Paving Materials on the Road to Hell

Recent tragedies in Connecticut and elsewhere, in which large numbers of innocent people were killed by deranged gunmen, have led to a flurry finger-pointing, as polticians of every stripe try to convince voters that they can solve the problems of gun violence in America, while looking for scapegoats to blame.

Predictably, some blame the gun lobby for its tone-deaf intransigience about setting rules and limits on guns; some blame the video-game industry for encouraging a culture of violence.  Some blame our existing gun restrictions, for preventing law-abiding citizens from coming to the rescue with guns blazing whenever there's trouble.  Some even blame our Constitution for elevating the "right to bear arms" to the level of a constitutional right --- or heap the blame on our Supreme Court, for recognizing in the text of the Second Amendment a personal right to bear arms for our own self-defense.

On this last score, some gun control advocates point to the pre-existing case law --- effectively acknowledging that the Second Amendment precluded only Congress from enacting limits on the right to bear arms --- to argue that the current court has made the "activist" decision to rewrite the Second Amendment, and pointing to the Supreme Court decision in McDonald v Chicago as Exhibit A.  The reason we had "a body of law" through the 1970s that has been revisited today is not because of "judicial activists" on the bench today, but because of the judicial activists of the 1960s.

From our founding until the middle of the 20th Century, the US Supreme Court had routinely held that the Bill of Rights applied only to restrict the power of the Federal government over its citizens...and had no application against the state. States, through their own laws and constitutions, were largely free to organize themselves, and to write whatever laws and rules their citizens saw fit to impose upon themselves. In this context, the Federal Government could impose no rules respecting weapons in the possession of its citizens of any kind --- with the possible exception of those being transported in across state lines, in interstate commerce. Any such rules and regulations were left to the states, which were free to impose any rules they wished.

Building upon various threads of developing legal thought, and beginning in earnest with the 1960 Supreme Court decision in Mapp v Ohio, the Supreme Court effectively rewrote our Constitution, extending protections designed to prevent tyranny at the Federal level by applying them to the states. Though largely intended at the start to rectify obvious injustices being visited on black defendants in the Deep South, this morphed into what is known as the "incorporation doctrine"...by which language in the Fourteenth Amendment --- which read that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" --- transformed the Bill of Rights into general limits on state power, a bit of legal alchemy that had somehow escaped the attention of jurists until the middle of the 20th Century. Though most modern liberals insist that it only applies to those "privileges or immunities" that they approve of --- such as the right to counsel, or the protection against unreasonable search and seizure (all of which were generally granted in one way or another in the various state constitutions) --- inexorable logic, as well as the law of unintended consequences, made it inevitable that the same "incorporation doctrine" would someday come to apply to the Second Amendment as well as the rest.

Today, rather than a system in which Washington is prohibited from disarming its citizens but States are free to regulate weapons as they see fit, we now have a system in which the same limit on Federal power relating to weapons is being applied against the states...with the result that what seemed a good idea to the "Perpetual Committee on Constitutional Revision" that the Supreme Court became in the 1960s is running into the reality that the Founders tried hard to accommodate in 1787: ie, the fact that a "one-size-fits-all" government is a recipe for disaster, and that liberty is better preserved by placing strict limits on Federal power, and letting the People govern themselves as much as possible at the state and local levels. In the context of trying to control gun violence in our society, this means that local communities across the country have to abide by the same constitutionally mandated limitations --- even though farmers in rural Montana and neighborhood watch volunteers in Detroit may face different local problems, requiring different local solutions.

If we are going to decry "judicial activists," we should probably begin by studying how the Constitution changed in the 1960s. We are still grappling with the consequences, but at least you'd have a sense of the nature of the problem...and why it's proving so hard to get things right: judges are terrible at crafting the kinds of political compromises we need to govern ourselves intelligently, and make most people happy with the result; and once they assumed the power to rewrite the Constitution, they became a third political branch of Government, rather than simply serving as the referees. And so therefore, in the context of our current debate on gun control, rather than being able to rule simply that "the Second Amendment does not apply to the States; therefore, the State of (fill in the blank) is free to regulate firearms in whatever manner its citizens seem fit," it now has to craft constitutional rules relating to firearms that apply across the board to everyone, everwhere in the country...and determining which state laws and regulations can pass muster with five members of the Supreme Court. Multiply that by the number of issues now deemed to involve someone's "constitutional rights," and you have a recipe for the chaos and dysfunction we see everywhere in this country, at all levels of government.

Personally, I think the Founders gave us a much better system; it's too bad we had to muck it up.

JEFFREY CAMINSKY, a retired public prosecutor from Michigan, writes on a wide range of topics. His books include the Guardians of Peace-tm science fiction adventure series, The Sonnets of William Shakespeare, and the acclaimed Referee’s Survival Guide, a book on soccer officiating. All are published by New Alexandria Press, and are available on Amazon, as well as directly from the publisher.

The Right to be Fools

Overprotective parents who insist on making all the decisions for their children merely ensure that their kids are unprepared for making wise decisions as adults.

Similarly, a nation that infantilizes its population, by having its Government start making all of the "hard" decisions for its people to keep them from making unwise choices, only ensures that within a generation or two it will be populated largely by nitwits --- of the same caliber as those who will thereafter be making all of the Government's decisions.

In a free society, it's not the Government's job to run our lives, determine how much money we should have, or to determine what kind of culture we have. In a free society, if the citizens insist on being fools --- or choose to value greed over civic-mindedness, selfishness over cooperation, or trivialities over substance --- there's nothing the Government can or should do to stop them. Liberty gives us the right to be foolish as well as wise...and in a free society, learning to tell the difference is part of what gives life its meaning.

On the other hand, if we want to see what it looks like to have a Government in charge of determining income levels --- or making people who "have too much" give their excess away --- or deciding how its citizens should run their own lives --- we saw quite a lot of that in the 20th Century. As I recall, it didn't turn out too well.

JEFFREY CAMINSKY, a retired public prosecutor from Michigan, writes on a wide range of topics. His books include the Guardians of Peace-tm science fiction adventure series, The Sonnets of William Shakespeare, and the acclaimed Referee’s Survival Guide, a book on soccer officiating. All are published by New Alexandria Press, and are available on Amazon, as well as directly from the publisher.

The Path of Great Nations

Our ongoing debt crisis is raising tempers throughout our political chattering class. Hidden away, however, are several underlying trends that are threatening to crack our political fault lines in ways that should send shudders through our collective consciousness. Instead, it will likely lead to boredom within a matter of weeks, as most people return to their own lives in hopes that the Future will take care of itself. Unfortunately, the cliff we occasionally sense ourselves approaching isn't terribly far away, and we're still heading toward it.

A friend of mine recently commented that Capitalism was, in many ways, an extreme form of economics in that only the financially strong survive. He is, of course, right in many ways, though his prescription (a more socialistic economy and political structure) strikes me as completely wrong.

Cruel as it is, Capitalism seems to reflect the Darwinian world in which we live, where the strongest, most adaptable survive. Socialism, on the other hand, recalls to mind Churchill's observation to the effect that Capitalism was the unequal sharing of prosperity, while Communism was the equal sharing of misery. Hoping to split the difference, Socialism seems to prevent prosperity, while being unable to escape the misery that comes from trying to maintain a perpetual state of equality in an inherently imperfect world.


Equally depressing are Alexander Tyler's observations on the ebb and flow of human forms of government:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

"The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

"From bondage to spiritual faith;

From spiritual faith to great courage;

From courage to liberty;

From liberty to abundance;

From abundance to complacency;

From complacency to apathy;

From apathy to dependence;

From dependence back into bondage."

If I had to place America in the early 21st Century, it would be somewhere in Tyler's Stage 5: Abundance, heading toward Complacency (though an argument could be made that we've shot past Companency and are rushing headlong toward Apathy...possibly due to the proliferation of video games in modern times). From that point, I think Rome took about 400 years to fall; though I'm enough of a hopeless romantic to think we might be the first civilization to escape their fate, I'm not sure we'll last as long.

JEFFREY CAMINSKY, a retired public prosecutor from Michigan, writes on a wide range of topics. His books include the science fiction adventure novel Clouds of Darkness, the compelling third volume in the Guardians of Peace-tm series, The Sonnets of William Shakespeare, and the acclaimed Referee’s Survival Guide, a book on soccer officiating. All are published by New Alexandria Press, and are available on Amazon, as well as directly from the publisher.

Another Moment of Truth, or Paying the Piper

In a democracy, by and large the people tend to get the government they deserve. And throughout history, a democracy's moment of truth comes when its citizens discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. Since that discovery, about 50 years ago, we've tended to vote for whoever promised us the most goodies, and have largely ignored the Cassandras in our midst who were warning that nothing in this world is free, and that a day of reckoning would come one day when we'd have to start paying our bills.

The spectacle we're watching this week in Washington on raising the debt ceiling is our modern heritage, and our penance for wanting everything, and expecting others to pay for it all. Unfortunately, there is no way to avoid the fiscal and financial pain that is in our future; and listening to those who are promising quick or easy fixes --- whether calling for "taxing the rich" to pay for everything, or cutting spending (except for any that happens to benefit us) --- are simply trying to advance their careers at their country's expense.

It's often said that the first step in getting yourself out of a hole is to stop digging; let's just hope we haven't already sold the ladder to the Chinese.

JEFFREY CAMINSKY, a retired public prosecutor from Michigan, writes on a wide range of topics. His books include the science fiction adventure novel Clouds of Darkness, the compelling third volume in the Guardians of Peace-tm series, The Sonnets of William Shakespeare, and the acclaimed Referee’s Survival Guide, a book on soccer officiating. All are published by New Alexandria Press, and are available on Amazon, as well as directly from the publisher.

Soft Despotism, or How Tyranny Creeps Into a Democracy

As students of history know, 150 years ago the French historian Alexis de Tocqueville spent a great deal of time traveling our young and vibrant nation. Among the many insights de Tocqueville had into this country was the recognition that, for all its grittiness and promise, America was not immune from the same follies that have plagued nations since the dawn of time. Among the problems he foresaw was the emergence of a form of "soft despotism" in which a paternalistic government would take control of society from an enfeebled people that was sapped of its own vitality and self-confidence. And all that stood between America and the voluntary surrender of liberty to a state eager to enhance power over an increasingly dependent population was the invigorating "habits of the heart" he saw in our 19th Century ancestors.

Unfortunately, our modern educational system doesn't seem to teach history very well. And among the insights most students of today never read is de Tocqueville's warning about what happens to a society in which citizens look to their government, rather than to themselves, to satisfy their needs and wants:

"After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd."

Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America


JEFFREY CAMINSKY, a retired public prosecutor from Michigan, writes on a wide range of topics. His books include the science fiction adventure novel The Star Dancers, the exciting second volume in the Guardians of Peace-tm series, The Sonnets of William Shakespeare, and the acclaimed Referee’s Survival Guide, a book on soccer officiating. All are published by New Alexandria Press, and are available on Amazon, as well as directly from the publisher.

The Federalist, No 62, by James Madison

Among the priceless treasures of American history is work collectively known as The Federalist, written while the adoption of our Constitution was still a matter of public controversy. Some, looking to the chaos and confusion stemming from trying to govern thirteen unruly colonies under the weak and ineffective Articles of Confederation, believed that only a united government could keep America strong and free—or, in the words of the Preamble, to “secure the Blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our Posterity.” Others, the Anti-Federalists, feared that a strong, centralized government would be a vehicle for tyrants to impose their will on the population.

In the ensuing public debate, a writer known only as Publius, wrote a series of persuasive essays, pointing out the benefits on the new federal constitution, as well as explaining its provisions to the reading audience. In truth, the essays were written by three giants of American history: James Madison, who would become our fourth president; Alexander Hamilton, who would become our first Secretary of the Treasury; and John Jay, who would become the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

In the sixty-second essay, James Madison explained the purpose and theory behind having a second house in the Legislature, which the proposed Constitution called the Senate. Among its benefits was intended to be to lend a degree of stability to the new government: since its members would serve six-year terms, he argued, they would be more inclined to take a broader view—and would serve as a brake upon the House of Representatives, which—being elected every two years (and expected to have a high turnover, service in the House being perceived as a sacrifice for those elected to serve), would lack the institutional memory needed to keep the young nation on a steady course.

To the modern reader, such concerns may seem prophetic—for Madison wrote of the need of the nation to avoid being “inconstant” or to “carry on...affairs without any plan at all,” to escape becoming “a speedy victimness to...unsteadiness and folly.” A constant parade of ever-changing laws and regulations, he feared, would give the “moneyed few” a distinct and unconscionable advantage over the industrious masses—for money would enable the elites to monitor and manipulate changes in the laws to their own advantage, while leaving the rest of the country in scrounging for a living in the dust and mud. And constantly changing laws would “be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood,” leaving the “prudent merchant” or farmer or manufacturer reluctant to “hazard his fortunes” on any new enterprise, mindful of the fact that the laws were as variable as the wind, and that his fortunes would always be at the mercy of “an inconstant government.”

Like many passages in the Federalist, Number 62 is remarkable for its concise logic, the gracefulness of its expression, and the persuasive quality of the writing. It is also among the most prescient and insightful commentaries on the risks of self-government—and its lessons about incoherent and intrusive laws appear to have been forgotten, when they should be required reading for everyone, most particularly those who aspire to take upon themselves the responsibility to write our laws and set our policies.

From The Federalist, No. 62, by James Madison:

To trace the mischievous effects of a mutable government would fill a volume. I will hint a few only, each of which will be perceived to be a source of innumerable others.

In the first place, it forfeits the respect and confidence of other nations, and all the advantages connected with national character. An individual who is observed to be inconstant to his plans, or perhaps to carry on his affairs without any plan at all, is marked at once, by all prudent people, as a speedy victim to his own unsteadiness and folly. His more friendly neighbors may pity him, but all will decline to connect their fortunes with his; and not a few will seize the opportunity of making their fortunes out of his. One nation is to another what one individual is to another; with this melancholy distinction perhaps, that the former, with fewer of the benevolent emotions than the latter, are under fewer restraints also from taking undue advantage from the indiscretions of each other. Every nation, consequently, whose affairs betray a want of wisdom and stability, may calculate on every loss which can be sustained from the more systematic policy of their wiser neighbors. But the best instruction on this subject is unhappily conveyed to America by the example of her own situation. She finds that she is held in no respect by her friends; that she is the derision of her enemies; and that she is a prey to every nation which has an interest in speculating on her fluctuating councils and embarrassed affairs.

The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?

Another effect of public instability is the unreasonable advantage it gives to the sagacious, the enterprising, and the moneyed few over the industrious and uniformed mass of the people. Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue, or in any way affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change, and can trace its consequences; a harvest, reared not by themselves, but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow-citizens. This is a state of things in which it may be said with some truth that laws are made for the few, not for the many.

In another point of view, great injury results from an unstable government. The want of confidence in the public councils damps every useful undertaking, the success and profit of which may depend on a continuance of existing arrangements. What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows not but that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed? What farmer or manufacturer will lay himself out for the encouragement given to any particular cultivation or establishment, when he can have no assurance that his preparatory labors and advances will not render him a victim to an inconstant government? In a word, no great improvement or laudable enterprise can go forward which requires the auspices of a steady system of national policy.

But the most deplorable effect of all is that diminution of attachment and reverence which steals into the hearts of the people, towards a political system which betrays so many marks of infirmity, and disappoints so many of their flattering hopes. No government, any more than an individual, will long be respected without being truly respectable; nor be truly respectable, without possessing a certain portion of order and stability.

JEFFREY CAMINSKY, a retired public prosecutor from Michigan, writes on a wide range of topics. His books include the science fiction adventure novel The Star Dancers, the exciting second volume in the Guardians of Peace-tm series, The Sonnets of William Shakespeare, and the acclaimed Referee’s Survival Guide, a book on soccer officiating. All are published by New Alexandria Press, and are available on Amazon, as well as directly from the publisher.

Burning Books Instead of Reading Them

In one of the low moments of our current interval of xenophobic exhuberance, it seems that a church in Florida is planning to reinstitute a centuries-old tradition of small-minded people throughout the ages: burning books they don't like.



In 1821, the writer Heinrich Heine wrote: "Where they burn books, they will end in burning human beings." We regard the Nazi book-burning rituals with horror: one of my favorite lines from the last Indiana Jones movie has Sean Connery telling one of the evil Nazis that "goose-stepping morons like yourself should try reading books instead of burning them". And Ray Bradbury's novel Fahrenheit 451 gave us a vision of a futuristic society where the authorities institutionalized the practice of burning books they deemed unfit to read. I find it depressing that in the 21st Century America---the Land of Liberty and home of the First Amendment---we are facing the prospect of another round of book-burning.

JEFFREY CAMINSKY, a retired public prosecutor from Michigan, writes on a wide range of topics. His books include the science fiction adventure novel The Star Dancers, the exciting second volume in the Guardians of Peace-tm series, The Sonnets of William Shakespeare, and the acclaimed Referee’s Survival Guide, a book on soccer officiating. All are published by New Alexandria Press, and are available on Amazon, as well as directly from the publisher.

Under the Bus

Though we have all experienced it while growing up, there are few things more cruel than to be punished for something you didn't do. Even worse is to be punished for doing something noble...especially if you show some personal vulnerability while doing it.

With President Obama under fire for any number of reasons, and the NAACP taking heat for casting the Tea Partiers as racists without anything as mundane as proof, it seemed the obviously wise political move to react swiftly and forcefully when a member of the Administration---speaking at an event sponsored by the NAACP---made remarks that could be construed as overtly "racist": talking of her attitudes about helping a white farmer facing the loss of his farm while a lower level employee at the Department of Agriculture, she spoke of viewing it through the prism of race, and "not doing all she could" to help him. So, she was promptly fired from her job with the Obama Administration, and the NAACP issued a statement denouncing her. All without bothering to check with her first...since, after all, there is simply no excuse for racist comments.

The only problem was that the remarks quoted were not racist at all. Rather, speaking of her early days as a USDA employee, she was speaking over her personal struggle to overcome the racial attitudes she grew up with...and the need to overcome prejudice of all kinds in order to work for a better world.

Shirley Sherrod is probably not perfect; I may not like her politics, and it's entirely possible we wouldn't get along if we met at a party. But there's something sad---and curiously ironic---in having our purported guardians of racial attitudes rush to judgment, hurl insults, and threaten the livelihood of someone who's only crime was speaking candidly and openly about her own personal struggle to move past race and toward a place where people view each other simply as people.

Of course, this morality tale probably won't give our modern day race-baiters and civic Morality Patrol cause to pause the next time someone is quoted on a blog saying something that, at first blush, sounds a bit odd. But, at least, it should give the rest of us something to think about.

JEFFREY CAMINSKY, a retired public prosecutor from Michigan, writes on a wide range of topics. His books include the science fiction adventure novel The Star Dancers, the exciting second volume in the Guardians of Peace-tm series, The Sonnets of William Shakespeare, and the acclaimed Referee’s Survival Guide, a book on soccer officiating. All are published by New Alexandria Press, and are available on Amazon, as well as directly from the publisher.

A Modest Proposal for Balancing the Federal Budget

It's no secret that people in this country are furious with our Federal Government for wasting our money.

In any given year, we spend billions on pet projects for various congressmen that do nothing for the country, but which they deem indispensible to their own bids for re-election.

Various proposals have been floated over the years, from a balanced budget amendment, to priority-based budgeting. But the red ink just keeps piling up, and the Government keeps on doling out money like drunken sailors. And in recent years, it doesn't matter much which party is in charge; the only thing that changes is which set of well-connected cronies gets to gorge itself on our hard-earned money ---money which we give up because we can't boycott paying our taxes without going to jail.

I think the better solution is not to keep forking over more money to the government; we'd be better off demanding that they spend no more money than they take in. To that effect, my own modest proposal has been to pay the President and Congress out of any surplus funds---ie, money left over after we paid all our bills. Kind of like what happens to the proprietor of a small business, only with free health care. If we don't have a surplus...or we're bleeding money that year...they don't get paid. I think that probably would do more to balance the Federal budget than any number of laws, amendments, or protests by angry taxpayers.


JEFFREY CAMINSKY, a retired public prosecutor from Michigan, writes on a wide range of topics. His books include the science fiction adventure novel The Star Dancers, the exciting second volume in the Guardians of Peace-tm series, The Sonnets of William Shakespeare, and the acclaimed Referee’s Survival Guide, a book on soccer officiating. All are published by New Alexandria Press, and are available on Amazon, as well as directly from the publisher.

Presidential Implosion in the Gulf?

Unfortunately, Obama's reaction to events in the Gulf are starting to reinforce all the doubts many people had about him during the election campaign. Even his erstwhile supporters are starting to turn against him. And once a liberal loses Jon Stewart, disaster is already nipping at his heels.

I guess we'll see if he can turn it around...but each day the oil keeps gushing, it will only get worse for the president's image.

JEFFREY CAMINSKY, a retired public prosecutor from Michigan, writes on a wide range of topics. His books include the science fiction adventure novel The Star Dancers, the exciting second volume in the Guardians of Peace-tm series, The Sonnets of William Shakespeare, and the acclaimed Referee’s Survival Guide, a book on soccer officiating. All are published by New Alexandria Press, and are available on Amazon, as well as directly from the publisher.

Debating Point: Gays in the Military

I suppose that I may simply be losing touch with what's going on in the world. But I wonder if anyone seriously thinks that the military should switch to having co-ed barracks...other than perhaps as a plot for a comedy. If not, I'm having trouble understanding the difference between forcing a woman to undress, shower, and sleep with men ogling her every move, and forcing a man into same situtation...the only difference being the gender of the recipient of unwanted attention. But the recent obsession with undoing the military's policy of "don't ask-don't tell" strikes me as rather an exercise in looking for problems...perhaps to distract us from the very real financial, economic, and foreign policy problems that are being crowded off the public stage.

I think that the military exists for one purpose, and one purpose only: to neutralize or destroy any threat against the country, and to do it as efficiently as possible. Anything that detracts from that mission --- such as introducing internal sexual tension into a unit that should be concentrating on destroying the enemy --- is a luxury. We can do so if we choose, because at the present time we're far more powerful than any country on the face of the earth. But there is a reason why all military units in history have separated men from women...at least, until the present day: they don't want romantic thoughts and conflicts to intrude on battlefield responsibilities. Introducing the same thing into all-male or all-female barracks isn't something to do lightly, or out of some sense of political correctness.

This does not mean that homosexuals should be hounded out of the service, or beaten within an inch of their lives merely because of their sexual orientation. If push came to shove, I'd be standing shoulder-to-shoulder with those trying to protect our comrade who was being attacked from within. And away from the front lines, there are many jobs in the military for which "sexual tension" in the ranks simply wouldn't matter. But we don't train our military to be enlightened philosophers: we train them to kill enemies on command, and without mercy. And when our surival is on the line, we're better off being defended by a division filled with Conan the Barbarian, rather than one consisting of Mr. Sensitivity.

Unlike most people voicing opinions on the subject, I don't pretend to know the answer. But I do know that we are not asking the right questions. As a result, the current "gays in the military" debate is missing the whole point of having a military in the first place: we should be concentrating on what makes our armed forces stronger, more powerful, and more ruthlessly effective. We should not be using it as a laboratory for conducting experiments in human sociology.

JEFFREY CAMINSKY, a veteran public prosecutor in Detroit, Michigan, specializes in the appellate practice of criminal law and writes on a wide range of topics. His books include the science fiction adventure novel The Star Dancers, the exciting second volume in the Guardians of Peace-tm series, The Sonnets of William Shakespeare, and the acclaimed Referee’s Survival Guide, a book on soccer officiating. All are published by New Alexandria Press, and are available on Amazon, as well as directly from the publisher.

Crony Capitalism

Just in case anyone needs help getting depressed over what's happening these days, we can always learn about how big business makes things worse for us --- and better for themselves --- by making small investments in our elected representatives.

I watched one of John Stossel's shows on the Fox Business Channel last night...and was even more appalled that usual at the spectacle of our government selling itself. At firesale prices, no less!

I think it's obvious that our Federal Government is too big, and careening out of control. Many of the regulations we see --- like the ones on kid's toys, which do nothing to make anything safer, but do one heckuva job at crushing small toymakers, and are putting thrift stores out of the used toy business --- serve no real purpose except to allow big business to avoid the messiness of competition.

I suppose in a democracy, it's always possible for us to take our country back from the special interests. But I suspect there may well be a point of no return for us. And the bigger and more powerful our government becomes, the closer that "point of no return" may come.

JEFFREY CAMINSKY, a veteran public prosecutor in Detroit, Michigan, specializes in the appellate practice of criminal law and writes on a wide range of topics. His books include the science fiction adventure novel The Star Dancers, the exciting second volume in the Guardians of Peace-tm series, The Sonnets of William Shakespeare, and the acclaimed Referee’s Survival Guide, a book on soccer officiating. All are published by New Alexandria Press, and are available on Amazon, as well as directly from the publisher.

Government, Inc?

In his book Prologue to a Farce: Communications and Democracy in America, Mark Lloyd, the Obama Administration's Communications Diversity Czar, proposed funding public radio through a tax on commercial radio stations. Invoking the spirit of Saul Alinsky, an icon of the radical left, Lloyd insisted that the history of communications in this country is a history of control by corporate interests. And Lloyd's proposed use of the tax on commercial radio to fund "regional offices" organized to monitor political advertising and commentary, among other things---is sending chills through the conservative blogosphere.

Most people familiar with the internet know that nobody is in control---and frankly, most of us like it that way. The Government is busy enough making a mess of the things it currently has on its hands without looking for new ways to make a hash of things. And given the current angry, skeptical mood of the country these days, it is doubtful that a proposal of this sort could survive the light of day...though, given the current raft of thousand-page bills that nobody in Congress seems to read these days, I suppose that anything is possible.

It is, of course, entirely possible that the entire frenzy is merely a visceral reaction to hyperbole and overstatement by the other side. Now, faced with the responsibility of governing, Mr. Lloyd will find that it was a lot easier to spout off idealistic rhetoric when he didn't have the responsibility of seeing whether his ideas would actually work.

But as I see it, the real concern is whether the Government will be attempting an "end-around" the First Amendment to muzzle voices that it finds objectionable. The means used would be the tax laws wrapped in the language of "diversity"...either of language or skin color, but the objective will be to bring an end to talk radio.

If the Government is merely trying to "expand" access to the means of communication, then the Obama Administration may well propose a modest subsidy to permit new voices to be heard, and give them a chance to win over an audience, but they will do nothing to interfere with the broadcasters,themselves. If they are trying to "muzzle" speech, then their tactic will likely be taxing or otherwise punishing those who are raising dissenting voices: ie, the conservatives, and particularly the conservative radio talk shows.

Part of the problem is that so many people seem to misperceive the role of the Government, though. The Government does not exist to "protect our rights." It exists to protect our society---from crime, from foreign enemies---and to permit people to liberty to set their own destinies. The Founders cautioned that power is always seeking to advance, and that Liberty is usually seeking nothing more than to be left alone.. As a consequence, institutionalized power --- ie, the Government--- needs to be contained, or it will attempt to swallow liberty.

Government itself is neither good nor bad...but is necessary for liberty to thrive. But viewing Government as a "protector of rights" is dangerous: the rights contained in the Bill of Rights were written down to guard against intrustion by the Government. It was felt that only by setting them down clearly on paper---as the fundamental charter of the land---would we be able to keep Power within safe limits. People are fully capable of protecting their own rights...since "rights," if properly understood, impose limits not on private conduct, but on intrusions by the State (aka, "Big Brother," aka "Big Government). This is distinct from a "mandate," by which the Government attempts to control conduct directly through the use of statutes or other forms of regulations. When "mandates" intrude on "rights"---as if, for instance, the Government imposes a "fairness doctrine" to compel people to subsidize what it defines as a fair mix of viewpoints---problems arise. And when the Government tries using its coercive power to restructure society in a way that most people oppose...then we have tea parties, rowdy town hall meetings, and citizen revolts.

Some suggest that the Government's efforts would not be to restrict free speech, but only to "expand the accessibility" to free speech. But if I own a radio station that the Government takes away because it disapproves of the political content of the opinions I'm airing, how is that not "restricting" my First Amendment rights? And how is that different from the "free speech" rights in Venezuala...or Cuba...or the Ayattola's Iran...or even Soviet Russia?

Mark Lloyd is proposing to increase the broadcast subsidies "to levels commensurate with or above" those of commercial broadcasting. If the People of this country are agree, and want to provide subsidies out of their tax dollars (rather than bail out the banks, or the car companies, or fund Heath Care Reform, or do any of a number of things that the Administration is simultaneously insisting are vitally needed), then so be it. But as I understand it, that is not his proposal: he wants to impose a tax equal to 100% of the operating budget of the commercial radio stations, as the means of "leveling the playing field."

It is, of course, possible that his ideas are not actually intended to drive commercial radio out of business, leaving only government-run stations in operation. It is entirely possible that he is so ignorant of the principles of economics that he does not realize the consequences of what, to him, is merely pretty, idealistic rhetoric. But when I see these sorts of ideas emerging from the shadows, at the same time I also see Washington moving to take over the banks, the auto industry, the health care system, and God-knows what else, I think it's time to slow down the politicians before they do some real damage...and to have a real discussion about what we want this country to be: Government of, by, and for the People; or Government, Inc.

JEFFREY CAMINSKY, a veteran public prosecutor in Detroit, Michigan, specializes in the appellate practice of criminal law and writes on a wide range of topics. His books include the science fiction adventure novel The Star Dancers, the exciting second volume in the Guardians of Peace-tm series, The Sonnets of William Shakespeare, and the acclaimed Referee’s Survival Guide, a book on soccer officiating. All are published by New Alexandria Press, and are available on Amazon, as well as directly from the publisher.

Cash for Refridgerators?

Coming on the heels of the "Cash for Clunkers" program---which saw the Federal Government induce car dealers to give away billions of dollars to induce people to buy this year cars that they were going to buy next year---reports are surfacing that the next installment is already on the drawing boards.

Not content with giving away money to car buyers, Congress appears on the verge of giving away tax dollars to those who may be in the market for new household appliances. And now that the Bailout Bandwagon is fully engaged, there appears to be no end in sight.

Assuming a similar reaction to the "Cash for Refridgerators" program---whereby thousands of consumers rush to take advantage of all this "free money," at least one taxpayer wonders where it will all end. If "Cash for Clunkers" leads inevitably to "Cash for Refridgerators," can "Cash for Trash" be far behind?

Though my wife insists that I'm just looking for an excuse for forgetting to put out the trash cans on Wednesday nights, I'm already starting to stock up. Before long, we should have enough stored up to be able to afford a very nice mansion somewhere on the coast.

The only glitch may be if house prices recover. But from where I'm sitting, the odds of that happening any time soon are pretty remote...and certainly no better than the likelihood that sanity, or fiscal responsibility, will return to Capitol Hill in the near future.

JEFFREY CAMINSKY, a veteran public prosecutor in Detroit, Michigan, specializes in the appellate practice of criminal law and writes on a wide range of topics. His books include the science fiction adventure novel The Star Dancers, the exciting second volume in the Guardians of Peace-tm series, The Sonnets of William Shakespeare, and the acclaimed Referee’s Survival Guide, a book on soccer officiating. All are published by New Alexandria Press, and are available on Amazon, as well as directly from the publisher.

Congressional Clunkers

It was supposed to help jump-start the auto industry, as well as help the environment.

The big-budget Car Allowance Rebate System—“CARS” in governmental acronymic; “cash for clunkers” in the vernacular—was a billion-dollar system intended to last through October. Low-mileage but otherwise perfectly operable cars were to be cashiered—literally crushed out of existence—in exchange for a $4,500 rebate. This rebate would be redeemed at car dealerships, and used to encourage customers to buy new cars from an auto industry in such serious trouble that much of it is owned by the Goverment.

It started last week, on July 24th.

Of course, destroying all those perfectly usable cars means that the price for a used car is likely to skyrocket—meaning that people needing to buy a cheap car (such as college kids, or the poor), may well be priced out of the market.

It also means that a lot of cheap used parts that used to be available to fix cars in need of repair won’t be available—driving up the cost of maintenance.

And as far as I know, nobody has studied whether destroying a quarter-million cars and replacing them with brand new ones, built in pollution-emitting factories, results in a net benefit to the environment.

Now, a week later, the program is out of money—possibly leaving dealerships holding the bag for all those now-destroyed cars. That probably won’t be much of a help for any of them. Or, for that matter, for the auto industry...unless all those customers who were rushing for all that free cash actually were new customers who materialized out of thin air, rather than people who just moved their purchase ahead by a few months to try to pick up some of the "free money" that the Government was tossing around.

Maybe it’s just me. But it seems funny that the geniuses in Washington couldn’t anticipate that giving away "free money" wouldn’t result in people making a mad rush to claim it. (Of course, I keep thinking that the money isn't really free: it comes from taxpayers---many of whom would probably rather just keep it in their own pockets. Of course, I'm not looking at it from the lofty perspective of Congress).

And...I guess maybe it is just me. But the fact that a program designed to last four months ran out of money in less than a week doesn’t exactly make me anxious to see just how accurate the cost projections for health care reform turn out to be.

JEFFREY CAMINSKY, a veteran public prosecutor in Detroit, Michigan, specializes in the appellate practice of criminal law and writes on a wide range of topics. His books include the science fiction adventure novel The Star Dancers, the exciting second volume in the Guardians of Peace-tm series, The Sonnets of William Shakespeare, and the acclaimed Referee’s Survival Guide, a book on soccer officiating. All are published by New Alexandria Press, and are available on Amazon, as well as directly from the publisher.

Self-Interest and the Public Good

There is always much talk about the "public good." Unfortunately, those doing the talking are often talking in code...and somehow the code usually involves spending lots of money.

The "public" doesn't just include the poor. It includes all of us...including Wall Street, agri-businesses, tobacco farmers, and everyone else with their hand out, or looking to accept the pork barrel spending of Congress, and willing to "ante up" for the privilege. But while everyone was quick to point to the abuses and failures in the welfare system, few people noticed that exactly the same effect was being produced further up the ladder. It's just a lot more expensive---and, until now, it was largely hidden from view.

If we're dealing with a small group---a family, a tribe, a town---we don't have the same problems. When everyone knows everyone else, there are fewer opportunities to shaft your neighbor, since there is a human face to the person you're cheating, and it's impossible to avoid detection, anyway. Once we move to larger communities, or big countries like the modern United States, then "taking" from someone else becomes an anonymous act. And if you can structure the law in such a way as to make theft of other people's money completely legal, it can become all too tempting to rationalize away any moral dilemmas about doing so. When legalized theft becomes the norm---and, I think, much of what we've seen on Wall Street and Capitol Hill qualifies---then the country is in big trouble. It leads to a sense of entitlement to the fruits of other people's labors, and crossing that threshold is a dangerous step for any country...especially a democracy.

There is nothing wrong with helping the poor, or trying to structure the government in such a way as to assist those in need. But when the system needs saints to work properly---presuming that no one would ever try to claim by right what they haven't really earned, and everyone is honest and honorable in their dealings with others---then it can't work on a large scale. That's why primitive communism can work in a family setting---or perhaps in a religious setting, where people are bound collectively together by a common faith---but it can never work as a basis for a complex society.

Any civilized nation needs to strike a balance between collective action and personal liberty. But there has always been a cycle to the lifespan of any democratic society in the past. And I'm afraid that without some far-sighted and resolute action, of a kind we haven't seen since our Founding and which I don't see on the horizon today, we may be nearing a major turning point...away from liberty, and toward dependence on a beneficent and all-knowing government. Sixty years ago, we called it "Big Brother," and it seemed a chilling portrait of a way of life that could never be; today, I'm not so sure.


JEFFREY CAMINSKY, a veteran public prosecutor in Detroit, Michigan, specializes in the appellate practice of criminal law and writes on a wide range of topics. His books include the science fiction adventure novel The Star Dancers, the exciting second volume in the Guardians of Peace-tm series, The Sonnets of William Shakespeare, and the acclaimed Referee’s Survival Guide, a book on soccer officiating. All are published by New Alexandria Press, and are available on Amazon, as well as directly from the publisher.

The Curse of Interesting Times

America is facing turbulent times and major challenges these days. Facing hostile enemies abroad, and economic and social challenges at home, we are faced---as in the ancient Chinese curse---with the prospect of living in "interesting times."

To be honest...and I hate to say this...but many of our current problems just reflect the reality that our country---or, at the least, the "elites" that define our country for us---has become. When Society started deeming it more important to protect "self-esteem" than to be concerned about accomplishments, I think we entered a very dangerous stretch of history.

Among the critical moments in a democracy is when the public realizes that it can vote itself money from the public treasury. For us, that moment came during the Great Depression, when we first turned to the Government to rescue us from an internal crisis. Over the last 75 years, we've seen the role of government gradually expanding, at the same time that cultural influences were undercutting our traditional notions of personal responsibility. Now, I think we're facing yet another critical moment...and it's not looking pretty.

At heart, I remain a hopeless romantic, and so I'm still not convinced that things will end in disaster. I hope, instead, that the public will recoil from the spectacles we see in Washington and Wall Street...cashier the lot of them...and start anew, having been chastened about being too trusting when it comes to spending public money. But I've also read about the various stages of development in a democracy---from Despotism to Liberty and back again---and we do seem to be a bit more than half-way through the cycle. And just as Rome collapsed as a result of its own excesses (and was promptly overrun by barbarians), I don't think America is immunve from the same fate, if we let ourselves be guided by our greed and passions, rather than our ideals and principles.


JEFFREY CAMINSKY, a veteran public prosecutor in Detroit, Michigan, specializes in the appellate practice of criminal law and writes on a wide range of topics. His books include the science fiction adventure novel The Star Dancers, the exciting second volume in the Guardians of Peace-tm series, The Sonnets of William Shakespeare, and the acclaimed Referee’s Survival Guide, a book on soccer officiating. All are published by New Alexandria Press, and are available on Amazon, as well as directly from the publisher.

Symptoms of the Times

As the American republic was taking shape, the Founders conceived of the primary purpose of Government to be the protection of Liberty. This is why they placed strict limits on the central government, and were highly suspicions of centralized power. They wanted power close to the people, figuring that it would be easier to keep the government within its proper constraints. They also deemed "power" to be the enemy of liberty, and warned that people had to be constantly vigilant to ensure that "tyranny" never took root on American soil. For this reason, the federal government was consigned to duties that were "national" in scope---mostly defense and interstate commerce. Most important issues of public concern---including questions of public safety, welfare, and morality---were deemed the province of state or local government. And it was assumed that the fruits of one's labor belonged to the one who earned it.

Today, many of us seem to view the primary purpose of Government to be providing services to its citizens. The centralized Federal Government has largely taken over most issues of public importance, with the non-elected judiciary assuming an ever-greater voice in settling questions of public policy. And we are standing on the verge of a massive expansion of the Federal Government: having now largely taken over the auto and financial services industries, it is asserting a claim to take over and centralize the health care industry as well. Rather than looking to themselves to solve their problems, raise their families, and set their destiny, more and more people are looking to the Government to provide answers and solutions to whatever seems to be going wrong in society.

This trajectory of events bodes ill for the entire country. It tends to foster ever-greater dependence on the Government. And once the majority comes to view the power to tax as the power and means to redistribute wealth, it's a small step to Big Brother...where the Government controls every aspect of our lives.

Today, the current Health Care proposals seem to be shaping up as critical indicators: if our reforms move us more toward reestablishing the connection between the consumer (ie, the patient) and the provider (ie, the doctor)—moving to restore some semblance of a market, where decisions are made based on individual need and professional judgment—then we may be able to stave off disaster for another few generations...and let them carry the ball when they come of age. If, on the other hand, we move in the direction of centralized control, bureaucratic decision-making, and bean-counters in charge of medical decisions, then we may be seeing the beginning of the end for the American experiment in democracy.

JEFFREY CAMINSKY, a veteran public prosecutor in Detroit, Michigan, specializes in the appellate practice of criminal law and writes on a wide range of topics. His books include the science fiction adventure novel The Star Dancers, the exciting second volume in the Guardians of Peace-tm series, The Sonnets of William Shakespeare, and the acclaimed Referee’s Survival Guide, a book on soccer officiating. All are published by New Alexandria Press, and are available on Amazon, as well as directly from the publisher.

Exceptionalism and American Politics

There is much talk these days about American "exceptionalism"---the notion that America has been, throughout her history, different than other countries. While it's possible to overstate the differences, for more than two centuries this has been true...though, sadly, the differences are becoming harder to see.

The notion of "American exceptionalism" doesn't imply that the Founders were perfect. It merely recognizes that there was something unique about America---or the American experience---that made it different from Europe. It may have been the fact that people had to pull together to survive on the frontier; or the unique blend of Enlightenment thinking, frontier life, traditions of English liberty (such as they were circa 1700), and the chance for a fresh start an ocean away from the problems of the Old World. It's why America offered hope for the rest of the world...and why we often tend to look at things differently than most other countries.

Today, though, it often seems that we're becoming what we rebelled against: power is concentrating, abetted by corporate interests, who have their own reason for wanting a strong central government(it's easier to deal with than strong, innovative, and rising competitors), our politicians are becoming corrupted by it (a notion well known to the Founders...and one of the things that drove them crazy about being governed by England), and in some ways we're starting to become "just another country," rather than remaining true to our core principles, and the things that made us so different.

Of course, principles are often in the eye of the beholder. At the time of the Founding, English law drew distinctions between natural rights (eg, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), civil rights (eg, owning property, being able to contract), and political rights (eg, the right to vote, or sit on a jury), and a citizen's standing in the community determined how many of these rights he enjoyed. The Bill of Rights was intended to protect us from encroachments by the Federal Government, by imposing strict limits on Federal power, and up until the Supreme Court effectively rewrote the constitution in the 1960s, we made similar distinctions: while the "natural rights" were deemed part of every American's political heritage, the rest were deemed to be matters under state control. Unfortunately, the same problems that led to the Civil War also led to problems there: the South refused to grant full citizenship to blacks, which caused problems two hundred years ago, and vestiges of those problems remain today. In addition, the modern world presents its own challenges, the leaders we elect aren't always the wisest among us, and the world keeps pushing us along the path of least resistance---ie, the tendency to put problems off until later, and to elect politicians who make the biggest promises. As a result, things are a bit muddled today, as we sort through the proper relationships between state and federal power...and this has presented fertile grounds for mischief for the ambitious.

There are, however, dangers arising from trusting to a strong central government to protect us from strong, centralized corporate power. In the end, their common interest in controlling their environment is likely to make them allies, rather than antagonists...viewing the people more as pesky whiners rather than the people the Government is supposed to serve. And with the corruption rampant in Washington, I don't think we can really trust Congress to look out for our interests: regardless of party, they're mostly out for themselves...and even with the best of intentions, the concentration of power there is too seductive for most of them to resist.

JEFFREY CAMINSKY, a veteran public prosecutor in Detroit, Michigan, specializes in the appellate practice of criminal law and writes on a wide range of topics. His books include the science fiction adventure novel The Star Dancers, the exciting second volume in the Guardians of Peace-tm series, The Sonnets of William Shakespeare, and the acclaimed Referee’s Survival Guide, a book on soccer officiating. All are published by New Alexandria Press, and are available on Amazon, as well as directly from the publisher.

The Current Forecast: Cold and Gray

The Government, it seems, is up to its old tricks, ignoring pressing problems while solving problems that largely aren't there. This time, though, we may be stuck with an even bigger-than-usual bill for the mess.

Geithner's current plan contains a number of flaws, many of them flowing from the notion that our current problems are "fixable" through governmental action. From this neck of the woods, it seems that our problems---self-inflicted though they may be---are simply not amenable to quick fixes. Sadly, this means that we may be in for a long downturn, one that will not end until the excesses of the past---the overspending and speculation that came along with the wild rush after riches of the past fifteen years---have been paid for.

The Economist carries a piece on Obama's domestic shortcomings to date...which are beginning to become apparent. Unfortunately, though, there are no easy answers: if there were, we'd have done them already. And though it's depressing to think about it for too long, no "plan" we adopt will be perfect. And figuring out what we should do, and where we should go from here, will simply be the harsh and unavoidable ordeal of picking the least terrible from among a host of awful options.


JEFFREY CAMINSKY, a veteran public prosecutor in Detroit, Michigan, specializes in the appellate practice of criminal law and writes on a wide range of topics. His books include the science fiction adventure novel The Star Dancers, the exciting second volume in the Guardians of Peace-tm series, The Sonnets of William Shakespeare, and the acclaimed Referee’s Survival Guide, a book on soccer officiating. All are published by New Alexandria Press, and are available on Amazon, as well as directly from the publisher.