Just a Couple Questions, Mr. President

Now that the Nobel Peace Prize winning president has started his first pre-emptive strike or "kinetic military action," I'd like to pose a few questions. What is the goal in this rush to war? Is it regime change? But regime change is not within the scope of the UN resolution. If it is humanitarian, then why here and not Sudan or Yemen? Will you do the same if unrest erupts in Saudi Arabia and the royal family cracks down? Why was congress not consulted or congressional authorization sought? Is that not necessary because the French OK'd the operation? If Gadaffi is taken down, is there a post-Gadaffi plan or have we not learned anything from Iraq? Don't we risk creating chaos and a vacuum that will be a magnet for Al Qaeda? If Gadaffi stays, aren't we risking more retributive terrorist attacks? So aren't we making America less safe no matter what- if he stays (attacks from Gadaffi who has done it before) or if he goes (safe stays (safe haven for Al Qaeda). When Saddam brutalized his own people, Mr. Obama said that wasn't sufficient cause to use military power because there was no imminent threat. Where is the imminent threat from Libya? Aren't you diverting precious and stretched military resources from two fronts that are already tired? Are you worried that your Muslim outreach program will be upset now that you have pre-emptively attacked another Muslim country that posed no imminent threat to the U.S.? Inquiring minds would like to know.

Finally, did you get around to sending a thank you note to cowboy President Bush for inducing Libya to give up its nuclear program? Bet you're glad that happened.

Teen Rage

Sometimes your kids say things that astonish you. Last week, when my 17 year old daughter came downstairs raging, "I don't need a nanny," I automatically assumed that my wife was trying to put some order to her room. But it was none of the sort. It turns out that there someone had introduced legislation to ban anyone under 18 from tanning salons, even with parental consent. My daughter was just furious. She has mild acne on her shoulders that is helped a great deal by a 10 minute visit once or twice a week to the local tanning salon. "This is a decision that should be made by me and my parents," she asserted.

Without any coaching from me whatsoever, she looked up our state senator and representative and sent them both emails. In her correspondence, she explained her condition and explained how helpful tanning was to her and how it helped her feel good about herself. She further explained that Obamacare had leveled a 10% tax on salons already and that 15-20% of tanning salon patrons are under 18. Banning them from salons on top of the tax would put many of these small business out of business and kill jobs. Further, she said that there would be a ripple effect because other companies sell them lotions, towels, tanning beds and other supplies.

She argued that in Illinois, with parental consent, is legally entitled to get a tattoo, a piercing, and, under current law, she can even have an abortion. Why should she be denied the ability to get a tan. Finally, she said she had looked on line and for $300 or $400, she could buy a tanning bed, so she could put herself out of reach of the regulation. She finished by stating that she felt that legislators had more important work to do than insert themselves in a decision that rightfully belonged to her and her parents.

She did this all without any prodding or coaching for me. I was pleased that she advocated for herself, and that she was able to understand and explain (without a single course in economics) the harmful effects of wrongheaded regulation. She understood that the consequences of overreaching regulation include job losses and unnecessary destruction to entire industries.

The bill never made it to the floor.

There is hope for the future.