circumstances to accept available but non-contracted providers. A person with major trauma or an acute myocardial infarction cannot ever be an informed shopper of health care services. Those with high-cost, chronic problems may also find that restricted provider lists could significantly impair accessibility.

The claim that the catastrophic plans will take care of all costs after the HSAs are depleted is a fraud. The managed care PPO products will prove to be severely deficient for those with significant health care needs, but with modest or meager resources. Traditional indemnity catastrophic plans have almost disappeared already and, in the future, will surely not be an affordable option for the average-income individual.

Splitting the health insurance pool into millions of segregated accounts will adversely impact only those who have significant needs by depleting their accounts: the very individuals for whom insurance was designed. Providing catastrophic coverage by marketplace plans that compete on premium pricing (by reducing benefits and increasing cost-sharing) can only result in financial disaster and impaired health care access for the average individual with significant needs.

So, in short, Brooks bashes Kerry for not making, say, a bold health care proposal, even though he has made one. He then sympathizes with Bush for his not having made any new proposals, even though it would be nice if he did so. He then mentions proposed health care "reforms" which not only would fail to extend insurance to the uninsured, but would likely make it even more costly and difficult for the uninsured and self-employed to obtain insurance. Sheesh.

Malapropisms and Neologisms

With Bush's latest gaffe,

Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.

, The Guardian offers a couple of quizzes to test your familiarity with Bush's misstatements. But a more relevant inquiry comes from CJR's Campaign Desk, which queries why CNN ran a clip of Bush making that statement without any reaction or commentary by its reporters.

Doublespeak

Today, Anne Applebaum complains that the Kerry campaign is using simplistic "lift the ban" rhetoric to explain its position on a complex issue - stem cell research. She asserts that no real "ban" exists, and laments that the Kerry campaign is not going into excruciating detail about present federal research and funding policies, and explaining precisely how its approach will differ from the Bush Administration's. Applebaum states,

The question now is whether we want, as a nation, to continue to have long-winded and complicated debates about complicated issues, or whether we want to resort to slogans such as "lift the ban" and "unleash the wonders of discovery."

Leaving aside for a moment the fact that a speech from Kerry on the intricacies of federal policy on stem cell research would be ignored by the news media and public, while providing endless fodder for the late night comedians (as was Ron Reagan's effort to get into the details in his convention speech), I wasn't aware that we were having those "long-winded and complicated debates" beforehand. I am not aware that Bush has ever given a "long-winded and complicated" explanation of his position on stem cell research, or that Applebaum has ever complained that he substitutes lines such as "respecting the sanctity of human life" for such an exposition.

After complaining about the role of sick people and pollsters in presenting this simplistic view, Applebaum continues her lament,

At some point we also need to make some distinction between science and "magic." It is true that funneling more money into biological research will produce more breakthroughs and more cures. It is also true that even with unlimited funding, Reeve might never walk again. This is research, not abracadabra. Talk of "magic" doesn't do much to reverse widespread scientific illiteracy either, which remains a far greater obstacle to scientific progress than the president.

That's quite a magnification of Ron Reagan's comment about the promise of stem cell research sounding "like magic" - and it seems more than a bit disingenuous of her to attribute that position to the Kerry campaign itself. But perhaps this is the only way that Applebaum can avoid addressing the real conflict, which is not of "hard science" versus "science as magic", but is about whether we should permit religious groups to strongly influence or dictate our national policies on science and public health.

Applebaum may be a little bit slow this morning, but isn't that how most voters see the question?

Um... And Then What?

Gotta love unsigned editorials, this one from the Times. After telling us, "the government in Tehran has clearly concluded that it has little to fear for now from an American government whose diplomatic credibility has been damaged and whose military capacities have been stretched by the war in Iraq", the editorial concludes,

For want of a better alternative, Europe is right to give Iran a little more time to change its mind. But the world cannot afford to wait long. Once the new centrifuges are completed, Iran's ambitions will become much harder to contain. If no agreement is reached soon, this apparent drive to build nuclear weapons should be recognized as a threat to international peace and security and taken up by the United Nations Security Council later this year.

Let's see.... Unlike Iraq, Iran has a real military, and while we are trying to prevent its acquisition of the "A" (atomic) in what were formerly known as "ABC Weapons", it apparently already has the "B" (biological) and "C" (chemical). It is quite likely that the post-war occupation of Iran would be substantially more difficult than that of Iraq. So this goes to the Security Council with the Times' premise that the U.S. and Britain are too bogged down to Act, and Europe (which probably couldn't even effect the necessary troop transport and military transport without U.S. help, even if it could muster a couple hundred thousand troops to invade) will... do what, exactly?

Addiction As A Public Health Problem

To one who has long argued that addiction should be viewed as a public health issue, and that we should remove the impediments to researching treatments and medications for addiction, this sounds like progress.

Other People Should Shape Up....

In his conclusion to today's lecture on the military, like so many hypocritical faux-conservatives, David Brooks expresses,

My own instinct is that we need an ambitious national service program to demystify the military for the next generation of Americans. It also seems clear, looking at our history, that combat heroism is not an essential qualification for a wartime leader. It's much more important to have the political courage that Lincoln had and Kennedy celebrated. But don't listen to me. I never served.

At least he had the honesty to admit his hypocrisy - he thinks other people would benefit from being forced to take a path he chose to forego.

It's Either Wonderful or Horrible?

Boy, I'm glad we have those unsigned Washington Post editorials to explain these things to us.

THE FIRST month of sovereign government in Iraq ended badly. A national conference that was to choose a 100-member assembly to function alongside the interim government was postponed for two weeks because key factions refused to participate. A car bombing that killed 70 people and a rash of kidnappings, meanwhile, underlined the fact that security remains a crippling problem. Those in Washington who believe that Iraq is headed for disaster will find confirmation in these events, and they may be proven right. Yet woven through the broader record of the past 30 days are signs that the formal end of the U.S. occupation may have advanced Iraq closer to the goal of stability under a representative government.

Cause for hope? Cause for despair? Cause for both? According to the Post, it seems the answer to all three questions is either "yes" or "who knows?"

Would You Like Perspective With That?

The Heritage Foundation and the "Center for Individual Freedom" have found a new cause for alarm! ("I am writing today to ask for your help on an issue of utmost importance) Subway is using the following tray liner in its restaurants in Europe:

Why are Americans so fat?

In the Michael Moore tradition, New York filmmaker Morgan Spurlock does some deep questioning and self experiments for 30 days on products from the world’s largest fast food company.

Astounding revelations…scary liver levels and horrifying blood levels that would cause any doctor the highest degree of alarm.

In this top satire, which won the prize for best direction from Sundance 2004, Spurlock explores the questions of responsibility between big business and consumers, and the big money which contributes to this “Fast Food” culture, and how to make Americans healthy again. An ironic hit into the stomach that is enriched by fat and facts behind this dubious mega industry.

Passage near Statue of Liberty:

You care about what you eat and everything isn’t equal? Then you shouldn’t miss this film about foolish intake. It will open your eyes.

So Subway recommends a film about gluttony focusing on McDonalds, as a satire (not a documentary) about "foolish intake", and that's the equivalent of a five alarm fire - and "a shameless and anti-American effort to increase sales in Europe"? Okay....

The bulletin from the Heritage Foundation links to information about how Soso Whaley, an Adjunct Fellow with the Competitive Enterprise Institute who, when starting her own "McDonalds only diet", claimed,

My real purpose is not to prove something, rather, I see this as a unique opportunity to explore food and weight issues and separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to what is reported about our health and well being in the media and other sources.

She then demonstrated that by following a strictly calorie controlled diet she could eat at McDonalds every day for a month and still lose weight. Well, duh. (In a most peculiar coincidence, even though she was not out to prove anything, her organization issued a press release describing her project in advance of the start of her "diet".)

Given that most Americans, and by now probably most people in the world, have eaten at a McDonalds, for the most part without any health consequences or noticeable weight gain, perhaps the Heritage Foundation simply believes us (or, more correctly, its townhall.com subscribers) to be stupid. We're going to forget our own experience, and assume that anybody who reads a tray liner about a "satire" will believe that anybody who eats at McDonalds will become as fat and unhealthy as the producer of Super Size Me. (Surely they don't expect us to believe that Ms. Whaley's experience is typical, do they?)

So it's another "Chicken Little" act from the Heritage Foundation.

Worse Than Bush?

British columnist Johann Hari recently took on one of the various neverending U.S. wars - this time, the "War on Drugs" - and posits that Kerry may be "even worse than Bush" in advancing that "war".

Kerry made his name as a Drug War hawk. He dedicated an entire senatorial inquiry in 1989 to denouncing the Reagan administration's softness on international drug suppliers. His principal advisor on the subject today - and the man tipped by some commentators to become his Secretary of State - is Rand Beers, who defected last year from his role as Bush's counter-terrorism advisor. Throughout the 1990s, Beers was the primary architect of the US policy of "taking the fight to the drug-growers" - launching massive chemical attacks on farmers in foreign countries in an attempt to prevent their crops ever reaching America's shores.

Personally, I don't think that much is likely to change in the "war on drugs" - this nation's drug policy has been rather stable for quite some time, and I don't expect any significant new initatives regardless of who wins the fall election. Hari essentially concedes that the policy he seems to find most offensive - chemical spraying of crops - was followed by Bush I and Clinton, as well as Bush II.

Hari's core argument is for legalization, but he seems to believe that legalization will transform the underground drug economies of the developing world into highly profitable, taxable, legitimate business income.

Drug prohibition is the largest factor in the collapse of [Colombia and Afghanistan] into gangsterism. It ensures that the biggest chunk of their economies is handed to armed criminals who cannot be taxed, regulated or brought under state control. ... It is only once the drug trade is handed over to legitimate companies - and the gangs slowly bankrupted - that the long process of constructing a modern state can begin.

Yet if drugs were legalized in the west, it is unlikely that there would be much call for either the coca crop or the opium poppy. It is far more likely that the newly legalized drugs would be synthesized at a much lower cost than "natural" production. Pharmaceutical companies have been able to mass produce synthetic opiates for about twenty-five years, and synthetic anaesthetics (such as lidocaine) for even longer. Were major industry to take over the production, distribution and sale of what are presently "street drugs", there would likely be a drastic reduction in the market for the drug crops of peasant farmers in Colombia and Afghanistan, and it is unlikely that there would be a flood of new income into the legitimate revenue streams of either state.

While the costs of the "drug war" in nations like Colombia, and the impact of the "drug war" and the criminal cartels it spawns, interferes with the lives of the citizens of those nations, its end would be much more likely to offer them improvement in their peace of mind than in their economic wellbeing.

College Sports

When I read stuff like this, my sympathies grow for the argument that we should stop pretending, simply let colleges pay their athletes, and complete the transformation of college sports from a recreational to a commercial endeavor.

Compare the best academic scholarship package to the average sports "scholarship" package at any given university, both in terms of value and in terms of the number of scholarships issued, and....

Life Without Google

With Google's recent worm-related woes, we are reminded of some of the ways in which the loss of Google would affect our lives, including:

Stumbling across porn. Never again would your research on the feeding habits of Great Tits in Wales ("in" is a very common word and was not included in your search) lead ineluctably to wholly unintentional distraction. There are no Real Amateurs from the Cardiff area mixed in with the bird books at the Natural History Museum.

Josh Marshall Gets It About Right....

Recently, Joshua Micah Marshall of Talking Points Memo wrote,

I've never been much for the blog triumphalism that seems always to be so much a part of the blog universe. Blogs make up a small, specialized niche within the interdependent media ecosystem -- mainly not producers but primary or usually secondary consumers -- like small field mice, ferrets, or bats.

Well, perhaps his animal choices might have been a little more pleasant - some of us are more like fluffy little bunny rabbits - but on the whole he is correct. And even when he, a bona fide, published columnist blogs, the quality of his output usually falls short of something he has polished up for formal publication. (And he's hardly alone in that department - although he appears to be far less vain and self-important about his blogging activities than other "name" bloggers.)

That's not to say that I don't appreciate the other ferrets, field mice, and fluffy bunnies, and even the vampire bats - some of them make for fun reading. Some of them are obviously rather brilliant (Hi Paul, Larry), and I get a kick out of reading the product of brilliant minds even when (no, make that particularly when) they articulate why they hold positions I don't share. Or, for that matter, when they reach the same conclusions by a different path.

When I started this blog, I added several links at the side, from the very small number of blogs I had visited up to that time. Since that time, despite some active searching, I have not really supplemented that list. Part of it is that I have never bought into the triumphalism that Marshall describes. Part of it is that, on the whole, I find the secondary analysis of the news from professionally written editorials to be more satisfying than most of what I find on the web. (Granted, part of that comes from reading the columnists once or twice per week, rather than every day - can you imagine how heavy your eyelids would be if you had a daily or twice-daily dose of Safire?) Part of it is that the more prolific bloggers tend to ride the same issue, usually to death, or become little more than partisan clipping services - like truthout or townhall.com, but with a few fragmentary thoughts attached to the links. (And I'm not going to get into the diary, self-affirmation, and "pity party" segments of the "blogosphere" - I'm on a different continent.)

I have also given a fair amount of time to various bloggers endorsed by conventional wisdom, or "best bloggers" as declared by newspapers, and have generally been disappointed. Some do have moments of brilliance, but I am not interested in adding their more typical product to my daily reading list - I don't have the time to separate the wheat from the chaff. (Besides, if they post something exceptional, they'll probably get picked up by a "clipping service"-style blog and I'll see it anyway.) Others seem like self-righteous blowhards, and hard as I try I can't see how the myth of their genius got started. In some cases, the response of these individuals to anybody who dares question their genius is so over-the-top as to be comical - although the comedy is tempered by the realization that such people are probably very insecure in their beliefs, derive a very large part of their self-worth from the reputations they have secured by blogging, and have enormous anxiety about being "found out".)

A blog I follow, although with no small sense of ennui, recently pointed to an announcement of another blogger's retirement. That blogger first notes,

The real problem; and one that's been growing in intensity over the past year or so, is that there's an increasing lack of debate between various weblogs. Few people really want to challenge their own point of view, as far as I can see. Nobody really wants to debate any longer, they are just interested in scoring points. Some are condescending, some are defiant, some are just plain boring (this, for example). But nearly all of them just want to argue themselves into positions.

Personally, I don't see much value in debate "between" weblogs - you might as well complain that there aren't "letters to the editor" in the New York Times about articles published in the Washington Times.

But if you do look at the equivalent on many blogs - the comments section - you will often see an enormous hostility by the proponents of a blog at those who disagree with their positions. As I previously noted, part of that can be insecurity, but part of it is that many bloggers are no different from the majority of non-bloggers. That is, most people really don't like to think, let alone have to figure out why people disagree with the "obvious truths" that pour forth from their keyboards. So they shut off comments, engage in censorship, insult commenters in reply comments or in subsequent blog posts, and otherwise try to drum the dissenters out of their sphere.

This blogger also notes,

I feel that most of my favourite sites - the ones that have inspired me - have become indicative that we're painting ourselves into boxes. We spend more time talking about the rights and wrongs of the Iraq war than about the things that unite the left.

I think that's correct, but in a "bigger picture" sense than "just the Iraq war". Over time, most bloggers tend to rehash the same issues over and over again. This person was initially drawn to the "inspirational" blogs by their war commentary, yet now - sixteen months after the war was launched - their sneering at those who took a different position on the war seems tired, overdone, banal... irrelevant. While some bloggers have different areas of obsession, some of which (unlike "should we go to war in March, 2003") remain topical, you can only cycle through the same set of ideas so many times before.... Before you feel like you're getting that twice-per-day dose of Safire.

After having previously noted that his blog receives significant traffic but not much commentary, this blogger's last contention is,

I don't write here to vent my spleen, but to try and interact with others; to hear how they feel, what they believe.

While many bloggers would endorse that position - that they blog to learn and grow - experience dictates that, for the most part, it isn't true. If it in fact was in this particular blogger's case, it is a shame that he is retiring.

Happy Birthday

Happy birthday, Laura.

Meaningless Labels

Today's Times presents an editorial, the authors of which purport to have ranked the political candidates according to their full voting history.

Assertions that the Democrats' presumptive nominees are extreme liberals fall flat. True, Mr. Kerry's voting history places him to the left of today's median Senate Democrat (Tom Daschle of South Dakota). But he is closer to the center of the Democratic Party than he is to the most liberal senators, including Mr. Kennedy. John Edwards falls just to the right of the median Democrat. In fact, he is nearly indistinguishable from Mr. Lieberman, the Democrats' vice presidential candidate in 2000.

On the other side of the partisan divide, Mr. Bush - like Mr. Kerry - is more extreme than his party's median senator (Richard Shelby of Alabama). He is also noticeably more conservative than his primary challenger in 2000, John McCain. So any assertion that the Democratic candidates are out of the mainstream might easily be applied to the Republicans as well. In fact, if any of the four candidates on the national party tickets this year is out of the mainstream, it is Mr. Cheney, who in his last full term in the House was on the right flank of roughly 90 percent of his Republican colleagues.

So Bush is "noticeably more conservative" than McCain? Does this inspire anybody but me to wonder, "How in the world are they defining 'conservative'?" McCain appears to believe in small government, balanced budgets, responsible spending, removing protectionist barriers from imports from the developing world, and seems wary of discretionary warfare and nation-building. Apart from his campaign promises, Bush has seemingly rejected at all of those values. By what definitioin is Bush more conservative?

Drunk Driving

In days of yore when I practiced some criminal defense, based upon my experience and discussions with other defense attorneys I drew some broad conclusions about drunk drivers. A significant number of first offenders were people who made a mistake of judgment and happened to get pulled over, but few second offenders fell into that category, and almost no third offenders. The first offender who "knows better" but drives anyway is often an easy target for the police, as he is less experienced as a drunk driver (thus showing more of the telltale signs of DUI) and has a lower tolerance for alcohol (thus also showing those signs at a lower BAC). The cliche about "I was coming home from a wedding party..." is based in fact. A surprising number of first time drunk drivers are coming home from parties or events where they drink a lot more than usual, often at locations far enough removed from their homes that they believe it would be excessively costly to hire a taxi.

Today's Washington Post discusses the costs (financial and personal) for a number of first time drunk drivers, most of whom seem like whiny crybabies. It is only toward end that we hear from somebody who accepts that it was his mistake and his conduct which led to his situation:

"One brings this upon oneself," he said, speaking in Spanish. "Who am I going to be angry at? If they caught me, it's because I did something and have to pay for it."

And (as in so many police reports from drunk driving cases) the BAC's reported in the article often seem starkly at odds with the amount of alcohol the defendants claim to have consumed. ("Four small glasses of wine" for a .14 BAC? "Two strong mixed drinks" for a .15 BAC? "Some beers" for a .17 BAC? C'mon.)

Crybabies? I guess my natural inclination is against those who put the lives of their passengers and of other drivers (and pedestrians) at risk because they don't want to moderate their drinking, don't want to properly designate a driver, don't want to rent a cab, and don't want to "sleep it off" at a nearby hotel. I recall a young man testifying at a sentencing, wearing a brace on his disdended, blown-out knee, describing how an accident caused by a drunk driver had destroyed that knee and ruined his career as an industrial electrician. A year after the accident, his knee was still bloated to twice its healthy diameter. I recall two cases where drunk mothers caused accidents which killed their own children, and caused grevious injuries to others (in one case, a severe head injury to another child; in the other, paraplegia to the driver of the other car). Those are some of the worst cases, but they are far from isolated. My heart just can't melt when I hear drunk drivers complain about their harships.

Fortunately, in my experience (save for a few angry alcoholics who ranted about the evil state trying to take away their right to drive), most first time drunk drivers seem less inclined to minimize or rationalize their conduct, and more inclined to learn from their mistakes. A couple of times, the drunk driving arrest inspired the arrest of what might otherwise have been emerging alcoholism. In one case, as he was discharged from a period of non-supervised probation (with a hearing to ensure that he had attended the ordered AA classes and had not again been arrested - so there was nothing to gain from the speech), a client gave a rather moving speech in which he expressed his gratitude to the court for a sentence which helped him overcome what he had come to realize was worsening alcoholism, to the significant benefit of his work life and his marriage.

Making Better Schools, By....

It has long been suggested that the primary reason for student performance and behavior in better private schools has been the schools' ability to control the composition of the student body. If they do admit a student who is unduly disruptive, expulsion is a powerful tool both to remove the student and send a message to the rest of the student body. In public schools, for a wide range of reasons, expulsion is much less common and typically requires much worse conduct than would be tolerated in a private school.

Britain has been experimenting with "academy schools" to replace "struggling" public schools (using,here, the American definition of "public" - state funded). "In each case the government puts in £22m to set up the academy, with a private organisation donating £2m in each case and taking control of the schools' day to day running." The aim is to have 200 such academies across the nation within five years. And, while not having the same ability as private schools to exclude applicants, they seem to have already learned the value of showing disruptive students to the door:

One of Tony Blair's favoured new academy schools revealed its hard line yesterday when it admitted that its exclusion rate is 10 times the national average.

Which, of course, raises the following question: If the "struggling" schools were permitted similar latitude in expelling problem students, would there be any actual need for the academies? (And this is no surprise - problem students expelled from academy schools are subsequently "taught at neighbouring schools" - which, presumably, continue to "struggle" with that burden.)

I don't really have a problem with state funded "academy schools" for students who are more interested in learning, or who at least have better classroom decorum, but let's not pretend that this type of system is really about improving public schools or easing their "struggle" - if anything, it makes their job more difficult. If you siphon off the smarter, better behaved kids, you make their struggle harder (and you make teaching far less rewarding in the "struggling" schools). If you don't, the smarter, better behaved kids will, for the most part, receive a lesser education. Perhaps to a politician's ear the rhetoric sounds better when it is directed at "improving struggling schools", as opposed to a more accurate description which might sound elitist, or somehow condemnatory of the students who, for various reasons, would be left behind in the "struggling" schools.

"If they don't learn it in school...."

They'll learn it in the school yard? Apparently, once some controls are added to ensure the communcation of accurate information, sex ed works better at a peer-to-peer level.

Darfur Revisited

Today's Washington Post informs us that, despite Colin Powell's high profile visit, the situation in Darfur has not improved. Meanwhile London's Guardian reports that "Tony Blair has asked Downing Street and Foreign Office officials to draw up plans for possible military intervention in Sudan, where more than a million refugees are at risk from famine and disease."

As it is patent that both the U.S. and Britain hope to resolve the situation in Darfur through diplomatic means, and as governments frequently draw up military plans for conflicts they have no intention of actually fighting, we will have to wait and see if Blair's move is an effort to put a bit more muscle behind his diplomatic arm-wrestling, or if he will actually deploy troops if the situation does not improve.

Minorities and the Republican Party

Some Republicans have questioned why so many conservative members of minority groups vote for Democratic candidates, when ostensibly the social conservativism of the Republican party is more in line with their relgious and personal views. The response usually involves an allusion to the Republican Party's tendency to cater to our nation's xenophobes, opponents of immigration reform, and even racists. In today's Post, Harold Meyerson suggests that, despite its noble rhetoric in the 2000 campaign, that impression remains unchanged under Bush II:

Earlier this month, though, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist refused to let the [Ag Jobs immigration] bill come to a vote - so adamantly, in fact, that he willingly doomed the business community's top legislative priority, a tort reform bill, to which Ag Jobs would have been attached as an amendment. Frist has no history of nativist passions; he was simply doing the bidding of the White House.

And the White House, it is clear, has made a strategic calculation. Karl Rove knows perfectly well that the Latino vote is growing and is an increasing factor in such swing states as Florida, New Mexico, Arizona and Nevada. But he also knows that the president's half-hearted steps toward immigration reform were greeted by a storm of protest from anti-immigrant forces in the very same states, and that Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah) actually incurred a primary challenge (which he beat back) because he had co-authored Ag Jobs in the House.

So once again, George W. Bush has decided that the votes he'll fish for are all on the right. Gone are any illusions that he can do better among Latino voters than he did in 2000. Now, it's John Kerry who's campaigning on his support for Ag Jobs and the Dream Act, and immigrant rights advocates who are registering new voters by the tens of thousands in such immigrant-heavy locales as Orlando and Phoenix.

Don't Give *Them* "Special Rights"

There are people in our society who have made a certain "lifestyle choice", and are now demanding that we give them special rights because of their choice. (You know who I am talking about.) I think the conduct of some of these people, and their demands for those "special rights" merits some scrutiny.

If you listen carefully to the media today, you will hear the claim that discrimination and even violence against these people is widespread. They are often depicted as victims of hate crimes or unfair hiring and firing practices - even before any scrutiny has been applied to determine why they might have been victimized. These people and their advocacy groups use these incidents to portray themselves as victims. They demand state support for their lifestyle choices and practices, and demand anti-discrimination laws to protect their lifestyle choices.

It goes without saying that these people have, as their ultimate goal, public acceptance of their lifestyle. One method of achieving this goal is to give their lifestyle choice protection through nondiscrimination legislation, granting them the same civil rights status enjoyed by women, African Americans and the disabled.

A Cause For Concern

To some, protecting these people from discrimination may not sound like such a bad idea. Neither does protecting them from violent crimes. But we must be careful not to miss the real purpose of these efforts by their activists, to portray themselves as victims. Granting them special rights sends a strong message to society. It says that people who make this lifestyle choice deserve the same legal status and protection as someone who is born black or female or handicapped. This amounts to a pretense that their lifestyle is not a choice but a predetermined characteristic. By talking the focus off of their choices and behavior and making themselves victims, these people engender more support for their lifestyle. For this reason alone, it is vitally important that the citizens of this nation understand the danger of granting them special rights.

Legislative Activity

Over the years, a great deal of legislation has been introduced and reintroduced at both the federal and state levels that purport to be about protecting these people from employment discrimination and the violence of hate crimes, while their underlying goal is to keep this lifestyle choice on the list of protected classes, like race and gender. They have been remarkably successful in obtaining the introduction of legislation which favors their lifestyle choice in the context of employment, housing and public accommodation, and even to advance their lifestyle choices within public school settings. They also want legal protections for their choice of relationship, and even legislative endorsement of their preferred manner of sexual relations.

Special protection for these people could also mean problems for landlords. Under the laws they demand, landlords could be sued for refusing to rent to these people, particularly if the landlord was aware of their lifestyle choice. Furthermore, landowners who rent apartments, sometimes even in their own homes, would be told they must rent to individuals who may be committing offensive acts on their property.

A Civil Rights or Moral Issue

The argument that the granting of protected status for these people is a civil rights issue has been used often in this debate. It is a comparison that has angered some in the African-American community. “Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic,” General Colin Powell wrote. In contrast, while this lifestyle choice might be described as "perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics", comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.

The U.S. Supreme Court has laid down three requirements for a group to receive protected status - a shared immutable characteristic, economic deprivation, and a history of political powerlessness. A close look at each of these characteristics reveals that this lifestyle choice does not meet the requirements.

Immutable Characteristics?

Making a lifestyle choice is not the same as being black or being a woman. These are characteristics that can be seen and are not based on behavior.

“The Supreme Court has declared that immutable characteristics are like the shape of the eyes, skin and hair," says Reverend Louis P. Sheldon, president of the Traditional Values Coalition. A similar definition is provided in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There is nothing immutable about this lifestyle choice. It is a behavior-driven characteristic and to align it with minority status is absolutely erroneous. Behavior is not included in the definition.

Economic Deprivation?

Is it even fair to compare the history of the black Civil Rights Movement with this demand for special rights? People in this class often earn more per capita than the average American, woman or black. When you look at the conditions for blacks and other minorities, you must ask yourself:
"where is the discrimination?" These people have tremendous income, enormous economic and buying power, and a lot of discretionary income.

Political Powerlessness?

Does the special rights movement have a history of being politically powerless? If you look at the history of the movement from the earliest days of this nation, this movement has been anything but powerless. This is a group that has wielded an enormous amount of power from the
very beginning, with tremendous influence on state legislatures. Their participation in politics, and their open advocacy of expansive special rights for their lifestyle choice, is accepted without controversy. The major political parties cater to them to try to secure their votes and favors, and have even been known to promise special rights legislation at the national level.

It is obvious that this group does not have a history of political powerlessness.

The Real Issue

Civil rights laws were enacted to offset discrimination against blacks, but these people can claim no victim status as an oppressed, poor minority. They are trying to hijack a movement for their own advantage.

It is clear that these people as a group do not meet the requirements of a protected class. The real issue, of course, is one of choice, not civil rights. A lifestyle choice is a behavior. More importantly, it is a behavior that encompasses a very distinct lifestyle in which specific conduct and actions play a major role. Granting them protection creates both a threat to free speech and a danger to children.

Freedom of Expression

One of the questions that granting these people special rights or protected status raises is, how much of an impact will it have on the freedom of expression? While proponents claim that it will not affect free speech at all, a closer look clearly demonstrates that this is simply not the case. If special rights legislation were passed, a supervisor with different beliefs would be unable to express those beliefs in the workplace. Business owners who reject this lifestyle choice might be faced with difficult choices over whom they hire and whom they fire.

Employment legislation isn’t the only threat to free speech. Hate crimes legislation could also impact the freedom to express deeply held beliefs. Robert Knight of the Family Research Council testified in May before a Senate committee that the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999 actually "creates thought crime" because the violent acts are already against the law. Furthermore, some in the media and in the government have begun to interpret public opposition to the normalization of this lifestyle choice as "hate". Special rights advocates have characterized even mild formulations of opposing views as an expression of hatred or as a proximate cause of violence.

Some of these special rights advocates even object to advertisements meant to invite or encourage these people to make different lifestyle choices. Supposedly, these types of messages - undiluted messages of love - instigate prejudice against their lifestyle choices, or lead to crimes of violence against them.

A Threat to Children

Special rights legislation also has the potential of impacting the most vulnerable in our society. This becomes more of a concern in the area of employment. Under the laws these special rights advocates have long demanded, public school systems would not be allowed to hire or fire teachers, principles and guidance counselors on the basis of their lifestyle choice. They are also very vocal in trying to get school libraries to include literature which advances their lifestyle choice, while working to censor anything they believe casts any doubt or negative light on that choice. They won't hesitate to sue a school that won't treat their on-campus activities as if they were any other student organization - as if they were a chess club. They have even been successful in having textbooks changed to reflect their agenda, overriding other people's notions of science and morality for those consistent with their lifestyle choice.

The educational system isn’t the only institution where special rights legislation is threatening children. Even voluntary clubs or youth organizations are feeling the pressure. These people would not hesitate to sue an organization like the Boy Scouts if they were terminated as scout leaders because of their lifestyle choice. This is the type of organization that special rights legislation has an impact on, and this is exactly the kind of organization that special rights advocates want most to infiltrate. How better to shape the future than to mold the minds of the youth?

Worse, these people have a long history of trying to indoctrinate children, and to convince them to share their lifestyle choice. There are documented cases in which special rights advocates, aware that a child's parents reject their lifestyle choice, have nonetheless tried to convert the child to their lifestyle - in some cases through threats.

The Agenda

There is obviously more to special rights legislation than the activists would like us to believe. The push to have their lifestyle choice added to the list of specially protected classes has been a stated part of their agenda for hundreds of years. And with good reason. It is much easier for special rights activists to gain support for antidiscrimination laws than it is for them to gain support for more blatant legislation such as redefining marriage according to their preferred definition.

It must be remembered that this legislation is not really about protecting these people in the workplace or from violent crimes. These people are already protected in these areas just like everyone else. Special rights legislation is simply another, more subtle attempt by special rights groups to legitimize their lifestyle. Making their lifestyle choice a protected class does more than just grant these people "special rights" status. It also poses a serious threat to the free speech rights of millions of Americans who disagree with that choice or find it distasteful - even offensive.

This is the world these special rights advocates want: One in which business men and women who hold other values and beliefs are unable to express those beliefs in the workplace. One in which public school administrators are forced to hire teachers and guidance counselors without consideration of their lifestyle choice. One in which private organizations like the Boy Scouts are expected to make lifestyle choice irrelevant in the selection of scout leaders, and subject to litigation if they refuse. Most importantly, one in which parents will have to watch in silence as their children are placed at the feet of those who push the special rights agenda.

The goal of the special rights movement is to receive social acceptance of their lifestyle. Once a group defined by lifestyle choice receives special rights status, they are one step closer to that goal.

But Who Are These People?

At some point, I may have lost track.... but I don't think I was writing about homosexuals.

[This document is based on "Special Rights For Homosexuals", by the North Carolina Family Policy Council.]