Applying the Tension of Scarcity and Abundance Within the Passover Seder to Our Daily Lives

Last week, I was studying some Pirkei Avot, a Jewish ethical text, with a synagogue down in Buenos Aires. I had it on in the background while I was doing cleaning in preparation for Passover. One of the passages that we were discussing was in Pirkei Avot 5:10, which was a depiction of four types of people that exist, particularly in the context of "give and take" and how one views property. You can look at the Hebrew here, but I'll give you the English:

There are four types of character in human beings. One that says "mine is mine" and "yours is yours." This is a commonplace person, although some say that it is characteristic of Sodom. The second is "mine is yours" and "yours is mine." This is [the mindset of] an unlearned person. The third is "mine is yours, and yours is yours." This third person is scrupulously pious. The fourth is "yours is mine, and mine is mine." This person is considered to be wicked. 

A bit on my take on this passage from Pirke Avot. I agree that the second person, who in modern-day terms would be the Communist, is ignorant. As Rashi brings up in his commentary, such a person lacks moral sophistication and cannot appreciate the sanctity of private property. The text Sefer HaMussar goes as far as saying that this is a moral deficiency because it can lead to coveting other's wealth and obsessing over other people's belongings, a phenomenon I pointed out last year. The fourth person is self-centered and is only concerned with what can be taken. I do not take issue with the Rabbi's take on the second and fourth individuals. 

It is the depiction of the first and third individuals that are more problematic. The first is either considered "run-of-the-mill," or בינונית. The first individual is taking a more "live and let live" approach. Tying this mentality to Sodom requires the logical fallacy of the slippery slope. Sodom was a particularly bad place. According to the Book of Ezekiel (16:48-49), Sodom's fall was due to its arrogance. Why were they arrogant? Because they had riches and food, and did not help the poor or the needy. Post-biblical Jewish texts go into detail on how cruel Sodom really was in this regard. In the Talmud (Sanhedrin 109b), it says that Sodom had such a disdain for the poor that the government of Sodom would punish those that aided the poor and the needy. This is not an indictment of free-market economics or property rights; it is an indictment of cruelty towards others (especially the poor and needy) to the point of legislating said cruelty. 

As for the third individual, the one who thinks "what is mine is yours, and yours is yours" can only go so far under Jewish law. After all, Jewish law teaches that one cannot give charitable donations beyond twenty percent of one's assets (Ketubot 67b). A vow of poverty is not a Jewish value. There is a Midrash (Shemot Rabbah 31:14) that teaches that if you had poverty on one side and all other problems on the other side, poverty outweighs them all. It is a literary device to be sure, but the point still is that poverty is awful. 

Looking through the commentary on this passage in Pirke Avot, I believe the main lesson is that we generally should be more inclined to giving. Granted, the text is referring to money and material wealth, but it could just as easily apply to knowledge, time, and effort. During this study session, the seminarian leading the discussion connects this passage to the Four Sons that are in the Passover Seder: the wise son, the wicked son, the simple son, and the son who cannot even ask a question. These are not meant to be literal children, but rather personifications of personality types. We see a similar categorization in the aforementioned Pirke Avot passage. As the seminarian brought up, some of us act like one of the four characterizations, but there are also plenty of people who personify different characterizations in different points in life. 

There are points when we are more selfish, either because all we want to do is take or we find ourselves in a dire enough situation where we need to receive instead of give. There are other moments where all we want to do is give to others. And there are times where we do not feel like giving to others or feel like being left alone. I find this tension about giving and taking greatly encapsulated elsewhere in Pirkei Avot, specifically from Rabbi Hillel at Pirke Avot 1:14 (Hebrew is here):

If I am not for myself, who will be? If I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?

I like this passage for a couple of reasons. One, it differentiates between self-interest/self-care and pure, unadulterated selfishness. Two, it reminds us that we need to be self-reliant and self-sufficient, but at the same time, there is a calling to be there for others. I also bring up Pirke Avot 1:14 because segues into a parallel tension in the Passover Seder. 

We sanctify the beginning of the Seder with a glass of wine (קדש) and wash our hands (ורחץ). Afterwards, we start with the uglier side of the experience of slavery. We then eat the green vegetables dipped in saltwater (כרפס). The most common explanation for כרפס is that it symbolizes the tears that the slaves shed while in slavery. It does teach about hard times, but as I brought up, it also can teach about growth throw adversity. We have the difficult time of slavery. With the slavery is the implicit poverty. This brings us to the next step in the Seder (יחץ), which is breaking the middle matzah. I discussed the ritual of יחץ a few years ago. Matzah, the unleavened bread eaten on Passover, is referred to as "poor man's bread" (Talmud, Pesachim 115b). In premodern times, breaking food and stashing it for later was a common practice to make sure people had enough food to eat. We break the middle matzah to try to put us in their shoes and understand at least a wee bit as to what slavery and poverty are like (Rashi). After stashing the matzah, we do something counterintuitive in the Seder. We say the following:

כל דכפין ייתי ויכל. כל דצריך, ייתי ויפסח

To translate the Aramaic above, we say "all who are hungry, let them come and eat. All who are needy, let them come and celebrate Passover with us." In a matter of seconds, we see a major paradigm shift. Yes, we stashed food, which symbolizes a scarcity mentality in which one thinks there will never be enough. In spite of the lack in the Seder narrative, the Seder allows us to invite others to join us in the festivities, which brings us to a mindset of abundance. 

What are we to learn from this transition? We are supposed to take care of ourselves. Self-preservation and self-care are important. If we are not healthy enough, emotionally sound enough, or financially stable enough, we either end up being someone else's burden or are unable to help out others. There lies at least one paradox here: taking care of ourselves helps ensure we can be there for others. This paradox hearkens back to Rabbi Hillel's "If I'm not for myself, who will be?" 

But we are meant to do more than merely survive, which is why Rabbi Hillel's dictum in Pirke Avot continues with "If I am only for myself, what am I?" This is why we invite guests into our home after stashing food. We are not meant to only think about ourselves. If there is someone nearby or within our sphere of influence, that is hungry or has spiritual needs, we are to help to the best of our capability. At the time the Seder was created, abject poverty was the default. It teaches that when we have little, we are meant to share what we have. All the more if we are in a state of material abundance, which is much more commonplace in the 21st century than it has been in any other point in history. 

This brings me to another point. Passover celebrates the transition from slavery to freedom, from a low point to a high point. What we see in today's piece here is another transition: from a scarcity mindset to an abundance mindset. I would argue that a scarcity mindset is a form of slavery. The most literal definition of slavery is one human being owning another. It is certainly a morally egregious act, one that sadly still occurs to this very day. However, it is not the only type of slavery. 

A scarcity mindset is one of the most prevalent forms of slavery that one can experience in the mind. Scarcity mindset and fear come hand in hand. You think you will not have enough money or time that you cannot do things. Yes, there is a limit of goods and services in this world. This is why the study of economics exists. Plus, there is a moment we need to be aware of these limits so we can make sound and cogent tradeoffs when making life choices. We are not meant to ignore reality or view the world through rose-colored glasses. At the same time, when you are on the scarcity mindset, the tunnel vision of fear limits you from going ahead in life and taking risks. You think of life as a limited pie. It impedes you from viewing things in the long-term or makes sure you lose sight of priorities. When you think you do not have enough or that you are not enough, it creates anxiety, which can over time create physical and mental health problems.

If our minds are stuck on a scarcity mindset, we limit our potential as human beings. Scarcity mindset means ignoring what we have, whereas an abundance mindset means gratitude. If there is a certain lack in our lives, an abundance mindset gives us the ability to see and pursue a solution to a certain lack in life. If we are to take the Seder seriously, we need to think less in terms of scarcity and more in terms of abundance. How do we do that? There are a few ways that one can do that:

• We focus on what we do have instead of what we do not have. As Rabbi Ben Zoma brings up in Pirke Avot (4:1), "Who is rich? The one who is satisfied with their lot." 
• Surround ourselves with those who have an abundance mindset. 
• Incorporate gratitude in your day-to-day. Gratitude is an essential component of the abundance mindset. This would explain why Judaism teaches that we should say 100 blessings a day. It would also explain the Hebrew term for gratitude (הכרת הטוה), which literally means "recognizing the good." We do not ignore the suffering, injustice, or problems in the world. It means we remember that there is plenty of good in this world. 
• When things do not go our way, we focus on the lesson from that experience and ask ourselves how we learn for the next time. 
• Use cognitive-based therapy (CBT) to reframe scarcity-based thoughts. 
• Invest in yourself, whether that is professional development or getting a professional fitness trainer, so you can earn more and do more in life. 
• Don't focus on strictly material wealth. There are other forms of abundance, whether that comes in the form of health, friends, family, a romantic relationship, spirituality, personal development, or sense of purpose. 

An abundance mindset comes with multiple advantages. You can find happiness or contentment, even in difficult times. You are more resilient and more able to solve problems as they arise. It allows for you to better take advantage of new opportunities and seize the day. It creates confidence that you can pursue endeavors in life. You end up with greater physical and emotional energy. Life is more exciting. You feel more empowered and engaged in life. In summation, an abundance mindset is an essential component to having a free and healthy mind. By going from scarcity to abundance, we are able to feel and undergo the Passover experience.

Biur Chametz: What Burning Leavened Bread Before Passover Teaches About Personal Development

Pesach (פסח), also known as Passover, is one of my favorite Jewish holidays is because it celebrates the universal theme of transitioning from slavery to freedom. This redemption story has been the source of inspiration for many. I am not talking about Charlton Heston on the Big Screen. For example, Harriet Tubman was referred to as the "Moses of her people." As powerful as the Passover motif of freedom is, I also enjoy Pesach because there are a number of rituals involved that have a lot of symbolism. Even before the holiday begins, we see the symbolism emerge. 

One of the main prohibitions on Passover is the consumption of chametz (חמץ). You are probably wondering what chametz is. It is the leavened product made out of one of five grains: wheat, oats, barley, rye, and spelt. Matzah (מצה), which is unleavened flat bread, is allowed. As a matter of fact, Jews are obligated to eat matzah on the first day. As an extension of this prohibition of chametz, Jews are not even allowed to legally own chametz. That is why Jews traditionally clean their houses to make sure there is not even a single crumb of chametz within their possession. There is also the practice of selling the chametz before Passover begins. On the evening before Passover, there is a formal search for chametz that is called bedikat chametz (בדיקת חמץ), a process that includes a statement of nullification. You can tell that Jewish tradition is serious and stringent about not owning a single crumb because all of these practices are not enough. On the morning before Passover, there is one last ritual: biur chametz (ביעור חמץ). Through the practice of biur chametz, a Jew is to destroy the last bit of chametz that they own, most traditionally by burning it. The ritual includes reciting the following a statement of nullification in Aramaic:

כל חמירא וחמיעא דאכא ברשותי, דחזתה ודלא חזתה, דחמתה ודלא חמתה, דהערתה ודלא בערתה, לבטל ולהוי הפקר כעפרא דארעא.

All chametz, whether I have seen it or not, whether I have destroyed (removed) it or not, is hereby nullified and ownerless as the dust of the Earth. 

My first question is that if you recite this at the end, why do we need to do everything else? If the above is a statement of nullification, why spend hours of cleaning and searching for chametz? If we view the cleaning and searching of chametz in strictly literal terms, it makes more sense to simply nullify the chametz at the end. However, the pre-Passover rituals are as much about the spiritual lessons as the physical act of removing chametz, if not more so. 

As I explained a decade ago, the difference between chametz and matzah is subtle, yet important. Chemically speaking, the chametz has undergone the fermentation process. The chametz is to represent the ego, the fluff in our lives, our inflated view of the self and other distorted views. The matzah has no fluff or fanfare. It is to represent ourselves exactly as we are: nothing better or nothing worse. This state of being is meant to be a balance between arrogance and self-debasement, an equilibrium that I have argued is the most Jewish definition of humility. Rather than be aggrandizing or demeaning, a Jewish sense of humility is meant to be one of self-awareness. 

Bring that back to why we clean on Passover. Coming back to the figurative view on these rituals, Passover cleaning is not simply about removing crumbs and prohibited food from the home. It is about decluttering our minds, hearts, and souls. We clean before reaching biur chametz because we are meant to put in the work on our own personal development and to become the best version of ourselves. 

What is equally interesting is that in spite of all the preparation, all the cleaning, searching, and selling, Jews still burn chametz and make a declaration of nullification. The declaration during biur chametz states that regardless of whether I found it or not, whether I destroyed it or removed it or not, it is no longer mine. If we go further with the metaphor, it means that we can prepare until we can prepare no more. In spite of our best efforts, something can go awry. Taking this extra step is to remind us that not everything is in our control. 

When one completes biur chametz as a last step of Passover preparation, what is being said is "I have put my best foot forward. I have done all I could. What happens next is what happens. G-d does not expect us to be perfect. If He did, we would have been angels. The reality is that we are not angels. To be human is to err." What the practice of biur chametz reminds us that we can only do our best. If we could clean our houses perfectly (either physically for Passover or metaphorically in life), we would not need such a practice as biur chametz. Yes, we can work on improving ourselves (as the Passover cleaning symbolizes), but doing anything beyond our darnedest is not possible. We are not meant to be angels, but the best versions of our human selves. There is a point where we have to say that we are good enough and that what we have done up to now is good enough. Could G-d ask for anything more?

Will the Economic Sanctions on Russia Work and Will They Be Worth It?

Russia invading Ukraine back in February certainly has had multiple implications for foreign policy and international affairs. Multiple countries, especially those in the West, take issue with Russia's unprovoked attack on Ukraine. At the same time, they do not want to anger the nuclear power or do something that will also harm them in the process. It is because Russia is a regional power with a sizable economy and nuclear weapons that makes the response all the more limited. I have already covered why military intervention is ill-advised, why a no-fly zone should not be implemented, and the limits of the United States banning oil and natural gas. One policy idea seems to have received a fair bit of traction: economic sanctions. 

What are economic sanctions exactly? Per the definition from the Council on Foreign Relations, economic sanctions are "the withdrawal of customary trade and financial relations for foreign- and security-policy purposes. Sanctions may be comprehensive, prohibiting commercial activity with regard to an entire country, like the long-standing U.S. embargo of Cuba, or they may be targeted, blocking transaction by and with particular businesses, groups, or individuals." We can be looking at anything from travel bans and export restrictions to trade embargoes and asset seizures.

In the context of the Russo-Ukrainian War, we are seeing multiple types of economic sanctions. Aside from the United States' import ban on oil (see my analysis here), there have been banking sanctions. The United Kingdom announced that they were freezing assets of Russian banks. The United States announced restrictions on Russian banks. Two Chinese state banks were limiting financing to purchasing Russian raw materials. The European Union implemented sanctions targeting technological transfers, Russian assets, and Russian banks. The United States, European Union, and Canada have banned air travel from Russia. It can be argued that we are seeing an unusually high amount of economic sanctions in response to Russia's decision to invade Ukraine. This is to name but a few of the economic sanctions imposed upon Russia. If you want a full list of the sanctions imposed on Russia, please view the timeline from the Peterson Institute for International Economics here.

There is some appeal to economic sanctions. It is a way to stick it to Russia without partaking in something as problematic as conventional war with a nuclear power. Also, given the current nature of globalization, much of the global economy is conducted in U.S. dollars, which gives the Western powers an upper hand. It would not be much of an exaggeration to say that the rules of the U.S. financial system are the rules of the global financial system. Whether or not economic sanctions are a good idea really depends on what your goal is. Are you trying to encourage Russia to exit Ukraine? Are these sanctions to cripple Russia's ability to fund its military actions in Ukraine? Are you trying to encourage regime change in Russia? Or are these sanctions simply punitive in nature? 

Historically, economic sanctions have mixed results for bringing about policy change, regime change, or cause military impairment (Hufbauer et al., 2009). One study put the likelihood of success at about 40 percent (Morgan et al., 2014). 

It is more than citing examples of how Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and Syria went about their foreign policy in spite of economic sanctions. We already see a lack of efficacy, at least in the immediate term, in the context of the Russo-Ukrainian War. Previous economic sanctions did not deter Russia from attacking Ukraine in February, although they could potentially deter Russia from invading other nations in the future (or could even deter China from invading Taiwan). 

The latest round of economic sanctions being implemented will need time to take into effect, which is worth mentioning since we are talking about the immediacy of war. This is shown by the fact that Russian military forces remain in Ukraine. Plus, Russia has one of the lowest debt-to-GDP ratios (at 17 percent) and is sitting on $600 billion in currency reserves, which is the fourth-largest reserves in the world. There is also the possibility that neutral countries (e.g., China, India, Pakistan, much of Latin America) could help provide sanctions-busting transactions as a workaround. 

Conversely, this latest round of economic sanctions has been massive, multilateral, and swift. In terms of determining success, one should ask what the ultimate goals are. Getting Putin to retreat in the short-run is not going to happen. We are past the point of deterrence since Russia has already attacked Ukraine. Punishment in the medium-term is more feasible, even in spite of the Russian ruble making a comeback from a previous crash in recent weeks. Standard & Poor's is estimating an 11 percent contraction of GDP in 2022 primarily due to the war. Russia is also looking at double-digit inflation. There is a case to be made that the economic sanctions will have medium-to-long-term implications for weakening the Russian economy. As for changing Putin's behavior (i.e., rehabilitation), it will be difficult to get Putin to remove Russian troops from Ukrainian territory since he is staking his political future on Ukrainian annexation (or at least having a Russian rule Ukraine on Putin's behalf).

One of the arguments against such broad-based economic sanctions is that they disproportionately impact individuals or groups of people who are not responsible for the government's decisions. Economic sanctions would make sense if ordinary Russian citizens were responsible for its government's foreign policy decisions, but they are not. Even if the goal is to inflict pain on the Russian oligarchs and their interests in the West, the results will be less predictable than it will be for the general populace. 

Perhaps regime change is a desirable outcome of these sanctions. But let me re-iterate how these sanctions take time to take hold. It could be a few months or a few years before the effects are fully felt by the Russian people, particularly the oligarchs and others in power. The Director of Harvard University's Growth Lab, Ricardo Haussmann brings up why economic sanctions rarely result in regime change. Haussmann's explanation is that although the sanctions weaken the regime, they tend to weaken society even more so. Harold James, who is a history professor at Princeton University, also mentions that domestic discontent could increase in Russia, but so could nationalistic fervor and support for Putin. Looking both at nationalism in Russian history and the mechanisms that Putin has in place to silence dissidents, these sanctions have the potential to strengthen Putin's popularity within his own country. The sanctions could also backfire by putting Putin in a corner and taking greater risks by escalating either to war or more belligerent actions (e.g., cyber warfare).   

There will be spillover effects beyond Russia. We are talking about trying to shut down or severely limit large swathes of one of the world's largest economies in an increasingly globalized world. While there have been other economic sanctions in human history, the sheer magnitude of what is being attempted leaves us in a situation without parallel. We are already seeing increasing prices in oil and natural gas, stock market volatility, and other negative demand shocks, not to mention an impending food shortage throughout Africa. Much like with other restrictions on trade openness, economic sanctions will in all likelihood make the poorer and less free. 

A 2019 report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) echoed concerns about unintended consequences of economic sanctions: "Some studies [on economic sanctions] suggest that sanctions had a negative impact on human rights, the status of women, public health, or democratic freedom in target countries. In addition, more frequent and comprehensive use of sanctions could encourage sanctions targets, potential targets, and their commercial partners to develop trade and financial ties that are less dependent not he United States (GAO, p. 25-26)."

Will these economic sanctions result in the outcomes desired by Western governments? That remains to be seen, although historic precedence gives us mixed results. I can say with fair certainty that they will dole out a fair bit of pain for the people of Russia and the Russian economy, as well as make goods and services more expensive for people throughout the world. Whether these sanctions will deter future Russian military action or if it will engender political change from Moscow is much less certain. At best, these sanctions would need to be one tool in the toolkit to bring about peace in eastern Europe. At worst, it will be all pain for little to no gain. Only time will tell to let us know whether or not these sanctions were worth it.

Why Supporting the Death Penalty Goes Against Conservative Values

Back in the 1970s and 1980s, crime rates were spiking in the United States. In response, both the Left and Right in the U.S. took a "tough on crime" approach in which tougher sentencing was seen as a solution to a dire problem. The strict sentencing and mass incarceration have shown their uglier unintended consequences, which would help explain why prominent figures on the Left and Right have been denouncing "tough on crime" policy in recent years. As nice as it is to have clarity on such an important issue, there is one issue within criminal justice policy that is lagging a bit: the death penalty. At the same time, support for the death penalty has declined from its 83 percent peak in 1993 to 54 percent in 2021, according to Gallup. The Pew Research Center puts support for the death penalty in the U.S. at 60 percent. In any case, there is still a fair majority that supports the death penalty. 

That is why it was intriguing to come across an article published earlier this month from Left-leaning news site Vox about how Republicans are becoming increasingly anti-death penalty. Looking at the Pew findings (see below), there remains a staunch majority of Republicans who support the death penalty, at 77 percent. Such red states as Kentucky, Georgia, Missouri, and Kansas are looking to curtail or eliminate the death penalty (Vox). The Utah legislature made an attempt to repeal the death penalty, although it was rejected by the majority of the state legislature. 

This trend on the Right to be more anti-death penalty is captivating because being pro-death penalty has been a notoriously conservative stance as long as I can remember. As such, this particular question wanted me to dig into why this is happening. I am sure that there are those on the Right who have done some soul-searching and realizing something incongruent with their other conservative beliefs and their position on the death penalty. I am neither speaking as someone who is conservative nor is pro-death penalty. At the same time, I used to be conservative and I used to be pro-death penalty. I understand the arguments in no small part because I used to make them myself. That is why I want to look at the death penalty from a conservative vantage point and outline facets that show why the death penalty is at odds with conservative values. 

1. Innocence and Error Rates. The government is run by people, and thus, is prone to error because humans are fallible. Here are some payment error rates from government programs: 25 percent error rate with the Earned Income Tax Credit [EITC], 21.4 percent for Medicaid, and a 10.7 percent improper payment rate for unemployment insurance. Since the government is fallible, why do pro-death penalty conservatives suddenly believe that the government is going to be flawless when it comes to the death penalty? Is it simply because it is a policy idea that these conservatives happen to like? The government does not magically give us what we want because it is appealing to our moral sensibilities. The truth is that government also makes mistakes when it comes to the death penalty. The risk of executing an innocent person is real, whether a wrongful conviction is brought on by a mistaken eyewitness, an overzealous prosecutor, an incompetent defense attorney, coerced confessions, scrupulous jailhouse snitches, or botched forensics. In addition to the 186 individuals that have been exonerated since 1973 (Innocence Database), the National Academy of Sciences made a conservative estimate that 4.1 percent of those prosecuted under the death penalty are innocent (Gross et al., 2014). Not only does the government wrongly execute people from time to time, there are times where the errors take place with the execution itself. According to University of Amherst professor Austin Sarat, 276 executions, or 3.2 percent of executions, between 1890 and 2010 were botched. 
• We are talking about a literal matter of life and death. One mistaken execution is too many, never mind an erroneous conviction rate greater than one in 25. If conservatives find comparable improper payment rates unacceptable with various government programs, they should a fortiori be all the more outraged with the death penalty's erroneous conviction rates. 
2. The death penalty is not shown to deter crime. One of the main arguments that the pro-death penalty side uses is that the death penalty is a deterrent, particularly for would-be criminals who are thinking about committing heinous crimes. The issue is that there is not evidence showing that the deterrent effect exists. The National Research Council reviewed more than three decades of evidence and were unable to find credible evidence that the death penalty deters. The studies the NRC analyzed that claimed a deterrent effect were considered flawed since they did not take non-capital punishments, e.g., life without parole, into account. The Brennan Center for Justice released a report to figure out what caused the decline in crime in the 1990s and 2000s (Roeder et al., 2015; p. 43). Among the Brennan Center's findings was that there was no evidence that the death penalty contributed to this decline. 
• If the death penalty were as unambiguously as much of a deterrent as proponents believe, the evidence would be there. I know there are multiple factors that can attribute to the murder rate. However, it becomes difficult to argue that the death penalty is such a strong deterrent when the murder rate of death penalty states consistently remains higher than the rate of non-death penalty states (Death Penalty Information Center; Federal Bureau of Investigation). 
• My final point has to do with expert opinion. Yes, the following data come from 2009 since that is the most recent polling available. At the same time, both criminologists and police chiefs at this time overwhelmingly believed that the death penalty does not act a deterrent. 
• Deterring future crimes is one of the main arguments used by proponents of the death penalty. The lack of evidence for a deterrence effect means that the death penalty is not keeping us safer. 
3. The death penalty collides with a pro-life stance. Not everyone on the Right holds to an anti-abortion stance, but most do. As of 2021, 74 percent of Republicans identified as pro-life (Gallup). The premise behind the pro-life stance is the belief that human life is sacred. Those who are against abortion argue that personhood is [one of] the main considerations for their anti-abortion position. If applied consistently, advocating for the totality of life would include accused murderers. Since alternatives such as life without parole (LWOP) can adequately punish without making the permanent decision of ending a life, a pro-lifer should prefer LWOP over the death penalty. 
• It presents a moral conflict to consider oneself pro-life but support a practice that literally has the word "death" in its name. The moral qualm from a pro-life stance is more pronounced when considering the erroneous conviction rate or that the death penalty has not been shown to protect more lives, as previously detailed. 
4. High cost of death penalty goes against fiscal conservatism. I wrote about the fiscal costs back in 2014, but it is worth a bit of an update. In 2017, the Oklahoma Death Penalty Review Commission found that capital cases cost over three times the amount of non-capital cases. For Nebraska, that would be a difference of $1.3 million between a capital case and a non-capital case. A fiscal impact report from the State of New Mexico calculated that it would cost the State an additional $7.3 million over the first three years of implementation. Susquehanna University also calculated the extra cost of a capital case, which is $1.12 million [in 2015 dollars] (McFarland, 2017). It makes sense that a capital case would cost more. There are greater expenditures in a capital case, ranging from more lawyers, witnesses, experts, and pre-trial motions, as well as a more extensive jury selection process and a separate trial for sentencing. Those are the costs before accounting for the lengthy and costly appeals process. 
• Looking at the death penalty from a strictly fiscal lens, a capital case is a bloated, inefficient program that drives up the costs of law enforcement. These are dollars that could go elsewhere in law enforcement, such as numerous unsolved homicides, violence prevention programs, services for victims' families, or modernizing crime laboratories. They could go to other programs, as well as helping reduce government debt. The cost of implementing the death penalty is more startling when you consider that the death penalty has taken innocent lives or that there is no evidence that it keeps us safer. 
5. Limited government. For those who are limited-government conservatives, the main premise is to restrain government power to make sure it does not overreach. Just read the amendments in the Bill of Rights and you can see a pattern of limiting what a government can and cannot do. Limited government also implies that the government still has some powers, including prosecuting murderers, arsonists, rapists, and fraudsters. Even in a pursuit of justice for victims of the most heinous of crimes, we need to limit the power of government. The death penalty is state-sanctioned power over life and death. As Lord Acton once wrote, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." How is supporting the death penalty congruent with supporting limited government? 
• Giving the state a power that potent and that fatal is the opposite of being for limited government. There are nonlethal methods that are less costly (see previous point) and still deliver justice, which means that the size of government stays smaller as a result of not having the death penalty.

Postscript

The death penalty comes with multiple issues from a conservative point of view. If conservatives were to apply its criticism of government inefficacy consistently, they would scrutinize the death penalty as much as they scrutinize government welfare programs, unemployment insurance, and numerous government regulations. The costliness of the death penalty alone should make a conservative cringe. Combining that with conviction error rates, the percentage of botched executions, and the lack of evidence on deterrence should make that cost all the more unjustifiable. The fact that the death penalty is not proven to save lives makes the "pro-life/pro-death penalty" moral stance all the shakier. And how can a conservative maintain a limited government stance while supporting a Big Government policy that is inefficiently run and makes mistakes? I hope that support for the death penalty continues on a downward trend and that conservatives contribute to that decline. 

Some Health and Spiritual Benefits of Fasting

Food and drink play vital roles in shaping culture. More to the point, they are essential components of living. Without them, we would end up dying. It would explain why the practice of fasting seems like such an arduous task. At first glance, it seems to border on the masochistic to not eat and/or drink for a relatively extended period of time, especially if done on a regular basis. We need food and drink to survive. They can also make life more enjoyable. Why would anyone deprive themselves of something so necessary or pleasurable? This is a question I was asking myself after the minor Jewish Fast of Esther (תענית אסתר) last week. Fasting certainly is countercultural in a society that emphasizes instant gratification and convenience. In spite of fasting being counterintuitive, the practice comes with a number of benefits. 

Health Benefits

While fasting deprives us of necessities on a short-term basis, such a break from caloric intake can provide multiple benefits to our health. When one fasts, the body cleanses itself of toxins and forces cells into processes it would not otherwise undergo. Granted, there are those with legitimate health issues that would prevent them from fasting. If anyone has questions, they should ask their doctor first. However, generally, I believe people could benefit from such a practice. Here a few of the health benefits of fasting:

1. Weight loss. This benefit should be the most obvious. If you eat fewer calories than the amount of calories expend, you will run a calorie deficit. If you run enough of a calorie deficit, you lose pounds. Fasting has been shown to reduce body weight and body fat (e.g., Tinsley and La Bounty, 2015). Short-term fasting can also increase metabolism (Zauner et al., 2000), another component that contributes to weight loss.
2. Improved blood sugar control. Fasting can reduce resistance to insulin (Baronsky et al., 2014). Combined with lowering blood sugar sensitivity, it can help with keeping blood sugar steady. This is especially useful for those with risk to diabetes. 
3. Inflammation and cardiovascular disease. Fasting has been shown to reduce inflammatory markers, as well as body mass index, body weight, fat percentage, and blood pressure (Samudera et al., 2020; Aksungar et al., 2007). This effect in turn allows for a lower likelihood of cardiovascular disease. The lower inflammation can help with arthritis and diabetes (Pahwa et al., 2021).
4. Improved brain function. Fasting has the potential to reduce anxiety and depression (Zhang et al., 2015), as well as better social connections (Nair and Khawale, 2016), because it makes such hormones as serotonin more available to the brain.
5. Fasting can improve hunger. Another function of fasting is helping regulate hormones, ghrelin in particular (Muller et al,. 2002). Being able to fast longer and experience true hunger means that your body can better signal when you are full and thus better regulate caloric intake.

Spiritual Benefits

1. Self-discipline. Fasting gives us an ability to control ourselves, especially our passions and appetites. By strengthening our muscle of self-discipline, we are better able to choose our own reaction to external situations instead of becoming victim to forces beyond our control. 
2. Compassion and empathy. Many in the Western world have more than plenty from a material standpoint. Some people have never gone to bed hungry in their lives, myself included. By depriving oneself of food and/or drink, one can truly understand the feeling of true hunger, a feeling that too many in this world sadly have felt. It can create a sense of solidarity with other. However, the fasting would need to go beyond pity and translate into action if it is to mean anything. In the Book of Isaiah (58:3-7), G-d ask us to have a fast that inspires us to become better people, to help free the oppressed, and to share food with the poor. 
3. Gratitude. Not only can fasting transform us in compassion, it can also be helpful with gratitude. After fasting, you are less likely to take your food for granted. Especially if you accept the theory of the hedonic treadmill, it can help reset your sense of satiation, which could help make you more grateful for your culinary experiences. Fasting can also give us an opportunity to appreciate how well the body functions and processes food. 
4. Humility. Fasting reminds us just how frail the body is. While the body can theoretically last without food for three weeks, it can only last without water for three to four days. We are mortal beings that constantly need nourishment to keep our bodies going. We are not all-powerful or completely independent. Fasting is a practice that can remind us of our limits and our mortality. 
5. Better spiritual reflection and introspection. This is one of the main reasons I fast, particularly when it comes to the Jewish fast of Yom Kippur. I make sure I have enough food and drink before the fast starts beforehand. Once it begins, eating and drinking are too less things I need to worry about. I can focus on the loftier things in life and get my spiritual house in order.  
6. Being comfortable with the uncomfortable. I wrote on this in October 2020, but we can learn a lot about learning from being uncomfortable. One of those main lessons is that discomfort is not automatically bad. Fullness is not automatically good since "the constant craving for pleasure can be detrimental, and occasional discomfort can be exactly what we need." The paradox is that emptiness can sometimes lead to us being filled. 

Biden's Ban on Russian Gas and Oil Is Much More Likely to Harm Other Countries Than It Will Russia

The search for policy options to help Ukraine continues. I have already covered how neither U.S. military intervention nor a no-fly zone would be helpful. On March 8, President Biden presented another option. He announced that the U.S. government would not allow the import of Russian, oil, natural gas, or other forms of energy on U.S. soil. Since natural resources accounted for 60 percent of Russia's GDP as of 2019, it seems at first glance that such a ban would hit Russia where it hurts. The idea is to cut off revenue to Russia so that it is less capable of carrying out its war against Ukraine. 

The market for petroleum is a global one. What does this mean? If the U.S. decides to not import Russian oil, the demand would simply be reallocated in a way in which other countries pick up the imports. As the Cato Institute brings up in its critique of the Biden administration's misunderstanding of energy markets, "The global market for oil depends on the amount demanded and supplied, not where it comes from or where it goes." In other words, the nature of the petroleum market means that the unilateral ban will have next to no impact on the demand of Russia's natural resources. It is possible that Russia would make less on its natural resource exports, which could diminish some of its revenues. However, it is not plausible that a unilateral ban from the U.S. will harm Russia enough to incentivize it to pull out of Ukraine. 

Even if the market for petroleum did not work as described in the previous paragraph, the United States would not be able to make the desirable dents. In 2019, the United States accounted for 7.5 percent of Russian oil exports. The United States does not import natural gas from Russia. In contrast, Europe accounts for more than half of Russia's oil exports. How Europe decides to respond is much more meaningful than what the United States does. Given the European Union's reliance on Russia natural resources, it would be hard-pressed to join the United States in this endeavor, although Anglo-Dutch oil company Shell has already been pressured to cease business with Russia. Economists at the University of Chicago's Initiative on Global Markets overall predict a high likelihood that such a move would result in recession throughout Europe. After all, those who trade together are likely to stay together. 

Yes, the United States is looking to negotiate with other countries for more oil. Meanwhile, the citizens of the United States is going to see higher prices at the gas pump. The import ban will almost certainly attribute to the volatility that already exists in the petroleum market because speculators are trying to build in that possibility into oil prices. If the import ban is not unilateral and Europe catches on, it is likely to reduce energy supply and cause these commodity prices to spike further, according to Caroline Crane of Capital Economics. Economically, that makes sense. An import ban reduces supply. A reduction in supply increases prices. That insight hardly surprises me. 

Regardless of whether this energy import ban is unilateral or more multilateral, we have a policy of a natural resources import ban that will do little to nothing to change the outcome in the Russo-Ukrainian War. We are dealing with a geopolitical minefield. In the interim, the volatility will continue to drive up gasoline prices and could cause economic downturn, especially in Europe. 

Biden could do things to ease the pain at the gas pump such as repealing the Jones Act, reinstating the Keystone pipeline, or reviewing offshore projects in the Gulf of Mexico. Those would be sensible things to do. Instead of finding ways to increase U.S. energy production or make the costs of production and shipping cheaper, Biden's agenda and policy decisions suggest he will simply select policies that will drive up energy costs. It would be great to write about a policy that could actually help peacefully put an end to the Russo-Ukrainian War, but as my studies in public policy and time analyzing public policy have taught me, there are many more incorrect policy responses than there are correct ones.

Why a No-Fly Zone Over Ukraine Should Be a No-Go

The conflict between Russia and Ukraine has the world on edge. Concerns range from the casualties and the refugees fleeing Ukraine to increasing gas prices and the possibility of nuclear war. People are scrambling to find solutions to end the conflict in Eastern Europe. Last week, I covered why the U.S. military should not intervene in Ukraine. This week, I would like to cover a different policy alternative, one that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky requested: a no-fly zone over Ukraine. 

A no-fly zone (NFZ), or an air exclusion zone (AEZ), is when one military power establishes an area in which another military power is not permitted to fly its aircraft. These zones are most commonly set up during a military conflict with the intent of preventing an enemy power from flying in the designated demilitarized air zone. The modern idea of a no-fly zone did not exist until the 1990s, in no small part due to the development of stealth and precision-strike technologies. The first time that a NFZ was implemented was by the U.S. military in the Gulf War in 1991. The second time was when the United Nations prohibited military flights from the Bosnian air force in the Bosnian War. The third place was the military intervention in Libya: once in 2011 and again in 2018 and 2019. The NFZs in Iraq and Bosnia were successes, whereas the attempts in Libya did not work out as well. While we do not have hundreds of data points, three case studies are still better than nothing. 

If the NFZs in Iraq and Bosnia were so successful, why would precedent not be a reason for me to support a NFZ in Ukraine? Because the case studies of Iraq and Bosnia really do not serve as guidance for Ukraine. With the Iraq and Bosnia examples, their air power was inferior in comparison to the powers that were implementing the NFZs. There was no doubt of who could command the skies in those conflicts. In Iraq and Bosnia, the NFZ acted more as a deterrent than anything else. That is not the case in the Russo-Ukrainian War. In terms of size of air force, the Russian Air Force is second only to that of the United States Air Force. And let us not forget that Russia has nuclear weapons. Let us keep that context in mind as we move forward. 

It is not as if declaring a NFZ makes airspace free of enemy aircraft, no more than declaring a building a gun-free zone means that the space will not have guns or crime. Declaring a NFZ means making a commitment to shoot down planes. If the United States or NATO decides to declare a NFZ, it has one of two options. The first option is not enforcing it. If the United States or NATO declared a NFZ and decided not to enforce it, it would be a paper tiger. The reputation of the U.S. military or NATO forces would be severely undermined. The second option would be to enforce the NFZ, which would mean using firepower in the event that Russian pilots decide to violate the NFZ. Enforcing the NFZ would be an act of war. To declare war would be to make an undesirable situation worse.

Aside from the potential to start World War III or some other considerably larger military conflict, there are other considerations. One is that this is still early in the war. Russia only controls a small portion of Ukraine, and as such, cannot employ air forces in a country in which it does not have near or complete control. Furthermore, the Russian military possesses S-300 and S-400 long-range missiles, which can enter Ukrainian airspace without Russian pilots ever needing to enter said airspace. Even if NATO were itching to implement a NFZ, it would not make sense from a military strategy standpoint to do so at this time. 

There is also the logistical component to consider. As the Dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies Dave Deptula brings up, the nation of Ukraine covers twice the air space than the Iraqi NFZs. To have around-the-clock patrols, there would need to be hundreds of fighters to cover that space, as well as the thousands of men to fuel, arm, and maintain the fighters. Combine that with the preparation and clear mission, it would be a huge undertaking to enforce the NFZ over Ukraine.  

To quote Vox political correspondent Zac Beauchamp, "We can't treat Russia like it's ISIS or Qaddafi; the brute realities of the balance of military force change the kinds of tactics and strategies we can bring to bear." The no-fly zone is not some low-risk option that requires little effort. It is an option that takes a lot of resources, would risk military intervention, and would do very little to help the war efforts given that much of the Russian military is primarily using its army. President Joe Biden and NATO officials are correct in rejecting such an option, and I hope they continue to stay the course on this decision.