Book Review--Selfish Reasons To Have More Kids: Why Being a Great Parent Is Less Work and More Fun Than You Think

I’d like to take a quick break from jihad, genocide, and military operations to discuss something a little happier—babies.  While I normally eschew parenting books, I recently read one by Bryan Caplan, an economist who is often retweeted by my favorite libertarian. Caplan’s premise in Selfish Reasons To Have More Kids is simple: Today’s Typical Parent puts an insane amount of unnecessary effort into raising children.   He amalgamates social science studies to reach the conclusion that this effort rarely pays off.  Twin and adoption research routinely shows that family environment--the "nurture" in "nature versus nurture"--has little effect on a child’s health, happiness, intelligence, success, character, or values.  So the time that parents spend fretting about their children’s homework or resumes will do little to change what college they get into.

Caplan’s advice: ditch the baby Einstein or the endless ballet, karate, and violin classes.  Instead, have a baby with someone that has the traits you prefer.  If you want a smart kid, marry a smart woman.  If you want a kid with a criminal record, go for the “bad boy” type.  My favorite quote: “The right spouse is like a genie who grants wishes you are powerless to achieve through your own efforts.”  So spend the time that you would have spent at one of those pointless success-building activities doing something that makes you happy. 

Once people realize that raising children is easier than they thought, then it is in their own self-interest to have more kids.  Caplan urges them to look past the lack of sleep they will get in the first few months or the angst their teens will throw at them.  Instead, they should think of themselves in their sixties.  More kids presumably means more visitors, and might mean more grandkids.

Caplan is so logical.  I especially liked his translation of psychological and sociological studies into concrete parenting advice.  Although I disagreed with some parts of his “Life-Giving Science” chapter—the bioethicist in me believes that there should be some limiting principles in reproductive technology besides those provided by simple market theory—on the whole, he makes a compelling argument.  If people become better at evaluating their own long-term self-interest, they will realize that bringing another child into the world is a pretty darn good deal.  I recommend this book to anyone who is currently parenting or would like to have kids in the future.  You can borrow my copy—but only after my husband reads it.  I have a feeling he’s going to push back on the sociological research that bolsters Caplan’s theory. 

Why does this book review belong on a blog about America's issues? Caplan expressly says that he is NOT advocating for government intervention in family planning.  But he also argues that having more kids would be good for the country.  New people mean new ideas. New ideas mean solutions to existing problems. So maybe the best way to fix the situation we are in now is to just find intelligent, driven spouses, have a mess of kids with them, and hope the next generation can sort things out. 

Congressional Authorization for Military Force in Iraq

As you likely know, last week President Obama authorized  military action in Iraq–“targeted airstrikes to protect our American personnel” and humanitarian aid to the internally displaced Yazidis and Christians that are facing death at the hands of the extremist group calling itself the Islamic State.  According to President Obama, America should not intervene every time the world faces a crisis.  Yet we are justified in our current involvement because: American civilians, diplomats, and facilities in Erbil were at risk; innocent people were facing the “prospect of violence on a horrific scale”; the Iraqi government asked for our help; and we have “the unique capabilities to prevent a massacre.”  I agree with President Obama—we cannot turn a blind eye in this situation. This cannot become another Rwanda. 

Critics of the president’s actions worry about the open-ended timetable of American military involvement in Iraq. Senator Chris Murphy (D., Conn.) stated, “It is justifiable to sue military strikes to protect U.S. personnel or to prevent potential genocidal attacks by [the Islamic State], but I do not believe the American people will support a longer-term military mission designed to tip the balance in Iraq’s civil sectarian war. At the very least, if the President is contemplating action that will take months, rather than days or weeks, to conclude, he needs authorization from Congress.”  But previous congressional authorization arguably covers the President’s current actions, and it draws no distinction based upon the length of the operation.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq in 2002 allows for the President to use force “as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to—(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.” P.L. 107-243. The statute does not provide for automatic termination of its use-of-force authorization. Presidents Bush and Obama both relied upon the broad authority granted them by this law until the withdrawal of troops from Iraq in December 2011. (For a detailed discussion of declarations of war and authorizations for the use of military force, see this paper from the Congressional Research Service.) At the time of the expiration of the United Nations mandate for force in Iraq in the beginning of 2009, members of Congress had argued that a new authorization of force was necessary to maintain a U.S. military presence in Iraq.  But the Obama administration did not seek a renewed authorization of force, and efforts to repeal P.L. 107-243 failed. So troops remained in Iraq under a U.S.-Iraq agreement until the end of 2011. 

Because the Obama Administration relied upon P.L. 107-243 from 2009 through 2011, and the statute does not automatically terminate, it arguably still applies.  That means that if the president finds that Iraq poses a threat to the national security of the United States, Congress has authorized him to use whatever force he deems necessary and appropriate. The statute does not call for renewed authorization if the engagement lasts for months rather than days or weeks.  So Senator Murphy’s proclamation is misguided.  President Obama need not seek congressional approval as the current military campaign in Iraq progresses. (Of course, President Obama could seek approval anyway, for political reasons. But he's unlikely to do so, since his legacy includes ending the war in Iraq.) 

Freedom of Religion Across the Globe

Today's Wall Street Journal included this plea made on August 5th by Vian Dakhil to her fellow members of the Iraqi Parliament, on behalf of the Yazidi, a religious sect whose members are besieged on Mount Sinjar by the extremist group formerly known as the Islamic state of Iraq and al-Sham:

I beg you, Mr. Speaker, my people are being slaughtered, just like all the Iraqis were slaughtered: Shiites, Sunnis, Christians, Turkmens, and the Shabak people. Today, the Yazidis are being slaughtered.
Brothers, despite all the political disagreements, we want human solidarity. I speak in the name of humanity. Save us! Save us! For the past 48 hours, 30,000 families have been besieged on Mount Sinjar, without food or water. They are dying. Seventy children have died so far of thirst and suffocation. Fifty elderly people have died because of the deteriorating conditions. Our women are being taken captive and sold on the slave-market.
Mr. Speaker, we call upon the Iraqi parliament to intervene immediately to stop this massacre. . . .
We are being slaughtered, annihilated. An entire religion is being wiped off the face of the Earth. Brothers, I am calling out to you in the name of humanity! In the name of humanity, save us! Mr. Speaker, I want to . . .
Vian Dakhil breaks down crying.

We will post later on President Obama's decision to authorize air strikes in Iraq to aid the families on Mount Sinjar, as well as on the group formerly known as ISIS's persecution of Christians.  For now, though, Ms. Dakhil's heartrending plea highlights the importance of our First Amendment.  

Yazidism is an ancient monothiestic religion. Yazidis believe in one god, who created the world and entrusted it to the care of seven holy beings. One of these beings was Tawuse Melek, the "Peacock Angel", who refused to bow to Adam after God created man. According to Yazidi tradition, God then made Tawuse Melek the leader of all angels and his deputy on earth. Followers of other religious traditions, such as Muslims, maintain that Tawuse Melek fell out of favor with God after the Adam incident and eventually became Satan. They therefore view Yazidis as devil-worshippers. 

Now, in A.D. 2014, Sunni Muslims are attempting to kill 30,000 Yazidis on Mount Sinjar because of THESE differences in belief. This is why we must zealously guard the religious protections in the First Amendment.  When the government burdens religious exercise, it implicitly derogates those beliefs and the people that hold them.  Its actions imply that a religion is unworthy of protection.  Taken to extremes, it creates an environment where genocide is possible. A child's belief in a Peacock Angel's fate should not earn her a death sentence. 

Abortion in Alabama

Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson ruled that Alabama’s law requiring abortion-clinic doctors to have admitting privileges at a local hospital is unconstitutional.  Although I admittedly only skimmed Judge Thompson’s 172-page opinion (cut me some slack, I’ve got a three-month-old at home), I want to share my reactions. 

First, many states enacted laws like the one at issue here in reaction to Kermit Gosnell's Philadelphia abortion-practice-of-horrors.  In 2013, Gosnell was convicted of first-degree murder of three infants who had been born alive during botched late-term abortions.  He was also convicted of involuntary manslaughter of a woman who had sought his care in 2009.  State Health Department officials had not stepped foot in his clinic in the past sixteen years.  According to the report of the federal agents who raided the facility, “[s]emiconscious women scheduled for abortions were moaning in the waiting room or the recovery room, where they sat on dirty recliners covered with blood-stained blankets.”

To ensure that women seeking abortions weren’t placing their life at risk like they did at Gosnell’s clinic, states enacted Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers. These laws regulated aspects of abortion clinics such as the size of the room or corridors (to allow for stretchers in the event of emergencies) and a doctor’s hospital admission privileges.  Most of these requirements apply the same standards to abortion clinics that ambulatory surgical facilities face.

Immediately, these laws were characterized as anti-abortion. This characterization baffled me.  When Wendy Davis donned her famous pink sneakers to filibuster Texas’s consideration of such a bill, she was hailed as a champion for women’s rights. But why? These laws were making it safer to undergo an abortion. They were ensuring that abortion providers were held to the same standard as other surgical facilities. They were providing for continuity of care if women experienced complications after an abortion.  How could it possibly be a victory for women’s rights to prevent or overturn these laws?

Judge Thompson reasoned that Alabama’s law would shut down three of five clinics in the state, thus placing an undue burden on women seeking an abortion. Yet again, laws that promote the safety of women are struck down as conflicting with the all-important availability of abortion.  Abortion is legal.  But it is not an unregulated right.  Not every law regulating abortion is designed to prevent access to it.  Some just attempt to make it safer.  Just because a law is introduced by a Republican or someone with a pro-life record does not mean that it will harm women.  Lawmakers need to read these regulations and consider their actual effect on women before denouncing them.

I do want to note that Judge Thompson’s opinion opened with a chronicle of the violence abortion providers in Alabama have faced—bombings, arson, and threats against their spouses and children.  While it is important for views against abortion to be expressed on the sidewalk and in the legislature, resorting to violence is abhorrent.  Regardless of one’s view on abortion, terroristic threats are always wrong.  For more on this, keep an eye out for Krysten Connon’s forthcoming Oxford University Press book based on her research into the targeted harassment of abortion providers.   

Will you see an IRS agent at mass tomorrow?

I came across a startling headline this morning: IRS Strikes Deal With Atheists To Monitor Sermons And Homilies.  The article, which referred to Lois “Fifth Amendment” Lerner, was obviously partisan, so I tried to get a fuller picture from the other side: the Freedom From Religion Foundation.  The FFRF declared victory in the voluntary dismissal of its federal suit against the IRS.  Basically, the FFRF complained that the IRS refused to enforce § 501(c)(3)’s electioneering restrictions against churches and religious institutions.  Under the restrictions, if an organization attempts to influence legislation or intervene in any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office, it loses its tax-exempt status.  After the IRS showed that it investigates the political actions of churches and will continue to do so, the FFRF agreed to dismiss the suit.

So is the first headline simply hyperbolic fear-mongering?  Yes and no.  The FFRF’s suit emphasized the “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” practices of certain churches.  The Alliance Defending Freedom described Pulpit Freedom Sunday as a “strategic litigation plan”—pastors would preach about the intersection of the political realm and scriptural Truth on a certain day, and presumably IRS would revoke their churches’ tax-exempt status, thus triggering a First Amendment lawsuit.  So the agreement reached by the FFRF and IRS means that the IRS will likely monitor the sermons on Pulpit Freedom Sunday, which is the goal of Pulpit Freedom Sunday in the first place.  The more troubling implication for me is that the IRS will monitor sermons that aren't part of a strategic litigation plan.  And the possibility of IRS monitoring will have a chilling effect on preaching, which is at the heart of religious exercise.  So if you care about the First Amendment, keep an eye on this story.

My husband brought up an interesting point: the IRS is using our tax dollars to monitor sermons.  Even people who are not as keen on the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion as I am have to admit that paying government employees overtime to listen to pastors on Sundays might not be the best use of funds.

I’ll end this post with a hearty congratulations to Meg Sweeney, who is more passionate about the First Amendment than anyone else I know.  Yesterday, she got engaged to Brett Bean, another illustrious Notre Dame lawyer.  We at So Proudly We Hailed are thrilled for you both! 

Email Privacy

Brad Smith, general counsel and executive VP at Microsoft, wrote a piece in the WSJ yesterday about Microsoft’s evident attempt to preserve the privacy of its users’ emails.  His point, in brief is:

Microsoft believes you own emails stored in the cloud, and that they have the same privacy protection as paper letters sent by mail. This means, in our view, that the U.S. government can obtain emails only subject to the full legal protections of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment. It means, in this case, that the U.S. government must have a warrant. But under well-established case law, a search warrant cannot reach beyond U.S. shores.

But emails can’t have the same privacy as paper letters.  Whereas email providers harvest the contents of emails for their own use (mostly in selling targeted advertising), letter carriers do not.  If I sent a letter about, hmm, the price of corn, by UPS to a friend, and the following day I received a telemarketing call from a company trying to sell me a cornfield in Illinois, I would have concerns that my privacy was violated.  I don’t, on the other hand, bat an eye when I see StubHub ads in my email trying to sell me tickets to Notre Dame football games.  (I occasionally email about Notre Dame football.)

I am in favor of protecting users’ privacy.  I’d prefer the government not to have access to the contents of my email.  But that privacy should start with the email providers.  Otherwise, arguments like these are disingenuous.

Update: U.S. Judge Rules Microsoft Must Produce Emails Held Abroad (http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-judge-rules-microsoft-must-produce-emails-held-abroad-1406826302?KEYWORDS=microsoft)

Suing the President

Yesterday, the House of Representatives voted to proceed with a lawsuit against President Obama.  The President has, in my opinion, overstepped his constitutional authority on more than one occasion, whether by failing to enforce laws or unilaterally rewriting laws.  And it is this habitual line-stepping on which House Republicans base the lawsuit.

Obama responded by calling the suit nothing more than a “political stunt.”  And the President is right.

House Republicans see the lawsuit as an acceptable middle path: it’s not as aggressive as impeachment (which may stir the Democrat base into action during the midterm elections) but it’s more aggressive than doing nothing (which may alienate the Republican base).  It’s a symbolic, political slap-fight.  So the House has capped off the "least productive" year in Congressional history—I say this tongue-in-cheek because, hey, maybe Congressional productivity shouldn’t be measured by how many pages Congress adds to the United States Code—by pursuing a lawsuit that will hardly be productive.  And so I fault the House, both for plodding down a course that will likely lead nowhere and for failing to take alternative actions if the House actually believes the President’s conduct is egregious enough to file such a suit.

First, the suit has significant legal hurdles.  The House seems to lack standing to bring the suit at all.  I have seen the argument made that the House has standing, in part, due to the nature of the aggrieved congressmen.  If, rather than bringing the lawsuit as a group of bitter congressmen, the group brings the lawsuit on behalf of the institution as a whole (i.e., by voting on a resolution like yesterday’s), it might then have standing.  But I have not (yet, anyway) read a compelling argument as to the nature of the House’s injury-in-fact.  Is House Republicans’ argument simply that a law Congress passed—specifically, the Affordable Care Act—hasn’t been executed properly?  On that logic, wouldn’t the House then be able to sue the President whenever a law has been improperly executed?  That’s an arrow that has been stuck in the House’s quiver for over 200 years.  I am not, however, as well-versed in standing jurisprudence as others on here, so I would be interested in hearing if my understanding is wrong.  

Second, as to the alternative measures, the House could, if it so chose, try to impeach the President.  And I think you could make a straight-faced argument that members of the House have an obligation to pursue impeachment if they believe the President’s conduct is impeachable.  Isn’t that what our system of checks and balances is all about?  And don’t members of the House have a duty to uphold the Constitution?  While impeachment may not be the most politically advantageous, and it may not lead to a conviction in the Senate, it is part of the House’s job to keep the President in check through its power to impeach.  The House owes a duty to its constituents to protect them from the aggrandizement of power in the executive.  Sure, the House has some discretion, akin to prosecutorial discretion.  But how much?  If the House believes that egregious Constitutional violations have occurred, perhaps it shirks its own duties by failing to impeach.  (The impeachment option, too, adds to the House’s legal obstacles: although the House’s having that alternative, in itself, does not preclude it from pursuing other remedies—such as a lawsuit—the availability of another remedy may be enough for a court to avoid deciding the issue.)

There may be some political cache in filing the lawsuit.  And, given my views that the President has, in fact, overstepped his bounds, I hope that I am wrong and the suit ultimately curbs his authority.  But it sure seems like a big waste of time.