A New England Ideology

Michael Lind, in yet another attempt to explain the dire situation in which the Democrat party finds itself, has nonetheless produced nice history-laden political analysis piece over at the American Prospect. In it, he explains that history has shown that a too-close identification with New England results in political loss. The most recent case being the current Democrat party. However, to me, the most interesting aspect of Lind's piece is his charting of the New England migration patterns and how New Englander's and the ancestors of New Englander have shared characteristics.

The “Upper North” dialect zone identified by students of American speech patterns is almost identical to the blue-state zone on the Electoral College map: New England, the Great Lakes states, and the Pacific Northwest. This is “Greater New England” -- the regions settled by New Englanders and their descendants from the 17th to the 19th centuries.

The culture of this vast expanse emanated from two areas of early settlement by English Puritans in the 17th century: the Massachusetts Bay Colony and the Connecticut River Valley. From here, the “Yankees” spread to all of New England and upstate New York. In the 19th century, settlers from these areas colonized the Great Lakes region and the upper Midwest. In Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio, the Yankee settlers encountered southerners migrating northward; the resulting political diversity of those states has made several of them “swing” states for generations.

From the upper Midwest, some pioneers of Yankee stock migrated to the Pacific Northwest. New Englanders were so important in the fur trade in the Oregon Territory that the local Indians described all whites as “Bostons.” In the 1840s, Yankee settlers colonized the Willamette Valley in northwest Oregon. A variant of New England culture left its imprint on the politics, folkways, and dialects of northern California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. On the West Coast, as in parts of the Midwest, the Yankee settlers were joined by Scandinavian and German immigrants with similar values.

Additionally, Lind notes the theory of historian Wilbur Zelinsky, who "observed that 'the activities of a few hundred, or even a few score, initial colonizers can mean much more for the cultural geography of a place than the contributions of tens of thousands of new immigrants a few generations later.'” Hence, New England settlers, often the first in a region, basically formed the foundation for the politics of those regions. As such, traditional New England ideals, such as reformism, intellectual elitism and anti-militarism took root and are still present. Lind acknowledges that this Greater New England will remain the core of the Democrat party for some time. But he also offers that so long as the Greater New England ideology continues to be the identity to which the Democrat party is associated, political success will continue to elude them.

Imports and Price Controls for a Mature Nation

The idea, which Marc noted in the previous post, that "Europeans and Canadians are able to get quality drugs at lower prices only because Americans pay free-market prices that fuel research and development" is one that I've touched on before. Michelle Malkin had made the point that the price negotiation practices of the Veterans Administration would be catastrophic if transported to a program as huge as Medicare. (She also offers this bit of corrective to the Harrop line: "the [Medicare drug] law will create a number of regional health plans, each of which will be free to use committed-use contracting on its own.")

As I wrote at the time, the benefits of collective bargaining and unified administration only outweigh the costs as long as the group is reasonably small compared with the total market. This goes for various groups within the U.S. market, and it goes for various countries on the global market.

There are a number of topics in which we find other countries getting away with practices that would have dire consequences were the United States to emulate them (the atrophied militaries of Europe come to mind). That, it seems to me, is the price that the U.S.A. pays for being the U.S.A. The question of the century may very well be whether we're a sufficiently mature people to acknowledge and accept it.

Health Care & Big Pharma III: Imports and Price Controls

PROEM: This is a continuation of a series on Health Care & Big Pharmaceutical companies. For more, see the Introduction, Part 1 and Part 2.

According to a study by the Rhode Island Public Interest Research Group (RIPIRG), uninsured Rhode Islanders pay 79% more for prescription drugs than do insured individuals. RIPIRG puts the blame squarely on drug companies. The first charge is that drug companies inflate R&D costs to justify their high prices. The second charge is that drug companies have agreed to charge lower prices for drugs sold to both foreign countries and the U.S. Government because they agreed to institute price controls. RIPIRG recommends that, in the short term, U.S. citizens should be allowed to purchase Canadian or other foreign drugs. A longer term solution would be to create a statewide buying pool in which smaller entities could combine to negotiate lower-priced drugs. For now, at least according to the Providence Journal, it is the short-term recommendation, Canadian drug importation, that is generating the most noise.

However, I find I do agree with one thing Froma Harrop stated in her aforementioned and most recent column, "forget about importing drugs from Canada. All this talk is a sideshow..." Harrop believes the answer lay in negotiated price controls. Using the recent negotiations over the new prescription drug provision in Medicare, Harrop points out

Americans had a golden opportunity to extend this practice to the new Medicare prescription-drug benefit. But the bill that passed forbids any haggling on price. As a result, a fabulously expensive entitlement will cost taxpayers tons more money than it had to.

This shameful piece of legislation was the handiwork of Billy Tauzin, Republican of Louisiana. Tauzin is leaving Congress for a $2-million-a-year job heading the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the drug-industry trade group. Given what Tauzin has done for drug makers, he would have been cheap at twice the price.

Tommy Thompson, meanwhile, is on his way out as secretary of health and human services. As a parting shot, Thompson said that the Medicare drug bill should have let the government negotiate prices on behalf of the beneficiaries. How nice of him to speak up, now that it no longer matters.

While I agree with Harrop in the acute example she has given, and I also think that Tauzin's actions do appear unseemly and Thompson's as disingenuous, I'm not sure how price controls negotiated for this specific program could translate into more "universal" drug price reductions, as Harrop seems to imply.

There are two problems with implementing price controls on a widespread basis. The first was illustrated by Don's recent post, "Government Meddling Creates Marketplace Distortions, Increasing Long-Term Costs." The second is that price controls remove incentive. These two usually go hand-in-hand as was illustrated by the recent shortage of flu vaccine. According to Dr. Gilbert Ross, Medical/Executive Director of the American Council on Science and Health

when the government gets involved in pharmaceutical pricing, consumers should expect disastrous consequences. Recent shortages in children's vaccines can be traced directly to the government's power, as sole purchaser, to dictate below-market prices. This "negative subsidy" has a chilling effect on manufacturers' incentive to produce and market vaccines, which explains why so few continue to make these vaccines. (Unfounded but attention-getting lawsuits against vaccine makers have similar effects.)

According to a May 2001 Wired Magazine article, Dr. J. Leighton Read, former CEO and founder of Aviron and Edward Penhoet, (who was recently named as Vice-Chairman of California's Stem Cell Research Board by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger), agreed that

drug companies will be less willing to take the substantial risks involved in developing drugs for diseases such as AIDS that are rampant in the Third World, if they are eventually required to give their product away for free.

It costs about $500 million to bring a drug to market -- about the same amount it takes to build a power plant.

Read, who also founded Affymax, suggested that consumers rethink "anything assumed to be an entitlement."

"We need to feel some of the pain," he said.

Even though I applaud Read for his candor, I don't believe the general public will be amenable to this line of thought. Within the same article, Dr. Alan Garber, a professor of medicine and director of the Center for Health Policy at Stanford University, stated, "I think we have been too timid about looking at models other than controlled pricing." He believe that one possible solution "would be fixed prices for insurance companies to purchase an unlimited amount of drugs." Finally, while I previously linked to his piece, Robert Goldberg's observation bears repeating (in shortened form)

there is only a limited amount of drugs that can be supplied at price-controlled levels worldwide. . . Europeans and Canadians are able to get quality drugs at lower prices only because Americans pay free-market prices that fuel research and development. . . the high level of pharmaceutical R&D ultimately depends on revenues: Cut drug-company revenues, and you necessarily cut R&D. . . applying relatively moderate price limits just to purchases under the new Medicare drug benefit . . . would reduce new drug investment by over $300 billion over the next two decades. This drop would consequently deprive many millions of ailing people of potential cures. . . Gvernment price controls are already shortchanging Europeans and Canadians. They have led to a decline in investment, with venture capitalists investing 15 times more in biotech companies in America than they do in the same number of European firms. Health systems and consumers must also spend more to treat chronic illness there because they don’t get new medicines as quickly or as widely as we do. German and British patients, for example, are less likely to receive new cancer drugs than Americans. . . If we import price-controlled drugs, we will import these shortage-created side effects too.

If drug importation is only a stop--gap and price controls and greater government intervention haven't worked elsewhere, what will work in the United States?

I will attempt to come up with some solutions in my next post.

Where Humanitarianism Meets Nihilism

Cynthia Weisboro, a member of the South Kingstown Library Board of Trustees, doesn't apparently believe that self government extends to determination of the principles by which we ought to govern ourselves:

[David] O'Connell bases his opposition to such research on the very questionable theological concept of the "soul," a concept unproven and unprovable. Speculation on the existence of the soul is intellectually stimulating, but should not be the basis for public policy in our pluralistic society. Rather, policy should be rooted in rationality and humanitarianism.

Unfortunately, I can't find Mr. O'Connell's full letter online (without paying for it), but it's adequate to note that he was explaining to pro-life U.S. Congressman Jim Langevin (D-RI) that an honest "search for foundational, objective truths regarding the presence of the spirit, human identity, and universal justice" would ultimately invalidate support for embryonic stem cell research. To Ms. Weisboro, that search — honest or not — is irrelevant. Religious citizens are not allowed strive for a government that designs policy in accordance with the area of their lives that they consider most important. Her preferred doctrine — rationalism — is the exclusive guide of our "pluralistic society."

It isn't even the fact that soul is "unproven and unprovable" that disqualifies the religious view. (One wonders by what mechanism Ms. Weisboro achieved the revelation that soul is unprovable.)

Putting the well-being of a cluster of cells, with or without souls, over the interests of our suffering loved ones is not rational, nor is it humane.

So, even if human beings in the early stages of development have souls, even if they are in that sense "persons," it would still be the "humane" choice to kill thousands of them based on speculation that doing so will lead to treatment for human beings with more cells. Frankly, I suspect — rather, I hope — that Cynthia didn't quite mean what her language states, because I've never heard its like. Or, to be more accurate, I've never heard its like in modern discussions about the rights of the unborn; the general idea has been promoted before in different contexts, and we should all tremble if it has found a new entrance to our culture.

Would this be Legal?

Here’s a question I need answered to fully understand the failure of the American health insurance system:

General Motors announces it will be selling automobiles in a new way. It will no longer sell cars to just any individual. Instead, GM will sign contracts with employers. If you work for a company that has signed a contract with GM, you can buy the car at regular price. If not, it will cost three times as much. Would this program be legal under existing commercial law?

Let me add a corollary: Is it even illegal for a private seller to charge different prices for a product based on age, or race?

Health Care & Big Pharma II: In Defense of Drug Companies

PROEM: This is a continuation of a series on Health Care & Big Pharmaceutical companies. For more, see the Introduction and Part 1.

In my last post I laid out the case against big pharmaceutical companies as portrayed by Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine and author of a recent book that has garnered some acclaim for taking on "Big Pharma." Angell has put forth many arguments against pharmaceutical companies, but some of her most strident accusations are that:

1) Not enough money is put into research and development (R&D).

2) Drug companies lack innovation and create too many "Me-Too" drugs.

3) Drug companies rely too much on tax-payer dollars to generate revenue.

4) The pharmaceutical industry is not an example of American "free enterprise" and is protected by the FDA and the U.S. Patent Office.

While I didn't include some of Angell's secondary claims (or solutions) in the above list, they can be briefly summarized as follows: drug companies should spend less on advertising and either pass the savings on to consumers or invest in more R&D, drugs should be imported from other countries, drug price controls should be implemented, and finally that drug companies are greedy and not philanthropic enough.

There are those who believe Angell's portrayal of the pharmaceutical industry is misleading and that her solutions are wrongheaded. Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan, president of the American Council on Science and Health (it has a blog, too) has offered a concise refutation of Angell's work. For instance, Whelan has countered Angell's charges that the drug companies "lack innovation," produce unneeded "copycat" drugs and have produced no "new" drugs.

Over the past decade, pharmaceutical companies have conducted hugely sophisticated research at the molecular and cellular levels to uncover many new treatments for disease. In the past ten years, over 300 new drugs have been approved by FDA — including vaccines, medicines to treat AIDS, modest steps toward treating Alzheimer's, a spectrum of antidepressants, and of course miraculous cholesterol-lowering drugs. [Angell's assertion that] [t]he copycat or "me-too" drugs offer no benefits over existing drugs. . . is false as well: It is in the consumer's interest to have a variety of drugs to choose from when looking to treat a condition. Some will work better than others for various individuals and afflictions; some will be tolerated more, with fewer side effects. Can you imagine if only one statin (cholesterol-lowering) drug were available for your physician to prescribe for you — and you were allergic to it?

To further illustrate that new drugs, and not just "me-too" drugs, are being developed, The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), an advocacy group for pharmaceutical research and biotechnology companies, just reported that there are currently 109 separate drugs for mental illness now being developed, all of which "are either in human clinical testing or awaiting approval by the Food and Drug Administration." (Additionally, their FAQ "The Real Truth About Drug Companies" offers an informative counterpoint to many of the common charges made against them).

Angell make's much of tax-payer money funding research that in turn benefits private companies. To this, the PhRMA counters

The research-based pharmaceutical industry spends more ($32 billion in 2002) on biomedical R&D than the NIH, whose total 2002 budget was $24 billion. . . . the U.S. Government funding contributes substantially to general advances in the health sciences, including basic research, but there is still a distinction to be made between basic research and start-to-finish development of a new drug therapy.

Additionally, according to Whelan,

In a report issued to Congress in 2001, the National Institutes of Health dismissed the contention that government pays for most of the research for the best-selling drugs. Indeed, statistics indicate that the research-based drug companies spend more on research and development than NIH does, develop the vast majority of U.S. medicines, and are responsible for over 90 percent of the entire world's new drugs each year.

Along these lines, Angell challenges the widely regarded estimate that the cost of developing one new drug is approximately $802 million (this number comes from a peer-reviewed scientific journal). Instead she quotes a non-peer-reviewed study by Ralph Nader's Public Citizen organization, which claims that the real number is only $l00 million (an odd and shaky citation for the former editor of a prestigious, peer-reviewed medical journal).

This would seem to counter Angell's claim that pharmaceutical companies don't spend enough of their own money on R&D. As to her contention that they spend more on marketing and advertising than R&D, the PhMRA's most recent publication (PDF), which includes complete sources, details the misconceptions surrounding the marketing of drugs.

In 2003, PhRMA member companies alone spent much more on R&D—an estimated $33 billion—than the entire industry spent on all combined drug promotional activities, $25.3 billion. Of this amount, pharmaceutical companies distributed over $16 billion worth of free samples to office-based physicians. . . The entire industry’s direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising accounts for just $3.3 billion of total promotion, or 10 percent of R&D spending by PhRMA members alone—a percentage consistent with the spending levels of other major industries. The remaining $5.7 billion the pharmaceutical industry expended on marketing and promotion in 2003 was spent on office promotion, hospital promotion, and journal advertising. ["Pharmaceutical Marketing & Promotion," p.5]

Further, according to the aforementioned PhMRA FAQ,

Industry critics often mistakenly cite a category from Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings as the amount spent on marketing, but this category includes many expenses other than traditional marketing expenses.

This category includes, for example, free medicines provided to medically indigent patients under companies’ patient assistance programs; systems and IT support; distribution and shipping expenses; and corporate functions, including legal, communications, dues, procurement, plus utilities and property taxes.

Additionally, many who defend the drug companies contend that advertising is an important informational tool that enlightens potential health care consumers. For instance, Whelan contends that

most observers familiar with "direct to consumer" advertising say it plays an essential role in consumer education. Many people who have serious diseases or risk factors like hypertension, elevated cholesterol, asthma, and depression are not being treated. These ads can prompt consumers to discuss medication with their physicians.

Angell believes some relief for American drug consumers can be found in importation of drugs from other countries. These drugs are cheaper because other countries, such as Canada, impress price controls on drug companies. However, with price controls come limited quantities. According to Robert Goldberg

The fact is, there is only a limited amount of drugs that can be supplied at price-controlled levels worldwide. No degree of safety and surveillance can change the laws of supply and demand. Europeans and Canadians are able to get quality drugs at lower prices only because Americans pay free-market prices that fuel research and development.

The task force notes that the high level of pharmaceutical R&D ultimately depends on revenues: Cut drug-company revenues, and you necessarily cut R&D. Its report goes on to estimate that “importation could result in between four to eighteen fewer new drugs being introduced per decade.”This estimate is supported by a recent Manhattan Institute study which found that applying relatively moderate price limits just to purchases under the new Medicare drug benefit — so not to all drugs — would reduce new drug investment by over $300 billion over the next two decades. This drop would consequently deprive many millions of ailing people of potential cures.

Government price controls are already shortchanging Europeans and Canadians. They have led to a decline in investment, with venture capitalists investing 15 times more in biotech companies in America than they do in the same number of European firms. Health systems and consumers must also spend more to treat chronic illness there because they don’t get new medicines as quickly or as widely as we do. German and British patients, for example, are less likely to receive new cancer drugs than Americans. Indeed, British cancer patients are still waiting to use Gleevec for leukemia. If we import price-controlled drugs, we will import these shortage-created side effects too.

Further, again according to Goldberg and others, price controls take away the drug companies' incentive to conduct research or to provide basic medications. This was illustrated with the recent flu vaccine shortage. Because of price controls, few companies found it profitable to produce the vaccines. As such, when one company's batch of vaccines was found contaminated, there weren't sufficient vaccine producers to step in and immediately fill in the gap. Similarly, if drug companies are required to give away drugs for free, they will lack the incentive, and resources, to embark on the innovative research so desired by Angell and others. Most importantly, as Don Hawthorne recently posted right here at Anchor Rising, any time government gets involved in health care, disaster ensues.

As it is, the accusations made by Angell and others that the pharmaceutical companies are greedy should be tempered. Deroy Murdock writes, citing a report by the Hudson Institute ["A Review of Pharmaceutical Company Contributions: HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, Malaria and Other Infectious Diseases," Carol Adelman and Jeremiah Norris], that "nine major drug companies donated $2.135 billion worth of products and services to combat HIV/AIDS, TB, malaria, and other tropical ailments." Additionally,

Despite the alleged avarice of the "mean, nasty" drug companies, this $2.135 billion in medical charity far outpaced the financial commitment of "caring, loving" government agencies that reputedly "put people, before profits." Compare Big Pharma's foreign aid with that of public-sector donors in 2003:

The U.S. Agency for International Development's Global Health Budget stood at $1.374 billion.

The World Health Organization's budget was $1.37 billion.

European Commission spending on HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria totaled $451 million.

Hence, an industry accused of profiteering has contributed generously to those in need, far outstripping so-called charitable institutions.

Finally, and quickly, drug companies do face a threat to their bottom line: trial lawyers are seeking to generate their own revenue from lawsuits against Big Pharma, much as they did against Big Tobacco. As an example, the recent Vioxx controversy has placed Merck directly in the line of fire of Big Trial Lawyers.

Next up is a more acute presentation regarding the "solutions" of foreign drug importation and price controls.

Government Meddling Creates Marketplace Distortions, Increasing Long-Term Costs

Two big issues frustrate and anger all of us about health insurance:

First, our personal insurance is not portable. In other words, the insurance is “owned” by our employer and we, the covered individuals, lose our coverage when we leave our jobs.

Second, the spiraling costs of health care products and services.

We can all thank the government for both outcomes. They meddled in the marketplace and all we got for it was less personal freedom and higher costs.

In the aftermath of World War II, the government meddled in the marketplace when they implemented wage-and-price controls. There have been many unfortunate consequences since then. Subsequently, because it was impossible to give salary increases when labor contracts were being re-negotiated, the companies instead offered health insurance as a separate benefit or form of compensation. This created the unnecessary marketplace distortion that tied our health insurance to our employer. The government then meddled further in the marketplace when the IRS deemed such benefits to be non-taxable income. This created yet another unnecessary marketplace distortion where the consumer is sheltered from the true costs of health care services, which are paid for by third party payors.

The list of further costly marketplace distortions created by government meddling has only continued to grow, with potentially ominous long-term consequences. A 4-part series (I, II, III, IV) of postings by the blog site, Houston’s Clear Thinkers, mixes some of their own commentary with highlights from articles by Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. of the Wall Street Journal:

Politicians, being adaptable sorts, have come to embrace the third party payor system as a means for political handouts and cost shifting…To take an example…Connecticut legislators recently voted to mandate that health insurers cover at least $350 a year in wigs for chemotherapy patients. Who wouldn't want chemotherapy patients to have wigs? But now everybody in Connecticut who wants health insurance has to pay for wig coverage.

No serious person doubts that our overreliance on third-party payment is the problem that will be solved -- or will lead to a government-run, single-payer system that controls costs by denying care. In our information-rich economy, the medical industry doesn't even publish price lists. Is this not downright weird and a sign change is desperately needed?

Duke University's Clark Havighurst…has noted that "the systematic hiding of health-care costs from those who pay them" gives rise to the ultimate "moral hazard," allowing politicians to spend the public's money on health care in ways the public would never choose for itself either in the marketplace or the voting booth.

He also notes the seldom-emphasized regressive nature of the transfer: "The United States has structured things so that lower and middle-income premium payers bear heavy burdens so that the elite classes can continue to enjoy the style of health care to which they are accustomed." [This occurs when the higher-paid worker, because of their higher marginal tax bracket, can shelter more of their health care costs than the lower-paid worker.]

Treating cost as a factor in medical choices is considered somehow illiberal, though it's the poor who've been priced out of the health-insurance market. But, say it again, in the final analysis there's nobody to "shift" costs to. The health-care bill always comes home to working Americans in the form of higher taxes, lower take-home pay or unaffordable health care.

[The standard answer is to] throw yet more tax money at health spending while avowing disingenuously that "the rich" will pay for it. But our indictment here is of the conditioned cowardice of the health-care policy community at large. How can you expect better…when the arbiters of good policy…judge candidate health plans by a single criterion: Which would commit the most resources to health care?

There not being unlimited funds to spend on health care, [these] plan[s] would only speed the day when politicians, no longer able to write blank checks with the private sector's money, would face directly the choice of whether to curb consumption or raise taxes to pay for it. That's the job description of Europe's national health systems, which are not exercises in beautiful egalitarianism but exercises in rationing for those not rich enough to jet off to a private clinic and get the treatment they seek.

A study by the National Center for Policy Analysis looks at some of the macro trends that have resulted from all these distortions created by government meddling:

[I]n 1960, out of total health care spending…55.5% was paid out of pocket,…22.9% by private third-party payers,…12.7% by state and local government, and only…8.9% by the federal government…

This changed dramatically after the creation of Medicare and Medicaid. By 1980,…only 27.8% [was paid] out-of-pocket. Private third party payers picked up 32.1% and the federal government paid 29.2%...

In 1998,…the federal government was paying for…33.7%...Out-of-pocket spending diminished to 19.6% of the total, and third party payments grew to 36.8%...

Not surprisingly, the flood of new federal money and the decrease in out-of-pocket spending resulted in health care inflation and an increasing share of national income going to health care after 1965…[5.2% in 1960, 7.2% in 1970, 9.1% in 1980, 12.7% in 1990, and over 14% in last 5 years, per another study.]

In response to this alarming growth, the federal government imposed a series of new laws and regulations intended to slow health care inflation…

Despite all these efforts, health care costs continued to rise. Every year from 1965 through 1982, the nation endured increases in health care spending in excess of 10%...

Employers instituted a number of cost-containing efforts, including benefit redesign emphasizing outpatient care over inpatient treatment and programs such as second surgical opinions and preadmission certification…These programs had remarkable, if temporary, success…

But soon enough, health care inflation was back…Employers had succeeded in holding down costs for a time, but now they needed another strategy. They switched to managed care in massive numbers. From 1984 to 1990, HMOs and PPOs increased their share of the private benefits market from 7% to 34%, and they continued to grow through the 1990s, capturing 65% of the market in 1995. More recent estimates place managed care's market share at 85%.

The hope for managed care was that it would provide first-rate health care while restraining utilization and cost. Managed care was supposed to provide incentives to keep people healthy so they would consume fewer health care services. It was supposed to help patients bond with their primary care provider who would direct them to the most cost-effective services. It was supposed to educate patients to take better care of themselves and avoid expensive professional care for ordinary ailments. It was supposed to bring a new businesslike attitude to health care services.

...managed care organizations...had [some] success in holding down cost increases, but at a high price in employee morale and community relations…

All of us will continue to pay quite a price as long as the government meddles in the marketplace and creates costly distortion after distortion.

Projo Schizophrenic on Healthcare & Employment

As I noted at the time on Dust in the Light, the Providence Journal's editorial page recently made an astonishingly forward-looking suggestion:

The problem of job quality is complex, involving trade, education and other issues. But we hope that political leaders will take an especially close look at the health-care factor. Our employment-based health-insurance system is collapsing. Any policy that frees employers from the burden of insuring their workers -- and controls health-care costs -- would also free them to hire more people.

Today, however, it's the unacknowledged turnabout that's astonishing:

Meanwhile, employer mandates are not an untested idea. For three decades, Hawaii has required companies to cover their workers who put in at least 20 hours a week. The Hawaiian economy is doing all right.

It's become the fashion in America to portray every corporate mandate as anti-business and bad for the economy. But that's not necessarily true. When you let some companies shift their workers' health-care costs onto more responsible companies, you are in effect imposing a tax on your most desirable businesses. And when the uninsured end up on Medicaid or in hospital emergency rooms, the public pays more.

We urge Massachusetts leaders and citizens to clear the cobwebs of old thinking and try a bold approach to health care. The richest and most progressive states are doing it, and Massachusetts should be among them.

I don't know anything about Hawaii, but here in a New England border town, living in Rhode Island and working part-time from home for a company in Massachusetts, I'm finally about to enter that month when the infamous Northern specter of heating the home will break my already slipping grip on solvency. The wherefore is simple: I can't find full-time work in the range that I incurred so much debt (and lost so many years) to reach.

My family is fortunate to have healthcare (at a cost) through the employer that I do have, and as I managed in December, there is at least the chance to find non-career jobs to meet necessities. Considering my family's circumstances, I'd say I'm particularly justified in asking this question of fellow citizens who are desirous of a place among the "most progressive states": If healthcare costs do discourage hiring — and I don't doubt that they do — what bizarre calculus leads one to conclude that we'd be better off forcing the less "responsible" companies, those offering jobs that don't generally supply healthcare, to supply it?

From where I sit, on the decidedly non-academic side of the theoretical divide, it seems plausible, if not probable, that the end result of an employer-based mandate for universal healthcare will be a worst-of-all-worlds situation. In the first editorial here noted, the Projo lamented that the jobs that are available are increasingly of the low-paying variety. In the second editorial, it laments that people without health insurance become a significant burden on the taxpayers. Who's going to pay for healthcare when even low-salary jobs become scarce?

Health Care & Big Pharma I: The Case Against "BP"

I've decided that the best place to begin outlining the debate will be in briefly sketching the arguments made against "Big Pharma." To present this case, I have chosen Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine and author of The Truth About the Drug Companies, as a "spokesperson." As I have not been able to read her book, I have used her identically titled July 2004 article published in the New York Review of Books to derive her essential arguments.

Angell's argument is best summarized by this paragraph contained within the aforementioned article:

Over the past two decades the pharmaceutical industry has moved very far from its original high purpose of discovering and producing useful new drugs. Now primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit, this industry uses its wealth and power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the US Congress, the FDA, academic medical centers, and the medical profession itself.

To my mind, she finds four central faults with the current situation.

1) Not enough money is put into research and development (R&D): Big drug companies spend more on marketing and administration and reap more in profits than they spend in R&D. Finally, the prices they charge for drugs are vastly disproportionate to the amount spent on their developing, to the advantage of the drug companies' bottom line.

According to Angell, "For the top ten companies, [R&D expenditures] amounted to only 11 percent of sales in 1990, rising slightly to 14 percent in 2000. The biggest single item in the budget is neither R&D nor even profits but something usually called 'marketing and administration'—a name that varies slightly from company to company. . . .These figures are drawn from the industry's own annual reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and to stockholders, but what actually goes into these categories is not at all clear, because drug companies hold that information very close to their chests. It is likely, for instance, that R&D includes many activities most people would consider marketing, but no one can know for sure. For its part, "marketing and administration" is a gigantic black box that probably includes what the industry calls "education," as well as advertising and promotion, legal costs, and executive salaries—which are whopping."

2) Drug companies lack innovation - Too Many "Me-Too" Drugs: Only a few truly innovative drugs have been developed in recent years. Most are so-called "me-too" drugs, which are drugs that are not substantially different than those already on the market. There are two reason for creating these drugs, both related to market share. First, they are those created by competing drug companies in hopes of cutting into the market share of an existing drug that was developed by a competitor. Second, they are created by a company to replace an existing drug that the same company had created but whose patent, and thus monopoly, is ending soon. (As and example, Angell offers drug-maker Schering-Plough's attempt to market and replace Claritin with an "improved" version called Clarinex).

3) Drug companies lack innovation - Tax Payers Generate Their Revenue: Most of the few innovative drugs were brought to market as a result of either tax-funded research at academic institutions or the National Institutes of Health (NIH) or from small biotechnology companies. These organizations then licensed their findings to the larger companies and received royalties based on this research. This has resulted in a sort of biotech incubator, mostly centered around universities, where a symbiotic relationship between Big Pharma, academic institutions, small biotech companies and the NIH uses tax dollars to generate revenue. Further, the barriers between "pure" research for knowledge and research for profit have been broken down and a "pro-industry" bias has crept into academic institutions.

4) The pharmaceutical industry is not an example of American "free enterprise.": Big Pharma is excessively reliant on a "government granted monopoly," via patent rights and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of their drugs, to maintain profitability. Through the FDA and the U.S. Patent office, as well as legislations such as the Hatch-Waxman Act, the effective life of a patent has been extended from eight to fourteen years since 1980. To maintain this situation, pharmaceutical companies have become particularly good at political lobbying and have retained an army of lawyers to press their case. Finally, many "American" drug companies are really just components of foreign-majority owned international corporations.

However, Angell believes that not all is rosy for Big Pharma and that though they still have vase reservoirs of wealth, there is potential trouble on the horizon. Drug companies became increasingly reliant on prescription co-pay provisions in company health care plans. In the '90's, as tax revenue increase, these provisions were particularly increased in government worker health programs. With the decline in revenues brought about by the recent recessions, various government entities have taken steps to reduce the burden of drug prices on their plans. Thus, the profits of drug companies have taken a hit.

There are additional problems. American consumers are increasingly looking "offshore," to Canada and Europe, for cheaper drugs via reimportation. Many successful drugs will be coming off their patents in the next few years with no similar inovative drugs to replace them. The pharmaceutical companies are putting too much faith in the human genome mapping project to generate genetic-based "miracle" drugs to cure ills. Finally, the industry is under a slew of investigations, "overcharging Medicaid and Medicare, paying kickbacks to doctors, engag-ing in anticompetitive practices, colluding with generic companies to keep generic drugs off the market, illegally promoting drugs for unapproved uses, engaging in misleading direct-to-consumer advertising, and, of course, covering up evidence."

In her article, Angell outlined two suggestions (there are more in her book). First, she suggests the FDA become more stringent in approving new drugs. Simply put, if they offer nothing new, then they shouldn't be approved. This would eliminate the "me-too" drugs and encourage innovation. It would also decrease the necessity of marketing one's version of the same drug to consumers, making more money available for R&D. Her second suggestion amounts to drug companies being required open their books so that what exactly such designations as "marketing and administration" cover can be discovered. Besides these two, she also alludes to breaking the dependency that academic researchers and medical professionals have on Big Pharma and to lessening the "inappropriate control drug companies have over the evaluation of their own products."

Next up will be the case for Big Pharma (or perhaps more appropriately, against Angell).

Where is the Moral Outrage...Again?

I previously posted a piece entitled Where is the Moral Outrage? which documented both the political harassment of American college students by left-wing professors and the hiring by Hamilton College of an instructor who was an unapologetic alumna of the Weather Underground terrorist group.

Yesterday's mail brought the January 2005 issue of Commentary magazine to my house and it included yet another example - this time at Duke University - of morally indefensible behavior by people who are so caught up in their left-wing politics and multiculturalism-centric relativism that they have lost touch with the guiding principles of our country and just don't get the concept of tolerance.

While the magazine article entitled "The Intifada Comes to Duke" is not yet available on the web, I would encourage you to read the Power Line posting I saw this morning on the issue.

After reading the Power Line posting, consider this excerpt from the article and reflect again on how extreme and intolerant the enemies of freedom have become:

...the close of the conference did not mark the end of Duke's experiment in "discussion and learning." To appreciate what happened next, it helps to know that...the university's two Jewish organizations...had opted from the beginning to refrain from criticizing the university...At the same time...they formulated a "Joint Israel Initiative." This was a resolution pledging that both they and the PSM [Palestinian Solidarity Movement] would conduct a civil dialogue, would together condemn the murder of innocent civilians, and would work toward a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict...

But whatever hopes the Jewish campus organizations held out for a civil dialogue were rapidly dashed. Representatives of the PSM refused to sign the Joint Israeli Initiative, objecting in particular to its condemnation of violence...[then] Duke's Jewish organizations themselves - and Jews in general - became the object of furious attack.

Meanwhile, the article noted the response of the President of Duke:

"...the deepest principle involved [in hosting the conference] is not even the principle of free speech. It's the principle of education through dialogue."

The President subsequently went on to condemn the "virulence" of some of the PSM's critics.

Contrast this whole episode with the peaceful and democratic change that has been happening in the Ukraine. Or, the similar change in Poland roughly 20 years ago. Which pathway - PSM or Ukraine/Poland - represents the tradition we should be spending our time studying and encouraging as models for the future of the civilized world?

So, I ask the same question again: Where is the Moral Outrage? These people should be ashamed of themselves. We should be outraged at and appropriately intolerant of the lack of moral principles rearing its ugly head - yet again - in the politically correct American academy.

ADDENDUM:

The article is now available online.

ADDENDUM II:

Duke University and the article's authors have engaged in a subsequent exchange about the original article.

Health Care and "Big Pharma": Laying the Groundwork for Debate

Froma Harrop's latest jeremiad against the Bush Administration and pharmaceutical companies combined with the news that Michael Moore's next target for a "documentary" is the pharmaceutical industry has finally prompted me to shake myself of my "healthcare debate" ennui. (Justin has admitted to the same malady in the past). Harrop's recitiation of an oft-repeated theme ("The pharmaceutical industry owns the Bush administration and a good chunk of the Republican-controlled Congress") and the spectre of another potential media campaign extolling the brilliance of Moore's forthcoming bit of propaganda launched me on a preliminary search for information with the hope of determining the current situation in the health care debate.

It seems the latest "must-have" book for those who have cast the drug companies in the role of antagonist in this battle is The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It by Marcia Angell. (Angell has presented this work in a shorter format here). To this, Elizabeth M. Whelan has responded. Additionally, the role of lawyers cannot be dismissed, as some see lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies as a lucrative proposition. Finally, the drug companies have provided their own reasons for high drug costs (such as too much consumer consumption [though it was only a joke, MAC]), and have their own organizations countering the claims of their opponents.

As a latecomer to the issue, I fully recognize that the depth of the debate is such that a pithy comment is not sufficient. The amount that has been written on this topic is voluminous and difficult to wade through and the rhetoric thrown up by both sides also makes it difficult to decide whom to trust. While I have my own predispostions as to who I tend to believe, I am also mindful of the importance of setting inherent biases aside when analyzing the debate objectively. Given all that, I have a lot to read and digest before I believe I can offer any sort of substantive, much less unique, commentary. As such, consider this post the first tentative step into the health care forest. I have yet to sharpen my axe, but I have whetstone in hand.

The Meaning of "Tolerance"

Each of two recent articles on the troubles in the Netherlands contained interesting quotes on the long-term impact of multiculturism. There is a warning for America in these words as they highlight the ongoing confusion over the meaning of "tolerance."

A quote in the first article said:

...tolerance became a pretext for not addressing problems...

A quote in the second article said:

We have been so tolerant of others' culture and religion, we are losing our own...Europe is losing itself...One day we will wake up, and it will be too late...

I looked up the definition of the word "tolerance" and it said:

sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own...the allowable deviation from a standard...

The definition of tolerance clearly states there are pre-existing standards, without which the very concept of tolerance has no significance. But multiculturism has led us into a world of relativism where there are no standards. And that means there is no way to define allowable deviations.

In a free and democratic society, we owe it to ourselves to openly debate what will be the appropriate standards and the allowable deviations from them that we will tolerate in our American society.

I hope we can conduct that debate in a context that keeps sight of the standards given to us through our Founding in the Declaration of Independence, the lessons learned over the entire history of America, and the natural law principles that have guided Western Civilization for centuries.

We owe it to our children and the future of America not to let the relativism of multiculturism result in any further dumbing down of our society based on the misguided thinking and ahistorical practices of the last forty years or so.

ADDENDUM:

Power Line has highlighted Mark Steyn's new comments on the "tolerance" debate with some updated stories, one of which is a tall tale. However, one of them is quite true and involves a now well-publicized story from our own state of Rhode Island, which Justin has written on here.

Interview with Michael Medved

The January-February 2005 issue of The American Enterprise magazine contains an interview with Michael Medved, whose background is summarized at the beginning of the interview:

Michael Medved was voted "most radical" in his Los Angeles high school class, then graduated from Yale and attended Yale Law School, where he knew Bill and Hillary Clinton. He was an anti-war protester and backer of Eugene McCarthy, after which he worked for Robert Kennedy's Presidential campaign. He was at the Ambassador Hotel when Kennedy was shot. Medved also took part in George McGovern's 1972 Presidential run, and while living in Berkeley, California worked briefly for the re-election of Congressman Ron Dellums, described as the "angriest black radical in Congress." Medved eventually became a film critic, and for 12 years co-hosted the popular PBS movie review show "Sneak Previews."

The interview is good reading. Here are several interesting comments:

One of my "aha" moments in my 20's was recognizing that all the things I wanted in my life - stability, love, community, friendship, sense of purpose - all of those things were vastly more accessible within a religious context...

What we did go through in the 1960's and '70's was the revolt of the elites. Traditionally, elites defined duty, honor, good behavior, and the like for the rest of the population. Today that has been reversed. Today, if you're seeking strong concepts of duty, honor, discipline, and the kind of character that makes you a military leader, for instance, you're more likely to find that in a family named Gonzalez than a family named Winthrop...

[TAE: You write that "I refused to give up on thinking of myself as a liberal because I didn't want to stop seeing myself as a good person." How have liberals done such a good job of associating themselves with virtue?] By emphasizing good intentions while ignoring bad results...

"Liberal" became a dirty word in America not because of Republican ad campaigns, but because anybody with eyes could eventually see that liberalism just doesn't work...

Contemporary liberalism is based on the idea that the world is coming to an end. You can't embrace liberalism if you are optimistic about the world in which you live, or grateful, or cheerful. Liberalism today is based on gloom.

This is not a gloomy or failing country. Yet the Left believes we need to radically remake everything from our family structure to our economic system, because we're in the midst of a national epidemic of greed, and evil, and all-around badness. This whining has never been less appropriate for any people in the history of the planet than it is for Americans of the twentieth century.

Our Declaration of Independence

This posting relates to a previous posting on the American Founding and also relates to Liberal Fundamentalism and The Naked Public Square Revisited, Parts I, II, and III.

Thanks to Power Line for referring to a 1926 speech by Calvin Coolidge on the 150th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. If you ever have any doubt that certain apostles of liberal fundamentalism are actively attempting to rewrite our country's history, read the entire speech. In the meantime, here are some powerful excerpts:

There is something beyond the establishment of a new nation, great as that event would be, in the Declaration of Independence which has ever since caused it to be regarded as one of the great charters that not only was to liberate America but was everywhere to ennoble humanity.

It was not because it proposed to establish a new nation, but because it was proposed to establish a nation on new principles, that July 4, 1776, has come to be regarded as one of the greatest days in history...

...Three very definite propositions were set out in [the Declaration's] preamble regarding the nature of mankind and therefore of government. These were the doctrine that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights, and that therefore the source of the just powers of government must be derived from the consent of the governed...

While these principles were not altogether new in political action, and were very far from new in political speculation, they had never been assembled before and declared in such a combination...

It was the fact that our Declaration of Independence containing these immortal truths was the political action of a duly authorized and constituted representative public body in its sovereign capacity, supported by the force of general opinion and by the armies of Washington already in the field, which makes it the most important civil document in the world...

...when we come to a contemplation of the immediate conception of the principles of human relationship which went into the Declaration of Independence we are not required to extend our search beyond our own shores. They are found in the texts, the sermons, and the writings of the early colonial clergy who were earnestly undertaking to instruct their congregations in the great mystery of how to live...

In its main features the Declaration of Independence is a great spiritual document. It is a declaration not of material but of spiritual conceptions. Equality, liberty, popular sovereignity, the rights of man - these are not elements which we can see and touch. They are ideals. They have their source and their roots in religious convictions...Unless the faith of the American people in these religious convictions is to endure, the principles of our Declaration will perish...

About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776..that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final...If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people...

In all the essentials we have achieved an equality which was never possessed by any other people...The rights of the individual are held sacred and protected by constitutional guarantees, which even the government itself is bound not to violate. If there is any one thing among us that is established beyond question, it is self-government -- the right of the people to rule. If there is any failure in respect to any of these principles, it is because there is a failure on the part of individuals to observe them. We hold that the duly authorized expression of the will of the people has a divine sanction...The ultimate sanction of law rests on the righteous authority of the Almighty...

...We live in an age of science and of abounding accumulation of material things. These did not create our Declaration. Our Declaration created them. The things of the spirit come first. Unless we cling to that, all of our material prosperity, overwhelming though it may appear, will turn to a barren sceptre in our grasp. If we are to maintain the great heritage which has been bequeathed us, we must be like-minded as the fathers who created it...We must cultivate the reverence which they had for the things that are holy. We must follow the spiritual and moral leadership which they showed...

The speech connects to an excerpt from another Power Line posting:

Knowledge of American history holds the key to much of the current discussion of political issues, such as the ongoing liberal attack on Christian belief and on arguments premised on belief in God...Absent knowledge of American history, one would never know that the United States is founded on the basis of a creed, rather than on tribal or blood lines, in which God plays a prominent part. Absent knowledge of history generally, one would never know that this fact makes America unique.

What is the American creed?...The American creed is expressed with inspired concision in the words of the Declaration of Independence...

But does the Declaration have any legal status such that these words can be truly deemed to state the American creed? It does, although virtually no one seems to know it. In 1878 Congress enacted a revised version of the United States Code that included a new first section entitled "The Organic Laws of the United States."

The Code is Congress's official compilation of federal law; the organic laws of the United States are America's founding laws. First and foremost of the four organic laws of the United States is the Declaration of Independence...

Professor Jaffa [of the Claremont Institute] teaches us that the Declaration contains four distinct references to God: He is the author of the "laws of...God"; the "Creator" who "endowed" us with our inalienable rights; "the Supreme Judge of the world"; and "Divine Providence." Americans declared their independence, "appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions."

The Declaration states the American creed, the creed that recognizes the source (Nature and Nature's God) of our rights.

Christmas During War

With the current confluence of Christmas and our nation at war, I think it appropriate to mention a few noteworthy writings that deal with the topic. First is a recent column written by Idaho Senator Mike Crapo that details the Continental Army's Christmas in 1778. Despite the sense of desparation surrounding the cause of upstart colonies during that Christmas, the small, underfed and under-equipped army weathered that winter at Valley Forge under the leadership of George Washington and went on to help build a nation.

I also offer these poignant words written during the Civil War by Corporal J. C. Williams, Co. B, 14th Vermont Infantry, December 25, 1862:

This is Christmas, and my mind wanders back to that home made lonesome by my absence, while far away from the peace and quietude of civil life to undergo the hardships of the camp, and may be the battle field. I think of the many lives that are endangered, and hope that the time will soon come when peace, with its innumerable blessings, shall once more restore our country to happiness and prosperity. (source)

Equally as poignant are the words of Corporal John Ferguson of the Seaforth Highlanders, who noted the irony of a Christmas scene during World War I

What a sight; little groups of Germans and British extending along the length of our front. Out of the darkness we could hear the laughter and see lighted matches. Where they couldn't talk the language, they made themselves understood by signs, and everyone seemed to be getting on nicely. Here we were laughing and chatting to men whom only a few hours before we were trying to kill. (source)

Finally, I'd like to point you to a piece by W. Thomas Smith Jr. at NRO about the Christmas time Battle of Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge in 1944. (This is of particular significance to me as my great uncle Victor Comtois, a Captain in the infantry, died on Christmas Eve 1944 in Luxembourg during the pushback.)

With these stories in mind, I wish everyone a Merry Christmas, and hope that we all take the time to remember both the true reason for the season and to remember our brave men and women who find themselves in harm's way at this time. May God Bless America and may He protect our troops.

A Writer Covered

The author listed in the corner of the latest print edition cover of National Review (writing about Andrew Sullivan) has a familiar name:

Skimming the online version, I see the author apparently writes for this blog and Dust in the Light. Interesting development.

Cross in Bennington

Given current jurisprudence, this is surely the prudent action:

BENNINGTON -- Officials at the Vermont Veterans Home were ordered to take down a red, white and blue lighted cross Wednesday after trustees decided it is illegal at a state-owned facility. ...

Employees had put the large cross, strung with patriotic colored lights, atop a gazebo to honor local Vermont Guard troops who left last month for a tour of duty in the Middle East.

But think of how far we've slipped that this seems so obvious. From "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," we've arrived at a society in which a state-operated home for veterans can't follow long American tradition and use a cross "in respect for those who have fallen and those who in the future may fall fighting for the freedoms whose costs are so dear," as Commandant Earle Hollings II put it.

The invocation of "fighting for freedom" raises perhaps the most offensive aspect of these little debacles:

Hollings said he received a phone message from an irate woman who was disturbed by the home's display of a religious symbol. Someone also sent a letter to the state, he said.

Irate? One imagines this woman believing that she — in keeping with the American Civil Liberties Union's rhetoric about itself — is "fighting for our freedoms." (Many who share her radical secularism would also dispute that our troops are doing so.) The veterans fought foreign forces that would have liked to overwhelm and subjugate our nation and its people; the "separation" purists fight the veterans and the military to snuff out the merest whiff of a religion that a majority of those citizens share.

What often gets lost even in the opening arguments of the debate about church and state is that "this is a Christian nation" is primarily a cultural assertion. Generally, arguments orbit the law — what the Founders intended to constitute through their documents. But the law that those documents created left the nation's religious culture unmolested, even to the degree of allowing laws and public symbolism to be formed from religious clay.

The underlying dispute in modern times is how our government ought to behave with respect to religion and its symbols, and the victorious view will inescapably affect our culture through the law. One view is clearly the established traditional approach, and the other is revolutionary. One side believes that God, being real, is properly not eschewed from public dealings; the other side believes this to be an antiquated assertion. There is no "separation" at this depth of difference.

The question that must be asked before delving into the minutia of legislation and litigation is what sort of a culture we want. Do we want a culture in which our symbolism is not disqualified from public display for the reason that a majority of citizens attribute religious significance to it? That encourages those who don't hold the religious beliefs to seek common ground and not hesitate to articulate the shared theme's manifestation in their own beliefs? Or do we want a culture in which individuals feel irateness to be justified when any group labeled "public" displays such symbols?

In a letter to the Bennington Banner responding to the cross's removal, Darrin Smith wonders whether "a complaint should be sent to the Arlington National Cemetery too." The sad conclusion to which one must come, based on the secularists' rhetoric and its heat, is that they would surely make such complaints if it were politically feasible to do so. In the name of tolerance and freedom, Christian imagery mustn't be tolerated when deriving from a public source, and the people of our Christian nation mustn't be free to draw from their faith for public purposes.

So where does that leave us?

Trustees said a more appropriate symbol would be a lighted pole or five-point star as is emblazoned on Army vehicles.

I'm partial to the pole idea. If we must erase a symbol (generically speaking) of suffering, sacrifice, and redemption, it would only be appropriate to replace it with a stiff erection that most aptly symbolizes the manner in which a whining minority feigns neutrality to stick it to an accommodating majority.

(via Michelle Malkin)

Conservative Conservationists

Rarely do I find myself in agreement with Providence Journal columnist, and pseudo-Republican, Froma Harrop, but today she writes of the much-overlooked conservative conservationist. The established stereotype is that conservatives/Republicans are less concerned about environmental issues than are liberals/Democrats. However, lest we forget, it was a Republican President, Teddy Roosevelt, who was one of the first major champions of environmental awareness. (Not to discount the contributions of John Muir, Henry David Thoreau, or Ralph Waldo Emerson). While Harrop can't refrain from chastising President Bush, claiming his administration "has trashed decades of environmental protection," she does make mention of the observations of John C. Green from the University of Akron and head of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics.

"Over the last 30 years there's no question that environmentalism has risen in all the religious traditions," says Green, who studies politics and religion. The message is that God expects his people to be good stewards of the Creation.

That includes largely conservative evangelicals. Green's own polling found that more than 50 percent of evangelicals agreed with the strong statement: "Strict rules to protect the environment are necessary, even if they cost jobs or result in higher prices." [For example, here is a website dealing with environmentalism and the Bible while the Quakers, who are not necessarily conservative though they are religious, also have much to say on environmentalism. ed.]

Conservative members of the environmental majority don't have more pull than they do, because of the way issues get packaged. As Green puts it, "The American political system is not arranged so that you can be a pro-life environmentalist and have a candidate to vote for."

Green's explanation regarding the "arrangement" of the political system and Harrop's notion of the way environmental issues "get packaged" is a nice way of saying that stereotypes about the relative stances of both political parties regarding environmental issues have taken a firm hold.

In general, Republicans and conservatives are regarded as weak on environmental issues while Democrats and liberals are usually given high marks. (Stereotypes work both ways, however, as the public's perception of the political parties' stances on the military and defense usually result in the opposite dynamic). While it is true that in every stereotype there is a nugget of truth, I believe that the stereotypes have obscured the fact that conservatives and liberals simply have different approaches to environmental issues. Unfortunately for conservatives, liberals have succeeded in instilling their definition of environmentalism into the publics mindset. As such, when an average person thinks of environmental groups, the Sierra Club or National Audobon Society comes to mind, rather than, say, The Thoreau Institute.

To further elaborate on this point, the noted "objectivist" Ayn Rand, who was more of a libertarian than a conservative (but was denfinitely not a liberal), held a very antagonistic view of environmentalists.

"[O]bserve that in all the propaganda of the ecologists—amidst all their appeals to nature and pleas for "harmony with nature"—there is no discussion of man's needs and the requirements of his survival. Man is treated as if he were an unnatural phenomenon. Man cannot survive in the kind of state of nature that the ecologists envision—i.e., on the level of sea urchins or polar bears. . . .[Ayn Rand (1971), "The Anti-Industrial Revolution," Return of the Primitive, 277.]

This, I believe, exemplifies the type of rhetoric that is perceived to be the typical conservative stance on environmentalism. I cannot say that I disagree with Rand's assertions. They are indeed necessary to counteract the rhetoric of the radical environmentalists such as the radical Earth First! "movement," or the extreme eco-terrorist organization the Earth Liberation Front (ELF). The actions and rhetoric of groups such as these, while they don't necessarily reflect the beliefs of the typical liberal environmentalist, further entrench the liberal definition of environmentalism, whether negatively or positively, into the political dialogue. It is from this base of ideas that all debates on the environment tend to originate.

As Ayn Rand asserted, liberal environmentalists view humans as the "enemy" of the environment, with the most radical excoriating nearly anything that is "of man" in their environmental crusade. Liberals have been particularly successful in establishing their worldview as the initial perspective through which most of the media views environmental issues. For example, despite claims to the contrary, the press operates from the supposition that Global Warming is a fact, despite conflicting research that often goes unreported.

While it is true that much of the conservative school of thought could be classified as anti-environmentalist, (which is best defined as being against the positions held by the extreme left-wing environmental groups) that does not necessarily mean conservatism is anti-environment. As I alluded in my earlier mention of The Thoreau Institute, there are groups that are looking for innovative approaches to protecting the environment. One of the most common "conservative" theories is called Free-Market Environmentalism. The Thoreau Institute is one such proponent, as is the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC). Acccording to their website, PERC believes that

[m]arket-oriented approaches to protecting the environment make sense for the private individuals who implement them and prosper from them, as well as for the public who enjoys the benefits of economically sound and environmentally sensitive endeavors.

They have four basic guidelines that they follow in applying their methodology:

1) Private property rights encourage stewardship of resources.
2) Government subsidies often degrade the environment.
3) Market incentives spur individuals to conserve resources and protect environmental quality.
4) Polluters should be liable for the harm they cause others.

Here in Rhode Island, Governor Carcieri has shown that conservatives can work with environmental groups, such as Save the Bay, to come up with answers to environmental questions. He created the Narragansett Bay and Watershed Planning Commission, which has made progress in defining a unified plan for Naragansett Bay, with input from various environmental, business and citizen groups.

As Governor Carcieri has shown, it is up to conservatives to more fully engage in the environmental debate by seizing opportunities to implement new ideas. They shouldn't shy away simply because the environment is a liberal issue. If conservatives can successfully implement new ideas that are environmentally sound, business friendly and acceptable to the general public, they can accomplish two things. First, by taking ownership of the environment issue, they will gain politically. Second, and more importantly, they can feel satisfied that they have contributed to preserving our world for future generations.

One Solitary Life

My family enjoyed the annual Radio City Music Hall's Christmas Spectacular show this week for the third year in a row - this time in Boston.

They always end the show with a live nativity scene and a slightly modified version of the attached story, which I thought was worth sharing in its modified form as we approach Christmas Day:

Nearly two thousand years ago in an obscure village, a child was born of a peasant woman. He grew up in another village where He worked as a carpenter until he was thirty. Then for three years He became an itinerant preacher.

This Man never went to college or seminary. He never wrote a book. He never held a public office. He never had a family nor owned a home. He never put His foot inside a big city nor traveled even 200 miles from His birthplace. And though he never did any of the things that usually accompany greatness, throngs of people followed Him. He had no credentials but Himself.

While He was still young, the tide of public opinion turned against Him. His followers ran away. He was turned over to his enemies and went through the mockery of a trial. He was sentenced to death on a cross between two thieves. While He was dying, His executioners gambled for the only piece of property He had on earth--the simple coat He had worn. His body was laid in a borrowed grave provided by a compassionate friend...

Nineteen centuries have come and gone and today...Jesus is the central figure of the human race. On our calendars His birth divides history in two eras...

This one Man's life has furnished the theme for more songs, books, poems and paintings than any other person or event in history. Thousands of colleges, hospitals, orphanages and other institutions have been founded in honor of [Him]...

All the armies that ever marched, all the navies that ever sailed, all the governments that ever sat, all the kings that ever reigned have not changed the course of history as much as this One Solitary Life.

Whether we believe in Him or not, it is worth reflecting during this holiday season on how it is possible to bring about positive change in our world without achieving success by conventional definitions.

Reflecting on that brought me back to two of my favorite quotes.

The first is from Henry David Thoreau, who said:

If a man loses pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music in which he hears, however measured, or far away.

The second is from Micah 6:8 in the Old Testament, which says:

He has shown thee, O man, what is good, and what the Lord doeth require of thee, but to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God.

Happy holidays to you and yours.

Pigs at the Public Trough

Andrew Ferguson of the Weekly Standard takes a fascinating look at the previously behind-the-scenes activities of a lobbyist in Washington, D.C. in an article entitled "A Lobbyist's Progress: Jack Abramoff and the end of the Republican Revolution."

Here is how the story begins:

In honor of the tenth anniversary of the fabled Republican Revolution--for precisely a decade has flown by since Republicans took control of the House of Representatives...let us pause...to ponder the story of Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon...

Abramoff was until recently a registered lobbyist, and Scanlon offers himself as a public affairs specialist, but more precisely they are what Republicans in Washington used to call "Beltway Bandits," profiteers who manipulate the power of big government on behalf of well-heeled people who pay them tons of money to do so. Sometime around 1995, Republicans in Washington stopped using the term "Beltway Bandits"...

After describing how tens of millions of dollars flowed to various entities affiliated with both men, will there be any real consequences?

A funny thing happens when you talk to lobbyists, especially those with Indian casino clients, about the Senate investigation of Abramoff and Scanlon. None of them will talk for the record, of course, but they are surprisingly unanimous that all this unpleasantness will soon blow over.

Ferguson then addresses the deeper and more troubling issue underlying the status quo:

Stripped of its peculiar grossness, Abramoff's Indian story really is just another story of business as usual in the world of Washington lobbying...That closed, parasitic culture of convenience --with its revolving doors, front groups, pay-offs, expense-account comfort, and ideological cover stories -- is as essential to the way Republican Washington works, then years after the Revolution, as ever it was to Democratic Washington...

I came across another quote...from a profile of Abramoff in the National Journal in 1995, soon after Abramoff had announced he would become a lobbyist, back when the Revolution was still young.

"What the Republicans need is 50 Jack Abramoff's," Norquist said. "Then this becomes a different town."

It was a bold statement, typical for the time, but even then it raised a question we now know the answer to: Would Republicans change Washington, or would it be the other way around?

I remember well that election night in November 1994 when it seemed real change might occur. Unfortunately, we have - yet again - relearned the lesson from the words of Lord Acton who taught us how power corrupts, regardless of party affiliation.

Big government means there are plenty of spoils to divide among the many powerful pigs at the public trough.

The next time your Senator or Congressman tries to impress you with the spoils he or she is bringing home to your district, take a step back and remember that the true price you are paying for any suggested benefit must also include the pro-rata cost of feeding every other pig across America who eats from the public trough.

Most importantly, what is often forgotten is that the spoils they are so eager to divide up represent a meaningful portion of the incomes of American working families and retirees - who are usually unrepresented at the table when these spoils are given away.

We must never forget that all families pay quite a price for these giveaways: It means less of their own hard-earned incomes is available to be spent on their own tangible needs, on things such as food, clothing, medical care, education, etc.

And that is why big government means less freedom for American working families and retirees.

RE: Unprincipled, Undemocratic Behavior

Also of interest in Achorn's piece was the possibility of a potential quid pro quo between Montalbano and Murphy and Chief Justice Frank J. Williams. For some time, Williams had advocated that executive oversight, ie. the Governor, be removed with regards to the day-to-day operations (firings, hirings, raises, etc.) of the judicial branch. Interestingly, the legislature continued to maintain their oversight responsibilities. Obviously, Governor Carcieri opposed this plan, and he was supported by Common Cause, who charged Williams with attempting a judicial "power grab". In addition to the opposition by the Governor and Common Cause, some legislators had legitmate questions regarding the "judicial independence" portion of the budget. According to the Providence Journal's report on the debate on June 25, 2004:

The Senate yesterday easily approved the $5.9-billion spending package for the fiscal year that begins July 1. The longest debate came over the promise of new budget powers for the judicial branch.

Sen. Leonidas Raptakis, D-Coventry, moved to delete an article that would allow the judiciary to submit its budget directly to the General Assembly without revision by the governor.

Sen. Marc Cote, D-Woonsocket, said such a "serious and weighty issue" deserved more debate. "In my opinion this type of amendment and policy decision -- to have it incorporated into the budget is bad government," he said.

Sen. J. Michael Lenihan, D-East Greenwich, called the provision, "by any reasonable standard, a huge change in how we operate our budgets," and deserving further scrutiny.

But Lenihan suggested that the measure had other problems, including its allowing the courts to set up a separate purchasing system and exempting them from public procedures for establishing new regulations. He questioned how the governor could assemble a budget with "no idea what the package is going to ultimately cost."

A former Finance Committee chairman, Lenihan also said he knew "full well . . . just how generous the legislature has traditionally been to the court system." The fact that the Assembly will now be the only body reviewing the judiciary's spending, "quite frankly scares the hell out of me," he said.

Sen. James C. Sheehan, D-North Kingstown, had a different complaint. Sheehan suggested that the language violates the constitutional requirement that the governor present an "annual, consolidated operating and capital-improvement state budget."

However, the plan had its defenders, who cobbled together enough support to pass the bill with the "judicial independence" portion intact.

Then, in a seeming coincidence, and only twelve days after passage of the budget with the "judicial independence" provisions, Montalbano's son was hired to work as a data entry aide in the Rhode Island Superior Court.

Asked whether there was any connection between the two events, Montalbano spokesman Greg Pare said the Senate president, D-North Providence, acknowledged Stephen was his son: "Beyond that he has no comment."

Really sounds on the up-and-up, doesn't it?

To justify the removal of the Governor's executive oversight, Montalbano stated that, "Let's recognize that separation of powers doesn't mean that all executive power is vested in the governor, because that's not what I meant when I put it on the ballot in November." It's too bad for Montalbano that Rhode Island voters believed that all executive power is vested in the Governor. The attempt by Murphy and Montalbano clearly shows they have a different interpretation of Executive power than most of Rhode Island's voters. We must be sure to disabuse them of their wrongheadedness. If we allow them to keep their foot in the door, it won't be long before we will find ourselves right back where we started a decade ago.

NOTE: This post was modified at 7:30 AM on 12/22/2004. The original, and shorter, post was "a work in progress" that I mistakenly put up. Then we had a problem with our server, so I couldn't update it in a timely fashion. I apologize for the confusion.

Unprincipled, Undemocratic Behavior

Ed Achorn of the Providence Journal has published an important editorial in today's paper that highlights how Rhode Island House Speaker William Murphy and Senate President Joseph Montalbano are, in Ed's words, "boldly trying to nullify the [78%] landslide vote of November 2" for a constitutional amendment that brings separation of powers to the state.

I would encourage you to contact these two elected officials and your own elected Rhode Island officials as soon as possible to register your complaint loudly and clearly about this unprincipled behavior. The editorial provides a directory for all state officials.

In standing up to such an undemocratic action by Rhode Island officials, the citizens of Rhode Island must again assert their belief in self-government and our demand that all elected officials obey the laws of our state.

The Naked Public Square Revisited, Part III

After pulling together the two previous postings of The Naked Public Square Revisited, Parts I & II, I returned home this weekend to find the December 27 issue of National Review with its cover article entitled "Secularism & Its Discontents." In the article, Ramesh Ponnuru offers some further insights into the debate about the public square.

Ponnuru reiterates how inappropriate name-calling has become the norm:

...most liberals, including religious ones, do find Christian conservatism dangerous in a way that makes it similar in principle, if not in virulence, to the Taliban...The idea that Christian conservatives and Islamofascists can be reasonably or fairly compared in this fashion is such a common-place that people who propound it often do not seem to think that they are saying anything provocative...

Putting things into perspective, Ponnuru notes:

My point...is to note that introducing nearly every one of these policies [of the religious Right] would merely turn the clock back to the late 1950's. That may be a very bad idea, but the America of the 1950's was not a theocracy.

America at the time of its Founding was, by contemporary standards, including contemporary conservative standards, shockingly illiberal...

At the same time, Ponnuru offers the following appropriate suggestion to religious conservatives:

To the extent that religious conservatives are jumping from policy disagreements to accusations of bigotry against some persons - and this does happen - they ought to stop. And while there is no constitutional requirement that people make political arguments in terms that can be understood by fellow citizens with different religious views, it is a reasonable request.

He then turns his attention to how liberals often twist the relationship between faith and reason in this debate:

The way liberals typically deploy the distinction between faith and reason in public-policy argument could also stand some interrogation. There are good reasons to think that it involves real unfairness to religious conservatives, or at least to their views.

Liberals tend to assume, without reflection, that the rational view of an issue is the one that most non-religious people take. The idea that a religious tradition could strengthen people's reason - could help them reach rationally sound conclusions they might not otherwise reach - rarely occurs to them...liberalism's general tendency is to identify reason with irreligion.

When you have read the likes of Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine, it is hard not to find this reaction just plain annoying - not to mention just plain ignorant.

Ponnuru states the core problem in a way complementary to how Neuhaus did in the previous posting:

Liberalism's hymns to reason always end up truncating reason. They are pleas for open debate designed to rule things out of debate...Let us imagine a conservative who says that abortion should be illegal because it kills human beings. His liberal friend responds that this sort of theological talk is inadmissable in a democracy because it violates the rules of open debate. We can see that this liberal has misrepresented his friend's views and shut down the discussion - all in the name of reasoned argument. Yet that conversation happens all the time in our politics, and somehow we don't see it.

If I'm right about liberalism's instinctive reflexes, then contemporary liberalism has forfeited the creed's ancient claim to promote civil peace...But if liberal secularism amounts to the unwitting imposition of the views of an irreligious minority on a religious majority, then it hardly seems likely to foster social harmony. Nor has it.

Finally, Ponnuru offers a sobering thought on what this all means during a time when Americans face a dedicated and evil external foe:

Liberalism's confusions about church and state matter more now that we are in a war with actual theocrats, murderous ones. It is one thing to fight a war for religious freedom, pluralism, and modernity. It is another to fight a war for those things as liberals understand them...

RE:Understand the UN!

I heartily recommend reading Andrew's aforementioned excellent and insightful piece, The UN: The World's Greatest Trade Association, that he wrote for Tech Central Station. Acccording to Andrew

The United Nations is the trade association for the world's executive branches -- the place where executive branches come together to promote their individual interests to one another, and to promote the expansion of executive authority in general....The trade association extends professional courtesy to its members -- its cardinal rule is not to step on the toes of another executive. Saddam Hussein violated this rule by invading Kuwait and displacing another executive. Hussein paid for this mistake; the UN stepped in to enforce discipline amongst its members.

Conversely, so long as an executive maintains power within a country the UN will stay out of the internal politics of that country. Call it a sort of professional courtesy among fellow rulers. I would add that the misunderstood concept of sovereignty lay behind the UN's non-interventionist political theory. This misconception, purposeful or not, has enabled the UN and other political entities to provide excuses for their lack of action in places like Venezuala and Zimbabwe. In the eyes of the UN, any who hold power in a region is a legitimate executive, thus sovereign, and thus a legitimate "state," subject to all the rights and priveleges of the International Community. This conflation of the concepts of executive power, whether legitimate or not, and legitimate sovereignty, has allowed the UN to call for diplomatic process, including sanctions, over substantive action.

Carlin Romano at the Chronicle of Higher Education wrote an illuminating article on the concept, and misconceptions, of sovereignty. In it, he mentioned the work of Alan Cranston (1914-2000), a four-term Democratic senator from California, who wrote an essay, The Sovereignty Revolution, that began

"It is worshiped like a god, and as little understood. It is the cause of untold strife and bloodshed. Genocide is perpetrated in its sacred name. It is at once a source of power and of power's abuse, of order and of anarchy. It can be noble and it can be shameful. It is sovereignty."

In the essay, Cranston laid out various definitions of sovereignty. The best definition, the one held by most in the United States, was that sovereignty was "the right of people to determine their own destinies."

The other definition is both more cynical and less humanitarian. In short, it is the belief that sovereignty is the "absolute power of a government over its own territory and citizens." As such, sovereignty acts as "a shield against the intervention of other governments, nongovernmental organizations, and outside powers...a defense against outside intervention to stop extraordinarily unacceptable behavior by a government against its people..." Romano also cited the work of Dan Philpott, a Notre Dame political scientist who wrote that many believe "that simple presence within a geographical area presumptively places someone under a particular sovereignty." This seems to be the definition to which the United Nation ascribes.

To combine the two explantions (Andrew's and Romano's), the UN has conflated strong executive power with the idea of sovereignty. As such, according to the UN, any strong executive automatically holds sovereign power, which implies that said ruler wields such power legitimately. As such, so long as Saddam Hussein or Robert Mugabe commit murder within their sovereign borders, the UN is unable, conveniently, to do anything for fear of violating the sovereignty of a nation. As a result, the UN imposes toothless sanctions that it eventually subverts, to the monetary benefit of its member states. Of this, the UN Oil-for-Food program is the best example.

Independently Moderate

In a story by Howard Fineman, Mitch McConnell casts the current political "divisiveness" in its proper historical context:

"It's naive to assume there would be one collection of views widely held by everyone," he said. "I'm amazed at all this hand-wringing over the level of discourse and partisanship. It leads me to believe nobody has read any history. The level of divisiveness now is really quite mild when it's compared with numerous periods in our history."

Indeed, our history is replete with political brawls that would appear unseemly to those with more milder political sensibilities. The accusation Thomas Jefferson had a liaison with a slave was first brought up during his presidential campaign. Andrew Jackson was accused of bigamy because his wife had never technically divorced from her first husband before marrying Ol' Hickory. Of course, the greatest period of political divisiveness was the period leading up to the Civil War. How soon we forget. However, according to Democrat Louisville Mayor Jerry Abramson, "It may not actually be worse but TV can make it feel worse." He has a point.

In this instantaneous mass media age, most any story can be picked up by television, radio or the internet and spread worldwide within a matter of minutes. As such, upon first hearing an initial report of some event, it is human nature to take a position on that event, usually based upon an ideological worldview. It is also human nature that, once we have formed an opinion, we change our minds only when the evidence arrayed against our original position is well nigh overwhelming. We Americans like to stick to our guns. As such, our unprecedented near-instantaneous access to mountains of information has increased and amplified the ideological polarization in our country. However, despite the heated rhetoric generated by those on the poles, there is a mass of people, the majority in fact, who are in the political "cool middle" and are not caught up in the ideology wars. They are the self-described "moderates," voters who ostensibly desire nothing more than "bipartisanship." They are the same people who claim to be political "independents" often stating, not disingenuously, that they "like to look at both sides and make up their own mind." If this is indeed so, it is incumbent upon the ideologues, positively defined, to plea their cases to this mass of undecideds every election cycle.

In the 2004 Presidential election, Rhode Island voters who described themselves as political "independents" accounted for 26% of the vote, and split 48/49 for Bush/Kerry. (source). (Registered Republicans and Democrats were evenly divided at 37% and split 93/6 and 11/89, respectively for Bush/Kerry). This would seem to indicate that neither Republican nor Democrats were able to persuade a statistically significant majority of Independents. However, more useful statistics are found in the ideological breakdown of the Rhode Island electorate (source). In Democrat-dominated Rhode Island, only 21% of voters identify themselves as Liberal, while 34% identify themselves as Conservative. (It is safe to assume that mose Liberals are Democrats and most Conservatives are Republicans, though I'm sure there is some party/ideology cross-pollinization). Putting these two polar groups aside, leaves the largest voting group in Rhode Island, those who call themselves "Moderate." In Rhode Island, they comprise 45% of the electorate and broke 54/45 for Kerry.

Generally speaking, it is accepted that a moderate is liberal on social issues, conservative on fiscal, and all over the map on international issues, though they usually are enamored with the hazy concept of "diplomacy" (witness our own Senator Lincoln Chafee). It is also a safe assumption that most moderates are also those who most often call for bipartisanship. According to Senator McConnell, now that Republicans dominate Washington, the definition of bipartisanship is about to change:

For decades... "bipartisan" meant only a "center-left" coalition of Democrats and a smattering of Republicans. "The key now...will be whether there are a group of Democrats willing to join with most Republicans in a coalition of the center-right."

In Rhode Island, we have Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee, who is properly viewed by his Republican counterparts as essentially a moderate Democrat. In this, I suspect Senator Chafee reflects the ideological make-up of his own constituency: Moderates who can be described as "center-left." For most, Senator Chafee and his late father John Chafee are probably the only Republicans for whom they've ever voted. As such, I don't foresee such a change as predicted by McConnell in Rhode Island. Indeed, the field of Rhode Island moderates may not be the most fertile for planting conservative ideas. I do believe that there are moderates who are really conservatives, they just don't think of themselves as such. It is much more pleasant to view oneself as a "moderate" person, after all.

In reality, many, if not most, Rhode Island Democrats and Independents are traditional FDR/JFK Democrats who simply can't bring themselves to vote Republican. Unfortunately, this means they vote in a way disconnected from their own beliefs, as they assign their traditional Democrat ideals onto today's Democrats who are far more liberal than they. We few conservatives in Rhode Island are trying to convince the average Rhode Islander that their traditional beliefs are, for the most part, not reflective of those held by the 21st century Democrat party. It is a difficult task, especially when they still believe the notion that Republicans, and conservatives by extension, are intolerant, beholden to the wealthy, and don't care about "the little guy." Despite this pre-existing condition, however, there is evidence that conservative arguments may be taking hold.

According to the same exit polls cited above, as a percent of the electorate, those describing themselves as Conservatives rose 3% from the Presidential election of 2000, and those describing themselves as Moderate rose 1%. Self-described Liberals remained unchanged. My guess is that the 1% rise in Moderates is directly attributable to Liberals re-defining themselves as Moderates. As for the 3% rise in Conservatives, perhaps minds are being changed. It could be that the Independent Man atop our State House, to whom so many Rhode Islanders point a representative of their own views, may be glancing to his right. Perhaps, just perhaps, he sees the Anchor beginning to Rise on the Rhode Island ship of state. Perhaps there is "Hope" after all.

Understand the UN!

If you would like to understand why the United Nations is not nearly as ineffective as you first might think, check out my latest article over at TechCentralStation.

Institutions Under Siege

Having read "Hendricken administrator arrested on indecent solicitation charge" in the Providence Journal, I think I'd have written the headline somewhat differently. This sounds most newsworthy as a success story. The relevant information comes in paragraphs seven through ten of the fourteen-paragraph piece:

Sheldon had been placed on paid administrative leave from the school last month because of allegations of a "breach of professional conduct," Brother Thomas R. Leto, school president, said at that time.

The action was taken, Brother Leto said then, after he had been made aware that Sheldon may have taken some inappropriate actions on the Internet.

Brother Leto said that he and the school principal were directed to a Web site, where they saw Sheldon's picture. They decided to immediately place him on leave.

School officials then contacted the Diocese of Providence, who referred the matter to the state police. Bishop Hendricken High School, an all-male Catholic school run by the Christian Brothers, is affiliated with the diocese.

Look, on a human level, people who incline a certain way will be drawn toward environments that stoke their inclinations. On a spiritual level, evil will be relentless in its attempted infiltration of that which points toward the divine. The important question, on either level, is whether the institution manages to stop potential threats before they manifest.

We must be wary of the opposing tendency, however, which is to trample over justice and charity toward those whom we suspect in our rush to be safe. In this instance, it looks as if the balance was properly struck.

Truce vs. Detente vs. Victory

Instapundit quotes the following from blogger Jon Henke:

One year ago, Al Qaeda believed they should work against the United States, rather than working to destabilize the Arab regimes. One year ago, Al Qaeda was focusing outward, rather than inward. One year ago, Al Qaeda believed in coexistence with the House of Saud.

One year ago, Al Qaeda believed the Caliphate could best be established by detente with the House of Saud, and War against the United States.

Today, Al Qaeda seeks detente with the US, and war against the House of Saud.

Henke cites some very interesting material about Islamist goals, but he uses the term “détente” improperly. Détente refers to a situation where two, potentially mortal rivals agree to acknowledge the permanence of each other, and work together to reduce the negative consequences of confrontation. Neither side has accepted the permanence of the other in this conflict.

What Henke describes is closer to a truce, where two mortal rivals simply agree to stop shooting at each other right now, and put off how to deal with one another until later. (North Korea and South Korea, for example, have been putting things off for over 50 years). But I don’t think the statements quoted by Henke qualify as even that. Instead, they reflect a strategic and/or tactical decision about where to apply resources against the enemy, e.g. the fact that Japan did not directly attack Great Britain during WWII did not imply any sort of truce existed between Japan and the UK.

These are not pedantic differences. They go to the heart of Peter Beinart’s challenge to the American left. To avoid alienating anyone in their political base, the Dems have been unclear about whether they seek détente, truce, or victory in the war on Islamist terror. Beinart’s challenge is a call for the left to clearly come out in favor of victory, and reject truce or détente.

The Naked Public Square Revisited, Part II

This posting is the second part of a discussion that began with an earlier posting and is related to two previous postings about liberal fundamentalism and the American Founding.

Richard John Neuhaus wrote a book entitled The Naked Public Square: Religion & Democracy in America. First published in 1984, it addressed societal trends and the philosophical issues underlying the religion/democracy debate in America. Here are some excerpts where he describes the problem:

Politics and religion are different enterprises...But they are constantly coupling and getting quite mixed up with one another. There is nothing new about this. What is relatively new is the naked public square. The naked public square is the result of political doctrine and practice that would exclude religion and religiously grounded values from the conduct of public business...

When religion in any traditional or recognizable form is excluded from the public square, it does not mean that the public square is in fact naked...

The truly naked public square is at best a transitional phenomenon. It is a vacuum begging to be filled. When the democratically affirmed institutions that generate and transmit values are excluded, the vacuum will be filled by the agent left in control of the public square, the state. In this manner, a perverse notion of the disestablishment of religion leads to the establishment of the state as church...

Our problems, then, stem in large part from the philosophical and legal effort to isolate and exclude the religious dimension of culture...only the state can..."lay claim to compulsive authority."...of all the institutions in societies, only religion can invoke against the state a transcendent authority and have its invocation seconded by "the people" to whom a democratic state is presumably accountable. For the state to be secured from such challenge, religion must be redefined as a private, emphatically not public, phenomenon. In addition, because truly value-less existence is impossible for persons or societies, the state must displace religion as the generator and bearer of values...

[T]he notion of the secular state can become the prelude to totalitarianism. That is, once religion is reduced to nothing more than privatized conscience, the public square has only two actors in it - the state and the individual. Religion as a mediating structure...is no longer available as a countervailing force to the ambitions of the state...

If law and polity are divorced from moral judgment...all things are permitted and...all things will be done...When in our public life no legal prohibition can be articulated with the force of transcendent authority, then there are no rules rooted in ultimacies that can protect the poor, the powerless and the marginal...

Politics is an inescapably moral enterprise. Those who participate in it are...moral actors. The word "moral" here...means only that the questions engaged [in politics] are questions that have to do with what is right or wrong, good or evil. Whatever moral dignity politics may possess depends upon its being a process of contention and compromise among moral actors, not simply a process of accomodation among individuals in pursuit of their interests. The conflict in American public life today, then, is not a conflict between morality and secularism. It is a conflict of moralities in which one moral system calls itself secular and insists that the other do likewise as the price of admission to the public arena. That insistence is in fact a demand that the other side capitulate...

The founding fathers of the American experiment declared certain truths to be self-evident and moved on from that premise. It is a measure of our decline into what may be the new dark ages that today we are compelled to produce evidence for the self-evident.

It is sobering to consider how rapid the decline in America has been, happening during our lifetime. For example, contrast today's status quo with this 1952 opinion by William O. Douglas who, as a not particularly religious man, wrote the following in a U.S. Supreme Court case entitled Zorach v. Clauson:

We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. We guarantee the freedom to worship as one chooses. We make room for a variety of beliefs and creeds as the spiritual needs of man deem necessary. We sponsor an attitude on the part of government that shows no partiality to any one group and lets each flourish according to the zeal of its adherents and the appeal of its dogma. When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows in the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accomodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.

Finally, here are some additional thoughts from Neuhaus where he offers some guidance on how to understand and fix the problem:

One enters the public square, then, not as an anonymous citizen but as a person shaped by "other sources" that are neither defined by nor subservient to the public square. The public square is not a secular and morally sterilized space but a space for conversation, contention, and compromise among moral actors...compromise is an exercise of moral responsibility by persons who accept responsibility for sustaining the exercise that is called democracy...

One enters the democratic arena, then, as a moral actor. This must be insisted upon against those who view compromise as the antithesis of moral behavior. It must also be insisted upon against those who claim that moral judgment must be set aside before entering the public square...In this [latter] view, the assertion that a moral claim is an intrusion...an "imposition" upon a presumably value-free process. Morally serious people, however, cannot divide themselves so neatly...We do not have here an instance of moral judgment versus value-free secular reason. We have rather an instance of moralities in conflict. The notion of moralities in conflict is utterly essential to remedying the problems posed by the naked public square. Those who want to bring religiously based value to bear in public discourse have an obligation to "translate" those values into terms that are as accessible as possible to those who do not share the same religious grounding. They also have the obligation, however, to expose the myth of value-neutrality...

Neuhaus is now a Roman Catholic priest, a man known for publicly stating his deeply held religious beliefs. Yet, it is instructive to note how, through the use of reason that reaches out to all Americans, he carefully describes the issues we face here. In that way, he is being true to the principles of our Founding.

Americans who believe in liberty and self-government need to take responsibility for changing the course of our country's debate on this important issue. We need to approach this issue with greater clarity.

As we prepare for another new year, it is a worthy endeavor to contemplate how each of us can make our own individual contribution in 2005 to helping the land we love.

The Naked Public Square Revisited, Part II

This posting is the second part of a discussion that began with an earlier posting and is related to two previous postings about liberal fundamentalism and the American Founding.

Richard John Neuhaus wrote a book entitled The Naked Public Square: Religion & Democracy in America. First published in 1984, it addressed societal trends and the philosophical issues underlying the religion/democracy debate in America. Here are some excerpts where he describes the problem:

Politics and religion are different enterprises...But they are constantly coupling and getting quite mixed up with one another. There is nothing new about this. What is relatively new is the naked public square. The naked public square is the result of political doctrine and practice that would exclude religion and religiously grounded values from the conduct of public business...

When religion in any traditional or recognizable form is excluded from the public square, it does not mean that the public square is in fact naked...

The truly naked public square is at best a transitional phenomenon. It is a vacuum begging to be filled. When the democratically affirmed institutions that generate and transmit values are excluded, the vacuum will be filled by the agent left in control of the public square, the state. In this manner, a perverse notion of the disestablishment of religion leads to the establishment of the state as church...

Our problems, then, stem in large part from the philosophical and legal effort to isolate and exclude the religious dimension of culture...only the state can..."lay claim to compulsive authority."...of all the institutions in societies, only religion can invoke against the state a transcendent authority and have its invocation seconded by "the people" to whom a democratic state is presumably accountable. For the state to be secured from such challenge, religion must be redefined as a private, emphatically not public, phenomenon. In addition, because truly value-less existence is impossible for persons or societies, the state must displace religion as the generator and bearer of values...

[T]he notion of the secular state can become the prelude to totalitarianism. That is, once religion is reduced to nothing more than privatized conscience, the public square has only two actors in it - the state and the individual. Religion as a mediating structure...is no longer available as a countervailing force to the ambitions of the state...

If law and polity are divorced from moral judgment...all things are permitted and...all things will be done...When in our public life no legal prohibition can be articulated with the force of transcendent authority, then there are no rules rooted in ultimacies that can protect the poor, the powerless and the marginal...

Politics is an inescapably moral enterprise. Those who participate in it are...moral actors. The word "moral" here...means only that the questions engaged [in politics] are questions that have to do with what is right or wrong, good or evil. Whatever moral dignity politics may possess depends upon its being a process of contention and compromise among moral actors, not simply a process of accomodation among individuals in pursuit of their interests. The conflict in American public life today, then, is not a conflict between morality and secularism. It is a conflict of moralities in which one moral system calls itself secular and insists that the other do likewise as the price of admission to the public arena. That insistence is in fact a demand that the other side capitulate...

The founding fathers of the American experiment declared certain truths to be self-evident and moved on from that premise. It is a measure of our decline into what may be the new dark ages that today we are compelled to produce evidence for the self-evident.

It is sobering to consider how rapid the decline in America has been, happening during our lifetime. For example, contrast today's status quo with this 1952 opinion by William O. Douglas who, as a not particularly religious man, wrote the following in a U.S. Supreme Court case entitled Zorach v. Clauson:

We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. We guarantee the freedom to worship as one chooses. We make room for a variety of beliefs and creeds as the spiritual needs of man deem necessary. We sponsor an attitude on the part of government that shows no partiality to any one group and lets each flourish according to the zeal of its adherents and the appeal of its dogma. When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows in the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accomodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.

Finally, here are some additional thoughts from Neuhaus where he offers some guidance on how to understand and fix the problem:

One enters the public square, then, not as an anonymous citizen but as a person shaped by "other sources" that are neither defined by nor subservient to the public square. The public square is not a secular and morally sterilized space but a space for conversation, contention, and compromise among moral actors...compromise is an exercise of moral responsibility by persons who accept responsibility for sustaining the exercise that is called democracy...

One enters the democratic arena, then, as a moral actor. This must be insisted upon against those who view compromise as the antithesis of moral behavior. It must also be insisted upon against those who claim that moral judgment must be set aside before entering the public square...In this [latter] view, the assertion that a moral claim is an intrusion...an "imposition" upon a presumably value-free process. Morally serious people, however, cannot divide themselves so neatly...We do not have here an instance of moral judgment versus value-free secular reason. We have rather an instance of moralities in conflict. The notion of moralities in conflict is utterly essential to remedying the problems posed by the naked public square. Those who want to bring religiously based value to bear in public discourse have an obligation to "translate" those values into terms that are as accessible as possible to those who do not share the same religious grounding. They also have the obligation, however, to expose the myth of value-neutrality...

Neuhaus is now a Roman Catholic priest, a man known for publicly stating his deeply held religious beliefs. Yet, it is instructive to note how, through the use of reason that reaches out to all Americans, he carefully describes the issues we face here. In that way, he is being true to the principles of our Founding.

Americans who believe in liberty and self-government need to take responsibility for changing the course of our country's debate on this important issue. We need to approach this issue with greater clarity.

As we prepare for another new year, it is a worthy endeavor to contemplate how each of us can make our own individual contribution in 2005 to helping the land we love.

The Naked Public Square Revisited, Part I

This Christmas holiday season has reignited the public debate about the proper roles for church and state.

Why are so many Americans upset about what is going on? Consider the following:

Christmas has been sanitized in schools and public squares, in malls and parades...

"Those who think that the censoring of Christmas is a blue-state phenomenon need to consider what happened today in the Wichita [Kansas] Eagle," said William Donahue of the New York-based Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.

The Kansas newspaper ran a correction, he said, for mistakenly referring to a "Christmas Tree" rather than a "Community Tree" at the Wichita Winterfest celebration.

"It's time practicing Christians demanded to know from these speech-code fascists precisely who it is they think they are protecting [by] dropping the dreaded 'C-word'," Mr. Donahue said yesterday...

"People are tired of efforts to sanitize religious expression. This policy against even instrumental Christmas music in schools violates common sense and is neither necessary nor constitutional," Mr. Scott [of the Alliance Defense Fund] added...

Denver, for example, refused to allow a Christian church float in the city's holiday parade, because "direct religious themes" were not allowed. Homosexual American Indians, Chinese lion dancers and German folk dancers, however, were welcome...

School districts in Florida and New Jersey have banned Christmas carols altogether, and an "all-inclusive" holiday song program at a Chicago-area elementary school included Jewish and Jamaican songs, but no Christmas carols.

Meanwhile, a Kirkland, Wash., high-school principal nixed a production of "A Christmas Carol" because of Tiny Tim's prayer, "God bless us everyone," while neighboring libraries banned Christmas trees...

"Our Founding Fathers didn't intend to take religion out of the state. They took state out of religion," [said] Jim Finnegan.

We have seen similar issues arise in Cranston.

Unfortunately, however, the problem is much deeper and not limited to the Christmas season. As an article entitled "Declaration of Independence Banned" noted:

In the city of Cupertino, California, a fifth grade public school teacher at Stevens Creek School, Stephen Williams, has been prohibited by the principal from distributing the Declaration of Independence among other documents from the American Founding. Why? Because they mention God.

Things have truly gotten out of hand when American children are forbidden from reading our own Declaration of Independence. And, it shows how far certain people will go to enforce the new religion of secular intolerance. (See the Liberal Fundamentalism, Revisited posting for additional perspective on this intolerance.)

The same author continued:

Carried to its logical conclusion, the position staked out by modern courts would prevent not only any mention of God in the classroom, but would render teaching the natural rights principles of constitutional government unconstitutional...

...there is a concerted effort to drive God out of our schools and out of our public square...to remove constitutional limitations on government power, and, at the same time, replace moral, free, self-sufficient citizens with needy, subservient citizens dependent on government. Removing God from the American mind advances both goals.

Understanding that sound government and a free, moral society rest upon a belief in the "laws of nature and of nature's God," California passed a law in 1997 requiring public schools to teach the Declaration of Independence and other documents from the Founding period...

As my friend, John Eastman, said in the same article:

"Unfortunately, our courts have abandoned the original meaning of the religion clauses of the First Amendment, and what we are witnessing today is the logical consequence of a half-century of misguided jurisprudence."

This view of the world has serious implications for the American principle of self-government. Here are some further thoughts from an article entitled "Belief in God Underlies Self Government":

America's founders devised the world's most excellent constitution, but they never imagined that their handiwork would survive without the proper understanding of its foundations and purposes.

The ultimate cause of our political order, and the reason for its existence, is set forth with surpassing eloquence in the Declaration's Preamble:

"We hold these truths to be self evident-that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

This is the most revolutionary political doctrine in the history of the world...

But the radical nature of the Declaration consists not only in its revolutionary character but in its reliance on the authority of a divine Creator. The Declaration teaches that the authority of the people is prior to government, but that the rights of the people are the gift of God. Neither man nor government is the author of liberty. That honor belongs only to God...

It is true that America's founders were scrupulously neutral between the numerous religious sects that existed in their time. But it is not true that they were hostile to the God worshipped by all of them...

What is especially sinister about the relentless campaign to remove all public references to God is that it calls the nation's foundations needlessly into question. If there is no God, then there is no human freedom and there is no government by consent of the governed...

Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Notes on the State of Virginia,

"[C]an the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?"

I will post shortly some excerpts from a powerful book which directly tackles this important issue of religion and democracy in America.

The Naked Public Square Revisited, Part I

This Christmas holiday season has reignited the public debate about the proper roles for church and state.

Why are so many Americans upset about what is going on? Consider the following:

Christmas has been sanitized in schools and public squares, in malls and parades...

"Those who think that the censoring of Christmas is a blue-state phenomenon need to consider what happened today in the Wichita [Kansas] Eagle," said William Donahue of the New York-based Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.

The Kansas newspaper ran a correction, he said, for mistakenly referring to a "Christmas Tree" rather than a "Community Tree" at the Wichita Winterfest celebration.

"It's time practicing Christians demanded to know from these speech-code fascists precisely who it is they think they are protecting [by] dropping the dreaded 'C-word'," Mr. Donahue said yesterday...

"People are tired of efforts to sanitize religious expression. This policy against even instrumental Christmas music in schools violates common sense and is neither necessary nor constitutional," Mr. Scott [of the Alliance Defense Fund] added...

Denver, for example, refused to allow a Christian church float in the city's holiday parade, because "direct religious themes" were not allowed. Homosexual American Indians, Chinese lion dancers and German folk dancers, however, were welcome...

School districts in Florida and New Jersey have banned Christmas carols altogether, and an "all-inclusive" holiday song program at a Chicago-area elementary school included Jewish and Jamaican songs, but no Christmas carols.

Meanwhile, a Kirkland, Wash., high-school principal nixed a production of "A Christmas Carol" because of Tiny Tim's prayer, "God bless us everyone," while neighboring libraries banned Christmas trees...

"Our Founding Fathers didn't intend to take religion out of the state. They took state out of religion," [said] Jim Finnegan.

We have seen similar issues arise in Cranston.

Unfortunately, however, the problem is much deeper and not limited to the Christmas season. As an article entitled "Declaration of Independence Banned" noted:

In the city of Cupertino, California, a fifth grade public school teacher at Stevens Creek School, Stephen Williams, has been prohibited by the principal from distributing the Declaration of Independence among other documents from the American Founding. Why? Because they mention God.

Things have truly gotten out of hand when American children are forbidden from reading our own Declaration of Independence. And, it shows how far certain people will go to enforce the new religion of secular intolerance. (See the Liberal Fundamentalism, Revisited posting for additional perspective on this intolerance.)

The same author continued:

Carried to its logical conclusion, the position staked out by modern courts would prevent not only any mention of God in the classroom, but would render teaching the natural rights principles of constitutional government unconstitutional...

...there is a concerted effort to drive God out of our schools and out of our public square...to remove constitutional limitations on government power, and, at the same time, replace moral, free, self-sufficient citizens with needy, subservient citizens dependent on government. Removing God from the American mind advances both goals.

Understanding that sound government and a free, moral society rest upon a belief in the "laws of nature and of nature's God," California passed a law in 1997 requiring public schools to teach the Declaration of Independence and other documents from the Founding period...

As my friend, John Eastman, said in the same article:

"Unfortunately, our courts have abandoned the original meaning of the religion clauses of the First Amendment, and what we are witnessing today is the logical consequence of a half-century of misguided jurisprudence."

This view of the world has serious implications for the American principle of self-government. Here are some further thoughts from an article entitled "Belief in God Underlies Self Government":

America's founders devised the world's most excellent constitution, but they never imagined that their handiwork would survive without the proper understanding of its foundations and purposes…

The ultimate cause of our political order, and the reason for its existence, is set forth with surpassing eloquence in the Declaration's Preamble:

"We hold these truths to be self evident-that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

This is the most revolutionary political doctrine in the history of the world...

But the radical nature of the Declaration consists not only in its revolutionary character but in its reliance on the authority of a divine Creator. The Declaration teaches that the authority of the people is prior to government, but that the rights of the people are the gift of God. Neither man nor government is the author of liberty. That honor belongs only to God...

It is true that America's founders were scrupulously neutral between the numerous religious sects that existed in their time. But it is not true that they were hostile to the God worshipped by all of them...

What is especially sinister about the relentless campaign to remove all public references to God is that it calls the nation's foundations needlessly into question. If there is no God, then there is no human freedom and there is no government by consent of the governed...

Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Notes on the State of Virginia,

"[C]an the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?"

I will post shortly some excerpts from a powerful book which directly tackles this important issue of religion and democracy in America.

The Politics of Charter Schools II

The National Assessment of Educational Progress has released their pilot study on the performance of charter schools. There is ammunition within the report for both proponents and opponents, and all are spinning away.

Before reading the report, the most important factor to consider is the type of students that are served by the majority of charter schools.



*Significantly different from other public schools.
Source

According to the Executive Summary of the report

...when comparing the performance of charter and other public school students, it is important to compare students who share a common characteristic. For example, in mathematics, fourth-grade charter school students as a whole did not perform as well as their public school counterparts. However, the mathematics performance of White, Black, and Hispanic fourth-graders in charter schools was not measurably different from the performance of fourth-graders with similar racial/ethnic backgrounds in other public schools.

In reading, there was no measurable difference in performance between charter school students in the fourth grade and their public school counterparts as a whole. This was true, even though, on average, charter schools have higher proportions of students from groups that typically perform lower on NAEP than other public schools have. In reading, as in mathematics, the performance of fourth-grade students with similar racial/ethnic backgrounds in charter schools and other public schools was not measurably different.

When considering these data, it should be noted that the charter school population is rapidly changing and growing. Future NAEP assessments may reveal different patterns of performance. Further, NAEP does not collect information about students’ prior educational experience, which contributes to present performance. Nonetheless, the data in this report do provide a snapshot of charter school students’ current performance.

Again, though, we must remember the tough academic and social background of those who comprise the student body of most charter schools. Given this, Deputy Education Secretary Eugene Hickok said, "If they're doing as well as regular students in regular schools, that's not a bad sign." However, Bella Rosenberg of the American Federation of Teachers believes that simply being close to equal is not good enough for charter schools.

"In the case of black and Hispanic youngsters, it means that they are doing as poorly in charter schools - the schools that were supposed to be their salvation - as they are in other schools," said Rosenberg...[according to Rosenberg], poor students do worse in charter schools than their peers in other public schools...[and] traditional school students score better than charter school students in reading - not only in math, as the study says - when special education children are excluded, since traditional schools have a higher percentage of children with special needs.

However, there are other studies, such as the several done by Harvard University professor Caroline Hoxby, that support the claim that charter students are outperforming their public school peers. For instance, in her most recent study (PDF), released in September 2004, Hoxby sampled 99% of charter school students (most others, including the aforementioned NAEP only sample 3% of the students) and found that:

Compared to students in the nearest regular public school, charter students are 4 percent more likely to be proficient in reading and 2 percent more likely to be proficient in math, on their state's exams. Compared to students in the nearest regular public school with a similar racial composition, charter students are 5 percent more likely to be proficient in reading and 3 percent more likely to be proficient in math. As a rule, the charter schools' proficiency "advantage" is larger when the comparison school has a similar racial composition...In states where charter schools are well-established, charter school students' advantage in proficiency tends to be greater.

[Note: In Hoxby's study, there weren't enough students, nor charter schools, in Rhode Island to factor into her final state-by-state findings, though she did incorporate them into her overall findings.]

Perhaps of equal interest would be a study comparing the performance of students in public schools before and after competition from a charter school entered the "market." I believe it highly likely that many public schools in such a situation saw increased student performance attributable to a twofold dynamic comprised of the removal of the more troubled students from the population into charter schools and a desire amongst public school teachers to show they are competent. Hence, competition between public schools and charter schools could foster the overall desired outcome: better students, regardless of where they learn.

This brings me to the troubles at Hope High School, at which "8 percent of 11th graders... met the state standards for mathematics this year and 79 percent failed to reach the language arts standard; the dropout rate has risen to 52 percent." Faced with these dismal performance numbers and a history of failure, a group of community leaders, from the Rhode Island Children's Crusade, Urban League of Rhode Island, Congdon Street Baptist Church, International Institute of Rhode Island and the Federal Hill House community center came forward to ask that the school be closed and replaced with another, or several other, schools. Mary Sylvia Harrison spoke on behalf of the Providence Educational Excellence Coalition (which includes many of the aforementioned organizations) at a public hearing convened by state education commissioner Peter McWalters, who is considering a State take-over of Hope High.

Speaking before McWalters, Harrison said, "We believe that the process has taken too long already, and that creating new schools from the ground up would be a more effective strategy." Others also spoke,

"We are not politicians," said Dennis DeJesus, director of the Federal Hill House. "We are not pro-union. We are not anti-union. We are one thing: We are pro-kids, and many times they are the ones that get lost in the shuffle there...I'd be cheating them if I didn't speak out and didn't say that it is time for a change at Hope...You are what your numbers are...If you look at their proficiency in math and literacy, the school has failed. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone. The system has failed."

These leaders didn't just air complaints, they also presented a four point plan to McWalters. First, Hope should be closed and replaced with another school "in a framework that is consistent with high-performing schools." Second, Hope High students, parents and community members should be intimately involved in planning the new school, not just administrators and the teachers' union. Third, an outside consultant should be appointed to oversee the rebuilding process and to bring more parental involvement. Finally, while Hope finishes out its last year, student morale needs to be maintained to help reduce the amount of academic disillusion that can occur within the walls of a lame-duck institution. This last could be difficult given the revelation that the current pressure on the school is already having negative effects. This is exacerbated by the fact that some teachers don't seem to care. According to the above-linked story,

some teachers work heroically on a daily basis to make a difference in students' lives while others reveal in pejorative remarks that they do not care about their charges. . . a mechanism is needed to usher out teachers who are not up to the work that needs to be done.

Melcris Francisco, a Hope junior, said it is difficult for students to be motivated to learn if teachers show they are not motivated to teach... she doesn't need a "teacher who sits there and gives out papers and that's it".... But Melcris also said her grasp of math has improved in the class of a good teacher -- one of several good teachers she has this year. She said it should be easy for good teachers to keep their jobs at Hope.

Unfortunately, with Rhode Island's system of virtual public school teacher tenure, the bad teachers will either never leave, or will be shuffled off to another system. And while McWalters favors his own innovative idea, it was proposed by a joint committee composed of school administrator's and teachers' union members. The proposal put forward some attractive ideas, such as turning Hope into a "cluster of small, independent schools" with more parental and community involvement. However, this may be a case of the teachers union fighting a rearguard action to maintain control of the process.

The plan, explored in three days of testimony last week, gives teachers the prerogative to opt out of Hope if they do not feel they can sign a statement of commitment to the extra effort associated with school reform. But it does not contain a mechanism to ensure that bad teachers leave Hope.

Thus, insufficiently inspired teachers can choose to leave, but unispiring ones need not.

Is there another solution besides a reconfigured public school, as McWalters seems to favor? Of course, and while the community leaders of the PEEC didn't mention a charter school as a viable option, the students who currently attend Hope High fit the demographic of those whom charter schools most often attempt to help. Though different studies may paint different pictures of the relative success of charter schools, the fact remains that the students of Hope High have been let down by the public education system.

Granted, a new public school would not necessarily be more of the same, but it seems the community that is served by Hope would welcome a new direction. As such, a charter school is a legitimate option and shouldn't be summarily dismissed by the school district and McWalters. To be sure, the teachers, their union and assorted politicians would oppose the measure. Currently, such a school is not even an option because politicians refuse to accede to Governor Carcieri's wishes and remove the charter school cap in Rhode Island. While their political gamesmanship may extract concessions from the Governor (at taxpayer expense) and raise their stature in the eyes of a key constituency (teachers' unions), it will also delay, and perhaps limit, the educational options of those who most need them, the kids at Hope High.

Why The Dems Have a Hard Time with Foreign Policy Cred

For a classic example of why the Democrats have a hard time gaining foreign policy respectability, see this Matt Ygelsias post over at Tapped (via Jonah Goldberg at NRO).

Yglesias' post is an example of the classic Jimmy Carter-style thinking that has crippled Democratic foreign policy, attacking the United States for pursuing its own interests, while simultaneously saying there is no real threat from our enemies aggressively pursuing interests contrary to ours.

Re: Getting to Know Them

I do not disagree with the idea that more information about the state's legislators would benefit the democratic process, but I am not convinced that biographical data or past voting records are the most important pieces of information that a state-level blog can compile.

My biggest complaint about local legacy media legislative reporting is that it is hard to get a sense of what issues are to be voted on much more than a week before the vote happens (with a few high-profile exceptions, like separation of powers or the casino issue). Part of the problem is that lots of important action can happen in committee and that legislative rules are extremely dictatorial. House/Senate leadership and committee leadership have tremendous power to decide which bills live and which bills die using scheduling powers and the like. My sense is that state government fails to be properly representative, not because all of the legislators conspire together, but because legislative rules make it possible for a few members to manipulate the system, and the rest just go-along to get-along.

Thus, I think the best use of blogosphere electrons with respect to the legislative process would be applying the "collective brain of the Rhode Island blogosphere" to tracking [maybe even writing?] legislation, and keeping progressive changes from disappearing into the Hobbesian world of legislative combat.

No Longer Looking, No Longer Here

Here's an interesting find from URI economics professor Leonard Lardaro:

As our unemployment rate fell from 5.8 percent to 4.5 percent, resident employment, the number of Rhode Islanders who were working, rose by only 423! The decline in our labor force, 7,146, was almost identical to the drop in the number of unemployed, 7,569, which is consistent with the discouraged worker effect.

It would make for an interesting study to examine increases and decreases in welfare caseloads and emigration during the same period. I've never quite understood how people can just stop looking for work. (That lack of comprehension, just so you know, has both practical and moral components.) People have to survive. Are the "discouraged workers" attempting to get by on a single income, if married? Are they going on welfare? Are they moving out of state? (Are they even fully autonomous adults?)

Looking at some additional information that Professor Lardaro provides for his "Current Conditions Index" on his Web site, new claims for unemployment insurance are up, while new housing permits are even more dramatically down. That's on a month-to-month basis, so it doesn't accurately capture longer term trends. Still, I'm close enough to the financial brink to know the temptations of abandoning ship and heading where work is more plentiful and housing cheaper. And I'm sure that many Rhode Islanders have taken that course; I wouldn't be surprised if it were the case most frequently (and most distressingly) among the young and ambitious.

Another chart on Lardaro's site shows that increases in local government employment dramatically outpace those in the private sector. In Rhode Island — a state that saw a mere 2.4% growth in population from 2000 to 2003 (PDF) — fewer people are paying for more public employees and improving benefits for them. Discouraging, indeed!

Circumstances must improve, one way or another. The question for such families as mine is whether we can afford to hang on until they do.

Getting to Know Them

A caller to Rick Adams's show (listen here) just suggested to Don that Anchor Rising publish background information — voting records, fund contributors, family employment, union sympathy, and so on — for each of Rhode Island's legislators. That's a fantastic idea, and we should certainly give some thought to ways in which to get it done.

The problem is that aggregating such information can be time consuming. Perhaps when things get rolling, we can make it a periodic feature — either addressing particular legislators or particular aspects of background with each iteration.

Reminder: Don Hawthorne on WARL Tonight

Just a reminder that Don Hawthorne will be appearing on the Rick Adam's radio show on WARL 1320 AM tonight from 8-9 p.m. If you're in the Greater Providence area, you should be able to pick it up over the air. If not, they do stream.

Relevancy of the Humanities and Questions Unasked

In the course of yet another article about bias in our univerisities, William Pilger (a pseudonym), a conservative tenured professor in a southern university, managed to both display the value of a humanities education and the reluctance (and reason) that students show for engaging in any type of classroom discussion that may touch on current events. After having taught Virgil's Aenid during the course of a semester, Pilger had finally arrived at culminating point and posed the question

Did Virgil give us a world that is fundamentally just or unjust, fundamentally good or evil?

Getting the typical who-cares-the-guy-died-2,000-years- ago look, I said: "You think this doesn't matter? This is, after all, what the humanities are about. We're reading profound thoughts by a profound poet, and they help instruct us how best to live as humans in a human world. Being a human and thinking humanly and living in a world of contingencies is complex. And Virgil can help us think about what's going on now. Take Iraq, for example. How might we use Virgil's view of the world to comment on what's happening in Iraq? Who's Aeneas in Iraq? Is there a Juno? A Turnus? Where's piety? Who's in the right?"

I had finally pushed the right button to get a reaction, but not the right button to encourage discussion. The students objected en masse to the political nature of the question. So I gave a cursory sketch of two opposite ways one might relate the Aeneid to Iraq, and moved on.

After class, I asked one of the students for his read on what had happened. How could the response be so heated but the question left unengaged? He replied: "You know how it is. Students don't want to disagree with their professors. Most of the students around here are pretty conservative, but they get the strong sense that their professors are liberal. And on issues like these, they're afraid to disagree." They had made assumptions about how I would think and were reluctant to contradict me.

Notice how the students objected to the posing of the question, not it's content? They felt threatened by any contemporary topical discussion because experience had informed them that their grades could have been at stake. Rather than voice well-reasoned dissent with their instructor on the topic, and risk a poor grade, they chose silence. Not exactly an atmosphere in which open dialogue and intellectual diversity is flourishing, is it?

The Quiet Army: Parents at a School Committee Meeting

On short notice, I decided to attend last night's Warwick School Committee meeting. I was prompted by a story in the Warwick Beacon detailing the intent of the Warwick Teachers Union to "make a statement" at the meeting to voice their exasperation at what they perceived as disingenuousness on the part of the School Committee. The union broke an agreement of confidentiality regarding the arbitration hearings, an agreement that they insisted upon in the first place, to claim that the school committee had rolled back its offer to April 3, 2003, “as if there had never been any negotiations at all.”

But [Committee Member John] Thompson, Superintendent Robert Shapiro and the department’s arbitrator, Rosemary Healey, believe teachers haven’t been told the full story. While the offer as of April 2003 was submitted in arbitration, they say it does not affect the offer made following the City Council approval of the budget in June. The council chopped $5.5 million from the school request, requiring the committee to eliminate a retroactive pay increase for the year teachers had worked under the terms of its former contract.

Thompson made a distinction between arbitration and negotiations, saying the union at any point could return to negotiations and the committee’s last offer stands.

According to the Beacon article, Healey stated that the April 2003 numbers were brought into the arbitration hearings "to bring context to where negotiations are now. She said it is the intention of the committee to honor all tentative agreements reached thus far with the union. The union has been working under the terms of its previous contract that expired in September 2003." (For updates on negotiations, at least from the School Committee's perspective, go here. I have yet to find any such site for the WTU). In short, there appears to be much confusion over exactly where the negotiations/arbitration stands. This has been exacerbated by the confidentiality imposed on the arbitration panel. It would seem that open hearings would alleviate much of the suspicion. Regardless of which side accuses which of stalling, an agreement must be reached soon.

Committee Chairwoman Joyce Andrade said in the statement that the committee was “hoping to at least get the non-financial issues settled with arbitration hearings”... [and] said the June 2004 offer would remain on the table as long as the committee has the money to finance it. She fears if an agreement is delayed beyond this spring that the council could again cut the school budget request forcing the withdrawal of the proposal. She said that School Finance Office Robert Dooley was prepared to outline the committee’s June offer at the next arbitration session. That hearing has been set for Jan. 12.

With this as context, and because I have never attended a meeting before, I figured it would be a good opportunity to begin doing so. I was treated to quite a show. (For a more "professional" account, go here). I arrived at Winman Jr. High School with teachers outside the doors chanting, holding signs and generally making a ruckus. The School Committee voted to go into closed session at 6:30 PM, meaning the open meeting wouldn't ocurr until around 8-8:30. Meanwhile, the teachers assembled and milled about. They wore stickers that said "No more excuses/real solutions" and there was even one person dressed to look like the Grim Reaper, and holding a scythe with the word "Negotiate" scrawled upon its face.

When the open session resumed, Committee Chairwoman Joyce Andrade was immediately heckled by a union member, who yelled such things as, "you don't know what you're doing, just admit it" and "get someone else to negotiate." (I believe the heckler was mentioned in the aforementioned "professional" account, but have no corroboration so I will not name the individual). The Pledge of Allegiance was then said and all was quiet until it was announced that Superintendent Robert Shapiro was given a new 2 year contract. As soon as the contract was approved by a voice vote of the committee, the teachers stood up en masse and proceeded to leave the auditorium. On their way out, they yelled comments, such as, "what about us," "we want one too," "quit lying to the public," "who got the high test scores, not you," (part of the agenda was to go over how Warwick schools are performing on state and national tests) and one aimed particularly at Andrade (by "the Heckler") to "get that smirk off your face!"

After the teachers left and things settled down, the rest of the meeting continued, including a review of Warwick Schools' test scores and performance ratings in which it seems good progress is being made. This was done in front of an audience of approximately 60 people, most of whom were in attendance to protest a new requirement that all students, including those carrying an "A" in a course throughout the school year, will be required to take final exams in all subjects. This is contrary to current policy and was to be implemented in the middle of the school year. (For more information regarding this topic, please see my post on this at my OSB site). After this discussion was concluded, the auditorium emptied to only a handful of individuals and remained so until the meeting was adjourned.

In general, I feel like I have a good idea of the nature of these meetings, even though this particular meeting had more drama than normal. However, while taking note of how the heat generated by one specific issue can bring such a large turnout to a school committee meeting, I was struck by one profound observation. In an auditorium that can hold 500 people, there were approximately 300 teachers, 10-15 administrators and support people, a few people making proposals to the school committee, and a few students and teachers concerned over an acute issue (mandatory testing). The rest of the crowd was composed of curious parents, which consisted of...Me. Thus, the title of my post reflects the new mantra used by the U.S. Army in its current recruiting campaign. I was indeed an Army of One. The next meeting is January 11. Would anyone care to join my army?

Rhode Island Politics & Taxation, Part III

This posting builds on the Part II posting of earlier today.

Achieving a rigorous public debate in Rhode Island about politics and taxation issues is a necessary first step toward bringing significant changes and fixing the mess in this state.

The tone of the debate in Rhode Island began to change in Fall 2003 when Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey highlighted the outrageous costs of crossing guards in his community.

2004 has been a year in which the state faced another huge state budget deficit, a large shortfall in pension funding, and more politics-as-usual. Let’s use some of the year's news and related editorials as a way to highlight how some politicians, bureaucrats and public sector unions just don't get it. Until these players are held to a higher level of accountability for their behavior, we will continue to experience the same miserable quality in this public debate.

Actions by union leaders prior to the September 2004 primary in Cranston showed how the public sector unions are committed to minimizing any opposition to their strong influence - and how residents said "no way" by a 3-to-1 margin.

Backing up to last February and in response to a nearly $200 million budget deficit, Governor Carcieri proposed numerous budget changes. His proposal increased the overall education budget by $11 million but cut state aid to local education by $8 million while increasing state aid to charter schools by nearly $6 million. The proposal generated the predictably ridiculous responses. Governor Carcieri responded to the attacks and the Providence Journal published an editorial on the topic.

I also responded to the whining of various public sector officials with an editorial, saying:

In the last three years, state spending in Rhode Island has exceeded revenues by $582 million. We have covered the deficit by spending all of our surplus tobacco-settlement and federal-grant money – each a one-time source of funds. With the state facing a $190 million deficit for next year, the free ride is over.

Governor Carcieri's budget proposal recognizes this reality. In that context, he has proposed reducing total state aid to local education from $638 million to $630 million, a 1.25-percent reduction. Some funding crisis!

The $630 million proposal needs to be viewed with the proper perspective of time, too. State aid has climbed from $480 million to $638 million in just the last five years.

The real debate should be about why state aid increased by $158 million, or 33 percent -- nearly twice the rate of increase in taxpayers' personal incomes. You can thank outrageous demands by public employees and the spineless responses by politicians and bureaucrats for such irresponsible increases.

The editorial continued:

Why do we spend so many dollars for such poor performance? As a former School Committee member in East Greenwich, I'll offer examples of why our problem is overspending, and not a lack of funding.

When the School Committee approved the hiring of Supt. Michael Jolin, in the fall of 2002, major employment terms were discussed by the committee: an annual salary of $127,000; standard health-insurance benefits; and a three-year contract.

Somehow, Mr. Jolin was given an automatic rolling three-year employment contract without the entire committee's either discussing or approving such a provision...

The School Committee also neither discussed nor approved the following terms in his contract:

• 25 vacation days and 30 sick days from his first day of employment
• 25 vacation days every year thereafter
• Conversion of up to 15 unused vacation days into cash every year
• Unlimited number of accrued vacation days
• Accrual of 15 sick days per year, up to a maximum of 120 days
• An additional $7,000 to $10,000 per year put into an annuity
• Up to one year's salary if he is fired for just cause (e.g., after committing a crime).

The editorial then pointed out how that committee had also awarded: (i) 9-12% annual salary increases and a zero co-payment on health insurance to the teachers for the fifth consecutive year; (ii) 7% salary increases to all principals; and, (iii) an 11.4% salary increase to one administrator.

Do you know any working people or retirees who receive such salaries and benefits? Is that kind of compensation fair to hardworking taxpayers?

In a follow-on article, the East Greenwich School Committee Chair had the audacity to say that it was no big deal to grant those contract terms to the Superintendent while completely ignoring the governance problem of how they were awarded in the first place. I wrote a letter in response to the article.

When people are losing the public debate, a common technique is to try to change the subject. And that is just what George Nee and 12 other AFL-CIO leaders tried to do in an editorial:

Cervantes taught in his novel Don Quixote de la Mancha how one can be foolishly impractical in the pursuit of a perceived ideal. Unfortunately, The Providence Journal editorial board and Governor Carcieri never learned that lesson…

Over the past few months, we have tried to reach out to the governor, to work together in a spirit of cooperation. Unfortunately, the governor, supported by The Journal's editorial board, has chosen a different path. He has chosen to demonize unions and embark on personal attacks. This approach is not in the long-term interest of our great state. It is time for the governor and the Journal editorial board to come down from their high horses.

Their attacks on unions and their leaders are as ill-advised as Quixote's tilts at windmills. The attacks are unreasonable and impractical. Further, the attacks send us down a path of confrontation unprecedented in our state's history.

In response to that nonsensical argument, I wrote an editorial saying:

While great literary fiction lifts the soul, economic fiction destroys families and societies. And economic fiction is what Mr. Nee promotes.

As unions demagogue the issues, let's – once again – bring the debate back to facts that working families live with every day.

The unions say they represent working people. Test that claim with this nonfiction test. If you are a working person or retired working person, has your work environment included:

• Annual salary increases up to 12 percent?
• Automatic increases simply for showing up, not based on merit?
• Additional longevity bonuses, just for showing up?
• No-layoff provisions?
• Seniority valued more than expertise or organizational need?
• Zero co-payments on insurance premiums?
• Eleven weeks of paid time off per year?
• A pension equal to 60 to 80 percent of your salary for the rest of your life, starting immediately after retirement and with as little as 28 years of service, regardless of your age?

…These terms are the dirty little secret of government. Unions and their partners in government thrive by being largely invisible to taxpayers. That invisibility is finally being destroyed now – and that explains their vehement reactions…

Even so, this debate is about more than current taxation levels and today's family budgets. It is about freedom and opportunity for all – and family budgets in the future. The greatness of our country is that people can live the American dream through the power of education and hard work.

High taxation and mediocre public education create a disincentive for new-business formation in Rhode Island. That means fewer new jobs, and less of a chance for working people to realize the American dream. It also means people have an economic incentive to leave the state – and the ones who can afford to do so will continue to leave.

Unfortunately, the ones who cannot afford to leave are the people who can least afford the crushing blow of high taxation and mediocre education. The status quo dooms these families to an ongoing decline in their standard of living. That is unjust.

The unions have political power on their side today. They will, no doubt, win some short-term battles. But, like all those clinging to untenable economic models, they are on the wrong side of history and will lose the war over time. The only question is how much economic pain they will inflict on the state's residents along the way.

We are at a crossroads in Rhode Island. If we tackle issues now, a turnaround with only some pain is possible. If we delay, we will doom multiple generations of working families and retirees to further tax hell and a reduction in their standard of living. That is wrong.

This public debate is about breaking the chains of bondage and giving all citizens the freedom to live the American dream here in Rhode Island. What greater legacy can we leave for our children than a fair shot at the American dream here in their state?

The number of freedom fighters is growing, so please join this noble cause. Let's tear down this wall of economic fiction, and let freedom ring out across the state. Let's make Rhode Island a vibrant land of freedom and opportunity, for all working families.

Shortly after that editorial was published, the statewide pension problem surfaced publicly, highlighting dire financial consequences:

State and local taxpayers should pay a whopping $121.6 million more next year toward the pensions of state employees and public school teachers…

That advice, from the state's pension-funding adviser, sent shock waves through the hearing room where top labor and government officials gathered…

In late June, the deadlocked panel voted 6-6, defeating a series of moves recommended either by Carcieri, a Republican, or state treasurer Paul Tavares, a Democrat, to rein in the escalating cost of public-employee pensions, such as the adoption of a mininum retirement age.

But yesterday's news seemed to surprise some of the union leaders who had resisted any changes in pension eligibility and benefit levels…

The warning was the result of a reexamination, by the state's actuarial advisers at Gabriel Roeder and Smith, of the assumptions that determine how much money must be set aside now to cover all the promises made to current and future retirees.

After looking back seven years, the firm concluded the state has been overestimating investment returns; underestimating the salary increases, averaging 4.5 percent annually, over the seven years that ended on June 30, 2003; and failing to account for the disproportionately large number of Rhode Island public employees who stay in their jobs long enough to qualify for pensions.

Another article reinforced the magnitude of the problem:

"We are not bleeding, we are hemorrhaging," said Daniel Beardsley, executive director of the Rhode Island League of Cities and Towns, which represents local governments in the state's 39 communities…

Local pension systems in some of the state's communities are also in trouble - especially those in Cranston and Providence, according to estimates by the Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council.

Rhode Island labor leaders have long resisted changes that would cut benefits for employees and teachers.

Subsequently, a retired teacher named Mr. Hosey wrote a letter in response to my editorial. You can read its pathetic and factually wrong content. Those problems did not stop either the RI AFL-CIO website or their public relations arm, WorkingRI, website from posting the letter without either my initial editorial or subsequent response.

David Sweeney, an attorney who has negotiated teachers’ union contracts, wrote a letter in response to Mr. Hosey:

Former teachers who enter the real work world from the warm womb of the education industry are consistently shocked by the work demands of employers who must compete to survive. Unfortunately, these same people are teaching our children that everyone is "entitled" to all the benefits of a comfortable life, from annual pay increases to lifetime health care, without regard to individual talent or effort.

That economic philosophy is called socialism, and it hasn't worked anywhere in the world to date.

I followed with another editorial response, in which I pointed out errors in Mr. Hosey's letter and also said the following:

Test who is truly willing to engage in an open, public debate of the facts. Here's how:

• Demand that your community and school officials post all public-sector union contracts on their Web sites, so that the facts are transparently obvious.
• Hold political candidates accountable for knowing and publicly discussing the terms of those contracts. They should say, on the record, whether such terms are acceptable.
• Vote for candidates – regardless of party – who are responsive. Throw out those who are not.

This is not simply a rhetorical debate about esoteric contract terms. We ignore the fundamental laws of economics at our peril. Working families and retirees eventually pay for every excessive contract.

The unrelenting burden of outrageous public-sector-union contracts reduces everyone's standard of living in Rhode Island without improving the mediocre quality of our public services.

We cannot afford the status quo, financially or morally.

And that is the bottom line.

It is high government spending that drives high taxation in Rhode Island. To understand the problem with excessive government spending requires a closer look at public sector salaries, healthcare benefits and pension benefits.

More details on those topics will follow in subsequent postings as we further open up the public debate.

ADDENDUM:

Marc has a new posting on the news about the new Providence crossing guards contract. Once again, we have politicians touting union contract deals that would never pass a smell test for a family budget. In the same posting, Marc notes how a January decision by the courts affirmed Cranston Mayor Laffey's right to fire crossing guards. Isn't it amazing that people have to go to court to exert basic management rights on behalf of the taxpayers whose hard-earned salaries fund these activities? It just never stops here in Rhode Island. Or, as Marc put it so well:

Until taxpayers start taking elected officials to task, by either voicing their complaints or kicking the Gollums out of office, Shelob will engorge herself and continue to grow, ever looking for more.

Rhode Island Politics & Taxation, Part II

This posting builds on the Part I posting of November 29, 2004.

Let's begin talking about the facts with the following empirical summary statement: Rhode Islanders are some of the most highly taxed citizens in America as our state and local governments take an unusually large portion of our hard-earned incomes.

So how bad is the tax burden here?

According to the Tax Foundation, Rhode Island residents have the 5th highest combined state and local tax burden, a full 11.1% above the national average.

The Tax Foundation continues:

Tax Freedom Day is the day when Americans finally have earned enough money to pay off their total tax bill for the year. In 2004, Rhode Island taxpayers had to work until April 16th to pay their total tax bill, ranking it 4th [highest out of 50 states] in the nation...Rhode Island taxpayers must work 40 days into the year just to pay their state and local tax bill...

Rhode Island's personal income tax system consists of a simple tax of 25% on the taxpayer's federal liability...16th highest nationally...

Rhode Island's corporate tax structure consists of a flat rate of 9% on all corporate income. Among states levying corporate income taxes, Rhode Island's rate ranks 8th highest nationally...

Rhode Island levies a 7% general sales or use tax on consumers, well above the national median of 5%...Rhode Island's gasoline tax stands at $0.28 per gallon (3rd highest), while its cigarette tax stands at $1.50 per pack of 20 (2nd highest)...

Rhode Island is one of the 38 states that collect property taxes at both the state and local levels...Rhode Island's local property taxes are 4th highest in the nation by per capita measure and 3rd highest as a percentage of income...its combined state/local property taxes...ranked 5th nationally.

Another analysis by the Tax Foundation shows that Rhode Island's combined state and local tax burden used to be as low as 31st in 1970, moving up to 22nd in 1971-1972. It has been in the top 10 since 1996 and in the top 5 since 2000. That is disgraceful.

These are not just abstract numbers. Higher taxes mean that working families and retirees have less money to spend on food, medical care, clothing, heating oil, car repairs, education and retirement. In other words, high taxes mean Rhode Island citizens have less freedom in their daily lives than most Americans.

Or, as Ed Achorn of the Providence Journal wrote:

The June 2004 issue of Bloomberg Wealth Manager warns well-to-do people, once again, to avoid what the publication calls "tax-hell Rhode Island."

Indeed, Rhode Island is the worst place in the country -- ranked 51 among 50 states and the District of Columbia -- for people who wish to keep some of their wealth.

Retirees, too, are warned away...[ranked 47th]...

The Bloomberg study is more evidence, if you needed any, of the rape of Rhode Island by politicians who are either too small-minded or too uninterested in the public's welfare to consider what they are doing to the people they supposedly serve.

We all know the classic class-warfare line. The wealthy? To heck with them! Let them pay higher taxes so that middle-class public employees can make out like bandits. And why would we ever consider cutting rich people's taxes when the state is facing huge deficits? After all, the poor and the children will suffer if we restrain government (i.e., by reducing public-employee jobs or curbing their benefits).

There's one problem with Rhode Island's class-warfare approach: People in this country are free to move around and pursue their economic self-interest...

Consider what the magazine discovered ("Ride the Wave," by Janet Bamford and Thomas D. Saler) by running state and local tax forms through Quicken's Turbo Tax program. A hypothetical well-to-do family, under one calculation, would pay $7,259 in taxes in Wyoming; the same family would pay $56,419 in Rhode Island.

Now, living in Rhode Island is wonderful. Is it eight times more wonderful than Wyoming? Is it seven times more wonderful than the Rocky Mountain State, Colorado ($8,003 in taxes)? Is it that much more wonderful than less punishing Hawaii, or Arizona, or Massachusetts?

At some point, well-to-do people make such calculations. And when a state is described nationally (and internationally) as "tax-hell Rhode Island," they know to steer cleer.

So who needs upper-middle-class people? To heck with them.

Except: They do contribute something to a community. Let us count the ways:

Jobs. Corporations tend to be where executives want to live. The beauty of Rhode Island, its superb quality of life and its proximity to New York and Boston would surely draw them to the Ocean State -- if not for its tax burden. Why would they throw away money to live here, when they could make a better life for themselves and their families somewhere else?...

Families. Rhode Island does a good job of splitting apart loved ones. Because its tax and regulatory structure chokes off new jobs, children often must move out of state for work. And because it is one of the worst places for retirees, elders often move far away, taking their spending power with them.

Rhode Island, in trying to punish the wealthy, has only ended up punishing its middle-class and poor citizens.

Mr. Achorn's conclusions are reinforced by a study from the Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council (RIPEC), which noted diverging tax trends between Rhode Island and Massachusetts:

While Rhode Island’s and Massachusetts’ State and local tax burden approximates each other in FY 1982, the data presented in this edition of How Rhode Island Compares – State and Local Taxes reveals a tale of two states that are headed in drastically different directions when state and local tax trends are compared.

In FY 1982, there was little difference between Massachusetts and Rhode Island in state and local tax collections per $1,000 of personal income. In that year, Massachusetts’ tax collections per $1,000 of personal income of $120.81 ranked 9th highest or were 9.1% above the national average. In FY 1982, Rhode Island’s State and local tax burden of $119.07 per $1,000 of personal income ranked 10th highest in the United States or was 8.1% above the national average.

...In FY 2002 (latest national data available from the U.S. Census Bureau), Rhode Island’s total State and local tax burden was the 6th highest in the United States or 9.3% above the average for all 50 states. However, state and local tax collections per $1,000 of personal income in Massachusetts had declined from 9th highest in FY 1982 to 40th in FY 2002. Between FY 1982 and 2002, Massachusetts’ state and local tax burden had declined from 9.1% above the U.S. average to 7.8% below the average state and local tax burden of all 50 states.

In which state do you suppose economically rational people will choose to live? Where do you think economically rational corporations will build their businesses?

The answers to those two questions mean that it will be difficult for Rhode Island residents to realize any relief from high taxation without changing the political landscape in our state.

The summary facts on the Rhode Island tax burden are now in plain view. It shows how we have a serious problem.

How much longer are working families and retirees going to take this economic abuse?

I believe that the first step toward ending the abuse is to open up a broader public debate. The quality of today's public debate has improved somewhat thanks to public officials such as Governor Carcieri and Mayor Laffey. It has improved thanks to outspoken editorialists like Ed Achorn at the Providence Journal. It has improved thanks to numerous groups and individuals around the state who support open and fair practices at the local government level.

But today's public debate in Rhode Island has a long way to go before it is truly open and factually rigorous.

The spineless behavior of politicians and bureaucrats as well as the outrageous demands of public sector unions will only be changed after we shine an unrelenting spotlight on their actions and make that information easily accessible to the voting public - and the public then cares enough to vote for change.

The next posting will present major highlights in the 2004 public debate. It will also show how far we have to go to have a rigorous, wide-open public debate.

Liberal Fundamentalism, Revisited

Consider these quotes about the recently concluded election:

"Election results reflect a decision of the right wing to cultivate and exploit ignorance in the citizenry...Ignorance and blood lust have a long tradition...especially in red states...They know no boundaries or rules. [Bush and Cheney] are predatory and resentful, amoral, avaricious, and arrogant." Jane Smiley

"I am saddened by what I feel is the obtuseness and shortsightedness of a good part of the country - the heartland." Article

"Where else do we find fundamentalist zeal, a rage at secularity, religious intolerance, fear of and hatred for modernity?" Garry Wills

"...used that religious energy to promote divisions and intolerance at home and abroad..." Thomas Friedman

"W's presidency rushes backward, stifling possibilities, stirring intolerance, confusing church with state, blowing off the world, replacing science with religion, and facts with faith. We're entering another dark ages...a scary, paranoid, regressive reality." Maureen Dowd

These are just some examples of the heated and frequently over-the-top rhetoric by the left.

That ugliness and resulting polarization led me to dig out one of the most powerful editorials I have read in my adult life - and it speaks directly to the so-called Red versus Blue state phenomenon. Here are some excerpts:

We have been following the extensive theological commentary in the press on the subject of politics and religion in the current presidential campaign. It might not otherwise have occurred to us that so many editorialists and columnists harbored so many deep, pent-up opinions on religious worship, voluntary school prayer or Christian fundamentalism.

What we have been looking for but have so far missed in this great awakening of religious writing is a short sermon on the subject of liberal fundamentalism...we would like to offer a few thoughts on what has been far and away the most messianic religion in America the past two decades - liberal politics.

American liberalism has traditionally derived much of its energy from a volatile mixture of emotion and moral superiority. The liberal belief that one's policies would on balance accomplish something indisputably good generally made opposing arguments about shortcomings, costs or unintended consequences unpersuasive...

In retrospect, it's clear that the moral clarity of the early civil-rights movement was a political epiphany for many white liberals...many active liberals carried along their newly found moral certitude and quasi-religious fervor into nearly every major public policy issue that has come along in the past 15 years. The result has been liberal fundamentalism.

...Not surprisingly, this evangelical liberalism produced a response. Conservative groups - both secular and religious - were created, and they quite obviously made the political success of their adversaries more difficult. Liberals don't like that. So now, suddenly, we find all these politicians and columnists who are afraid someone might want to impose a particular point of view on them...

If some liberals are now afraid that certain Christian fundamentalists will reintroduce new forms of intolerance and excessive religious zeal into American political life, perhaps we should concede the possibility that they know what they're talking about. But they might also meditate on the current election and why there has been an apparent rightward shift in political sentiment in the U.S. It could be that a great many voters have taken a good look at the fundamentalists on the religious right and the fundamentalists on the political left and made up their minds about which poses the greater threat to their own private and public values.

Interesting perspective, isn't it? Doesn't it strike you as if the editorial was written on November 3, 2004, the day after the election? But, no, it wasn't written last month or even this year. Rather, the Wall Street Journal published that editorial entitled "Liberal Fundamentalism" on September 13, 1984.

Unfortunately, liberal fundamentalism continues to actively strip naked the traditional public square and replace it with a secular absolutism. Another editorial discussed recent actions against the Boy Scouts and Catholic Charities by noting:

What's going on here is an effort by liberal activists and their judiciary enablers to turn one set of personal mores into a public orthodoxy from which there can be no dissent, even if that means trampling the First Amendment. Any voluntary association that doesn't comply - the same little platoons once considered the bedrock of American freedom - will be driven from the public square. Meet the new face of intolerance.

This ideological intolerance is not the historical face of America. It does not reflect the principles of the Declaration of Independence. And it is not the practices of most Americans today, including many principled liberals and conservatives.

But still the question remains: Where will we go from here as a country? No one should doubt that this is a battle for the future of our country and it requires active engagement by all of us. History from recent decades shows that the apostles of liberal fundamentalism are unrelenting in their self-righteousness and intolerance of any opposing world view. We are fighting what Thomas Sowell has labeled the "vision of the [self-] anointed."

As we do battle with this determined foe, I would offer you three quotes for reflection and encouragement.

The first quote reminds us of the natural law principles articulated by our Founders and why that leads to a crucial belief in limited government:

...natural law jurisprudence represents the greatest threat to the liberal desire to replace limited, constitutional government with a regulatory-welfare state of unlimited powers.

...the principle that our rights come not from government but from a "Creator" and "the laws of nature and of nature's God," as our Declaration of Independence says, and that the purpose and power of government should therefore be limited to protecting our natural, God-given rights.

The left understands that if it is to succeed, these principles of constitutional government must be jettisoned, or at least redefined...the founders' natural-law defense of constitutional government is fatal to liberalism's goal...

...Woodrow Wilson, for example, insisted that unlike the physical universe, the political universe contains no immutable principles or laws. 'Government...is a living thing...'

From a liberal view, liberty cannot be a natural right, protected by a government of limited powers, because there are no natural rights...Instead, 'the state...is the creator of liberty.'

...The liberal critique of the Constitution has been repeated so long and with such intensity that it has become orthodoxy in our law schools, courtrooms and legislative halls...

The size, scope and purposes of our government are no longer anchored in and limited by our Constitution...The American people need to be reminded of the source of their rights and persuaded that limited government is good; that the principles of the Constitution - which are the natural-law principles of the Declaration of Independence - are timeless, not time-bound; that without those principles, the noble ends set forth in the Constitution's preamble can never be achieved.

The second quote comes from Thomas Jefferson, as mentioned in Chapter 6 of Richard John Neuhaus' book, The Naked Public Square:

...Jefferson, however, had no illusions that democracy had resolved the religious question by establishing "the separation of church and state." Consider, for example, his well-known reflection on the immorality of slavery:

And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?...

In short, Jefferson understood that that no constitution or written law is strong enough to defend rights under attack. Their "only firm basis" is in their being perceived as transcendent gift.

The final quote comes from George Washington's 1796 Farewell Address as his Presidency was ending. It speaks to the importance of religion and morality:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them...Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

The very nature of public debate on a controversial issue in a democracy is "messy" and that messiness makes the debate appear inefficient or even ineffective. But that is because it takes time to build a consensus among citizens across our great country. For the survival of our country, we must find that consensus over time by helping people rediscover the importance of limited government and how both morality and religion are crucial building blocks.

I believe we will achieve such an outcome by appealing to Americans across the political spectrum who hold a deep-seated belief in the right of individual Americans to live a life of principled freedom among their family, friends, church and community - without interference from fundamentalists of any persuasion.

Liberal Fundamentalism, Revisited

Consider these quotes about the recently concluded election:

"Election results reflect a decision of the right wing to cultivate and exploit ignorance in the citizenry...Ignorance and blood lust have a long tradition...especially in red states...They know no boundaries or rules. [Bush and Cheney] are predatory and resentful, amoral, avaricious, and arrogant." Jane Smiley

"I am saddened by what I feel is the obtuseness and shortsightedness of a good part of the country - the heartland." Article

"Where else do we find fundamentalist zeal, a rage at secularity, religious intolerance, fear of and hatred for modernity?" Garry Wills

"...used that religious energy to promote divisions and intolerance at home and abroad..." Thomas Friedman

"W's presidency rushes backward, stifling possibilities, stirring intolerance, confusing church with state, blowing off the world, replacing science with religion, and facts with faith. We're entering another dark ages...a scary, paranoid, regressive reality." Maureen Dowd

These are just some examples of the heated and frequently over-the-top rhetoric by the left.

That ugliness and resulting polarization led me to dig out one of the most powerful editorials I have read in my adult life – and it speaks directly to the so-called Red versus Blue state phenomenon. Here are some excerpts:

We have been following the extensive theological commentary in the press on the subject of politics and religion in the current presidential campaign. It might not otherwise have occurred to us that so many editorialists and columnists harbored so many deep, pent-up opinions on religious worship, voluntary school prayer or Christian fundamentalism.

What we have been looking for but have so far missed in this great awakening of religious writing is a short sermon on the subject of liberal fundamentalism...we would like to offer a few thoughts on what has been far and away the most messianic religion in America the past two decades - liberal politics.

American liberalism has traditionally derived much of its energy from a volatile mixture of emotion and moral superiority. The liberal belief that one's policies would on balance accomplish something indisputably good generally made opposing arguments about shortcomings, costs or unintended consequences unpersuasive...

In retrospect, it's clear that the moral clarity of the early civil-rights movement was a political epiphany for many white liberals...many active liberals carried along their newly found moral certitude and quasi-religious fervor into nearly every major public policy issue that has come along in the past 15 years. The result has been liberal fundamentalism.

...Not surprisingly, this evangelical liberalism produced a response. Conservative groups - both secular and religious - were created, and they quite obviously made the political success of their adversaries more difficult. Liberals don't like that. So now, suddenly, we find all these politicians and columnists who are afraid someone might want to impose a particular point of view on them...

If some liberals are now afraid that certain Christian fundamentalists will reintroduce new forms of intolerance and excessive religious zeal into American political life, perhaps we should concede the possibility that they know what they're talking about. But they might also meditate on the current election and why there has been an apparent rightward shift in political sentiment in the U.S. It could be that a great many voters have taken a good look at the fundamentalists on the religious right and the fundamentalists on the political left and made up their minds about which poses the greater threat to their own private and public values.

Interesting perspective, isn’t it? Doesn’t it strike you as if the editorial was written on November 3, 2004, the day after the election? But, no, it wasn’t written last month or even this year. Rather, the Wall Street Journal published that editorial entitled "Liberal Fundamentalism" on September 13, 1984.

Unfortunately, liberal fundamentalism continues to actively strip naked the traditional public square and replace it with a secular absolutism. Another editorial discussed recent actions against the Boy Scouts and Catholic Charities by noting:

What's going on here is an effort by liberal activists and their judiciary enablers to turn one set of personal mores into a public orthodoxy from which there can be no dissent, even if that means trampling the First Amendment. Any voluntary association that doesn't comply - the same little platoons once considered the bedrock of American freedom - will be driven from the public square. Meet the new face of intolerance.

This ideological intolerance is not the historical face of America. It does not reflect the principles of the Declaration of Independence. And it is not the practices of most Americans today, including many principled liberals and conservatives.

But still the question remains: Where will we go from here as a country? No one should doubt that this is a battle for the future of our country and it requires active engagement by all of us. History from recent decades shows that the apostles of liberal fundamentalism are unrelenting in their self-righteousness and intolerance of any opposing world view. We are fighting what Thomas Sowell has labeled the "vision of the [self-] anointed."

As we do battle with this determined foe, I would offer you three quotes for reflection and encouragement.

The first quote reminds us of the natural law principles articulated by our Founders and why that leads to a crucial belief in limited government:

...natural law jurisprudence represents the greatest threat to the liberal desire to replace limited, constitutional government with a regulatory-welfare state of unlimited powers.

...the principle that our rights come not from government but from a "Creator" and "the laws of nature and of nature's God," as our Declaration of Independence says, and that the purpose and power of government should therefore be limited to protecting our natural, God-given rights.

The left understands that if it is to succeed, these principles of constitutional government must be jettisoned, or at least redefined...the founders' natural-law defense of constitutional government is fatal to liberalism's goal...

...Woodrow Wilson, for example, insisted that unlike the physical universe, the political universe contains no immutable principles or laws. 'Government...is a living thing...'

From a liberal view, liberty cannot be a natural right, protected by a government of limited powers, because there are no natural rights...Instead, 'the state...is the creator of liberty.'

...The liberal critique of the Constitution has been repeated so long and with such intensity that it has become orthodoxy in our law schools, courtrooms and legislative halls...

The size, scope and purposes of our government are no longer anchored in and limited by our Constitution...The American people need to be reminded of the source of their rights and persuaded that limited government is good; that the principles of the Constitution - which are the natural-law principles of the Declaration of Independence - are timeless, not time-bound; that without those principles, the noble ends set forth in the Constitution's preamble can never be achieved.

The second quote comes from Thomas Jefferson, as mentioned in Chapter 6 of Richard John Neuhaus' book, The Naked Public Square:

...Jefferson, however, had no illusions that democracy had resolved the religious question by establishing "the separation of church and state." Consider, for example, his well-known reflection on the immorality of slavery:

And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?...

In short, Jefferson understood that that no constitution or written law is strong enough to defend rights under attack. Their "only firm basis" is in their being perceived as transcendent gift.

The final quote comes from George Washington's 1796 Farewell Address as his Presidency was ending. It speaks to the importance of religion and morality:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them...Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

The very nature of public debate on a controversial issue in a democracy is "messy" and that messiness makes the debate appear inefficient or even ineffective. But that is because it takes time to build a consensus among citizens across our great country. For the survival of our country, we must find that consensus over time by helping people rediscover the importance of limited government and how both morality and religion are crucial building blocks.

I believe we will achieve such an outcome by appealing to Americans across the political spectrum who hold a deep-seated belief in the right of individual Americans to live a life of principled freedom among their family, friends, church and community – without interference from fundamentalists of any persuasion.

Like Christians from the Catacombs

While leading the way to the Christmas tree that my family had tagged a month before, I was amused by the searching look from the young man with the saw when he alluded to some volunteer work that he'd recently done with Rock the Vote and I said nothing. The other day, a solicitor for a charity called and, in attempting to find a way around my "just can't this year," started making jokes about how President Bush will be inaugurated but wasn't "reelected."

Spending time with a new acquaintance, today, I smiled inwardly at our Dance of the Issues, whereby two people gradually unveil their views on particular topics — the more closely bounded, the better — in lieu of the kind of shorthand that suffices when one is confident of holding the majority opinion. Go to church? Yes. Michael Moore? Fool. Iraq? Media bias. Second Amendment? "Bear" means "carry."

These various anecdotes bring to mind a recent Ben Stein piece:

The man at the Christmas tree tent in Malibu kept winking at me and nodding when no one else was looking. I smiled and kept looking at the trees. (In Malibu, we Jews have Christmas trees.) Finally, he motioned to me to come over to is table. He cupped his hand over his mouth and took my hand. "We won," he said. "We won." ...

This is the way it is here. We meet in smoky places. We give the high sign, we nod knowingly. We are like members of the Maquis in Occupied France. Or early Christians emerging from the catacombs in Caligula's Rome. We are the GOP in Hollywood, and on the West Side of L.A. The culture here is so dominantly left-wing, PC, vegan, hate-America that many of us feel we have to behave as if we were underground.

My experiences here in Rhode Island aren't to the level of Stein's, but then again, I'm not a public figure.

(Via Blog from the Core)

Demographics: Do Trends Favor Conservatives in RI?

I've posted here before about the theory that demographics is the prime mover in politics. While I don't think that demographic forces are the sole cause of electoral outcome, as some apparently do, I don't discount its importance. With this in mind, it was with great interest that I read Steve Sailer's piece at The American Conservative. In short, Sailer observed that, among white voters (the most unremarked-upon voting block in our nation), family size is a valuable predictor of voting habits. In essence, more kids=Republican (conservative) voting. As such, he used fertility rates as a measuring stick and noted

The most fecund whites are in heavily Mormon Utah, which, not coincidentally, was the only state where Bush received over 70 percent. White women average 2.45 babies in Utah compared to merely 1.11 babies in Washington, D.C., where Bush earned but 9 percent. The three New England states where Bush won less than 40 percent—Massachusetts, Vermont, and Rhode Island—are three of the four states with the lowest white birthrates, with little Rhode Island dipping below 1.5 babies per woman.[emphasis mine]

Currently, our state is one of the oldest per capita in the nation. In the 2000 Census, Rhode Island ranked 6th in the U.S. by percentage of the population over 65 (down from 5th in 1990) (source). Overall, the relative rate of change in demographics for this age group in Rhode Island was dead last of the 50 states (source).

With the Baby Boom Generation reaching retirement age, things could change, as predicted in the early '90's:

As the Baby Boom generation (those born between 1946 and 1964) reaches retirement age, the growth of the elderly population (65 and over) is expected to accelerate rapidly. The size of the elderly population is projected to increase in all states and the District of Columbia over the 30 year period. The proportion of Rhode Island's population classified as elderly is expected to increase from 15.7 percent in 1995 to 18.8 percent in 2025. Among the 50 states and District of Columbia, the state is projected to have the 3rd highest proportion of elderly in 1995 and the 34th highest proportion of elderly in 2025.

Whether these estimates still hold are unknown to me, but they do point to a trend where Rhode Island is on track, albeit slowly, to get younger. If this is so, then it can be inferred that more children will be born to families who may tend to favor conservative politics. Of course, this presumes belief in demography as being the main political influencer. Again, I have my doubts. However, to accept the theory on its face, the question that comes to my mind is this: For conservatives in Rhode Island, can we afford to wait for such demographic change to bolster our numbers or do we need to quicken the pace via persuasion? I would venture that the very existence of this blog reveals the feelings of some. Awaiting demographic trends to turn in one's favor strikes me as too passive. Carpe diem, after all.

News Scope in the Internet Age

The Los Angeles Times, is "folding its daily national edition". Will the next tier of papers down the news chain (in scope, not quality, necessarily) take a cue from this?

As a news consumer, I would have increased interest in the Projo if it devoted less space to reprinting wire-service stories -- which I can get in a more timely fashion from other places on the web -- and devoted more space to actual local news, where the range of sources for information is much more limited.

Jump ahead of the curve, and give us more local news Projo!!!!

Serialized Second Edition

Just in case anybody's interested, I thought it worth mentioning, over here, that I've decided to serialize a second edition of my novel, A Whispering Through the Branches, on my personal blog, Dust in the Light. I've written a partial explanation of my decision in an "Author's Note for Blog Serialization." Beginning (appropriately) with the Preface today, I intend to publish a section each Sunday.

For those unfamiliar with Dust in the Light, I should note that you can change the layout to a potentially more-readable design by clicking "Turn Light On" at the top of the left-hand column. Alternately, given the length of the serialized posts, you may find it easier to read, either on screen or in print, the printer friendly versions that are available via the individual entries.

Worthy Worthies

Thanks to Lane Core, who featured one of Don's posts as part of his weekly Blogworthies series. Lane's Blog from the Core is always worth reading, but his Blogworthies are a weekly must-peruse.

Rummy's Good Lessons for All Reactions

I first heard about the Rumsfeld and the Tough Question episode when I tuned in to local morning talk radio host Steve Kass. The audio clip that he played for the audience (and on which he may have based his reaction) consisted only of the soldier's question and the offending sentence of Donald Rumsfeld's response, without any sort of auditory ellipsis. Even so, I thought Kass's vehemence that Rumsfled ought to resign a little extreme, and most of the callers whom I heard seemed to be speaking with more general complaints.

When I returned home, I discovered that Fox News was giving a couple of the preceding sentences in its clip, but nowhere near the full response:

I talked to the General coming out here about the pace at which the vehicles are being armored. They have been brought from all over the world, wherever they're not needed, to a place here where they are needed. I'm told that they are being — the Army is — I think it's something like 400 a month are being done. And it's essentially a matter of physics. It isn't a matter of money. It isn't a matter on the part of the Army of desire. It's a matter of production and capability of doing it.

As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time. Since the Iraq conflict began, the Army has been pressing ahead to produce the armor necessary at a rate that they believe — it's a greatly expanded rate from what existed previously, but a rate that they believe is the rate that is all that can be accomplished at this moment.

I can assure you that General Schoomaker and the leadership in the Army and certainly General Whitcomb are sensitive to the fact that not every vehicle has the degree of armor that would be desirable for it to have, but that they're working at it at a good clip. It's interesting, I've talked a great deal about this with a team of people who've been working on it hard at the Pentagon. And if you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up. And you can have an up-armored humvee and it can be blown up. And you can go down and, the vehicle, the goal we have is to have as many of those vehicles as is humanly possible with the appropriate level of armor available for the troops. And that is what the Army has been working on.

One can argue that his choice of words for that one short sentence was poor — especially given the media wailing that it enabled. But Rumsfeld was clearly following a public speaking template:

1. Acknowledge being aware of the problem.
2. Summarize the specific difficulties.
3. Allude to the larger principle guiding the variety of actions.
4. Put the problem in as soft a light as possible.
5. But reassert that it is a problem, and one that is being addressed.

There are two lessons from this perspective that are more broadly applicable to the ways in which we react to this sort of controversy. The first is that we often know less about the context than we believe we do. In this case, that includes not only the full paragraph of the response that Kass's station cut from its clip, but also the information that a reporter was behind the scenes orchestrating the incident (and probably had much to do with the way the question was phrased).

The second consideration highlighted in this controversy is a realistic assessment of what even the top guy can accomplish and how he ought to explain the circumstances. To demand Rumsfeld's resignation, it seems to me, one must believe that this one sentences proves that his handling of the armor situation places it unreasonably low in the tangle of issues with which he must deal. In other words, one must believe that the financial and geopolitical considerations that affect his decisions are laughably inadequate to justify his judgment that the current rate of Humvee armor upgrades is acceptable. That's a tough argument to make in a war with relatively low casualties and the lowest fatality rate ever.

The consideration consequently becomes how Rumsfeld expressed the difficulties, and I'd suggest that there are a great many ways for a Secretary of Defense to answer — or avoid truly answering — such questions that would be less desirable. For instance, he could have simply slipped past the question with evasive assurances and moved on. Or he could have just avoided putting himself in that situation altogether. (Further discussion along these lines here.)

As for Rummy's relationship with the troops, I note that by the time he moved on to the next question, he appears to have re-won them over:

The other day, after there was a big threat alert in Washington, D.C. in connection with the elections, as I recall, I looked outside the Pentagon and there were six or eight up-armored humvees. They’re not there anymore. [Cheers] [Applause] They’re en route out here, I can assure you.

Wilson vs. Taricani

For us separation-of-powers enthusiasts, there is an important distinction between the Plame-Wilson case and the Taricani case. In the Plame-Wilson affair, journalists are being asked to tell what they know about the violation of an actual law. It is illegal -- according to a law passed by Congress, signed by the President -- to leak the identity of a covert operative.

In the Taricani case, on the other hand, there was no law broken. There is only a violation of an ad-hoc rule created by a judge.

The Bricker Amendment

An NRO article by Andrew C. McCarthy on the subject of international law got me thinking about a Neil Boortz column I read a few months ago. About 50 years ago, a U.S. Senator named John Bricker also worried about the nature international law. Senator Bricker proposed a Constitutional amendment which read...

Section 1. A provision of a treaty which conflicts with this Constitution shall not be of any force or effect.
Section 2. A treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States only through legislation which would be valid in the absence of treaty.
Section 3. Congress shall have power to regulate all executive and other agreements with any foreign power or international organization. All such agreements shall be subject to the limitations imposed on treaties by this article.
Section 4. The congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

I have the same question Boortz does. Is there any reason not to support adding the above amendment to our Constitution?

Threading the Needle of Rights and Hauteur

As the Providence Journal editorial board recently put it, when it comes to the Taricani affair, "there are no heroes here." Perhaps this is a glass-half-empty assessment, but the entire controversy has a feel more of competing negative claims than of balancing strong arguments.

Writing of the significantly different, but inherently related, Plame affair, Jonah Goldberg expresses one side thus:

But in all of this debate, what people seem to be overlooking is that journalists aren't always analogous to witnesses to crimes. Sometimes they're accomplices. Imagine that a vindictive government official wants to embarrass an opponent by leaking his tax returns. He steals them from confidential files and meets a reporter from the Times in a back alley. The reporter publishes them. It seems to me the reporter isn't a witness, he's an accessory. If it makes it easier to understand the point, imagine instead of tax returns it's plans for a cheap nuclear weapon al Qaeda could make.

On the other side, consider Mark Tapscott:

The Taricani and Miller cases signify a disturbing trend of government officials' resorting to subpoenas and criminal prosecutions to silence confidential sources, who would otherwise provide journalists with documents proving fraud, negligence or outright criminality in government.

Whether we see the line that we must walk as between important rights that we wish not to trample or between slippery-sloping pitfalls that we wish to avoid, the solution by which we tread must cover a variety of circumstances. In the case of Plame-Wilson, the journalists stand between the allegedly wronged couple and the executive branch (in one aspect or another). In the pre-Bevilacqua phase of the Taricani case, the journalist potentially stood between the executive branch and the judiciary itself. How do we balance the various claims of all involved branches (which will always include the judiciary), the journalists, and any other interested parties?

As a preliminary suggestion, intended to be honed through debate, I'd suggest that the law force the involvement of at least two branches of government. In some way or another (perhaps through the representation of the prosecutor), the executive would have to approve of court orders for revealed sources, and the judiciary would have to issue the orders. Perhaps there should be recourse to the legislature if either branch believes the other to be acting in bad faith.

As to who should be eligible to be counted as a journalist, I'm biased, of course, but I'd suggest that the answer be "anybody." The protection ought to flow through the action, not through some ostensibly unique status of the actor. If a person receives information for the purpose of publicizing it — and subsequently behaves accordingly — then it oughtn't matter whether the medium for doing so is given, bought, pursued, or constructed.

Taricani: 6 Months Home Confinement

You've probably heard it elsewhere by now, but Jim Taricani has been sentenced to six months of home confinement.

RE:Where is the Moral Outrage

I became more interested in bias in academia when I re-entered "the academy" to pursue an MA in History (at Providence College). Thankfully, I have not personally felt any real "quashing of dissent." Although I have heard a few pithy political asides in the course of unrelated lectures, my experience at Providence College has been thoroughly enjoyable, a function, I believe, of the professionalism of the faculty and the more traditional, and Catholic, approach the school takes towards education. Thus, my "investigations" have, thankfully, not been first person.

I recently posted at the Ocean State Blogger about the efforts of David Horowitz (no stranger to Brown University) and Students for Academic Freedom to rectify the intellectual bias in our colleges and universities. John Fund of the Wall Street Journal has written on the topic recently, as has Law Professor Stephen Bainbridge and the Economist. These come after the release of a few scholarly studies on academic bias, especially a report by Daniel Klein and Charlotta Stern of the National Association of Scholars entitled "How Politically Diverse Are the Social Sciences and Humanities?: Survey Evidence from Six Fields" (PDF).

While many, such as Horowitz and SFAF, are pushing for an Academic Bill of Rights to impose on schools, Bainbridge finds this impractical. Instead of an overt bias against conservatives, Bainbridge sees the problem as that of the lack of a conservative networking apparatus within academia. In essence, because colleges and universities are dominated by a liberal "old boys network" that filters out conservatives, none of the decision makers within the liberal echo chamber of the academy actually know any conservatives. This is bolstered by the insightful, and to my mind essential, article that delves into the culture of liberal academia entitled "Liberal Groupthink is Anti-Intellectual," by Mark Bauerlein. (I have already posted some extensive commentary here, just scroll down a bit).

In addition to Horowitz, the Students for Academic Freedom and the work being done by the National Association of Scholars, there are other examples of people standing up against bias. For instance, students at Columbia have decided to fight against anti-Israeli polemics. Also, the new underground newspaper on Ivy League campuses are being published by conservatives, even at Brown. So in answer to Don's question, there is moral outrage, but it is only just beginning to get a toehold at the base of the Ivory Tower.

ADDENDUM: In my post above, I forgot to mention the website AcademicBias.com and their short film Brainwashing 101, which can be purchased on DVD or downloaded (or streamed) via the aforementioned website. I have not seen the movie yet, but have downloaded it and will do so when I get a chance and will get back with a review.

Something to Ponder over Christmas Break

In a move that is surprisingly redolent of politics as usual, the Student Organization Advisory and Review Committee of the University of Rhode Island Student Senate threw a controversial proposal into the agenda of the senate's final meeting that delayed the re-recognition of student groups until next semester, according to The Good 5¢ Cigar:

A controversial proposal from Student Organization Advisory and Review Committee Chairman Evan Duggan-Lever would change the way groups are recognized and funded by the senate.

"The old system is old and busted," Duggan-Lever said. "It doesn't contain any guidelines or contain anything that allows the [SOARC] committee to decide what should be recognized."

The proposed changes would bring the recognition process in line with Rhode Island laws and recent court rulings, Duggan-Lever said.

Some among the senators wondered whether the delay would be unnecessarily disruptive for student groups. Not to worry:

"All of the groups stand to benefit [from the proposed changes]," Duggan-Lever said. "The only groups that don't stand to benefit are groups that are illegal."

That's curious: what sort of group that was previously recognized could possibly be illegal? Well, I can't find any further information, online, but another piece in the latest Cigar might give some indication:

Several student groups currently recognized by the University of Rhode Island Student Senate are being asked to change their bylaws because they do not comply with procedures and standards set forth by the senate.

One such group is the Intervarsity Christian Association, Student Organization Advisory and Review Committee Chairman Evan Duggan-Lever said. It is recognized as a Level III group currently, he said, which is the lowest level and allows the group to ask the Memorial Union for meeting space and also ask the senate for contingency funds.

Apart from a minor issue — already addressed — having to do with regulations for electing official leadership, the far greater affront is one that readers might have guessed from the group's name:

Another bylaw problem was an "article of faith" which required members to show their religious principles to join the group. This, Duggan-Lever said, is not allowed by senate regulations and as such was required by SOARC to be removed.

The group, however, still intends to continue the practice, Secretary Hope Aswell said.

"For our leadership, we want them to hold Christian values," Aswell said, "because it is a Christian group."

Hope Aswell — with her magnificent name — doesn't apparently understand the game. In the America that is currently germinating on the country's campuses, it's fine for believers to, well, believe — if only because, as Duggan-Lever puts it, "We can't determine what is in someone's head." However, as a constitutional matter, they have to effectively deny those beliefs, or at least make those beliefs subordinate to the doctrine of tolerance.

Former group president Jillian Burger looks for reason for optimism in the likelihood that only people meeting the unspeakable criterion would manage to become nominated. And that's probably true... as long as the group remains quiet and innocuous enough that those who would take advantage of the universal right to join and lead it don't think a coup worth the effort.

Where is the Moral Outrage?

I remember being in college – as a political science major – and having no idea about the political beliefs of my professors. But that is often not true today, a change for the worse that strikes at the very heart of the intellectual freedom we cherish as American citizens.

The magnitude of the problem is highlighted again in two adjoining stories in the December 3 edition of the Wall Street Journal.

The first story – an editorial – speaks to the ongoing problem of classroom politicization and intolerance in American colleges. Is raising this problem – again – just another rant by conservatives? If that is your reaction, then read the second story and ask yourself the question again. The decisions highlighted in the latter story are another example of the consequences of this intolerance and political correctness. And they deserve a response of nothing less than contempt and moral outrage.

In the first story, a new survey among 50 top American colleges commissioned by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) shows "A Chill in the Classroom."

The editorial notes:

Most troubling, however, were the responses to the survey item "On my campus, there are courses in which students feel they have to agree with the professor’s political or social views in order to get a good grade" – 29% agreed.

ACTA’s president, Anne Neal, is alarmed. "One case of political intolerance is too many," she says. "But the fact that half the students are reporting [some] abuses is simply unacceptable. If these were reports of sexual harassment in the classroom, they would get people’s attention."

Some of the students’ survey comments include: (i) "My professor mocked conservatives constantly"; (ii) "Pro left-wing jokes abound"; (iii) "I feel intimidated"; and, (iv) "[teacher] actively silenced people who disagreed with her."

The editorial concludes:

…just as teachers’ freedom of speech must be protected, so must students’ freedom to learn, if it is threatened. After all, as ACTA’s Anne Neal points out, "The inability to benefit from a robust and free exchange of ideas – intellectual harassment if you will – goes to the very heart of the academic enterprise."

In the second story, entitled "Meet the Newest Member of the Faculty," Roger Kimball talks about how the Kirkland Project for the Study of Gender, Society, and Culture at Hamilton College has hired Susan Rosenberg as an "artist/activist-in-residence" to teach a seminar entitled "Resistance Memoirs: Writing, Identity and Change." The college’s administrators describe Ms. Rosenberg as "an award-winning writer, an activist and a teacher who offers a unique perspective as a writer." Sounds interesting, no?

But Ms. Rosenberg is not just any activist or writer. She is an alumna of the Weather Underground who was serving a sentence of 58 years in prison until President Clinton commuted her sentence to a large outcry in January 2001.

She was indicted as an accessory to a 1981 Brinks armored car holdup in which a Brinks guard and two police officers were murdered. She stayed on the run from the law until she was caught in 1984 with a cache of weapons, including 740 pounds of explosives.

Upon her 2001 release from prison, Kimball writes:

…she tentatively renounced individual violence. But nowhere in her evasive circumlocutions did she renounce collective violence, what she described in 1993 as "the necessity for armed self-defense" in the pursuit of "revolutionary anti-imperialistic resistance…[she] likes to call herself 'a former U.S. political prisoner.'"

While not everyone at Hamilton College is happy,

Steven Goldberg, a professor of art history, noted "there are nine children today who will never see their father…three women who are widowed,"

Kimball goes on to describe the double standard these days in academia:

Under fire, Hamilton administrators have wrapped themselves in the mantle of free speech…they stated, "the college does not normally put limits on which voices can be heard and which cannot."

Well, that depends…when a Hamilton alumnus and official class representative sought to alert his classmates to the Rosenberg appointment, the college’s development office refused to send out a letter from him, as it normally would…Ah yes: Free speech for me, but not for thee.

To put it another way, do you believe Hamilton College would be touting its commitment to free speech or there would be a similar lack of public outrage if they had hired someone – equally evil – who had murdered three abortion doctors and continued to talk about the ongoing requirement for armed activity against those who practice abortion?

By the way, what grade do you think a student in her seminar will get if they write about George Washington and Thomas Jefferson when addressing the pursuit of "revolutionary anti-imperialistic resistance" against England in 1776?

So where is our moral outrage? Where are the citizens in academia and across America who will be vigilant defenders of academic freedom for all students, regardless of their political persuasion?

We had best remember the words of David Hume (as quoted by Mary Anastasia O'Grady in a December 3 editorial), who wrote:

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Slavery has so frightful an aspect to men accustomed to freedom that it must steal in upon them by degrees and must disguise itself in a thousand shapes in order to be received.

Degrees of Separation

The alarm siren that this news sets off should be audible as distantly as Hawaii:

Superior Court Judge Netti Vogel last week issued a permanent injunction blocking the state's three-year agreement with United. United rival Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island had sought the injunction, claiming the state's handling of the bids was unfair. Vogel agreed, saying it was riddled with errors and that the state must seek new bids.

The Carcieri administration appealed Vogel's decision to the Supreme Court on Monday, and sought an immediate suspension of the injunction and quick consideration of its appeal.

Note that I'm calling for an alarm — not action. I lack the background to know what is and isn't legitimate practice in the contract bidding process, and I lack the time to research the relevant law. One way or another, something just is not right in this sequence of events.

I trust the governor when he says that, even "if the allegations contained in the judge's decision were true, United HealthCare's bid would still be superior to the bid submitted by Blue Cross." Furthermore, I'm not impressed with Vogel's decision (PDF). Somewhere between the phrases "the lame excuse" on page four and "a feeble effort" on page ten, I began to wonder what legal purpose the adjectives were meant to serve. Nonetheless, my personal impressions are not the main reason for concern.

The problem is that we live in a state in which the legislature consents to tacking a provision on to the state budget that removes the executive branch from the handling of budget requests from the judiciary... and then overrides the governor's veto. Where the guy running Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island was, until the last election, the father of a state representative.

Vogel leverages the State Purchases Act, which became law in 1989, a period during which the state senate was under the "effective control" of John Bevilacqua. John is the son of Joseph Bevilacqua, who had (at that time) recently resigned his position as Supreme Court Chief Justice "amidst revelations about links to organized crime figures," and brother of Joseph Jr., also a man with interesting connections as well as the apparent source of the videotape whom the ailing Jim Taricani has (according to Taricani) risked prison to protect.

According to the language of the law, it "shall be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes and policies." At first, I wondered whether "liberally construed and applied" might be meant to give the executive branch room in which to conduct smart business maneuvers. Then I read Governor Carcieri's press release stating that even "Blue Cross admitted that United HealthCare's bid was more favorable to the taxpayers," and it occurred to me that Vogel's rhetoric is mainly concerned, not with the taxpayers, but with "fairness" to Blue Cross & Blue Shield:

Whether due to ignorance of the law, their own flawed sense of fairness, or some other less innocent motive, [the executive] skewed the process in favor of United and denied BCBSRI fair and equitable treatment mandated by law.

Now, I'm not asserting any form of wrongdoing on either side. I'm merely suggesting that we ought to keep a very close eye on the judicial overruling of executive processes on the basis of ensuring fair treatment for a healthcare monopolist with questionable connections throughout the state and its government.

ADDENDUM:
Let me tack on, here, a tangential curiosity that I stumbled upon while skimming this ruling. Vogel writes that "the Court does not require a 'smoking gun' to draw a reasonable inference that favoritism was present and that Defendant acted so unreasonably, arbitrarily and capriciously as to be guilty of a palpable abuse of discretion." The phrase "smoking gun" is footnoted as follows:

On August 5, 1973, President Nixon released transcripts of taped conversations he had had six days after the Watergate break-in. Those transcripts became known as "The Smoking Gun" because they disclosed how early Nixon learned that his staff and re-election campaign had been involved in the break-in and also revealed his own participation in the cover-up. Following release of those tapes, it became clear that Nixon would be impeached and convicted in the Senate.

Is it common for judges to indulge in political history (involving Republican scandals) in order to explain extremely common phrases?

WARL 1320 AM Radio Show Appearance

I will be appearing on Rick Adams' radio show on WARL 1320 AM ("Reality Radio") in Providence, Rhode Island, next Wednesday, December 15, from 8-9 p.m.

You can also hear the radio station streamed online at its Web site.

Anchor in the Update

Thanks to Dave Talan for including a mention of Anchor Rising in the latest edition of his R.I. Republican Update email. The blurb is about "the relatively new occurrence" of the blog movement. Talan also mentions Chuck Nevola's The Senescent Man (as well as Dust in the Light and The Ocean State Blogger).

There aren't any instructions in the email regarding the procedure for subscribing, but if you're interested, I believe you can get on the mailing list by sending your request to DaveTalan@aol.com.

Warwick School Board Election: A Litmus Test

Yesterday I "braved" the rain to vote in a special election that sought to winnow down the candidates for an open school committee seat from 5 to 2. Dr. Saleh R. Shahid and Lucille Mota-Costa emerged as the winners. Shahid is a registered Republican who has unsuccessfully run for both the State Legislature and State Senate before, though he didn't do so this year because of a technical filing error (he checked the wrong box!). Mota-Costa is a retired West Warwick school teacher who finished last in the four-way primary held on November 2 to fill two other vacant seats.

Turnout was extremely low, (only 711 of an eligible 18,756 voters casted ballots) with Shahid receiving 278 votes, Mota-Costa receiving 165 votes and other candidates receiving 268 votes. The vote totals would seem to bode well for Shahid's chances in the final election to be held in January. In addition, the fact that Mota-Costa has already been rejected within the past month or so for the same position may prove a tough hurdle for her to overcome. Will voters who have already rejected her turnaround and vote for her?

I took note of the statements made by the candidates (as quoted after the results were learned), which I believe provided a clue as to their disposition and "management style."

"I feel relieved but not rested. I know there is a lot of work to be done," Shahid said last night. "I want to congratulate Ms. Mota-Costa ... and the other candidates for an honorable and well-fought race. I hope in January to convince the voters that I'm the best man for job."

"I think if the people in the city continue to support me they won't be sorry," she said last night. "I'm a hard-working woman."

However, Mota-Costa said that in January the voters must come out in greater numbers.

"They need to vote," she said, "otherwise live with whoever you end up with, live with the decisions other people make."

Notice the difference? Shahid is nothing but complimentary and thankful and realizes that he needs to do more work. Mota-Costa says she works hard, but puts the onus on the voters to turnout and vote for her "or else." Shahid realizes it is his responsibility to convince the voters, while Mota-Costa indicates that her credentials are self-evident and it is up to the voters to realize that she is right choice. In short, she sounds as if she feels entitled to the position. This makes Mota-Costa sound like a lecturing teacher and contributes to what I believe is her significant handicap going into the election: she is a teacher. A teacher on the school committee is like the fox watching the henhouse and I think that the average Warwick voter believes this. Mota-Costa will need the votes of teachers, and those sympathetic to them, to win. Shahid will need to make sure that more parents and taxpayers turn out for him. The raw numbers would seem to favor Shahid, but the motivation of the teachers union can never be underestimated.

Re: The Politics of Charter Schools

Marc:

I published a ProJo editorial in March that noted the ludicrous comments last Spring about Governor Carcieri's then-proposed modest increase in charter school funding and insignificant reduction in general education funding.

What made the comments so ridiculous was the proposed small changes in funding for the upcoming year were completely dwarfed by the hefty spending increases of prior years. And what results do we have to show for all that spending?

Education is the gateway to the American Dream for all of our children. I continue to be astounded at how politicians, education bureaucrats, and the teachers' unions oppose every meaningful reform to the ongoing failings of public education. As you note so well, they would rather protect their own special interests than help disadvantaged children who most need the benefits resulting from some freedom of educational choice.

The Politics of Charter Schools

While visiting The Learning Community Charter School in Pawtucket, Governor Carcieri floated the idea of removing the state's charter school cap, which limits each school district to two charter schools (except Providence, which is allowed four). Predictably, there are those who disagree with the Governor about removing the cap, even though recent studies have shown that Charter Schools in Rhode Island are working well. (There are also those who oppose charter schools, but that is another debate entirely). One opponent to Carcieri's idea is Rep. Paul W. Crowley, chairman of the House Finance Subcommittee on Education. However, his opposition seems based less on the merits of the proposal than on political calculation. Crowley stated that he opposed any changes in the cap unless the Governor

promises to do something about the way traditional public schools are financed. "Remember what he did last year," said Crowley, who also serves on the Board of Regents. "He started a range war in education. It's nice to say this about charters, but if it's not part of a comprehensive package on public school funding, it's not going anywhere."

Crowley and the Governor have agreed on other education matters in the past, such as a common statewide curriculum, so I don't automatically assume that he opposes Charter schools or the Governor per se. Rather, it appears he simply wants to employ the Charter School cap issue as a weapon in this so-called "range war." He probably also doesn't like the fact that he and the legislature will soon be losing some of their existing educational oversight power. In fact, Crowley proposed in 2001 to increase the seats controlled by legislators on both the Board of Regents and the Board of Higher Education by increasing the number of appointments made by the House and Senate, though State Representatives or Senators would not fill those new seats. As such, it is evident that Crowley is a proponent of the legislature having a greater control of not just educational funding, but also how the money is spent. Crowley is also a member of the Board of Regents for Elementary and Secondary Education. With the passage of the Separation of Powers Ammendment, I believe that Crowley will no longer be able to serve in both the Legislature and on the Board of Regents. This probably doesn't sit well with him, either. In refering to a similar situation regarding the Board of Governors for Higher Education Crowley stated

"As we get into the separation-of-powers issue, we will lose our two seats on the board," Crowley said, referring to the slots held by a state senator and a state representative on the 15-member Board of Governors. "We've got to improve our oversight."

Almost in answer, Jeffrey Selingo, political editor for the Chronicle of Higher Education, observed, "Lawmakers usually have short-term views and are more parochial, focusing on projects in their districts....They sometimes do what is politically expedient to get themselves reelected." That is exactly why so many Rhode Islanders supported Separation of Powers in the first place. It seems Rep. Crowley is more interested in the political advantage to be gained by opposing an idea proposed by the Governor than in broadening the access to a successful and innovative method of educating poor and at-risk children. Of course, the issue is more than a political bargaining chip, it is also based upon satisfying a key constituency: teachers and their union. In this, Crowley is not alone as the General Assembly has declared

"The Board of Regents shall not grant final approval for any new charter school to begin operations in the 2005-2006 school year."

As usual, it is the children, especially those who start with the biggest disadvantages, who are being victimized by both an unnecessary political turf war and legislators who prioritize "special" interests over the best interests of the next generation.

Misguided Incentives Drive Public Sector Taxation

Talking about a pro-tax ballot initiative defeated in Oregon during 2002, a Wall Street Journal editorial stated:

When the budget issue is framed in terms of higher taxes, voters don't understand why government should be exempt from the same spending discipline the rest of us live by. "I am a normal person and when I don't have enough money I have to change my habits," 26-year-old Heather Bryan told the AP, explaining her vote against the measure. "Government should be the same way."

But it isn't and that begs the question of why?

Terry Moe offers this opinion of why government behavior is problematic (PDF):

Public agencies usually have no competition and are not threatened by the loss of business if their costs go up, while workers and unions know they are not putting their agencies or jobs at risk by pressuring for all they can get. Governmental decisions are not driven by efficiency concerns, as they are in the private sector, but by political considerations, and thus by [political] power.

In comparison, when faced with competition in the private sector, irresponsible management action eventually results in loss of market share, lower profits, and loss of jobs. In other words there are direct and dire consequences to bad behavior.

Or, as Wendell Cox wrote last year in a National Review Online article:

How different government is to the real world of the private sector. When [corporations get] into financial trouble, they cut costs and get concessions from their unions, while doing everything they [can] to maintain service levels. When government gets into trouble, it threatens deep service cuts, all too often cuts aimed at the programs that cause the greatest public consternation, in a calculated strategy to obtain the additional funding necessary to maintain the status quo.

The bottom line consequences for working families and retirees are clear: When taxes increase, your standard of living declines.

Practically speaking, the decline in your family's standard of living results in some combination of the three following outcomes: (i) you incur new debt; (ii) you use some of your savings; and/or (iii) you reduce your current spending for items such as food, clothes, heating oil, medical care, car repairs as well as savings for college and retirement. All three outcomes are direct and tangible costs incurred by every family - you have less of your hard-earned income to spend on your family's needs.

It is worth noting that politicians, bureaucrats, and public sector unions suffer no similar consequences when they act irresponsibly. This creates a curious lack of incentive for them to change their behavior.

It was what led Calvin Coolidge to say:

Nothing is easier than spending the public money. It does not appear to belong to anybody. The temptation is overwhelming to bestow it on somebody.

Or, as Lawrence Reed said in his October 2001 speech to the Economic Club of Detroit:

When you spend other people's money to buy something for someone else, the connection between the earner, the spender and the recipient is most remote - and the potential for mischief is the greatest.

That mischief is obvious when you read about the ridiculous spending approved by lawmakers from both parties. See Citizens Against Government Waste's Pig Book.

The mischief is clear when you see powerful interest groups (including both corporations and unions) manipulate the system for their advantage, all to the detriment of individual families who lose more of their freedom through ever-increasing tax burdens.

So, what can we do about this problem? Any solution requires a vigilant citizenry that makes the mischief transparent to the voting public. And then it comes down to engaged citizens gathering enough political power to bring about change.

Misguided Incentives Drive Public Sector Taxation

Talking about a pro-tax ballot initiative defeated in Oregon during 2002, a Wall Street Journal editorial stated:

When the budget issue is framed in terms of higher taxes, voters don't understand why government should be exempt from the same spending discipline the rest of us live by. "I am a normal person and when I don't have enough money I have to change my habits," 26-year-old Heather Bryan told the AP, explaining her vote against the measure. "Government should be the same way."

But it isn't and that begs the question of why?

Terry Moe offers this opinion of why government behavior is problematic (PDF):

Public agencies usually have no competition and are not threatened by the loss of business if their costs go up, while workers and unions know they are not putting their agencies or jobs at risk by pressuring for all they can get. Governmental decisions are not driven by efficiency concerns, as they are in the private sector, but by political considerations, and thus by [political] power.

In comparison, when faced with competition in the private sector, irresponsible management action eventually results in loss of market share, lower profits, and loss of jobs. In other words there are direct and dire consequences to bad behavior.

Or, as Wendell Cox wrote last year in a National Review Online article:

How different government is to the real world of the private sector. When [corporations get] into financial trouble, they cut costs and get concessions from their unions, while doing everything they [can] to maintain service levels. When government gets into trouble, it threatens deep service cuts, all too often cuts aimed at the programs that cause the greatest public consternation, in a calculated strategy to obtain the additional funding necessary to maintain the status quo.

The bottom line consequences for working families and retirees are clear: When taxes increase, your standard of living declines.

Practically speaking, the decline in your family's standard of living results in some combination of the three following outcomes: (i) you incur new debt; (ii) you use some of your savings; and/or (iii) you reduce your current spending for items such as food, clothes, heating oil, medical care, car repairs as well as savings for college and retirement. All three outcomes are direct and tangible costs incurred by every family - you have less of your hard-earned income to spend on your family's needs.

It is worth noting that politicians, bureaucrats, and public sector unions suffer no similar consequences when they act irresponsibly. This creates a curious lack of incentive for them to change their behavior.

It was what led Calvin Coolidge to say:

Nothing is easier than spending the public money. It does not appear to belong to anybody. The temptation is overwhelming to bestow it on somebody.

Or, as Lawrence Reed said in his October 2001 speech to the Economic Club of Detroit:

When you spend other people's money to buy something for someone else, the connection between the earner, the spender and the recipient is most remote - and the potential for mischief is the greatest.

That mischief is obvious when you read about the ridiculous spending approved by lawmakers from both parties. See Citizens Against Government Waste's Pig Book.

The mischief is clear when you see powerful interest groups (including both corporations and unions) manipulate the system for their advantage, all to the detriment of individual families who lose more of their freedom through ever-increasing tax burdens.

So, what can we do about this problem? Any solution requires a vigilant citizenry that makes the mischief transparent to the voting public. And then it comes down to engaged citizens gathering enough political power to bring about change.

UN & NAACP: Usefulness Outlived

According to conservative columnist Armstrong Williams, Kweisi Mfume, who supposedly resigned as CEO of the NAACP, was actually forced out by the organization's Chairman, Julian Bond. Why the rift? According to Williams

The two began feuding after Mfume nominated National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice for his 2003 NAACP Image Award. Furious that Mfume was reaching out to the Bush administration, Bond responded by nominating "Boondocks" cartoonist Aaron McGruder...[who] had ridiculed Rice in his comic strip and later caller her “murderer” for her role in the war in Iraq....

The final tear came after the election. Mfume suggested sending a letter to President Bush, mapping out ways that they could work together to help the community. Bond rejected the idea. Mfume sent the letter anyway. To Bond, this was an unforgivable. A few weeks later, Bond had Mfume voted out. The message was clear: There is no room within the NAACP for intellectual diversity. Just loyal servitude to the Democratic Party.

As originally conceived, the NAACP played a large and important role in the Civil Rights movement. It's original mission accomplished, it has survived as a watchdog organization, albeit one that, as presently constituted, serves as little more than a wing of the Democrat Party. As such, the current NAACP offers no independent vision for the future that can be reasonably disconnected from the mundane political desires of the Democrat Party. While Mfume's outreach to Republicans could be taken as nothing more than political calculation, the resulting political conversation would have fostered an intellectually diverse dialogue that is currently non-existent within the NAACP. Such intellectual diversity would seem to be desirable to an organization based on broadening the spectrum of the American body politic. A political foot in the door with the party in power would also seem to benefit the communities ostensibly served by the NAACP. However, Bond's actions indicate that the organization's current adherence to simplistic demonization and knee-jerk reactions to anything Republican or conservative will continue. Unfortunately, this lack of interest in intellectual diversity is predictable given that the old mantras and polemics have served the current leadership so well. They have maintained their own power at the expense of the best interests of their constituency. Until the average members of the NAACP, or the greater minority community in general, realize that they are being ill-served, they will continue to be led by those who deem power more important than progress.

Similarly, the UN Oil-for-Food program scandal can leave one with no other conclusion than that the United Nations, as presently constituted, has survived beyond its own usefulness. Once seen as an example of democracy writ large, it now serves as a vehicle of power and prestige for men and women who "represent" mostly undemocratic nations. Politically immune from prosecution in both the country of their birth and the country in which they work, they live in a different reality than the rest of the world. They suffer few or no consequences for their actions: they are accountable to none but their own government, whose interests they represent. In such an environment, these self-interests, both personal and political, often win out over any "greater good." The UN has become slave to unending processes in which nothing is ever really solved, though much is discussed. Instead, its members flit about, condemn the U.S. "Empire" and remain comfortably insulated in a cocoon of privilege, forever confirmed of the rightness of their reality by the chattering classes of the Boston-New York-Washington corridor, the Enlightened on the Continent, and their own oppressive governments abroad.

Both organizations, the UN and the NAACP, are operating anachronisms. While the context in which they were founded has changed, the institutions themselves have not altered to meet new challenges. The original missions of each were praiseworthy, albeit (in the case of the UN) a bit idealistic. With proper leadership, these organizations could update their missions. They could refocus, modify or redefine their goals to better address the needs of the people for whom they claim to represent. Unfortunately, such reform requires strong leadership and intellectual flexibility. The NAACP's adherence to a simplistic "oppressed black" vs. "white oppressor" dichotomy or the U.N.'s upside-down geopolitical worldview where America is an opressive Empire and Saddam Hussein a victim of aggression are evidence of "truths" in need of reexamination. Unfortunately, Julian Bond and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan are too inept, corrupt and power-hungry to steer a new course toward redefined goals. Most importantly, it is not in their best interest to do any such thing. Until they are removed, change is impossible and both organizations will continue to sink and wallow in the mud of irrelevancy.

Taxation Without Representation... or Even Personhood

Robert Whitcomb's writing, as much as conservatives might find to disagree with, is refreshing for the simple fact that he obviously thinks things through and is willing to take an unpopular position when his thinking demands it:

Corporate-income taxes -- local, state or federal -- are absurd, and should be abolished. I say that as we come out of a political season in which some politicians said that they wanted "corporations to finally pay their fair share" of government expenses, and that it's outrageous that corporations are "getting away with murder," by paying a smaller percentage than "hard-working Americans."

But the "corporate-income" tax is actually paid by plenty of "hard-working people": the employees of the taxed company; the company's customers, to whom the costs of the tax are passed on, in the price of goods and services; and, of course, the investors who help start and expand companies.

His view of what we need tax dollars for, and from whom we ought to take them leaves room for argument. But in our nation's current state of affairs, anybody who agrees that taxes should be instituted "as simply and honestly as possible" is a welcome ally.

Taricani's Right to Trial-By-Jury

I was surprised to read in Sunday's Projo that the Taricani case continues.

There is still a fundamental question I have yet to see answered anywhere in public. Did Taricani waive his right to a jury trial in this case? If so, why? If not, how has Judge Torres' managed to skirt the whole right-to-trial-by-jury detail?

Ethics Rules and the Missing Factoid

Glen Peck of Barrington thinks that:

House Republicans have done something truly appalling. They've knocked down a Republican House ethics rule that banned House members from holding leadership positions if they've been indicted on felony charges. They did it on behalf of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R.-Texas). ...

This is no mere act of hypocrisy, though. Nor is it just a Beltway issue, relevant only in Washington. This is a national moral lapse that cuts to the heart of our government.

Curiously, Mr. Peck doesn't seem interested in the question of whether the other major party at "the heart of our government" has a similar rule. (Of course, in Rhode Island, the Democrats are the head, hands, and pockets of government, too.) In trying to answer that question for myself, I didn't come across any "appalled" liberals demanding that the Democrats institute one. The closest was a parenthetical note from the apparently liberal Bert Caradine at WatchBlog — offered without evidence or opinion — that "House Democrats are now considering one."

News readers might suppose that Washington Post writer Charles Babington would think it a relevant factoid for his piece on the matter. But the information remains absent, even as he quotes House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi as saying that the rule change would "confirm yet again that [Republicans] simply do not care if their leaders are ethical." (Pelosi, herself, didn't seem to notice that her standard for the Republicans implies a lack of ethics as the norm.)

Bill Bowman, writing from Bruce Springsteen's old stomping grounds in New Jersey in the Asbury Park Press, outdoes the WaPo coverage in this respect, if only because a New Jersey Republican spokesman thought to say the unspeakable:

The Republicans' new rule is "considered tougher than the Democrats', who have no rules whatsoever. A Democrat leader could be indicted and found guilty and still hold their post," Sagnip said.

And the folks at Power Line join me (or at least their emailers do) in finding it curious that Democrats would fling the word "hypocrisy" on this count.

I'm not interested enough in this matter to engage in adequate research to form a definitive opinion. Still, indictment seems a rather strict measure in an innocent-'til-proven-guilty society. A rule such as the following, described in the WaPo article, seems most reasonable to me, given political circumstances:

Republicans last night were tweaking the language of several proposals for changing the rule. The one drawing the most comment, by Rep. Henry Bonilla (Tex.), would allow leaders indicted by a state grand jury to stay on. However, a leader indicted by a federal court would have to step down at least temporarily.

Honoring the Land We Love

With the election over, we once again turn our attention to the future. That includes preparing for a new group of government officials to take office.

Therefore it seems timely to reflect on the principles of the American Founding, as we hope these principles will guide both our lawmakers and us.

It is a common practice for some people to focus on America's past or current failings. Some even go so far as to claim The American Project is a failure or illegitimate because of these imperfections.

Contrast that world view with the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., leader of one of the great moral endeavors of our lifetime. We all agree that slavery was a failing in the early years of the Republic. We further agree that unequal treatment under the law in a post-slavery world was another failing. Yet, when faced with the latter challenge, Dr. King successfully led a change effort by appealing to higher principles.

Consider this excerpt from his 1963 "I Have A Dream" speech:

I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal. I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

We are touched because those powerful words appeal to timeless moral principles that are grounded in both our Declaration of Independence and the great moral traditions that precede our Founding.

Roger Pilon wrote the following in a 2002 Cato Institute booklet containing the Declaration of Independence and Constitution:

Appealing to all mankind, the Declaration's seminal passage opens with perhaps the most important line in the document: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident." Grounded in reason, "self-evident" truths invoke the long tradition of natural law, which holds that there is a "higher law" of right and wrong from which to derive human law and against which to criticize that law at any time. It is not political will, then, but moral reasoning, accessible to all, that is the foundation of our political system.

But if reason is the foundation of the Founders' vision - the method by which we justify our political order - liberty is its aim. Thus, cardinal moral truths are these:

...that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness...That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.

We are all created equal, as defined by our natural rights; thus, no one has rights superior to those of anyone else. Moreover, we are born with those rights, we do not get them from government - indeed, whatever rights or powers government has come from us, from "the Consent of the Governed." And our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness imply the right to live our lives as we wish - to pursue happiness as we think best, by our own lights - provided only that we respect the equal rights of others to do the same. Drawing by implication upon the common law tradition of liberty, property, and contract - its principles rooted in "right reason" - the Founders thus outlined the moral foundations of a free society.

Dr. Pilon concluded his essay by writing:

In the end, however, no constitution can be self-enforcing. Government officials must respect their oaths to uphold the Constitution; and we the people must be vigilant in seeing that they do. The Founders drafted an extraordinarily thoughtful plan of government, but it is up to us, to each generation, to preserve and protect it for ourselves and for future generations. For the Constitution will live only if it is alive in the hearts and minds of the American people. That, perhaps, is the most enduring lesson of our experiment in ordered liberty.

A love for life and liberty with the freedom to pursue happiness, while seeking a deeper understanding of the moral underpinnings of natural law. In this time of great challenges and conflict, may all of us live up to that vision authored by our Founders as we strive to be engaged citizens who are vigilant stewards of freedom and opportunity for all Americans.

Honoring The Land We Love

With the election over, we once again turn our attention to the future. That includes preparing for a new group of government officials to take office.

Therefore it seems timely to reflect on the principles of the American Founding, as we hope these principles will guide both our lawmakers and us.

It is a common practice for some people to focus on America’s past or current failings. Some even go so far as to claim The American Project is a failure or illegitimate because of these imperfections.

Contrast that world view with the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., leader of one of the great moral endeavors of our lifetime. We all agree that slavery was a failing in the early years of the Republic. We further agree that unequal treatment under the law in a post-slavery world was another failing. Yet, when faced with the latter challenge, Dr. King successfully led a change effort by appealing to higher principles.

Consider this excerpt from his 1963 "I Have A Dream" speech:

I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal. I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood….I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

We are touched because those powerful words appeal to timeless moral principles that are grounded in both our Declaration of Independence and the great moral traditions that precede our Founding.

Roger Pilon wrote the following in a 2002 Cato Institute booklet containing the Declaration of Independence and Constitution:

Appealing to all mankind, the Declaration's seminal passage opens with perhaps the most important line in the document: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident." Grounded in reason, "self-evident" truths invoke the long tradition of natural law, which holds that there is a "higher law" of right and wrong from which to derive human law and against which to criticize that law at any time. It is not political will, then, but moral reasoning, accessible to all, that is the foundation of our political system.

But if reason is the foundation of the Founders' vision – the method by which we justify our political order – liberty is its aim. Thus, cardinal moral truths are these:

…that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness – That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.

We are all created equal, as defined by our natural rights; thus, no one has rights superior to those of anyone else. Moreover, we are born with those rights, we do not get them from government – indeed, whatever rights or powers government has come from us, from "the Consent of the Governed." And our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness imply the right to live our lives as we wish – to pursue happiness as we think best, by our own lights – provided only that we respect the equal rights of others to do the same. Drawing by implication upon the common law tradition of liberty, property, and contract – its principles rooted in "right reason" – the Founders thus outlined the moral foundations of a free society.

Dr. Pilon concluded his essay by writing:

In the end, however, no constitution can be self-enforcing. Government officials must respect their oaths to uphold the Constitution; and we the people must be vigilant in seeing that they do. The Founders drafted an extraordinarily thoughtful plan of government, but it is up to us, to each generation, to preserve and protect it for ourselves and for future generations. For the Constitution will live only if it is alive in the hearts and minds of the American people. That, perhaps, is the most enduring lesson of our experiment in ordered liberty.

A love for life and liberty with the freedom to pursue happiness, while seeking a deeper understanding of the moral underpinnings of natural law. In this time of great challenges and conflict, may all of us live up to that vision authored by our Founders as we strive to be engaged citizens who are vigilant stewards of freedom and opportunity for all Americans.

Science (and Religion) Beyond Evolution

I chuckled when I read Tom LeBlanc's letter in the Projo (which Marc mentions in the previous post). The idea that the Theory of Evolution can accord with religious faith in God is only "groundbreaking" from the perspective of scientists. If the Judeo-Christian conception of God is more or less correct, then it must be the case that any science discovered to be true will accord with His existence.

This discussion brings to mind a series of six long essays that I wrote in response to physicist Frank Tipler's The Physics of Immortality. (Here's part one of the series.) The concepts are abstract, and the writing is rough. And I sometimes wasn't sufficiently clear when I was speculating about "if this, then that" and when I was saying "certainly this," but that's mostly because I was rushing to throw the ideas into words before discontinuing my online Just Thinking column.

Not surprisingly, given that I'm a Catholic Christian convert, the underlying idea is that even the most out-there of scientific ideas, to the extent that they are truly compatible with the world in which we live, are compatible with God, generally, and Christian revelation, specifically. I don't think the topic necessarily accords with the specific mission of Anchor Rising, but it's certainly one to which I intend to return when circumstances allow.

ADDENDUM:
I should note that the topic that I don't think accords with the mission of Anchor Rising is the tracing of religion into out-there science — not the level of discussion in which Marc has engaged. That's clearly apropos to our goals, here.

Science and Religion

Last week I noticed a story about a school district in Georgia placing a disclaimer on its high school biology books that stated that "Evolution is a theory, not a fact." The local tie-in was that the author of the textbook, Kenneth Miller, is a Brown University professor. The ACLU and others have filed to remove the sticker and "the judge must determine whether the sticker promotes religion or is merely an advisory action by a government entity." Apparently we have another secular/religion argument, right? Not necessarily.

Yesterday brought a letter to the editors of the ProJo from Tom LeBlanc, a former student of Miller's, who wrote that the story neglected to mention Miller's Finding Darwin's God, a work, according to LeBlanc, that

demonstrates how belief in God is not necessarily contrary to belief in evolutionary theory. This is indeed a quite groundbreaking notion, contrary to the partisanship typical of most evolutionary debates, in which "creationism" and evolution are passionately presented as diametrically opposed.

Indeed, it seems that Miller believes that evolution and creation go hand-and-hand and are not mutually exclusive concepts. Science and Religion both offer creation theories, after all, and in that acknowledged common ground Miller seeks to sow the seeds of compatibility.

The conflict between these two versions of our history is real, and I do not doubt for a second that it needs to be addressed. What I do not believe is that the conflict is unresolvable....As more than one scientist has said, the truly remarkable thing about the world is that it actually does make sense. The parts fit, the molecules interact, the darn thing works. To people of faith, what evolution says is that nature is complete. God fashioned a material world in which truly free, truly independent beings could evolve. [source (Scientific American review of the book)]

Miller takes atheistic evolutionists to task for too-cavalierly disregarding religious theories and he criticizes creationists (more specifically, instantaneous creationists) for attempting to raise reasonable doubt towards evolutionary theory instead of offering a theory of their own. Miller himself seems to follow a third way, often called either developmental creation or theistic evolution.

As a Catholic, Miller is following in the footsteps of other Catholic scientists who recognized that science and religion are not necessarily antagonistic. For example, with regards to just creation theory, Catholic sholars have long believed that a literal interpretation of Genesis is not required as proof of belief in God. Augustine (and others) believed that each of the seven days of creation as outlined in Genesis were not necessarily defined by the same 24 hour period as was contemporarily understood. In his The Literal Interpretation of Genesis [A.D. 408], Augustine observed that

Seven days by our reckoning, after the model of the days of creation, make up a week. By the passage of such weeks time rolls on, and in these weeks one day is constituted by the course of the sun from its rising to its setting; but we must bear in mind that these days indeed recall the days of creation, but without in any way being really similar to them" (Literal Interpretation of Genesis, 4:27).

This echoed the earlier and more succinct ruminations of Cyprian, who stated in his Treatises [A.D. 250] that, "The first seven days in the divine arrangement contain seven thousand years" (Treatises 11:11 ). Though Cyprian's estimate was off, the writings of both he and Augustine have shown that religious men were perfectly willing to grant that a literal interpretation of the Bible was not necessary to be religious. ( Overall, the Catholic Church has some well-reasoned postions on this subject and a good, short summary is here).

Historically, religion and reason have often been at loggerheads, but some of the most important progress in human understanding (philosophy) has been made by religious scholars (Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Copernicus and Johnathan Edwards, to name a few). In our Red/Blue, religious/secular world, we who consider ourselves conservative, on the Red/Religious side if you will, should take care not to negatively conflate rabid secularism with accepted scientific theory. I understand the motivation behind the biology textbook stickers. In a world where God is constantly under assault, some see an opportunity to bring God into our schools via the side door. The goal is admirable, however placing a "parental warning" on textbooks is a misquided method. These stickers imply to our school children that a sort of scientific conspiracy exists and that the real "truth" of science and nature is unknowable. Ironically, such implications of scientific uncertainty lead to the same a sort of relativism often derided by religious conservatives when applied in the moral realm. Just as it is disengenuous to state that there are no universally accepted moral codes, it is likewise to imply that scientific truth is also unattainable, or at least highly speculative.

As I've detailed, there are various evolutional theories, and God has a place in them. Simply because atheistic proponents discount the possibility that God has any place in their specific theory of evolution does not mean that all evolution theories have no place for God. Similarly, simply because some creationists believe that God created the world in six, 24 hour days does not mean that all religious people discount the fossil record or Darwin's observations. I would guess that for most people the truth lay somewhere in between the two extremes. Religion and Science do not have to be assigned opposite poles from which mutually exclusive belief systems are derived. Let's not let political ideology cloud our reason, or our faith.

An Obvious Plan?

I only caught a few minutes of his radio show while I rushed around, but Dan Yorke seems to think it's obvious that Jim Taricani tried to give Bevilacqua up in his "by chance" meeting with FBI agent Dennis Aiken... without actually giving him up. If that's the case, I agree with Yorke that Taricani's freedom-of-the-press-martyr schtick is nauseating. Still, the problem with that argument is that Taricani gave his source away just a couple of hours before his criminal contempt trial. Yorke attributes that to poor planning; I'm not so sure:

Accordingly, immediately prior to the commencement of the criminal contempt trial, this information was provided to Mr. Taricani and his lawyers by the Special Prosecutor. Once again, the Special Prosecutor requested that Mr. Taricani comply with the Court Order and identify how and from whom he obtained the Corrente Videotape; in particular, to confirm that Mr. Bevilacqua was indeed his source. At Mr. Taricani's request, there was a short delay in the start of the criminal contempt trial in order for Mr. Taricani to review this development with his attorneys. Despite this new information, Mr. Taricani decided to continue to refuse to comply with the Court Order compelling him to identify his source and the criminal contempt trial proceeded as scheduled.

That's from Special Prosecutor DeSisto's description of events (PDF). So, Yorke's explanation must be that Taricani tried to pull a last minute escape through the eye of his legal and social needle, only to push his luck to the utmost when given an opportunity to seal the deal. That's absolutely plausible, I should note, and Yorke has followed this ordeal much more thoroughly and for much longer than I have. But it still seems to me that there's some other element at play.

The Safety Net Industry

It might surprise North Providence social worker Don Jackson and his ilk that I take seriously my duty to follow President Kennedy's famous imploration and ask what I can do for my country, and for all of humanity. It might surprise the entire field of professional social workers to hear that I don't believe myself to be unique in that attribute among conservatives. Writes Mr. Jackson:

The great conservative wave that swept into this country with the presidency of Ronald Reagan changed the sensibility of the populace from "Ask not what your country can do for you. . . ." to "He who has the most toys wins." One is not going to acquire many "toys" with a degree in the low-paid world of social work. So the field tends to attract us liberals.

One wonders how Mr. Jackson's explanation from economics handles conservatives' disproportionate enlistment in the armed services. Or what about conservatives who pursue religious missionary work? Or punditry?

Truth be told, I find it a peculiar notion that those who would state as plain fact that there "aren't enough 'do-gooders' and charities to make a dent in the social problems in this country (much less the world) without aid from the government" deserve the moral inheritance of "ask not what your country can do for you." For the desert to be just, socialist social workers would have to be correct in their apparent belief that their vocation is above all others in the good that it has accomplished. As much as they may do, and as much of a blessing as they may be to individuals in need, that just isn't the case.

Jackson believes that "without broad social change and government intervention, poverty, illiteracy, discrimination, etc., will continue to increase," but that's more an article of faith than a fact-driven assessment, in terms of both trends and solutions. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the illiteracy rate dropped from 20% of the population in 1870 to 0.6% in 1979. Poor people, in our times, enjoy capabilities and services that even emperors of old could only dream of. Of course, arguments could be made that government intervention played a role in such advances, but did its influence equal that of technological advancement or that of economic freedom? Has federal affirmative action done more to diminish discrimination than, say, television?

We all face decisions about how best to spend our time, and while there's much to admire in those for whom the answer is social work, others may be better suited elsewhere. I wish I were able to become more individually involved in charitable work, but family and financial demands give me a limited opening; are those hours better spent ladling soup or advocating for cultural change that I really do (believe it or not) think will benefit everybody?

In the article that sparked Jackson's letter to the editor, Rhode Island College social work professor Jim Ryczek is reported as believing "that a comprehensive welfare state is the optimal form of government." Somehow Prof. Ryczek doesn't find that view in conflict with social workers' commitment "to helping poor and oppressed communities become empowered to make positive changes." In its history, socialism has done quite a bit to the poor and oppressed; empowering them hasn't been a prominent feature.

For all my protestation, though, social workers with graduate degrees and their professors may be correct that their field isn't for conservatives. A certain mindset is required for choosing that route rather than maximally furthering the country's economy professionally, while working for change and charity personally. It also requires a certain approach to problems, which conservatives may be too inclined to address at their source, rather than through a safety net.

Why Was Molly Little Searched?

On Sunday, Bob Kerr wrote about Rhode Island native Molly Little's experience with airport security. Here's the one sentence summary: Kerr believes she was hassled at the airport because she is a "peace" activist (quotes are mine).

Let me begin with the slight note of hypocrisy that Kerr ends with. Kerr writes

It might never be officially confirmed, but when an 18-year-old from Rhode Island with a mind of her own can be detained at an airport without explanation it's difficult to escape the feeling that somebody's out there taking names.

Why is the fact that Little is an 18-year old "her" relevant to this discussion? Is Kerr implying that Little should not have been searched because she is an 18-year old female? If demographic factors were used in deciding whom to apply extra scrutiny to, Kerr would be among the first to write about the evils of profiling. To maintain some intellectual honesty, and not just express generic liberal outrage, the above sentence should have been written about "a person with a mind of his or her own".

Still, the question of why Molly Little was stopped is a valid one. The government doesn't tell us the exact criteria that its airport screening systems use. There is a reasonable justification for this. If the exact criteria are known, the system is easier to beat. (If you want to sound tech-macho when describing this, say that "the system can be gamed".) Not knowing the exact criteria, what follows is pure speculation on my part.

Start with this article by Michael Pastore, dated August 30, 2004.

The U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will begin testing a new airport passenger-prescreening program to identify potential terrorists before the end of the year, and will also conduct a limited test to determine whether or not comparing passenger information to commercially available data can help to more accurately verify the identity of individuals.

The key here is the use of "commercially available data can help to more accurately verify the identity of individuals". Note the stated goal is not to determine if a person is a good guy or a bad guy, but to determine if they are who they say they are. This could conceivably create a problem in the case of Molly Little. Molly Little also writes under the name of Margaree Little. Is Molly a commonly used diminutive of Margaree? If not, an automated system comparing records from different sources might reach the conclusion that the same person was using two names, i.e. a real name and an alias.

Any risk factors that were flagged were probably enhanced by the fact that Portland is considered a high-risk point of travel. You don't think of Portland as high-risk? Mohammed Atta entered the US through Portland on September 11, 2001 AND was selected by the automated screeing program in place at the time.

Again, I am (for the purposes of this post) remaining neutral on whether this combination of checks, if they exist, are good things or bad things. I am pointing out that it is a little premature to jump to the conclusion that lists of peace protesters are being compiled.

Finally, there is one point in Little's story I don't understand at all. Little says the agent at the ticket counter said that members of the military are sometimes flagged by the screening system. This doesn't make sense. Why would our government want to use it scarce screening resources on members of its own military? There is still a missing piece to this puzzle.

Freedom of the Press: To Whom Does it Extend?

Eugene Volokh, a blogger himself, has a piece in today's New York Times in which he mentions the Taricani case. However, of more importance is the larger question he seeks to address

Because of the Internet, anyone can be a journalist. Some so-called Weblogs - Internet-based opinion columns published by ordinary people - have hundreds of thousands of readers....The First Amendment can't give special rights to the established news media and not to upstart outlets like ours. Freedom of the press should apply to people equally, regardless of who they are, why they write or how popular they are.

Volokh does point out the problem with this everybody-is-a-journalist atmosphere, namely, that anyone can leak anything to anyone who runs a blog and the blogger can cite the First Amendment for protection. Volokh concludes that this can lead to widespread violation of privacy and the like. I'm not sure where we are headed in these interesting times, but it seems as if technology will force us to expand our definition of exactly who is part of the Free Press.

Shifting Objectives (?)

Frankly, I just don't know what to make of this:

... special prosecutor Marc DeSisto says in court papers filed this morning that Bevilacqua never asked Taricani to keep his identity confidential and that the defense lawyer urged the reporter more than 2 1/2 years ago to tell DeSisto that he was his source. ...

DeSisto says that last Wednesday, after he subpoenaed Bevilacqua, the defense lawyer admitted under oath that he was the source for the secret FBI videotape that Channel 10 aired on Feb. 1, 2001. He had previously denied to DeSisto, also under oath on Feb. 6, 2002, that he was the source.

So now that DeSisto has found the criminal for whom he'd been searching — a man who has in the interim added perjury to his offenses — the prosecutor takes the law-breaking lawyer entirely at his word on the matter of Jim Taricani's involvement? Odd.

DeSisto argues in the court papers that "any obligation that Mr. Taricani felt to keep his source private should have dissolved upon presentation of the waiver of confidentiality'' in the spring of 2002. But "more egregiously,'' DeSisto contends, instead of complying with his source's wishes...Mr. Taricani specifically asked Mr. Bevilacqua not to reveal his identity.''

Note that "more egregiously." Reading DeSisto's full statement (PDF), it is clearly presented in opposition to the request for leniency filed by Taricani's lawyers. Taricani, in his DeSisto's narrative, becomes more of an obscurantist than the guy facing charges. It's also interesting to note, in the full reply, that Bevilacqua didn't come forward out of the blue; rather, he confessed only after he'd been made aware that Taricani had given too much away in private conversation with another interested party (FBI agent Dennis Aiken).

It's difficult to know whose side to take in a court v. lawyer v. reporter battle — even more so in a state with as much mutual back scratching as Rhode Island. But I can't shake the feeling that there's something more to this than the simple explanation of either a martyrdom-seeking journalist or a defense-preparing lawyer. I'll be very curious to see what the future holds for Mr. Bevilacqua, especially with regards to DeSisto's involvement in it.

Something to ponder

I apologize for my absence, but Thanksgiving day brought me the not-surprising, but nonetheless difficult news of the passing of a loved one. After a few days with family in northern New England, I am back and seeking a return to routine. A quick session of surfing brought me this piece in which I found what I thought was a profound statement concerning modern day American politics.

The highest good of liberal society is neither simply freedom nor simply equality but the blend of the two as freedom and equality. The balance one seeks is “as much freedom as is consistent with equality,” where equality is understood to be the mutual recognition of freedom.

It seems that it is this quest for balance in which all of us are a part. Some tend more toward freedom while others to equality. It is the task of us all to find that point at which it is the best of both worlds.

The Spare-Time Revolution

Sorry for the lack of new posts, folks. That's one of the potential difficulties when one's substantive efforts must be made during moments not spent supporting one's family. We thank you for continuing to stop by, and we promise that the lapse is only temporary.