Outliving this Day and Coming Safe Home

I am not in the habit of using chat and text messaging acronyms or abbreviations. On the last day of this year, however, I found an appropriate use for LOL while reading the newspaper with my morning coffee. That is what I did, loud and abrupt enough to startle the cats.

My guffaw was perhaps a tribute to the acumen of former and unlamented House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in observing that it was necessary to pass the Obamacare, or ACA, law in order to find out what’s in it. How true that observation was.

According to wire reports related in various newspapers and other media today was this gem:

“The words were tucked deep into the sprawling text of President Barack Obama’s signature health-care overhaul. Under the headline, “Protection of Second Amendment Gun Rights,” was a brief provision restricting the ability of doctors to gather data about their patients’ gun use — a largely overlooked but significant challenge to a movement in American medicine to treat firearms as a matter of public health.”

“The deal to add gun language to the health-care bill was struck so quietly that several top officials in the Obama administration and in Congress had no idea the passages had been added until approached by The Washington Post last week.

“A White House official, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity [naturally], said the provision was ‘added into the health-care bill on the Senate floor.’ For explanation on what happened, the official added, ‘I’d send you to the Hill.’”

The provision was added at the request of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, no less. For all of his other faults, Reid has been, up to this point anyway, an ally of the National Rifle Association and supporter of Second Amendment rights. It’s on page 19 of the statute as enacted and signed and available at this link if anyone is interested. http://www.ncsl.org/documents/health/ppaca-consolidated.pdf

The NRA is reported to have asked for the provision to ensure that gun ownership would not be a an excuse for increasing medical insurance premiums. I’m not sure I buy that, at least not entirely, because other parts of the Act would seem to preclude such. More to the point, while it does not invade physicians’ province in the practice of medicine – if they believe it’s medically necessary or appropriate they can ask it and the patient can decline to answer – it seems a obstacle to the creation of a national database of gun owners by subterfuge. This is a valid concern for us all.

The attempt to define a political issue as one of national health is also of serious concern. This has been a ploy of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes throughout history. The Soviets in Russia famously locked up dissidents as “mental cases” and the National Socialists in Germany made similar pseudo-medical excuses for locking-up or exterminating members of disfavored groups. In earlier, cruder times witches hunts and pogroms were excused in the name of public health, as it was understood at the time.

Be all the above as it may, however, the really outrageous aspect of the entire Obamacare fiasco is the manner in which it was enacted. The link provided above is a document that is 907 pages long in Adobe Acrobat .pdf. I do not know if any member of Congress read the entire bill, or understood the ramifications of the various parts they were voting on. Perhaps some staff members did and wrote executive summaries, but I doubt that any Representative or Senator actually read the bill in its entirety (If anyone who knows one who did, I’d like to know). There is something fundamentally wrong with a legislator voting to enact a law that we all have to live under that is so long, involved, and complicated, and which they do not fully understand. It is true that medical care delivery and funding is immensely complicated, but that is because there is already a hodgepodge – calling it a system is laughable – of complex laws and regulations dealing with delivery of medical services. Part, if not most, of the complexity is a result of the legislative process itself. To obtain votes for passage, provisions are included to appeal to lobbies of interest groups that may not have anything to do with the main purpose of the bill, or do so pertain but are put in to assuage influential members of Congress. Furthermore, the President does not have a line item veto – he must accept or reject the entire bill.

Of course, it this instance it would not have mattered. If the bill had a provision that required any imaginable silly thing, President Obama would have signed it. He did so notwithstanding intervening special elections that clearly expressed public displeasure with the process, if not the substance of the bill.

Since I have family members and close friends who are members of the medical and health care community, I hear about some of the – I hope unintended – effects of the Obamacare legislation that already are appearing. The chickens are starting to come home to roost; the hen-house will be full in 2014.

What is really ironic is that one of the consequences of the Act that few read and nobody understood at the time is that one of the left’s signature pieces of legislation strikes in favor of the Second Amendment rights, something they loathe. For the rest of us, though, it’s a comic relief – laughing out loud so we do not similarly cry.

My prognostications for last year were sparse, but oddly enough, fairly accurate. A review:

International
I predicted the “Arab Spring” would fail. With the brutal civil war in Syria continuing, the mess in Egypt, and the continuing Arab-Israeli conflict, it indeed seems to have sprung. I mention the Benghazi blunder only to highlight the naivety of our own foreign policy.

The Euro is still alive, although I never said it would go away, only that I would not be surprised if it did. Its health really has not improved.

The international “War on Drugs”? Well the beat goes on.

National
Did pretty well here. I predicted Romney would be the GOP nominee and the election would be close; the House stayed Republican; and the Senate would be closely divided. The latter turned out to be not as close as I would have thought, or wished, thanks to the foot-in-mouth disease afflicting two GOP candidates.

The unemployment rate actually improved enough for the President to make a credible claim that the economic corner had been turned.

State & Local
The Texas Rangers made it as far as the wild card game. I was far off on my World Series win prediction. But it was not the end of the world, even with Josh Hamilton’s departure.

The drought did break, but we still have a rain deficit in the state.

It was not part of my forecast, but I entered the photo posted last January 1^st in the State Fair contest and received an honorable mention ribbon. The Advocate, a monthly neighborhood magazine, published a nice write-up on my photography avocation, such as it is.

I hesitate to predict much for the coming year. The Iranian nuclear weapons issue will reach crisis proportions. Russia will not be our friend and will continue to prop up Syria’s Assad. Europe will continue to have economic problems, and the Euro may yet go away.

Gridlock will continue in Washington, which is not altogether a bad thing. There will be no groundbreaking legislation nationally, but more states will enact “right to work” laws.

The Supreme Court will rule on the Constitutional issues regarding gay marriage probably a 5-4 decision. The Court may toss Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
　
Our local and state economy will continue to be good.

Big Tex will rise again, pretty much looking like he always has. I will enter another photo in the State Fair contest, perhaps get a 2^nd or 3^rd place ribbon this year.

Beyond these predictions, I haven’t a clue.

Been a bit too busy to write much lately.  Here is an entertaining and informative essay from P. J. O’Rourke.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324660404578199363527441002.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

Cheers!

“Fairy tales are more than true; not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten.” — G.K. Chesterton

Not sure how to beat these dragons.  They are too well disguised, and cause harm before we can find them. But here goes.

“Never let a crisis go to waste,” or something close to that was the White House Chief of Staff now Chicago mayor Rham Emmanuel’s counsel to the administration during President Obama’s first term. Well, the left lost little time heeding that advice in the wake of the Newtown murders. By the beginning of the week, left-wing bastions in the media and the blogosphere were fairly reeking from vowel movements about the evil of America’s gun culture. Most of the writing in that vein has the tone and quality of the childish stomping that comes with wanting something one cannot have: in this case, absolute safety and security.

After another mass murder, one commentator observed that the truth is that a small part of the human population is insane, and there is really nothing to be done. This is not merely cursing the darkness. It is possible to explore the universe, ascertain the laws by which it operates, and use that knowledge to manipulate the environment to improve our lot, up to a point anyway. Attempts to manipulate human nature, however, may succeed for the short term, but invariably have undesirable and unintended consequences. There are those who say that human beings have gone to the moon and extended our reach even farther, so why can we not make out children safe at home? The short answer is: because that is where we are.

The production of vast wealth by discovering and applying the laws of nature, has enabled humans to use the resources of the earth to conquer want and provide to the poorest of us comforts of which kings and princes of a not too distant past could only dream. America has been wildly successful, and has to a large part shared that success with the world, so we believe no problem is too big to solve. All we have to do is declare war on it.

Well, the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, and the War on Terror are examples of “wars” of the past half century that have born little fruit, and whose unintended consequences have created more problems than they could possibly solve. I also thought of the other War that has a Nixonian-Johnsonian genesis, that on cancer. That was touted as similar to the moon project as a collective government effort. It so far has not succeeded, though advances have been made. Those advances came because there are external physical laws that were discovered and applied. Not so with the other wars that attempt to control or quell human behavior. The War on Drugs has been an abject failure; anyone who pretends otherwise is a fool. The War on Poverty in many ways made the situation is was supposed to alleviate worse, and the extent poverty has been reduced over the past fifty years, it has been in spite of, not because of it.

Now we might see a declaration of war on guns, or perhaps violence, as anomalous and mind-boggling those concepts might be. This is more of the left’s solution to every perceived ill. Pass a law, and the problem will go away. In the rare instance that it does, several other pop up to take its place. The Hydra lives. The late professor and senator from New York Daniel Patrick Moynihan observed that the central Progressive truth is the politics (or legislation) can change culture while the central conservative truth is that culture changes politics. (Moynihan really meant libertarian, conservatives as a group are as much in love with laws that favor their cultural world view as Progressives are with theirs) History indicates that libertarians have the better argument. In a representative democracy, laws change when the culture does. In more authoritarian regimes, the culture goes underground and acts like a slow-growing tumor.

Writing in the New Yorker, Jill LePore points out that the legislative and judicial branches have only recently given the Second Amendment any attention to speak of. A point she misses is that is true of all of the Constitutional Bill of Rights for the reason that early in our history, they were deemed only to apply to the federal government, not the states. This changed in the 20^th Century by what is known as the selective incorporation of those rights into the meaning of the 14^th Amendment. It is more than a little ironic that persuading the courts to apply the Bill of Rights, which included the inconvenient right to bear arms, to the states, and expansively, was mostly a project of the left.

The Framers of the Constitution generally left the states, and local governments, to decide what is the best public policy for public safety. This – called the police power – was denied to the federal government, as it was not one of the delegated powers. Even though the Commerce Clause, as well as the spending power, has been commandeered as a vehicle to justify national health and safety legislation, this is still primarily a state issue. It seems preferable to allowing the Congress to institute a central planning system, like those that worked so well in Soviet Russia and Maoist China. But if we must have our government intrude upon what have been recognized as fundamental rights, and state and local prerogatives, I put forth a few suggestions with regard to firearms.

Arming teachers and other school staff members is probably not a good idea. The training necessary and the additional responsibility would be too burdensome, and many would not want to have it. Furthermore, many really good teachers, particularly those with younger students, do not have the temperament to engage an armed troublemaker. But neither are the “gun-free” zones – better termed “free-fire” or “open season” zones – both at schools and other places currently covered. Anyone who has a permit or license to carry a concealed handgun should be permitted to do so at schools, churches, hospitals, et cetera. Concealed carry background checks and training classes are a good gate-keeping method to determine who should and should not be allowed to carry concealed weapons. Requirement of a training class itself tends to weed out emotionally unsuited persons. Instructors are, or should be, given training and clues to watch for that suggest persons might have mental or emotional instability. The hassle of wending one’s way through the application itself seems to tend to discourage unstable personalities.

One friend, as well as Dallas Morning News columnist Steve Blow, suggests that all schools could hire the equivalent of sky marshals; men and women who are highly trained and proficient in the use of all manner of weapons, and preferably have military combat experience. Not your average security guard, these school marshals, if you will, could be off-duty police officers, or full time employees. They could roam the halls wearing plain clothes, perhaps a business suit or the feminine equivalent, befriend the kids, be a source of advice and information, and, when and if the time comes, efficiently take out a threat posed to the school by an intruder. Anyone showing up wearing a ninja suit, or displaying weapons, would be dead on arrival – no nonsense tolerated. I hasten to add that fair warning should be given that such costumes of menace constitute prima facie evidence of intent to harm. This would cost, but public school budgets contain all kinds of useless and idiotic crap anyway. Here in Dallas, our new school superintendent is lavishing princely salaries on any number of new administrators who make up his “cabinet.” I am sure he could find money to pay combat experts to keep the kids safe.

Another colleague suggests some legislation that would help, and be a correct balance between fundamental rights and enhanced safety. Mandate the same requirements to purchase and possess a semi-automatic military style rifle or a high capacity magazine as most states have for concealed handgun licenses, with intensive training on safe-storage. I would take this a step further and impose tort, and perhaps criminal, liability on someone who intentionally, knowingly, or negligently allows a person to obtain one of these kind of weapons and harms someone. There is precedent for this. Negligent entrustment of a motor vehicle is actionable if someone is harmed thereby. Also, a liability insurance requirement for owners of these weapons, could be considered. Perhaps this kind of requirement would have motivated Nancy Lanza to better secure her cache of weapons.

Perhaps her disturbed son could have gotten to them anyway. Now we come to the other factor.

Mentally disturbed young men are a common denominator in the mass shootings. But how can they be identified. The truth is, until they commit a crime, or display specific grossly anti-social behavior, they can’t be. There’s nothing that can be done without infringing on protected liberty interests. Anyway, I have known a lot of weird people in my time on this earth. Nearly every one has turned out to be harmless, though some were really obnoxious. One possible approach to this conundrum was suggested by Holman Jenkins in the December 19, 2012 issue of the Wall Street Journal. Jenkins cites some success in curtailing workplace violence by paying attention to festering frustration and anti-social behavior, and taking threats seriously.

Some contend that the only way to provide safe is to eliminate guns in private hands entirely. How can that be done? It is now clear that the Constitution protects a fundamental right to keep and bear arms.

What about passing a Constitutional Amendment repealing the right to bear arms and then confiscating all the guns? Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson suggests just that, but he lives and writes in a fantasy world on this and other issues. Assuming it were possible to propose and ratify such an Amendment, which is isn’t, we still run afoul of the Constitutional prohibition against taking private property without due process of law. Assuming we propose and can obtain ratification of an Amendment to take care of that, we might couple such an effort with one to confiscate all of the illegal drugs out there while we’re at it. The success of the 18^th Amendment gives us some clue how that would work. Come on.

The President asked the other day whether this profoundly sad event was the price of our freedom. It very well might be. Human beings are not perfectible, at least not with the present state of the art in this world. Many believe in another world to come; some do not. We can only hope. In the meantime there are those with demons of one sort or another with us. There is no easy solution. We, alas, do not live in a perfect world, and never will on this earth.

“Fairy tales are more than true; not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten.” — G.K. Chesterton

While I do not like to mince words a la being “politically correct” when discussing public policy issues, I generally avoid indelicacy when it comes to certain biological functions. Nevertheless, taking such a risk, here goes.

We do most of the yard maintenance at home ourselves. Sea change landscaping and tree care are delegated to professionals, and I do not mean itinerant tree butchers who seem to be ubiquitous these days, but trained arborists. Gardening, mowing, and leaf raking, to name just a few activities, are domesticated. To that end, we have a regular compost bin to which we feed leaves, grass clippings, and other organic material. After sufficient time passes, and we turn it appropriately, we spread it on the lawn and garden. The results are wonderful.

It’s the “other organic material” that has given at least one-half of us some pause. While not formally trained in agriculture or horticulture (or any other kind of culture, for that matter) I learned enough organic chemistry in high school and college courses to know that animal, including human, waste contains significant amounts of fixed nitrogen, an essential nutrient for plant growth. During a sojourn in South Korea courtesy of the U.S. Army several decades ago, I observed the farmers clean out the privies, fill large ceramic tanks (ironically termed “honey pots” by the U.S. troops) to ferment, and spread the result on the rice fields. This practice resulted in lush paddies, and bumper crops of rice, the centuries old staple of that country. I am not aware of how widespread that practice is in South Korea today, but it sure worked then.

When we started our home composting, I considered that the organic activity might be enhanced by discrete additions of the product of lavatory function number one. Not to put too fine a point on it, number two might be so – ahem – aromatic as to offend the neighbors. Martha, who knows more organic chemistry than the next 200 people you will meet combined, doubtless recognized this. Her sense of delicacy, however, made her less than hog-wild about the prospect, so I did not make but somewhat irregular contributions to the piles, and she made, I’m sure, none at all.

This past week’s garden section of the Dallas Morning News reprinted an article from the Orange County Register that validates, and might make peeing in the compost acceptable, if not respectable. I’ll have to designate a jar in the garage.

See No. 1 Rule of Composting

“Fairy tales are more than true; not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten.” — G.K. Chesterton

——————————————————————————-

The most recent national paroxysm seems to be the controversy over Michigan’s enacting a Right to Work law this week. The passage sparked demonstrations and counter demonstrations, and precipitated some fisticuffs between supporters and opponents.  What on earth is all the fuss about?

First of all, in this context “right to work” does not mean that everyone is guaranteed a job. That is an unfulfilled utopian measure included in the constitutions of numerous totalitarian and chronically impoverished  countries.

The term was popularized, if not coined, by journalist Ray Stannard Baker in a January 1903 article in McClure’s Magazine. Baker, a Progressive and later adviser to Woodrow Wilson, was known as a muckraker. He was nevertheless equally critical of abuses in all quarters. In the “Right to Work” article, he wrote about union intimidation of employees who were opposed to striking, specifically in a coal miners’ strike.

During the economic depression of the 1930s, Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act (the “NRLA” or the “Wagner Act”) that, defined “unfair labor practices” and among other things required employers to bargain collectively with unions for terms and conditions of employment, mainly wages and benefits, but also work rules. Without going in to details – which can fill several libraries and archives – the Wagner Act gave organized labor significant power. There is controversy over how much this inured to the benefit of employees, but it is clear that those who rose to the level of officialdom in many unions became wealthy and powerful, mainly because of contracts that required that employees belong to the union as a condition of employment.

The recognition that one of the Wagner Act’s unintended consequences resulted in legal protection for overreaching by union bosses and a threat to the nation’s postwar economy prompted the enactment of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947 over President Truman’s veto. Taft-Hartley made the “unfair labor practices” prohibition cut both ways; it proscribed certain practices such as jurisdictional strikes, secondary boycotts, mass picketing, and closed shops. The last practice was the requirement that one had to join a union in order to be employed by a business that was party to a union contract. These closed shop arrangements essentially allowed a union to control the source of labor through the “union hall” practice, which kept anyone from even applying for a job unless they were a union member. The law allowed “union shop” contracts which require employees to join after a waiting period, or “agency shops” where employees do not have to join a union, but must pay a fee equivalent to the portion of union dues that defray the collective bargaining costs.

A number of states, Texas being one, in the late 1930s and early to mid-1940s enacted laws prohibiting the union shop, and styled them “right to work” measures. The “right” of the laws is that a contract between an employer and a union cannot force all employees to be members of the union as union and agency shop contracts do. In other words, one does not have to be a union member to obtain or keep their job.

The Constitutional authority for the Wagner Act was the interstate commerce clause, and since a law valid under that provision might pre-empt state law, it was unclear whether the state right to work statutes would be invalid. (Application of the preemption doctrine is not always cut and dried, and generally requires a case by case analysis of federal and state statutes which might be in conflict.)

Taft-Hartley’s allowing union and agency shops might have been construed as preempting state laws, but for section 14(b), which made it clear that the NRLA did not prohibit states from enacting their own statutes forbidding union or agency shops within their jurisdiction.

In the decade or so after Taft-Hartley, around 20 states enacted statutes proscribing the union shop, the agency shop, or both. The movement stalled in the latter third of the 20^th Century as private sector unions began to decline, recently revived over the past decades, with Indiana, and now Michigan becoming the latest states to enact one. Not without controversy, as is apparent.

Are these laws good or bad? There are those that see a right-left division of opinion, and there is some validity to that, but not always.

Let’s analyze. Freedom of contract is an essential element of a free-market economy, and, indeed, one of the first freedoms. Thus, it might seem that a law abrogating the freedom of an employer to enter into a contract with a union to only hire its members (the closed shop), a contract to require the employees as a condition of employment to join the union after being hired, (the union shop), or a contact requiring non-union members to pay to the union a fee to defray the expense of bargaining for which all employees ostensibly benefit (the agency shop), violates this principle. Economist and free-market advocate Friedrich Hayek noted this situation. Hayek, however, while believing that this was theoretically desirable, recognized that the NRLA already tilted the playing field by requiring that employers bargain collectively solely with a union that was certified as the representative of the workers. Such certification could be decided by 50% plus one of the employees. This meant that, in the absence of a law banning one of the previously mention “shops” 49% of the workforce could be forced to belong to, or at least pay money to, unions they wanted no part of in order to keep their jobs.

Well, one might say, the non-union, non-paying employees become free-riders. That is, they have benefits obtained by the union for which they did not have to participate in the costs. That goes back to the prior existence of the law forcing the employer to bargain with one, and only one, union (for certain classifications or skill sets of employees, that is). If one union has a monopoly, dissenting employees have nowhere else to go.

Abstract considerations aside, mandatory unionized workforces, where only members of one union can be employed in a work or trade category is a bad idea. For one thing, a union contract requires that all employees, generally non-supervisory, be treated alike for wages and benefits. The one exception to this is seniority, and that is the Holy Grail. Seniority is everything. Well, what’s wrong with treating employees equally? Anyone who has made it through the first grade in school knows that functional equality in human beings is nonsense. The shibboleth that all employees contribute equally is flat wrong, and, really, ludicrous. Some work harder, smarter, and more efficiently than others. Union contracts generally do not provide for performance evaluation and pay. Union employees are not rewarded on the basis of their demonstrated competence, ability, and contribution to the business, but on longevity with the employer. What is wrong with this? All that seniority demonstrates is that an employee has been around for awhile. And that by itself means nothing. There are those who have 10 years’ experience; and there are those who have one month’s experience repeated 120 times. Seniority most begets laziness, as well as a sense – or reality – of entitlement, which generally is undeserved.

Unions do have their place, and the right of employees to associate in an effort to improve their bargaining power should be protected. The right of individual employees to get ahead, and improve their position by demonstrating competence and productivity should also be protected. These are often in tension, but the fairest and most efficient arbiter is the marketplace. Competent and loyal employees will be rewarded, while those who treat their employer as an adversary will be treated as such.

For more on the right to work phenomenon, see this link

When I began law school, I learned that the consensus in the student body was that the most important criteria for success in finding desirable and lucrative employment upon graduation was, not necessarily absolute GPA, but class rank. Soon after the first semester grades and class rank were posted, there were those students who consoled themselves with the aphorism that “A students become law professors, B students become judges, and C students become rich.” Or, the student who graduates last in his class is called a lawyer. I later discovered that, while it is true that ranking at or near the top is helpful for new lawyers’ prospects for their first job, or if they ever happen to be nominated for a Federal judgeship (where the nominating President wants to choose as small a target as possible for the opposing party Senators to pick at), actual performance and good old marketing techniques are the principal tickets to success. There is also the occasional lightning strike – Jose Baez is one of the more recent examples – where one has greatness, or at least notoriety, thrust upon him.
　

The United States Military Academy has made a long tradition of “honoring” the cadet who graduates last in his class. He, and now she (though to my knowledge all so far have been billys), is dubbed the “Goat” and receives one dollar from each classmate, as well as other accolades of a sort. A recent article concerning West Point’s Goat Tradition can be found at this link.

　
One famous Goat was George Armstrong Custer, who was one of the youngest generals ever in the U. S. Army, later became immortal by being inconveniently killed in battle. Many other well known West Pointers who distinguished themselves both in military and civilian endeavors, however, never reached the top of their class. The top graduates worthy of note were Douglas MacArthur and Robert E. Lee. The jury is still out, perhaps literally given recent events, on David Petreus.

　
One wonders, however, what the purpose of even humorously celebrating the status of being last in a class. Is it a celebration of mediocrity? Or is it a feel good exercise by those not near the top to show they are better that at least one other? Or is it merely a joke that became a tradition?

　
All life is a series of successes and stumbles. “Failure” is not used here because I believe that failure only occurs when one quits trying. That belief is one that comes through observation and experience. Here in Texas, an oilfield wildcatter whose initials were D. H., was nicknamed “Dry Hole” because of the number of wells he drilled that produced no oil. He is known today because of the philanthropy enabled by the vast wealth brought to him by his wells that finally did. Using experience in the law practice as an illustration, I have observed that a lawyer who can say he won all of his cases is not Perry Mason, but a newbie who hasn’t tried many. Then there is the saying that success is nothing more than being right more often than you are wrong. And so forth.
　

The level of one’s success in school, generally attained at an early age and in relative comfort, is a rather silly way to continue to judge his competence and ability throughout life. Some of the most useful, as well as unforgettable lessons are learned from missteps at the College of Hard Knocks and Screw U. Sometimes these lessons are not learned until well into adulthood. There one gets to see how things really work.
　

France has an interesting system of selecting its leaders in business, government, and military. Author Polly Platt (French or Foe (3rd Ed. 2004)), who has observed the French system first hand, relates that success in that country depends upon whether one gets into one of the premier schools, called Grand Ecoles, and graduates among the top ten percent. The grandest of the Grand is the Ecole Polytechnique, founded by Napoleon Bonaparte and is kind of an MIT and West Point rolled into one. Known in that country simply as “X” its graduates have it made from day one. A degree from it, as well as other ecoles, is a long range missile, unless a mishap, carries one through to retirement (est une fusee longue portee qui, sauf accident, vous propulse jusqu’a la retraite), says Platt, quoting one Alain Peyrefitte, a French academic. Nearly any shortcoming, or faux pas less than a debacle, is trumped by that status. When a Frenchman asks about another “What has he done?” He’s not asking what jobs he has had or what he has accomplished in his career, he is asking about his Ecole and class standing, Platt relates. She opines this part of the culture is a lingering by-product of the French Revolution. “Despite all the signing and banner waving about élgalité the revolutionaries recognized that while you could give the vote to everyone (everyone being males), some people are going to be more equal that others. So they aimed at a different basis for inequality than birth. But based on what? Money? Property? Horrors. Physical appearance? Worse? What’s left? Intelligence.” Or at least testable cognitive facility. Of course, the top ten percent of X, or all of the Grand Ecoles together, probably translates into far fewer than one percent of the country’s population. If high academic standing ipso facto gives access to power, then high income and wealth surely follow. Thus, the neo-aristocracy. I can see tears running down Marianne’s bare breasts.

　
Platt relates an encounter she had with an expatriate Frenchman who was top graduate of the Ecole des Ponts et Chaussees, prestigious, but not quite at the level of X. When she asked what he was doing working in the U.S. rather than running his native country, he explained that he didn’t get into X, so he had no chance of rising to the top of a significant firm or government ministry in France. He “decided that a country with this absurd system of deciding a man’s whole future on the basis of an exam he takes at the age of 21 was not a country [he] wanted to live in.” An American, at least for now anyway, can hardly fail to see his point. Furthermore, I have it on good authority that in France, the possibility of starting a business from scratch at a young age, build it to the point of being able to sell it, and then comfortably retire on the proceeds, is regarded as impossible. For the time being anyway, that happens every day here, and at various levels.
　

Will that kind of opportunity continue? The assumption that those who have the cognitive ability to solve esoteric mathematical problems should run a nation, or anything other than their own business has troubled some thinkers. Charles Murray, who wrote The Bell Curve, for which the left in American academia (which is most of them) would have burned him at the stake or at least tarred and feathered had they half the chance, sees a trend in the U.S. toward that mindset. No doubt that brainpower is a significant resource. Even more valuable resources. However, are persistence, tolerance for risk taking, and that recently discovered quality called emotional intelligence. It’s great to have a bright fellow who can multiply two five-figure numbers in his head rapidly (I once read somewhere that Adolf Hitler could do that), but persistence wins out. Albert Einstein came up with the theoretical basis for nuclear weapons, but never made one, while Thomas Edison probably received more patents and any other individual for useful products we still use (with refinements, of course) today as a result of his genius which he called 2% inspiration and 98% perspiration. Back to the military example, West Point middle of his class Ulysses Grant defeated top graduate Robert E. Lee, and George Washington didn’t win our independence by brilliant analysis, but by persistence and never admitting defeat. Middle of the class Ike defeated Hitler. Douglas MacArthur, who had a respectable career, ultimately succumbed to the disease that fells so many brilliant minds, including the founder of X – hubris.

　
Getting back to goats, I have always heard that they are hardy, nimble, and sure-footed creatures. They are able to navigate rough and unfamiliar terrain, and are good pack animals.  Seems like they are rather useful fellows to have around.

So let’s not worry about equality, of the lack of it. There can be no such thing, except as before the law and government. The best thing we have going for us is a constitutional system that permits individuals to succeed or fail, spectacularly or just fair to middling, but gives no special favors or status by virtue of the circumstances of one’s birth – or the results of an examination they took at age 21.

Now that the youngest generation of British Royals are expecting (yes, yes I know it’s really Princess Catherine, a.k.a. Kate, who is pregnant, but it is trendy today refer to both parents as being in the family way), there is speculation as to the new royal’s Christian name. In fact, London bookmakers have offered odds on various names, depending on whether the child will be male or female. Naming that heir is no light matter, after all, now that primogeniture has been abolished this child will be third in line to become the king or queen regnant of the United Kingdom and 16 other nations. Many names carry certain baggage, some good, some not so.

Many British children, particularly those higher up on the class ladder, are given three or four names at birth. When an heir takes the throne, many times he/she chooses the regal name by which they will be known. This is not always the name they used prior to their accession. For example, Edward VII was previously known as Prince Albert, George VI was also known by that same appellation, and called “Bertie” by the family. The short timer Edward VIII was David. When notified of her father’s death, Queen Elizabeth II was asked what name her Majesty would be known by, exclaimed “why, my own, of course” – short of breaking the tradition. There has been recent speculation concerning which name the current heir apparent Prince Charles would use. His full name is Charles Philip Arthur George, famously flubbed by the late Princess Diana at their wedding in front of a worldwide audience. Some think he might choose George in honor of his grandfather.

The best odds London presently gives appear to be 9 to 1 for Frances, if a girl, or John, if a boy. Frances was Diana’s middle name, but the closest anyone of that name made it to the throne was the mother of Queen Jane, who reigned all of nine days in 1553, and later lost her head, literally. No real baggage there. There has only been one John, and he is regarded as a villain and the worst king that England ever had by many historians. The next best odds are 10 to 1 for Charles, Elizabeth, Victoria, or George. The first Charles also lost his head, for which the English have since had a guilt complex, as he was not a tyrant or otherwise villainous, but was an unfortunate target for Oliver Cromwell’s religious fanaticism. On the other hand, the most recent two Georges are generally acknowledged as really good guys, George VI, the current Queen’s father, displayed considerable grit and courage during World War II. Victoria and Elizabeth II were and are much beloved, although each had a few rocky times. The first Elizabeth, who reigned from 1558 to 1603, was one of the most effective monarchs ever to wear the crown.

Other names with longer odds include Mary, Henry, Edward, Alice, Arthur, and Albert. The first Mary’s name is often prefixed with the word “Bloody” because of her brutal persecution of Protestants in the 16^th century, the second, though officially a queen regnant, was for all practical purposes William III’s consort. The most recent two Edwards, both of the 20^th century, qualified as drones, the latest reigned less than a year before abdicating to marry his paramour. Edwards I and III were distinguished and effective leaders, though because of I’s treatment of William Wallace in the 13^th Century, that name might annoy the Scots. Alice, the name of one of Queen Victoria’s daughters, doesn’t seem carry any baggage, and is a popular name in Britain. Arthur, of course, is the name of the legendary Camelot king. Henry VII gave that appellation to his firstborn in the hopes that he would reign over a peaceful England that had suffered through a century of internecine strife prior to his birth. Alas, that was not to be as Prince Arthur died at an early age leaving the throne to his brother Henry VIII, who proceeded to upended the political and religious order of England, and famously took six wives, two of whom he had beheaded. Albert does not regally ring for some reason, at least not for Britain.

It seems doubtful that the newborn will be named after either one of his parents, a practice that seems a bit narcissistic, common in the U.S. and ubiquitous in some cultures, especially that of our neighbors to the south. I have it on good authority that British parents seldom name their children after themselves, but reach back to prior generations for names previously used in the family.

Anyway, the name is the parents’ business. We can only wish them a healthy newborn who will grow up happy and responsible. Not all royals have.

Well, we still have some good sense and continued reverence for our Constitution’s nearly absolute protection of free speech and expression. It has been the law for some time that content-based proscription of speech, including “commercial” speech, is presumptively invalid in America. The federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York this week has correctly reaffirmed that principle.

In United States vs. Caronia, the government prosecuted and obtained a conviction of a pharmaceutical salesman for promoting the “off-label” use, that is, a use for which the drug had not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Now, it is not illegal, nor should it be, for a medical practitioner to prescribe a drug to treat any medical condition, regardless of whether the FDA has approved such use. The judgment to use a pharmaceutical for whatever a physician deem it appropriate is the purview of the practice of medicine. Off-label use is common and often is cutting-edge advance of the healing arts. Physicians often discuss among themselves their experiences in using drugs in innovative ways, A drug salesman like Alfred Caronia, under the FDA rules, would enjoy no such freedom to inform a physician that others have successfully used his company’s product for treatment the drug is not labeled for. Indeed, Mr. Caronia was convicted a federal crime.

The appeals court reversed the trial judge and vacated the conviction. See the opinion , and an article  that summarizes it.

The zealots at the FDA, and in the U. S. Justice Department, seem determined to regulate the pharmaceutical industry out of existence. Fat chance, fortunately, for the simple reason that drug therapy works more often than not. The government does make it more expensive, in the name of safety, of course. Safety, of course, is a laudable goal. It has to be balanced, though, as innovation and progress (a word that has lost its meaning thanks to the “Progressives”) entail risks. But that’s not the point here. It is that freedom of expression is sacrosanct in the United States of America, and that is how it should be. The opinion states what so many Americans seem to miss today  “The First Amendment directs us to be especially skeptical of regulations that seek to keep people in the dark for what the government perceives to be their own good.”  Wish they’d stop being so good to me.

Postscript: This case may well not end here. There is enough at stake for some interested to seek Supreme Court review. There may be four justices – the magic number – that would vote to hear it. Stay tuned.

The November 24, 2012 issue of The Economist relates that World Toilet Day was on November 19, and relates that “just as Christian saints have their days, so do causes. Over 100 are in the grand this category: UN “observance” days…” The Toilet Day observance is to mark the plight of the world’s 2.5 billion people who do not have a toilet. The slogan, not surprisingly, is “I give a ship, do you?” Oops, the voice recognition program didn’t recognize – you know what I meant.

The same vein, an old friend related to me that he once saw where a householder in a small English town had an extra room he wished to rent to a boarder. The would be landlord put out a sign “To let” as is common parlance in the old country. Some wag put an “i” between the two words, and numerous passersby knocked to ask to use the facilities.