I have written several times on environmentalism and been quite critical, but I don't think I ever made clear precisely why I think environmentalism is so detrimental to mankind. It is not simply a question of being inconvenienced by environmentalism, or the fact that it makes things more costly, the basic assumptions of environmentalism are in direct opposition to the requirements of human survival.

Starting at the most basic level, man is ill suited to survive in nature. We lack any sort of natural defenses or weapons. Even those animals most similar to us, the apes¹, are much better prepared for the wild than we are. They are better at climbing, possess much greater strength and have more hair to provide protection from both cold and sun. And when we leave the primates, man falls even farther behind, lacking claws, armor, speed, or any of the other traits animals use to survive. Should we try to survive in nature, even were we not to become a snack for the nearest carnivore, we would find competing for food against the better adapted rivals quite difficult².

What man has, the tool that allowed him to come to be the most potent creature on the planet, is his brain. Not just this brain, but the ability to speak which that brain provided. A big brain alone is beneficial, but very limited. Without language every creature is stuck learning everything anew, and knowledge would progress very little. With the ability to speak, man gained two very important powers. First, man could pass along knowledge quickly from one generation to another. Yes, animals do this as well, but it is a slow process of demonstration and mimicry. Man can use language to pass along much knowledge quickly.

And how is that done? Through the second benefit of language, the ability to abstract. Man can take a number of situations and draw from them only the essential features. He can see ten falling stones and conclude "objects tend to fall to the earth". It sounds simple, but it is a huge advantage. Thanks to our ability to abstract from concrete experience, we can pass along in a minute of speech something that an animal would take months of training to discover, if ever. For example "cooked food is safer" is a concept that can be said in a minute or less, but would take hundreds of examples before an animal would grasp, assuming they ever could distinguish cooked from raw. Man's ability to abstract speeds transmission of information dramatically.

But that big brain is of limited benefit when it is used only to assist man in interacting with his environment. When it is used just for making tools, cooperative hunting, passing along knowledge of better methods to gather food, and so on, it does provide man with an advantage, but as the short lifespans and small numbers of modern hunter-gatherer tribes show, it does not provide full benefits until it is turned to another use.

That use is changing the environment to suit man. From building shelters, to planting food, to building dikes, to diverting rivers and reclaiming land from the sea, man constantly changes the world to suit him. That is truly the best use of his brain, not to help him adapt to the world around him, but to change the world around him to suit his ends. Only by doing so can man receive the maximum benefits from his intellect.

Which brings me at last to my point. This is the use which environmentalism opposes. By positing that "nature" has some intrinsic value, the environmentalist movement is in opposition to this use of man's intellect. Man survives and prospers by changing nature into something more suitable. Once we postulate that untouched nature is to be preferred, we find our selves in opposition to mankind's improvement.

Of course many will argue against this saying that environmentalists just want "a balance", but that is simply untrue. Once you say untouched nature is a good in itself, the logical end point is denying man the ability to change anything. Of course, as a practical matter they may argue for a "balance" first, but the end result is the eventual prohibition of all change³. And that will spell the end of human progress.

---------------------------------------------------------------

1. Whether one believes in evolution or not, the similarities between apes and humans are undeniable. Even if you doubt we are related, they resemble us more closely than any other animal does, from physical structure to social behavior.

2. Many anthropological/historical models seem to bear this out, suggesting that the most primitive hunter-gatherer tribes were limited to belts extremely rich in foodstuffs. In those locations man's competitive disadvantage would be offset by the abundance of food. Only after man had acquired more knowledge enabling him to better control his environment would he have moved from those regions. That is, of course, assuming those models are correct.

3. We see similar incrementalism over and over. As condemnation went from being used for roads and dams to removing inner city "blight" to condemning perfectly good homes for more profitable development. Or smoking prohibitions went from airplanes to businesses to malls to now even restaurants and bars. Those seeking unpopular change never ask for it all at once, they always want a "balance", but from there they proceed, step by step, to the logical end point of their theories.

Remember John McCain's Middle East "gaffe"? Despite the fact that what he said may not even have been incorrect, the press played it up for a while, trying to portray him as out of touch and just as ignorant of foreign affairs as the inexperienced Democrat candidates.

How much is anyone willing to bet that Obama's 57 state gaffe will not get the same amount of press?

POSTSCRIPT

Just to be clear, I am not saying the press should ramble on and on about a simple misstatement by Obama. What I am saying is that they would had the speaker been a Republican. Somehow what is a  "simple mistake" for Obama is "proof" that McCain is old and tired, or ignorant. My request is that the press simply ignore such silly mistakes, whether from Obama, McCain or the sitting president.

However, we know how well that will work out. Liberal "pundits" have made a fortune by filling books with Bush's slips of the tongue. For some reason liberals find them terribly amusing.

So, as that is apparently the environment in which we find ourselves, I ask that the press belittle Obama for his mistakes every bit as much as they belittle McCain and Bush. Anything less would be a bit biased, would it not? And the press claims to be the fair, unbiased, objective purveyors of the truth, do they not?

ADDENDUM

As "Real American 4 Truth" thought my comment referred to another supposed "gaffe"  by McCain, I suppose I should clarify my statement. I thought the link would make it clear, but just in case, I will specify the statement here.

I am not talking about McCain's statement about energy policy that the left claims is "proof" that the war was all about oil. I dealt with that elsewhere. First of all it assumes McCain is somehow part of the Bush administration, instead of a senator, just like the Democrats who also voted for the war. It also makes the statement say something it does not. (And, to be honest, I think McCain is simply wrong in his thinking on this one, but that is not relevant here.)

I am speaking about McCain's statement about Iran assisting al Qaida. Of course, there is evidence he was perfectly accurate, but the left crowed about his ignorance for saying shiite Iran would help sunni al Qaida. (Though the left acknowledges they do help Sunni Hammas.) But one could assume that McCain meant Hammas, not al Qaida, making this a "gaffe" on par with Obama's 57 states.

Hopefully that makes everything clear.

My wife sent me an interesting article about a local school board which is trying to train staff to reduce the number of suspensions of black students*. Apparently black students have been suspended at a rate far exceeding that of other students, and the school system is blaming this on a lack of cultural understanding. As the article puts it:

Teachers and administrators may misinterpret the body language and occasional confrontational behavior that some African-Americans learn in their neighborhoods and use at school as a way of standing up for themselves, veteran educators say. They will often back down if they're made to feel safe.

"Being rude means one thing to you and another to me," said Ella White Campbell, a retired city school teacher and an education advocate in Baltimore County.

All of which sounds very nice and high-minded, but in reality ill-serves the students.

These students may learn their behavior in their neighborhoods, but that does not mean it is correct. Unless we plan to confine blacks to ghettos, they need to be able to interact with the larger culture. And if their behavior is seen as rude, aggressive or violent by the larger culture, then it will cause them problems in the future.

As school is supposed to be preparation of life, shouldn't we be teaching the students how to interact with people in our common culture rather than forgiving them bad behavior because it is accepted in their insular community? And isn't it patronizing to hold other groups to the standards of society at large but forgive black students? Doesn't that say that we think they are incapable of learning our rules?

Once again, the multicultural attitude is not only patronizing, but harms those it claims to help.

-------------------------------

* For those who are offended by my use of "black" rather than the nom du jour "African-American", see my earlier comment on this topic.

As my regular readers know, I have something of a personal interest in the war on drugs. As I have developed a disorder which results in a lot of pain, I have begun to notice that, unintentionally, our current approach to the war on drugs often interferes with the medical communities ability or willingness to properly treat their patients.

Previously, I had a rather minimal interest in drug legalization. I thought it would result in a reduction of crime and free jail space for those who commit violent crimes, but it did not interest me. More than anything, I thought it was a foolish move on the part of the libertarians to emphasize it so much, as it turned off voters.

However, my new perspective has changed my mind. I now think this is a rather important issue, and not just on its own, but as a symptom of how government plans to protect us from ourselves often go awry.

So I am starting a new blog, Examining the War on Drugs, to allow me to comment more comprehensively on this topic without cluttering up this blog with so many articles on a single topic. I won't be approaching this from a dogmatic position, but will examine the arguments on both sides critically. I do have an opinion going into this, but I am willing to admit that I may be wrong, so I hope I can look at all sides fairly.

If any of you have an interest in the subject, please drop by and check out the new blog. It probably won't be updated quite as regularly as this one is, but I think it is probably impossible to maintain my usual manic pace of posting on two blogs if I ever plan to sleep again. Then again, there is plenty of material on all sides of the argument just begging to be debunked, so I will not lack subject matter.

That's it for the self-promotion. Back to more relevant topics.

I was thinking about an essay from a few weeks ago. Brent Bozell wrote about the newest incarnation of the Grand Theft Auto video game series, and the usual argument ensued. One side asserted that video games are harmless recreation while the other argued that violent video games lead to societal violence. Nothing new, though that won't stop me from commenting.

I have written on this before, but it was buried in an essay on several topics, so I feel I should give this subject the attention it deserves.

Let me start with a bit of disclosure. I have worked as a software developer, though mostly on medical information systems, financial software, networking and security applications, and fax firmware, never on video games. I do play video games, though my taste runs to tactical and strategy games more than the "first person shooters" which usually inspire these debates. I have played some FPS, mostly older games, but I have never played any of the Grand Theft Auto series. I will also say that, in those games with role playing elements which allow multiple choices, I find I have trouble taking the "evil" path. Perhaps it is some shortcoming of mine, but I empathize too much even with fictional characters to intentionally do them harm. Even when I know it's just a game.

Having said all that, let me begin.

First, I just cannot accept that video games "cause" violence in any meaningful sense, for the same reason I can't believe that pornography "causes" rapes. I know that many will show studies or anecdotal evidence showing a correlation between violent video games and violence, or between pornography and sex, but that makes the common mistake of confusing correlation and causation. By the same logic one could say that moving to Florida causes heart disease, as so many people who move to Florida have heart conditions.

Obviously, my example is foolish, but only because we recognize that there is a secondary factor explaining both events. Older people tend to move to Florida, and old age correlates with heart disease. But my argument is the same for video games and violence. We may not see it, but I believe that there is probably a personality trait which explains both. A person who is predisposed to violence against others will also likely be attracted to violent video games. Or a person who is predisposed to rape will also be attracted to pornography. One does not cause the other, they are both effects of an underlying, but unseen, cause.

But (and there always is a "but"), having said all that, while I do not think violent video games cause violence, they do contribute to a culture which accepts violence, and that makes acting on one's desires easier. Where, in the past, peer pressure would have discouraged a teen from committing acts of violence, the climate fostered by, among many other things, violent games, does not have such pressures, so the expression of violent tendencies is much easier than it once was. We have come to accept violence so readily, though we claim to deplore it, that we fail to make clear to the young that we expect them not to harm other people.

Then again, the video games themselves are such a small part of that culture, that even their role in making violence easier is somewhat negligible. Yes, they contribute to the mass media glorification of violence and criminality, but with so many movies, television shows, and popular music showing violence as commonplace, the role of video games should not be overstated. Were every bit of violence to be expunged from games tomorrow, I doubt it would make any difference. So, even in the limited context of facilitating the expression of violent tendencies, the guilt of video games is hard to establish.

Like so many things in our culture, violent games are not a cause or an effect, but a little of both. We have a culture which has become accepting of violence, of criminality, of outright sociopathy, and that is reflected in popular entertainment, including video games. But, once those games enter the public consciousness, they begin to shape society themselves, leading to even more acceptance of their violent, antisocial content. It is a sort of cultural feedback loop. Once an idea gains a degree of approval, it becomes a self-perpetuating idea, growing on its own.

So where did this glorification of violence and criminality come from? How did it enter our society?

Since at least the sixties we have been creating a culture which glorifies the "outlaw", the outsider, the rebel¹. At first this took the form of harmless escapist fantasies of independent "free spirits", but very quickly it was taken to its logical conclusion, and society began to worship the criminal, the amoral, the misanthrope, and the sociopath². And once we began to idolize the criminal we also began to approve of his world, to develop a mythology of violence. This led to a society which accepted violence, which led to violence permeating popular culture. But as popular culture guides society at large, we could not keep approving violent fantasy without seeing it seep out into reality. And the violence that we began to see around us fed back into that pop culture, driving it into ever more violent avenues.

But having said that, it is still not the culture which causes violence, even when society has become so defective. Society does not cause violence, but it does fail to provide restraints. Normally those with a tendency toward violence would feel pressure from the culture to restrain their urges. Those pressures are no longer there. So, what we see is not so much violence caused by society as a preview of what the world would be were society to break down entirely.

All of which is a rather round about way of saying that violent video games, even games which openly glorify crime, are not so much a cause of violence, as they are a symptom of the societal collapse which makes such violence easy.  There are always violent people among us. Truthfully, we are all prone to violence to one degree or another. But normally society exerts pressure upon us, keeping us from acting on those impulses. When society begins to break down, we no longer feel those pressures, and violence begins to rise. The violent video games we see are but one expression of that societal breakdown³. To a small degree they help to perpetuate that trend, but to call them a cause is to go too far⁴.

----------------------------------------------------------

1. Actually, this trend started much earlier, even the sixties' trend of outlaw worship was hardly new, it had existed since the juvenile delinquent films of the fifties. And the whole lot really arose during the romantic era. I have written before on the harm I believed the romantics caused, so I will not dwell on that here, I just wanted to point out that this idea may have become widespread durign the 1960's, but has a much older pedigree. (In fact, even the romantics may be too late, as Rousseau's view of the society as innately harmful really lies at the root of much of this distrust of tradition, and he predates the romantics by almost a century. But I plan to write on Rousseau's foolish ideas in another essay.)

2. An interesting example of the changes in society can be seen in the modern fascination with serial killers. This is not new, as the century or more of fascination with Jack the Ripper shows. However, where in the past it was always a fascination tinged with revulsion, a questioning of what could drive someone to do such evil, it has now become almost an admiration. If anyone doubts that, examine the ratings Dexter is receiving, and explain how a show about a sympathetic serial killer fits into a well adjusted society.

3. It is not so much the violence that is disturbing, as the tendency to accept outright evil as normal behavior which I see as troubling. Violence has been a part of entertainment throughout history. Look at a chess board, a deck of cards or any medieval poem. Or look at the scriptures of almost every religion. Violence itself is not inherently good or bad. What is troubling is the tendency to remove all morality. I do not think games have to serve as sermons on proper living, but the content of some games is dark enough that I worry about the designers. There is just something wrong with finding entertainment in beating up prostitutes and then driving over them in a car.

4. Obviously, the glorification of criminality, even including the Rousseau-like distrust of tradition, does not sufficiently explain all we see around us. The tendency to reduce punishment until it no longer deters crime, the non-judgmental tendencies of multiculturalism and self-esteem movements, racial separatist rhetoric and the hostile climate it creates, and many other factors all feed into this as well. To reduce it to one cause would be to oversimplify. But to mention every possible influence would take much more space than I have available.

I have figured out what the biggest difficulty for the economic conservative position is. We are telling the truth.

Politics is easy when you can lie, or when your theory is so removed from reality that you can promise people the moon.

Now, I am not saying the left is lying, maybe the really mean it when they make their promises. But still, as they are not constrained by reality, they can promise that if you turn all power over to the state all your worries will disappear. It is the same problem I had when arguing with the FairTax advocates, some of their theories were so overly optimistic that they could promise absolutely everything. It is hard to fight that sort of generosity, even if it is absolutely impossible in real life.

So while the left, and the protectionist right, and a few others, are promising a pair of Rolls Royces in the brand new four car garage, a mansion in the Hamptons, three boys for every girl and four girls for every boy, we are left offering the truth. It simply doesn't inspire to say "We will get the state out of your way so you can do it for yourself" when the other side is promising wish fulfillment which would make a genie blush.

As I see it, there is really only one alternative. Yes, we need to continue explaining how getting the state out of the way will enrich us all, how things only get done if you do it yourself, but more important than explaining our benefits, we really need to spend time showing why those absurd promises of government granted prosperity just won't work. It will make others knock us as "negative" and people will criticize us for "just shooting down other positions". But as long as we are fighting against fairy tales, we will never win. They can always promise more than we can. Before we can explain why the government should stay out of the way, we need to show that all those things others promise can really never be delivered, otherwise there is no reason for anyone to listen to a word we say. We are just the stingy nay-sayers standing in the way of cost-free government generosity.

Only once we dismiss the absurd theories filling the minds of the public can we really begin to show why our way is best.

I was reading an old Mark Steyn article, when it struck me that our government's "understanding" is often the source of social collapse. While Steyn's focus was mainly on Britain (and the US's) weak response to militant Islam and the harm done by that, I thought about all the various harms done by multiculturalism as a whole.

It is a dogma of the multiculturalist doctrine that all cutlures are "equal", and they take this to mean we cannot judge any action taken by another "culture". It sounds very high minded, but in reality it results in two things. First a patronizing attitude toward other cultures and races. Second a complete breakdown of order.

I will deal with the second first, as it is the most obvious. When there are riots because of a supposed "racial injustice", rather than breaking up the riot and arresting the instigators, our "understanding" causes us to bend over backwards not to offend the rioters. When Islam riots because of cartoons of Mohammad, newspaper editors, who are so vocal in ignoring any rules imposed by the government or western notions of propriety, are first in line to accept Islamic doctrines of propriety. When black teens beat another boy in Jena we have supposed adults telling us we cannot judge them as the racial climate drive them to it. And on and on.

Whenever another race or culture is involved, the multiculturalists insist that they be absolved of any blame, and that it is our responsibility not only not to judge them but to capitulate to whatever their demands. In short, multiculturalism insists that whenever a minority belief or practice conflicts with the majority, the minority must win. Which is nothing but a recipe for mob rule by whatever group can gather the most support while remaining a minority.

However, there is the other issue I mentioned. While the attitude grants almost limitless power to the minorities, it also is insulting to them. Westerners all came to this nation with different traditions, yet we all managed to assimilate. But according to the multiculturalists, non-Western immigrants, and members of racial minorities, simply are not to be held to Western standards. It is a patronizing attitude, implying as it does that minorities are incapable of observing the rules of the larger society and so must be forgiven. It is the attitude one holds towards children or the insane. To treat minorities this way is to say they are inferior to Western culture.

So, for all its claims of ethical superiority, it appears the multicultural attitude is every bit as condescending as the old doctrine of the white man's burden. In fact, the only difference between it and the old colonial attitude is that at least the old attitude imposed order, while multiculturalism manages to bring both condescension and chaos.

It is always interesting to see someone sabotaged by their own cleverness. And recently we have seen just that.

The Democrats, long convinced that proportional representation is more "just" than the old fashioned winner take all allocation of electors, delegate, whatever, set up a system of proportional delegates in the various states. Of course, since this would almost guarantee a tie in tight races, they knew the race would sometimes be decided by horse trading among state delegates. As they could not stand the thought of elected delegates deciding the nomination, they set up the system of "superdelegates". Normally superdelegates would be irrelevant. If the state races produced a clear winner, the superdelegates would just rubber stamp that outcome. But, in close races, there were more than enough superdelegates to decide the race one way or another, preventing the nomination from going to a brokered decision.

In their minds it was better than the old fashioned Republican system of winner-takes-all races*.

And now we see the consequences of that decision. Both parties started the primaries with contentious races, and no clear front runner. Yet the Republicans have a nominee who is already well along in his presidential campaign while the Democrats are still trapped in a nasty battle for the nomination. It is not clear, but it is possible that the candidate with the most delegates and the candidate with the most delegates and the candidate with the largest popular vote may be different people, precisely the situation this system was intended to avoid.

Worse still for the Democrats, as it has become clear that the race is not going to be decided in the popular elections,t he candidates have given up on trying to woo voters and are instead taking their case tot he superdelegates, trying to convince them they would be the best nominee. Unfortunately for the candidates, all these appeals to electability while ignoring the voters make each of them look less and less appealing to the voters, and make it ever less likely they will win in November.

And this system still is not avoiding the problem the Democrats hoped to eliminate with proportional representation and superdelegates. They had hoped proportional representation would make the system more "representative" and the superdelegates would eliminate any appearance of "back room deals", yet that is precisely what is happening. The Democrat voters do not feel better represented under the current system, instead they worry that the superdelegates will be selecting their nominee. The repeated threat of walkouts by supporters of the losing candidate show how little this system has done to increase voter confidence.

To be honest, I am a little disappointed in the Democratic primaries, as I am by everything about this election cycle. I would have preferred that both parties put up their best representative and the people decide between them. Instead we have a relatively weak Republican nominee being handed the White House by a combination of a defective nomination system and weak candidates. I am happy that neither Obama nor Clinton will be president, but I would ahve preferred an election that made clear that America has rejected the elft, rather than one where the loss can be blamed on so many irrelevant details.

If one good thing comes of this election, it will be the death of the idea that the system of assigning presidential electors needs to be changed. In recent times I have heard again and again that all states should go to a proportional assignment of presidential electors. I have argued against this over and over, as I think it would be a recipe for chaos**. Hopefully after this election, the Democrats will see my reason for saying so.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

* The proportional primaries predate 2000, but the supposedly "stolen" race of 2000 definitely cemented Democrat opposition to "winner takes all" races, as in a proportional system Gore would have done much better.

** Actually, I would not mind returning to the original system of electors being chosen on their own merits, then casting their vote as they see fit, rather than having committed electors. But given today's two party system, it would amount to the same thing as committed electors, so it would not be a meaningful reform so long as we have a two party system.

I am a bit puzzled by the Maryland legislature.

During the entire Ehrlich administration, the Republican governor suggested placing slot machines at horse racing tracks. However, we heard from the legislature over and over that gambling was immoral and would never be allowed. This ignored the fact that our state sponsors two lotteries a day, as well as having state sanctioned Keno games at bars and convenience stores. Not to mention that the horse tracks where the slots would be located already had a bit of gambling. (What did they think all those windows and little slips of paper are for?)

Now, we have a Democrat governor who is pushing for slot machines, and has even mentioned legalizing other forms of gambling, and the legislature has decided that there is no ethical problem at all. Apparently they were in error when they opposed gambling before, and on well reasoned consideration decided that they should correct their earlier error.

Either that, or they were simply obstructing a Republican governor for no good reason.

Actually, this would not be the first time. Maryland has done a lot of creative legislation. During the reign of our former Demcorat governor they "deregulated" electricity. Well, except that they gave a ten year subsidy to BGE that supplied power to all the Democrat rich central parts of the state, in exchange for BGE not raising rates. So, for ten years the center of the state paid below market prices, which also prevented any real competition, as the subsidized BGE rates meant it could undercut any potential competitor. Ten years later, prices reverted to market levels, a 72% jump, and who got the blame? The then current Republican governor and "deregulation", despite the fact that the whole problem was that there was NO real deregulation.

And when that Republican governor managed to make a deal with BGE to phase in the increases more slowly and creates some sort of financing scheme for consumers to defer the rate hikes, the legislature not only shot it down, but sued to have the governor's public service commission replaced with a commission of their choosing. Why? They claimed his deal was not good enough, but the one they forced on BGE seemed pretty much the same. It seems that their real goal in the whole affair was not so much to get a good deal, or even to  to wrest control of an executive committee from a detested Republican governor, but simply to try to embarrass the first Republican to hold statewide office in Maryland in two and a half decades.

And, saddest of all, the media reported all of this as if  the Democrats' claims were true. Not one of the local stations bothered to ask about the BGE subsidies, the fact that the law had been changed ten years before,  that the final agreement was not substantially different from the "unacceptable" one the governor made, nothing. They just rubber stamped the Democrat spin. Likewise, now they are not even mentioning that the legislature has completely reversed their position in four years. And it is not as if new blood has entered the legislature. Maryland seats are for life. These are the same people who swore Maryland would never have slots because gambling was unethical.

And yet people ask me how I can say the media is biased? I wonder how anyone can claim otherwise.

Since I wrote on eliminating public libraries, I suppose it is now time to write about education in general. I expect that I will get more disagreement on this than on anything else, as my ideas differ a great deal fromt he norm. Still, I have to say what I think is true, whether or not anyone agrees.

That public education is broken, no one can argue. We spend more on students in public schools than many private schools do, yet we get much worse results. Many public schools produce illiterate children, and event he best of public schools rarely do as well as private schools. Public schools are permeated with violence, with drugs, and all the other ills of society at large. And on top of all that, the public schools have become a battle ground of ideologies. Evolution versus Intelligent Design. Various views of sex education. Indoctrination on a number of topics. School prayer. All of these have become prizes in a continuing tug of war over who will control our public schools.

After saying that, most essays would launch into a list of all the causes. The teachers' unions, the excessive bureaucracy, the lack of ability to select students, the inability to expel troublesome student, the inability to fire bad teachers, lack of accountability, spending more time on social experiments than education, and on and on. They would then follow with a list of solutions. Vouchers, magnet schools, school choice, testing, accountability, and so on. But such lists are worthless. The real problem is not any of these things. They are only symptoms. The real answer is right before our eyes, but we have been looking in the wrong place.

The solution to failing public schools is to eliminate public education.

The reasons for this are very simple. Private schools have always out performed public schools. You can choose a private school which shares your values. You have a greater say in what a private school teaches. If you don't like your private school, you can go to another. All the ills of public schools are  solved quite simply by moving to an entirely private educational system.

Now, having said that, I will move to the much harder part of my argument, dismissing all of those arguments that will be raised against my plan.

First, the most obvious argument is that if we eliminate public schools, many students will receive no education. But that is simply absurd. Private education is not as expensive per student as public, so all those whoa re taxed to pay for public education would end up with enough money to educated their child with some left over.

But, then we are left with the poor. Which is the reason conservatives have traditional sponsored various "voucher" schemes. It is a backdoor way to move to all private schools while not seeming "insensitive". On the other hand, I am not a politician, so I can say it is not the government's job. If enough people want poor kids to go to school, then they can fund scholarships. Why do they need to be compelled by the state to do good? And if no one wants to fund scholarships, then why should the state be able to make them pay for scholarships they would not otherwise fund?

Of course, the truth of the matter is, even with our confiscatory taxation, many poor children get scholarships to Catholic and other schools, so without that taxation even more money would be available. I am sure many other scholarships would be available. In addition, with such a demand for private schools, price competition would force tuitions downward, making existing scholarships go farther. It is possible some might not get an education, but, then again, even though they are in school today, many still are not getting an education.

Another objection is that, without state oversight, schools would not teach children "properly".

This is just absurd. It assumes that there is "a proper education", which in itself is just wrong. There are many ways to educate children, and only a government bureaucrat would think there is one right way. Education is intended to prepare students for certain futures, but there is no one right future. If some parents think bible study is more important than calculus, who are we to tell them they are wrong? If ISKCON* wants to emphasize meditation and scriptures over other topics, that is their right. Likewise, if another parent wants to emphasize Spanish over English, that too is his right. It is the choice of the parents, not of the state, what their children should learn. So the fear over not "being taught right" is invalid, as it assumes there is a proper measure of education outside of the desires of the parents.

Then there is the fear that parents might not educate their children at all. But that is happening now, so I don't see how my change really makes this any worse. Yes, there are coercive truancy laws, but in many cities they are barely enforced. And, in all honesty, if parents do not care whether their kids attend school, even if those children are kept trapped in a classroom, I doubt they will learn much. If your home environment tells you education is useless, whether you are forced into school or not, you just won't learn. All the laws in the world will not change that.

I am sure there are other objections, but I will deal with those as they are raised in comments. For now let me close with a theoretical and a pragmatic argument.

Theoretically, as I will show in an essay I am finishing this weekend, the state simply has no place in education. The state exists to protect us from force, fraud and theft, and to provide civil courts to settle disputes. Education is a private enterprise, which is outside of the state's scope. Using the state to educate is simply an inefficient way to approach the problem.

Which leads to my pragmatic argument. The state is simply too inefficient. Because of the bureaucratic structure, required of non-profit organizations, the state piles huge layers of administration on top of everything. This leads to massive overhead, which private schools manage to avoid. It is why superior private education still costs much less per pupil than inferior public education.

In addition, by requiring that education be universal, we make sure that students with no interest in learning are still kept in class. Worse still, since they are "troubled" they end up stuck in class with others who simply have trouble learning, who are hurt most by their disruptions. If they could be expelled until they learned the value of education (if they ever do) and returned, other students would benefit. But public education makes that impossible. Private education does not.

Finally, and most importantly, private education removes all those nasty debates that arise over education. If you favor intelligent design, find a school teaching ID. If you want no sex education, find a school without it. But if you favor evolution and sex ed, you can find those too. Once we remove public education, there is no more reason to fight. Those with a set of beliefs they want taught can find a school teaching those beliefs, or even start their own. Without public money involved, the reason for fighting is over. As with all other matters where the state has involved itself in issues it should leave alone, it is only the intrusion of the state and public money which make public education such a contentious issue. Once we remove the state and its money from the equation, there is no reason to argue.

And as an added benefit, our children will be much better educated as well.

-----------------------------------------------

* International Society for Krishna Consciousness aka the Hare Krishnas. In reality my description is a bit of an exaggeration. My wife attended an ISKCON school to observe for a college course, so they always come to mind as a good example of a non-traditional educational establishment.

------------------------------------------------

DISCLOSURE

I attended private school form first through tenth grades, and public school in kindergarten and for half of eleventh grade before I dropped out.  I am not wealthy, my parents worked a bit extra to afford my education.

My mother also currently teaches at a private school. She has taught at both private and public schools (mostly private in recent years) for over forty years.

If any one topic in the law has been the subject of more confusion than the "right to die", I have yet to find it.

The traditional legal view of suicide was simple, if unrealistic. The law viewed life as an absolute good, so that anyone choosing to die was assumed incompetent. Thus, there was no circumstance under which one could choose to commit suicide. By choosing suicide, one was proving himself incompetent, and thus the choice was always invalid. And since one could not choose to commit suicide, then no one could assist a suicide either. It had the benefit of simplicity, but, especially to modern eyes, it seems to poorly fit observed reality.

And those modern eyes were largely responsible for the modern changes in the view of, if not always the laws concerning, suicide. To the modern mind a number of circumstances would render suicide a rational choice, and thus it is unsound to assume the decision to commit suicide a rational one. Likewise, since the modern view is that suicide is, in some places it would be permissible for someone to provide assistance to a person committing suicide.

I will admit to being modern enough that I can agree that there are circumstances in which I would consider suicide a rational choice. But that does not change my opinion that the modern trend in thinking has some serious implications, and some which are rather dangerous.

The first problem with the modern view of suicide is that it conflicts with some of the treasured beliefs of the modern therapeutic society*. It has become a central belief of modern mental health practices that those who are a danger to themselves can be coercively detained for treatment. However, if we recognize that suicide can be a valid choice in some circumstances, how do we draw the line between justifiable suicide and "danger to themselves"? Under the old definition this was easy, all who wanted to commit suicide were a danger to themselves, but if suicide is allowable, this is not so. If a man has cancer, is suicide justifiable? How about if it isn't terminal? Or what about a debilitating disease? How about one that just disfigures? Or only causes fatigue?

The problem is what constitutes a "life not worth living" is very subjective. One person may accept quadriplegia, another may not. And if we accept that, then what about paraplegia? How about pain in both legs? If we allow one and exclude another, where do we draw that line? What constitutes a situation where suicide is rational and what constitutes an irrational suicide? Most will agree that ALS probably justifies suicide and burnt toast at breakfast probably does not, but between those two, a lot of ground exists. And even then, not every person facing ALS chooses suicide. Lou Gehrig himself did not, nor did Steven Hawking, so even what seems intolerable to the public at large is not intolerable to everyone.

All of which make sit impossible to say, based on fixed criteria, when suicide is rational and when it is not.

And if the question of rationality makes a shambles of public mental health laws, adding the subject of assisted suicide makes an equal shambles of criminal law.

Advocates of assisted suicide often act as if  there could never be a legal problem. They seem to think that requiring some sort of proof is enough to avoid any accusations of murder. However, anyone who has been involved in a contested inheritance can tell these advocates that it is not that simple. Elderly people who are in the care of relatives can often be induced to sign documents or even say things against their own interest. It would not be that difficult for a caretaker who wishes to hurry his inheritance to persuade an elderly person to sign a fictitious "advance directive" before helping them depart this vale of tears.

Nor is that the only problem. Once we enter the realm of assisted suicide, we run into problems of second thoughts. A person committing suicide, who later changes their mind, can always stop their own actions. Ont he other hand, once they have enlisted a confederate, any second thoughts can be ignored. It is quite possible a statement signed two years ago no longer applies, but the person assisting will be unable to know that. And as many of those being assisted ar eno longer capable of making their will known, this sort of problem will arise. It may not be a common problem, but it does exist.

Having said all that, I have no easy answers. Given our current environment, these problems are inevitable unless we retain the traditional rules calling all suicide irrational. Any other position creates too many conflicts with mental health laws. But, if we do allow suicide, I still think the problems of disguised murders simply makes it unconscionable to allow assisted suicide**. Even if require a videotaped statement, it is still possible that someone was coerced, cajoled, or, in the case of the senile and demented, simply tricked into making such a statement. Whether or not we allow suicides, assisted suicide makes it too easy for the greedy caretaker to hasten the demise of a wealthy relative or a harried family member from relieving themselves of an unwelcome burden.

-------------------------------------------------

* As I do not believe in involuntary commitment, I have no real objection to this particular problem raised by recognizing suicide. On the other hand, I am sure this is a major problem for many pushing the right to die, as they are also often the same individuals who advocate for more mental health assistance from the state.

** Ideally I would end the concept of involuntary commitment, actually end all legal concept of insanity. Those who are "insane" and commit crimes would go to jail, those who are just "insane" would be free to go about their business like anyone else. But as this will create too many comments on this topic and distract from my main subject, I am putting this in a footnote. Perhaps later I will write on the idea of removing the legal concept of insanity.

I was reading Bozell's recent article on the ALA and their implicit censorship, and I have to admit that both sides have an argument. Bozell is right that, while decrying censorship, the ALA itself is showing a willingness to censor books that are intolerant of homosexuality. At the same time the ALA has a point, as the libraries serve a population including homosexuals, so they cannot exclude that view either.

As I said before, when both sides are right, but their solutions are mutually contradictory, that is an indication that we may be asking the wrong question.

The problem is with public libraries in general. A public library, unless it is going to buy an equal number of every book ever published, will, of necessity, include and exclude certain books. And the choice of which books to stock, and in which quantities, will always open the libraries to charges of bias, censorship, and other similar accusations. No matter how broad the coalition of groups which come together to select the library contents, some other group will feel their views were not represented. It is inevitable.

Which points out the central problem, government involvement in inappropriate areas.

Libraries are, foremost, repositories of ideas. And, if there is one thing our Constitution makes clear, the government should stay out of the marketplace of ideas. Any government meddling inevitably causes some groups to be favored and other excluded. Even if entered into with the best intentions, even if they attempt to be even handed and fair, the government will always end up favoring some ideas and excluding others. As the government is supposed to serve and represent all people, it cannot choose to exclude ideas, or favor ideas, so it is failing in its mission when it meddles in the realm of ideas. The solution is not, as both Bozell and the ALA suggest, from opposite viewpoints, to adjust that meddling to fit our own views, but to end that meddling entirely, by taking the state out of the library business.

I know a lot of readers will disagree with me. They think of libraries as noble institutions bringing books to kids and adults who can't afford them. But my argument is, yes they are, but they are just as noble when funded by private foundations, rather than tax dollars. And, when funded with tax dollars, they are harmful in a way private libraries would not be.

And before someone tells me private libraries are not possible, I would ask them to visit Batlimore and go to the Enoch Pratt Free Library.  Yes, the Pratt is a bit of strange hybrid, as it is owned by the city, and in 1964 it got funding under yet another LBJ great society program, but it was for much of its life privately funded by a grant. So the idea that private libraries are impossible is just not true.

Yes, we are used to public libraries, and we think of them as noble, but many people are used to social security and think of that as noble too. For that matter, in the USSR many thought of communism as noble and necessary. Just because we are used to doing things through the state does not mean we must do them so, or that it is even the best choice.

As long as we have public libraries, we will have controversies over the state's meddling in ideas.

 Earlier, when McCain started slipping back into his "maverick" persona, I said that he would end up moving back to the right, and it appears I was correct. Quite some time ago, I argued that if McCain has any hope of a second term, he would need to appease the conservative base, and such considerations would end up driving him rightward. A Time article I saw today has convinced me McCain has realized this as well.

I will admit, some centerpieces of the McCain campaign have not filled me with confidence. He still appears to favor amnesty, and he has bought into the AGW boondoggle. On the other hand, he has in recent days been making much less noise about these and more about lower taxes and reduced regulation. Admittedly, what he says is not always the best way to judge a politician, but that he is moving his rhetoric to the right is a hopeful sign.

I will be the first to admit that I have no idea where McCain's true beliefs lie. His current belief in the free market and growing the economy to end poverty may be an act put on to solidify the conservative base and ensure a nomination for a second term. On the other hand, I have no reason to believe his "maverick" persona is any more authentic. As he gets such a favorable media reception when he plays against media expectations of Republicans, he may be adopting the "maverick" persona for ulterior motives as well.

Given that there is no way to know what McCain really believes, we have to content ourselves with assumptions about what he will do. And, in reality, that is more important anyway. I don't care what he believes, just what he does. If Hillary Clinton won the presidency and governed as the second coming of Ayn Rand, I would vote for her, despite her true beliefs. Actions are what matters, and beliefs matter only to the degree they influence actions. As McCain, like many politicians, seems perfectly willing to play whatever role is most beneficial, his real beliefs don't matter so much as what role he plans to adopt.

And, as his recent shift shows, McCain seems to be committing himself to the conservative role.

I know some will disagree and argue that he will play conservative and then rule form the center or left, but I don't think so.

First, this is not the first time he has embraced the conservative positions. He adopted more right leaning positions on the nevironment, energy, and the war right after securing the nomination. Admittedly, he immediately reverted to his old positions on the environment, and later moved left on the economy, but I think that makes his recent change all the more important. He tried reverting to a populist economic platform, and for whatever reason, has decided it won't work. Since he tried campaigning from the center-left and opted to abandon that course, I think it shows he has become convinced the ruling from the right is most beneficial to him. So it seems unlikely he will be moving back to the left any time soon.

And even if he wanted to move left, there are several impediments. Having campaigned on the right, a sudden shift to the elft will cause a lot of voter dissatisfaction, not just with him, but with the party. Obviously, this will only matter to him personally until he has secured the nomination for his second term, but it will also effect congressional elections after that. And if his actions might hurt congressional reelection chances, trust me the congress will pressure him to reconsider. And no president who hopes to get anything done can afford to ignore congressional pressure forever.

Now, none of this constitutes a guarantee, and it is rather sad that we have to resort to reading tea leaves to figure out what our candidate would do, but that is what we have this election, like it or not. Whether or not we like any of the candidates, one of them will end up being sworn in in January. So, we have to pick the best of the lot and run with him.

And, for reasons I explained over and over again, I still think McCain will be preferable to the other possibilities. Just on supreme court nominations, there is no comparison between McCain and Obama. And, truthg be told, those nominations will mean much more than a presidency will, and for much longer. Of course, a bad president can do a lot of damage, but a bad justice can do still more.

So, even should my predictions prove wrong, I think on justices alone, McCain would be the clear choice, but, because I think he will feel pressure to move right, I am actually feeling a bit more hopeful about the next four years. I doubt that I will agree with every presidential policy in the next administration, but I am no longer worry that I will agree with none of them.

I can't be the only one who thinks the current talks between Burma and the US are a bit absurd.

Whether or not you think the government should be giving tax payer's money away in foreign aid, whether or not you think it is the duty of the United States to provide aid to other nations during a disaster, does anyone really think it is the responsibility of our government to convince other nations to take aid they don't want?

I know politicians are eager to spend my tax dollars, but once Burma/Myanmar refused US aid, that should have been the end of it. Surely there are other sinkholes into which they could throw my money without the need of pleading with the dictators of Burma to take our money.

Admittedly, my views are on the extreme end of the spectrum. I didn't think it was the role of the federal government to help during Katrina, so I certainly don't think a cyclone in another nation is our concern, but that is not my point here. Even if we assume that it is the proper function of government to provide aid tot he citizens of foreign nations when a disaster strikes, I think once that nation has rejected the aid we offer, our obligation ends there.

Yes, the citizens may want aid and are only being denied it due to their oppressive government, but that is not our concern. if they choose to live under their current government, and do not take any steps to throw them out, then they must accept the consequences. And since those who most strongly demand aid for other nations are usually those who most vocally tell me we cannot be "the world's policeman", then how do they propose that we get this aid to people against the will of their government? Are we going to overthrow Burma's government to force our aid on them? Other than that, there is no real option.

There is something unseemly in the most powerful nation on Earth pleading with petty dictators, asking them to please accept our money.

I am surprised it has taken me this long to get around tot he subject of windfall profits, but apparently it has.

When I hear politicians talk about the oil companies it seems they inhabit some other world than I do. They describe the oil companies as if they were being run by some sort of evil super villain form a James Bond film. They are somehow plotting to garner "windfall profits" and taking "unfair advantage" of consumers.

For the moment, let us ignore that in terms of profits per gallon, Starbuck's makes thousands of times what the oil companies do. Let us also ignore the fact that the reason oil companies earn profits is that that are providing an essential service to consumers. And let us ignore that their "obscene" profits are nowhere near the best in the market, that, over the long term, oil companies fall a bit below average in terms of earnings.  And let us ignore that those who want to seize "windfall profits" certainly aren't handing back those earning when companies have losing years.

Even ignoring all of that, there is still something very disturbing about the picture politicians paint. They forget who owns a company.

Of course, it is easy to see why.  When they are denouncing CEOs and running down the corporations they want to tax out of existence, politicians act as if CEOs and boards of directors actually own companies. They pretend that somehow these "windfall profits" go directly to these people. I have already written about how absurd it is to complain about CEO salaries, so I will leave that alone for now, but I do have to say that their understanding of corporate ownership is absolutely incorrect.

When the government wants to seize "windfall profits", out of whose pockets does that money come? The CEO? The board members? Hardly. It comes out of the payments made on stocks. It comes out of dividends. It comes out of money that would go to pensioners, people with 401k's or 403b's.These "windfall profits", which the government finds so abhorrent, would normally go to average Americans who were sensible enough to invest their money. But now, because of rhetorical flourishes and the cultivation of envy, that money will go into the government coffers instead of going to those who try to plan for their future.

Remember that when they say we need social security because people won't plan for retirement. The problem isn't lack of planning, we suffer because, no matter how sound our planning, some politician is likely to come along and seize our money. Thanks to their ability to chum the populist waters, they can thwart our plans, leaving us to rely on the dole for the elderly they call social security "insurance".