Originally posted from 12-28-03 to 01-04-04
Trolling for Government Programs
by Lady Liberty

One of the things that makes the Internet both helpful and enjoyable is the ability to "talk" with those with whom you've got something in common. Like many people, I'm a member of several e-mail groups for just that reason. But, just as we've all had to learn to deal with "spam" if we want the convenience of e-mail, both e-mail and news groups have had to learn to deal with "trolls" (for those of you who don't know, "spam" is junk e-mail, and "trolls" are those in groups who exist almost solely to say things the majority of the group will find highly objectionable and, if the troll is really lucky, even incendiary).

Of course, there are those rare and wonderful occasions when a piece of spam you receive in your in box proves to be an advertisement for a smokin' deal on exactly the thing you've been needing or wanting. In much the same way, there's the occasional instance where a troll has a valid point. Even scarcer are those times the troll has a valid point that actually tempts you to backtrack from your own position, even one which you know is right. Recently, I've been exposed to that very situation. Though I'll never admit it to the e-mail group, I thought I'd share my feelings - in confidence, mind you! - here.

There are many libertarian-leaning e-mail groups and news groups on the Internet, a few of which I personally frequent. It doesn't matter which specific group I'm talking about here, because it could be happening on any of them. And what's happening is this: there's a troll who insists that libertarian ideas aren't good ideas because some people aren't smart enough, responsible enough, or motivated enough to make it through life otherwise. Cutting to the chase, we may as well just admit right here and now that the troll has a point. And it doesn't take much more of a stretch to think that there needs to be something - some program, some group, some something - to save these people from themselves.

Certainly, the troll says, we wouldn't wish for children to be homeless simply because their parents were too lazy to work, or for elderly people to live on cat food because Social Security didn't exist to buy them groceries. Would we? Of course, no one in this group - or, I suspect, anywhere else - actually wishes children to be tossed out on the street or senior citizens to starve. The majority of group members have been very reasonably responding to the troll with notions of private charities, churches, and assistance from family members not in such dire straits as being a better solution than government. But, says the troll, can any of these organizations handle the vast numbers of those too stupid, too irresponsible, and too lazy to make it on their own? The answer to that question, whether the group members are inclined to readily admit it or not, is: probably not.

The simplest solution is to fix the problem entirely rather than treating the symptoms via government or private organization intervention. And as far as I can see, the real problem isn't the fact that these people apparently need help. It's that the "help" they're given is creating more people like them.

Consider this: I know that there are a lot of people out there who aren't as smart as I am (there are plenty out there who are smarter than I am, too, but let's leave that aside for the moment because I'm making a point). Accordingly, they make some stupid choices and end up in difficult circumstances because of those choices. It probably would have been better for them if I had been given the authority to choose on their behalf. But, like a small child learns to walk only by falling down, or as a pet learns a trick by anticipating a treat as a reward, stupid choices teach lessons and good choices offer rewards. How long do you suppose it would take a toddler to learn to walk if mommy carried it everywhere so that it couldn't fall? And what would happen to a dog who never received praise or a biscuit for executing that new trick?

I don't mean to compare the homeless with small children, or the elderly with a clever collie. In fact, I deliberately picked two things with brain power substantially less than that of even a below-average adult human being. Why? If a kid and a collie can learn, why not somebody else? More importantly, if a kid and a collie can be prevented or discouraged from learning, wouldn't it be wrong for us to do such a thing, even if our intentions were good or, at worst, ambivalent?

By offering government welfare programs, we don't encourage people to provide for themselves. In fact, we offer a larger reward to those who do nothing on their own behalf than we do those who at least make an effort to improve their lot in life (I'm personally aware of more than a few people who only needed a little help to supplement their incomes, and instead were told they had to quit their jobs to qualify). Social Security may have had good intentions at its inception, but now it has largely enslaved the work force toward supporting retirees. They were, in turn, themselves robbed of enough money for Social Security that they had far less to invest in more successful private ventures. Worst of all, the promises made by Social Security don't bear much fruit (checks are subsistence wages at best) while they impressed upon many who didn't know better that there was no need to save any additional funds for their golden years.

The troll is right: some people aren't motivated, and some people aren't too smart. But the troll is wrong about the government being the entity to take care of the problem. It's the government that's perpetuating the problem! Welfare should be eliminated in its entirety, and people willing to work should be able to do so without penalties from the government (there are entry level jobs widely available for those willing to start at the bottom and work their way up). Social Security should be phased out, and people permitted to plan their own retirements. Will some lazy people still refuse to get a job? Sure. Will some not-so-smart people fail to plan for old age and end up in poverty accordingly? Almost certainly. But those numbers will be far smaller than those of today, and would be within the capabilities of private organizations. As a bonus, they'll also serve as object lessons for those not-so-motivated and not-so-smart folks on the sidelines awaiting their turn to make bad decisions of their own.

If I told the troll all this, I don't think my arguments would persuade him or her because that's one mind that's already clearly made up. But they've persuaded me not to be tempted by the notion that I'm smarter or better qualified to make decisions on someone else's behalf than they are. It may be true in some instances, but it's also cruel to prevent someone else from learning and thus becoming more than they would have been without the experience. Good intentions are enough of a justification for some, but all the good intentions in the world won't make people learn to help themselves. Negative consequences however, are usually very successful at doing so, albeit often painful.

Our pesky group troll is also, by the way, quite fond of government schools. By the same token, the troll seems unable to understand how it is that so many people out there aren't capable of doing the math on their own investments, or who haven't the skills necessary to get even some minimum wage jobs. I'd love to explain to the troll that this is yet another example of a government solution proving to be the problem, but I'm in too much pain. The irony is killing me.

Originally posted from 10-12-03 to 10-21-03
Having Our Cake
by Lady Liberty

I don't know how it is where you live, but as this election cycle approaches in my town, much of the talk is of taxes. The city and the local school system both want more money. Various local taxpayer funded programs say they're getting the state and federal dollars to which they're entitled, but they'd like to be entitled to more. Meanwhile, the average citizen is facing a ballot offering choices between politicians who favor higher taxes and those who think job cuts are both necessary and inevitable, as well as issues that threaten program reductions if tax levies aren't approved.

The emphasis on taxes this year isn't unusual, at least not here. The city has wanted more tax dollars for years. Sometimes its efforts are successful. Other times, the pleas for money have fallen on deaf ears. There are two reasons a ballot involving taxation is typically defeated: the citizens think their taxes are already too high, or they think the entity getting the tax dollars isn't spending them wisely. Then, of course, there's the "necessity" factor. For example, over the course of the last decade, city residents have voted to fund a new fire station and to renovate the public library. They've turned down, however, the notion of pay raises for city commissioners.

In my state, the primary method of school funding is property taxes. Levies are made against the value of a property, and property owners pay up to support local schools. These levies expire regularly and must be renewed by vote. Renewal levies, which involve no real change in property taxes (unless property is revalued), are usually passed. But this year, the local school system is asking for a new levy. Officials say that property tax valuations aren't keeping up with inflation and that, if the money isn't ponied up, certain positions and programs will have to be cut.

This request for more money is being made by a school system with an academic record that's less than impressive. In fact, students in the district scored so poorly on state tests that authorities have mandated certain actions be taken to improve test scores, and the school is being watched closely. While acknowledging some shortcomings, officials with the school system are quick to point out that the district also has a relatively good athletic program and an award-winning music program.

Members of the public do offer strong support for football games, and they're justifiably proud of some truly stellar musical performances. But the schools are first supposed to educate, and the ones here all too frequently aren't, at least not at any kind of adequate level. So what's the future of the levy? It's hard to say because locals have usually supported the schools without asking too many questions. But this could prove to be subject to reason-for-defeat number two: the entity getting the tax dollars isn't spending them wisely.

Recently, city officials came up with a creative solution to making more money. They instituted a very specific tax that would generate a significant income. The problem is that the tax appears to have been focused on a single business in town, and that business is none to happy about being hit for taxes that don't seem to apply to anybody else. Just to prove the business wasn't targeted, city officials pointed out that a few other entities would also be subject to the tax based on certain criteria. In the end, it turns out the short-of-funding schools are subject to the tax, and so the schools have signed on with the managers of the business to oppose the city's actions. Between a lawsuit it could very well lose and legal fees it is most certainly paying, the city could easily spend far more money than the tax would have generated. Now to emphasize the money crunch, city leaders are threatening job cuts if more money isn't forthcoming. Will the public respond with more money? Maybe. Or maybe not. After all, reason-for-defeat number one is a good one: citizens think their taxes are already too high.

Regardless of the rationale for or against higher taxes, the bottom line is usually (and if it isn't, it should be!) the reason-for-defeat that trumps all others: necessity.

Are schools necessary? Yes. But educating children at a level that will make them functional adults in the real world, or that will prepare them for college, is the extent of that necessity. Everything else is icing on the cake. And if you can't afford the fancy dessert, you're just going to have to settle for the cake as it is. Yes, the choirs are amazing, and the sporting events are a lot of fun. But when the cake itself needs some work, any frosting money is better spent improving the cake recipe, not on creating candy flower decorations. That's something the many who favor school voucher programs already know (although I've not heard that possibility mentioned locally). If more schools don't want to face that particular crisis, they're going to have to learn - and quickly! - how to make a better tasting cake. Frankly, taking a page out of the book from private and/or religious schools might not be a bad idea because they're managing to educate students better than the public schools, and in many cases, they're doing it for the same or an even lesser amount of money per student.

What about the city? Well, the city has won awards for its landscaping. And truth be told, I'm impressed virtually every time I see some of the parks. But are all those flowers, planted in intricate designs, necessary? Are the exotic plants (ones that are moved indoors as the weather requires and then potted outdoors again when summer returns) really necessary? Is a very expensive study into the feasibility and design of a proposed project (one that we're now told is outdated and will need to be repeated) really necessary? Are extended summer programs for kids, wonderful as they are, a true necessity?

The point I'm actually trying to make is a relatively simple one, and it applies to public entities of all sizes, from small municipalities all the way to the administrative behemoth in Washington, DC. Consider, for a moment, what you and I do when we run short of money. Instead of steak, we buy hamburger. Instead of going to the movies, we watch TV. Instead of taking an exotic vacation, we go camping in a State Park. We don't eliminate entirely the services we offer to our household. We just modify them, offer alternatives, or hold off on them until they're once again affordable.

Irresponsible people don't think that way. They'll take out a second mortgage, or they'll run their credit cards up to the limit. Eventually, when the irresponsible person gets in over his or her head, the bank stops approving credit increases and starts demanding payments. Much like that irresponsible man or woman with a credit card, the vast majority of government entities just keep spending money. So what should be done about that?

The best way to avoid getting into such a hole is not to spend money we don't have. Most of us have already learned that lesson, some of us more painfully than others. So yes, I'm well aware it could hurt a little. But as one member of the community effectively making up the bank, I'm about done approving credit increases. Now all we have to do is keep an eye on officials to make sure that the cake part of the budgets remain intact while only the icing is scraped away. That's something that's easier said than done when so many in government have grown to have quite a sweet tooth.

Originally posted from 08-03-03 to 08-10-03
For Shame
by Lady Liberty

There is no shortage of problems, both political and societal, in America today. Coincidentally, there's no shortage of solutions. Unfortunately, many of those solutions present a double threat. They wouldn't solve the problem, but they will increase the scope of the biggest problem of all: intrusive government intervention. I'm a firm believer in the idea that, no matter how diverse the problem, there's really only one root solution, and that's the exercise of personal responsibility.

Do you think our legal system is in need of tort reform? We wouldn't need it if the people hurt through their own stupidity would admit their mistakes and move on, making a special notation of the fact that sometimes stupidity extracts a higher price than might otherwise be considered just. How about making public schools a place where children are actually educated? It would happen if parents took the personal responsibility to instill a little of the same in their kids (it would also help a great deal of the NEA was drastically overhauled or disbanded, but that's the topic of an essay unto itself). And those groups that claim to fight solely for the good of those exceedingly few children who are killed in firearms accidents each year (since there are more who drown in family pools, I sometimes wonder why the groups don't fight to make those illegal instead) would find themselves out of excuses if a few irresponsible gun owners would grow into a little - let's say it all together now! - personal responsibility.

Personal responsibility obviously requires that people learn that actions have consequences. We've discussed that on these pages before where I've talked at length about everything from spankings to jail time. But perhaps the ultimate reward for personal responsibility is pride, and the natural punishment - pride's polar opposite - is shame.

In recent years, we've been working hard in our public schools and in many homes to eliminate all forms of punishment. Ironically, as schools wax poetic about self esteem, they've been working just as hard to eliminate pride by suggesting games should have no winners (so that those who don't win won't feel like losers) and that academics shouldn't be singled out for praise (so that those who aren't selected class valedictorian don't feel dumb). But without accomplishment, there's no goal and certainly no pride in reaching the goal. Without shame, there's no incentive to try harder or try again.

Today we talk of welfare reform in a system that's financially out of control. Past administrations have limited the time an individual or a family can remain on welfare, and have tightened up some requirements for remaining on public assistance. All of this is a relatively new problem. Some 40 or 50 years ago, large numbers of people on welfare wasn't the issue that it is today. Why not? Because people were ashamed to need the help. They took it because they had to, but they worked like crazy to pull themselves out of the financial hole they'd found themselves in. There was a perception that only the lazy or the irresponsible needed such aid, and no one wanted to appear lazy or irresponsible!

Given the large numbers of able-bodied Americans receiving welfare checks today, and the irresponsible sex that leads to still more hungry mouths to feed in families that can't afford to feed the mouths they've already got, it's clear that there's little shame attached to getting a government check any more. In fact, there are people who are up in arms that they've actually got to take any responsibility whatsoever for continuing to receive their monthly stipend! Oh, there are a few people out there who use welfare as intended - a hand up rather than a hand out - but in the main, welfare has become more a lifestyle than a temporary circumstance.

There's one ray of hope that at least something somewhere is working the way it should, and that's in the federal food stamp program. Unfortunately, the decreasing numbers of those taking advantage of federal food stamp programs has resulted in a reaction from government officials that's quite surprising given the supposed attitude toward welfare reform. It seems that, rather than decreasing the food stamp budget, officials would rather spend money to increase the number of people on food stamps.

In the state of Wisconsin, which led the nation in many areas of welfare reform a few years ago, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has reported that state welfare officials actually spent $10,000 commissioning an ad agency to create a new name for the food stamp program. It seems the officials think the explanation for decreasing numbers of people needing the aid is that the words "food stamps" might have some sort of a stigma, and that people might be ashamed to ask for them. If that's true, then that's actually a good thing!

Oh, it's important to recognize that any one of us might, though any one of a variety of emergency circumstances, find ourselves broke and in need of some temporary help. And whether we get that help from our friends and families, our churches, or our government is immaterial and no cause for shame. But the idea of formal welfare programs is to get people back on their feet, not to carry them. If shame serves as a motivator - and make no mistake, it does - isn't that a good thing? Even better, seeing as how both pride and shame are indicative of personal responsibility, we should be dancing in the streets celebrating an apparent upsurge in that healthy trait!

During the course of the Reagan administration, some in the federal government finally remembered how the welfare system was intended to work and began to institute some reforms. It's taken some years, but according to the government's own statistics (available on the US Department of Agriculture FAQ page), the food stamp program is now one of those seeing some significant declines in use. For example, in 1990, 20.1 million people were on food stamps, and by 1995, that number had increased to 26.6 million. But in the year 2000, only 17.2 million Americans were on the food stamp roles.

Those numbers should be heralded as the best of news. The idea of welfare reform was to decrease those in need of the programs, and the food stamp program is one that could be on its way to true reform. But what do our public officials do when, on the increasingly rare occasion, they're confronted by success? They backtrack. They claim more people than are on the program are in need of it, and they simply don't apply because they're embarrassed to do so. They suggest it's even possible that people don't know the food stamp program exists. They take action like Wisconsin is taking without stopping to consider the possibility that perhaps some people no longer need the help because they're now providing for themselves or because they're getting a little extra assistance from local charities or family members (also something, by the way, that the government claims to encourage).

In a time of severe budget constraints, the food stamp system alone costs taxpayers (as of 2000 and the decreased roles) $1.25 billion a month. Any decreases should be welcomed with open arms. Instead, there's talk of advertising just to be sure everybody knows they could apply for food stamps if they were to feel the need. And, of course, there's Wisconsin's bright idea of a name change. The good news is that the Wisconsin State Department of Health and Family Services has decided not to make a name change after all. The bad news? They're holding off because the US Department of Agriculture plans to change the name of the program nationwide.

There's an old saying that goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." And then there's the government corollary to that old saying: "If it ain't broke, fix it 'til it is." I suppose it's nice to know that the government still lives up to something, even if it is just a cliché. No shame in that, more's the pity.


Originally posted from 03-09-03 to 03-16-03
Stupid Is as Stupid Does
by Lady Liberty

Last week, an Ohio Congresswoman made comments in an interview with a local newspaper that, within twenty-four hours of publication, caused a nationwide uproar. Marcy Kaptur, a Democrat from Ohio's 9th House District, a vocal opponent of a war with Iraq, compared Osama bin Laden with America's Founding Fathers, and went on to call terrorism "acts of sacred piety". Since her remarks were first widely publicized, the Democratic contingent in Washington has been silent, and Ms. Kaptur herself has not apologized or tried to explain herself but has said merely that Republicans are taking her words "out of context".

Ms. Kaptur has not said that she was misquoted in The Toledo Blade, so it seems reasonable to assume that statements credited to her there represent her actual comments. Among them were these words: "One could say that Osama bin Laden and these non-nation-state fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped to cast off the British crown."

Similar in what way? Is there some facet of history of which we are blithely unaware that tells the story of George Washington setting off explosive kegs of gunpowder beneath buildings in which innocent civilians were gathered? Did historians somehow neglect to record the tale of Thomas Jefferson poisoning the water supplies of towns or villages where the enemy was congregated? Did witnesses who wrote of the acts of Benjamin Franklin and Patrick Henry selectively censor those times the two summarily executed those who didn't agree with their own religious mores? Surely Ms. Kaptur can't mean to say that bin Laden and his men are freedom fighters. In any territory held by these Islamic extremists, liberty outside the narrowist of religious strictures is the first casualty.

Marcy Kaptur also said, "I think that people of faith understand that for many of the terrorists, their actions are acts of sacred piety to the point of losing their lives. And I think that people of faith understand that there is a heavy religious overtone to the opposition." In fact, Ms. Kaptur herself claims to be a devout Catholic. But faith, devout or otherwise, is unnecessary for understanding what the enemy's motivations are in the case of Mid-Eastern terrorism. Of course it's religious at its most basic root.. But attributing such a thing to mere faith, and referring to suicide attacks as acts of sacred piety, is akin to excusing the torture and murders of the Spanish Inquisition as a bit of overzealousness in the application of Catholic doctrine. Urging an understanding of this kind of fanatacism - and implying that those with faith ought to be able to do so - is to say that such actions can be understood. Once understood, they become excusable. Can Ms. Kaptur possibly mean to say that, under any circumstances, the unprovoked slaughter of thousands of innocents is understandable?

Among other remarks, the Congresswoman also likened groups of terrorists to Ethan Allen and his Green Mountain Boys, a revolutionary fighting group based in Vermont. What she apparently doesn't know is that Ethan Allen repudiated organized religion. And what she seems to conveniently have forgotten is that neither Allen nor his Green Mountain Boys spent any time or wasted any resources on civilian targets, unlike the al Qaeda terrorists who actually focus on civilian targets.

So what would make Ms. Kaptur say such things? There are several possible explanations for her remarks.

Maybe she's stupid. But probably she's not. She has a respectable higher education, and has been in national-level politics for over twenty years.

It could be that she's ignorant. But again, that's not likely to be the case. Her years in Congress have doubtless made her privy to a great deal of information, much of which is probably related, or pertains directly, to national security issues. And national security issues have included matters involving the Middle East for much longer than she's been in office. It's possible that she doesn't know much about American History, although that's doubtful as well. Her statements were made concerning very well known men and events from the Revolutionary era, and these are things that are reasonably well covered from the elementary school level onward.

Perhaps Ms. Kaptur is a socialist. Well, she definitely has socialist leanings. That's part and parcel of why she's been popular in a strongly unionized town (Toledo). But socialism doesn't urge genocide or encourage forced religious conversions to meet its ends, nor does it demand other than increased taxes and a government which takes care of its citizens' every need. Socialism isn't a good thing, but it's not terrorism, either.

The most likely reason the Congresswoman spoke as she did is because she doesn't like America or its policies a whole lot more than do the terrorists. She seems to think that, although all the dead people are a very bad thing, the terrorists themselves have a valid point to make. And that maybe if we just listen really hard and try our best to be understanding, we can move past the bombs and the crashed airplanes and the threat of chemical or biological weaponry, and just all get along. Ms. Kaptur is a globalist at heart who thinks the United States is no better - and quite a bit worse in some ways - than the other nations of the world.

On the other hand, maybe she really is just stupid. Northwest Ohio voters, take note.

UPDATE: In an article published March 15, 2003 in The Toledo Blade, Ms. Kaptur's speech at a local VFW fish fry included what was billed as an apology. In reality, she didn't say she was sorry for her remarks, but that she was sorry if, due to the political nature and the "twisting" of her words, anyone had been hurt. Meanwhile, in an incident lending further credence to the notion that Democrats care about political correctness and politically correct politics but disdain the Constitution itself, a Congressman (James Moran (D-VA) lost his minority leadership posistion and has been roundly castigated for making some comments that have been construed as negative about Jews. There's still been no real condemnation of Kaptur, however, by Democrats. While Moran's comments were arguably not only incorrect but in poor taste and deserve censure, the silence surrounding Kaptur's words from Democrat circles is deafening.

Originally posted from 03-02-03 to 03-09-03
The ABC's of Power
by Lady Liberty

In Washington these days, the fear of terrorist attacks has combined with the traditional politicians' love for power to supercede and usurp our liberties from every direction. A virtual alphabet soup of laws and proposed programs assails the Constitution on a regular basis. TIA, the USA PATRIOT Act, the Bush administration's proposed TTIC (TIA by another name), the so-called PATRIOT II, and many more have virtually suspended the Bill of Rights under an appallingly wide variety of circumstances. All of this, we are told, is being done "for your safety" and in the name of the "War on Terrorism".

Law-abiding Americans must submit to random searches of their vehicles, their luggage, and often their persons - and soon even background checks - simply for the convenience of air travel. The Constitutional checks-and-balances on law enforcement are weakened at best. The widespread paranoia and the acceptance of the probability of surveillance has caused other agencies to jump on the bandwagon, urging citizens to join in by spying on their neighbors, looking for things completely unrelated to terrorism.

In the face of such draconian measures, it would seem obvious that the most likely venue for terrorists to come in and out of the country would be the most closely monitored and assiduously enforced: our borders. In fact, not only are these borders leaking like sieves, a new phenomenon to make illegal aliens look like legal US residents is gaining widespread acceptance not only among the illegal population but in US government officialdom as well. This phenomenon is known as the Mexican ID card, or Matricula Consular.

The Mexican ID card isn't new. Simply put, it's an identification card issued by the Mexican government to anyone who can show a Mexican birth certificate, a picture ID (any ID will do), a current US address, and a $29 fee. In other words, pretty much anyone can get one. But those legally in the US already have valid forms of ID such as a passports or green cards. The only people who have any need for the cards are illegal Mexican aliens, and plenty of them have begun taking advantage of the service offered by Mexican Consulates across the US.

Why has the card gained sudden popularity? In large part, it's because some local governments have begun accepting the MC as valid ID. Is this a threat to homeland security? Insight Magazine wondered the same thing in an article published online. In the article, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) praised the ID card and said those with the ID now have access to the Philip Burton Federal Building and US Courthouse in San Francisco. With that access, someone who's had no background check of any kind and who has merely had to supply a Mexican birth certificate (not hard to falsely obtain or to forge) also has access to the local FBI offices and other targets that might prove attractive to terrorists.

The MC cards are also a valid form of ID for those stopped by law enforcement authorities, are considered by some banks to be a valid form of ID for opening bank accounts and getting other bank services, and cardholders can use the MC to apply for social service. Ironically, no major bank in Mexico accepts the MC card as a form of ID, and only about a third of Mexico's states will take the card. But its recognition continues to gain wider acceptance in the US, and The Washington Times published a story ("More Countries Issue ID Cards to Illegal Aliens in U.S.", posted January 29, 2003 and available from the Times archives) that asserts the success of the MC cards has prompted other countries to follow suit. Guatamala, Honduras, Poland, Peru, and El Salvador either already issue comparable cards, or are thinking about it. And, like Mexico, the cards are issued to those in the US illegally, no questions asked.

Immigrant-control groups are critical of the trend. In a report published by The Sacramento Bee, the Center for Immigration Studies points out that anything making it easier for immigrants makes it more difficult for immigration laws to be enforced. Although the MC card has been used for more than 100 years, the card's popularity first exploded in the wake of 9/11 when photo IDs were more in demand. Ironically, it seems the demand generated by the need to look out for terrorists has fueled instead a trend that will make it easier for terrorists and other illegal immigrants to live in the US and enjoy access to various privileges and facilities without going through the appropriate legal immigration channels.

In one attempt to address concerns about the MC card, the GSA suspended recognition of the cards until it, the State Department, and other agencies could investigate the matter more fully. The Washington Times said that the GSA had accepted the cards on a trial basis, but that the trial has been stopped "pending further study". One issue likely to be given a closer examination is the ease with which the supporting documentation for the cards, and the cards themselves, can be falsified. Another, of course, is the fact that the cards are issued to anyone with the appropriate materials, no questions asked. One consular official was quoted as saying the cards have nothing to do with immigration status. That, in a nutshell, is the point.

Because of the MC card's exploding popularity and the growing number of institutions and agencies that will accept the card as a valid ID, a "validity bill" is being posed in the US House of Representatives. H.R. 502, submitted by Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO), was written because, in his words, some kind of curb on the cards is "extremely important for reasons of national security." Tancredo also says that he believes the Mexican government is flooding the country with MC cards for illegal aliens because it's tired of waiting for the US to declare another amnesty program (more about the bill as well as links you can use to support the effort toward its passage is available online from the American Policy Center).

In the end, it is in examining the MC cards and their ready acceptance in many places that tells us a good deal about the many other laws, rules, and regulations intended to curb, or at least delay, terrorism. Innocent citizens are forced to comply with these intrusive and unconstitutional demands by authorities because they are ostensibly trying to protect those same innocents from terrorist attacks. Yet a system that would provide easy access for terrorists to American soil and numerous government facilities is scarcely noted by many and is abetted by many more.

The obvious conclusion to reach is that, no matter the clever acronym, some of the most significant legislation addressing terrorism does little but solidify the power of those in control, and it does so at the expense of the liberty of American citizens. Certainly a terrorist or two may be caught because of some portion or another of these measures, and that will be loudly and very publicly touted so that we can all see how good and effective these laws are. What is being relegated to the shadows is that, by the law of diminishing returns, the laws aren't that effective at catching the bad guys because they're largely intended to control the good guys.

A very few Senators seem to have realized that the USA PATRIOT Act was passed in haste and perhaps in error. These Senators, led by Patrick Leahy (D-VT), have urged a review of the various measures included in the Act and their effect on civil liberties. That's a good thing. But it's not just that the law is bad. It's also that the law is largely ineffective. Though there are plenty of letters left in the alphabet to create new laws, they, too, will be ineffective until holes in the immigration system are shrunken and closed. Right now, the MC cards leave a hole in the law big enough to drive a truck through. And if we're truly trying to prevent terrorism, we'd best hope that truck isn't loaded with explosives.

Originally posted from 01-05-03 to 01-29-03
Just Do It!
by Lady Liberty

As every new year arrives, it seems we're all but incapable of not telling ourselves that this year will be different. This year, we'll lose weight. We'll quit smoking. We'll start exercising. We'll be better friends, husbands, or wives. We'll work harder. We'll play harder. We'll learn something new. And as every old year ends, we look back and realize most of even our best intended resolutions fell unnoticed by the wayside, often before the calendar pages even turned past the end of January. But it's a new year once again, and this year it could be different!

Resolving to lose weight? Good for you! Here's a tip: Fight tooth and nail against TIA (the Pentagon's proposed Total Information Awareness program). Encourage - loudly and often - your representatives to demand a review of the constitutionality of many of the provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act (its many pages not even printed let alone read prior to the anti-terrorism fears that overwhelmingly passed it). Refuse to submit to intrusive airport security measures by finding alternative methods of transportation whenever and wherever possible, and tell the airline you didn't fly exactly why you didn't. The few extra pounds so many of us carry are nothing compared to the burden of the yoke of tyranny. This year, throw the yoke off, and see how much lighter you'll feel!

Every one of us knows that smoking is a health hazard. So forget about smoking, and light a fire instead! Light a fire under the apathy of your neighbors who don't know or don't care about the invasions of privacy they encourage and facilitate with their shopping discount cards. Carry a torch on behalf of liberty as you teach your family and friends that the Bill of Rights is not an ala carte menu from which you can merely pick and choose, but that each applies to all. Cast your light on local political processes by attending meetings, visiting with your local politicians, writing letters to the editor of your city paper, and checking with your area schools to ensure the Constitution and Bill of Rights are being taught, in their entirety, to our children. Fuel the hope for freedom in your small part of the world!

If you've vowed to make exercise a part of your daily routine in 2003, add to your workout the exercise of your rights. Speak out in favor of the freedom of speech for a man or a group with whom you disagree. Join a gun rights group, even if you don't own a gun. Criticize - politely, but firmly - your representatives when they take a position you consider unconstitutional. Learn about jury nullification. Consider volunteering for a political campaign for an issue or candidate you support. And remember: The phrase "use it or lose it" applies to far more than muscle groups.

Friends help each other. Spouses partner each other. Above all, they give each other the freedom to be themselves. If you love someone, you're already giving what freedom you can personally control. But if you're willing, you can give real and greater freedoms to your friends and family, and watch it spread to encompass others you may not know but who are just as deserving! Fight to see unfair and unconstitutional laws repealed. Work to see that such laws aren't passed in the first place. Some Christians and Jews live by the laws set forth in the Ten Commandments. Every last one of us who is American ought to live by the ten liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights. To do so ensures the freedom of us all, and that's no small gift.

Redoubling our efforts can sound impossible, especially when we often set ourselves lofty goals in the process. But if we increase our workload slowly, we can adapt in both skill and efficiency, making a real difference all the while. Did you vote last year? Good for you! This year, learn about an issue and help with the campaign. You don't need to spend much time - pass out leaflets one afternoon, or staple yard signs to stakes on a Saturday. Did you write or call your Senator or Representative? In 2003, do it again. And then, do it one more time just because you can. Stressed out just thinking about it? Writing a letter to the editor about an issue important to you can be very therapeutic.

You've promised yourself you'd keep in shape, but did you remember that your brain requires exercise for good health as well? So head to the library or a local book store and borrow or buy a book about politics or American history or liberty. Sign on to the Internet and do a search for jury nullification or the Fourth or Fifth Amendments. Want to really learn something thoroughly? Take your books and brochures and printouts and teach someone else! Liberty grows when the knowledge of it and the love for it is passed along.

At the end of 2002, many of us have looked back and seen the inroads against freedom made in the name of the War on Terrorism. If you resolve nothing else this new year, promise yourself this: I will burn, I will exercise, I will work, I will learn, I will teach. I will be a better American, and I will live free. You may fail to reach every goal you set. I may fail. But if enough of us succeed here and there, all of us will be able to look back on 2003 and know that our resolve accomplished something of which our forefathers could be proud. Together, they fought a revolution. Together, we'll make a resolution. They birthed America. We'll bring her back.