“Debate on ‘no first use’ of nukes mushrooms in Washington,” Joe Gould reports at Defense News. “Five years after President Barack Obama turned back from declaring a ‘no first use’ as US policy for nuclear weapons,” Gould writes, “opponents say the Biden administration is considering it too, and warn that it risks alienating allies.”

Is it really a big deal for the US government to affirm that it will not use nuclear weapons first in any future conflict?

US Senator Jim Risch (R-ID) says it would signal prospective enemies  “that they can plan an attack and do whatever they want to and not worry.”

That argument might pass the smell test if anyone believed a word the US government said for public consumption, but the Washington foreign policy establishment enjoys no such credibility. The US does what it wants, when it wants, past commitments be damned, and no foreign power’s diplomats or generals (allied or hostile) are naive enough to expect otherwise.

A “no first use” proclamation, whether passed by Congress or simply announced by a president, would be the equivalent of an abusive husband buying flowers for his wife.

The flowers don’t mean he’s not going to throw her down the stairs the next time he comes home drunk, just like he did the last time and the time before that. Nor is she likely to take them that way. They’re just a nice, pretty, empty gesture.

Of course, the US government isn’t an abusive husband. It’s the world’s most powerful organized crime syndicate, and its nuclear arsenal is a key element in enforcing its global protection racket.

Like all such rackets, this one starts with a pseudo-friendly “nice country ya got there … be a shame if anything happened to it.”

And as with all such rackets, the implication is that if the victim doesn’t fork over whatever’s demanded, he can expect to get pistol-whipped or perhaps thrown through a plate glass window for starters, and eventually have his establishment burned down if he doesn’t play ball.

The maintenance of a nuclear arsenal of any significant size — that is, larger than a handful of “deterrent” weapons — covers all those bases. A supposed “no first use” policy wouldn’t diminish the actual or perceived threat in any way. It would just be a nice, unconvincing gesture. No big deal either way, so why pretend it’s a matter of weighty policy debate?

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION HISTORY

Over the last two years — since the New York Times introduced its 1619 Project  to “reframe the country’s history” around the consequences of slavery — something called “Critical Race Theory” has become the new football in the never-ending political struggle to control the content of K-12 education in America.

“Conservative” opponents of CRT claim that it’s bad history, that those behind it want to build a totalitarian, race-based America, and that it’s infiltrated virtually every educational institution (they support that last claim by putting the CRT label on anything and everything they dislike).

“Progressives” level similar accusations at state-level bills to ban CRT, as well as efforts like former President Donald Trump’s “1776 Commission,” which aimed to promote “patriotic education” (President Joe Biden dissolved the Commission).

What’s important here isn’t so much whether Critical Race Theory or “patriotic education” constitutes an historically accurate curriculum (I vote “neither”). This isn’t actually a struggle over the facts. It’s a struggle to determine who gets to indoctrinate America’s future voters in a particular political ideology.

It’s far from the first such struggle. We’ve been having these fights ever since “public” education became a thing in America, and over everything from sex education (whether to have it at all, and if so whether to acknowledge LGBTQ orientations and whether to discuss contraception or preach “abstinence only”) to evolution versus creationism. Those past fights, too, were far more about pushing partisan political propaganda than about the facts or, for that matter, what was best for the kids.

It’s actually a simple problem with a simple solution.

No, I’m not thinking of “school choice” proposals like taxpayer-financed “charter” schools or voucher/tax credit programs which distribute taxpayer money to supposedly “private” schools. Those proposals simply create new government schools and/or turn “private” INTO government schools with attached strings, as we’ve seen in higher education with the GI Bill, Pell Grants, and government-guaranteed student loans. As long as tax funding is involved, education will remain political.

If we want politics out of education, we have to separate school and state. Entirely. No government involvement whatsoever. Parents can homeschool their kids, or join with other parents to teach small groups, or hire private tutors, or pay tuition at private schools — without one thin dime of taxpayer aid or one crumb of government permission or bureaucratic control.

I said the solution is simple, and it is. “Simple” doesn’t mean the same thing as “easy,” or for that matter “equal” — yes, I’m aware that some parents have more money and/or time and/or teaching skill than others to invest in their kids’ education.

Quality education is certainly a desirable service, and one government schools continue to get worse and worse at providing. Universal access is a laudable goal, but only if it’s access to something worthwhile.

Getting politics out of education would go a long way toward solving quality problems as well, but there’s only one way to get politics out of education, and that’s to get government out of education.

The sooner the better.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION HISTORY

“I’m a small business owner,” someone identified as “Andy” writes to syndicated advice columnists J.T. and Dale, “and I can’t believe how many people just don’t want to work anymore. … my business is suffering, because I can’t get employees.”

My social media feeds are full of photographs — who knows if they’re real or not? I haven’t seen any in my town, but friends say they’ve seen them elsewhere — of signs at businesses apologizing for being “short-staffed,” with “people just don’t want to work” complaints appended.

The country seems adrift in a sea of whiny employers. What’s really going on here?

The standard explanation for a little while was that  “enhanced” unemployment benefits that continued even after pandemic-related (but politically created) economic shutdowns ended made it more lucrative to sit at home and play video games than, say, flip burgers. And who could be blamed for taking that deal?

That explanation’s not making much sense anymore as extra unemployment benefits, “stimulus” checks, and eviction moratoria fade into memory.

US unemployment is low  (5.2% in August; economists consider 5% or lower to effectively constitute “full employment”). Those who “want to work” are working. Why do so many seemingly not “want” to?

Put simply, they’re not being offered as much for their time and effort as they consider it to be worth.

The pandemic shutdowns and benefits affected that in two big ways.

First, some people who were able to retire decided to do so, when otherwise they might have stuck out a few more years in the work force. The available supply of labor was thus reduced.

Second, some people learned to be thriftier and make do on less over the last 18 months. You’ll bust your hump, whatever it takes, to keep a roof overhead and ramen in the pantry. Once that’s covered, though, you’re in a position to ask yourself how many hours a week you’re willing to trade for Netflix, craft beer, and expensive sneakers. The answer, right now, would appear to be “fewer.”

Labor is a commodity. It’s something the worker sells for money. And as with any other commodity, supply versus demand tells the story.

When there’s plenty of supply versus demand  — that is, high unemployment — employers can drive a hard bargain. “Don’t want to clean toilets for $7.50 an hour? No problem. There are ten other people who will.”

But when demand exceeds supply, as now, the shoe is suddenly on the other foot. “Don’t want to pay $20 an hour to get your toilets cleaned? No problem. There are ten other employers who will.”

Yes, workers and employers complain whenever they find themselves on the less profitable side of that equation. But in the end, money talks and complaints walk.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION HISTORY