Libertarian Jew

How Dependent Are Americans on Government?

2012-02-15T11:20:00.000-06:00

When the New York Times publishes an article on the extent of government dependence, that's when you know that you have to begin wondering just how dependent the average American has become on government. What does it mean to "be dependent" on government? How do we measure dependency on government?

The Heritage Foundation recently put out the data in their 2012 Index of Dependence on Government. It is tempting to scream "right-winged bias." I'm not a happy that Heritage Foundation only included federal income taxes in its assessment with tax burden or that it does not put the growth of expenditures in terms of 2012 dollars. But just remember that with the aforementioned NYT article, there was an interactive map that came to the same conclusion: Americans have become increasingly dependent on government.

As Heritage Foundation points out, the programs that create dependency account for seventy percent of our budget! The two largest programs are Social Security and Medicare. Considering the rise of retiring Baby Boomers, it should be no surprise that these expenditures will only increase with time, not only as a dollar amount, but also in percentage of the federal government's budget.

What makes these programs even worse is these two entitlement programs are not predicated upon economic status, but age. This is a point that the Center of Budget and Policy Priorities, a Left-leaning think tank, illustrates, which is that the "middle class" is benefiting way more than perceived. That makes sense given that Social Security and Medicare are the large percentage of these "entitlement expenditures." I know what the CBPP is trying to do. They want to demystify the Republican adage of redistribution of wealth. However, this does not help the Left's cause because they go on and on about how we need these programs to help the poor. If that is not what is really going on, all that the CBPP study does is give libertarians such as myself the reaffirmation as to why such programs are not needed.

Look at Social Security. The original purpose of Social Security was a temporary safety net created during the Great Depression to make sure that elderly citizens weren't dropping dead en masse. Now, the government is treating the program as "guaranteeing" a retirement account to American citizens, much of the funding that helps the "middle class." Considering the rising costs, scaling back on Social Security and encouraging private retirement accounts (PRAs) would be the way to go.

Although Social Security and Medicare are two programs that create a huge degree of dependency at a great fiscal cost, I'm not solely worried about that. What about housing? Or higher-education subsidies? Federal employees notwithstanding, approximately one in five citizens are dependent on the government.

I know of people who would play the emotional card on me here and say that I don't care about others, that I want the elderly to die, or I don't want young adults to receive a good education because I either want virtually every government department either scaled back or eliminated. But let's look at a department such as the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, also known as HUD. The department was created back in 1965, which was also the same year that the legislation that created Medicare passed.

It makes me wonder. Was there no healthcare prior to the creation of Medicare? Prior to 1965, was there no interim housing for those who were temporarily down on their luck? Of course not! For my friends who are enamored with Big Government, it must be difficult to imagine a world in which there is not a bureaucratic entity that attempted to regulate and provide everything. However, prior to the creation of these programs, mutual-aid, religious, and educational organizations provided poor people with such needs as temporary housing, welfare, and healthcare.

But now? We live in society with such a self-entitlement mentality that many expect the government to not only solve problems, but provide citizens with everything, i.e., a "welfare state." It's not simply a matter of the welfare state being a costly endeavor. Dependency stymies progress and growth, both for the individual and the society as a whole. The trend of this country is clearly heading in a direction towards increased dependency. If we are to reverse this negative trend, it begins with changing the minds and hearts of the American people.

Was the Right-to-Work Bill a Victory for Indiana?

2012-02-02T14:46:00.000-06:00

As of yesterday, Indiana became the first state in the "Rust Belt" to enact right-to-work (RTW) laws, as well as the 23rd state in the Union to do so. It's the first time in about a decade that such a bill has been passed. One thing is for certain: Big Union is throwing a hissy fit.

Although the bill has become law in Indiana, it begs the question of whether Indiana did the right thing.

Unions complain that it will cause a "free rider" issue. If such an issue exists, then union members would be disincentivized to pay union dues, thereby causing erosion of unions. However, it does not seem out of the realm of possibility, especially in a policy-making sense, to create some sort of mechanism in which non-union members would not derive benefit from any union negotiations. Plus, the Supreme Court prohibits free riding under Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB (1938).

I have this bigger issue with forcing people to be part of a union. It's a violation of freedom of association, as well as dictating whether someone should have their hard-earned cash go towards union dues. If there is a reason that an individual does not want to be a part of a given union, they would either have to "grin and bear it," leave their profession, or leave their state to find a job in a right-to-work state. There might be a reason why nearly three in four Americans has a problem with it.

There are also questions to consider that go beyond fairness, mainly that of efficacy and whether this causes more [economic] harm than good.

The unions complain that workers make less than non-union workers, thus making a "right-to-work" bill a "right-to-work-for-less" bill. The Economic Policy Institute, a Left-leaning think tank, argues that it also has detrimental effects, particularly in private-sector pension funds. Do keep in mind that only 6.9% of private sector workers are in unions, not to mention the average American's propensity towards dissavings, so it's hard to see how that has much bearing. Interestingly enough, their 2011 study shows that states with RTW laws have lower levels of unemployment than states without such laws (8.6% and 9.6% respectively), as well as lower costs of living.

The libertarian think-tank Cascade Policy recently just put out a study as to how implementing RTW laws would be good for Oregon, although much of the data would be relevant for any other non-RTW state. The study looks at various macroeconomic effects of RTW laws, including impact on employment and income growth.

Looking at the data, I think that Indiana will be better off for enacting RTW laws. But it'll depend on what your take on the data is or how you perceive unions. Either way, it'll be interesting to see if Indiana's economy improves.

Mediocrity in the Job Market Won't Cut It Anymore

2012-02-01T10:56:00.000-06:00

I hardly consider myself a fan of the New York Times. However, Thomas Friedman recently penned a piece entitled "Average Is Over," and I have to say that I enjoyed it. The premise of the article is that being average, whether in education or job skills, used to get an individual a cozy lifestyle. Due to such phenomena as globalization, technological progress, and economic liberalization, being average no longer suffices.

The value of a high school education is not what it used to be. Median wages for those with just a high school education has been dropping over the years. This would have something to do with the fact that the American economy has put more emphasis on the service sector and less on the manufacturing sector. The service sector requires more skills than manufacturing, which is why the college degree has an increased premium.

If America is to compete in the global job market, education reform is going to have to be a top priority for America. Although getting into actual education policy is a topic too grandiose for this single blog entry, I still would like to briefly highlight an important policy goal: improving the quality of K-12 education.

Why do I under-emphasize college education reform? I'm not saying that a college education is unimportant. Quite the contrary! The college education premium has only increased in recent years.

Rather, there is no reason to focus on college education if K-12 education is not addressed first. If children are not developing necessary skills and common sense in the primary and secondary school systems, there are going to flounder all the more if/when they reach college.

There was a time in which a high school education had career-based value. If we want American to avoid a fate of becoming a mediocre nation, it would be nice if we could re-establish the worth of a high school degree that was enjoyed in previous years.

Contending with Profanity in Jewish Law and in American Society

2012-01-16T13:48:00.000-06:00

On some level, I always find that America expresses bi-polarity when it comes to morality. Think about it for a moment. When it comes to sex, we have a Puritan-like taboo on the topic while simultaneously having it on television and advertisements, being told that "sex sells." Being able to swear is no different. We Americans love the ability to say what we want, but we also have this borderline-compulsive desire to bleep out expletives for "decency's sake."

I would like to approach profanity from two standpoints: Jewish law and American jurisprudence. I want to look at the issue Jewishly because 1) I'm Jewish, and 2) Judaism influenced Christianity, and as such, has impacted this bi-polarity. I also want to bring American legal arguments because it's interesting to see how "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" interact and/or conflict with Jewish values.

Profanity in Jewish Law

Jewish speech ethics are not only nuanced, but they also set a high standard. Since G-d created the universe by speaking (read Genesis 1), Judaism teaches that words have a powerful impact. The Chofetz Chayim points out that speaking לשון הרע (literally "evil tongue," denotes "bad speech ethics"), one can violate up to 31 mitzvot. In Jewish law, it goes well beyond avoiding slander and libel. Gossip, slurs, and negative truths are forbidden under Jewish law. If such restrictions are in Jewish speech ethics, it would be safe to assume that the high bar set also applies to swearing, and you would be correct. Foul language (נבול פה) is also forbidden under Jewish law.

One of the main reasons not to swear under Jewish law it degrades another individual, which is prohibited because we are all "created in His image." But what if you are using swear words to convey intensity of a given feeling? Some people might. Most don't. Since swear words are used so frequently these days, they have lost their intensity, but have not lost their meaning. Plus, if an individual has a sufficiently large vocabulary, he'll find a way to express the same intensity without resorting to swearing.

If you think about it, most swear words are focused on either sex or functions performed in the bathroom. If Judaism teaches that we should elevate the mundane to a level of holiness, especially speech, then swearing is not the way to go about it. Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov (Derech Eretz Rabbah 3:3) compares swearing to pollution: "A person who uses rough language is like a pipe spewing foul odors in a beautiful room."

Given the amount of swearing in our culture, the only way to have a completely swearing-free zone is to live in an insular community with those who have similar values to you. For most of us, however, we hear swear words often enough. For those of us who want to cut back on swearing, we try to apply such high standards to our lives, easily forgetting that we are human, and thus prone to err. Although we might swear from time to time, we have to accept our inconsistencies if we are to minimize the gap between theory and practice in our daily lives.

Profanity in American Law

It would be nice to close the gap between in theory and practice not just in my private life, but in greater society. If there were a society free of swearing and people speaking unkindly of one another, it would be spiritually liberating, akin to not having to inhale second-hand smoke all the time. It might explain why nearly two-thirds of Americans favor FCC regulation of profanity.

As nice as it might sound to have the government regulate profanity in the name of moral decency, there's this little thing called the First Amendment. Aside from exigent circumstances such as one's speech inciting violence or causing harm to another, the First Amendment gives an individual the right to free speech. That is why the Supreme Court has upheld such acts as desecration of the American flag (Texas v. Johnson), a Nazi rally in a predominantly Jewish neighborhood (National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie), owning pornography (Stanley v. Georgia), depictions of animal cruelty (United States v. Stevens), and the right for the Westboro Baptist Church to disseminate its hate message on public property (Snyder v. Phelps).

There is no constitutional right to not be offended. As repulsive as these acts might be for a good majority of Americans, they are protected by the First Amendment, whether we like it or not. As tempting as it might be to censor things such as swearing, if we do, it's only a hop, skip, and jump away from having censorship bureaus and have the level of censorship they have in China.

Additional Thoughts

If you're worried about your children swearing, as I mentioned earlier, you can live in an insular, religious community, such as the Amish or the the Satmar Chasidic community of Kiryas Joel. If that doesn't work, censor television programs that have swears in them. If that doesn't work, have a mature, one-on-one discussion with your child about swearing and how to handle it. Either way, it's called good parenting.

And for those of us that are adults, we are grown up enough to make our own decisions about what we view and what we hear. In America, if we cherish "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness," we should be able to choose the level of obscenity of our media. If you don't want to deal with swearing, shut off the television or find more suitable programming.

Why should moral puritans and those of the Religious Right, who are a minority, get to dictate the programming of American citizens? In a free society, one of the joys I get is free will. Free will gives us the ability to make moral decisions. I should be given the choice of whether to listen to or use profanity. If that free will is taken away from me, I don't have the ability to actualize my potential in the moralistic sphere.

To summarize my Jewish libertarian standpoint, it would ideally be nice not to have to deal with profanity. It is spiritually healthier for people. However, we don't live in that ideal world. We have to deal with the pervasiveness of swearing in our culture. As much as a lot of us do not like profanity, there is that reality that we ourselves will give into it because we are human. But we should be given the latitude to deal with it. Those who crusade against profanity shouldn't erode the Constitution to bring about their misconceived notion of utopia. Rather than treat us like children who cannot handle the concept of profanity, maybe citizens should be treated like adults and figure out how to deal with profanity on their own terms.

Conservatives vs. Hispanics?

2012-01-09T15:08:00.000-06:00

I came across an article entitled "Public Opinion Snapshot: Conservatives versus Hispanics" from the Center for American Progress (CAP), which identifies itself as progressive. The premise behind the article is that the Republican Party's stance on immigration puts it at odds with the Hispanic community. CAP uses the Hispanic support for the Dream Act, as well as allowing illegal immigrants to attend college at in-state tuition rates, as evidence of how "anti-Hispanic" the GOP is. The ultimate conclusion is that the GOP will pay for its views on immigration in November.

Although immigration policy has a greater impact on the Hispanic community than it does other demographics in this country, viewing the Hispanics as one-issue voters is over-simplified. That's like saying Jewish voters only care about Israel, gay voters only care about gay rights, and that Catholics only care about abortion.

AP and Univisión did a survey of Hispanics back in 2010. A majority (i.e., 65%) of those surveyed were most worried about the state of the economy and unemployment rates. The current unemployment rate of the Hispanic community is currently at 11.0%, which is higher than the recently-reported national unemployment rate of 8.5%. The Hispanic community has been hit hard by the current state of the economy. Is it any wonder that by looking at the Gallup poll and the even more recent Ipsos-Telemundo poll, Obama's approval rating amongst Hispanics is at an all-time low?

Also, looking at campaign promises that Obama made with regard to immigration, he did not adequately keep a single one. Obama's inability to deliver on immigration reform also factors into his low approval ratings in the Hispanic community.

However, this is not to say that the GOP is exactly a fantastic alternative to Obama. Their stance on immigration reform has typically been "put up a fence and enforce our laws on illegal immigration." Such an attitude comes off as hostile towards the Hispanic community. The Republicans would have to come up with a more comprehensive immigration reform plan to put in their party platform if they want an overwhelming support from the Hispanic population. This might be a good idea since the Hispanic accounted for a majority of the population growth in the past decade.

Even if the GOP decides not to change its immigration stance [right away], they can still gain a number of Hispanic votes by appealing to them with promises of job creation, something which has not been a strong suit during Obama's term in office. Although the GOP will have a difficult time convincing Hispanics to vote Republican, the Hispanic vote is anything but a guarantee for Obama and the Democrats in the upcoming elections.

Why America Shouldn't Adopt the Value-Added Tax

2012-01-04T22:51:00.000-06:00

The value-added tax, better known as the VAT, is a consumption-based tax that assesses a tax during each stage of production of a given good. This was brought to my attention because I was reading a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece by Daniel Mitchell pointing out that in a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal, presidential candidate Mitt Romney said he would be open to the idea of implementing the VAT in the United States.

There are some things that I like about the VAT. There would be an equal tax burden on each stage of production, rather than having the burden solely on the distributor of the final product. The VAT is a much simpler form of taxation than, let's say, the progressive income tax we currently have, which means less bureaucracy. The end result of both equally distributed burden and simplified flat rate is increased revenue with less inefficiencies. Also, the VAT is more in lines with a free society. Under the current system, you don't have any say as to how much you pay in taxes. However, with the VAT, you can pay as much or little as you want in taxes because it's directly linked with consumption. If it's high enough, it might even incentivize you to save up some money instead of go into over-consumption mode.

If every other country in the OECD has implemented the VAT, why shouldn't America? To answer that question, here are some issues I have with implementing it here:

Although the VAT can incentivize savings, it could just as easily backfire and have a detrimental effect on consumption if the rate of taxation is too high.
The richer members of society will consume more goods, and thus put more into tax revenue. In theory, this should equalize tax burden amongst socio-economic classes. However, there is an issue where you have more inelastic goods, such as food, clothing, or even gasoline. When discussing such inelastic goods, the tax becomes more regressive, thereby further hammering the poor with tax burdens.
There are still issues with enforcement of the VAT. Unlike the flat tax, the VAT involves many stages of production, which means that there would have to be greater enforcement mechanisms in place to make sure the tax is being paid. Tax evasion with the VAT has been an ongoing problem both in Europe and in China. As such, any reduction in costs of the simplification of the tax code would most likely be negated by enforcement costs.
As Mitchell brings up in his op-ed, Congress would realize that the tax is more efficient, and thus cause a tax hike because they would not think that they have reached the top of the Laffer curve yet.
Even if Mitchell is wrong about the VAT being a carte blanche to increase taxes, many people are forgetting something. This tax would most probably not be in lieu of the current tax system. If it were, I, along with other economists, would feel differently. Knowing the politicians in Washington, if this were ever to pass, my educated guess would be that the VAT would be in addition to the current tax system, thereby creating a greater tax burden for the American people.

Much like they did back in 2010 (see Section 11 of H.R. 4851), I hope that Congress has the minimal common sense to maintain the stance that implementing the VAT, especially in this economy, is not only bad policy, but against their self-interest, especially if they're up for re-election this year.

Does Krugman Understand Debt?

2012-01-02T22:56:00.001-06:00

U.S. debt is at 100% of GDP, and citizens are worried. Odds are that reducing the debt will be a hot-button topic in the upcoming elections, especially considering that Obama has increased U.S. debt by more than four trillion since he took office.

Keynesian economist Paul Krugman recently wrote an op-ed piece entitled "Nobody Understands Debt." Krugman's bottom line is that although the issue with deficits is not unimportant, there are more important things to worry about than ever-climbing debt. Is he correct that we shouldn't be as worried about debt as we actually are?

He brings up the point that we don't have to pay off the debt like a family does. I'll give him that. As long as we're paying interest on the debt, and that our GDP growth exceeds what we owe in debt, it's not an issue. Debt is not inherently a bad thing.

History of debt-to-GDP ratio is also interesting. Looking at data provided by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Krugman points out that the United Kingdom's debt had been over 100% for quite some years. Japan reached 203% after World War Two, but was able to pay it off. Even the United States reached 121%, where it eventually reached a low of 32.2% in 1974. Historically speaking, paying off debt that is at ridiculously high amounts in comparison to economic growth is indeed possible. Maybe Krugman is right.

I also have an alternative idea: Krugman should apply the op-ed title of "Nobody Understands Debt" to himself.

Does Krugman think uttering the words "we owe it [the debt] to ourselves" makes the problem go away? It won't. The trajectory of government spending shows that the problem is only going to get worse, not better, especially considering that more and more Baby Boomers are going to retire and consume more Social Security and Medicare. This is only going to get more burdensome, unless you believe in the Ricardian Equivalence, which Krugman himself calls a "dubious doctrine."

As economist John Cochrane points out, Krugman never asks where the money comes from, which is important. Borrowing is not costless, which is something that Nobel Laureate James M. Buchanan brings up in his work Public Principles of Public Debt. Money doesn't grow on trees, and capital does not come out of thin air. Since the government does not have any money of its own, guess where it has to borrow from? The private sector. Every dollar that gets put in the public sector gets taken away from the private sector. The private sector ultimately creates wealth. Although it's beyond the scope of this blog entry, it should go without saying that a considerably large amount of money that government spends is done so inefficiently (i.e., for every dollar spent by the government, less than a dollar of benefit is derived).

Krugman is right that we need to get out of the unemployment trap. But if you're under the impression that increased government spending has nothing to do with economic woes, think again. Increased government spending impedes job growth in the short-run and transfers economic burdens in the long-run.

Top Twenty Blog Entries for 2011

2011-12-31T22:02:00.000-06:00

As we approach the end of 2011, I look back on the blog entries that I have wrote throughout the year. It was so hard to narrow the list to a "Top 10" that I had to expand it to a "Top 20" list. Looking at factors such as most page views, comments posted on the entries, as well as what I thought was best-written, did not make the endeavor any easier. Since I was unable to devise a rating system, the entries are rated based on the chronology that they were written. Enjoy! May you have a Happy 2012!

1) I used to find myself in numerous arguments with Christians, whether they be friends or acquaintances, where they were asserting that Jesus was the Messiah. Looking at the text from a Jewish perspective, I knew that Jesus was anything but the Messiah. The existence of two perspectives does not mean they are both valid. In order to break the argument of intellectual relativism, I wrote a concise, but nevertheless convincing and well-cited argument as to why Jesus was not the Messiah according to criteria in Hebrew Scriptures.

2) My religious criticism is not limited to Christianity. A few weeks later, I wrote a piece putting the claim of "Islam is a religion of peace" into question. After looking at multiple factors, including the nature of Koran, the history of Muhammed, the history of how Islam has been practiced, and how Islam is currently practiced, the conclusion was that if Islam has any hope of being considered a peaceful religion, it has to overcome significant hurdles, much greater than those of the Protestant Reformation.

3) Orthodox Jews look forward to a day where the Third Temple is reinstated and that sacrifices can be re-instated. Many Christians like to inaccurately analogize the sacrificial system with Jesus' crucifixion. Both tend to forget that sacrifices were a means, not an ends, to getting closer to G-d, upon which this blog entry focuses.

4) The Left has the mentality that anything and everything is a right. The self-entitlement mentality extends to health care. Looking at the health care issue from the perspective of natural rights upon this country was founded, it turns out that health care is not a right.

5) Without question, this was the blog that received the most page views. Leviticus 18:22 has been used throughout history to condemn homosexual behavior, but after a considerably profound analysis of the verse in its context, the verse leads to many interpretations, none of which that line up with what the Religious Right has to say on the issue.

6) Obama hasn't exactly catered to the Jewish population as well as American Jews were expecting, hence the decrease of Jewish support for Obama. One of the biggest gaffes that Obama made this past year was calling for a "return to the 'pre-1967' borders."

7) Those "progressives" in San Francisco were at it again! This time, it was with an attempt to ban circumcision. For the sake of the freedom to parent in accordance with one's religious views, I'm so glad the measure did not pass.

8) Global warming, now referred to as climate change because it was easier to stick with one name rather than switch back and forth between global warming and global cooling, has reached a status of being an unquestionable fact of life. Knowing that the scientific establishment has never been wrong (think of claims that the earth was flat or that the earth was the center of the universe), I gave skepticism of climate change a go this past June. Although I don't consider this entry a Top 20 entry, I nevertheless became skeptical of my skepticism later this year since I find it to be healthy for one's intellect.

9) This blog entry received the second largest amount of page views. A libertarian actually made an argument against gay marriage from a libertarian perspective, but ultimately fell short.

10) I have written blog entries about why we should get out of Afghanistan, but this entry covers the reasoning from an economic perspective.

11) I think we still live in a country in which dissent is patriotism, which is why I spent part of my Fourth of July questioning whether America is the greatest nation on earth. Let's just say that there were multiple factors to consider, and that there was no easy answer to the question.

12) As if questioning Christianity or Islam were not fun enough, I decided to do so with my own religion. I took a look at the practice of tzedakah and tried to see if there were a way to get out of the practice. After looking at all attempts to excuse myself from giving tzedakah, I found that although I could not completely eliminate the mitzvah, I could limit the extent to which I give tzedakah.

13) This had to be one of my personal favorites for 2011: Why Biblical Literalism is Folly. The title speaks for itself.

14) So many Jews, especially those that religiously lean to the Left, equate Judaism with social action. Although there are certain values that might line up with tikkun olam, the attempt to reduce Judaism to social action led me to tell Jews to take it easy with tikkun olam.

15) Many capitalists can talk about the economic efficiencies of the free market, but rarely do we hear about the morality behind capitalism. Rather than lack morality, capitalism actually ends up being morally superior to socialism.

16) Throughout history, many individuals have used the concept of "the Chosen People" to advance their anti-Semitism. Aside from the fact that every group of people has been guilty of ethnocentrism at some point, the notion of the "chosen people" is not what you would think.

17) Rick Perry made a supposed faux pas when he said that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. I took his assertion one step further: I opined that Social Security is actually worse than a Ponzi scheme.

18) With the increased media attention of the Occupy Wall Street movement, I asked myself about income inequality and whether it is morally problematic. After giving it some thought, I am not bothered by the existence of income inequality, especially to the extent which those on the Left are.

19) Especially with the class welfare rhetoric that has existed in the news lately, it emboldens one's resolve to think that the rich have it so easy. Looking at this from a Jewish perspective, Abraham had many riches. You would think that he were living without challenges, but his richness actually created additional burden.

20) This past November, Mississippi tried to pass a bill defining personhood at the moment of conception. Too bad the pro-lifers advocating for the passage of the bill did not realize that implementing the policy would cause unintended consequences.

The Wealthy and Taxation: What is "Their Fair Share?"

2011-12-29T20:46:00.000-06:00

The Pew Research Center put out recent survey data as to what the American people think about the tax system. When asked about "what bothers you most about the tax system," the number one answer was "the wealthy people don't pay their fair share." Not surprisingly, there is a partisan divide on this one. 73% of Democrats agree, whereas 38% of Republicans agree. Interestingly enough, 57% of Independents agree. For those who feel this way, here's my question to you: what constitutes as one's "fair share?"

Before figuring out whether the rich are paying their fair share, it would behoove us to see how much everyone is paying in taxes. Looking at the percentage that individuals pay in taxes (both federal and state/local) comparison the shares of comprehensive household market income, the top forty percent pay more in proportion (see Tables 21 and 22). If they pay more in proportion, then the dollar amount they pay is surely higher than what the poor pay.

Let's consider the notion of redistributive justice, which allocates property and wealth in a "socially just" manner. The poor don't have enough, and it's up to the government to redistribute wealth so that they can have a decent living. That would be typical rhetoric from the Left. For the Left, desired outcome would be a smaller Gini coefficient, which is a measurement of income inequality. That could very well sound fair. We're all equal in the sense that we receive the same amount, which would eliminate any income inequality. But it was Winston Churchill who said that "socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." The notion of equality of income has never boded well for mankind.

The Pilgrims tried income distribution and nearly died because of it. The Former Soviet Union gave it a go, and life couldn't be more miserable. Chairman Mao Zedong redistributed food in the Great Leap Forward, which killed well over twenty million. Over history, the United States government has implemented certain programs (e.g., Medicare, welfare, Social Security), and debt has now reached 100% of GDP. Amazing how any attempts at equality of income minimize equality and opportunity.

This country was built on the idea that all men are created equal. If that were the case, then everyone would pay the same percentage in taxes. A progressive income tax does not do that. You know what does? A flat tax.

Two more alternative views before I conclude. The first is that life is not fair. There has always been income inequality, and no government programs can adequately mitigate the issue. The second is there is nothing wrong with income inequality, something which I have discussed before.

Do I think the rich pay their fair share? Yes, I do. Since rich people pay more in absolute dollars and percentage-wise in tax dollars than the poor, I think they pay more than their fair share in taxes. But good luck telling that to those who perpetuate class welfare in order to aggrandize Big Government.

Is Ten Percent of the Population Homosexual?

2011-12-27T10:23:00.006-06:00

It's always nice to know that you can meet up with your high school friends with whom you have kept in touch all these years and still partake in political polemics as if nothing has changed. Granted, I became libertarian since then, and thus don't agree with the Right like I used to, but it's still pleasant to have that sense of nostalgia with good friends.

I had such a rendez-vous with some Left-leaning high school friends yesterday. Although a good number of topics came up in discussion, the one that lasted the longest and was the most heated was whether a tenth of the population was homosexual. Whether it was personal experience, intuition, or previous, brief encounter with a small handful of studies, I didn't agree with the "ten percent gospel" that has its origins in the well-renowned Kinsey study. As I should well know by now, if you question something that someone else deems "unquestionable," the response is "attack mode." As long as it's not personal, I don't mind the heated debate since the important thing at the end is ascertaining the truth.

I was told by one of my friends that I should look at the Kinsey study, as well as the Time Magazine article from 2004. A lot more has been published on the subject since Kinsey, and the article from Time didn't answer the question of "what percent of the population is gay?" Regardless, I was going to look at the data to see if my friends were right.

It's not only a matter of the fact that homosexuality is a hot-button issue in America. Both sides have a stake in the debate, which is why I am just as skeptical of the Left's 10% claim as I am of the Right's claim of a considerably small homosexual population.

A paramount question is how one goes about defining "homosexual." Is a homosexual who has only one sexual encounter with someone of the same sex? Can we define a homosexual as someone who exclusively or predominantly has sexual relations with someone of the same-sex? Are people who self-identify as homosexual an accurate measurement of the homosexual population? As we go through the prominent studies on the matter, let's keep these questions in mind.

A look at the Kinsey study itself: The Kinsey study was under heavy criticism for selection bias. But let's consider that the Kinsey study isn't methodologically flawed, because no study ever is, right? Under the Kinsey study, 37% of males and 13% of females have had at least one overt homosexual experience. A good majority of us are not going to consider translating one homosexual interaction into being homosexual. The colloquialisms for such an experience are "experimenting" or "being bi-curious."

Analyzing more long-lasting findings, the study shows that 10% of males and 2-6% of females were exclusively homosexual. 80% of the aforementioned males (i.e., 8% of the statistic sample) were exclusively homosexual for at least three years. However, 4% of males and 1-3% of females were exclusively or predominantly homosexual from the onset of adolescence. How long does someone have to have same-sex attraction to be considered homosexual? Your answer is going to vary based on your definition. In spite of that, the revered study hardly claims that 10% of the population is homosexual.

The Census Bureau findings are commonly used by those on the Right because the percentage is around 2-4%. The Census Bureau has a few flaws. First is that there is no explicit question asking about sexual orientation. The person filling out the form has to report how the other person is related to them, which causes ambiguities in the answer. There is still the social stigma of being homosexual, which means people are hesitant to put their sexuality on the form. Even if that stigma didn't exist, there will still be people out there who feel that it's none of the government's business.

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) recently did a study on sexual behavior. The study measured sexuality on two primary levels. The first is the sexual act itself (Table 10). Does having any sexual contact count? Does it have to be a specific act? And again, does partaking in a single homosexual act render you homosexual? Then there's the matter of sexual identity. How the question is framed brings about different answers. Being framed in terms of "Are you mostly [or partly] homosexual/heterosexual, or just bisexual (Table 11)" has different results than "Do you consider yourself heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or other (Table 12)." You can finagle over 10% from Table 11 if you lump in people who consider themselves mostly heterosexual. You can't pull it off with the findings from Table 12.

The Williams Institute, which essentially is a think tank for issues regarding advocacy for sexual orientation, did a study about same-sex couples and individuals in the United States. Looking at Table 2, the state with the highest estimation of gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals was Washington DC at 8.1%. Since the sample maximum is below 10%, there is no way the national mean is 10%, which means that according to this pro-gay rights study, the LGB (Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual) population is not 10%.

Even a 2010 study, which grabbed the Huffington Post's attention because it was "the largest survey on the topic published since the 1990s," does not match up to the 10%. Looking at Table 1 (p. 258), 92.2% of men and 93.1% of women identified as heterosexual. You would have to include bisexuals to have a median population parameter of 5.65%, which is a fancy way of saying that it doesn't make it to 10%. Even if you decide to use sexual acts within the past year as an indicator (which is better than sexual acts over a lifetime, but still is limited in terms of meaning), none of the homosexual acts reach the 10% mark.

Postscript: There are other studies on the issue, but the major, peer-reviewed ones have been covered in this blog entry. In order to make the "ten percent" argument, one would have to make the definition of "homosexual" so broad that it included bisexuals, individuals with very transient same-sex attraction [much like in the Kinsey study], and those who have had at least one lifetime homosexual act, all of which undermine the claim itself. This is truly a stretch of statistical data to bolster numbers. Looking at the data puts the percentage closer to five or six percent.

Does this mean that Americans should stop focusing on making sure that homosexuals are provided their rights? Absolutely not! Having a smaller percentage of homosexuals in society does not mean we abandon the endeavor of making sure that the government protects the natural rights for homosexuals, an endeavor that will most likely be the civil rights issue of our time. However, the continued usage of the "ten percent" statistic only debilitates credibility. Those who argue for gay rights don't need to use exaggerated numbers when they already have the advantage of a sound argument.

What War on Christmas?

2011-12-25T00:02:00.001-06:00

For years, you have heard Bill O'Reilly clamor about it. The Christian Right in this country fears it. Even Rick Perry brought it up in his recent gaffe of an advertisement. Yes, it is that most wonderful time of year: to bring up the War on Christmas.

Recent cases that are supposed to prove that there is a "war on Christmas" are attempts to ban the construction of a Nativity scene on public school property or re-naming the Christmas tree a "holiday tree."

If this war honestly existed, let me tell you what it would look like. There would be public burnings of Christmas trees. Those dressed up like Santa Claus would be assaulted. Churches would be vandalized. Giving a Christmas mass or praying to Jesus in public would have you detained by the police. If you want to see what religious persecution actually looks like, take a look at Jewish history.

If you're still not convinced, take a look at polling. Rasmussen shows that 70% of Americans prefer the greeting "Merry Christmas" to "Happy Holidays." Gallup polls are even better. Not only do 51% of Americans consider Christmas to be 'strongly religious' for them, but more than 90% in this country celebrate Christmas. Something tells me that Christmas will continue to be a part of American society and culture.

Why is it that those who are delusional about this "war" prioritize better? What about worrying why Christmas has become a celebration of rampant materialism? Or better yet, why not worry about real problems such as unemployment, increasing health care costs, or insolvent government spending? Rather than appease the Religious Right in some fictitious war, maybe O'Reilly and his ilk should be thankful that Christians throughout America can worship their religion freely.

Parsha Miketz: A Spiritual Recession Trumps This Global Financial Recession

2011-12-23T14:07:00.001-06:00

In this week's parsha, Joseph interprets two of Pharaoh's dreams. The first is that of seven fat cows being eaten up by seven lean cows (Genesis 41:1-4). The second dream was that seven fat stalks of grain were overcome by seven lean stalks (ibid 41:5-7). When interpreting these dreams, Joseph actually told the Pharaoh that the two dreams were one in the same (ibid 41:25). What did Joseph mean when he said that? The significance of each dream were the same exact one: seven years of plenty would be followed by seven years of famine (ibid 41:27).

We're not living in a "global" famine like the one in the Torah, but we certainly are living in global financial crisis. The state of the Eurozone is a tumultuous one with many unknowns. America cannot even deal with its own debt issues properly. Another difference between then and now is that we didn't have a Joseph to tell us that the economy was going to be in shambles. Sure, the economy has busts and booms. We all know that. But were we prepared for an economic issue on a global level? Absolutely not.

Even though we were not prepared for the magnitude, we know that this is how economic cycles work. Life is not always going to deal us a Royal Flush. Even when we are dealt good hands, we should not take it for granted. What Joseph's planning teaches us is that we should not be so hedonistic or short-sighted that the only thing that we can grasp is the short-term.

What got the better of people? Materialism. Many Americans thought that keeping up an insanely high level of consumption would not cause a housing bubble to burst, consumer debt, or trade deficits. The Pharaoh's dream is as telling back then as it is today because there is more to this dream than a lesson in the need of having a rainy-day fund and being fiscally savvy.

Rashi noticed that the cows were described as handsome (יפות). From the Genesis Rabbah 89:4, Rashi points out that "handsome" means that in days of plenty, no one envied each other. The Midrash Tanhuma Miketz elaborates a bit further. In this instance, the focus is on the reed grass (באחו .(באחו is similar to the phrase "in brotherhood" (באחווה).

These "good times" are not just economic; they are also societal and moralistic. When times are "good," we view people as brothers, and without envy. The moment we view others as strangers not worth helping, that's when the "bad" times come. That is why when the lean cows consumed the fat cows, they did not get any fatter. They were not satisfied with what they had spiritually. The lean cows were only concerned with their own hides.

We've been in a spiritual recession much longer than we have in a financial one. Technology has made it easier to live more individualistic lives, and thus cut ourselves off from social contact from one another. Being bombarded with advertisements makes wanting to fulfill an insatiable desire for material goods all the more alluring. That level of self-indulgence makes it easier and easier to ignore others and reduce those who are close to the status of stranger.

Although the economic prospects aren't as inspiring as one would like, I'm sure that we'll pull out of the financial crisis before we pull out of this spiritual one. If I were to put policy making into spiritual parlance, the first policy I would recommend is getting in touch with people. This could entail rekindling friendships, attending a house of worship (or some other way to build a sense of community), or being closer to family. It could also encompass people you don't know, whether it's finding a social club or some form of volunteerism. Whatever the decision is, the sure-fire way out this spiritual recession is not to use people, but rather to treat people like human beings, show them some dignity, and develop relationships with people. And it's amazing how an individual can inspire another individual to act in the same way. Hopefully, this "spiritual policy recommendation" can become contagious and we can pull ourselves out of this spiritual bankruptcy.

Secular Republican Changes His Mind on Same-Sex Marriage for the Better

2011-12-22T11:11:00.000-06:00

I have a much greater propensity to read articles and studies from think tanks than I do when it comes to reading [political] blogs. Analysis and expectations, even when not libertarian, are much higher in the think tank world. However, there are a few blogs that I decide to read. One such blog is Heathen Republican. Although I am neither a Republican nor a secularist, I nevertheless have a great of respect for the blogger because of his adherence to sound, reasoned argumentation.

That is why I was surprised by his initial blog entry as to why he was against same-sex marriage. When push came to shove, opponents of same-sex marriage never had a rational argument for such opposition, which explains my bewilderment. As of today, he has since redacted such argumentation and has taken a pro-gay marriage stance. I find this to be an important step, especially since support for gay marriage and conservatism are not mutually exclusive.

I want to dissect his initial opposition, as well as add to why he ultimately made the right decision in supporting same-sex marriage.

On the plus side, he immediately eliminated the "because the Bible tells me so" argument. However, he went into arguing about equal rights are still assured because no one, gay or straight, has the right to marry someone of the same sex. As a libertarian, my primary argument has been embodied within contract rights, which you'd think a conservative would share similar, if not identical, sentiments. Upon addressing the equality issue, the Heathen Republican framed the equal rights issue in terms of disparate impact. My approach to it is different, but disparate impact is an equally valid argument. He uses the example of a hypothetical ban of entering Catholic churches. Although the ban technically applies to everyone, it is most detrimental to Catholics, since they are the ones practicing Catholicism. Same goes for same-sex marriage. Although technically everyone is banned from a same-sex marriage in most states, it does the most damage to homosexuals since they are the ones that would derive benefit from such an arrangement.

He then brings up that "marrying for love" is an insufficient argument because if love were the qualifier for a legal marriage, then polygamy and pedophilia would have to be legalized, as well. I've already addressed the non-analogous nature of this slippery slope argument. The Heathen Republican makes a very similar argument to my own, and concludes with the following comment: "If society is allowed to define marriage, why can't we choose to say that marriage requires an exclusive commitment between two, unrelated consenting adults? Sure, it doesn't have the simplicity and elegance of 'between one man and one woman,' but it does remove an inappropriate restriction that unfairly harms homosexuals." Very eloquently said!

The Heathen Republican also stated that he hesitated to change his views because of a conservative bias towards "tradition over change," and that this sentiment was the sole obstacle. I am glad that he re-visited the argument and realized that everything else considered, an argumentum ad antiquitatem cannot stand on its own as a well-reasoned argument. It takes an individual of strong character to admit that they were wrong and change their views accordingly, which is a character trait I admire. Kudos to the Heathen Republican!

I hope for a future in which a good majority of Republicans and conservatives can come to similar, cogent reasons for supporting same-sex marriage.

Rebellion for Freedom of Religion and the Chanukah Story

2011-12-21T22:26:00.004-06:00

The balance between obeisance and defiance in Judaism is captivating. The story of Chanukah gives another example to better find that balance.

As the story goes, Antiochus IV Epiphanes expanded into the land of Judea, which resulted in a divide between the Jews. On the one hand, you had the assimilated Hellenistic Jews, and on the other, you have what would become the zealously religious Maccabeans. Cultural oppression ensued. Jewish practices such as Torah study and circumcision were outlawed. Antiochus even went as far as sacrificing a pig on the altar in the Temple! Given the political climate, Judaism was at stake. Rather than be obedient to the authorities, the Maccabees decided to revolt against the Greek establishment. After much fighting, the Greeks were overthrown and sovereignty was returned to the Israelites.

I find it ironic that a celebration of the victory of the Religious Right is the most favorite holiday of secular Jews that mostly lean to the Left, but I'll leave that one alone....at least for now. The point I want to bring up is that the individual was meant to practice their religion, and practice it freely. The ability to pursue under one's own conscience while not harming others is essential to freedom and finding meaning in life.

Under normal circumstances, Jewish law dictates דינא דמלכותא דינא, or that "the law of the land is the law." However, Judaism takes exception to that when Jewish practice is at stake, much like with the Maccabees. Just to elucidate a bit further, something being legal does not make it morally right. Events such as the Holocaust and the Civil Rights movement remind us that there is certainly a distinction between the two.

I'm not all too worried about this happening in America. Historically speaking, freedom of religion in America has been pretty solid. Thank you, First Amendment of the Constitution! From a Jewish perspective, we have never enjoyed such freedom in the Diaspora. The ultimate failure of San Francisco's recent attempt to ban circumcision exemplifies how much we don't have to worry about an attack on religious freedom (e.g., practicing Judaism) in America, especially to a point where we would need to rebel against our government.

That is certainly a blessing I take into consideration this Chanukah: to live in a country in which I can freely observe my Judaism. Even though we are not in any danger of losing such freedom anytime soon, Jews should nevertheless be ever vigilant to make sure that what the Maccabees endured is not a reality in our time, but merely a distant memory.

חג שמח!

You Can Be a Good Jew Without a Beard

2011-12-14T19:00:00.001-06:00

Between the controversy over Matisyahu shaving his beard and the fact I recently read a Chabad article that said one of the reasons that Jews, and more specifically, Chasids, don't shave their beards is because shaving is a form of cross-dressing (true story....it was a halachic ruling by the third Chabad rebbe), I figured I'd write a brief blog entry about shaving beards in Jewish law.

When people typically think of a Jewish man, there will most likely be an image of a bearded man. This association is not incidental. The Torah states that "you shall not round the corners of your head, and do not destroy the corners of your beard (Leviticus 19:27)." The verse is a bit ambiguous. Fortunately, the Talmudic rabbis clear it up for us. Essentially, they find (Makkot 20a) the verse to mean that it is not permissible to shave the beard with a razor. Maimonides (Moreh 3:37) says that because it was the practice of idolatrous priests, we shouldn't shave our beards.

If this is all true, then does that mean there is an automatic correlation between beards and piety? Absolutely not!

First and foremost, not all Jewish men historically wore beards. Pious Jews in places such as Italy, France and Germany were clean-shaven. They managed to remove their beards with scissors. Even Joseph (Genesis 41:14) shaved his beard without any admonishment from G-d. Whether a Jew wore a beard seems to be more based on the surrounding culture, as opposed to a strict adherence to Jewish law. As a side note, even the Talmud (Shabbat 152a) notes that non-Jews in the ancient world had beards.

The Chatam Sofer, who was infamous for having said, in response to the Enlightenment period, "all innovations are prohibited," even said that there is no evidence of a prohibition of shaving (Responsa, Chatam Sofer, Orach Chayim 159) with methods that don't use a razor or razor-like objects.

This brings me to my next point. As previously mentioned, certain pious Jews would remove their beards with scissors. Fortunately, we have a much better method than a pair of scissors and functionally works like a pair of scissors: the electric razor. Since the electric razor works like a pair of scissors (i.e., two or more edges coming into edge with the skin, as opposed to the primitive, single-blade razor), it is permissible to shave one's beard with a razor.

Just because it's worth mentioning, there are certain times, such as Chol HaMoed, the period between the beginning of Sefirat HaOmer and Lag B'Omer, and during the first thirty days of the mourning process, where you absolutely do not shave, regardless of method. However, it is not during these times which are in question.

Keeping up the debate on these issues is always good. And if you don't shave because that is your custom or you feel more Jewish because you have a beard, then go for it! However, not having a beard does not make you any less of a good Jew. Having a beard doesn't have an impact on if you keep Shabbat or kosher, or if you lead an ethical life. Beards are only skin deep.

Thoughts on Herman Cain and Adultery

2011-12-06T11:08:00.000-06:00

This previous Saturday, presidential candidate Herman Cain withdrew from the GOP primary race, most probably because of his alleged extramarital affair. It doesn't matter what I think of Cain coming up with the 9-9-9 plan or his catering to social conservatives to get primary votes. It was hardly fair for Ginger White to cry "affair" without any substantiation. At least with Newt Gingrich, you can confirm it. Anyone can accuse someone of adultery as a dirty political tactic to knock down a candidate. What's worse is that it works, especially on Republican candidates who campaign on family values.

Regardless of political party or veracity of the allegation, it makes us wonder whether adultery is so terrible that it should disqualify an individual to run for office. On the one hand, adultery entails deception, self-indulgence, and an inability to keep one's commitments. If an individual cannot keep an ethically sound household, how do we expect him to do so elsewhere?

[Just to clarify, if the marriage were in the context of an open marriage (i.e., polyamorous marriage), we wouldn't be having this conversation. This is specifically for those who promise to monogamously be with each other "for richer or poor, in sickness and in health, and until death do us part."]

On the other hand, home and work are two different spheres. It can be possible to be a lousy husband or father while being successful in the workplace. Bill Clinton was a fine example of that. His personal life was something to be abhorred. On the other hand, Clinton had a presidency with a minimal amount of warfare (if you count Kosovo), not to mention economic growth, which included the Internet Boom, a budget surplus, and cutting back on spending in welfare programs.

I'm more inclined to believe in the latter. I understand that individuals are flawed. It's part of being human. I doubt that that I would want to be friends with someone who is deceptive enough to lie to their spouse. However, that is on a personal level. The question that voters should be asking is whether a candidate accused of adultery would still be the best candidate for office, even in spite of their flaws.

How Government Regulations Are Undermining the Job Market

2011-11-30T12:19:00.000-06:00

Those on the Left are arguing that government regulations have a negligible effect on layoffs. The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), for instance, argues that because a small number of businesses attribute government intervention as the cause for the layoffs (see Bureau of Labor Statistics data), we shouldn't have to worry. I don't even want to get into the argument that the regulations do their damage subtly enough that most businessmen would not be able to accurately attribute government regulations to layoffs. What I would like to point out is that it is the same Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) that recently announced that the level of layoffs are at pre-recession levels.

I'm sure my friends or colleagues on the Left will tell me that we need to have the government intervene in order to help bring up aggregate demand to pre-recession levels (i.e., Keynesian policy of government stimulus spending). If the issue were consumption, then our levels of consumption would be at lows not seen for quite some time. However, looking at Bureau of Economic Analysis consumption data (take particular note of the personal consumption expenditure data, especially this one), consumption has exceeded pre-recession levels.

If job layoffs are at a low not seen for quite one time, and consumption is "back to normal," then there must be some other explanation as to what is plaguing the job market. The issue facing the job market is that of job creation, as BLS data indicates. Let's not even consider that a recent Gallup poll of small business owners shows that government regulations are at the top of their list of problems. Last year, the Small Business Administration (SBA) published a study outlining how government regulations costs small business roughly ten thousand dollars per annum.

I don't know about you, but if I were a small business owner, I would be hard-pressed to hire new employees. Between the implications of Obamacare for small businesses, the ephemeral nature of the tax cuts, and the increasing amount of regulations that have been implemented since the beginning of the Obama Administration, there is a lot of uncertainty taking place. Small businesses need some reassurance that economic times are going to get better, and it cannot be done with hollow rhetoric. If you truly want to help small businesses feel more confident that they can afford to hire new employees without going out of business, de-regulation would go a long way.

Why Wake Up with Modeh Ani

2011-11-30T00:00:00.000-06:00

The ability to wake up "on the right side of the bed" is important because doing so properly affects the rhythm and mood for the rest of the day. There are certain ways of going about this secularly. I would like to approach this from a Jewish standpoint.

Upon waking up, a Jew is supposed to say the following:

מודה אני לפניך מלך חי וקים שהחזרת בי נשמתי בחמלה, רבה אמונתך.

I offer thanks before You, living and eternal King, for You have mercifully restored my soul within me; Your faithfulness is great.

Why start off the morning by saying the Modeh Ani? How does this help Jews "wake up on the right side of the bed?"

The more obvious answer is that you start off your day with a sense of gratitude. Jewish tradition (Talmud, Menachot 43b) teaches us to say a hundred blessings a day. The reason for this important practice is so that all we can see in our lives is blessing.

I would like to take this step further. In the Modeh Ani, we thank G-d for giving us another day. Life itself is a gift. This blessing makes us aware of that fact. However, it begs a question: what is life?

Human beings are different from other animals. Our needs transcend the provision of basic physical needs. We have free will, and we are to act upon that free will in order to bring goodness to the world.

That becomes the raison d'être: opportunities in which we can perform good deeds. This short, but powerful blessing reminds us that we should show appreciativeness to have another chance to make this world a better place.

Give it a try. I dare you. It takes about five seconds to say, and you have nowhere else to be as you're waking up. By saying the Modeh Ani, you get to spiritually wake up on the right side of the bed by reminding yourself who you are and what your purpose in life is.

Will Italy's Economy Make It Beyond This Week?

2011-11-28T14:05:00.001-06:00

Many news outlets have been reporting on the "euro crisis." Within the past few weeks, attention has been diverted from Greece to Italy, primarily because Italy's economy, which is the eighth largest economy in the world, has a debt that well exceeds 100% of its GDP ($1.9 trillion in debt, which is six times the amount of Greece's). Saying that the eurozone only has days might seem bleak or alarmist, but by observing what is going on in that region in the world, it could very well be in the realm of feasibility.

Looking at Italy's sorry excuse for a bond auction, Italy has seen Euro-era high interest rates on its bonds, which does not bode well for its recuperation because it's a measurement of confidence in Italy's economy.

Does the European Central Bank (i.e., Germany) underwrite Italy's debt? I know Germany has the healthiest economy within the eurozone, but I'd guess that Germany is sick of being expected to bail out the PIGS. And even if Germany decides to help, it's a safe bet that many strings will be attached. An extreme to not helping might be kicking Italy out of the eurozone and having it implode on its own.

Maybe the International Monetary Fund (IMF) can help out. This would be a high-risk investment. Even if risks were ignored, Italy has issues with its political institutions.

If Mario Monti can garner enough legitimacy to pressure the central bank to lower its interest rates, maybe it can solve the problem. Or even the Fed can alter interest rates to prevent a meltdown.

Maybe banks have gotten too big and too dependent on government. Global bank reform might be needed.

There are a lot of "maybes" in this blog entry, mainly because there is a whole lot of speculation as to what will happen to Italy, which has to do with the unpredictable nature of the financial sector. Whether Italy is going to make it beyond this week requires as much clairvoyance as predicting in which direction and how much the stock market will swing today. I'm not even going to begin to make a prediction on what will happen in Italy. All I can tell is that it does not look good, and the only way to avert disaster is to do something drastic.

Being Thankful for Comparative Advantage

2011-11-24T10:56:00.001-06:00

When asked what people are grateful for, common answers during Thanksgiving are family, friends, financial security, good health, or a nice, wonderful Thanksgiving meal. These are good answers, and I certainly don't eliminate them as things for which I need to be thankful. However, I would like to add something a bit more idiosyncratic to the list. This year, I would like to focus on why I am thankful for comparative advantage.

It might seem peculiar to be thankful for an theoretical concept in economics. However, when we see how that theory is applied to practice, the reason for the gratitude becomes visible. The law of comparative advantage, also known as the Ricardian Law of Association, states that an entity, whether it be an individual, firm, or country, has the ability to produce a good or service at a lower opportunity cost than the other. Although it might not seem logical for a country with absolute advantage in multiple goods or services to trade with a country with absolute disadvantage, the reason for exchanging goods and services makes sense when one considers relative efficiencies. For example, Michael Jordan might be better both at playing basketball and mowing his lawn than his landscaper (i.e., absolute advantage), but because of comparative advantage, Michael Jordan decides to play basketball while letting the landscaper cut his lawn because his comparative advantage in the former is much greater than the latter. By using specialization and division of labor, we come across a few things.

On the international level, this translates to free trade. Free trade leads to competition in the international market, which leads to a greater incentive to create a better product. Since nation-states are participating in free trade, that also means that they have to cooperate. Think of Britain and France, two nations that had fought wars with each other for centuries. When they started to trade with one another, they stopped fighting. Why? Because the benefit of improving the quality of one's lifestyle exceeds the costs of warfare. It's also one of the reasons why China is not attacking Japan right now (although American military backing of Japan and the balance of power issues also attribute to China's military inaction).

To conclude in layman's terms, the free trade induced by the principle of comparative advantage is a stabilizer amongst people. It better allocates resources. It brings the competition needed to produce better goods and services. Overall economic welfare is increased, which means we can all enjoy much better living standards than if we didn't have it, and that is something for which we should all be thankful.

Happy Thanksgiving!

EU Stupidity: Water Doesn't Prevent Dehydration

2011-11-22T11:03:00.000-06:00

The European Food and Safety Authority, a bureaucratic entity of the European Union, put out a scientific publication that states that water does not prevent dehydration. Yes, you read that correctly. Water doesn't prevent dehydration, even though the very definition of "dehydrate" entails a net loss of water. Anyone who has drank water, which is everybody since it is necessary for survival, knows that water prevents hydration. This is about ridiculous as saying that food does not prevent hunger.

Why is it that when the European Union is on the verge of collapse, why are you publishing idiocies that defy common sense? I don't live in the European Union, and I find this to be yet another waste of taxpayer dollars. Under British law, if an advertiser makes a claim contrary to EU law is subject to being jailed for two years. Since this is an edict from the EU, you can get punished for advertising that water prevents dehydration. Punishing individuals for common sense is well beyond stupid. This study is nothing more than another reason to beg the question of how the European Union has existed as long as it has.

Is Taxation Theft?

2011-11-17T19:23:00.001-06:00

"Taxation is theft" is one of those catchy one-liners used by anarcho-capitalists and certain non-anarchic libertarians. The argument is based on the axiom of nonaggression, which deontological libertarians tend to take to the extreme. The argument goes something like this:

"Theft is the coercive taking of one's property without one's consent. Taxation is the government taking your property [in the form of taxes] without one's consent. Therefore, taxation is theft."

A lot of Americans are angry at the rate at which citizens are taxed. The form of the tax also helps with the feeling of theft. A tax, like the income tax, directly affects what you make. Especially in our current progressive taxation set-up, it essentially punishes people for working better jobs. An indirect tax (e.g., sales tax, value-added tax) would do a much better job. After all, no one is forcing you to consume.

Even if you like to still say "taxation is theft," your argument misses one key element: legitimacy. Locke stated that a government is not legitimate unless it has the consent of the governed. That consent was established during the founding of this nation, and still exists. We have to remember that the revolutionaries in this countries threw tea into Boston Harbor because of "taxation without representation," not straight-up taxation. If you need more about the concept of social contract, read some John Locke, and you'll get the idea.

In Conscience of a Conservative, Barry Goldwater said that government should be able to do what it needs to do, not what it can do. I believe that many Americans have a similar sentiment. Government should enforce natural rights, not guarantee them. Government should have enough power to enforce contract rights for all. If you are to argue that national defense is a public good, then you should collect revenue for the military. Ditto for a police force!

Think of taxation as an enforced contract fee rather than as an act identical to theft. If not, I'm sure things would be much more enjoyable for you in Mogadishu.

Mississippi's Personhood Amendment: Talking About Unintended Consequences!

2011-11-07T21:16:00.001-06:00

Citizens of Mississippi will vote on a constitutional amendment tomorrow that will re-define personhood. According to the ballot initiative, a person will "include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof." You can imagine that there are those for and against the initiative, and that it is quite contentious, although these days, everything in politics is a "hot-button issue."

I would like to state that I consider myself pro-life. The fetus is not just a clump of cells equivalent to a tumor or "part of the mother's body." Although birth marks a time in which the child separates from the mother, its worth and individuality are established long beforehand. Looking at fetal development, the fetus has all vital organs around the seventh week of gestation. From a biological standpoint, an unborn child is still genetically a human being.

How do we approach this legally? This one is trickier. I don't want to live in a society where abortion is viewed as another form of birth control or where abortion is commonplace. However, if society were to grant personhood as this amendment proposes, it brings up a few questions:

Is birth control going to be outlawed? And if so, will women in Mississippi have to cross state borders just to use birth control if so desired?
If a rape victim uses the morning after pill to prevent pregnancy, is she charged with manslaughter?
Will birth control have the same societal stigma as an "assault weapon?"
Can an unborn child be a beneficiary in a will? I bet that will make inheritance laws interesting!
If a mother has an abortion when her life is threatened, will doctors be charged for second-degree murder? Would the mother be charged with accessory to murder or just get off with self-defense?
Can you imagine the number of malpractice suits that would take place? Think what this would do to a state that already ranks 50th in the nation for healthcare.
If a woman drinks a glass of wine during pregnancy, will the courts charge her with child neglect or child abuse?
Can a fetus be claimed as a dependent when filing taxes so a deduction can be acquired?
Can the fetus also be used as a claim to receive government assistance?
15% to 20% of pregnancies sadly result in miscarriages. Are Mississippi police going to have to investigate each miscarriage as a possible homicide? Is there enough manpower to do all that investigating?
Do fetuses and zygotes count in the Census? If so, does every single woman in Mississippi have to be subjected to a pregnancy test to assure an accurate count? Also, will this affect voter districting?

This amendment is a train wreck waiting to happen. Think of how much Mississippi's debt and tax rate will increase in order to enforce this. Think of how much Big Brother will intervene in the lives of Mississippians. If this amendment made it to the Supreme Court to attempt to challenge Roe v. Wade, think of how much it would backfire and embolden the "pro-choice" movement. I really, really hope that this amendment doesn't pass!

Parsha Lech-Lecha: The Burden of Being Rich

2011-11-04T16:14:00.001-05:00

The media frenzy that is directed towards the Occupy Wall Street movement has brought income inequality to the forefront of the American political discussion. Those who are in poverty do not have it easy. As a matter of fact, the Talmud (Baba Batra 116a) says that if you have fifty plagues on one side and poverty on the other, poverty is worse! This hyperbolic statement shows us how just debilitating poverty can be.

How about the rich? With the 99%/1% divide in this country, you would think that the rich have it so easy, that they don't have to deal with any issues. If you think that it's clear sailing for the rich, you're wrong, and nothing shows that like this week's Torah portion. As Abram was leaving Egypt, Torah said that Abram was very rich, in cattle, in silver, and in gold (Genesis 13:2).

וְאַבְרָם, כָּבֵד מְאֹד, בַּמִּקְנֶה, בַּכֶּסֶף וּבַזָּהָב.

What is interesting is that כָּבֵד does not simply mean "rich." As Rabbi Yonatan Eybeschutz points out, כָּבֵד can also mean "heavy" or "burdensome." Being rich beyond your wildest dreams means you can afford whatever you want. How is it that being rich is burdensome?!

I have two possible answers for this question.

The first is that when one has a lot of money, it is all too tempting to succumb to avarice. Money becomes the ends rather than the means, and maintaining a moral compass is all the more difficult, and as a result, the rich man's pursuit for acquiring more money for the sake of acquiring more money can result in ruining people's lives.

The second answer is that money is actually a great responsibility. Everyone in life has their tests. What is the test for the rich man? Generosity. There is the story that the Chofetz Chaim had a nightmare. What was that nightmare? Being rich. Why was that a nightmare? Because he realized that he would have to distribute a huge amount of tzedakah. Doing so requires a lot of time and effort. He wouldn't have had any time left to study Torah, which for him being a rabbi, was a nightmare. Testing one's generosity amidst a load of wealth is never an easy task. It takes strong moral fiber to successfully pull it off. Even though the obligation of most citizens will never reach the level of the rich, it should nevertheless make our awareness to the responsibility to help the poor all the more heightened.

Is Income Inequality That Big of a Deal?

2011-11-03T23:27:00.001-05:00

Ever since the CBO report came out on income distribution, the Left has once again bemoaned about income inequality. Paul Krugman even came out with a piece very recently entitled "Oligarchy, American Style." I'm going to forget that the report is misleading in the sense that it collected data up until 2007. The reason for my accusation is because if the CBO bothered to look at the IRS data for 2008 and 2009, they would have found that the income for the 1% fell to 1997 levels (see Tax Foundation study for further info on tax burdens).

This led me to an important question: should we be worried about income inequality? Just a few thoughts on the matter......

Looking at income as an economic indicator for one's economic well-being is inaccurate as it is arbitrary. Why? Income is a relative measurement. When the dollar is devalued or inflation increases, income doesn't mean as much. Would you be more impressed with someone who makes $500K now or fifty years ago? On the other end, when technology improves what we consume, we are able to consume more quantitatively and qualitatively, thereby increasing our purchase power. As such, when having this discussion, we should look at consumption, not at income. And when we do, it's amazing because consumption-based poverty is much lower than income-based poverty.
Division of labor comes into mind during this discussion. We all have different skills, levels of intelligence, motivations, and job preferences. Some of us choose jobs that we like, but don't pay as much (e.g., social worker). Other jobs earn a lot of money, and people are in that profession for that reason. Do we think that a janitor should be paid as much as a doctor? I certainly hope not! Doctors are skilled workers that are in high demand. If we hypothetically made everyone's wage equal, regardless of profession, doctors would hardly see the incentive to pay all those years of medical school just to get paid the same amount as a janitor.
Income inequality is not an inherently bad thing. You have cases such as Bernie Madoff and Enron. They ruined the lives of many with their avarice. And while these cases are unfortunate, they are by far much more infrequent than cases of people climbing to the top with innovation. Take Steve Jobs as an example. He spent 60-80 hours a week in the office to bring us wonderful Mac products. Do we hate him for that? A huge majority of us would answer in the negative. He worked hard to bring many people Mac products, which have changed the lives of many. Since he worked hard, he earned the money he made. It's not so much where there is inequality, but how it is brought about.
This is why income inequality is not so much of a moral issue as is the topic of economic sufficiency, which is a point that philosopher Harry Frankfurt brings up. "Do we have enough?" That should be the question, not "why does the millionaire have so much, and I have nothing [in comparison]?" I'm not trying to belittle those who have genuinely suffered through this recession, or say that the unemployed need to "toughen up" or "grin and bear it." What I can say is that many in America have lost perspective. Rather than look at what we have and be grateful, we look at what we don't have in hopes to "keep up with the Joneses."
We live in a materialistic society that over-emphasizes the individual to the point where many feel that the continual acquisition of more material goods will satiate their happiness. I have bad news for you: money doesn't buy happiness. Money is a means to an end. I would be worried more about what makes me happy than if I have more money than my neighbor, especially if he is part of the 1%.
And if you need to put yourself into perspective, even the poorest American still has more money than three-quarters of the rest of the world.
During the period of the CBO study, 57.5% in the lowest quintile jumped at least one quintile, and of those in the 1% during 1999, only 44.6% were still there in 2007. So let's be thankful that there is economic mobility in America.

Postscript: This is not to say that those in Occupy Wall Street protests have a reason to be angry. They do. There is a political system that has failed them while it commits idiocies such as bailing out the banking industry. If a bank such as Citibank is failing, it should be allowed to fail. It shouldn't be bailed out because Big Government came to the rescue. As Ronald Reagan once said, "Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is our problem." You want to create more economic prosperity so we can get our economy back on track? Remove the red tape that inhibits small business from hiring. Stop pouring money into energy plants like Beacon Power that file bankruptcy. Enough with the bailouts already! If you lift the restraints that constrain the markets, there won't be a need to occupy Wall Street anymore.

Seven Billion and Counting

2011-10-31T21:46:00.000-05:00

The United Nations announced today that the world population has reached seven billion. In a neo-Malthusian fashion, the UN proclaimed worries about enough food and resources to provide a decent lifestyle for all, especially when their projections predict that global population will eventually reach ten billion. Are we to be scared about overpopulation?

In the short-term, I'm more preoccupied not with a lack of resources, but that a primary issue with developing countries developing is the lack of infrastructure that is to insure that people require that which they need.

For more developed areas such as Europe, their issue is not overpopulation, but underpopulation. Nations such as France and Italy are well below the replacement fertility rate of 2.1. If Europe does not implement policy to encourage increasing birth rates, it will mimic Japan's demographic demise. And the United States is slightly below the replacement rate, so even American policymakers might want to start considering slight encouragement in the direction of birth encouragement, or at least make its immigration policy a bit more lax.

Western nations have fertility rate issues now because lowered infant mortality and increased reproductive rights (e.g., increased access to contraceptives), which is why their demographic issues are more urgent than that of the rest of the world. Developing nations such as China and India have a little more time before they come upon this trend.

Although the sense of urgency varies from nation to nation, one thing for sure is that the real, long-term scare is in the declining fertility rate, not in overpopulation.

Let's Say Global Warming Is Real....

2011-10-27T21:46:00.000-05:00

I'm going to take my typical skepticism one step further. I am going to be skeptical of my skepticism, and do so specifically with regard to global warming. What I am going to do in this blog entry is throw out any skepticism about global warming I might have and accept the postulation that man-made global warming is a real, legitimate threat.

A short synopsis of the issue is as such: humans have emitted an unprecedented amount of carbon and is being expelled into the atmosphere. The issue is that the atmosphere is unable to dispel of it as quickly as a gas such as methane. As a result, it gets trapped in the atmosphere for a considerable amount of time, thereby causing the earth to get warmer. If global warming is not addressed, we will have cataclysmic climate changes that will cause the sea levels to rise and all sorts of natural disasters that will wipe out thousands upon thousands of people.

Clearly, Mother Nature going ballistic is not desirable. So how do we avoid this climate catastrophe? Reduce carbon emissions by 80% before 2050.

One obvious solution to this would to cut back on consumption. Currently, there are three main providers of energy, and all of these produce greenhouse gases. Petroleum is at 36%, natural gas is at 24%, and coal is at about 20%, which cumulatively provide about 83% of America's energy. Even if you cut back on some of the production of fossil fuels and implement cap-and-trade en masse to discourage carbon consumption, which is a bad idea to begin with, it will be insufficient. Also, consider the fact that world consumption of energy is projected to only go up.

Are you really going to tell Americans to drastically consumption up to the point where it's more than half? Good luck with that! Even though America produces about 20% of the carbon, it'll be a hard time to make the "less consumption" pitch to other nations without running into the free rider problem, especially when developing nations such as China, India, and Brazil are only looking to further increase their economic wealth, which means increased consumption.

Although consumption cutbacks might have to be in order, this problem will not truly be solved until we tap into an alternative energy source. Usage of renewable energy sources is not that plentiful, only totaling up to 8%. Wind and solar power currently make up less than 1%, and will not be making a huge contribution to aggregate energy demands because of inefficiencies. Biofuels make up 23% of the renewable energy because of our heavy corn subsidies to Big Agriculture. Even hydroelectric power has its natural limitations, being that you only have a limited amount of bodies of water where building a dam would be conducive.

I'm sure we will be seeing these alternative energy options increase in terms of contribution percentage as time passes. To say that they will be able to sustain long-term energy consumption for America, as well as the rest of the world, is highly improbable. There is only one remaining alternative to this problem, which is going to have to merit a future blog entry from me, and that is nuclear power.

Why the Sino-American Trade Deficit Is a Red Herring

2011-10-26T11:26:00.000-05:00

When the balance of trade is such that net imports exceed net exports, it is considered a trade deficit. Using the trade deficit as an economic indicator, politicians look at it and automatically assume that the country is incurring a net loss. This phenomenon has recently garnered attention amongst American politicians regarding China. Members of Congress see a trade deficit, and they want to blame China. The most recent form of such animosity is the Emergency China Trade Act, which essentially is a punitive piece of legislation for China’s inability to appreciate its currency quickly enough. In spite of there being legitimate criticism regarding “currency manipulation,” the real reason for Congress passing the bill is to give into the populist gripe of “our jobs were sent overseas!” With no economic recovery in sight, it is understandable from a political standpoint why Congress would want to blame China. Objurgating China takes the pressure off of the United States Congress for a lack of job creation and economic recovery.

Much of Congress’ decisions are made based on their misunderstanding of trade deficits. More than a century ago, Frédéric Bastiat already showed how a “trade deficit” can turn profit. Milton Friedman also points out that American dollars come back to the United States, typically in the form of foreign control of assets. This assertion is confirmed by government statistics. In 2010, other nations spent $59 billion a month on U.S. Treasury Bonds. Furthermore, foreign direct investment in America averaged to $19 billion a month. These investments de facto offset any trade imbalances one sees, as was reported back in 2010. Rather than trade deficits causing economic disfunction, they are a sign of positive economic health. Looking at BEA records that date back to 1980, each time that trade deficits were agglomerated, GDP growth was higher when trade deficits were increasing than when the deficits were contracting (3.6% and 1.0% respectively).

In addition to the fact that deficits are not as harmful as one would think, America has been running trade deficits long since before the Great Recession. U.S. Census data shows that trade deficits have been accrued nonstop since 1976, and trade deficits have been a part of American economic history since before China’s economic reform in the late 1970s. Every year for which the U.S. Census Bureau can account, there has been a trade deficit with China. Trade deficit with China is historically nothing new. However, using trade deficits as a scapegoat is a very politically expedient move.

Furthermore, America is a nation obsessed with consumption. Microcosmically, American citizens have a poor propensity to save. From 1982 until the Great Recession, the personal savings rate was only two percent of personal disposable income (DPI). Even with the recession, the personal savings rate only reached 5.9%. Consumer credit is currently at $2,444.9 billion, which would average to $11,064.94 per citizen. The macrocosm of the United States federal government is not any less flattering. With gross GDP considered, public debt is 92.3% of the GDP.

Recent congressional dealings with the debt ceiling were a reminder about debts in general. Running up a deficit is not inherently a bad idea. If one is able to pay their debts, running up deficits are advantageous in the short-run. However, if there is no solid plan to pay those debts, the result is much like the current economic malaise.

In summation, putting the spotlight on the trade deficit with China is unwarranted. Trade deficits are nothing to fear when foreign direct investment is taken into consideration; trade deficits actually signal good economic health. Congress’ misperception of trade deficits is resulting in poor economic policy. Rather than displaying malevolence towards one of their largest trading partners that is a rising power, perhaps the United States should focus on its domestic policy to mitigate the truly problematic deficits.

Parsha Bereshit: Resolving the Dichotomy Between Science and Religion

2011-10-22T23:09:00.001-05:00

July 21, 1925. William Jennings Bryant and Clarence Darrow finish duking it out in court. John T. Raulston ruled that John Scopes had violated Tennessee’s Butler Act, which prohibited school teachers to deny the Biblical account of creation. Although Scopes ultimately got off on a technicality, this case became the genesis for the dichotomy of science and religion in American politics.

It’s not just a matter of the increased number of Supreme Court cases regarding religion and politics that came subsequently. It's a matter of divisive polemics. On the one end, you have scientists who think religious people are ignoramuses obsessed with denialism and cognitive dissonance. The other end consists of the Religious Right, who would have you believe that anyone who professes evolution as fact is a hell-bound heathen.

What ever happened to the middle? Is there a middle? And if so, can one still be a "good Jew" while adhering to scientific data and standards?

The short answer is that the line of questioning is faulty. It presents a false dilemma in which either one has to choose between science and religion. This is an assumption that many Americans make because that is what the cultural landscape of America has been for almost a century.

There are so many Jewish Nobel Prize winners, 27 for chemistry, 46 for physics, 53 for medicine, you would hardly think Judaism has an aversion to the sciences, and that would be correct. What’s more is that this is not a modern Jewish phenomenon. For centuries, Jewish thought has viewed science and religion as two opposite poles, but rather as a duality.

First, I would like to point out some general points regarding Judaism and science:

Science explains the “how,” religion the “why.” Each field has its function in life. The Torah does not explain phenomena such as mitosis or gravity, just as science does not explain purpose, meaning, or how we should conduct our lives like the Torah does.
In the introduction of his philosophical magnum opus, Guide for the Perplexed, Maimonides states that one needs to understand the natural sciences and mathematics to understand the Torah. He goes even as far to say that an individual that has studied these fields is to be even more revered than a man steeped in Talmud.
Judaism has a blessing for when you meet a Torah scholar, as well as when you meet a secular scholar of comparable knowledge in his respective field (e.g., a scientist).
Later in the Guide for the Perplexed (II, xxv), Maimonides says that when a verse’s plain meaning is impossible (such as that of the corporeality of G-d or that the world was created in six literal days), we must read the verse figuratively.

How can we apply these general concepts to the Creation account in the Torah?

Again, Maimonides tells us that if something cannot be accepted with its plain meaning, we must read the verse or passage allegorically. That means that we can read the passage of “the world was created in six days” not in six literal days. After all, the sun was not created until Day Four. Who knows how long the first three days really were?
The first point can be countered by the fact that a vast majority of classical rabbis believed that the six days were literally six 24-hour periods. How do we get around that? In his book “The Science of G-d,” Gerald Schroeder uses the theory of relativity to explain how six days of creation are equivalent to the fifteen billion years of scientific evolution.
Science and religion tell us the same story. They are just giving two different narratives. Narrative #1: The universe was in a very hot, dense state, and eventually expanded rapidly. The expansion caused the universe to cool, and it still is in a presently expanding state. Narrative #2: After having created the universe in Genesis 1:1, G-d said "let there be light, and there was." Both explanations entail a sudden burst of light, and both explanations conclude that the universe indeed had a beginning. Both narratives are in concert with reality. (In a sense, it should be easier to accept the Torah’s account because we now know that there was a beginning to the universe. Up until the Big Bang Theory, it was widely accepted in the scientific community that the universe is “eternally old.”)
Torah does not provide with the scientific details as to how creation happened. To quote R. Samson Hirsch, it would not matter if evolution were accepted as valid scientific truth because it does not negate the Creation account. All understanding how we came into being would merely give us a reason to be even more reverent towards Hashem because we better understand His works.

Torah does not negate science, and science does not negate Torah. Science explains how the universe functions. Torah gives use meaning and purpose in a monotheistic context. Rather than have the two at odds with one another, what should be done is use both Jewish texts and scientific texts to better ascertain the truth.

A $20 Minimum Wage?!

2011-10-15T20:35:00.000-05:00

There has been much hype about the Occupy Wall Street movement lately. Although their frustration with the lack of economic growth, not to mention the collusion between Big Government and Big Business, is valid, frustration is insufficient in terms of implementing change. You need sound policy to back it up. Naïveté exists amongst these protesters, and an "unofficial" list of demands exemplified it. The first demand was to "restore the living wage," which entails raising the minimum wage to $20. But why stop at $20? Why not make it an even $100? The short response to this is that such an increase, whether to $20 or $100, would backfire.

And now, the longer answer.

One of the main issues is that minimum wage increases unemployment. In simple economic terms, the minimum wage is a price floor imposed on the labor market. If minimum wage were below the equilibrium point, minimum wage would have no effect. However, Leftist think tanks such as Economic Policy Institute admit that their wages would have been higher without the price floor, which is another way of saying that the price floor is above the equilibrium point. When a price floor is above the equilibrium point, it creates a surplus, which in this case, means that minimum creates unemployment. This effect is more pronounced because low-skilled labor is more elastic than skilled labor. Studies such as those from the National Center for Policy Analysis, Employment Policy Institute, and the United States Congress back up the economics.

Let's say that just about every study done on minimum wage is wrong, the laws of economics are wrong with regards to price ceilings, and minimum wage actually doesn't increase unemployment. You still have the other issue of minimum wage increasing the cost of production. Producers need to compensate for the loss in increased wages. They will do so by making the product more expensive, which translates into less consumption.

This especially hurts small businesses. Mom and Pop shops don't have the same advantage of economies of scale that a company such as Wal-Mart has. Especially with this recession, driving up production costs gets so ridiculous that the typical consumer will not want to shop at the Mom and Pop shop, even though the service is more personable. Minimum wage laws have thus adversely contributed to the closing of small businesses, especially during this recession. The same principle applies to non-profit organizations who cannot afford the current minimum wage. And even for large companies such as Wal-Mart, this incentivizes them to have human labor replaced by machines (e.g., automated checkouts).

Rather than helping those in need, minimum wage laws are hurting them (also see economist Greg Mankiw's thoughts), which obviously is the opposite of what was intended. This is pronounced on the global level, in which the United States has been racking up trade deficits for quite some years. In terms of foreign competition, the United States is at a disadvantage because China can charge whatever they want for labor, whereas the United States has to pay a minimum amount. The issues with this (i.e., increased labor costs and less workers) are more noticeable because you have to compete even harder to import quality products.

Although the minimum wage is not the sole culprit to current economic problems, it should be evident that minimum wage laws hurts those who it was intended to assist, is detrimental to labor markets by increasing unemployment, and impedes on America's ability to compete in the global market.

Political Digest for Week of October 2nd

2011-10-06T13:38:00.001-05:00

Considering the fact that it's still High Holiday season, I don't have enough time to sit down and do in-depth analysis. However, I wanted to post at least one blog entry, so I'll just do a brief digest with some pieces that I found this week that were of intrigue.

Cato Institute Associate Director Daniel Ikenson reviews how the China currency bill currently in Congress won't create jobs, and how it will backfire by actually destroying jobs.
I don't think this is really news, but Obama has increased debt by more than all the other presidents combined. I'll concede that the figure is misleading because it does not adjust for inflation. However, as Heritage Foundation points out, the federal debt as a percentage of GDP under Obama has not been this high since WWII (also see Politifact analysis for further detail).
Sarah Palin will not be seeking the presidential nomination this election cycle. I have three words for that: what a relief!
The Wall Street Journal reports that approximately half of Americans receive some sort of government benefits. The upward trend is not exactly comforting for those of us who prefer freedom to "social 'justice.'"
According to the Carnegie Endowment's Senior Associate Moisés Naím, China has the real potential to have its economic progress to be derailed, which would be worse than anything that is going to be going on in Greece right now. Original article in El País is here.
A bit of political satire from Reason Magazine about the "Occupy Wall Street" movement.

Is America Divided by the Haves and Have-Nots?

2011-10-02T14:41:00.000-05:00

One of the great things I have found about America is that it during its founding, it left the old caste system of aristocracy behind. It was founded upon the concept that "all men are created equal." Obviously, it has taken a bit more time to put that ideal into practice, but the notion that we are equal before the law is of paramount importance. It determines how we interact with people in our daily lives.

After reading a recent Pew Research poll on the American people's perception of whether America is a country of "haves" and "have-nots," I began to wonder if America has wandered away from its ideals once again.

I certainly how this recession has deepened the perception of there being such socio-economic strata. However, I also believe that American consumerism and materialism have generated a self-entitlement mentality that has stunted the average American's ability to be thankful for what they have. How are you supposed to feel any sense of gratitude when the American hyper-individualism instills that you deserve everything that crosses your path simply because "it's you and you are the center of the universe?"

I'm not denying that there are some people that are richer than others, and that some people are loaded compared to those who have the quotidian task of making sure there is enough food on the table. As I recently discussed, consumption is more important to take into consideration because consumption measures the purchasing parity power of the income. Consumption-based poverty is considerably lower than income-based. Not only that, I find it intriguing to compare this "divide" on an international level. When considering cost of living in other countries (see this NYT article), the disparity of the richest and poorest in America is considerably smaller than countries such as China or Brazil. The richest in India have as much consumer power as the poorest in America!

When you look at the global picture, we actually have it pretty nice here in America, even if you are "considerably poor." So much of gratitude is a matter of perception. Being grateful is easily clouded by issues such as envy, trying to satiate physical desires in a materialistic society, or trying to perpetuate class warfare. Even if you don't have as much as the neighbors next door, if you can be satisfied with your own lot, you have something to be thankful for. It's not simply a matter of "compared to a Third World country, it's nice." It's a matter of not taking what you have for granted or as a given. It's about the ability to appreciate what you have while simultaneously figuring what you can do to strive for more. Rather than trying to keep up with the Joneses and being divisive in the process, let's focus on what we can do to make ourselves better individuals, as well as what we can do on the macrocosm to create a better society.

Should the State Have Power Over Life and Death?

2011-09-23T16:29:00.000-05:00

The execution of Troy Davis has made the news lately. It has revitalized the anti-death penalty movement. The reporting around this news made me think about the death penalty again. Although I used to be gung-ho in support of the death penalty, I have taken a position of ambivalence for quite some time.

Part of that ambivalence is due to researching the "Jewish position." The Torah proscribes the death penalty for multiple crimes, including first-degree murder, violating the Sabbath, and being a "rebellious child." However, when taking a look at how it was put into practice in Judaism, the rabbis did their utmost to make sure that it was never enacted. In the Mishnah Makkot 1:10, the oft-cited verse goes as far to say that "if we were on the Sanhedrin, we would have never used the death penalty." In terms of the death penalty, theory and practice seem to have a considerable-sized gap between them.

That got me to start thinking of why the rabbis would want to throw every obstacle in front of corporal punishment, making it virtually impossible to ever enact the death penalty in practice. Maybe the rabbis did so because no judicial court should have that much power over life and death. In secular terms, none of us are so concise all the time to consistently render fair and impartial verdicts. Especially with the DNA testing that is exonerating those who have been sitting on Death Row all these years, I can hardly believe that the death penalty has been consistently carried out since we have been using it. If I have been critical of other areas of government being imperfect, if not downright inept, why do I expect the government to carry out such a daunting task of determining who lives and who dies under our penal system? To quote William Blackstone, it's better that "ten guilty escape than one person suffer."

However, I am still having troubles fully dismissing the pro-death penalty side. What do you do when somebody with unquestionable guilt comes along, such as Timothy McVeigh or Adolph Eichmann? Eichmann's guilt was never doubted, and even with all the terrorist acts in Israel, he has been the only person executed (with a quick hanging, mind you) in the history of modern Israel. It is unambiguous cases such as Eichmann that I cannot completely go along with the anti-death penalty crowd.

Ambivalence still ensues, and I have yet a way to get around it. Hopefully, someone will make an extremely valid point that will keep me in one camp or the other.

Social Security Is Not a Ponzi Scheme, It's Worse Than That

2011-09-21T14:18:00.000-05:00

Ever since Rick Perry called Social Security a "Ponzi scheme," people have been so uptight about usage of his "inflammatory rhetoric." It should be obvious that Perry was using the logical fallacy of false analogy to make his point.

I don't find Perry's analogy to be transferable to Social Security. However, when looking at Social Security, I would contend that it is actually worse than a Ponzi scheme.

The Left, like those at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, point out that there is no deception involved. The Social Security Administration (SSA) has annual actuarial publications showing how much money there is (for whatever that is worth). I'm all for transparency, particularly when it comes to my tax dollars. However, if that were the sole factor, I wouldn't have a need to kvetch.

Many Americans are under the impression that it works exactly like a retirement fund, not a pay-as-you-go system. Hence the Ponzi-like deception that well-lauded, Keynesian economist Paul Krugman pointed out back in 1996. As the SSA illustrates (see below), Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system, not a Ponzi scheme. As I have explained before, Social Security does not mean you have a personal retirement account with your name on it. The money you put in now goes to fund today's beneficiaries, not you. Although the intent is not to defraud the beneficiary, the effect (i.e., the structure of having today's financiers pay for today's beneficiaries) is analogous.

The fact that the SSA clearly illustrates this on their website does not change the typical American's deception. The demographic change of the Baby Boomers retiring means that you cannot take out more than you put into the Trust Fund forever. If you think that this is not an issue, the New York Times already reported last year that the Social Security's payout exceeded the pay-in. This reality will be more pronounced when Social Security disability is supposed to run out of money in 2017, whereas the Trust Fund is to be depleted in 2037.

Another point of deception is that Americans are guaranteed to their Social Security benefits. Contrary to popular belief, the Supreme Court already ruled in the case of Flemming v. Nestor (1960) that Social Security is not a guaranteed entitlement.

For those of us who find out the insolvency of Social Security, not to mention the sub-par rate of return, what happens if we don't want to put into the system? In Ponzi, once I figure out how the scheme works, I can say "no" and subsequently would be able to get out of it. Once the scheme is totally exposed, it collapses. Not so with Social Security. If I opted to not pay my Social Security taxes, I would go to jail. I already know that doesn't get invested in a personal retirement account (PRA). In short, I am de facto coerced into putting into the Trust Fund and paying for current beneficiaries.

Coercion coupled with insolvency do not bode well for future generations. I would like to see privatization of Social Security. Although that would give an individual the highest rate of return, this will most probably not be a politically salient option (e.g., Bush's failed attempt to privatize Social Security). What we'll most likely see are more short-terms solutions such as raise the retirement age, raise taxes (which has been done multiple times already), a decrease in benefits, or perpetuate the status quo. Whatever the United States government does, I know that I won't be relying on Social Security as a retirement fund.

Some Thoughts on the Census and Poverty Indicators

2011-09-16T11:13:00.003-05:00

Since the release of the Census data on poverty, the media has pointing out the conclusion of the data, which is that nearly one in six Americans are poor (which is 46.2 million!). Even the British and the French have picked up on this bit of news. (This chart from CNN shows the state-by-state breakdown of poverty rate according to the Census data) With the prolonged economic issues, I can see why the release of these findings would spur hullabaloo. And it should be no surprise that the Left jumped on this data and essentially cried "class warfare." The Left-leaning Center for American Progress analyzed the Census' news, and predictably concluded that we need to pass Obama's American Jobs Act, as well as increase spending on entitlement programs and further tax the rich.

If we were to take the Census findings at face value, we would think that America is worse off than ever. I'm not going to say that this recession has not been a burden on the American economy, and thus, the American people. It has! However, to measure poverty based on income, even if that is based on inflation-adjusted dollars, is methodologically flawed.

As The Economist states, "The Census Bureau's definition of 'poverty' is about as informative as the Justice Department's latest definition of 'enemy combatant.' It's not to be taken for granted." The main gripe in the previously cited Economist article is that various forms of government assistance do not count. This would include such benefits as government-assisted medical care (e.g., Medicare, Medicaid), food stamps (as well as other forms of welfare), and the Earned Income Tax Credit (note pages 52-68 for distribution rates based on income). The fact that these benefits are not factored into the Census Bureau's definition of poverty already makes their findings of "one in six is poor" suspect.

The even bigger distortion of the Census Bureau, thereby making their data misleading, is that their findings do not take consumption into consideration. Income is relative to the amount that one can consume. Freakonomics outlined this point out quite nicely a couple of days ago, and they even used data a recent study done by Professors Bruce Meyer and James Sullivan concurring with this idea. Even consumption reports from the U.S. Energy Information Administration show the consumption patterns of the poor from 2009. Looking at the EIA's data, I found some interesting facts, such as 98% of poor people (i.e., those with a household income less than $20K per annum) have at least one television, 83.5% have air conditioning, 48.1% have at least one computer, and a good majority have stoves, ovens, dishwashers, and refrigerators. When looking at the consumption-based measurements of the poverty gap, the gap is actually falling, not rising like it is in income-based.

This should certainly give us some thoughts in terms of how to handle poverty-related issues. Although we are currently in a "sluggish recovery," is it as bad as the media is making it out to be? Not at all. We should not give into the socialist impulse to want to give handouts out of some feeling of guilt. Rather than further burden the economy with entitlement spending that does nothing to resolve poverty in the long-run, we need to tackle root problems, mainly that of employment, education, and family composition. Once we recognize core issues, those who can be classified as genuinely poor can begin to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

Let's Shut Down the Post Office!

2011-09-06T08:53:00.000-05:00

Not too long ago, the New York Times lamented over the possibility that the United States Postal Service (USPS) might not be operating as of the beginning of the next calendar year. The USPS has seen declining revenues for some time, mainly due to e-mail being a more-commonly used substitute good for going to the post office for first-class mail. The other issue is that 80% of the expenses for the USPS are in labor, as opposed to the 53% at UPS or 32% at FedEx.

The fact that the contracts for USPS employees comes with no-layoff clauses only exacerbates the situation when labor accounts for most of the budget. The USPS also has to contend with having to provide universal service, work six days a week, and keep open facilities, half of which, are not even needed. Although there are those who criticize the passing of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA) back in 2006, which mandated that the USPS pre-fund retiree health benefits, it is rendered moot by the USPS' admission (p. 22 of GAO report) that these benefits would have needed to have been funded regardless of the PAEA. Therefore, it was not so much Bush's fault as it was the unionism of the USPS that put these lavishing retirement benefits in their contracts in the first place.

We also have to deal with the quasi-governmental nature of the USPS. Although the USPS is an organization that is set up on a business model, as well as not receiving government appropriations, it nevertheless has oversight from the Postal Regulatory Commission (whose members are selected by the President of the United States) and has a federally mandated monopoly on first-class and standard mail delivery.

The real question here is what is to be done with regards to this issue.

It should be obvious that passivity will do nothing but close down the post office. Cutting jobs by 120,000 has recently been proposed. The USPS would have to find a way to break the no-layoff clauses in the contracts. And even if they could, it would have a ripple effect by striking a coup fort to the labor movement. Raising the stamp prices is an option, but it would not be viable in the long-run since that would push people towards using the Internet all the more. Cutting out Saturday deliver service has been suggested before, but has yet to be implemented. Cutting back on the health-care benefits brought about by collective bargaining, benefits that the GAO (p. 28) recognize as "more generous than most other agencies," will receive too much retaliation to ever get scaled back. The backlash would be comparable for any attempt to close facilities that are costing the USPS money.

Being a libertarian, my prescription should not surprise any of us. Let's privatize the postal service! And I don't mean the quasi-private/quasi-governmental mess we currently have that ranks very low in terms of postal freedom. Let organizations such as UPS and FedEx deliver my mail. This idea is anything but original. Other countries have tried it and succeeded. Take Germany for example. The Deutsche Post privatized back in 2000. Guess what their profit report for 2010 was? The actually made a profit of €2.541 billion ($3.58 billion USD). The Dutch-based business that provides mail to Holland, also made a profit of €347 million.

As much as I would love to see a postal system incentivized by competition to innovate, thereby bringing postage costs down and deliver in a more efficient manner, I regrettably predict that this fiasco will end in another bailout done under Obama's watch.

Justice Department Doesn't Understand Market Competition: Let the Merger with AT&T and T-Mobile Pass!

2011-09-05T11:47:00.001-05:00

With the Justice Department's recent vow to block the AT&T/T-Mobile merger from happening, you would think the Justice Department had nothing better to do. Alas, it feels that it has to regulate yet another aspect of our daily lives.

The reason for worry [from critics] is because this merger would cause AT&T to have 129 million customers, which would make it the largest cell phone provider in America. This franticness makes it sound as if this merger is going to end competition in the cell phone industry in this country. The fact of the matter is that it won't. Verizon Wireless alone has 106 million customers as of date. In addition to Verizon, AT&T would still have to compete with smaller providers, which still makes up a sizable percent of the market. This point cannot be stressed enough. If someone is fed up with AT&T, it's not as if they are stuck with AT&T for eternity. They can always go to a competitor. And if AT&T agitates enough customers, they will soon find out that they are out the business.

Also, if the Justice Department is complaining that T-Mobile wouldn't be able to operate as an independent provider that gives lower discounting, why would so many T-Mobile customers drop T-Mobile as their provider?

Furthermore, did the Justice Department even bother to ask T-Mobile how they felt? Aside from the fact that a merger requires mutual consent from a majority of shareholders in both parties, it sounds like T-Mobile wants the merger to happen. On a side note, even the AFL-CIO wants it to happen, which says something unto itself.

This merger does not do anything to create a monopoly in the market. You have two consenting companies deciding what to do with their capital, which is a slightly different way of expressing the importance of property rights. As long as there are competitors in a market that is [relatively] free, then the number of firms in the industry does not matter. What does matter is when the government thinks it can regulate the industry in a clairvoyant manner. The government does not possess the knowledge to know what consumers want, which is why the central command economies of the former Soviet Union and Maoist China are no more.

It might be difficult for the Justice Department to understand this because it views itself in the allegedly benevolent role of "protecting competition," but the government should just let the merger happen.

UN Troops Commit Sexual Assault....Again!

2011-09-04T19:22:00.000-05:00

I can see why the Right attacks the United Nations. They see it as an attack on American sovereignty and wonder why they should put so much money into an organization that "doesn't serve the national interest." And considering the fact that the United States funds 22% of the United Nation's budget, I wouldn't exactly blame them for being concerned about money being properly spent.

However, you have to admit that if the Left is being critical of the United Nations, you have to begin to wonder whether the United Nations is qualified to do their job. That is exactly what I thought when I read this publication from the Center of Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), which is a Left-of-center think tank. It has been verified that United Nations peace-keeping troops are at it again with the sexual assault. This isn't the first time that UN troops have participated in such egregious behavior. They have done it before in Sri Lanka, Congo, and Haiti. It makes it all the more repulsive since these troops have immunity from prosecution.

I personally hope that H.R. 2829 passes Congress so the United Nations can actually be held accountable for the NGO in its entirety. There are few things more morally reprehensible than a human rights organization going around and violating human rights, which is in direct conflict with their Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Parsha Re'eh: What Being Part of the "Chosen People" Really Means

2011-08-28T01:36:00.002-05:00

There are few concepts in Judaism that are more misunderstood by Jew and non-Jew alike than the notion of the Jews being a chosen people (עם נבחר). It is a concept we see in this week's Torah portion (Deuteronomy 14:2). Many Jews shy away from the title "Chosen People" because it makes them feel uncomfortable in an increasingly globalized world. Some non-Jews have unfortunately used the concept to advance their anti-Semitism and accuse Jews of racism. Needless to say, it's a controversial topic that most certainly needs clarification.

First, we should go over what being chosen is not. It is not a form of ethnocentrism.

I find it important to add this side note before continuing. The Chinese name for China is 中国, which literally means "Middle Kingdom." A sizable amount of Americans refer to America as the "greatest nation on Earth." Christians who believe in supersessionism opine that Judaism was replaced by Christianity, thereby making Christians the "new chosen people." If you have a culture, you will undoubtedly have ethnocentrism. It exists throughout the entirety of human history. Why are the Jews singled out with this accusation when every other group of people has been guilty of some form of ethnocentrism? I don't know the answer to the question, but it is nevertheless a double standard.

The notion of the Jewish people cannot be considered racist for the simple fact that Judaism is not a race. There are all sorts of Jews. There are American Jews, French Jews, Mexican Jews, Ethiopian Jews, Indian Jews, Japanese Jews, the list goes on and on. With such a racial diversity, Jews cannot be classified as a race. Furthermore, the Jewish people are non-exclusionary in the sense that anybody can convert to Judaism.

Being part of the "chosen people" does not even mean that Jews are better than non-Jews. Just like everybody else, Jews have made mistakes. The Hebrew Bible is a constant reminder of that fact. As soon as the Jews left Egypt, there was the Golden Calf incident. Jews have been exiled twice from Israel. Even on the individual level, Jews are imperfect. We're human, just like everybody else, which is why Judaism has a strong belief in the dignity of man.

So if being chosen does not have anything to do with racism or superiority, what does it mean? For what reason were the Jews chosen?

G-d chose the Jews as a spiritual vocation, to be "a holy nation (Exodus 19:6)," as it were. What that means is that Jews were not chosen for privileges; they were chosen to undertake more responsibilities. Non-Jews are not required to observe the Sabbath, the dietary laws (kashrut), or make sure that your wool and linen is not mixed. The Torah and mitzvoth are responsibilities solely given to the Jews. In addition to these obligations, Jews have obligations to humankind by changing the world for the better. Jews are meant to be a "light unto nations (Isaiah 42:6)." In this respect, Jews are to be a role model for the rest of the world in order that together, we can actualize Messianic prophecy and create a more just, compassionate society.

This post-Shabbat blog was inspired by a sermon I heard on August 26, 2011.

Does Judaism Really Have a Blessing Thanking G-d For Not Being a Woman?: A Case Study for Modifying Liturgy

2011-08-24T15:13:00.000-05:00

Introduction

I would like to preface this entry with the fact that this is not the first time I have opened up a traditional prayer and suddenly become aware of this blessing. I have known about it for quite some time; it's just that this is the first time I am giving it any in-depth thought.

For those who are not traditional Jews (e.g., feminists, most 21st-century Americans), I would not be the least bit surprised that you would be offended at the notion of there being a blessing that says "Blessed are You, Our L-rd, Our G-d, who has not made me a woman." With a blessing like this, one cannot help but think that this blessing perpetuates the fallacious idea that Judaism is a misogynistic, patriarchal religion.

[There are also two other "'who has not made me' blessings" that are contentious, thanking G-d for not making me a slave (initially "ignoramus") and not making me a Gentile. Although I would like to primarily focus on "shelo asani isha," I will occasionally mention the other two since the ruling on the one blessing is going to have bearing on the (in)ability to modify the other two blessings.]

At this time, we should ask ourselves two questions. Should we change the blessing, and are we legally capable of doing so?

Should We Change the Blessing?

Hillel taught (Pirke Avot 2:4) not to judge your fellow until you are in their place. Although that is literally impossible to be in someone else's identical scenario, the lesson that Hillel was trying to communicate is when judging, imagine how it is to be in someone else's position and make your judgement call from there. Although I am not a woman, I nevertheless imagine how I would react to this blessing if I were hypothetically a woman. I would be miffed, to say the least. When you say "Thank G-d for not making me a woman," it is a statement that institutionally speaking, women are inferior to men. Insulting 51% of your congregation is not the smartest move, especially since the Talmud (Bava Mezia 58b) teaches that "whoever shames his neighbor in public (e.g., a synagogue), it is as if he sheds blood."

It could very well be that a simple, literal reading of the blessing might be taken out of its overall context. One of the apologetic reasons given is that men have more responsibilities than women, thus the blessing. The certainly lines up with the Talmud's (Tosefta Berachot 6:18, Menachot 44a) reasoning that it has to do with an individual's ability to serve G-d. If it's a matter of having more burdens, you would think that the blessing would be "thank G-d I'm not a man," not the other way around, but maybe I'm over-analyzing this. Rashi opined that the reason for the blessing is because men, much like freemen, had a superior social status. If the Talmudic creation had these three blessings (that of the ignoramus, Gentile, and woman) linked in their creation, we run into a problem since Jews have historically been oppressed.

On a side note, I recall hearing a drash that women are actually spiritually stronger than men because man was created from dust (Genesis 2:7), whereas women was created from bone (ibid, 2:21), which is a stronger substance.

I would argue that re-framing the blessing in a positive statement, as opposed to the current negative statements, is better. When you say these blessings in the negative, it implies that it is unfortunate to be a woman or a non-Jew. It comes off as a disdainful claim of superiority. Since the Talmud (Yevamot 65b) says that the Torah was created for the sake of peace, traditionalists really should consider changing the blessing. The Conservative movement has been innovative in this respect. They changed this blessing into "Thank you G-d for making me in Your image." They also changed "who did not make me into a Gentile" into "who has made me a Jew." Such positive statements also exist in secular culture. When one says "I'm proud to be an American," they are affirming their identity with pride while not denigrating others in the process. The same principle applies here. Even better, such positive thinking helps with one's well-being. If I maintain the essence of the blessing while preserving the dignity of others, why shouldn't I be able to do so?

Can We Actually Change the Blessing?

The question we now have to answer is whether the halachic system gives us the leeway to modify, add, or subtract blessings. In order to answer that question, however, one has to discern whether the liturgy has remained fixed and monolithic throughout Jewish history. We need to first realize that liturgy developed over the ages, a lot of which was developed prior to Guttenberg's invention of the printing press. The probability that a people can maintain a consistently monolithic liturgy while spread across the world in exile is highly improbable because so many cultural, societal, and political factors need to be taken into consideration. As such, R. Josef Tabory and R. Daniel Sperber illustrate that the short answer to this question is an unequivocal "no."

In the two responsa by Rabbis Tabory and Sperber, they give multiple examples in respects to variations of liturgy. The fact that R. Jacob ben Asher created the "for having created me according to His will" for women in the fourteenth century already shows us we can add liturgy. If we need another non-related example of new creation liturgy, just think of Lecha Dodi, which was added to the prayerbooks in the Middle Ages.

In fourteenth and fifteenth century Provence, the blessing was modified to "who has made me a woman." Abraham Farisol, a fifteenth-century Italian scribe, even went as far as to put in "who has made me a woman and not a man." R. Josef b. Moshe, a 15th-century German rabbi, modified it to "who has not made me a brute." During R. Moshe's time period, it was practice in Austria to say "who has not made me an animal." Keep in mind that these are not modern-day examples, but examples from the Middle Ages.

Sperber is of the opinion that one should not change the general framework of the blessing, although the formulations were not immutable. His responsum ultimately concludes that because this is a practice that has occurred throughout the ages by prominent rabbis, there is plenty of precedence, not to mention permissibility for modifications, additions, and subtractions in liturgy. The Conservative movement ruled on this matter over twenty years ago when they decided to add the names of the Matriarchs in the Amidah.

Conclusion

Jewish liturgy has historically been anything but fixed and unwavering. Since time immemorial, Jews have added, removed, and modified when needed. The practice is well-established in Jewish legal history. From what I have presented, this capability has already been realized and actualized in the more liberal Jewish communities. The issue at hand is the more traditional/halachic communities since they are, by nature, more resistant to change. This resistance is brought upon by the logical fallacy of the slippery slope. For a large majority in the Orthodox community, if we change one thing, then everything will change and it will all fall apart, even if it's something as simple as a few words in a blessing. It might be more difficult to maintain the dichotomy between tradition and change in one's daily life, but I can tell you it's worth the effort.

Once again, I have come across yet another case study that proves that Jewish practice is not stagnant, but rather an evolving corpus that takes both traditions and the current scenario into consideration. When we change the blessing of "shelo asani isha" into something more positive like "Thank You G-d for creating me in Your image," it keeps our traditions intact while considering modern sensibilities within the parameters set by Jewish law. It is this sort of adaptation that has kept Judaism alive all the centuries, and will keep it alive for centuries to come.

Give Us Spending Cuts or Give Us Death!

2011-08-23T18:11:00.000-05:00

The economy is not getting better and the people want results. A recent CNN poll shows that a majority of Americans would like for the rich to "put in their fair share,"even though the income tax is a highly progressive tax in which the top ten percent of wage earners pay two-thirds of the taxes (see IRS data). Many probably think that because the rich have so much money, it would only be a matter of taking even more of their money because "they can spare it." Would tax increases [on the rich] really solve the nation's economic problems?

According to the video by Bill Whittle [above], even if we took all of the 2010 profits from all of the Fortune 500 companies, all the money from those making $250K, all the money we would have spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as foreign aid, and if those making under $250K each put in $40, we would barely be able to scrape together the $2.6 trillion needed for this year. But we would need to keep in mind a couple things. First of all, if we went after all the rich in this hypothetical scenario, we have destroyed the ability to turn capital into revenue, which would mean "no jobs!" In layman's terms, we would have destroyed our economy in the process. The second issue is that Obama is looking to increase the budget, quelle surprise! As such, there is not as much money to go around as we thought.

For some of you, an entertaining video might not suffice. What do economists have to say? According to CNBC, a survey conducted by the National Association for Business Economics shows that 56% of economists believe that spending cuts is the way to go, along with the 37% that believe that spending cuts should be combined with tax hikes.

And even if that were not enough, how about a study from two economics professors from Harvard? Back in 2009, Harvard Professors Alberto Alesina and Silvia Ardagna looked at 107 attempts from 21 OECD nations to reduce the debt. The results? Per the chart below, the overwhelming data show that spending cuts objectively work better than increasing government spending. Take that, Keynes!

Studies from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) also follow suit in terms of the effectiveness of spending cuts.

To conclude, tax cuts are only going to exacerbate the problem, whereas spending cuts are just thing this country needs, especially considering how much we inefficiently spend on defense spending, Social Security, and other forms of entitlement spending. If the French are willing to implement austerity measures, shouldn't America at least be able to do better than the recently drafted, shoddy debt "deal?"

The Morality Behind Capitalism

2011-08-21T19:16:00.000-05:00

Capitalism is blamed for a myriad of societal issues, whether it is the destruction of the environment, economic exploitation, or even this recession. You have a problem, I can guarantee that an overwhelming majority of those on the Left will attribute those woes to capitalism. With such events as the Bernie Madoff scandal or the fiasco with Enron, morality and capitalism seem more like a big dichotomy than anything else. Many free-market advocates can talk about the efficiencies and the improvement of quality of life that can objectively be attributed to capitalism, but they usually shy away when it comes to talking about "capitalism and morality." It's about time that anybody who is a proponent of free markets breaks the silence, especially since it is clear that the Keynesian/social welfare approach is putting the world's financial health at long-term risk.

With that in mind, let's go into further detail as to why capitalism is a morally superior choice to socialism.

Competition. Socialists will opine that one of the reasons that capitalism is evil is because the competition it promotes is so cut-throat that it leaves people behind. One of the things that socialists need to realize is that no matter which style of governance you choose, there will always be competition. Competition is omnipresent in human nature. Humans compete not just for jobs, but also for things such as love and honor. The difference between capitalism and other economic systems is the way capitalism channels that competitive drive more constructively. Property is obtained by peaceful means. This leads to mutual cooperation between the consumer and the producer. Since property rights are a hallmark of capitalism, the Golden Rule becomes a given in a capitalist society. Socialism, on the other hand, does not have such peaceful methods because it is zero-sum. There are those who win and those who lose. Socialism forces that the consumer's will to be that of the government. In the extreme situation, you go to the gulags if you don't comply. In most situations, you have to wait in line to get your goodies from the government, and it usually involves getting elbowed out of the queue and having to go to the back of the line.
Profits. There go those socialists again, talking about the evil of profit-making. "If only we could go back to a simpler time, we would not have all these problems." The problem with socialists is that they are in a pre-capitalist mentality. Prior to the advent of capitalism, the world was one big pre-Industrial hellhole. People during those times worked longer hours under worse conditions just to survive. Unless you were that less than one percent who happened to be an aristocrat, being able to thrive or "live the good life" was not an option. This is evident in modern-day Third World countries. If you meet a rich person in a Third World country, odds are that he came about his wealth through crime and true exploitation. In a capitalist society, you know that a rich person became rich because they made a positive contribution to society, not because they took from others. Such innovators as Andrew Carnegie, Bill Gates, and Mark Zuckerberg come to mind. That is why contrary to popular belief, most millionaires in America are self-made, first generation millionaires. The other joy of capitalism is that when a rich person has a luxury item, you know that it will become commonplace in a matter of a few years because the rich subsidize it. This was true of cell phones, air conditioning, the Internet, indoor plumbing, and many other inventions. Everyone benefits from innovative people, not just the rich. That is why the creation of one's wealth does not decrease the well-being of another individual. The Invisible Hand guides the economy where the individual good is also the common good (i.e., positive-sum game).
Equality vs. Freedom. To continue from my previous point, socialists will complain that people do not receive the same amount, which means socio-economic disparity. Although I am sure that certain socialists mean well, it's amazing how in socialist societies, people become equal......equally poor! The reason that a socialist society becomes equally poor in the long-run is that if you take the notion of economic distribution seriously and have it permeate enough in societal institutions, everyone will have the same salary. This will greatly disincentivize specialized labor to pursue certain fields (e.g., doctors, research and development, larger business). If you're going to get the same amount regardless of what you do, why strive for greatness? In capitalism, you unquestionably have freedom. With that freedom, you have the option between making a right choice and a wrong choice, which people like to call free will. In a socialist society, you don't have the leeway to make such choices. The advantage of capitalism is that it provides us the ability to actualize our own morality. Coercion is no gift. True charity and virtue come through exercising it freely, thereby making it more satisfactory of a moral achievement.
Self-interest. Self-interest is another one of those facets of human nature that we cannot evade. The Invisible Hand guides that selfishness into a constructive output both for the individual and society. That is why in capitalism, economic freedoms give individuals the right to exchange and transact freely. You can choose to live where you want, pursue whatever career you would like, explore pastimes, and spend money on luxury and travel. In capitalism, it's not about blind greed. It's about an enlightened self-interest that provides you with freedom and rights. In socialism, your "rights" are the ill-defined wishes of governmental officials, and those officials are only responsible for the wishes of the powerful. To quote George Orwell's Animal Farm, "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."
Tolerance and Rule of Law. Capitalism also promotes tolerance. In socialist societies, you're just another number on a bureaucratic form. In a capitalist society, people of different cultures, races, ethnicities, values, and world views can live together without rancor. Why? The Golden Rule! If you damage someone's property, you are responsible to compensate for that damage. Since a capitalist society holds people accountable and to act more responsibly, the quality of property is more pristine than that in a socialist society.

Postscript: Socialism is about dwindling an individual's freedoms to nothing out of some audacious presumption that "they know best." It results in slavery of the individual. It stymies economic growth and innovation, which greatly diminishes the quality of living for all. Capitalism brings about freedom and makes the consumer sovereign. Capitalism also protects the quality of property, or as Frédéric Bastiat put it, "ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas." As a result of this freedom, we become even wealthier and quality of living increases dramatically. This improvement on quality of life probably has something to do with the division of labor. Read "I, Pencil" for further detail. Even in this country, the poor are even more well-off than the media would like to have us think. In addition, the freedom gives us the exercise our free will in accordance with our religious beliefs, or lack thereof, as long as it doesn't violate the Golden Rule and the axiom of non-aggression. Having non-aggression within the context of "rule of the law" brings about tolerance. That tolerance means that anybody, black or white, straight or gay, short or tall, Christian or Jewish or atheist, has the ability to become rich, but is most certainly guaranteed the independence and freedom to pursue their own lives as they deem fit. In summation, socialism puts us in chains. Capitalism enhances morality.

For more on the morality of capitalism, please read The Morality of Capitalism, which is courtesy of the Foundation for Economic Education.

Why Jews Should Still Lament and Fast on Tisha B'Av

2011-08-09T19:15:00.000-05:00

I have always had a difficult time with Tisha B'Av. For me, Judaism has been a forward-looking, optimistic worldview. To have a day in which one would self-induce sadness seems counter-intuitive, to say the least. I have found it even more difficult to observe Tisha B'Av since much like Maimonides (Guide for the Perplexed, III, xxxii), I have viewed the sacrificial system as a temporary concession to man's nature of clinging to that which one is accustomed. I have no reason to mourn the loss of what I, as well as a majority of Jews, view as an ancient, insipid relic of the past.
For nearly two millennia, Judaism has survived without the sacrificial system because it has found ways to adapt to the loss of the Second Temple. I dare say that Judaism has fared better without the sacrificial system in place.

What's more is that for the first time in Jewish history, Jews not only have a nation-state, but also have a united Jerusalem. This holiday has seemed to lose its edge at least since the unification of Jerusalem in 1967, if not during the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. Even the Jews in the Diaspora have overall been emancipated and granted equal rights. Have we reached a point where Judaism has lost the need for Tisha B'Av? Can we discard it as an antiquated custom and confine it to the history books?

Although it appears as if there would be no reason to actually observe Tisha B'Av, I have to acquiesce that there might be reason to still observe, even if I have to do so reluctantly. King Solomon said (Ecclesiastes 3:4) that there is a time to weep and a time to laugh. But why weep? Even though Jews have made considerable progress since the pre-Enlightenment days, Tisha B'Av is not a time to rejoice over progress made, but rather to lament over progress that has yet to be made.

We still live in a world with rampant anti-Semitism. Although America offers unprecedented amounts of religious freedom in the Diaspora, anti-Semitism has not been this high on a worldwide level since pre-WWII. What makes it worse is that it is coming from all walks of life, whether that would be the academic Left, the Islamic fundamentalists, or certain sects of right-winged Christianity.

We still live in a world with abject poverty. In Israel, nearly one in five lives below the poverty line. The welfare system in Israel is immense. The current protests in Israel demanding "social justice" are indicative of that fact. Maybe we fast on Tisha B'Av is a reminder that there are hunger issues to be resolved in the Jewish community, let alone the entire world.

We still live in a world in which Israel is constantly threatened. Teaching hatred of Jews is still an essential part of the curriculum in Palestinian public schools. Iran is building nuclear arms, which would most likely be used to annihilate Israel. Even the cold peace with Egypt has been beginning to thaw. The Jewish people might have a nation-state, but national security is anything but set in stone. As such, we still need to fast.

We still live in a world with a disunited Jewry. What brought about the destruction of the Second Temple? Baseless hatred between one's fellow Jew. We see this tension in the State of Israel between the Religious Right and the Secular Left. The Diaspora, most notably in America, has a similar tension between Orthodox and non-Orthodox. The politicization of Judaism and Jewry continues to perpetuate the disunification of the Jewish people that has existed since the falling of the Second Temple.

In short, do not feel sadness for some nostalgia that most likely never fully occurred with regards to the Second Temple in the first place. Be sad because the Jewish world is still in a state of tension and strife, or to put it in more religious parlance, messianic prophecies have yet to be fulfilled. There are still those who hate Jews. There are still enemies that threaten the nation-state that took so much work to build. Even internally, both in the land of Israel and amongst Jewry, Jews constantly deal with internal conflicts.

However, this should not bring us to meekness or a sense of futility. It should be a time of the year to look at our more communal issues and bring awareness to this "harsh reality." King Solomon was correct that there is a time to weep. But we should be so moved by the fact that this is our current reality that we should be inspired to change it.

Tisha B'Av is a time of awareness for Jews. Jews need to be aware of how tragedies have befallen upon them in the past. But also, there needs to be a directive towards learning from those downfalls and figuring out how we can apply them to the current situation. With that level of awareness, we can confidently head in a better direction.

Why Jews Need to Take It Easy with Tikkun Olam

2011-08-03T16:53:00.000-05:00

For many in the American Jewish community, tikkun olam (literally meaning "repairing the world") has become synonymous with social action. Ask a majority of Jews the most important facet of their Jewish identity, and you'll find that is embodied in the modern-day concept of tikkun olam.   Wanting to repair the world certainly has a loftiness to it.

Why should I want to criticize people who make the world a better place?

My first issue is with the history of the concept. Jews tend to think that tikkun olam as we know it is a centuries-old tradition that we are just continuing in the modern age. That is actually false. When first mentioned in the Mishnah, it was in the context of halachic regulation, usually with property rights or other legal disputes. The next time it appears is in the Aleinu prayer, but in the sense that G-d, not man, will ultimately fix the world. The third time it shows up in a Jewish context is in Lurianic Kabbalah. However, the mystical concept of repairing the shattering of the ten sefirot by diligently performing mitzvot. In short, the tikkun olam that we know is a movement largely manifesting itself from the Civil Rights movement and the anti-war movement during the Vietnam War.

Jews have not only adapted to surrounding cultures, but have created innovations as a result. I would attribute this feature as one of the major factors in Jewish survival. Therefore, innovation should not be a reason to negate tikkun olam. However, when you dress up "progressive" "social" "justice" in the guise of it being the ultimate expression of Judaism, I have a problem with it. And if you're wondering the need for all those quotation marks in the previous sentence, it would have to do something with the misnomer about progressivism actually being progressive. There is nothing progressive about stymieing economic growth and perpetuating poverty.

This "social" "justice" is not exactly as Jewish as one would think. The issue is that the tikkun olam makes the fallacious assumption that "progressivism" is Judaism, when in fact it is not. Judaism has an appreciation for free markets and property rights. Judaism condones owning firearms in the name of self-defense.    Although I recognize that Judaism does have a sense of communal responsibility, the way that many Jews present tikkun olam is that it is either the "progressive" way or the highway.

When Leftist Jews chide conservative Christians for mixing religion with politics, they really should look in the mirror and realize how much they are calling the kettle black.

In spite of the politicization of tikkun olam, my main issue with the tikkun olam movement is they have bitten off more they can chew, and in the process, have left Yiddishkeit in disarray.   The thought behind the inception of the tikkun olam movement that this would be the form of Judaism that would transcend the particularism and tribalism of Judaism. "Who needs rituals like kashrut or Shabbos," they thought. To quote the Beatles, "All you need is love."

Needless to say, tikkun olam backfired in terms of making Jews more Jewish. Approximately 90% of American Jews do not consider themselves Orthodox. Most don't keep kosher or Shabbat on any level (some would be better than none!). You're lucky if many Jews attend High Holiday services, let alone Shabbos services. Not only that, you think the tikkun olam would make for more "Jewish volunteerism." Wrong! Looking at a recent study done by Brandeis University, most Jews do not care if they volunteer for a Jewish organization or not, and you can tell from the results of the study that Judaism is not real high on the priority list.

There is a lot to worry about in terms of Jewish survival. It's not just the birth rate being below replacement [outside of the Orthodox world] that worries me. The creation of Birthright also worries me. The reason Birthright exists in the first place is because so many Jews my age have such a disconnect with Judaism.

Before you try to fix problems in communities far away, you should first make sure that your own house is in order. Judaism faces a serious PR issue, which is why so many Jews cling to tikkun olam. Many see Judaism as insipid, antiquated, and irrelevant, none of which are true.   Rabbis aren't inspiring congregants like they used to, congregants aren't putting enough subtle pressure on fellow congregants to partake in a more Jewish life, parents aren't instilling Judaism into their children, and Jewish institutions aren't exactly helping with this decay of Jewish life. Trust me, there's plenty of blame to go around.

That is why I make a call for Jews to come back to keeping kosher, learning Hebrew, studying Torah, or observing Shabbos. We should certainly keep up the dialogue as to what is considered "good observance." Even if you do it on your own terms, something is better than nothing.  In essence, we not only need to be human beings, but need to also be Jews in the same process.

Finally, this is not a call to abandon Jewish values such as justice or loving-kindness. I'm not even going to do something like tell you to stop do such acts of loving-kindness as giving tzedakah or showing hospitality because these are also practices deeply rooted in Judaism. I'm asking that Jews don't take on so much that they spiritually feel burnt out. I'm asking that Jews think globally and act locally.

I'd like to close with an anecdote about the Chofetz Chaim. It was said that he wanted to try to help the entire world, but realized he couldn't. He wanted to help out all of the people Israel and realized he couldn't. He wanted to even help out his own community and realized that he couldn't. Even with his own family, he came to the same realization. However, he started by helping himself, and from there he made a huge impact on Jewry and Judaism.   If we repair the world in smaller, more manageable, more tangible doses than the tikkun olam movement does, then we will one day see the world truly repaired.

Let's Make a "Deal"

2011-08-01T22:44:00.001-05:00

The Wall Street Journal declared victory with the debt deal upon which Congress agreed. You would think that having spending cuts and not having an increase in taxes sounds like a win for those who advocate for smaller government. And I'm happy that taxes didn't go up, especially since as recent as last Monday, Obama was calling for tax increases. However, when you a closer look at what Congress came up with, it's not all that great.

First, the initial step consists of cutting $900 billion over ten years, which would be an average of $90 billion a year. $90 billion is less than what America borrows in a month! Second, there is a second phase of the deal in which a super-committee will be created in hopes to cut back on the deficit by $1.2-1.7 trillion. Not only is this second phase is very vague and theoretical, but even if it does pass, the spending cuts wouldn't even take into effect until 2013. Even if all of the proposals go through, the debt will go up to $20 trillion by 2020.

Why is the debt "deal" so ineffective? Because it does not get at the root problem of out-of-control government spending. Defense spending is about 20% of the United States federal budget. When talking about making cuts to government spending, conservatives are pretty good about it, except when it comes to defense spending. If we are to be serious about government spending, the Department of Defense should not be immune, especially if the threats are only perceived and not actual.

Although 20% of nearly $3.5T is no small number, if we are serious about cutting government spending, we really, really need to focus on entitlement spending. When looking at Social Security (20%), Medicare and Medicaid (21%), and other welfare spending (14%), we are talking a grand total of 55% of government spending.

Between defense spending and entitlement spending, we are talking about three quarters of the budget. If we are sincere about avoiding the exacerbation of the budget issue, we unquestionably need to focus on spending cuts. We cannot be spending money we do not have. Although debt is not inherently a bad thing, when we are not making any discernible effort to pay back on the debt, then we are going to be six feet under before we know it. That is why ideas such as deleveraging or a Balanced Budget Amendment are good ones. They take the problem by the horns rather than sweeping it under the rug.

Juan Williams on School Choice

2011-07-31T21:08:00.001-05:00

I have a lot more respect for Juan Williams now than I did prior to the NPR incident. I thought of him as a parrot of the Leftist talking points for NPR, but when that happened, it made me realize just how iconoclastic he can be. Hence the reason I show the clip at the bottom of this blog entry.

Before I continue with looking at Williams' comments on school choice, I might as well give my abridged take on school choice. I find that considering the other indicators of the overall greatness of a given nation-state, America's quality of education is by far lacking in quality. The monopolistic nature of the education system eliminates any need for competition, which thereby stymies most, if not all, potential for innovation and growth. Many conservatives propose the concept of school vouchers, which entail the usage of tax dollars to provide students with school choice. I would rather not have the government intervene in education, just as a libertarian ideal. It has the potential to have just as much out-of-control spending as current entitlement spending. However, if I had to choose between the current system and providing school choice [in the form of vouchers], I'd opt for the latter. School choice has been implemented in places such as Milwaukee, Canada (particularly in Alberta), and Sweden with a relatively large amount of success.  Even though some in Chile are stirring up a ruckus regarding school choice and are being overtly critical of the education system, America should nevertheless give it a go.

That being said, I will move on to the comments provided by Juan Williams.

Williams brought up the point that one of the primary reasons why he became passionate about the issue of education is because of the drop-out rates in high schools. Although the drop-out rate has dropped on the national level, it remains to be seen as to whether that applies to the inner cities, particularly since that would have to be measured on a district-by-district level. Knowing the quality of inner cities, it is not a stretch of the imagination that the quality of education is suffering, as well.

Williams then continues to say that education reform is the civil rights issue of our time, particularly because of the "soft bigotry of low expectations." This "bigotry" has its origins in a Bushism. I don't like how it was used in the context of No Child Left Behind, but the concept remains the same. Although it might be controversial to say, this bigotry is quite similar to the problem indicative to affirmative action. Hispanics and African-Americans are two ethnic groups who are recipients of affirmative action. Unfortunately, they disproportionately live in inner cities.  The problems overlap here. Affirmative action subtly says that certain ethnic groups are unable to sustain themselves without [government] help. Asians, Indians, and Jews are minorities that did not need help (e.g., affirmative action) to establish themselves in American society, and have worked their way up the socio-economic strata in spite of the stigma. These successes tell us that minorities can succeed in American life.  When one says that a certain minority cannot succeed in this country, that does indeed turn this scenario into a "soft bigotry." The fact that the "soft bigotry" permeates into the education system is all the more appalling.

Williams then proceeds to say that the parents need to be reached. The parents, much like the teachers, feel a degree of self-defeatism. In spite of this, I have to agree with Williams. Parents need to stand up for their children. They need to demand more from the status quo. In short, they need to be parents. If nobody is protesting the status quo, it will most certainly self-perpetuate.

Speaking of perpetuating the status quo, Williams brings up the point that unions heavily support the Democratic Party, which, looking at the quantity of donations, is largely true (not quite 100%, but is pretty close). From that perspective, Democrats are more "classical conservative" (i.e., preserving the status quo) than the Republicans are. How can school reform occur when the teacher unions are preserving the status quo?

The final point that Williams brings up is that in a globalized world, you need something beyond a high school education. However, as he brings up, many are being told that one does not even need a high school education. According to a recent Brookings Institute study, education is one of the major factors in the decrease of median wages amongst the male population in America.  The Pew Center shows that getting a college education (i.e., a Bachelor's Degree) is worth it. However, what good does that do if you are already being told that you shouldn't even pursue a high school education, let alone a post-secondary one?

In short, you know the extent of the problem is bad when the New York Times is reporting on the corruption of public schools. Something needs to be done to remedy the quality of education in this country. The status quo is clearly not adequate. Whether it is a call for school vouchers or otherwise, I simply hope that the United States government makes true education reform while cutting back on the amount of governmental intervention.

Why Biblical Literalism Is Folly

2011-07-28T15:06:00.005-05:00

Biblical literalism is the claim that presents Scripture as the explicit, literal, inerrant word of G-d. It is the hermeneutics most commonly associated with Evangelical and fundamentalist Christians. Such a reading of Scripture has brought about phenomena in American society such as the Moral Majority and the Creationist Movement, amongst others. It seems straightforward and to the point. What can possibly be wrong with it?

1) Translation issues. The Hebrew Scriptures were written in Biblical Hebrew. The Christian "New Testament" was written in ancient Greek. When Christians read the Hebrew Scriptures, they are reading the translation of the Sepuginant, which is a Greek translation of the Hebrew. That means that the Christian rendering of the Hebrew Scriptures is a translation of a translation. As any linguist will tell you, translations are inadequate at best and shoddy at worst. Why? It's much more than worrying about any biases the translator might have. It's because there are certain words that do not translate well [or at all] into the English language. Chabad points out three such examples: צדקה ("charity"), תשובה ("repentance"), and תפלה ("prayer"). It goes without saying that there is hardly any Christian [in this country] that has an awareness, let alone some sort of working knowledge, of these linguistic intricacies. That being the case, how can any Christian assert that they have the "literal, inerrant word of G-d?" To close this point off with an anecdote. I brought this point up with a Christian once. His response was that "if English was good enough for Jesus, it was good enough for me." I brought up that Jesus spoke Aramaic, not to mention the fact that English did not exist as a language during Jesus' time. This did not shake the Christian's assertion. Enough said!

2) Inevitability of interpretation. What Biblical literalists do not understand is that even if you have a divine text, once humans get their hands on it, it is going to be subject to interpretation. At the very minimum, you have to ask whether a verse is to be read broadly or narrowly. What do I mean by that? Does the verse apply to a specific context? Does the verse apply to all peoples for all times? Are we able to extrapolate a lesson, moral, or value out of a verse, whether it is in context or not?

Furthermore, what do you do when two values are in direct conflict with one another? Just to give an example, this is what one would try to figure out what "Honor thy mother and father" means if one's father is smoking two packs of cigarettes a day. Do you respect your father's wishes, even though he is being self-destructive, or do you stop him from partaking in such behavior?

Also, there are many verses that are ambiguous in the Bible. A verse can offer multiple interpretations, and there can very well be some interpretations upon which we have yet to stumble. In Jewish thought, we call this "eilu v'eilu." In Jewish exegesis, there is an acronymic concept called pardes, which encompasses multiple forms of interpretation, including the surface reading of the text, the homiletic, the allegorical, the philosophical, and the mystical. Being able to interpret a given verse with context allows for such diversity of opinion to exist. For Christian fundamentalists to say that "this is the meaning of the verse" is as limiting as it is inaccurate.

3) Scientific Issues. The most prominent issue from a scientific standpoint would be the Creation story. Literalists claim that G-d created the world in six 24-hour periods, even though science begs to differ. This causes Christians to do anything from denying the scientific findings to opining that G-d planted dinosaur bones in the ground during Creation to "test our faith." This literalism has caused a dialectical relationship between science and religion in this country, which creates the illusion that one or the other is correct. As scientist Gerald Schroeder illustrates, the Torah does not have to conflict with scientific findings. Maimonides even went as far to say that if a scientific claim is demonstrably true, then we are not to read it with its plain meaning (i.e., we read it allegorically). This would mean that science becomes a significant measure for how we interpret the Torah. Science does not have to negate religion, and vice versa. It is all a matter of how we interpret the text.

4) Textual inconsistencies. There are differences between the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures that cause multiple contradistinctions between the two religions. Just to name a few: One, Christianity believes that sin rules over man, whereas Judaism believes that man rules over sin (Genesis 4:7). Jews believe that Satan is an "adversary" that can be overcome. Christianity believes that Jesus died for our sins, whereas Judaism believes that the individual has the ability to atone for his sins through his actions, prayer, and sincere devotion to make sure that the sin doesn’t repeat itself. Christianity believes in a triune deity (Matthew 28:19), whereas Judaism believes that G-d is One (Deuteronomy 6:4). Christians believe that man is G-d (John 10:30), whereas Jews believe that G-d is not a mortal (Numbers 23:19), as it would diminish His divinity and eternality. For Christians, Jesus is an intermediary. For Jews, G-d is accessible 24/7 (Psalms 145:18). For a Christian looking at this honestly, the quandary is whether to either deny the claims of Hebrew Scriptures or those of the Christian New Testament.

In addition, you can find inconsistencies within the Christian New Testament itself, most notably in the story of the Resurrection. This is telling because Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection is the cornerstone of Christian theology. No resurrection, no Christianity! Literalism is a problem with the Resurrection story because there are literally four different versions of the story. The discrepancies of these versions do not have to do with emotions or any other facet of personal perspective. They have to do with dates, times, and places. Literalism is problematic here because no less than three of the Gospels are lying. If the text is lying in this aspect, how are we able to trust Christian Scriptures as inerrant or "the literal word of G-d?"

5) Moral Issues. Reading certain verses literally is morally problematic. If we were to use literalism, we would have to stone any child who was disobedient (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). The practical issue with that is every child is disobedient at some point in his life. If we were to carry out that punishment, there would be no more children, which would mean no more human race. This is why the Talmud (Sanhedrin 71a) says that the "rebellious son never was," and that the law was only meant for educational purposes.

Christian Scriptures are no less bothersome in this respect. Jesus said that he was brought here to not bring peace [to earth], but to bring the sword (Matthew 10:34). At least one of Jesus' followers took him literally and took up the sword (Luke 22:49-50).  Jesus also says that you have to hate your family in order to become a disciple of his (Luke 14:26). The story of the fig tree is no less flattering of a depiction of Jesus. If we were to take the story literally, Jesus comes off as an impudent child throwing a tantrum rather than a deity. Another intriguing passage comes along in Mark 1 (verses 4, 9) where Jesus is baptized. If the purpose of baptism is to wash away sin (Acts 22:12-16), then what sin did Jesus commit? Does that not mean that Jesus himself, being a man, was imperfect?

Postscript: Christians who subscribe to biblical literalism adhere to some non-existent disclaimer that the Bible has to be read their way. They are incapable of explaining any of the aforementioned issues away without an inordinate amount of theological acrobatics, all of which are inexplicable to the rational mind. And believe me when I say that many more examples can be cited to point out issues with biblical literalism. So why would a Christian succumb to such a mode of interpretation? Because it's simplistic and easy to do. It does not involve much thought or work since all that the individual is doing is accepting the verse "at face value," whatever that may mean. Interpretation actually takes time and effort, not to mention grappling with all sorts of realities that come from questioning and inquiring. And since the premise behind being a good Christian is unquestionable faith in Jesus and his sacrifice, questioning and inquiring are anything but strong suits of Christianity.

Biblical literalism is a product of the black-and-white thinking of fundamentalist thought. One of the alluring facets of any fundamentalism is that it simplifies everything and gives the false notion of "having all the answers." Biblical literalism is an attempt to insulate oneself from reality because with biblical literalism comes certitude. Certitude is such a nice feeling to have in an uncertain world. Escapism is easier than dealing with reality. The desire for this level of spiritual comfort robs us not only of our senses, but of our rational faculties. Biblical literalists, along with any other fundamentalists, will cling to their belief system, no matter what facts are presented, much like those presented here today. Deluding reality is ultimately the folly of biblical literalism.

Stop Calling Them Occupied Territories!

2011-07-25T18:54:00.001-05:00

Every time I hear the West Bank referred to as an "occupied territory," it brings about a great deal of frustration. This frustration is not simply because it is the MO of the pro-Palestinian side to inaccurately paint Israel as an oppresive, power-hungry, Satanic colonizer. It's due to the fact that the argument is not based in historical facts and evidence.

Israel's claim to the land, at least in terms of international law, goes all the way back to the Balfour Declaration after the British took over the Ottoman Empire. Keep in mind that under the Balfour Declaration, Israel also had the East bank of the Jordan River in addition to the West Bank. But compromise was something Israel did in order to have a state of their own.

Both the League of Nations and the United Nations (see UN Resolution 181) have confirmed the legitimacy of Israel's right to statehood. If the international community has given Israel the permission to have a state of their own, then what's the issue? During the 1947 War for Israeli Independence, Jordan stepped in and occupied the land, even though nobody recognized the legitimacy of its claim. After the war, there were armisitice lines that were drawn because the territory of the West Bank was in dispute. Just to clarify, "pre-1967 borders" is such a misnomer. Rather than calling the West Bank an "occupied territory," it would be more accurate to call it a "disputed territory," even though the Palestinians have no legal legitimate claim to the land since there was no Arab nation-state called Palestine at the time.

Below is a video by Knesset member Danny Ayalon. Short from the misspelling of the word "Lebanon," I thought it was a great primer on the issue:

One Year After Dodd-Frank: Are We Better Off?

2011-07-24T16:24:00.000-05:00

Last Thursday was the one-year anniversary of the signing of the Dodd-Frank bill. The Dodd-Frank bill was a regulatory overhaul of finance reform and regulations that, according to the bill, is supposed to "promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end 'too big to fail,' to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for other purposes." After a year of signing this bill into law, the question at the moment is whether the bill has brought more stability and security to our financial institutions.

I wanted to see what the Left had to say on the issue since they love regulating the economy so much. In typical NYT fashion, The New York Times said that the reason why Dodd-Frank hasn't been able to get off the ground is because the Republicans are blocking nominations of certain key posts at financial institutions. That might have to do with something that the bill was not bi-partisan and Mr. "I'm Going Reach Across the Aisle" Obama didn't help with transcending party lines, as if that were a shock. CNN also stuck up for Dodd-Frank. They pointed out the provisions that have already gone into effect, even though they pointed out that the Republicans are blocking funding efforts to get most of the initiatives going.  I couldn't find anything from Left-leaning think tanks on the one-year anniversary, although I found an article from last March from the Center of American Progress.  As those on the Left do, they blamed the recession on a lack of regulation, which is why they think Dodd-Frank is a good bill.

Even the Centrist think-tank Brookings Institute favored the bill. Since the bill is so complex, Brookings Institute fellow Douglas Elliot opines that we will have to wait another year for the benefits of the bill to fully take in effect.

Since I'm libertarian, it should be no surprise that I am not happy with the largest amount of financial regulation that this country has experienced since the Great Depression. The bill has done nothing to end "too big to fail," which was one of the primary goals of the bill. Larger banks normally have to pay more to borrow. But since the passage of Dodd-Frank, the large banks pay less because according to Section 204(d) of the bill, the FDIC can buy out the debt of the bank, which is another way of saying "bailout." If the bill gives the ability to bail out banks, I guess that banks are still "too big to fail."

Diane Katz from the Heritage Foundation points out a few reasons why this bill hasn't worked.  The first is that the bill does not address the causes of the "Great Recession," mainly being that of Big Government having its hands in the housing market by creating regulatory incentives that distorted the market. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) also concurs that it was government housing policies caused an unusually high number of risky loan practices that caused the housing bubble to burst.   Secondly, much like with Obamacare, when you bite off more than you can chew, you will fail with trying to regulate so much. Plus, since when has excessive governmental regulation fixed anything? Third, the bill has done nothing to improve the state of the economy. As Katz emphasizes, "the unemployment rate stands at 9.2 percent. The budget deficit tops $1.3 trillion, and federal debt has hit the ceiling at $14 trillion. Consumer spending is tepid, wages are stagnant, and prices for energy and food are rising."

Even the Cato Institute found that Dodd-Frank did not mitigate much. According to Cato Institute Director Mark Calabria, the bill might have actually exacerbated the financial situation. Calabria outlines that Dodd-Frank has aggregated risk in the derivatives market, doubled the ceiling for insured bank deposits, and thereby doing what it essentially can to make sure that Big Banking doesn't fail. This bill has created uncertainty, which is part of why this recovery is lagging. It hasn't done anything to increase confidence in our financial institutions, which is why the University of Chicago's Financial Trust Index shows no discernible change in financial confidence.

I'll end this entry with Calabria's overall take on Dodd-Frank:

Credit is the lifeblood of an economy, facilitating both investment and consumption. While the economy faces several headwinds, the unavailability of credit is a major problem. Rather than fix our financial plumbing, Dodd-Frank has largely clogged up the channels of credit further. The new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau could likely represent a massive litigation risk for lending. The result is both a higher cost of credit for consumers and reduced availability. Hardly a recipe for economic recovery.

Is There a Way Out of Giving Tzedakah?

2011-07-19T18:40:00.001-05:00

From a Jewish standpoint, whether we can justify our avoidance of giving tzedakah seems to be strange at the least, if not down right immoral. The Talmud (Baba Batra 9a) states that giving tzedakah is greater than all the other mitzvot. Deuteronomy 15:7-11 tells us that it is our responsibility to give enough to the poor to the point at which poverty no longer exists [in the Land of Israel]. However, it is anything but easy to adhere to the well-established custom of giving ten percent of one's earnings. People give all sorts of explanations as to why they avoid giving tzedakah.

In R. Elliot Dorff's book Tikkun Olam (p. 108-110), he actually gives such explanations as to how people shirk on giving tzedakah. Are the reasons people give justifiable or are they petty excuses to perpetuate their selfishness? Upon examining the reasons giving in Dorff's book, we can better answer the question.

1) "It's my money. I've earned it. Why should people who didn't work for it get any of my money? I'll do what I want with it." Having a job is a huge indicator of whether one is in poverty. 75% of America's poor are currently unemployed. Since a large percentage of the poor in this country don't work, resentment from those who work is not uncommon, and on some level, is understandable. Although Judaism comes with a healthy does of property rights and capitalist ethos, it also comes with a more distributive sense of justice than that of libertarianism. In Jewish thought, we find a middle ground between aestheticism and obsession with physicality (i.e., hedonism). Judaism takes the mundane and elevates it to the holy. Money is no exception. Rather than take the self-absorbed route of unadulterated greed, Judaism asks that a certain portion of one's assets are used to help out those in need. Judaism calls the individual to transcend the self, hence the more communal call of justice.

2) "It's demeaning to accept tzedakah." It depends on the situation. Begging, especially if "done for a living," is innately humiliating. It erodes self-worth and what it means to be "created in His image." However, if the tzedakah given is used to help an individual get back on his feet during his temporary stint, then it's much more acceptable.

3) "I might reinforce physically harmful behavior." If you give the poor cash, you very well could be perpetuating a drinking or drug problem. This is more of a common occurrence than we would ever care for, but it's no excuse to not give. If you find this potential to be disconcerting, you can always help out by either giving food or clothing.

4) "Giving tzedakah will encourage the poor to stay poor." This is one of my major gripes with tzedakah as a practice. If the premise behind giving tzedakah is to alleviate poverty, then it does not adequately, as an institution, perform its function since it is not addressing root causes. Giving money disincentivizes poor individuals to look for work and stand on their own two feet in order to escape poverty. With the ever-prevailing mentality of self-entitlement in this country, it becomes all the more difficult to have this not be a worry. Any tzedakah [program] should entail incentives to get poor people to find employment and stand on their own two feet. The Talmud (Baba Batra 116a) states that if you had fifty plagues on one side and poverty on the other, poverty outweighs the other fifty plagues. We should do our utmost to get people out of poverty, which is why the highest of Maimonides' Eight Levels of Tzedakah (MT, Laws of Charity, 10:7-14) is giving someone a loan in which they can be self-reliant.

5) "I might be duped into giving to a fraudulent case."  Rabbi Chayim Halberstam, better known as the Sanzer Rebbe, said that he'd rather give to a fraudulent cases for every legitimate case rather than deprive that one legitimate poor person. I find that attitude to be highly counter-productive to the purpose of tzedakah. The primary purpose is to help the poor, which is why giving tzedakah even for an ulterior motive is still acceptable (Pesachim 8a-b). If this is of concern, I would advise the following. On an individual level (e.g., a single beggar), give non-cash options such as food or clothing. On an institutional level, do your research prior to giving so you can avoid giving to an institution that does something like give an exorbitant amount on fundraising or salaries for the higher-ups (see here and here). Skepticism about fraud makes one more cautious, but it's no reason not to give at all.

6) "I might get mugged if I give to a beggar." Especially if it's at night, a beggar can take advantage of your giving nature and decide to rob you, especially if they are on drugs. To avoid this scenario, either give in a safer zone (e.g., with people around) or give tzedakah to foundations that help with the poor.

7) "I don't know to whom I should give. There are too many people in need." Pirke Avot 2:16 says that you are not going to finish your task, but that does not mean you should desist from it. We are individuals with limited spheres of influence and limited resources. Just because you single handedly does not negate one's responsibility to give tzedakah.

Conclusion: A large majority of these concerns are valid, and should treat them as such. Although they give us reason to hesitate or limit the scope, it does not absolve us to give tzedakah. The current way we approach tzedakah can use some re-vamping. We first need to give tzedakah not just with the intention of doing good, but actually doing good, as opposed to giving to fraudsters. While we need to worry about providing poor people with food in their bellies or a roof over their head so they can survive the next day, we more importantly need to focus on why poverty exists in the first place. By creating programming that focuses on root causes (e.g., employment, education), we can head in a direction in which the amount of poor people decreases to the point of non-existence.

The Problems of Using Entitlement Programs as Poverty Relief

2011-07-10T23:52:00.000-05:00

I don't think anybody would consider themselves as pro-poverty.  On a national level, poverty holds back economic growth. Individually speaking, abject poverty impedes on life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Let's face it! Poverty isn't fun, and no decent person wouldn't wish it on anybody else. However, does sympathy for the poor justify the continuation of entitlement spending by the government?

This was the question I was asking myself while reading a study from Brookings Institute Senior Fellow Ron Haskins that is entitled Figthing Poverty the American Way today.  I was looking at the causes of poverty that Hasking had outlined in his work, mainly those of work rates, family composition, and education. If we are to assume that his root causes are correct, then entitlement spending would not be conducive to mitigating the problem, especially when we see the trends spelled out by Haskins.

With work rates, Haskins shows that 75% of people who are in poverty do not have a job. If you want to reduce your probability of poverty by 75%, get a job.  In this sluggish recovery, that would be easier said than done. But again, joblessness is a huge indicator in poverty. It would also help if job creation were encouraged rather than punishing the rich (i.e., the people who have the capital to create jobs).

Education is another big indicator. The higher level of education you have, the higher the median income. This causation makes sense. Education measures level of intelligence and human capital. More education leads to higher potential to contribute to society, which means a higher salary. This discussion would obviously merit a discussion on education reform, a discussion which is too long to have at this time. Although there are many reforms that one can discuss to better the education system in this country, it is safe to say that entitlement spending does not encourage the pursuit of higher education. As I had outlined in a previous blog entry, entitlement programs such as Social Security creates shorter working life spans. As such, the incentive to get a higher education wanes.

Family composition was an interesting argument because it would be something I would expect from Heritage Foundation, not the Brookings Institute, which is a centrist think tank. Essentially, the argument goes like this: marriage creates stability, and in this specific argument, marriage creates economic stability. The argument makes sense when looking at the statistics.  Poverty exists in 11% of households with two partners. In households with single mothers, on the other hand, was at 44.3%.  That means that if you are in a household with a single parent, you are four times more likely to be in poverty! This problem of single-head households because more pronounced when we see the number go from 6.3% in 1950 to 23.9% in 2010. That is also an increase that is nearly fourfold. Since I have not considered family composition as a root cause of poverty prior to today, I have yet to dwell on solutions from a family composition standpoint. The solutions that Haskins provides (e.g., tax incentives for married couples, sex education with government funding) are not libertarian in nature.  Being a libertarian, I would find it difficult to find a way to incentivize individuals to enter a [marriage] contract without it coming off as coercion. Another blog entry for another time, I suppose.

Aside from not attacking the root problems of poverty, my main issue with these entitlement programs is that they are insolvent. The crux of the debt ceiling debate that Congress has had lately is that spending exceeds revenue to a point where America will be unable to recover.  The big programs in question are Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. The spending on these programs is no small matter. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Left-leaning think tank, 20% of the federal budget goes to Social Security and another 21% goes to Medicare, Medicaid, and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). If you want to add in the additional 14% for other safety net programs, the total of entitlement spending in this country is 55% of a $3.5 trillion budget!

There is clearly an issue with the rapid increase in expenditures, and it is common knowledge that the numbers will only get higher if left to their own devices. A majority of Americans do not want a reduction in benefits, but they want the same benefits that are straining our economy further and further each day. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. Would tax hikes work? I'm sure a majority of Americans are not susceptible to that idea, either. Yet Americans want reform.

The only reform that would actually work without bankrupting the economy would be a trend towards privatization of these services. As I explained a couple of months ago, putting retirement funds in a private retirement account (PRA) would actually gain you more money in the long-run. The Cato Institute outlines the issues involved with the centralization and price control of Medicare and how that can also be reformed through privatization. If we are to alleviate poverty and assure that the American economy goes down the tubes, we need to find solutions that involve less government, not more.

Concealed Carry Law: A Victory for Wisconsin

2011-07-08T16:21:00.003-05:00

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (R) signed a bill this afternoon enacting legislation to legalize conceal and carry. I was enthused when the bill was passed both in the Senate and the Assembly because I knew Walker would have no problem signing it. However, my liberal friends didn't share my enthusiasm. I heard an earful about how the passing of this legislation was going to regress Wisconsin back "to the days of the Wild West."

This sort of hyperbolic emotionalism is why it's difficult to have an honest debate with gun control advocates. Is this bill going to plunge Wisconsin into some pre-conceived notion of anarchy that existed in 19th-century America? I honestly don't think so. This is no mere conjecture. The most exculpatory evidence of that is in the precedence set by the other states in the Union. There are forty-eight other states that permit non-law enforcement citizens to carry concealed weaponry, and in thirty-five of those states, they have passed "shall-issue" laws. These laws have been in full force for quite a few years now. If concealed carry were so terrible, not only would we have seen a huge rise in crime, but we would have also seen states be so troubled about it that the government would have overturned any concealed carry legislation previously passed. You haven't seen any of that. As a matter of fact, the trend is that we have seen over the course of the past couple of decades is that of even more states passing concealed carry legislation. If gun-induced chaos were to ensue, it would have happened by now.

The fact that it hasn't happened still doesn't silence the "guns kill people" crowd. How many people have been killed by concealed gun carriers?  According to the Violence Policy Center, which is a pro-gun control organization, the total from May 2007 to the present is 319. It should go without saying that any murder is abhorent. However, from a statistical standpoint, is this number high?

According to FBI homicide statistics (most recent compiled being 2009), there was an average of approximately 16,000 homicides per annum. Multiply that by four years and you have about 64,000 homicides within the timeframe of the Violence Policy Center Statistics. Divide the 319 by 64,000, and the odds that a concealed carrier is a part of the 64,000 murderers is 0.49%.

Even more convincing is the probability that a concealed carrier is to actually commit a murderer. Let's assume that the 318 murderers were each committed by different carriers. Let's also use the MSNBC statistic that six million Americans are registered for concealed carry because their bias is going to report the number on the low end. What does "319/6,000,000" equal? 0.0053%!  Using numbers that are in the favor of gun control advocates, for every person that commits homicide with a permitted concealed weapon, there are 20,000 law-abiding indiviudals that will not commit homicide!

There is no reason to punish 20,000 individuals for the actions of one schmuck. After all, it is their Second Amendment right. The two recent Supreme Court cases of District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago both reaffirm an American's rights to bear arms.

The reason why so many Americans own guns and feel that this legislation is necessary is for the purpose of self-defense. Guns are a great equalizer. When someone pulls out a concealed gun, the criminial will simply retreat 55% of the time. Concealed carry won't increase violence. No study has proven that. The best that the naysayers can come up with is that it has no discernable effect.

Even if you're a peacenik that hate guns, they even experience an unintended positive externality.  With concealed carry, criminals don't know who's packing.  This uncertainty creates a deterrent effect.

In short, this law is a victory for the citizens of Wisconsin. Wait, scratch that! Not quite everybody. It's not a victory for Wisconsin's criminals. They're going to be deterred from committing more crimes. So to rephrase, the bill is a victory for Wisconsin's law-abiding citizens.

Is America the Greatest Nation on Earth?

2011-07-04T10:42:00.003-05:00

I find that asking whether America is the greatest nation on Earth during the Fourth of July season is a most appropriate topic question. When is a better time to ask it than when our awareness of our nation's ideals is most heightened with the patriotic fervor of the holiday spirit? If you haven't noticed, I have been using Pew Center polls a lot lately, and I do so for two reasons. One is that the Pew Center has no discernible bias, something that I cannot say for just about every other media outlet in the nation. My second reason is that it the intrigue of the frequency in which many of the opinions of those who are polled do not jive with reality. I would consider this drôle if it were not for the fact that these people actually have clout in public policy.

That set aside, I was taking a look at a recent poll done that asked the question at hand: Is America the greatest nation on Earth? Even in spite of post-9-11 patriotism, I was surprised to see the results of the poll. A majority (53%) believe that America is one of the greatest nations, but is by no means superior. I find the question to be problematic for a couple of reasons. The first is that politics gets in the way. The Far Right is obsessed with an unwavering sense of "American exceptionalism," whereas the Far Left is hung up on blaming America for everything. The second, and by far more important reason, is that the question is so loaded that it's not even funny.

"I love my country" is an emotion. Every country has their patriots, and each country's patriots will say their respective nation is the greatest on Earth. That's the very essence of pride. However, pride is not an objective measurement of greatness. That being the case, how can we measure America's greatness? The answer is not simple simply because we would need to measure multiple factors that play a role in answering that question. Let's take a look:

Military/Defense: America is the most technologically advanced military in the world. America's military prowess is well-known. Also, in absolute dollars, the US spends $607B (2008 figures), more than any other nation, although that is a smaller portion of our GDP than one would think. "Don't mess with the U.S." still rings true as America has the most powerful military on the planet. In terms of spending and being involved in pointless endeavors such as Afghanistan, debate on military efficacy should be an ongoing process as it would be great to see the American military spend as little as possible while being efficient in terms of accomplishing its goals.
Economic Freedom: Co-sponsored by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal, the Economic Freedom Index measures economic freedom throughout the world. Even though economic freedom has dropped during the Obama administration, America is still measured to have well-above average economic freedom.
Economy: In spite of the recession, America has the largest GDP, and largest GDP per capita based on Purchasing Power Parity (PPP). We have a convoluted, progressive tax system that stymies economic growth. We are also dealing with a massive debt on which we are having a hard time paying back. Entitlement spending and heading towards the status of a welfare state does not help with any of this. A reversal of this trend would help ensure that America's economic growth doesn't end up like that of the European Union.
Education: For being a developed nation that is allegedly the "greatest nation on Earth," I find the education system in this country to be mediocre at best, and at worst, a sad state of affairs if we are to lead the world in a forward direction this century. According to the Programme of International Student Assessment (PISA), which evaluates academic progress of fifteen-year old students worldwide, the scores of American students did not exceed those of many of the other developed nations. Even though the expenditures for K-12 schools have more than tripled (inflation-adjusted), SAT test scores have received moderate increases. Although this can be a much longer commentary, bloated school budgets, teacher unionism that doesn't incentivize teachers to improve their teaching methods, the Department of Education, and dumbing down the curriculum (both in K-12 and many undergraduate colleges) all further erode the education system in this country.
Religious Freedom: It was the theme for my blog entry for last year's Fourth of July. I am so grateful that as a Jew, I have such ability to practice Judaism. Religious freedom is one of those impetuses that brought the colonialists to America. I am glad to see that America has done a superb job at maintaining religious freedom that has been unprecedented in the Diaspora.
Health Care: The answer depends on whether you want to focus on equity (i.e., universal access) like the Left or overall quality like the Right does. At best, one could argue that countries have socialized health care have immediate access to certain prescriptions and other basic forms of health care. As for more complicated medical procedures, that's another story. Do you want to be waiting in line for months for a live-saving procedure like they do in Canada, or do you want to pay a bit more for quality that could mean the difference between life and death? Last time I checked, a long waiting line is not access to health care. Also, America has the greatest medical research facilities in the world, which means access to more complicated procedures. This means increased prices in health care costs, which is why America has the highest health care costs in the world (#1 in absolute dollars and #2 in terms of percentage of GDP.....East Timor is #1). Proponents of socialized health care gripe because increased costs don't lead to increased life expectancy. That would be more due to the obesity brought on by the American lifestyle than it is a statement of the quality of American health care. Even though Medicare and Medicaid dominate a good percentage of the medical industry, whatever has been untouched is still of great quality. Our health care system is by no means perfect, and there are viable solutions that don't involve aggrandizement of Big Government. However, I can guarantee that if Obamacare actually becomes law in 2014, we will be having a completely different discussion about the overall quality of American health care, one that will not be by any means flattering.
Immigration: The United States has the largest net migration on the face of this planet. What does that indicate? There is a much larger flux of people wanting to get into the United States rather than leaving it. It would indicate that there is something wonderful about America that would cause such a flux. Even though America is great at attracting immigrants to this nation, there are improvements that can be made in our immigration policy to make it more comprehensive than "guard the borders" to account for the complexities of America's immigration situation. Canada's immigration policy would be a good model for improvement.
Civil Liberties: Even though this country has a ways to in terms of offering civil rights to homosexuals, not to mention the Patriot Act or Real ID Act, the United States is overall sound when it comes to civil rights. As Freedom House illustrates, America has a constitutionally protected free press, a good freedom of assembly, a high level of autonomy, women's rights, and even more notably, high levels of access to economic and social advancement. In short, we have some of the best civil rights offered on this planet.

Postscript: Did this help figure out whether America is the greatest nation on Earth? It depends. Do you prefer to emphasize America's strengths or weaknesses? Which indicator(s) do you find to be more important? It should go without saying that America is not without problems. We're a nation composed of human being who are, by definition, imperfect. As such, we're bound to have problems. Regardless of how you view the overall direction of America, let's do two things today. Take pride in that which America excels. But let's also realize what America needs to focus on so that as a nation, we can work towards making this country better than it already is.

We Should Pull Out of Afghanistan

2011-06-28T21:34:00.000-05:00

I haven't been one to be bashful about my opinions on the War in Afghanistan. Nearly two years ago, I had opined that being in Afghanistan was a bad idea, both from geopolitical and militaristic points of view. There's one point that I had not mentioned prior to today: economic.

According to Pew Center numbers, 60% of Americans believe that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have caused debt. When you spend über amounts of money that you don't even have to begin with, and have no exit strategy in terms of being able to pay the money back, that would be a textbook example of debt.

The American government spends comparably way more on defense spending than any other Western nation. I don't really want to get into how the rest of the developed world should be putting their fair share in defense spending, or how America needs to stop acting like the world's policeman, but it makes me ask: Why are we still over there in the first place? Are we trying to mollify our consciences by unwaveringly supporting a failed attempt at nation-building?

The majority of the American people, probably for the first time, want the troops to come home because they feel that the probability of a stable government being created in Afghanistan is unlikely. Even if the primary objective was to get bin Laden (why that took the greatest military in the world a decade to do, I'll never know), Al Qaeda is going to replace him with some other stooge, and they'll continue to do the same terrorist acts that they have been doing. If you want to stop Al Qaeda, stop focusing on nation-building and start looking at counter-terrorism. You can create a smaller, but more effective defense strategy that is not only more economically salient, but also minimizes the possibility of putting troops in harm's way. It sounds like a win-win, no-brainer suggestion, but for the 40% who cannot understand the overtly simple premise that wars cause debt, I guess they'll be the ones waving their flags with blind patriotism and pressuring politicians to support the war until the economic burden helps put America six feet under.

Parsha Korach: When and When Not to Question & Defy

2011-06-25T22:15:00.000-05:00

I always found Korach's punishment of being engulfed by the ground (Numbers 16:30) for questioning the current leadership to be perplexing. Abraham questioned G-d and His justice right before He was about to wipe out Sodom (Genesis 18:25). Moses also questions G-d when He was about to wipe out Israel for the Golden Calf incident (Exodus 32:13-14). In the Passover Hagaddah, out of the four sons, the son who is unable to ask a question is on the bottom of the totem pole, even lower than the evil child! And I don't need to expound upon how much diversity there is within the world of Jewish thought.

If Judaism gives us precedent to question the legal system, and more glaringly, G-d, what did Korach do wrong?

The Pirke Avot (5:17) gives us great insight into the answer. When Hillel and Shammai were debating each other, it was done for the "sake of Heaven," or what is commonly referred to as l'shma. Korach, on the other hand, was making a power play. He was saying that the Jewish people were intrinsically holy (Numbers 16:3), so then why bother with all of these "silly commandments?" The modern-day equivalent of this sentiment would be called "spiritual but not religious." But the commandments are not antiquated rituals. The legal system is about improving ourselves, our interpersonal relations, as well as how G-d fits into all of that.

It wasn't enough for Korach to attempt to turn the system upside-down. He wanted to make a power grab in the name of religion, which is what makes the move all the more repulsive. Whether it's suicide bombers or those who initiated the Crusades, pretending that your interpretation is the "literal, inerrant" will of G-d while committing atrocities and unethical behavior in the name of religion and in His name is heinous. This, of course, is not meant to be read as a blanket disapproval on questioning and defying. The punishment that Korach received is to remind us that we should not question or defy in the specifice context of when it's a political power play, about self-interest, or a way to satisfy the ego. These sort of actions cannot be done so with an ulterior motive supporting it. Our questioning or defiance can become permissible, and even obligatory, when we do so in the search for truth and in the name of Heaven.

This blog entry is a post-Shabbos reflection based on my D'var Torah given at a lay service on Saturday, June 25, 2011.

Is There a Libertarian Argument Against Gay Marriage?

2011-06-21T17:34:00.002-05:00

"Libertarians are fiscally conservative and socially liberal." That misnomer highly annoys me, mainly because it's an inaccurate oversimplification. However, I figured that at least for gay rights, libertarians would be supportive of gay marriage, even if some of them had a personal aversion towards two people of the same sex being together. After I had recently read this blog entry on the Libertarian Republican, which is based on an article from self-identifying libertarian Pastor Peter Briggs, it looks like I was wrong. Apparently, there are libertarians who argue that libertarianism is against the idea of gay marriage. However, this begs an important question: can Briggs' arguments withstand scrutiny? Let's find out!

"Marriage is not a privacy issue. Civil marriage is a public institution."

Marriage is not inherently a public institution. Throughout a majority of Western history, marriage was a private matter. The truly libertarian thing to do here would be to take the government out of the marriage business altogether. As I have stated before, marriage in its most base form is a contract between consenting individuals stating that they want to have a social, emotional, and economic relationship together. Since we have to deal with the reality that government is going to be in marriage business for a while, we might as well offer the same rights to homosexuals as we do heterosexuals. Not doing so would be a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, not to mention the libertarian axiom of contract rights.

"In attempting to legalize same-sex marriage, they are now inviting the government into their bedrooms."

If that's the case, then libertarians should advocate getting rid of all civil marriage. That way, government can stay out of everybody's bedrooms since civil marriage is inherently intrusive. However, you're not hearing such advocacy from anti-gay marriage libertarians.

"Homosexual marriage is not an issue of individual rights."

Last time I checked, contract rights and "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" were essential to individual rights. Moral pluralism is also very much a part of libertarianism. So how is this not an issue of individual rights?

"Every American has a right to marry, but also faces restrictions upon whom they may marry. No one is permitted to marry a child, a close blood relative, a person who is already married, or, in most states, a person of the same sex. These are not restrictions upon the right to marry; they are part of the definition of marriage."

It should be self-evident that we have to face restrictions brought on by the law. Without it, we'd be in anarchy, and as a libertarian, I don't advocate that. However, it doesn't apply here. No one is permitted to marry a child is because a child is not at an age of consent, and thus unable to enter a legally binding contract. I'm not going to get into the whole incest bit, but I would like to comment that although many Western nations prohibit incest, I was intrigued to find that incest is not prohibited across the board in the Western world. As for marrying a married person, it should be evident that it would be a violation of a previously signed contract, unless all parties in the contract agreed to the change (e.g., a signed divorce decree vindicating the parties of responsibilities laid out in the previous marriage contract). And I'm just curious, whose definition of marriage? The Christian definition? The one from the Bible? That can easily be construed as a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. As for the definition of marriage, this point is something I have stated before, but I feel it merits re-iterating: In the history of marriage in Western civilization, a man has been able to marry a twelve-year old girl, he was unable to marry outside his religion, socio-economic class, or race, or even better, there was a time in which marriages used to be arranged. The definition of marriage in Western culture has been anything but consistent.

"Freedom of conscience and religious liberty would be threatened. In the wake of same-sex marriage, we have already seen religious nonprofits being told to compromise their principles or go out of business."

Because of the nature of non-profits, there are two primary entities that would threaten such organizations: donors or the government. If you have repulsed enough donors with anti-homosexuality sentiment, that would be the non-profit's fault because they don't know how to conduct business and do fundraising well enough to stay afloat. Such is the way of non-profits. Now, if the non-profit's primary source of funding is the government, we shouldn't be angry with the government for yanking funding. Since we are dealing with a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, we should be asking why a religious non-profit is receiving government funds in the first place. If you want to make a private donation to a certain non-profit because it does great work, that is your choice. However, we shouldn't be using taxpayer dollars to fund these organizations to compel taxpayers to donate to religious non-profit organization with which we don't agree.

"Same-sex marriage would compel every employer, including the government, to give same-sex couples benefits identical to those of heterosexual couples."

Let's forget that most Fortune 500 companies already offer couples benefits to same-sex couples without same-sex marriage being legal in all fifty states. Private employers should have the right to hire and discriminate as they please. They should, however, keep in mind that Americans are increasingly supportive of gay rights and gay marriage, something that is illustrated by these recent Pew Center and Gallup polls. Age is a social trend in favor of gay rights because the younger are much more favorable than older citizens. Knowing someone who is gay is another social trend in favor of gay rights. With increased societal acceptance, more gay people will come out, which means a higher probability of acceptance. My point is that as time goes on, people with anti-homosexual views will be increasingly viewed as bigoted, which is a similar trend we saw during and after the Civil Rights movement. In short, anti-homosexual views are bad for business. As for the government's role, they ideally shouldn't be providing such benefits because it's more money from taxpayer's pockets. However, while government is handing out these benefits, we might as well provide equality under the law.

"The rights of children would be undermined. Children have a natural right to be raised by the mother and father whose union produced them."

The day in which there is no need for orphanages or foster homes, we can take this argument seriously. Until that time, this argument has no merit. If it did, we should also make adoption illegal since the child would not be with their natural parents. There are many children without loving, caring homes. Homosexual parents should help provide such homes. Not only has there been no conclusive study proving that homosexual parents are more unqualified than heterosexual parents, but organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American Psychiatric Association (APA), amongst other medical organizations, confirm that homosexual parents are just as capable as raising children as heterosexual couples.

The only legitimate libertarian concern presented in the article is that government is involved in the business of marriage in the first place. If government is to have any role, it would to be to make sure that the contract rights of marriages, whether straight or gay, are enforced by all parties involved. Short of that, there is no legitimate libertarian objection to two people of the same sex entering in a marriage contract.

Furthermore, many libertarians support gay marriage, including Jeff Miron, Bob Barr, Ron Paul, David Boaz, the United States Libertarian Party, the list goes on and on.

There is plenty of room for political discourse in this country. I personally can't stand marijuana. But as a libertarian, I have to concede that as long as people aren't harming others while smoking it, then they should be permitted to use it because it wouldn't violate the libertarian axiom of non-aggression. The same argument can be said for gay marriage. You can like gay marriage. You can dislike gay marriage. And if you don't like gay marriage, don't get married to someone of the same sex! But if you're a libertarian that's going to argue against gay marriage, keep that opposition on the personal level. Otherwise, you are against the contract rights, individual liberty, and pursuit of happiness that you profess to believe in. Wouldn't that make just you a conservative in the garb of a libertarian?

Bringing Equanimity Into Shabbat

2011-06-18T23:43:00.000-05:00

The notion of equanimity was a theme upon which I had reflected greatly this past Shabbat. The closest we get to "equanimity" in the Hebrew is מנוחת הנפש, or calmness of the soul. A calm soul has an inner even keel, in spite of whatever externalities come about, whether they are good or bad. In Jewish thought, equanimity does not mean that we passively and idly stay in a state of numbness as we go through life. The founder of the modern-day Mussar movement, Rabbi Israel Salanter, said that "As long as one lives a life of calmness and tranquility in the service of G-d, it is clear that he is remote from true service." In contrast to Eastern traditions, we don't treat life as if we are oblivious or asleep. We are very much meant to handle life's joys and challenges. Our tests in life help indicate where we are on our spiritual barometer.

It sounds noble and whatnot to keep an even keel while dealing with the ups and downs in life, but how do we go about it? It is clearly much easier to say it rather than do it. There are many ways that we try to relieve stress: deep breathing, yoga, massages, a drink after work, watching television, or spending time with family and friends. The extent to which forms of stress relief work obviously depends on the individual. However, what I find is that many of these attempts at remedies don't get at root problems in order to bring about מנוחת הנפש.

What I have realized is that Judaism has always had a mechanism to bring about the calmness of the soul: Shabbat (שבת).

For many of my Orthodox friends, when you ask them why you do such-and-such a mitzvah, their answer typically is "because G-d told us so." I'm a rationalist, as well as an inquisitive human being, so I feel compelled to ask "why?" Many other Jews also ask the question of "why" because the answer of "because I said so" doesn't satisfy neither the intellect nor the soul. I have to go further in this particular discussion because I would like to know why שבת is the only ritual in the Decalogue. What is so special about שבת that it is one of the "Ten Commandments?" Such questioning makes me want to look at the predominant motifs of שבת and explore the interplay between שבת and מנוחת הנפש, which is what I will do right now.

The Creation Story. We rest because G-d rested after creating the universe (Genesis 2:2-3). Does this mean that G-d was so tired that He needed to take a break? He is Infinite Oneness, so obviously not! "Rest" is a mistranslation. A more accurate rendering would be "to desist." Much like G-d desisted from working, we also desist from work. Every week is a re-enaction of the process of creation: six days we create, and on the seventh day, we desist. Not only do we desist from creating, but we renew our covenant with G-d every week.
Slavery and the Exodus. Deuteronomy 5:14 gives us a different reason for שבת. Shabbat is a reminder of the Exodus and how the Jewish people used to be slaves in Egypt. Much like when G-d liberated the Israelites during the Exodus, שבת is meant to liberate our souls. We don't have to withstand the back-breaking labor that the Israelites had to endure in Egypt. However, we very much have to contend with a different kind of slavery. We are slaves to our cell phones, our wallets, our jobs, our rat-racer way of life. שבת gives us the opportunity to step away from that craziness for a day and liberates us to focus on what's truly important.
Peace and renewal. As previously mentioned, our stressful lifestyles warrant a day to take it easy. It's not a simply a day of physical rest. It is an opportunity to rejuvenate the soul and focus on the spiritual. It is a time to examine the previous week and figure out how to make next week all the better. Think of it as the weekly version of אלול. The Talmud (Berachot 57b) calls Shabbat "a sixtieth of the World-to-Come." It has a connotation of peacefulness and tranquility attached to it. That is why there is no competition on Shabbat or any need to "get ahead in life." It's not so much about doing as it is being. In short, it's being grateful for what you have and enjoying it to its fullest.
A Sanctuary in Time. This is the beautiful wording of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel: "Shabbat is a sanctuary in time." Time is the first thing that G-d sanctifies, long before human beings, places (e.g., the Temple), or objects. In Judaism, the ultimate spiritual goal is to [consistently] take the physical (i.e., the mundane) and elevate it into holiness. As Heschel states, "we live under the tyranny of space for six days." On the seventh day, we transcend that feeling with Shabbat. That is why Shabbat is the only day of the week with a special name. The rest of the days of the week are generic (e.g., Sunday is "Day One," Monday "Day Two, etc.). Therefore, on Shabbat, we dress in our finest clothes, serve our finest foods, and use our finest chinaware. We use this time to spend with family and friends, study Torah, and de-stress.

To avoid the despair of the rat-racer world, G-d gave the gift of Shabbat. This is a gift that many Jews have ignored because "it reeks of tradition" or "the prohibitions don't make sense." Rather than throwing out the baby with the bath water, what Jews, both observant and non-observant alike, should do is take a look at these motifs and figure out the best way to bring them into their Shabbat practice. Shut off your phones for a day. Don't pull out the credit card to make a payment. Spend time with your family and friends. By observing Shabbat, you have a sure-fire mechanism that will bring you equanimity in an otherwise hectic week.

Can We Be Skeptical About Global Warming?

2011-06-17T18:55:00.000-05:00

I have always found that a healthy dose of skepticism does a person good. It prevents humans from leaping before looking, thereby creating less problems. It makes sure that we are using our brains rather than taking an individual's word on a leap of faith. This healthy dose of skepticism has been lost when discussing anthropogenic global warming. The Left never had it on this topic to begin with, especially when you consider the fact that environmentalism has become a secular religion for many on the Left.

As for the Republicans, global warming denial has become just as vehement on the Right as blind faith towards environmentalism has been on the Left. As fellow libertarian Steve Chapman points out, "Conservatives fear liberals will use climate change to justify heavy-handed intrusive regulation and wasteful subsidies, and they are right to worry. But that's no excuse for pretending global warming is a myth or refusing to do anything about it."

Pretending global warming is a myth.....that's what got me thinking. Is there so much concrete evidence for global warming that any attempt to refute it would put you on par with Holocaust deniers or 9-11 Truthers? Although this debate is highly extensive and can very easily involve a lot of verbose, scientific jargon that most laypeople don't understand, I'm just going to list a few reasons why we have the right to be skeptical:

Money is a great motivator. It also makes us more cynical about a certain interest group when considering one's motive. Whether it's Big Business, union leaders, or politicians, when you "do it for the money," the ulteriority greatly erodes the integrity of their motive. Why should scientists be any different? The scare of global warming brings in billions of taxpayer dollars in research grants and funds towards "climate change study." More grants and funds means more money, not only to keep their livelihood afloat, but also to keep their wallets full of cash.
Power is also a great motivator. Those disseminating the message of mainstream environmentalism are predominantly on the Left. Once Communism was disproved with the fall of the Berlin Wall, the intelligentsia of the Left needed another way to subtly get their feet in the door in order to force their utopian statism on the rest of Americans. What a better way to gain more government control than with environmental alarmism? The environment, much like health care, has the potential to cover many facets of consumerism. If left to their own devices, the Left would completely do away with individual rights, particularly from an economic standpoint.
A study done by the Harvard-Smithsonian Institute for Astrophysics back in 2003 shows that temperatures from the eleventh century were comparable to the twentieth century. If fossil fuels did not exist during the eleventh century, and we saw a similar flux in temperature back then, can we really say that fossil fuel emissions are the cause of climate change?
We are unable to predict the weather forecast for the next week. How do expect to know what Mother Nature has up her sleeve for the next century? Even if you want to differentiate between meteorology and climatology, what about those computer models that depict doom and gloom scenarios like the movie Day After Tomorrow? Computer models cannot even accurately simulate past climate changes. How can we expect an accurate depiction of the future climate? Furthermore, publications such as the New York Times and Time magazine have flipped back and forth multiple times over the past one hundred years on whether we're in a state of global warming or cooling. Look at Time Magazine's article back in 1974 about how the same fossil fuels that the environmentalist Left kvetches about was going to bring us into the next Ice Age. You read that correctly. Back in the 1970s, there was a fear of global cooling.
Although I can keep going, I am going to conclude with this chart below from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. In terms of determining causation of global warming, the chart is very telling. Consumption of energy has skyrocketed post-World War Two. However, the temperature did not fluctuate as if the temperature were affected by our carbon emissions. What we see here is that solar activity and surface temperature are, at the very least, correlated, if not an instance of causation. If you want to be skeptical of my skepticism, be my guest. However, you run into a problem if you try to unambiguously argue that global warming is in concert with our rate of [energy] consumption. You just can't unequivocally do that. Let's keep the debate up, but let's not augment the size of government or demonize consumerism in the name of environmentalism.

Why the Rise in Gas Prices?

2011-06-09T22:22:00.000-05:00

Knowing that the summer is approaching soon, common sense dictates that gas prices will increase. Although this has been an issue for quite some time, the Arab Spring brought the "pain at the pump" to people's attention. It is evident that gas prices have gone up, but why? According to recent Pew Center poll numbers, 31% of Americans think that the cause of the increase is the corporate greed of Big Oil. Big Business is a frequent scapegoat for when something in the economy goes wrong, and that portrayal is often inaccurate or overstated. Are Americans hurting at the pump because of the likes of Halliburton and Exxon-Mobil, or is there something else at play?

People like to blame those "evil speculators" for causing oil prices to go too high, but as Cato Institute senior fellows Jerry Taylor and Peter van Doren illustrate, not only are speculators not gouging us at the pump, but speculation is what helps maintain volatility in the oil markets.

This is not a case of avarice; it's a case of dealing with market forces, mainly those of supply and demand. I'll start with demand first because that will be easier. When demand for a good or service increases, price increases. That is what is going on with world demand for oil. The biggest geopolitical factor in the demand for oil is China. Since Deng Xiaoping opened its doors to trade with America in the late 1970s, China has experienced massive GDP growth. China's accessibility to technologies has soared in recent years. As a developing nation of over 1.3 billion citizens, its demand will inevitably increase. As such, price of oil is going to increase. India is also following suit. And we all know that America's demand for energy isn't going to be abated.

Knowing that demand isn't going to decrease anytime soon, maybe supply can bring some relief. Remember those "pesky" speculators? They are reacting to what is going on in Libya. Although Libya is only responsible for 2% of the world's oil supply, what speculators are potentially anticipating is that these uprisings reach other nations such as Saudi Arabia or Nigeria, who supply much larger percentages of world oil than Libya. The increase in prices essentially is a "geopolitical risk premium" that acts as a compromise that takes into factor both scenarios of a tranquil dénouement and absolute disaster. If all goes well in that region of the world, we should see a decrease in gas prices later within the year.

But why wait for a potential scenario to play out in Northern Africa or the Middle East? Isn't there something we can do here in America? Because of the BP accident last year, Obama put a moratorium on oil drilling. This clearly decreases supply of [domestic] oil, thereby increasing the price of oil The House has already passed H.R. 1229 last month, which will uplift Obama's decision to tap into our own natural resources. However, the Senate has yet to vote on the matter as of date.

Obama has made it clear that he wants initiatives that shift America towards "clean energy." By investing in "clean energy," this would decrease American dependence on oil. The issue with "clean energy" is that it is unable to fulfill America's energy needs. According to EIA statistics, renewable energy only accounts for about 8% of America's energy. The cost of creating energy by using renewable, according to the EIA, would be much higher for electricity generation than other sources, especially when capacity factor comes into play. In layman's terms, renewable energy is highly costly and inefficient at producing energy. Also, most of renewable energy comes from ethanol. Ethanol is a subsidized scam which distorts the price of gasoline and increases the cost of food by diverting it towards ethanol, as opposed to food.

I don't expect environmentalist groups to get off their high horse about "clean energy." I don't expect any new drilling endeavors in the Gulf of Mexico or ANWR anytime soon. And I certainly cannot predict what is going to happen to the political stability overseas. Short of the calming of uprisings throughout Africa and the Middle East, I wouldn't expect gas prices to go down.

San Francisco's Assault on Circumcision

2011-06-06T20:56:00.002-05:00

When I initially heard about San Francisco wanting to put a circumcision ban on their ballot for November, I dismissed it as sheer ridiculousness. A thousand-dollar fine and a year in jail seems a bit steep for one of the most common medical procedures in American hospitals. Keep in mind that San Francisco leans far to the Left, and as such, is prone to such tomfoolery, like the time when San Francisco banned the Happy Meal late last year. After thinking about this ballot initiative for a while, it made me wonder why certain individuals within that city would attack a medical procedure and call it a violation of human rights.

It's not simply because politics has become so polarized in this country that any topic is now a "hot button" issue. No! Those who are anti-circumcision cry "mutilation" and "assault" because of the connotation of the practice. The practice of circumcision (ברית מילה) is practiced by Jews, as well as Muslims. Regardless of the actual origin of the practice, circumcision is very much associated with religion. Religion also happens to be tied to the concept of tradition. ברית מילה is well over three millennia old. For Left-leaning San Franciscans, religious traditions such as circumcision are antiquated relics to which modern "progressives" should not cling. To allow such a practice to continue to exist would hold society back. Therefore, opponents to circumcision have an anti-religious axe to grind.

This would be the optimal time to go through each of their objections and see if they have any merit:

"Circumcision does more harm than good." Like any other medical procedure, circumcision comes with risks. As such, you should consult your doctor, as well as the statistical probability of complications. However, there are considerable health benefits to circumcision. The NIH found that it can reduce the chance of contracting HIV by 64%. The World Health Organization (WHO) also follows suit. Mayo Clinic points out that it decreases the contraction of urinary tract infection (UTI), penile cancer, and STDs. The American Academy of Pediatricians (AAP) had similar findings.
"It's traumatic for the baby." I can hardly believe this is an actual argument against circumcision. It's not even the fact that there is no sound evidence to prove this statement. It's simply common sense that the probability of remembering anything from infancy is next to nil. Clearly, this is an argument with the explicit intention of distracting us with fear.
"A circumcised penis is an insensitive penis." This argumentum ad metum is what gets a lot of people. The anti-circumcision crowd will tell you that by "nipping the tip," you cut off any sexual sensitivity or stimulation. One could argue that because this is a "religious practice," the goal here is to curtail sexual desire, thereby making life miserable for all. However, no conclusive study has been able to prove this. As a matter of fact, the AAP goes as far to say that the circumcised penis actually receives more pleasure.
"Male circumcision is just like female circumcision." This is a fallacious analogy. To equate female genital mutilation (FGM) to male circumcision is insulting to one's intelligence. Let's start with the fact that female circumcision has no health benefits whatsoever, something that cannot be said for male circumcision. Female genital mutilation actually causes harm to many women, according to the WHO. FGM causes long-term complications in health, as well as complications in childbirth. Furthermore, FGM occurs at an age during which a child can remember the trauma, unlike a procedure done in one's infancy. Also, in FGM, sexual enjoyment decreases, where as with male circumcision, the results are ambiguous and anecdotal at best.
"The procedure is being done on the child. Shouldn't the child have a say?" I'm not going to argue with that. However, it's called parenting. If you are to be a good parent, you will be doing a good amount of imposing on your child. Parents make plenty of choices in which the children don't have a say: school choice, religion, diet, extra-curricular activities, the list goes on. This argument is nothing more than a red herring.

Postscript: We are dealing with a very controversial issue because it is one of sexuality and religion. Here we have a medical procedure that is shown to have medical benefits. Also, like any medical procedure, it also comes with its risks. As the AAP states, "Because circumcision is not essential to a child's health, parents should choose what is best for their child by looking at the benefits and risks."  This is indeed a personal matter and should be treated as a private issue. However, to go as far as making circumcision illegal is nothing short of an attack on religious freedom. As Marc Stern of the American Jewish Committee so accurately pointed out, "This is the most direct assault on Jewish religious practice in the United States. It's unprecedented in American Jewish life."

One can see that health benefits are not the primary reason for this procedure. Sure, health benefits can be cited, but they very well could be moderate once overall risk assessment [with complications considered] is done. The main reason for this procedure is because it is a religious rite. Although my interest is primarily from the standpoint of a Jew living in America, Muslims also use circumcision as a sign that they belong to their given religious community, hence why Muslims are the largest group of practitioners worldwide.  It's difficult to not use a slippery slope argument because I know that it's a logical fallacy. If this initiative somehow manages to pass, it doesn't automatically mean that religious freedom will be eroded. We are dealing with a potential ban in only one city that leans far to the Left.  However, knowing the history of the Jewish people, this hypothetical erosion is certainly within the realm of probability, which is why I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see other bans against religious practices, Jewish or not.

One could argue that raising your child as a Christian or an atheist is a form of traumatic child abuse. We are allowed to have disagreements. That is what makes the plurality of America so wonderful. But to tell a parent that they cannot raise their children or to erode freedom of religion simply because you disagree is unacceptable.  For the sake of freedom and one's ability to make religious choices in this country, I hope this initiative falls flat on its face.

Egypt's Cold Peace With Israel Is Starting to Thaw

2011-06-05T22:18:00.000-05:00

When the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt (معاهدة السلام المصرية الإسرائيلية‎) was signed back in the late 1970s, many political pundits were happy about the prospective of peace in the Middle East. Much was given to get Israeli-Egyptian relations to that point, including the unfortunate death of Anwar Sadat, an Egyptian leader who was actually working with the Israelis for peace instead of planning Israel's destruction.

Cold peace between the two nations doesn't solve the root problem, mainly that of Egyptian anti-Semitism. Egyptian hatred of the Jew is nothing new. Whether with Nasser or the past decade, it has always been impediment to a longer-lasting peace. The Arab Spring has caused even more pandemonium in Egypt than any of us cared for. Egyptian citizens are no longer able to tolerate the total lack of freedom in their society.

It would be nice to see some economic and political reform occur in Egypt. It would also be nice to see the Egyptian citizenry see the cause of their stagnant standards of living to be the Egyptian government. However, based on some recent Pew Center data that shows that a majority of Egyptians want the treaty with Israel to be annulled, Israel has the potential to be a scapegoat for Egypt's internal problems, as if this weren't history just repeating itself. This remains to be seen since the Egyptian elections will not occur until this November. It is equally true that the increasingly anti-Israel sentiment in Egypt can be used during the electorate process to get a fundamentalist group such as the Muslim Brotherhood into power and break the cold peace that has lasted between Israel and Egypt for all these years. As for the outcome, only time will tell.

Revisiting Isaiah 53

2011-05-29T18:21:00.000-05:00

About a year ago, I had done an analysis on the Suffering Servant passage of Isaiah 53 since this passage that Christians use to "prove" that Jesus was the Messiah. It should go without saying that their claim is without merit. It's nothing more than an example of Christians using eisegesis, i.e., they read their preconceived notions into the verse to misinterpret the verse and read what they want to read.

Although my analysis was more than adequate, I had found another one recently published by Aish HaTorah, written by Marshall Roth, that was even more thorough than mine. Let me say that this analysis is spot on! Roth first goes through the context of the verse, including how the Jewish people have been referred to as a single entity on more than one occasion. He then takes each verse and shows how the Suffering Servant refers to the Jewish people and not Jesus. Roth then concludes with how early Christian figures read the verse with the same interpretation that Judaism uses.

Understanding this verse properly is of importance. This passage was not meant to guilt trip people into believing in Jesus. It is meant to outline that upon the coming of the Messiah, the other nations will realize how they have erred in persecuting the Jewish people. May we see the coming of the Messiah sooner rather than later!

Gay Marriage Is a Fundamental Right

2011-05-26T18:50:00.003-05:00

I know I've talked about this issue before, but listening to certain Cato Institute podcasts just reminds me that certain issues merit re-visiting. Ted Olson is a great spokesperson for advocating for gay marriage because not only did he used to work for Bush 43, but he was the one who won Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court case that favored Bush in the 2004 general election. Why would I, as well as Olson, go as far as saying that gay marriage is a right?

As I have explained in the past, we need to differentiate between a false and actual fundamental right. If natural rights are fundamental, then my fundamental rights cannot conflict with those of Joe Schmo. Marriage, in its simplest form, is a contract between consenting individuals stating that they commit themselves to one another. This contract, i.e. marriage, does not conflict with anybody else's right to life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. Therefore, from a natural rights perspective, gay marriage is a natural right.
The case of Loving v. Virginia (1967) already proved that under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, marriage is a fundamental right. Forty years later, Mildred Loving, one of the plaintiffs in the case, stated that the religious beliefs of some individuals should not impede on one's civil rights. And yes, she said that includes gay people! Has the Supreme Court ruled specifically on gay marriage? Not at this time. But when it does, I am willing to predict when it rules in the favor of civil rights, Loving v. Virginia will be cited.
Many individuals who are anti-gay marriage because "we're not taking religion or Jesus into account" forget that if we did, we would be violating the anti-establishment clause of religion that is in the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Procreation cannot be a reason to ban gay marriage. Can you imagine trying to regulate marriage based on the prerequisite of procreation? Infertile couples, elderly couples, or couples simply with no intent on having children would have to be barred from marriage. Something tells me that public policy wouldn't be enacted on that level.
"Marriage between one man and one woman--it's the way we've always been doing it." I'm going to forget for two seconds that in the history of marriage in Western civilization, a man has been able to marry a twelve-year old girl, one could not marry outside his religion, socio-economic class, or race, or the fact that marriages used to be arranged. Yes, marriage used to be very different! Using an argumentum ad anitquitatem is a logical fallacy. Just because something has always been done a certain way does not make it correct.

If the notion of two men or two women being together seems disgusting for certain individuals in society, that's just too bad for them. Gay marriage is a natural right. It is a civil right. To deny homosexuals this right is tantamount to saying that blacks are not equal to whites or that women are not equal to men. Even with the progress made in the past few years (i.e., a majority of Americans for the first time are in support of gay marriage), it's still going to be a fight for homosexuals to have their natural rights ensured by the government.

Magen Tzedek: Dealing with Food Politics in Judaism

2011-05-21T21:20:00.000-05:00

In recent past weeks, the Magen Tzedek initiative started by the Conservative movement has been getting a bit of heat. What the Magen Tzedek entails is creating an "ethical hechsher" that is meant to go along side of already-established hechshers. According to the Magen Tzedek website, the purpose of the Magen Tzedek is as follows:

Founded on the principle that we are what we eat, Magen Tzedek is an ethical seal signifying that kosher food has been prepared with care and integrity. Products carrying the Magen Tzedek seal reflect the highest standard on a variety of important issues: employee wages and benefits, health and safety, animal welfare, corporate transparency and environmental impact. A concept that grows more relevant with every passing day, Magen Tzedek demonstrates that ritual and ethical commandments have an equal place at our tables.

The Magen Tzedek garnered attention from many Orthodox Jews, particularly from the organization of Agudath Israel. Agudath Israel accused those heading the Magen Tzedek initative of "redefining kashrut," that "the Conservative movement has no respect for halacha," and concluded by calling Magen Tzedek "a falsification of Jewish heritage."

You would think that you couldn't politicize something like food, particularly in a religious context, but that's exactly what is happening here. Up until approximately the 1950s, the differences between the Conservative and Orthodox movements were subtle. That changed with the creation of suburbia. The American dream to live in a nice, big home with a lawn and white picket fences was too alluring. As such, Conservative communities lived further and further apart, which caused strains on the Conservative movement in terms of being able to maintain "the traditional lifestyle." Nowadays, the Conservative movement looks much more like the Reform movement than it does the Orthodox. The Magen Tzedek initative is nothing less than the Conservative movement trying to re-gain validity as a movement. Since the Orthodox have became the "gatekeepers of Judaism" and have monopolistically declared that they are "halachic Judaism," they don't want to relinquish any of that validity or power to non-Orthodox movements.

The Orthodox are correct that kashrut strictly has to do with dietary restrictions. However, the Conservative movement is also correct to say that the Magen Tzedek is not to replace the traditional concept of kashrut. I agree with that statement. We should not give up the traditional sense of kashrut because it is an institution that helps define Jews and Judaism. However, to dismiss the concerns brought up by the Conservative movement (see this responsum for more details) is to dismiss other Jewish values. Treating animals with kindness, workers with dignity, and considerations for the environment are just as much Jewish values as kashrut.

This is more than a threat on the Orthodox monopoly of the definition of halacha. What one has to keep in mind is that Orthodoxy, like any form of fundamentalism, predicates itself upon bifurcation. It's either a simplistic "yes or no" and "black or white" type of answer. There is no grey in the middle. How does this relate to kashrut? In the traditional sense of kashrut, either a certain food is kosher or it is not kosher. You can't ask if a pig is kosher and answer with "maybe." We know that pig is treif. If the Orthodox got past their cognitive dissonance and accepted these values as part of their consumption decisions, it would complicate matters greatly. Which values take precedence? For instance, let's say that there is a product that has the Orthodox Union hechsher, but we all know that the workers that produced the product are treated very poorly by their employer. Do we buy it because it is prepared according the laws of kashrut or do we decide to not buy it because it violates the mitzvah of לא תלין? Ethics are more difficult to control than ritual, which is why the Orthodox would prefer to keep the matter a ritualistic one.

I do, however have a couple of issues with Magen Tzedek. One is the practical issue of enforceability. Without being Big Brother, how are you going to be certain that a given business is following those standards? Also, how do we determine what those standards are in the first place? Furthermore, I take issue with the fact that most Jews who consume kosher products are Orthodox. They're not going to want what they perceive as a heresy next to the current hechshers. It would be bad business for hechshers as Orthodox Union and Star-K. Finally, I don't think this is going to encourage kosher consumption, which is one of the primary reasons for this initiative to begin with. Although it's a bold endeavor, I nevertheless that it doesn't get at the root causes that have made most Jews non-observant.

I would hope that we can set aside food politics to our utmost to have Jews embrace Jewish values in all facets of their life.

Obama Calls for "Pre-1967 Borders"

2011-05-19T19:28:00.001-05:00

If anything confirmed my suspicions about Obama's anti-Israel stance, his foreign policy speech today did the trick. Obama explicitly called for "pre-1967 borders" when he said that "we believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states." Why is this declaration problematic?

The pre-1967 borders to which the media refers frequently were not borders at all. They were armistice lines. Armistice lines are ceasefire lines that serve as an interim agreement while more permanent agreements are being established. Armistice lines are never considered to have any geopolitical value, which means they have no bearing in establishing nation-states.
Last time I checked, to the victor goes the spoils. If you win a war, you are entitled to the land acquired. This is how warfare has been fought throughout history. This is one of the only times we have expected a victor to give up any land. Even so, Israel gave up the Sinai Peninsula, which was a considerable amount of land that Israel won in the 1967 war. Israel even tried giving the Gaza Strip to Egypt, but Egypt didn't want it!
UN Resolution 242 does not call for Israel to relinquish all the acquired land from the Six-Day War. The controversial part of this UN Resolution is the call for "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict." Anti-Zionists take this to mean that Israel should give up everything it gained. This was actually a huge debate amongst those drafting up the resolution. The Russians, as well as the Arabs, wanted the Israelis to withdraw from all the land acquired. However, the word was taken out of the resolution, thus creating the ambiguity. Those who drafted the resolution, including Lord Caradon, said that it was not meant to refer to all of the territories.
Palestinian nationalism didn't even come into fruition until after the Six Day War. As such, these armistice lines have no bearing on "Palestine," only for Egypt, Jordan, and Syria.
As I have stated before, the obstacle to peace has nothing to do with land. If the Palestinians wanted land for themselves, their Arab brothers could have given them plenty of land, especially since Israel is less than one percent of the Middle East. This does, however, have plenty to do with hatred of the Jews.
From an Israeli perspective, this would be disaster for Israel, particularly if they had to give up the Golan Heights. Not only did that acquisition provide much water resources (which Israel desperately needs to begin with), but the Golan Heights provides Israel with a militaristic advantage. Asking Israel to give that up would be tantamount to nationalistic suicide.
Between the recent alliance of Hamas and Fatah and the attempt by Abbas to get UN recognition this upcoming September, it makes it perfectly clear where Obama stands: with the Palestinians. Today's speech is nothing more than another example of how one-sided Obama is on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. He is always going to castigate Israel while expecting nothing from the Palestinians. That is the Middle East policy of Obama. It is the most anti-Israel of all policies ever espoused by any American president, and will most certainly not bring any peace to the region. Let's hope that Netanyahu is able to stand up to Obama.

Should Social Security Be Untouchable? No!

2011-05-15T09:48:00.002-05:00

Social Security has become a third rail in American politics. Why? Because old people vote.....in droves! The American Association for Retired Persons, better known as AARP, is the largest interest group in America and claims more than forty million members. If you are the political party that messes with Social Security, or Medicaid for that matter, it will most probably end in political suicide.

After reading a Brookings Institute analysis on the question, Isabel Sawhill said that Social Security should be "untouchable." One of the reasons Sawhill gives is that because it's paid for by the payroll tax. This plays into her third reason, which is that the seniors should be owed their money that they put into the system. I would first like to point out that Social Security is a "pay-as-you-go" system. This Social Security Administration (SSA) even admits it. The way the "pay-as-you-go" system works is that the money made by today's workers goes to today's beneficiaries. You do not have your own personal Social Security account where your payroll taxes go. This is bolstered by the fact you don't have a right to Social Security. I can't emphasize this point enough. Back in 1960, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Flemming v. Nestor that American citizens do not have the contractual right or guarantee to receive Social Security. This court ruling has not been overruled since then. Although it would theoretically be political suicide, Congress can, at any time, eradicate Social Security and there would be nothing the American people could do about it.

Sawhill's other argument for making Social Security untouchable is that seniors are a vulnerable group that cannot afford to have their incomes further curtailed. She says that the richer seniors who make an average of $75K should chip in more. Obviously, with the "progressive" tax system we have in place (e.g., income tax is a progressive tax), the rich aren't putting in their fair share and they need to be milked dry. Although Brookings Institute is a centrist think-tank, I'm surprised at the Left-leaning slant on this one, not to mention highly annoyed. The Left loves to talk about equality with their income redistribution, but what history teaches us is that when we implement such policies, people do turn out equal........equally miserable!

The problem with Social Security is much like having a small crack in your kitchen ceiling and there are some drops of water dripping. Although it's not going to hurt today, it's going to cost a lot more if you wait until your entire kitchen is flooded. As Sawhill points out, this is the second year that Social Security is collecting less in revenue than it pays in benefits (i.e., it has caused a deficit). With the retirement of the Baby Boomers, it is going to cause the elderly support ratio to decrease to the point where there will be less workers than beneficiaries to the program. If we don't want Social Security to cause financial ruin for America, something will need to be done because the status quo is insolvent.

But don't worry......Sawhill has some ideas. She proposes to raise the retirement age. That's fine. The GOP has already proposed that. With the increase of longevity in America, it's not an unreasonable idea. However, it's only a short-term solution. Increasing the retirement might delay the problem, but it won't solve it. How about raising payroll taxes? Wait, did she just really offer that as a solution during the worst economic recession we have seen post-Great Depression? Payroll taxes hurt both the employee and the employer. If the employee is struggling financially as it is, why make it more burdensome? It sounds fun to stick it to employers. After all, those rich fat cats have more than they need. Here's a reality check about economics that the bleeding-heart liberals forget. Rich people have capital. Capital is what is required to either start or expand business. By increasing the payroll tax, you are essentially causing further unemployment. And you guessed it. Unemployment is hurting the poor more than anyone.

Instead of gradually increasing the retirement age or the percentage the average American pays in the payroll tax, how about we gradually chip away at the Social Security Administration to the point where it's non-existent? The program itself is the problem because it perpetuates the entitlement mentality brought on by the Nanny State. Cato Institute expert Jagadeesh Gokhale says the following:

Entitlements and the taxes to fund them both alter key economic decisions that individuals and households make — and these "distortions" result in costs which add up. More generous and early entitlement benefits induce earlier retirement by the most experienced workers. Larger entitlement benefits and higher payroll taxes also induce workers to work and save less. Retirees also consume their wealth faster leading to lower national saving. With shorter working life spans, younger generations choose to acquire less education and skills, opting instead to enter the work force early at lower wage levels. So, adopting more generous entitlements with higher taxes leads to economic choices that are socially and economically undesirable — choices that favor getting less education, working less, saving less, and retiring earlier. This is the case even when those choices may be the right ones for individuals and households given the incentives from government policies that they face.

His solution? It'd be the same as mine. Scaling back on Social Security and other entitlement programs would give incentive for people to pursue further education. Also, it would incentivize people to save more money and put it into private accounts. If you put into Social Security, you will, at best (and that'd be a miracle unto itself), break even. If you put into a private retirement account (PRA), you would actually end up making money by investing in low-interest bonds because the investment has a low risk, meaning that even if economic hardship came along, you'd still come out ahead in the long-run.

In summation, if we don't want the kitchen to be flooded, we need to consider serious Social Security reform. And you what that means, Sawhill? Social Security cannot be untouchable.

Can You Take a Life to Save a Life? An Ethical Dilemma in Jewish Law

2011-05-10T16:23:00.001-05:00

It's great to see that my alma mater is finally creating a Jewish Studies department. Yesterday, I got to hear Ilan Fuchs, a potential candidate for Lawrence University's Jewish Studies department, discuss Jewish medical ethics, in specific context of whether one can take another's life in order to save another individual, or even many individuals for that matter. I hope that by exploring what was discussed in yesterday's lecture, we can transcend a simple "yes or no" ruling and discover the complexities inherent within the discussion.

We see a case of this in Scripture, more specifically, in Samuel II 20:15-22. The city of Beth-maacah is besieged, and the soldiers say (verse 21) that if Sheba ben Bichri is killed, then the city will be spared. He was delivered and the city was subsequently spared. Can we derive law from this scenario or are we merely dealing with narrative?

Since Judaism cannot be reduced to Scripture (i.e., Tanach), we need to look at the rabbinic tradition and how the situation evolved over time. We will now approach this from citing sources that answer the question both in the affirmative and the negative. We will start with the negative.

From a traditionalist Jewish standpoint, life has infinite value. It doesn't matter if you are talking about one person or a million. When you multiply any number by infinity, it always ends up equaling infinity. As such, murder is highly immoral in Judaism. It is one of the three sins in Jewish law where you would give up your life so you don't transgress it.

In the Talmud (Pesachim 25b), someone comes before the Raba and says to him: "The governor of my town has ordered me, 'Go kill so-and-so, and if not, I will kill you.'" The Raba replies with "Let him kill you rather than you commit murder. Why do you think your blood is redder? Maybe his blood is redder."

It would seem as if Judaism never condones taking a life to save another. First and foremost, Judaism permits self-defense (Exodus 22:1, 2). Yoma 85b states that if "one comes to kill you, kill them first." Self-defense clearly deals with cases of imminent threat in which there is a pursuer, or a רודף. This example comes up in Jewish law and abortion. In Mishnah Ohalot 7:6, a woman is able to "cut a woman up in the womb" because her life comes before that of the child's. The exception to this rule is if the majority of the fetus has emerged from the womb, thereby having the full status of a human being. This exception has an exception: A minor who is in pursuit may be slain to save the pursued (Sanhedrin 72b). Confused yet?

Because of this, Maimonides (Laws of Murder and Preservation of Life, 1:9) states that until a majority of the child emerges from the birth canal, it is not regarded as a fully autonomous human being, and that an abortion would be obligatory because "one life should not be sacrificed for another."

Yerushalami 8,10 brings about another example. If a group of men comes along and says "give us one of your own [so we may kill him] or you all be killed," you normally let all of them be killed. However, as with the case of Sheba ben Bichri (refer back to second paragraph), if you can find an equivalent, you can, according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, sacrifice him for the "greater good" because he will already be charged and executed. According to Rabbi Yochanan, you can sacrifice the individual, even if he isn't subject to execution. Why? Because his presence puts everyone else in danger. However, Maimonides ends up agreeing with Shion ben Lakish (Laws of Basic Principles of Torah, 5:5), even though the majority ruling is normally with the opinion of Rabbi Yochanan.

I am going to throw in one more case (Bava Metzia 62a) before concluding. Two men are travelling together in the desert, and there is only one pitcher of water with enough for one. If they either share or no one uses the water, they both die. The majority ruling is interesting: Rabbi Akiva rules that if unless both can survive, the individual with the pitcher survives because "your life should never take precedence over his." It's not simply a victory for property rights. It's also common sense. For one, if you are obligated to give the water to the other, you'd keep passing the water back and forth until you both die. Second, Akiva's explanation is intuitive. If you were to give the water to your neighbor, you would be essentially stating that your responsibility to your neighbor is greater than to himself. Self-sacrifice is not a Jewish value.

Postscript: If you're even more confused as to what the correct course of action is from a Jewish perspective, that's good because that's the idea. Talmudic thought, as well as Jewish thought as a whole, is supposed to be dialectical. The rabbis have debated these sources throughout time because they wanted to make sure that every factor possible was taken into consideration before rendering a decision. New considerations, thoughts, factors, or refutation of previously accepted facts can change a halachic decision.

R. Moshe Feinstein ran into a similar problem back in the 1970s. There was a case with Siamese twins. If the twins were separated, Twin A would die and Twin B would live. If the surgery were not performed, both twins would die. What's a Jew to do? R. Feinstein said that the surgery should be performed because since Twin A was going to die anyways, his presence was a de facto רודף scenario. Was that an easy decision to make? No. Could one have made a sound counter-argument? Most probably. But R. Feinstein had to make a decision.

This is the beauty of Jewish law. One can make arguments for diametrically opposed ideas, and they can both be equally Jewish! So, what's the answer to the initial question of "Can you take a life to save a life?" It depends on the scenario. Certain mitigating circumstances make the argument much stronger than other scenarios. Even in that situation, we can argue either way. When push comes to shove, you still have to make a decision. Whatever halachic decisions we make in life, may they be made in the goodness of His ways.