Category: Family

Remembering Bryce

Remembering Bryce Davidson

June 1, 1993 – Feb 1, 2026

Bryce inherited his gregariousness from his father, certainly not from me, his grandfather on his mother’s side. Sadly from me he inherited FSHD. While Bryce’s mother suffers from Acioscapulohumeral Muscular Dystrophy (FSHD) more than I do, Bryce suffered from it the most. It was from the doctor’s examination of his stooped shoulders and weak arms that we discovered that we all had it.

In April 2010 he traveled with me to London and Kenya. I am so grateful for that time we had together. While working in the Central Bank of Kenya in Nairobi during the day, I insisted that Bryce not leave our hotel. I had been told that the slang word for white people walking around town translated to “money” in English. We went out in the evenings for dinner and to visit friends. Before we left for our safari through the Masia Mara National Reserve Bryce knew and was friends with everyone working in the Hotel. When I returned from the Bank in the afternoon, anyone I asked, “where is Bryce” would tell me immediately. We traveled with a car and driver provided by the Central Bank and when we overnighted in the Reserve Bryce immediately joined the local tribe in its celebration of something or other. While our little safari let us see all the Big Five (lions, elephants, buffalos, leopards, and rhinos), Bryce’s favorite animal encounter was with a friendly Cheetah at the Nairobi Zoo. His smile and enthusiasm will be, and is, much missed.

LGBT literature

Should young teenagers be exposed to gay literature?  Should such books be banned from schools? The answer given to these questions depends, I am convinced, on whether the answerer believes that sexuality is God/genetically given or freely chosen by each of us. In the latter case some fear that novels that make gay life seem OK might lure some kids to choose it.

As a gay man myself, I wonder if those worried that being exposed to homosexual literature will find it so attractive and enticing that the young reader will be drawn (recruited) into such activities, are not repressed homosexuals themselves. Homosextuality is not something we choose. For most of us it is something we resisted and fought accepting. Who could possible think that being gay is more attractive than being a normal straight family member, though in these more enlighten and tolerant days it is much easier to accept being gay than when I struggled with it.

Homosexuality is God (nature) given. We can try to deny it, but we cannot make it go away. A proper understanding of this unchangeable fact is essential to living the happy and fulfilling lives each of us deserves. Literature that treats the subject and especially literature that depicts gay life as acceptable and compatible with happiness and success in life is an important source of information for those of us (every teenager) trying to understand and sort out who we are and where we want to go. Fortunately, movies and TV shows these days generally do a very good job of treating gay characters like any others. When I began to sense and struggle with my sexual attraction to men, the only such people I had ever heard of were child molesters who were run out of town. I was terrified by what I felt.

We live in a much better time (at least with regard to this topic). We often tell ourselves that God made us homosexual, but we chose to be gay. The sooner kids are exposed to the relevant literature the better for all of us.

Since writing the above, the US Supreme Court has ruled against a Colorado law that bans the discredited practice of advocating conversion therapy on the grounds that it violates the First Amendment protection of free speech. Though as I argued above, conversion therapy (turning a gay person into a heterosexual) certainly has been discredited, I agree with the almost unanimous Court decision. The First Amendment also protects my right to attack and condemn conversion therapy, and the freely open public debate about it is by far the best and ultimately most convincing way to expose its falsity.

This morning the Washington Post ran this story of a wise and brave librarian.

Tenn. library director fired over refusal to move LGBTQ+ books to adult section

A county board near Nashville voted to dismiss Luanne James, who said she stands by her decision, in the latest clash in a national debate over access to books.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2026/04/02/library-director-fired-lgbtq-books-tennessee/

The Right to Choose

I have always supported a woman’s right to choose whether to complete a pregnancy up to the point at which another person (her fetus) acquires existence and thus the protection of the law. In my view a fetus becomes a person when viable, i.e. when they are able to live outside the womb. In my opinion, laws that permit abortions that comply with that standard, should not force those who disagree to pay for such abortions. Thus I do not support allowing the Armed services to pay for its member’s wanting an abortion for the travel and related expenses of the abortion. Tax payers should not be forced to pay for such individual choices.

A similar argument has been made about taxpayer funding of elementary education. A Jewish taxpayer should not have to pay for a catholic child’s education in a catholic school or visa versa. But I also favor school choice. How do I defend this use of taxpayer’s money? An abortion up to the allowed age of the fetus is an individual choice. But elementary education is required for all children in the public interest. Thus, it is appropriate that the government (taxpayers) pay for it. But, providing public (i.e. taxpayer’s) money for each child’s education can and should leave the choice of school to each parent. It is appropriate that schools eligible to receive public funds meet minimum standards of curriculum to be covered. School choice not only maximizes the freedom of choice among parents with different religious beliefs and views on the most effect approach to education, but the competition among schools improves the over quality of education. https://wcoats.blog/2021/05/09/the-great-divide-who-decides/

Happy Birthday to me

Today I have lived for 82 years (29,848 days plus however many leap year days there have been). So please indulge my reflections on that life.  If you are really interested in more details, you can read my Autobiography being assembled by my friend Odell Huff on Kindle books (probably available in July). And or you can read any or all of my five travel books on my work in Afghanistan, Bosnia, FSU, Iraq, Kosovo, and Palestine, https://www.amazon.com/s?k=warren+coats&i=digital-text&crid=WKE7LWMI6LNS&sprefix=warren+coats%2Cdigital-text%2C74&ref=nb_sb_ss_fb_1_12  

It was certainly action packed (from a year in Germany as an high school exchange student, a member of the UC Berkeley Free Speech Movement council in 1964, marriage to Louise Wilkinson while teaching at the U of Hawaii, a Ph.D. from U of Chicago under Milton Friedman, Assistant Prof at UVA, birth of my son and daughter, 26 years at the International Monetary Fund during which I divorced Louise and married Ito Briones and led technical assistance missions to the central banks of over 20 countries). The teacher in me prodded me to share my economic and political thoughts with you in hundreds of blogs https://wcoats.blog/

I genuinely cared about trying to make the world a better place. In some ways it is but in many it is not. America’s role in the world has peaked and is in decline.  Others have tired of being pushed around by a bully who doesn’t pay that much attention to their interests. Sadly, most of the countries I worked in are no better off. On the other hand, the way God made me is now more widely accepted as OK and I have been able to married Ito. What concerns me most today is the lack of civil discourse and the mutual understanding discourse facilitates. Too often we consider those we disagree with bad rather than just wrong, which undermines rather than promotes understanding and cooperation.

But the real reason I, and people my age are generally happier than our younger friends, is, I think, because we have let go and stopped worrying about what we should do next. The fight for us is over (not that we don’t care anymore, but that we know we can no longer do anything about it). So, the political prospects for the next election, the attacks on free speech in the US, the shrinking of the free trade on which our prosperity has depended, the new holocaust in Gaza, while saddening events, wash over us without much personal pain.

What we have and can enjoy are wonderful and entertaining friends with whom we can visit, and dine and chat. Thank you all.

Abortion

Views on abortion have always been difficult to reconcile. Under our constitution, anyone born here is a citizen and has all of the rights of all other citizens. But when does a human fetus or embryo become a person with such rights? The question can be most challenging when the rights of two people—the mother and the fetus—conflict. My own view is that a fetus obtains the status of person with the right to protection, when it is viable, i.e., capable of living when removed from the womb.

The recent ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court that an embryo is a person that must enjoy the protections of the law, moves the goal post to a whole new level. Dr. Ito Briones (MD, Ph.D) argues that, if that is true and applied into practical terms, then women will be subject to a whole new level of restrictions on their behavior in the interest of the unborn person. His interesting observations follow:

The recent ruling by the Alabama supreme court to equate the embryo as a person started when embryos frozen in tubes were accidentally destroyed in a fertility clinic. The parents sued the clinic based on Alabama’s  law of “wrongful death of a minor’s act”. The lower courts said that this law does not apply but the Alabama Supreme Court overturned that decision. And so here we are.

As a practical consequence of this ruling, IVF clinics in Alabama have expectedly suspended treatments. There are already numerous outlets online and in the news that discuss this topic and so I will not discuss this here anymore. Unfortunately, there are also other unintended consequences from this decision that might turn the mundane day to day life of a woman into a dystopian mess.

Here are other issues that may need to be considered because of this ruling. 

  1. Is a restaurant owner liable for serving alcohol to a pregnant woman even if she didn’t know she was pregnant and does not inform the establishment? Presently, restaurants and stores can be held legally liable if they serve or sell alcohol to minors. The liability is valid even if they were not aware of the age status of the patron. To solve this issue, restaurants ask for an ID to confirm age. Does this mean women should also be required to show a negative pregnancy test before being served any alcohol? 
  • Coffee has been scientifically proven to be harmful to the embryo. Do women also have to show a negative pregnancy test before being served coffee? Caffeine is the main culprit in harming embryos and caffeine is also present in tea, chocolate, soft drinks and other foodstuff. Should the government limit the sale of these items to women?
  • How about pregnant women who have breast cancer or any cancer? Can they get treatment even if it will most probably harm if not kill the embryo? 

Before this ruling, a medical case of a pregnant woman with cancer will involve an intimate discussion with the woman, her husband and family, and the doctor. Because of this ruling, the government and law enforcement will have to join the already hypersensitive and impossible dilemma that she will face.

Additionally, any medical treatment on a pregnant woman will have to be reviewed by lawyers to make sure that the embryo’s rights are taken into consideration.

Medical studies have shown that stress on pregnant women may harm the embryo. Stress can induce sleepless nights, hypertension, loss of appetite or a tendency to overeat, headaches, etc. 

Can pregnant women (at any trimester including the first) work as nurses (exposing the embryo/child to harm) or police officers? Should women in these jobs show a monthly negative pregnancy test while at work?

Driving can be very stressful for the woman. Can pregnant women drive? 

Do women have to show a negative pregnancy test while enrolled in college?

By the way, is every miscarriage going to be handled as a possible homicide?

If I have any recommendation about this ruling it is that one should invest in pregnancy test kits soon. The stock value of these tests in the market will surely skyrocket. 

Anne with an E

Several weeks ago I complained that the biggest winners of this year’s Emmy awards were series I had stopped watching after a few episodes because there were virtually no characters in them to like and the real world already has enough bad apples. In response to my complaint my former IMF colleague, Marta Castello Branco, who had been a member of the IMF technical assistance missions that I led to the central banks of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan in 1992-3, recommended that I watch “Anne with an E.”  Boy was she right.

In three seasons with ten episodes each, “Anne with an E” follows the adventures of a brilliant, well-read but socially inept orphan girl adopted at the age of 13 by a relatively old brother and sister who had never married. The drama takes place in Canada around 1800. Anne is super smart and used her expansive imagination and extensive reading of the classics to survive the cruelties of 12 years in an orphanage before her adoption. She talks faster than a speeding bullet and is rarely quiet. The series is essentially about the coming of age experiences of children in a small farming community as seen largely through Anne’s eyes.

Being a homely red head, Anne’s growing up challenges are more than most, which can be difficult enough for the average child.  The series frankly and honestly treats the racial biases toward blacks, native Indians, gays, and other minorities at the time, the ugliness of school bullies, and the ridged moral codes of the towns people. But through the ups and downs of life most members of the farming community learn and grow in their understanding of their fellow community members.  Anne plays a large role in the struggle to make the world a better place while trying to understand her own place in it. There are plenty of people to like. The show is excellently cast and performed and gripping and uplifting. I can’t recommend it highly enough. Thank you Marta.

Serving Self Interest

If the goal of public policy is to maximize society’s wealth, in the broadest meaning of wealth (economic and cultural), what should that policy be? The invention and production of goods and services that enrich our lives (by providing food, shelter, safety, and entertainment) require a mix of cooperation and competition. How that mix is determined is the critical factor providing varied results in different societies. The Soviet Union represented one extreme of central determination and enforcement of the mix. The United States represents the other extreme encouraging individual determination of when and how to cooperate and when and how to compete based on each person’s self-interest.

What form of cooperation and competition maximizes society’s wealth and how should that optimal mix be determined? The exploitation of our self-interest to maximize wealth that has such extensive scope in the U.S. is guided by each person’s understanding of how their interests are best served.  Our moral code for how best to treat others and thus to be treated ourselves is a critical part of that understanding.

Alexis de Tocqueville, in his Democracy in America (1835), marveled at the extensive degree of voluntary cooperation in America. Americans joined together in church groups, civic clubs, charitable organizations, and sports clubs as part of their pursuit of their self-interests to a greater extent than in any other country in the world.

The tightest cooperative unit is the family, were trust between members is very high in dividing responsibilities while sharing its fruits, as they compete with other families for jobs and markets. Firms divide up tasks and cooperate in producing the best possible products and services with which to compete with other firms for market share (see Ronald Coase’s  The Nature of the Firm – Wikipedia). The Brooklyn Dodgers (now the Los Angeles Dodgers) cooperated within the club in order to better compete against other baseball clubs.

The wealth and success of America compared with the poverty and eventual failure of the Soviet Union reflects its better choices of the when and where and how much to cooperate vs compete. History has confirmed that those choices are best made by individuals pursuing their self-interest as they see and understand it. In Adam Smith’s foundational book: An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776) Smith argues that when individuals pursue their own self-interest in a free market, they are led by an “invisible hand” to promote the general welfare of society. However, these invisible hands operate within and through a society’s legal, institutional, and moral environment. Well defined and secure property rights are particularly important.

The dramatic increase in material wealth for the average family and decline in poverty in relatively free market, capitalist economies over the past 250 years followed thousands of years of unchanging incomes and general poverty. https://humanprogress.org/trends/

I hope that our next generation of innovators and workers understand this.

Child labor

How much should the government protect us from things?  What form should government protection take? When does “protection” become top down coercion?

The US Labor Department wants to roll back some of the relaxation of “child labor” restrictions allowed by some States. https://thehill.com/homenews/education/4123821-dol-cracks-down-on-child-labor-while-states-loosen-laws/  What should we (or for minors—our parents) be allowed to decide for ourselves and what should the government be allowed to decide for us?

Back to my childhood in Bakersfield again. I was absolutely thrilled when I was able to earn money delivering the morning newspaper. I can’t remember my age exactly, but I think it was 14 or 15. I got up at 5:00 or 6:00 in the morning when a stack of the morning paper was dropped on our porch. I rolled them up and put them in a backpack, mounted my bicycle, and threw them as close to the porches of the subscribers on my list as possible. Bakersfield being semidesert was pleasantly cool in the summer mornings and very cold –freezing cold—in the winter. It virtually never snowed in Bakersfield because if virtually never rained, but it certainly froze any water around in the winter. The wide swing of temperatures between the night and the day is typical of deserts.

Having this job absolutely thrilled me more than the modest money I earned. Prior to qualifying age wise to deliver newspapers, I made money growing tomatoes in our back yard and selling them to the neighbors door to door. They were thrilled to buy my big red delicious and very fresh from the vine tomatoes. No one minded that I might have been breaking some law or other. When I became 16 and had a driver’s license, I went to work for Fedway Department store as an assistant to the parking lot attendant. The next year I was promoted to a salesclerk inside the store. These were weekend jobs.

The money I made was helpful (75 cent per hour if I recall correctly) but the experience was even more valuable. I loved having these jobs. They were indications of growing up. If for some reason and some how they were bad for me (exploitive?? Ha ha), it was rightly up to my parents to say no. Big Brother is overreaching into our lives again. Helicopter moms are bad enough.

What is appropriate to teach our kids?

Obviously, the knowledge and skills taught to kids should be appropriate to their age. At whatever age kids can meaningfully absorb the history and message of religions, for example (don’t ask me what age that is), the real question is what they should be taught about them. Given our constitutional separation of Church and State and our commitment to individual choice and the enriching benefits of a multiethnic population, public schools can not “teach Christianity”. But it is highly desirable to teach students about Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and the other major religions—their histories and beliefs. Parents have a right to be satisfied that what is taught fairly represents their religion.

At an appropriate age kids need to learn about races—about why some kids in the room are black, white, brown, and yellow. At an appropriate, presumably older age, they need to learn the history of these races and especially slavery as it is particularly relevant in America, as are Chinese rail road workers and the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII.

At appropriate ages kids also need to learn about how their bodies function and how to keep them healthy. As they approach puberty, they will want to know all about what is going on in their bodies. If they are not given this information in the classroom, they will seek it elsewhere. Current controversies over teaching information about sexuality and sexual functions to kids at the age needing and wanting such information and over the availability of affinity clubs for young teenagers to discusses these pressing questions, reflects, in my view, two serious mistakes in confronting this issue. The first is to overlook or deny that kids will seek out what ever information they can about every aspect of sex whether presented in the classroom or not. The second serious mistake is the claim that teaching about homosexuality and providing clubs in which kids can discuss their questions about it with their piers will recruit heterosexual students to join up with the gays as if being gay is so desirable. We cannot chose our sexual orientation.

I want to focus on the second of these. We are born with our sexual attractions. We are not and cannot be recruited from it to its opposite. The survival of the species requires that most people are heterosexual and happy to procreate and so overwhelmingly most people are heterosexual. Those who are not are acutely aware that their attractions are not the norm. As they attempt to establish their goals for their lives, most homosexuals try to hide from, or deny to, themselves that they are different. Most would rather not be. But they cannot change the facts. Their goal should be to accept the facts and carry on building the most fulfilling lives possible. This is much easier today than earlier because of honest and factual classroom information and public role models of successful gay men and lesbian women.

Sixty-five years ago as I struggled to sort out my own attractions (yes I know that that was a rather long time ago and a different world) I did not know any, or of any, gay people as models or better still to talk to. There was no Will and Grace, or Peter Buttigieg, or Peter Thiel, or Lily Tomlin. I had only heard of child molesters—bad people who were run out of town. I hated what I felt. It threatened to destroy the life I hoped to have. So I buried it away for many year at the cost of considerable internal pain. What a relief it would have been to have learn in class that some people are just that way and can have otherwise normal lives.

Thus, it is quite distressing to me that some poorly informed parents are rising up against such instruction. While I assume that they mean well, I see their actions as child abuse. They mistakenly believe that homosexuality is a choice. They understandably don’t want their child to make that choice. But it is not a choice. We often say that God made us homosexual, and we chose to be gay.

All children need the facts about the various urges god gave us and help with their struggle to accept their own sexual orientation and to fit in with the rest of society. Clubs at which they can socialize and feel comfortable and discuss the fact of their homosexuality can be a helpful part of their development. Despite the enormous progress in public understanding, ignorance persists in some quarters on which the Washington Post gives an interesting report:

Flyers at school advertising Safe Place club meetings, “set off a wave of parent anger and rumors that Safe Place club advisers including Melissa Panico, a teacher who has LGBTQ children, would “indoctrinate” students.

“Spurred by these concerns, legislatures in at least 19 states have passed or are considering laws that bar discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity for younger children while limiting teaching on those topics for older students….

 “’Safe Space’ signs had to come down. The posters were ‘political in nature,’ he wrote, and might cause ‘disruption to the learning environment.’ The signs could run afoul of two legal considerations, he added: ‘One, will what is posted or worn be seen as indoctrinating our students to believe or think in a certain way. Two, would we allow anything that represents the opposite viewpoint?’” It is hard to believe that these were the words of an adult educator.  “Gay-straight alliance-indoctrination-school club”

Progress has been made but we still have a ways to go:

“When Sen. Barry Goldwater, dubbed “Mr. Conservative,” learned that his grandson and grandniece were gay, he worked for new laws that would protect their civil rights. When Newt Gingrich became speaker of the House, and his lesbian half-sister, Candace, became a gay activist, he took a more neutral stance. “It’s a free country,” he told the press. State Sen. William “Pete” Knight has been estranged from his son since learning four years ago he is gay.

“And now, Dick and Lynne Cheney are faced with their decision, how to handle in public what is essentially a private matter: the sexual orientation of their daughter, Mary.”  “The Cheney’s”

The Separation of Church and State

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States states that: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

“The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a Maine tuition program that does not allow public funds to go to religious schools,…

“The vote was 6 to 3, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. writing for the majority and the court’s three liberals in dissent.”

“’There is nothing neutral about Maine’s program,” he wrote. “The State pays tuition for certain students at private schools — so long as the schools are not religious. That is discrimination against religion.’

“Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the dissenters, answered, ‘This Court continues to dismantle the wall of separation between church and state that the Framers fought to build.’”  “Supreme court-Maine-religious schools”

Where public funds are provided to support the education of our children, they should not discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs. That is what the separation of church and state means to me. I don’t understand Justice Sotomayor’s position. Public funding of all schools except religious one is religious discrimination pure and simple. It is the State interfering in religious choices.

In my opinion, the relevant government authority choosing to support the education of children should provide the parents of each child with a tuition voucher that can be used at any certified school (including home schooling). As an aside, while I defend the right of parents to school their own children at home, I think it is a mistake to do so as the school experience is more than what is in the text books. Quite clearly, banning the use of such vouchers at Catholic, Hebrew or other religious schools would be discriminatory and should not be allowed (as the Court ruled).

I also support a Universal Basic Income. “Our social safety net” Disallowing its use to send your kids to a religious school would violate fundamental principles of equal treatment and religious freedom that we hopefully all believe in.