Analysts think that North Korea will fire a ballistic missile toward Hawaii in a couple of weeks, reports the AP. Although the missile wouldn’t be able to reach Hawaii’s main islands and the firing is labeled a test, this would clearly be an act of international aggression, aimed at poking Japan, the U.S., and their allies in the eye.
South Korean President Lee Myung-bak is quoted as saying something that comes across as rather ridiculous. “If we acknowledge North Korea possessing nuclear programs, other non-nuclear countries in Northeast Asia would be tempted to possess nuclear weapons and this would not be helpful for stability in Northeast Asia,” said Lee.
So, if South Korea officially admits what everybody in the world already knows to be true — that North Korea has nuclear weapon capacities — every other country in the region will also want nuclear weapons. But presumably, as long as South Korea refuses to officially acknowledge NK’s nuclear capabilities other countries in the region will refrain from pursuing nuclear weapons. It is difficult to see how this makes much sense.
It seems to me that few Americans are itching for war with the testy North Korean communists. Any war with NK would end up being either direct or indirect war with China and Russia. Nobody wants that. Besides, the last Korean War killed 36,940 Americans and wounded 92,134 more, while more than 15,000 went missing or ended up as POWs. Internationally, the war left hundreds of thousands dead and millions wounded. Nobody wants a repeat of that. But the question arises as to how the U.S. should deal with NK’s hostile actions.
Despite what some suggest, simply minding our own business would not make the threat go away. Most Americans seem at least somewhat favorable (even if uncomfortably so) to diplomacy efforts that involve China and Russia. It is no secret that NK is a vassal state of China and also of Russia to a certain degree.
China alone could bring North Korea to heel at the snap of its fingers, so to speak. China obviously has its reasons for not doing so. The game of gaining concessions from the West and distracting the West from China’s own ambitions can probably be played for a long time before it becomes too dangerous. Russia is not as tightly tied into the situation as is China, but it has enough skin in the game to play along as well.
We have a long history of providing direct aid to North Korea in exchange for less hostile activity. We have provided the aid, but NK has done little to actually comply with the provisions of the agreements, although, they’ve occasionally made a show of doing so. This begs the question of why we should bother to pursue additional worthless agreements.
Although the missile NK plans to fire next month would not reach the main Hawaiian Islands, it would apparently reach the outer islands. Americans could perhaps be excused for calling to mind the Dec. 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor. The AP article also states that “Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said it would take at least three to five years for North Korea to pose a real threat to the U.S. west coast.” The Korean War never actually threatened the U.S. homeland, so NK’s current aggression is qualitatively different.
Should the U.S. sit idly by while a rogue nation demonstrates its ability to drop missiles on the U.S. and prepares missiles that could strike the U.S. mainland? Defense Secretary Robert Gates says that missile defense systems are in place in Hawaii. Using our anti-ballistic missiles would not be without risk. There are concerns that the program is not quite ready for prime time. National and international regard for the program would diminish if we missed. But a successful strike would provide critical program information to NK, China, Russia, and others, allowing them to work on developing weapons that could outmaneuver our anti-missile missiles.
NK’s missile firing would only be the latest in a recent spate of aggressive actions by the communist nation that routinely has difficulty feeding its people. Some analysts think the purpose of this activity is to bolster the image of NK’s 68-year-old dictator, Kim Jong-il, who has appeared somewhat weak recently due to illness. Others suggest that it is a setup to bolster the dictator’s son and heir apparent Kim Jong-un, who supposedly oversees these programs. Using this latter angle, some have suggested that this is a temporary flare up that will subside once the leadership transition is cemented, so that the U.S. should take a somewhat passive position until it all blows over.
It seems clear that taking a live and let live posture in relation to NK will not achieve acceptable national or international security. Diplomatic efforts seem to be very nearly worthless. Limited military anti-missile involvement has its risks. Direct war with NK is unthinkable for most Americans. Are there other options that would be feasible, morally acceptable, and have some prospect of being effective?
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Re-Thinking Utah's Government Four-Day Work Week
“No, you can’t go down there today,” I recently heard my wife tell my mother. “Remember, Utah government offices aren’t open on Fridays anymore.”
Last summer, Utah Governor Jon M. Huntsman, Jr. forced most state employees to adopt a four-day work week, working 10 hours per day. One of the chief arguments for doing so was that closing down state facilities one additional day per week would result in significant savings. So now most state buildings are closed on Fridays.
Regardless of what proponents think of this measure, it is exactly the opposite of good customer service. Yes, offices are open later Monday through Thursday so that people have more availability outside of many people’s standard working hours, but being closed for business three days in a row is not a good way to serve customers.
When you’ve got a monopoly, you have little incentive to satisfy customers. Your main goal is to erect barriers high enough that competition is prevented. You may notice, for example, that most serious battles in the public education industry involve thwarting competition. Making the federal government a competitor in the health insurance market (the so-called public option) would quickly force private insurers out of the market and would result in a de facto monopoly that would have even less incentive to serve its customers than does today’s odd health insurance model.
Utah Policy’s LaVarr Webb says in this editorial that his hunch is that the four-day work week isn’t even achieving its energy and money saving goals. At any rate, he thinks soon-to-be-Governor Gary Herbert and the legislature “ought to conduct a good study” that “should take a good, hard look at the four-day work week and see if it's fulfilling the intent of Gov. Huntsman who implemented it.” Webb notes:
In the absence of competition, it is important for elected officials to make sure that their constituents — who happen to be both the source and the customers of government — are being well served. I suspect that in the case of the four-day work week, Webb is correct in his hunch that Utah’s citizens are ill served, both as providers and consumers of government. Will any of our elected officials do anything about this?
Last summer, Utah Governor Jon M. Huntsman, Jr. forced most state employees to adopt a four-day work week, working 10 hours per day. One of the chief arguments for doing so was that closing down state facilities one additional day per week would result in significant savings. So now most state buildings are closed on Fridays.
Regardless of what proponents think of this measure, it is exactly the opposite of good customer service. Yes, offices are open later Monday through Thursday so that people have more availability outside of many people’s standard working hours, but being closed for business three days in a row is not a good way to serve customers.
When you’ve got a monopoly, you have little incentive to satisfy customers. Your main goal is to erect barriers high enough that competition is prevented. You may notice, for example, that most serious battles in the public education industry involve thwarting competition. Making the federal government a competitor in the health insurance market (the so-called public option) would quickly force private insurers out of the market and would result in a de facto monopoly that would have even less incentive to serve its customers than does today’s odd health insurance model.
Utah Policy’s LaVarr Webb says in this editorial that his hunch is that the four-day work week isn’t even achieving its energy and money saving goals. At any rate, he thinks soon-to-be-Governor Gary Herbert and the legislature “ought to conduct a good study” that “should take a good, hard look at the four-day work week and see if it's fulfilling the intent of Gov. Huntsman who implemented it.” Webb notes:
“The four-day work week was instituted hastily, with little study or analysis. Since then, no really good examination has been done regarding how much energy is actually being saved, and whether state productivity and customer service have suffered.”Usually when government decides and implements something “hastily,” it creates more problems than it solves. As I have often said, our Founders created a system of government that is supposed to get plenty of input, and then debate and deliberate in order to adopt the most broadly acceptable course of action. This process is not intended to occur rapidly. It can be a rather ponderous and lethargic course. But when we circumvent this process we usually cause long term problems. Webb opines:
“Currently, many state buildings are sitting empty three of seven days each week (while still consuming a certain amount of energy even when empty). By contrast, private industry attempts to make more efficient and productive use of facilities and infrastructure, not less. That's why a manufacturing company, for example, adds a graveyard shift and runs its facilities around-the-clock, getting more efficient use from its facilities. We certainly ought not to be constructing new state buildings when many of them are sitting empty three days a week.”Private business stifles competition either by providing superior service to customers or by conniving to keep competitors from entering their market. This latter course usually requires the collusion of government. Government stymies competition by fiat — by force. It can use its considerable muscle to pass laws and to implement newly minted executive powers to take control of entire market segments at the drop of a hat, as we have recently discovered. Customer service doesn’t even enter the equation here.
In the absence of competition, it is important for elected officials to make sure that their constituents — who happen to be both the source and the customers of government — are being well served. I suspect that in the case of the four-day work week, Webb is correct in his hunch that Utah’s citizens are ill served, both as providers and consumers of government. Will any of our elected officials do anything about this?
Monday, June 15, 2009
Pay Phones
As a recovering IRS tax auditor, I have some comprehension of the nature of the tax collection beast. Most of the people I worked with at the IRS had no greater love for taxes than does the average American. But they were interested in making sure that everyone fulfilled their legal tax obligations.
There were some IRS employees, however, that had rather insidious views about taxation. I can only assume that a recent trial balloon floated by the IRS as a way to get more money from Americans comes from those quarters. The WSJ reports that the IRS is proposing a stricter interpretation of “a 1989 law requiring workers using company phones for personal use to include the value of those calls as income.”
How much stricter? Do you have a company supplied cell phone? You can plan on reporting as income subject to federal and state tax 25% of the company’s cost of your phone usage. (For the record, I do not have a company provided cell phone.)
The reasoning behind this is that almost everyone that has a company cell phone uses it at least somewhat for non-business personal purposes. That usage, says the IRS, represents income. Since it is difficult to strictly define how much usage is personal, the IRS proposes 25% as a rule of thumb. You could use your records to prove a lower usage, but the IRS knows that few people will actually do that.
The WSJ editors raise the specter of taxing all kinds of other “fringe benefits,” such as “a per-cup tax on office coffee, or targeting furtive visits to ESPN or Hulu on the office PC.” They suggest that this kind of thing is “like charging for the use of the company washroom.”
This kind of taxation, say the WSJ editors, is “precisely the sort of common non-sense that incites tax revolts.” It would impact a lot of people but would pull in only a marginal amount of revenue. It brings to mind the 1773 Tea Act, which was meant not so much as a revenue producer as a reminder to the American colonies that the British Parliament was boss. This was such a non-starter for many Americans that a few of them in Boston responded with the renowned Boston Tea Party.
While I am generally opposed to increased taxation, I think that the WSJ editors might be pushing their argument just a little too far. All of these same arguments were bandied about years ago when IRS decided to tax personal use of company automobiles. There was some consternation, of course, but people settled into the new routine quite rapidly. There could be a difference here, however, because far more American workers have company cell phones than have company cars.
Yet another issue is the prospect of some future administration “nominee [going] down for taking too many personal calls without giving the government its due.” This is a real possibility, considering the fact that so many people that are talented and intelligent enough to rise to the top levels of government already can’t seem to manage to do their personal taxes properly. Do you really think it’s wise to make the tax code even more complex?
UPDATE 06/16/2009: The AP reports that the IRS is quickly backtracking on its cell phone tax trial balloon, claiming now that they really want the tax repealed.
There were some IRS employees, however, that had rather insidious views about taxation. I can only assume that a recent trial balloon floated by the IRS as a way to get more money from Americans comes from those quarters. The WSJ reports that the IRS is proposing a stricter interpretation of “a 1989 law requiring workers using company phones for personal use to include the value of those calls as income.”
How much stricter? Do you have a company supplied cell phone? You can plan on reporting as income subject to federal and state tax 25% of the company’s cost of your phone usage. (For the record, I do not have a company provided cell phone.)
The reasoning behind this is that almost everyone that has a company cell phone uses it at least somewhat for non-business personal purposes. That usage, says the IRS, represents income. Since it is difficult to strictly define how much usage is personal, the IRS proposes 25% as a rule of thumb. You could use your records to prove a lower usage, but the IRS knows that few people will actually do that.
The WSJ editors raise the specter of taxing all kinds of other “fringe benefits,” such as “a per-cup tax on office coffee, or targeting furtive visits to ESPN or Hulu on the office PC.” They suggest that this kind of thing is “like charging for the use of the company washroom.”
This kind of taxation, say the WSJ editors, is “precisely the sort of common non-sense that incites tax revolts.” It would impact a lot of people but would pull in only a marginal amount of revenue. It brings to mind the 1773 Tea Act, which was meant not so much as a revenue producer as a reminder to the American colonies that the British Parliament was boss. This was such a non-starter for many Americans that a few of them in Boston responded with the renowned Boston Tea Party.
While I am generally opposed to increased taxation, I think that the WSJ editors might be pushing their argument just a little too far. All of these same arguments were bandied about years ago when IRS decided to tax personal use of company automobiles. There was some consternation, of course, but people settled into the new routine quite rapidly. There could be a difference here, however, because far more American workers have company cell phones than have company cars.
Yet another issue is the prospect of some future administration “nominee [going] down for taking too many personal calls without giving the government its due.” This is a real possibility, considering the fact that so many people that are talented and intelligent enough to rise to the top levels of government already can’t seem to manage to do their personal taxes properly. Do you really think it’s wise to make the tax code even more complex?
UPDATE 06/16/2009: The AP reports that the IRS is quickly backtracking on its cell phone tax trial balloon, claiming now that they really want the tax repealed.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
A Parting Controversy for Ambassador Huntsman
Today’s WSJ online includes this post by John Fund about a kerfuffle surrounding how (soon to be former) Utah Governor Jon M. Huntsman, Jr. has garnered and used funds in his capacity as chairman of the Western Governors Association.
“Jon Huntsman, the Republican governor of Utah, has had one foot out the door since being named Ambassador to China by President Obama. But he will still be chair of the Western Governors Association when it holds its annual meeting in Salt Lake City this weekend.Another example of your tax dollars at work. It’s fine to promote your agenda. But when you do it in the name of other people and with other people’s money, you’d better make sure that those ‘other people’ are on board.
“Moreover, it looks like his final days in office will be marred by a controversy over just whose tax dollars are being spent on a highly controversial "Western Climate Initiative." Paul Chesser, a global warming skeptic who is a researcher with Climate Strategies Watch, submitted Freedom of Information Act requests and discovered that the initiative -- aimed at supporting dramatic reductions in carbon emissions -- has contracted or partnered with a wide range of liberal climate change groups. A full-time WGA staff member has been detailed to manage the climate project. The subsidies to pay for all this will likely be a topic of discussion at the governors' meeting because a majority of state governors didn't sign on to it. Many of them view draconian reductions in carbon emissions as a serious threat to their states' economies.
“One governor I spoke with points out that the WGA is supposed to operate on a consensus basis. He says the WGA's involvement in planning climate change proposals is serious overreach. "The dues states give WGA come from tax money and I was surprised to learn just how much the WGA seems to be getting ahead of many of the states on carbon regulation," he told me.
“Governor Huntsman is likely to be long gone when real answers about the WGA's runaway climate program are unearthed. He'll be in China, working at the uphill task of convincing the Chinese to undertake carbon reductions promoted by the Obama Administration. This week, talks between the U.S. and China on such curbs ended with little progress -- Beijing's negotiators making clear they aren't willing to sacrifice economic growth for benefits that are unquantifiable and perhaps illusory.”
Friday, June 12, 2009
Emergence vs. Control
I find it interesting that supporters of both Intelligent Design and unplanned evolution use complexity as support for their respective theories. One side claims that many biological structures are so complex that it is statistically impossible for them to have developed randomly. The other side says that many structures are so complex and imperfect that they could only have developed through unguided emergent phenomenon. Besides, some argue, some things are so bizarre that no designer would have planned them.
Putting aside the extreme arrogance of that last remark (the assumption that any nonbeliever can say what a Supreme Designer would think or plan), it is relatively safe to say that neither side of this debate has a demonstrably repeatable scientific test that can prove their theory. Despite their respective statistical models, no one can satisfactorily verify the guidance or lack of guidance of a superior design force in the development of biological structures. Belief in either direction is faith, not science.
There are still plenty of people around that hold to the creationist belief that God literally created the earth and all life on it in six 24-hour periods. Some Latter-Day Saints, extrapolating assumptions from LDS scriptures such as Abraham 3:4 and D&C 77, as well as various statements of church leaders of yore, expand this to six periods of 1,000 years each. Despite some interestingly framed arguments, this is not reflected in actual scientific findings.
Steadily fewer people buy this kind of rigid religious interpretation, accepting instead the idea that the earth is billions of years old. People are increasingly comfortable with the concept of emergent order in biological structures. Many that accept such modern ideas do not find their faith in God challenged by them. They reason that God could not be so limited as to be incapable of working through emergent phenomenon.
I also find it interesting that there are those in our modern world that staunchly stand on either side of the concept of emergent order in human activity. Some seem to claim, as far as I can understand them, that such emergent order does not exist and has never existed. Most seem to accept a degree of emergent order, but also feel that some (maybe much) purposeful design is desirable. Others carry their appreciation of emergent order to the extent that it seems to become a form of worship.
If I understand libertarian thought correctly, the basic concept is that natural order achieved through individual freedom and respect of others’ freedom is always more desirable than designed order that requires infringing on freedoms. Although individual results may vary, goes the claim, the naturally resulting order from such liberty will always be preferable to that produced by any system that involves coercion.
In his book The Price of Everything, GMU economist Russ Roberts describes a scene on a bay near San Francisco where a lot of seemingly disconnected birds are suddenly threatened by a hawk (pp. 20-25). The shore birds suddenly take to the air and act as a single unit to drive the hawk away, wheeling, flitting, diving, climbing, all with no particular bird calling the shots.
A few pages later (pp. 32-34), Roberts discusses what happened with the birds and why it is important. It is noted that even the Blue Angels couldn’t do what the birds did on the spur of the moment.
Now this thing can be taken way too far. Would it be appropriate to allow children to be entirely self directed? Should we allow criminals to be self directed? Or should we even have criminals? In real life, few libertarians think along those lines. Although many do think along the lines of whether it is appropriate to incarcerate people that have broken no other law than to use drugs we have decided to class as illegal. And some point to studies showing that self directed traffic flow is safer in some places than having rigid traffic rules.
It is also important to point out that libertarians in general do not argue against planning and direction in enterprises that involve the private resources of willing individuals. In fact, this is where planning is appropriate because those involved accept the risks and responsibilities of such involvement without being forced to do so.
Another viewpoint doesn’t necessarily deny emergent social order, but believes that it is always inferior to planned order. Emergent order, it is held, must be honed to achieve the greatest social good. In this view the individual is subordinate to the collective. Private resources don’t exist per se, since no one obtained anything entirely on his own without the work and resources of others. Each person, therefore, bears a lifelong debt to the collective — a debt that must be repaid however the collective decides.
Both of these groups are criticized as believers in a ridiculous utopia. It has been said of each of these ideologies that it could only work if all people were perfect. It is feared that pursuit of the libertarian ideal would produce chaos. Libertarians would counter that it would actually produce a better social order, but that it has sadly never been tried.
Conversely, it is feared that pursuit of the collective model would produce tyranny. Oh wait. It already has! Check out the good old USSR, China, Nazi Germany, etc. But, hey, how important is the murder of a hundred million people in the 20th Century when the good of society is at stake? Collectivists would argue that those experiments were impure. That brings us back to the utopia criticism.
Most Americans are somewhere between these extremes. They believe that each person has a responsibility to society and that government has a role to play in planning and forming society. But they also believe in individual liberty and freedom from oppression. The precise placement of these lines varies dramatically across the social landscape. This forms the basis for most of our political debate.
It’s actually easier to be a purist. Anything that doesn’t comport with the pure viewpoint is simply wrong. Everything is black and white. Being a realist where much is in the gray area and everything is constantly shifting is a much more daunting task. But that is the region in which most American thought resides.
Putting aside the extreme arrogance of that last remark (the assumption that any nonbeliever can say what a Supreme Designer would think or plan), it is relatively safe to say that neither side of this debate has a demonstrably repeatable scientific test that can prove their theory. Despite their respective statistical models, no one can satisfactorily verify the guidance or lack of guidance of a superior design force in the development of biological structures. Belief in either direction is faith, not science.
There are still plenty of people around that hold to the creationist belief that God literally created the earth and all life on it in six 24-hour periods. Some Latter-Day Saints, extrapolating assumptions from LDS scriptures such as Abraham 3:4 and D&C 77, as well as various statements of church leaders of yore, expand this to six periods of 1,000 years each. Despite some interestingly framed arguments, this is not reflected in actual scientific findings.
Steadily fewer people buy this kind of rigid religious interpretation, accepting instead the idea that the earth is billions of years old. People are increasingly comfortable with the concept of emergent order in biological structures. Many that accept such modern ideas do not find their faith in God challenged by them. They reason that God could not be so limited as to be incapable of working through emergent phenomenon.
I also find it interesting that there are those in our modern world that staunchly stand on either side of the concept of emergent order in human activity. Some seem to claim, as far as I can understand them, that such emergent order does not exist and has never existed. Most seem to accept a degree of emergent order, but also feel that some (maybe much) purposeful design is desirable. Others carry their appreciation of emergent order to the extent that it seems to become a form of worship.
If I understand libertarian thought correctly, the basic concept is that natural order achieved through individual freedom and respect of others’ freedom is always more desirable than designed order that requires infringing on freedoms. Although individual results may vary, goes the claim, the naturally resulting order from such liberty will always be preferable to that produced by any system that involves coercion.
In his book The Price of Everything, GMU economist Russ Roberts describes a scene on a bay near San Francisco where a lot of seemingly disconnected birds are suddenly threatened by a hawk (pp. 20-25). The shore birds suddenly take to the air and act as a single unit to drive the hawk away, wheeling, flitting, diving, climbing, all with no particular bird calling the shots.
A few pages later (pp. 32-34), Roberts discusses what happened with the birds and why it is important. It is noted that even the Blue Angels couldn’t do what the birds did on the spur of the moment.
“You’d think that having someone in charge could outperform the spontaneous dance of the birds. But only if that ‘someone’ could grasp all the knowledge each bird has, find a way to process that information, and communicate the plan to all the participants quickly so they can do their assigned tasks before something else changes. Without that knowledge and without a way to communicate nearly instantaneously, the flock falls apart.”Each of us possesses little tidbits of information that are particular to the circumstances in which we find ourselves at a given moment. No planner that is not omniscient could possibly direct how you should respond to whatever you will face in the next hour better than you can because only you have the necessary information to do so. Better information can help you make better decisions, but it is the height of arrogance to think that some ‘time use czar’ in a big population center somewhere could design the use of your time better than you can.
Now this thing can be taken way too far. Would it be appropriate to allow children to be entirely self directed? Should we allow criminals to be self directed? Or should we even have criminals? In real life, few libertarians think along those lines. Although many do think along the lines of whether it is appropriate to incarcerate people that have broken no other law than to use drugs we have decided to class as illegal. And some point to studies showing that self directed traffic flow is safer in some places than having rigid traffic rules.
It is also important to point out that libertarians in general do not argue against planning and direction in enterprises that involve the private resources of willing individuals. In fact, this is where planning is appropriate because those involved accept the risks and responsibilities of such involvement without being forced to do so.
Another viewpoint doesn’t necessarily deny emergent social order, but believes that it is always inferior to planned order. Emergent order, it is held, must be honed to achieve the greatest social good. In this view the individual is subordinate to the collective. Private resources don’t exist per se, since no one obtained anything entirely on his own without the work and resources of others. Each person, therefore, bears a lifelong debt to the collective — a debt that must be repaid however the collective decides.
Both of these groups are criticized as believers in a ridiculous utopia. It has been said of each of these ideologies that it could only work if all people were perfect. It is feared that pursuit of the libertarian ideal would produce chaos. Libertarians would counter that it would actually produce a better social order, but that it has sadly never been tried.
Conversely, it is feared that pursuit of the collective model would produce tyranny. Oh wait. It already has! Check out the good old USSR, China, Nazi Germany, etc. But, hey, how important is the murder of a hundred million people in the 20th Century when the good of society is at stake? Collectivists would argue that those experiments were impure. That brings us back to the utopia criticism.
Most Americans are somewhere between these extremes. They believe that each person has a responsibility to society and that government has a role to play in planning and forming society. But they also believe in individual liberty and freedom from oppression. The precise placement of these lines varies dramatically across the social landscape. This forms the basis for most of our political debate.
It’s actually easier to be a purist. Anything that doesn’t comport with the pure viewpoint is simply wrong. Everything is black and white. Being a realist where much is in the gray area and everything is constantly shifting is a much more daunting task. But that is the region in which most American thought resides.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
LDS Sponsored BSA Units Have More Safety Incidents
Concern was raised in a couple of recent Scouting leadership meetings I attended because BSA units along the Wasatch Front comprise a disproportionately high number of the program’s injuries, health and safety incidents, and other liability related issues. More specifically, such events occur at a statistically significantly high rate in BSA units sponsored by the LDS Church, we were told. Although a few numbers were quoted and concepts were orally presented, I wasn’t able to get specific data.
I noted in my last post that there has been a decades-long push to reduce risk and liability by the BSA. Adventure is an important element of the Scouting program, but safety has become an increasingly important issue. Sometimes these two factors can be at odds with each other. There is a constant struggle to maximize adventure while implementing acceptable safety standards — standards that have become increasingly restrictive throughout society.
It is wise to consider causes when one identifiable group has more problems with safety than other groups. I think that when it comes to LDS sponsored BSA units the main answer is quite simple. It goes hand-in-hand with my Oct. 2007 post on mediocre LDS Scouting.
It can be boiled down to this: Outside of the LDS Church, Scouting is usually an optional program, while it is mandatory in the LDS Church (at least in the USA). I am not saying that there is necessarily anything wrong with the LDS Church’s policy; I am merely saying that there are consequences attached to that policy.
In the USA and in certain other areas of the world, the Scouting program is considered the activity arm that corresponds to the LDS Church’s spiritual programs for boys ages 8 through 18. In this respect, Scouting is adopted as an official part of the church’s program.
But the LDS Church reserves the right to run the program the way it wishes. The church also pulls a lot of weight in determining official BSA policies, since it sponsors more youth and far more units than any other single sponsor (see Wikipedia chart), representing about 17% of all traditional BSA members. (One of the reasons the LDS Church has never sponsored GSA units is that the GSA’s founding principles limit the influence of organizations like the church in determining and carrying out policies.)
Where BSA involvement is optional, those that choose to become involved are usually expected to demonstrate a relatively high level of commitment to the program. Where boys are enrolled in the program simply as a coincidence of their involvement in a sponsoring organization, less dedication to the BSA program is natural.
This difference is reflected in everything, including uniforming, attendance, Scouting method, camping, leadership, adherence to safety principles, etc. The LDS Church actually does a pretty good job at advancement. LDS youth achieve advancement recognition at a much higher rate than the national average. But frankly, LDS units do a pitiful job when it comes to the Scouting method. The church does better at getting boys through Scouting than having Scouting go through the boys. In many cases, Scouts is something the boys and leaders do rather than something they are or are becoming.
Scouting’s founder, Lord Robert Baden-Powell taught that advancement and awards are merely incident to following and implementing the methods of Scouting. These methods include adherence to the patrol method, leadership development, outdoor skills, internalization of Scouting ideals and principles, uniforming, and recognition. LDS sponsored units sometimes do well at some of these things, but it is rare to find an LDS unit that does a good job of implementing all of the Scouting methods.
Default membership in the BSA produces a different kind of Scouting leader on average than does optional membership. Sometimes you have LDS ward bishoprics that believe in a strong Scouting program. More often you’ve got busy ward leaders that are only too happy to get someone — anyone — to accept a scoutmaster, adviser, or assistant position, regardless of the quality of the program. They have a limited pool of men to choose from and they also need dedicated individuals in many other ward (and stake) positions.
Few newly called LDS Scouting leaders bother to get much training in the program, even when training is broadly available. Most consider such training yet another drain on their precious time. Their church leaders rarely require it of them, since they are just happy to have adults that will show up at weekly activity nights most of the time. Many LDS Scouting leaders know nothing about BSA safety policies. Many that know about the policies don’t care about them. The rules simply seem too onerous.
Most adult Scouting leaders in LDS sponsored units look at the job primarily as a church calling that happens to have some kind of incidental affiliation with the BSA. Most of the BSA side of the calling seems optional. This is especially true for leaders of boys ages 14 and older, where the BSA relationship tends to become distant and informal. (Actually sponsorship of Venturing crews is optional, as long as “a more effective activity program functions.”)
Turnover among LDS Scouting leaders is high. Part of the reason for this is the lack of a truly functional unit committee that would normally handle many of the tasks that fall to the already harried unit leader. If I were permitted to apply only a single word to the general state of BSA unit committees in LDS sponsored units, I would have a hard time choosing between nonexistent and dysfunctional. Often when a committee exists it is worse than useless to the point that the unit leader ends up doing it all himself anyway.
When turnover of adult leaders is high and training of adult leaders is low, it naturally follows that adherence to safety standards is likewise low. Violations of longstanding basic safety rules are common. The policies are either unknown or disregarded.
A friend told me of his brother having lunch with an old friend he hadn’t seen for years. This old friend explained how a young man in his LDS ward had been killed on a Scouting activity of which the man had been in charge. The activity had violated several BSA safety principles. Even five years later the man was still dealing with the social, financial, mental, and spiritual consequences of this tragedy. To top it off, he knew that it would have been avoided had they followed the rules. Most get away with safety breaches. Some do not. Those are reflected in a higher rate of safety and liability problems.
As I said, there is not necessarily anything wrong with LDS Church’s policy of mandatory registration with the BSA. But there are consequences relative to the policy. Every course of action involves tradeoffs. I can only assume that it is judged that the value of having a general program with broader involvement exceeds the value of developing a more exclusive higher quality program or of scrapping BSA ties altogether.
LDS Church President Thomas S. Monson has repeatedly emphasized the greater strategic importance of supporting character building organizations with strong moral values. A few years ago he said, “Much has been said in the media of late regarding Scouting. Let me affirm that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‑day Saints has not diminished in any way its support of the Scouting movement. . . .” A more complete (2007) guide to the church’s policies regarding Scouting can be found at this link.
As long as the LDS Church continues to sponsor BSA units with mandatory registration of the church’s boys, I suspect that adherence to BSA policies and rules by those units in general will continue to be rather casual. This naturally means that LDS Church sponsored BSA units will continue to experience a higher than average rate of safety and liability problems. It’s a tradeoff that simply can’t be avoided.
In essence, comparing safety outcomes of a group of those mandatorily involved in Scouting against those that are optionally involved is measuring apples to oranges. There are valid reasons for the differences in such rates. If the church’s safety rate is considered too high, there are things that could be done to reduce it somewhat. (Although draconian policies would likely produce other worse problems.) But without restructuring the basic nature of the contract of involvement, a higher level of safety problems is inescapable.
I noted in my last post that there has been a decades-long push to reduce risk and liability by the BSA. Adventure is an important element of the Scouting program, but safety has become an increasingly important issue. Sometimes these two factors can be at odds with each other. There is a constant struggle to maximize adventure while implementing acceptable safety standards — standards that have become increasingly restrictive throughout society.
It is wise to consider causes when one identifiable group has more problems with safety than other groups. I think that when it comes to LDS sponsored BSA units the main answer is quite simple. It goes hand-in-hand with my Oct. 2007 post on mediocre LDS Scouting.
It can be boiled down to this: Outside of the LDS Church, Scouting is usually an optional program, while it is mandatory in the LDS Church (at least in the USA). I am not saying that there is necessarily anything wrong with the LDS Church’s policy; I am merely saying that there are consequences attached to that policy.
In the USA and in certain other areas of the world, the Scouting program is considered the activity arm that corresponds to the LDS Church’s spiritual programs for boys ages 8 through 18. In this respect, Scouting is adopted as an official part of the church’s program.
But the LDS Church reserves the right to run the program the way it wishes. The church also pulls a lot of weight in determining official BSA policies, since it sponsors more youth and far more units than any other single sponsor (see Wikipedia chart), representing about 17% of all traditional BSA members. (One of the reasons the LDS Church has never sponsored GSA units is that the GSA’s founding principles limit the influence of organizations like the church in determining and carrying out policies.)
Where BSA involvement is optional, those that choose to become involved are usually expected to demonstrate a relatively high level of commitment to the program. Where boys are enrolled in the program simply as a coincidence of their involvement in a sponsoring organization, less dedication to the BSA program is natural.
This difference is reflected in everything, including uniforming, attendance, Scouting method, camping, leadership, adherence to safety principles, etc. The LDS Church actually does a pretty good job at advancement. LDS youth achieve advancement recognition at a much higher rate than the national average. But frankly, LDS units do a pitiful job when it comes to the Scouting method. The church does better at getting boys through Scouting than having Scouting go through the boys. In many cases, Scouts is something the boys and leaders do rather than something they are or are becoming.
Scouting’s founder, Lord Robert Baden-Powell taught that advancement and awards are merely incident to following and implementing the methods of Scouting. These methods include adherence to the patrol method, leadership development, outdoor skills, internalization of Scouting ideals and principles, uniforming, and recognition. LDS sponsored units sometimes do well at some of these things, but it is rare to find an LDS unit that does a good job of implementing all of the Scouting methods.
Default membership in the BSA produces a different kind of Scouting leader on average than does optional membership. Sometimes you have LDS ward bishoprics that believe in a strong Scouting program. More often you’ve got busy ward leaders that are only too happy to get someone — anyone — to accept a scoutmaster, adviser, or assistant position, regardless of the quality of the program. They have a limited pool of men to choose from and they also need dedicated individuals in many other ward (and stake) positions.
Few newly called LDS Scouting leaders bother to get much training in the program, even when training is broadly available. Most consider such training yet another drain on their precious time. Their church leaders rarely require it of them, since they are just happy to have adults that will show up at weekly activity nights most of the time. Many LDS Scouting leaders know nothing about BSA safety policies. Many that know about the policies don’t care about them. The rules simply seem too onerous.
Most adult Scouting leaders in LDS sponsored units look at the job primarily as a church calling that happens to have some kind of incidental affiliation with the BSA. Most of the BSA side of the calling seems optional. This is especially true for leaders of boys ages 14 and older, where the BSA relationship tends to become distant and informal. (Actually sponsorship of Venturing crews is optional, as long as “a more effective activity program functions.”)
Turnover among LDS Scouting leaders is high. Part of the reason for this is the lack of a truly functional unit committee that would normally handle many of the tasks that fall to the already harried unit leader. If I were permitted to apply only a single word to the general state of BSA unit committees in LDS sponsored units, I would have a hard time choosing between nonexistent and dysfunctional. Often when a committee exists it is worse than useless to the point that the unit leader ends up doing it all himself anyway.
When turnover of adult leaders is high and training of adult leaders is low, it naturally follows that adherence to safety standards is likewise low. Violations of longstanding basic safety rules are common. The policies are either unknown or disregarded.
A friend told me of his brother having lunch with an old friend he hadn’t seen for years. This old friend explained how a young man in his LDS ward had been killed on a Scouting activity of which the man had been in charge. The activity had violated several BSA safety principles. Even five years later the man was still dealing with the social, financial, mental, and spiritual consequences of this tragedy. To top it off, he knew that it would have been avoided had they followed the rules. Most get away with safety breaches. Some do not. Those are reflected in a higher rate of safety and liability problems.
As I said, there is not necessarily anything wrong with LDS Church’s policy of mandatory registration with the BSA. But there are consequences relative to the policy. Every course of action involves tradeoffs. I can only assume that it is judged that the value of having a general program with broader involvement exceeds the value of developing a more exclusive higher quality program or of scrapping BSA ties altogether.
LDS Church President Thomas S. Monson has repeatedly emphasized the greater strategic importance of supporting character building organizations with strong moral values. A few years ago he said, “Much has been said in the media of late regarding Scouting. Let me affirm that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‑day Saints has not diminished in any way its support of the Scouting movement. . . .” A more complete (2007) guide to the church’s policies regarding Scouting can be found at this link.
As long as the LDS Church continues to sponsor BSA units with mandatory registration of the church’s boys, I suspect that adherence to BSA policies and rules by those units in general will continue to be rather casual. This naturally means that LDS Church sponsored BSA units will continue to experience a higher than average rate of safety and liability problems. It’s a tradeoff that simply can’t be avoided.
In essence, comparing safety outcomes of a group of those mandatorily involved in Scouting against those that are optionally involved is measuring apples to oranges. There are valid reasons for the differences in such rates. If the church’s safety rate is considered too high, there are things that could be done to reduce it somewhat. (Although draconian policies would likely produce other worse problems.) But without restructuring the basic nature of the contract of involvement, a higher level of safety problems is inescapable.
Monday, June 08, 2009
Cutting the Fat From Scouting
Saturday morning found me astride my mountain bike atop Big Rock. Big Rock is a prominent rocky outcropping on a mountainside east of North Ogden, Utah. The summit of Big Rock is a little more than half a mile from the trailhead, but it’s also about 560 feet higher than the trailhead. (That’s about 1 foot climb for every 4.8 feet of distance.) The steep trail is quite rugged in places. With sufficient skill you could get a dirt motorcycle up there, but you’d be hard pressed to get a horse up the trail I took.
I felt exhilarated as I looked out over the valley and prepared for the rest of my ride. Going up was difficult. Going down was harrowing. But before long I was back at the trailhead and on my way to other trails. As I rode, I pondered the prospect that new health rules could prevent me from participating in Boy Scout activities that require a similar level of exertion.
As explained in this SL-Trib article, the BSA is implementing new health policies designed to “preclude Scouts considered overweight according to a standard Body Mass Index chart from participating in high adventure activities that take them more than 30 minutes away from emergency medical help.” You can see the specific guidelines on the new BSA health record form.
Scouts and their adult leaders will still be able to participate in most Scouting activities, even if they exceed BMI restrictions. Local activities like short hikes, car camping, and swimming parties won’t be a problem, say representatives; although, the BSA medical form says that enforcement of “the height/weight limit is strongly encouraged for all … events, but it is [only] mandatory” for “high adventure activities” and “events in which emergency evacuation would take longer than 30 minutes by ground transportation.”
The BSA has been working to reduce risk and to limit liability for decades. I still remember as a Cub Scout being told of a tragedy where 22 members of an LDS sponsored Scout unit were killed when the truck they were riding in slid off a steep dirt road. That resulted in new rules for both BSA and LDS Church activities, requiring no passengers in truck beds. Even today I see this policy routinely violated. A couple of years ago a Utah Scout putting up American flags in his neighborhood was killed when this rule was violated.
Many of the safety guidelines implemented by the BSA over the years have been good. Most of them also increase cost and require additional training for leaders. Proper safety gear is now required for climbing. Leaders receive training for dealing with hazardous weather conditions. No adult should ever be alone with a youth that is not their own child. Many other safety requirements have come into place over my lifetime.
While the BMI restrictions represent just another thread in the ever expanding web of liability inspired limits, they are perhaps the harshest of such rules so far. Let me be blunt. I know a lot — a whole lot of overweight Scouting leaders. I’d say that in my area it’s more common to see a leader that is overweight than one that isn’t. I also know a fair number of obese Scouting leaders.
Years ago when I spent summers working on the staff of a Boy Scout camp, we used to call the fat leaders “Weebles,” because they were shaped a lot like Weebles toys. We’d also refer to them as “long shirts,” because they had to have really long shirts so they could wrap them around their ample bellies and still tuck the shirttails into their pants.
The BSA has to do something. Last year there were more than 50 heart related deaths at Scouting activities. The majority of the victims were overweight, and being overweight is one of the major contributing causes to heart problems.
There is also no shortage of chubby Boy Scouts running around any Scout camp. In fact, I was once one of those chubby little Scouts. Then I became somewhat of a health enthusiast a number of years ago. I have had a strenuous daily exercise program for years. Throughout the week I alternate from strength training to cardio training. I eat a selective healthy diet.
I’m not as slender as I was six years ago, but even at that low weight I carried a residual ring of fat above my waistline. In real life, I’m in pretty good shape, but according to the BSA’s BMI rules I am right on the borderline between “recommended weight” and “allowable exception.” Still, I have much less fat and more lean body mass than the vast majority of people that fit comfortably within the BMI weight recommendations. My 16-year-old, who is a darn fine physical specimen, is also right at the top edge of “recommended weight.”
The BMI weight suggestions work OK for most people that are adult, Caucasian of mainly northern European descent, have a sedentary lifestyle and eat a standard diet. Those are the people that were used to develop the BMI. For people in this category, BMI represents a decent rule of thumb that provides a starting place for determining if you’re a healthy weight. But BMI isn’t necessarily a good guideline for people outside of this category, including blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, and people with active lifestyles. Even a number of people in the target group fall outside of the norm.
This is just another example of rigid implementation of a guideline. In general, guidelines cover 60-80 percent of intended cases and are developed to provide a springboard for more detailed handling. The BSA is hardly the first organization to turn a rule of thumb into an inflexible policy. We are killing people every day in our medical facilities by requiring unbending adherence to ‘best practice’ guidelines.
The BSA policy tries to insert some flexibility into its BMI policy with its “allowable exception” category. But in council safety meetings it has been made clear that in the case of a health related event, the BSA’s legal arm will aggressively work to transfer liability to any healthcare professional that certifies an applicant that is over the recommended BMI weight. When physicians recognize the added risk they are accepting, they will stop certifying even healthy people that exceed their recommended BMI.
Don’t think that this kind of thing won’t be coming to a youth program near you, even if you have nothing to do with the BSA. Before long you will see something like it in community and school sports. In their mad drive toward zero risk for each child, the safety Nazis and their friends in the legal industry will stop at nothing until each child is covered in bubble wrap and made to sit in a booster seat until age 21.
I’m sure the BSA’s new policy will achieve its desired goal of reducing the organization’s liability. But I wonder how many youth and leaders this new BSA policy will encourage to get into better shape. Or will anyone stop to count the number of youth and adults driven away from Scouting as the result of this policy?
I felt exhilarated as I looked out over the valley and prepared for the rest of my ride. Going up was difficult. Going down was harrowing. But before long I was back at the trailhead and on my way to other trails. As I rode, I pondered the prospect that new health rules could prevent me from participating in Boy Scout activities that require a similar level of exertion.
As explained in this SL-Trib article, the BSA is implementing new health policies designed to “preclude Scouts considered overweight according to a standard Body Mass Index chart from participating in high adventure activities that take them more than 30 minutes away from emergency medical help.” You can see the specific guidelines on the new BSA health record form.
Scouts and their adult leaders will still be able to participate in most Scouting activities, even if they exceed BMI restrictions. Local activities like short hikes, car camping, and swimming parties won’t be a problem, say representatives; although, the BSA medical form says that enforcement of “the height/weight limit is strongly encouraged for all … events, but it is [only] mandatory” for “high adventure activities” and “events in which emergency evacuation would take longer than 30 minutes by ground transportation.”
The BSA has been working to reduce risk and to limit liability for decades. I still remember as a Cub Scout being told of a tragedy where 22 members of an LDS sponsored Scout unit were killed when the truck they were riding in slid off a steep dirt road. That resulted in new rules for both BSA and LDS Church activities, requiring no passengers in truck beds. Even today I see this policy routinely violated. A couple of years ago a Utah Scout putting up American flags in his neighborhood was killed when this rule was violated.
Many of the safety guidelines implemented by the BSA over the years have been good. Most of them also increase cost and require additional training for leaders. Proper safety gear is now required for climbing. Leaders receive training for dealing with hazardous weather conditions. No adult should ever be alone with a youth that is not their own child. Many other safety requirements have come into place over my lifetime.
While the BMI restrictions represent just another thread in the ever expanding web of liability inspired limits, they are perhaps the harshest of such rules so far. Let me be blunt. I know a lot — a whole lot of overweight Scouting leaders. I’d say that in my area it’s more common to see a leader that is overweight than one that isn’t. I also know a fair number of obese Scouting leaders.
Years ago when I spent summers working on the staff of a Boy Scout camp, we used to call the fat leaders “Weebles,” because they were shaped a lot like Weebles toys. We’d also refer to them as “long shirts,” because they had to have really long shirts so they could wrap them around their ample bellies and still tuck the shirttails into their pants.
The BSA has to do something. Last year there were more than 50 heart related deaths at Scouting activities. The majority of the victims were overweight, and being overweight is one of the major contributing causes to heart problems.
There is also no shortage of chubby Boy Scouts running around any Scout camp. In fact, I was once one of those chubby little Scouts. Then I became somewhat of a health enthusiast a number of years ago. I have had a strenuous daily exercise program for years. Throughout the week I alternate from strength training to cardio training. I eat a selective healthy diet.
I’m not as slender as I was six years ago, but even at that low weight I carried a residual ring of fat above my waistline. In real life, I’m in pretty good shape, but according to the BSA’s BMI rules I am right on the borderline between “recommended weight” and “allowable exception.” Still, I have much less fat and more lean body mass than the vast majority of people that fit comfortably within the BMI weight recommendations. My 16-year-old, who is a darn fine physical specimen, is also right at the top edge of “recommended weight.”
The BMI weight suggestions work OK for most people that are adult, Caucasian of mainly northern European descent, have a sedentary lifestyle and eat a standard diet. Those are the people that were used to develop the BMI. For people in this category, BMI represents a decent rule of thumb that provides a starting place for determining if you’re a healthy weight. But BMI isn’t necessarily a good guideline for people outside of this category, including blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, and people with active lifestyles. Even a number of people in the target group fall outside of the norm.
This is just another example of rigid implementation of a guideline. In general, guidelines cover 60-80 percent of intended cases and are developed to provide a springboard for more detailed handling. The BSA is hardly the first organization to turn a rule of thumb into an inflexible policy. We are killing people every day in our medical facilities by requiring unbending adherence to ‘best practice’ guidelines.
The BSA policy tries to insert some flexibility into its BMI policy with its “allowable exception” category. But in council safety meetings it has been made clear that in the case of a health related event, the BSA’s legal arm will aggressively work to transfer liability to any healthcare professional that certifies an applicant that is over the recommended BMI weight. When physicians recognize the added risk they are accepting, they will stop certifying even healthy people that exceed their recommended BMI.
Don’t think that this kind of thing won’t be coming to a youth program near you, even if you have nothing to do with the BSA. Before long you will see something like it in community and school sports. In their mad drive toward zero risk for each child, the safety Nazis and their friends in the legal industry will stop at nothing until each child is covered in bubble wrap and made to sit in a booster seat until age 21.
I’m sure the BSA’s new policy will achieve its desired goal of reducing the organization’s liability. But I wonder how many youth and leaders this new BSA policy will encourage to get into better shape. Or will anyone stop to count the number of youth and adults driven away from Scouting as the result of this policy?
Friday, June 05, 2009
When the Music No Longer Moves You, You Should Leave
Former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan comments here about the placement of a statue of Ronald Reagan in the rotunda of the U.S. Capitol this week (see AP report). Noonan explains something I didn’t know before.
These kinds of events happen from time to time. What really caught my attention in Noonan’s article was her description of the kind of ceremony that is relatively routine in Washington DC. What she concludes from this is rather profound.
HollyOnTheHill recently posted a video of artist Kurt Bestor playing on piano a patriotic medley that he composed on the fly for his audience.
From what I understand, my political views would be at odds with those of Mr. Bestor in many ways. But I’m not sure how you can watch this video clip and not be moved. I think most Americans would feel similarly.
For this reason, I think Peggy Noonan is right about those that represent us. Although this is not the only gauge for whether a person has been in Washington too long, I think it’s a good one. “When the music no longer moves you, you should leave. When you cannot leave, you should be pushed.”
“Each of the 50 states is allowed two statues in the Capitol, they are sometimes but not frequently changed, and the changing process is complicated: Both chambers of a state legislature must vote, the governor must agree, the federal government is petitioned.”Noonan describes the ceremony and explains that of all of the statues in the rotunda, Reagan’s is the only one that depicts its subject smiling. For those that remember Reagan, a smile is probably the most appropriate facial expression for his likeness.
These kinds of events happen from time to time. What really caught my attention in Noonan’s article was her description of the kind of ceremony that is relatively routine in Washington DC. What she concludes from this is rather profound.
“The colors were presented. The U.S. Army chorus sang the national anthem so beautifully, with such harmonic precision and depth, that some dry eyes turned moist, including those of the crusty journalist to my right. Congressmen hear choirs sing patriotic songs all the time and grow used to it. The rest of us do not and are stirred. Tourists walk through the Rotunda and think to themselves that they'd die for the signs and symbols of this place. Lawmakers experience the Rotunda as a connecting point between House and Senate that's too often clogged by overweight tourists in shorts from Bayonne. We need term limits. When the music no longer moves you, you should leave. When you cannot leave, you should be pushed.”I like Ms. Noonan’s suggestion. Some would argue that this kind of measurement is puerile. Indeed, some would claim that being moved by patriotic displays should disqualify one from serving in Washington.
HollyOnTheHill recently posted a video of artist Kurt Bestor playing on piano a patriotic medley that he composed on the fly for his audience.
From what I understand, my political views would be at odds with those of Mr. Bestor in many ways. But I’m not sure how you can watch this video clip and not be moved. I think most Americans would feel similarly.
For this reason, I think Peggy Noonan is right about those that represent us. Although this is not the only gauge for whether a person has been in Washington too long, I think it’s a good one. “When the music no longer moves you, you should leave. When you cannot leave, you should be pushed.”
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
I Was a College Dropout
A young lady in my neighborhood that has been out of high school for a year recently told my wife that she doesn’t know how she will be able to continue her college education, having lost a scholarship that required good grades. Taking chemistry in the same semester as another difficult course proved to be her undoing.
If my neighbor doesn’t make it back to college right away she will have plenty of company. The D-News reports that “fewer than 55 percent of first-time students at the average four-year college graduate within six years, and at many institutions, students have less than a one in three chance of earning a degree.”
My neighbor has been attending Weber State University, which the D-News reports had “a 29 percent graduation rate in 2007.” Ouch. That’s pretty deplorable. More than seven of every ten students that enter WSU will fail to earn a four-year degree within six years.
But wait. Wouldn’t that figure be skewed a bit by the significant number of young men that take two years off to serve a mission for the LDS Church? Well, let’s take a look at graduation rates at other universities around the state that would face the same issue — some of them to a greater degree. BYU: 78%. UofU at 56% and Westminster at 54% are both close to the national average. USU: 45%. SUU: 41%. (No figures for UVU.)
These figures come from a report titled Diplomas and Dropouts from the American Enterprise Institute. While there are certainly significant differences in “student motivation, finances, and ability,” the report finds that “there are vast disparities—even among schools educating similar students—at the less selective institutions that educate the bulk of America’s college students.” Even schools that perform very poorly continue to benefit from millions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies with almost no consideration as to quality and performance.
The D-News cites Utah Commissioner of Higher Education William A. Sederburg as saying that Utah’s overall graduation rate may actually be lower than stated the 50.5 percent in the report “because not all four-year schools are included.” If you cut out the private institutions, Utah’s overall bachelor degree graduation rate is less than 43 percent.
The authors of the report suggest that there are many things that colleges and universities can do to improve their graduation rates without sacrificing quality or even spending more money. The worst way to improve graduation rates is to lower standards. That simply disguises the problem without solving it.
Now for a confession. I was among the vast number of WSU students that have dropped out over the years. I started college when I was still 17. I put in a year, but then took 2½ years off to earn money and then to serve a mission for my church. I then put in another year before figuring that I’d take a term off to work full time and build up my savings.
That hiatus lasted much longer than one term. Eventually I returned to school when I was married, had two children, and was working full time to support my family. That was harsh. Although I had much less disposable time, I was much more focused and was a much better student. After finishing my bachelor degree, I decided to stick it out for two more years and complete a master degree. It was very tough. But I was a straight A student; something that had never been the case during my entire previous formal education.
I do not intend to imply that I was a victim of anything. My choice to drop out of college was my own. Nobody forced me to do it. But we all tend to operate within the cultural limits of organizational behavior. The fact that WSU has such a low graduation rate says something. It says that something is out of whack.
The AEI study’s authors write that “colleges and universities have many goals and serve a wide range of populations. Most students, however, attend college to earn a degree.” By that standard, many of our colleges and universities are in bad shape — some spectacularly so. Perhaps these schools can take some lessons from lowest tier schools that have reasonable graduation rates, such as Kansas State University (58%), University of Wisconsin–Platteville (53%), and Walla Walla University (53%).
The AEI report conveniently lists the top 10 and bottom 10 schools according to graduation rate in each of six tiers. It should be noted that most of the schools on the six top 10 lists (86%) and on the six bottom 10 lists (66%) are privately owned. But there are some important differences. 58 percent of the schools on the top 10 lists are religiously affiliated, while only 17 percent of schools on the bottom 10 lists currently have religious affiliation.
Perhaps the high dropout rates at some schools illustrates the point made in this January 2007 post, where I discussed Charles Murray’s series of WSJ articles (part 1, part 2, part 3) where he makes the claim that, with a few notable exceptions, college is not the best way to credentialize workers for the modern workforce. Murray asserts that the push to graduate an increasing portion of the population from college dilutes the actual value of a university degree. (Murray followed this up with this August 2008 op-ed, where he calls for replacing the BA degree with “evidence of competence” on the apprentice-journeyman-craftsman model for all types of jobs.)
At any rate, colleges and universities should accept the fact that they are in the business of producing competent degree holding graduates. For that to happen, the people that pay money into these schools — students, parents, businesses, and taxpayers (and their representatives) — need to achieve this same vision and then require some accountability. Having information about graduation rates is a nice first step. But don’t expect improvement to happen until the people that control the cash flow into the colleges and universities tie those dollars to degree outcomes.
If my neighbor doesn’t make it back to college right away she will have plenty of company. The D-News reports that “fewer than 55 percent of first-time students at the average four-year college graduate within six years, and at many institutions, students have less than a one in three chance of earning a degree.”
My neighbor has been attending Weber State University, which the D-News reports had “a 29 percent graduation rate in 2007.” Ouch. That’s pretty deplorable. More than seven of every ten students that enter WSU will fail to earn a four-year degree within six years.
But wait. Wouldn’t that figure be skewed a bit by the significant number of young men that take two years off to serve a mission for the LDS Church? Well, let’s take a look at graduation rates at other universities around the state that would face the same issue — some of them to a greater degree. BYU: 78%. UofU at 56% and Westminster at 54% are both close to the national average. USU: 45%. SUU: 41%. (No figures for UVU.)
These figures come from a report titled Diplomas and Dropouts from the American Enterprise Institute. While there are certainly significant differences in “student motivation, finances, and ability,” the report finds that “there are vast disparities—even among schools educating similar students—at the less selective institutions that educate the bulk of America’s college students.” Even schools that perform very poorly continue to benefit from millions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies with almost no consideration as to quality and performance.
The D-News cites Utah Commissioner of Higher Education William A. Sederburg as saying that Utah’s overall graduation rate may actually be lower than stated the 50.5 percent in the report “because not all four-year schools are included.” If you cut out the private institutions, Utah’s overall bachelor degree graduation rate is less than 43 percent.
The authors of the report suggest that there are many things that colleges and universities can do to improve their graduation rates without sacrificing quality or even spending more money. The worst way to improve graduation rates is to lower standards. That simply disguises the problem without solving it.
Now for a confession. I was among the vast number of WSU students that have dropped out over the years. I started college when I was still 17. I put in a year, but then took 2½ years off to earn money and then to serve a mission for my church. I then put in another year before figuring that I’d take a term off to work full time and build up my savings.
That hiatus lasted much longer than one term. Eventually I returned to school when I was married, had two children, and was working full time to support my family. That was harsh. Although I had much less disposable time, I was much more focused and was a much better student. After finishing my bachelor degree, I decided to stick it out for two more years and complete a master degree. It was very tough. But I was a straight A student; something that had never been the case during my entire previous formal education.
I do not intend to imply that I was a victim of anything. My choice to drop out of college was my own. Nobody forced me to do it. But we all tend to operate within the cultural limits of organizational behavior. The fact that WSU has such a low graduation rate says something. It says that something is out of whack.
The AEI study’s authors write that “colleges and universities have many goals and serve a wide range of populations. Most students, however, attend college to earn a degree.” By that standard, many of our colleges and universities are in bad shape — some spectacularly so. Perhaps these schools can take some lessons from lowest tier schools that have reasonable graduation rates, such as Kansas State University (58%), University of Wisconsin–Platteville (53%), and Walla Walla University (53%).
The AEI report conveniently lists the top 10 and bottom 10 schools according to graduation rate in each of six tiers. It should be noted that most of the schools on the six top 10 lists (86%) and on the six bottom 10 lists (66%) are privately owned. But there are some important differences. 58 percent of the schools on the top 10 lists are religiously affiliated, while only 17 percent of schools on the bottom 10 lists currently have religious affiliation.
Perhaps the high dropout rates at some schools illustrates the point made in this January 2007 post, where I discussed Charles Murray’s series of WSJ articles (part 1, part 2, part 3) where he makes the claim that, with a few notable exceptions, college is not the best way to credentialize workers for the modern workforce. Murray asserts that the push to graduate an increasing portion of the population from college dilutes the actual value of a university degree. (Murray followed this up with this August 2008 op-ed, where he calls for replacing the BA degree with “evidence of competence” on the apprentice-journeyman-craftsman model for all types of jobs.)
At any rate, colleges and universities should accept the fact that they are in the business of producing competent degree holding graduates. For that to happen, the people that pay money into these schools — students, parents, businesses, and taxpayers (and their representatives) — need to achieve this same vision and then require some accountability. Having information about graduation rates is a nice first step. But don’t expect improvement to happen until the people that control the cash flow into the colleges and universities tie those dollars to degree outcomes.
Monday, June 01, 2009
Summertime and the Livin' Seems Somewhat Easier
The economy is all local, as the saying goes. We often talk about the national economy, but we mostly think about how economic issues impact us personally. A recession, the joke goes, is when your neighbor loses his job; a depression is when you lose yours.
As of Saturday, our neighborhood has no vacant homes for the first time in about two years. A family moved into a very nice home that had been well cared for. Its previous owners (who were the initial owners) moved out last summer when the husband took a better job in Denver.
A real estate management firm hired by the man’s new employer took over the home, which had already been on the market for a couple of months. Even after they dropped the price, I thought they were asking too much. The lovely home remained vacant month after month until Saturday. I have no idea what the new owners ended up paying for the place, but it’s good to see owners in it.
Earlier this year, a home whose previous partying owners had been evicted due to foreclosure was bought by a nice family. They spent many weeks working nights and weekends doing extensive renovations to roll back the toll that partying had exacted on the house before they moved in.
Another home that had been vacant for a year and a half finally sold to a family in early spring. The previous owners had moved to California to take advantage of a job opportunity. The home was in fine shape.
Prior to that, another home had been vacant for months after its owner took a job in the Northwest. He had rented out the home to a couple of different families for a couple of years. Eventually he was unable to find a renter and decided to sell the home. This process left the home vacant for months. We didn’t think much about having one home vacant back then, but when three homes in the neighborhood were simultaneously vacant for many months, it certainly seemed like times were tough.
We currently have two homes for sale in the neighborhood. One went on the market last autumn. The owners want a bigger chunk of real estate to enable the storage of all of the recreational toys they own. It’s a decent property on a quiet street, but it hasn’t attracted a buyer.
The other home that is for sale has literally been on the market for years. The home has been poorly cared for and has seen a number of years of hard living, as the owner has had a nearly continuous stream of his deadbeat adult children living with him along with their offspring. The fact is that the owner has never really been serious about selling the place until quite recently when the last of the deadbeats moved out. The owner does not have a realtor, but he says that he suddenly found some seriously interested parties after listing the home on ksl.com. We’ll have to watch to see how that turns out.
From the perspective of our little neighborhood, the tough times seem to be easing a bit. Everyone still grouses about their 401k balances that evaporated precipitously last year. Gas prices are up from their incredible low earlier this year, but they’re still $2/gallon less than last summer. Nobody is claiming that these are the best of times, but in general, people around here seem to be breathing a bit easier these days.
As of Saturday, our neighborhood has no vacant homes for the first time in about two years. A family moved into a very nice home that had been well cared for. Its previous owners (who were the initial owners) moved out last summer when the husband took a better job in Denver.
A real estate management firm hired by the man’s new employer took over the home, which had already been on the market for a couple of months. Even after they dropped the price, I thought they were asking too much. The lovely home remained vacant month after month until Saturday. I have no idea what the new owners ended up paying for the place, but it’s good to see owners in it.
Earlier this year, a home whose previous partying owners had been evicted due to foreclosure was bought by a nice family. They spent many weeks working nights and weekends doing extensive renovations to roll back the toll that partying had exacted on the house before they moved in.
Another home that had been vacant for a year and a half finally sold to a family in early spring. The previous owners had moved to California to take advantage of a job opportunity. The home was in fine shape.
Prior to that, another home had been vacant for months after its owner took a job in the Northwest. He had rented out the home to a couple of different families for a couple of years. Eventually he was unable to find a renter and decided to sell the home. This process left the home vacant for months. We didn’t think much about having one home vacant back then, but when three homes in the neighborhood were simultaneously vacant for many months, it certainly seemed like times were tough.
We currently have two homes for sale in the neighborhood. One went on the market last autumn. The owners want a bigger chunk of real estate to enable the storage of all of the recreational toys they own. It’s a decent property on a quiet street, but it hasn’t attracted a buyer.
The other home that is for sale has literally been on the market for years. The home has been poorly cared for and has seen a number of years of hard living, as the owner has had a nearly continuous stream of his deadbeat adult children living with him along with their offspring. The fact is that the owner has never really been serious about selling the place until quite recently when the last of the deadbeats moved out. The owner does not have a realtor, but he says that he suddenly found some seriously interested parties after listing the home on ksl.com. We’ll have to watch to see how that turns out.
From the perspective of our little neighborhood, the tough times seem to be easing a bit. Everyone still grouses about their 401k balances that evaporated precipitously last year. Gas prices are up from their incredible low earlier this year, but they’re still $2/gallon less than last summer. Nobody is claiming that these are the best of times, but in general, people around here seem to be breathing a bit easier these days.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
One Down, Four to Go
My oldest son graduated from high school yesterday. On the way home from the graduation exercises he said, “Well, I survived compulsory government education.”
The graduation exercises lasted two hours. It had its dignified moments, but overall it was far less dignified than when I graduated from the same high school years ago. The event reflected the continuing trend of culture becoming increasingly casual.
Some of the spectators were dressed more formally, as had been the case with almost all of the audience members back in my day. Most were dressed more casually. Some were dressed far more casually, like they were going out to work in the yard or perhaps troll for business in the red light zone.
The administrator that introduced the valedictorian seems to have thought that he had been asked to give a full-fledged speech. The valedictorian’s speech was puerile and somewhat disjointed, proving that you don’t have to be a good speechmaker to achieve academic excellence. The salutatorian’s speech was very good for an 18-year-old. The administrator speeches were bland and forgettable.
As the graduating seniors took their turns walking across the stage each receiving an empty diploma case (to be filled later upon returning the rented gown), various audience members took turns applauding those in whom they had interest. Some rousing acknowledgements were quite unseemly. Some of the rowdy actors were parents of graduates.
One of the school’s choirs sang beautifully, but it seems that the auditorium’s sound system had been poorly rigged so that it didn’t pick up their voices properly. The well performed songs were swallowed in the vastness of the arena.
On the way home, I remarked to my wife and son that the baccalaureate exercise the previous evening had been a much more enjoyable event. We went to that event not expecting much. After the opening, Mike Schlappi was introduced as the speaker. (Warning: linked website plays continuous music.) We were told that Schlappi had been on the US Olympic wheelchair basketball team and had won two gold medals and two bronze medals.
Schlappi wheeled out and began speaking, dropping some rather humorous lines. Then he told the tragic story of how he became paralyzed from the chest down at age 15 when a friend and neighbor shot him with a supposedly unloaded pistol as part of a joke.
For the next hour the audience was held in the thrall of tales of difficulties faced, challenges overcome, amazing people, and admonitions about how to deal with your own challenges. Although we were seated on metal grandstand benches, no one was wiggly. I walked out of there feeling fantastic.
I came away with several messages. When crap happens in your life, it doesn’t really matter who is to blame. What does matter is taking personal responsibility for making the absolute best of whatever situation you are in. Each of us has amazing power to improve the lives of others by doing simple things that demonstrate genuine human respect.
My son’s graduation exercise was a momentous event, even if it was occasionally boring and undignified. It was a significant public rite of passage. My son’s baccalaureate event was an uplifting and ennobling experience that will likely have long lasting impact on the lives of many that were in attendance.
The graduation exercises lasted two hours. It had its dignified moments, but overall it was far less dignified than when I graduated from the same high school years ago. The event reflected the continuing trend of culture becoming increasingly casual.
Some of the spectators were dressed more formally, as had been the case with almost all of the audience members back in my day. Most were dressed more casually. Some were dressed far more casually, like they were going out to work in the yard or perhaps troll for business in the red light zone.
The administrator that introduced the valedictorian seems to have thought that he had been asked to give a full-fledged speech. The valedictorian’s speech was puerile and somewhat disjointed, proving that you don’t have to be a good speechmaker to achieve academic excellence. The salutatorian’s speech was very good for an 18-year-old. The administrator speeches were bland and forgettable.
As the graduating seniors took their turns walking across the stage each receiving an empty diploma case (to be filled later upon returning the rented gown), various audience members took turns applauding those in whom they had interest. Some rousing acknowledgements were quite unseemly. Some of the rowdy actors were parents of graduates.
One of the school’s choirs sang beautifully, but it seems that the auditorium’s sound system had been poorly rigged so that it didn’t pick up their voices properly. The well performed songs were swallowed in the vastness of the arena.
On the way home, I remarked to my wife and son that the baccalaureate exercise the previous evening had been a much more enjoyable event. We went to that event not expecting much. After the opening, Mike Schlappi was introduced as the speaker. (Warning: linked website plays continuous music.) We were told that Schlappi had been on the US Olympic wheelchair basketball team and had won two gold medals and two bronze medals.
Schlappi wheeled out and began speaking, dropping some rather humorous lines. Then he told the tragic story of how he became paralyzed from the chest down at age 15 when a friend and neighbor shot him with a supposedly unloaded pistol as part of a joke.
For the next hour the audience was held in the thrall of tales of difficulties faced, challenges overcome, amazing people, and admonitions about how to deal with your own challenges. Although we were seated on metal grandstand benches, no one was wiggly. I walked out of there feeling fantastic.
I came away with several messages. When crap happens in your life, it doesn’t really matter who is to blame. What does matter is taking personal responsibility for making the absolute best of whatever situation you are in. Each of us has amazing power to improve the lives of others by doing simple things that demonstrate genuine human respect.
My son’s graduation exercise was a momentous event, even if it was occasionally boring and undignified. It was a significant public rite of passage. My son’s baccalaureate event was an uplifting and ennobling experience that will likely have long lasting impact on the lives of many that were in attendance.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Saving the American Family
My children are richly blessed. I often try to tell them that this is so, but I know that they don’t really understand yet. To them my pronouncements must sound an awful lot like parents telling their children to be grateful for the dinner they have because children in Africa are starving.
I know my children are blessed because I too was born abundantly blessed. Or you could say lucky, if you prefer that term. But I didn’t begin to understand how blessed I was until long after I graduated into adulthood. My wife was similarly born with perhaps the greatest blessing that a child can have.
For most of my lifetime I took this great gift for granted. I occasionally had glimpses of insight as I encountered people that lacked the benefits that I had. Sometimes I was amazed by how well some of these people did without such. At times I sensed an unspoken hunger to enjoy the richness I enjoyed, but which I was powerless to give.
What was this grand blessing? No, I wasn’t born into a wealthy family. My Dad spent most of his career as a blue collar worker. This greatest gift a child can have is to be born to a caring father and mother that are married and remain married to each other, and that are devoted to each other and to their children. Couple that with the blessing of being born and raised in the USA, and I am among a very small percentage of the most blessed people on the face of the earth.
But this blessing is become increasingly rare. The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth compiled by the National Center for Health Statistics recently found that out-of-wedlock births in the US have surged to 40 percent. The value of this data is that it reflects actual tracked outcomes rather than some kind of statistical modeling. AEI scholar Charles Murray gives a brief report on the report’s findings in this blog post, where he writes that “illegitimacy varies enormously by socioeconomic class.”
Murray says that he’ll be spending the next little while continuing to delve into the study so that he can develop more concrete findings. Murray’s post focuses only on “whites of European origin” to rise above the entangling “issues of race and ethnicity.” He doesn’t appear to have any racist agenda, but seems to want to get at the data that produces the clearest picture. Murray contrasts figures from “the early 1980s to the mid-1990s” with current figures.
A graph in Murray’s post from the earlier period divides women in four economic groups based on family annual income and education. The top two tiers “almost never had babies without a husband,” while “white women with no more than a high school education in low-income households were having nearly half of their babies without a husband.” The overall illegitimacy rate for this group was 11 percent.
Between the mid 90s and 2007 the rate jumped to 28 percent. That is a stunning increase over a relatively short period of time. The current rate among the overclass, however, remains almost the same as during the earlier period, while the middle class rate has jumped from 4% to 20%. The working class rate has gone from 10.2% to 40%. The underclass rate has surged from 44.5% to about 70%.
Murray is surprised “that the elite could remain this segregated for this long on something as basic as family structure.” He warns, “But while the elite may continue to live in its pleasant little world for a while, that world is not going to bear much resemblance to the rest of America. And, increasingly, the rest of America isn’t going to bear much resemblance to the America we used to celebrate.”
Picking up on this, the Editors of the National Review write that “American society could become alarmingly polarized.” This sounds eerily similar to John Edwards’ populist 2008 presidential campaign message about “two Americas.” The NR Editors note that as bad as conditions are among non-Hispanic whites, matters are much worse among blacks and Hispanics, where 2007 illegitimacy rates were 72 percent and 51 percent respectively.
Why should we care if America no longer bears “much resemblance to the America we used to celebrate?” Our forefathers celebrated an America where slavery was legal. They used to celebrate an America where women and non-whites couldn’t vote. So what if fewer children are born to married parents?
The reason that in-wedlock births are so important is that by every single measure — economically, academically, socially, mental health, physical health, etc — children born to a married father and mother generally fare better than children born out-of-wedlock or to non-traditional couples. Moreover, children born to a father and a mother that stay married to each other throughout life generally outperform in every category children whose parents end up divorcing. Researchers have found that enduring even unhappy marriages (as long as abuse isn’t occurring) produce better outcomes for children than do so-called happy divorces.
Marriage patterns are largely a function of culture. The NR Editors invoke Pat Moynihan, who said, “The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself.” These editors are calling for government action to influence the culture to shore up the failing traditional family.
Tipping their collective hat to the traditional liberal concern of inequality, the NR Editors write, “The most important social shift has been the deterioration of middle- and lower-income families. Over the long term, strengthening those families is the best way to reduce inequality.” Various programs that take from the haves in order to give to the have-nots are paltry excuses for striking at the real heart of the problem.
But what is it that government should do? Very few states are willing to consider scaling back decades-old liberalized divorce laws. Many states have passed constitutional amendments that define marriage as being between one man and one woman, but a similar federal amendment failed spectacularly. Besides, other states have broadened the definition of marriage to the point that it begins to lose meaning and other states are assaying to do so.
The NRO Editors say “that programs designed to help disadvantaged children should respect the primacy of the family.” That sounds good, but what does it mean? Locally, this has sometimes led to family courts putting children into what have been suspected — and later proven — to be unsafe environments in the name of preserving of the natural family. For all of the NR Editors’ concern, they articulate only a muddled message about what should be done.
My life has been immeasurably blessed by my parents’ choice to get married and to continue a devoted relationship with each other and their children throughout the rest of their lives. My wife has been similarly blessed by her parents’ choices (and so have I). My children are garnering similar blessings now. I’d love for everyone to enjoy these kinds of blessings. But it looks like our culture is currently headed in the opposite direction at a fairly rapid pace, despite some examples of people saying, “Enough is enough,” and getting it passed as public policy.
After decades of tolerating widespread destruction of the family, advocates have finally started putting up serious resistance in recent years. But the battle plan looks more like the last-ditch defense of weakened lines than a strategy to win hearts and minds, and thus, win the war. I can only imagine what studies about family patterns will show a decade from now. And believe me, it’s not a pretty picture. Can the situation be salvaged?
I know my children are blessed because I too was born abundantly blessed. Or you could say lucky, if you prefer that term. But I didn’t begin to understand how blessed I was until long after I graduated into adulthood. My wife was similarly born with perhaps the greatest blessing that a child can have.
For most of my lifetime I took this great gift for granted. I occasionally had glimpses of insight as I encountered people that lacked the benefits that I had. Sometimes I was amazed by how well some of these people did without such. At times I sensed an unspoken hunger to enjoy the richness I enjoyed, but which I was powerless to give.
What was this grand blessing? No, I wasn’t born into a wealthy family. My Dad spent most of his career as a blue collar worker. This greatest gift a child can have is to be born to a caring father and mother that are married and remain married to each other, and that are devoted to each other and to their children. Couple that with the blessing of being born and raised in the USA, and I am among a very small percentage of the most blessed people on the face of the earth.
But this blessing is become increasingly rare. The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth compiled by the National Center for Health Statistics recently found that out-of-wedlock births in the US have surged to 40 percent. The value of this data is that it reflects actual tracked outcomes rather than some kind of statistical modeling. AEI scholar Charles Murray gives a brief report on the report’s findings in this blog post, where he writes that “illegitimacy varies enormously by socioeconomic class.”
Murray says that he’ll be spending the next little while continuing to delve into the study so that he can develop more concrete findings. Murray’s post focuses only on “whites of European origin” to rise above the entangling “issues of race and ethnicity.” He doesn’t appear to have any racist agenda, but seems to want to get at the data that produces the clearest picture. Murray contrasts figures from “the early 1980s to the mid-1990s” with current figures.
A graph in Murray’s post from the earlier period divides women in four economic groups based on family annual income and education. The top two tiers “almost never had babies without a husband,” while “white women with no more than a high school education in low-income households were having nearly half of their babies without a husband.” The overall illegitimacy rate for this group was 11 percent.
Between the mid 90s and 2007 the rate jumped to 28 percent. That is a stunning increase over a relatively short period of time. The current rate among the overclass, however, remains almost the same as during the earlier period, while the middle class rate has jumped from 4% to 20%. The working class rate has gone from 10.2% to 40%. The underclass rate has surged from 44.5% to about 70%.
Murray is surprised “that the elite could remain this segregated for this long on something as basic as family structure.” He warns, “But while the elite may continue to live in its pleasant little world for a while, that world is not going to bear much resemblance to the rest of America. And, increasingly, the rest of America isn’t going to bear much resemblance to the America we used to celebrate.”
Picking up on this, the Editors of the National Review write that “American society could become alarmingly polarized.” This sounds eerily similar to John Edwards’ populist 2008 presidential campaign message about “two Americas.” The NR Editors note that as bad as conditions are among non-Hispanic whites, matters are much worse among blacks and Hispanics, where 2007 illegitimacy rates were 72 percent and 51 percent respectively.
Why should we care if America no longer bears “much resemblance to the America we used to celebrate?” Our forefathers celebrated an America where slavery was legal. They used to celebrate an America where women and non-whites couldn’t vote. So what if fewer children are born to married parents?
The reason that in-wedlock births are so important is that by every single measure — economically, academically, socially, mental health, physical health, etc — children born to a married father and mother generally fare better than children born out-of-wedlock or to non-traditional couples. Moreover, children born to a father and a mother that stay married to each other throughout life generally outperform in every category children whose parents end up divorcing. Researchers have found that enduring even unhappy marriages (as long as abuse isn’t occurring) produce better outcomes for children than do so-called happy divorces.
Marriage patterns are largely a function of culture. The NR Editors invoke Pat Moynihan, who said, “The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself.” These editors are calling for government action to influence the culture to shore up the failing traditional family.
Tipping their collective hat to the traditional liberal concern of inequality, the NR Editors write, “The most important social shift has been the deterioration of middle- and lower-income families. Over the long term, strengthening those families is the best way to reduce inequality.” Various programs that take from the haves in order to give to the have-nots are paltry excuses for striking at the real heart of the problem.
But what is it that government should do? Very few states are willing to consider scaling back decades-old liberalized divorce laws. Many states have passed constitutional amendments that define marriage as being between one man and one woman, but a similar federal amendment failed spectacularly. Besides, other states have broadened the definition of marriage to the point that it begins to lose meaning and other states are assaying to do so.
The NRO Editors say “that programs designed to help disadvantaged children should respect the primacy of the family.” That sounds good, but what does it mean? Locally, this has sometimes led to family courts putting children into what have been suspected — and later proven — to be unsafe environments in the name of preserving of the natural family. For all of the NR Editors’ concern, they articulate only a muddled message about what should be done.
My life has been immeasurably blessed by my parents’ choice to get married and to continue a devoted relationship with each other and their children throughout the rest of their lives. My wife has been similarly blessed by her parents’ choices (and so have I). My children are garnering similar blessings now. I’d love for everyone to enjoy these kinds of blessings. But it looks like our culture is currently headed in the opposite direction at a fairly rapid pace, despite some examples of people saying, “Enough is enough,” and getting it passed as public policy.
After decades of tolerating widespread destruction of the family, advocates have finally started putting up serious resistance in recent years. But the battle plan looks more like the last-ditch defense of weakened lines than a strategy to win hearts and minds, and thus, win the war. I can only imagine what studies about family patterns will show a decade from now. And believe me, it’s not a pretty picture. Can the situation be salvaged?
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Physical Learning
Last night I attended the “energy expo” at my son’s charter school. All of the children in grades 3-5 displayed and demonstrated projects centered on energy. There were water, wind, electric, solar, and biofuel projects.
Everything these students have done during this trimester has focused on energy. That includes their reading, writing, math, science, and every other subject. There have been multiple expeditions to explore various sources and uses of energy. This school does a lot of hands-on learning.
We never had science fairs when I was in elementary school. This expo was different than any science fair that I have attended. Instead of being a calm and orderly affair with projects neatly lined up along tables that form long aisles, these projects were scattered helter-skelter throughout classrooms and around the front lawn. And it was noisy.
There was a method to all of the madness. Children were encouraged to develop interactive projects. Some crews had students work in pairs, while others had students work individually. (They call them crews rather than classes at this school because being a crew member denotes having active responsibility rather than just being a ‘passenger.’) Students didn’t just stand idly by their projects. They were tasked with developing and delivering an oral presentation and demonstration that lasted 1-3 minutes. They were to solicit and be ready to answer questions about their subject.
The expo was well attended by family members, including plenty of grandparents. I was rather surprised at the presentation made by my son and his partner. These two little boys were pros. They had their lines well organized and practiced. They took turns enthusiastically delivering parts of their spiel, but the climax was when they demonstrated their project that they labeled ‘squirt finger,’ based on an idea they found in an old book.
The boys took turns wearing a belt to which was strapped two 6v batteries and a plastic water container. At the bottom of the container was a small pump. From the pump came a clear plastic tube and a push button electric switch (backed by a circuit breaker fuse). The boys passed out small Dixie cups to their audience and walked around dispensing water from their contraption into the cups. They then took questions. I was amazed at their ability to answer some of the questions posed by adults.
After perusing the numerous projects, I discerned that my son’s project was among those that had a pretty high ‘coolness’ factor. There’s something about a kid wearing an odd (and maybe even dangerous) looking device that squirts water. It was far different than the half dozen windmills that each lit up a tiny light. The project was so popular that my son and his partner didn’t get a break from presenting the entire evening. I was very proud of them.
Early in the evening, my son and his partner were interviewed by a reporter from the local newspaper. A photographer took many pictures of them and their project. I explained to my son that they will interview many students and take many pictures. It is likely that only one of those many photos will end up in the newspaper and that only a few students will be mentioned by name. I was trying to help my son not to get his hopes for fame up too high.
Another very cool project was done by a boy that had built an actual biofuel still. Unfortunately, the fuel produced from vegetable matter produced a vinegar scented substance that caused the combustion engine he had to choke. But it was an amazing project for a 5th grader.
There were water wheels, windmills, a model of a nuclear energy plant, solar ovens, solar powered radios, models of coal mining operations, a working model of an electrical transmission line, an underwater sound wave unit, and many other projects. You could tell that some had been developed with a lot of parental support, while others had had very little adult intervention.
My son was very pleased with himself and with his project as we carried stuff to the car at the end of the program. I felt that he had good reason to feel a sense of accomplishment. Ditto for most of the other students at the expo. Students at my son’s school are being trained to dig into their academic pursuits in a physical manner. Judging by the energy expo, at least some of the results of this approach are quite impressive.
Everything these students have done during this trimester has focused on energy. That includes their reading, writing, math, science, and every other subject. There have been multiple expeditions to explore various sources and uses of energy. This school does a lot of hands-on learning.
We never had science fairs when I was in elementary school. This expo was different than any science fair that I have attended. Instead of being a calm and orderly affair with projects neatly lined up along tables that form long aisles, these projects were scattered helter-skelter throughout classrooms and around the front lawn. And it was noisy.
There was a method to all of the madness. Children were encouraged to develop interactive projects. Some crews had students work in pairs, while others had students work individually. (They call them crews rather than classes at this school because being a crew member denotes having active responsibility rather than just being a ‘passenger.’) Students didn’t just stand idly by their projects. They were tasked with developing and delivering an oral presentation and demonstration that lasted 1-3 minutes. They were to solicit and be ready to answer questions about their subject.
The expo was well attended by family members, including plenty of grandparents. I was rather surprised at the presentation made by my son and his partner. These two little boys were pros. They had their lines well organized and practiced. They took turns enthusiastically delivering parts of their spiel, but the climax was when they demonstrated their project that they labeled ‘squirt finger,’ based on an idea they found in an old book.
The boys took turns wearing a belt to which was strapped two 6v batteries and a plastic water container. At the bottom of the container was a small pump. From the pump came a clear plastic tube and a push button electric switch (backed by a circuit breaker fuse). The boys passed out small Dixie cups to their audience and walked around dispensing water from their contraption into the cups. They then took questions. I was amazed at their ability to answer some of the questions posed by adults.
After perusing the numerous projects, I discerned that my son’s project was among those that had a pretty high ‘coolness’ factor. There’s something about a kid wearing an odd (and maybe even dangerous) looking device that squirts water. It was far different than the half dozen windmills that each lit up a tiny light. The project was so popular that my son and his partner didn’t get a break from presenting the entire evening. I was very proud of them.
Early in the evening, my son and his partner were interviewed by a reporter from the local newspaper. A photographer took many pictures of them and their project. I explained to my son that they will interview many students and take many pictures. It is likely that only one of those many photos will end up in the newspaper and that only a few students will be mentioned by name. I was trying to help my son not to get his hopes for fame up too high.
Another very cool project was done by a boy that had built an actual biofuel still. Unfortunately, the fuel produced from vegetable matter produced a vinegar scented substance that caused the combustion engine he had to choke. But it was an amazing project for a 5th grader.
There were water wheels, windmills, a model of a nuclear energy plant, solar ovens, solar powered radios, models of coal mining operations, a working model of an electrical transmission line, an underwater sound wave unit, and many other projects. You could tell that some had been developed with a lot of parental support, while others had had very little adult intervention.
My son was very pleased with himself and with his project as we carried stuff to the car at the end of the program. I felt that he had good reason to feel a sense of accomplishment. Ditto for most of the other students at the expo. Students at my son’s school are being trained to dig into their academic pursuits in a physical manner. Judging by the energy expo, at least some of the results of this approach are quite impressive.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Politicians Can Only Make Political Decisions, Not Economic Ones
I once watched a worker that was trying to insert a screw through two pieces of sheet metal. He aligned the pre-drilled holes and then started the screw with his fingers. At that point he looked around for a tool to finish the job and discovered that the only tool within reach was a hammer. He picked up the hammer and gave the screw a whack, driving it into place. Days later the screw fell out, causing the sheets of metal to vibrate against each other during normal operation of the equipment.
There is a proper tool for every job. Use of the wrong tool often produces substandard results. Sometimes it is necessary to make do with what you have. That’s called innovation. But regularly using the wrong tool when the right tool is available is just plain stupid.
One of the basic tenets of classical liberalism is to regard government as a tool to be used only where it is most appropriate; the chief role of government being to safeguard and expand liberty. Many people (from all over the political spectrum) view government as a big stick to be employed in forcing others to conform to their particular view of good.
In this light, John Steele Gordon writes here about why government is the wrong tool for running a business. Steele admits that “Capitalism isn’t perfect.” But he argues that it’s a better than government for running a business. He says that the reasons this is so include:
Describing the Social Security system, Gordon writes:
Politicians know that they are only marginally accountable to taxpayers and that they can manipulate the system to shut down most backlashes that might result from government spending. Groups lobbying for benefits know this too. When businesses use debt, they are subject to the articles of the contract. The parties to the debt have entered into the contract willingly (except in cases where government is pumping cash into businesses). If equity holders are unhappy with a company, they can often dump their shares within minutes and take their money elsewhere. Try doing that as a taxpayer.
Gordon describes how gross inefficiency is the default behavior when government tries to run a business. The GAO recently found that “no less than one-third of all Medicare disbursements for durable medical equipment, such as wheelchairs and hospital beds, were improper or fraudulent.” This kind of thing is typical in a government run business.
It is true that private enterprise has its share of inefficiencies and problems. But it is unquestionably the best tool for running businesses. Government’s role is to ensure a level playing field and to prevent businesses from stifling competition. When government steps in to prop up failing businesses, it works directly counter to its appropriate mandate. When government runs business itself, it is like using a hammer where a screwdriver would be appropriate. Or maybe it’s a hammer and a sickle.
There is a proper tool for every job. Use of the wrong tool often produces substandard results. Sometimes it is necessary to make do with what you have. That’s called innovation. But regularly using the wrong tool when the right tool is available is just plain stupid.
One of the basic tenets of classical liberalism is to regard government as a tool to be used only where it is most appropriate; the chief role of government being to safeguard and expand liberty. Many people (from all over the political spectrum) view government as a big stick to be employed in forcing others to conform to their particular view of good.
In this light, John Steele Gordon writes here about why government is the wrong tool for running a business. Steele admits that “Capitalism isn’t perfect.” But he argues that it’s a better than government for running a business. He says that the reasons this is so include:
- Governments are run by politicians, not businessmen.
- Politicians need headlines.
- Governments use other people's money.
- Government does not tolerate competition.
- Government enterprises are almost always monopolies and thus do not face competition at all.
- Successful corporations are run by benevolent despots.
- Government is regulated by government.
Describing the Social Security system, Gordon writes:
“It is government's job to make and enforce the rules that allow a civilized society to flourish. But it has a dismal record of regulating itself. Imagine, for instance, if a corporation, seeking to make its bottom line look better, transferred employee contributions from the company pension fund to its own accounts, replaced the money with general obligation corporate bonds, and called the money it expropriated income. We all know what would happen: The company accountants would refuse to certify the books and management would likely -- and rightly -- end up in jail.”Well, the company accountants might refuse to certify the books. Or the company could be run like Enron. Problems occur when investors are prohibited from taking their money elsewhere, as apparently was the case with many Enron employees. Another good point:
“Cost cutting is alien to the culture of all bureaucracies. Indeed, when cost cutting is inescapable, bureaucracies often make cuts that will produce maximum public inconvenience, generating political pressure to reverse the cuts.”It is worth reading the article to see Gordon’s discussion of governments using other people’s money and how the taxpayer is shunted aside in negotiations regarding government spending. You can say that the taxpayers get their say at the ballot box and that businesses also use other people’s money through equity and debt, but these are vastly different things.
Politicians know that they are only marginally accountable to taxpayers and that they can manipulate the system to shut down most backlashes that might result from government spending. Groups lobbying for benefits know this too. When businesses use debt, they are subject to the articles of the contract. The parties to the debt have entered into the contract willingly (except in cases where government is pumping cash into businesses). If equity holders are unhappy with a company, they can often dump their shares within minutes and take their money elsewhere. Try doing that as a taxpayer.
Gordon describes how gross inefficiency is the default behavior when government tries to run a business. The GAO recently found that “no less than one-third of all Medicare disbursements for durable medical equipment, such as wheelchairs and hospital beds, were improper or fraudulent.” This kind of thing is typical in a government run business.
It is true that private enterprise has its share of inefficiencies and problems. But it is unquestionably the best tool for running businesses. Government’s role is to ensure a level playing field and to prevent businesses from stifling competition. When government steps in to prop up failing businesses, it works directly counter to its appropriate mandate. When government runs business itself, it is like using a hammer where a screwdriver would be appropriate. Or maybe it’s a hammer and a sickle.
Monday, May 18, 2009
A New Ambassador and A New Governor
“Well, he’s a politician,” I replied to my son’s question as to whether Lt. Gov. Gary Herbert is conservative. We were having a discussion about Governor Huntsman’s nomination by President Obama to serve as U.S. Ambassador to China.
At some point, Gov. Huntsman will resign and Lt. Gov. Herbert will be sworn in as governor, as provided by last year’s Amendment A to the state constitution. (There had previously been confusion as to whether the lt. gov. actually became governor or merely acting governor in such cases.) As governor, Herbert will get to select a new lieutenant governor that will need to be approved by the state senate.
I explained to my son that it is my understanding that Herbert is generally more conservative than Huntsman, particularly on social issues. At any rate, Herbert’s ascendency will change the way state government works as some Huntsman staffers are replaced with Herbert’s own people, as explained in this Pignanelli & Webb column.
Since the vacancy will occur during the first year of Gov. Huntsman’s second term, the law requires that a special election must be held at the next general election to permanently fill the remainder of the term. The next general election is in November 2010. Herbert will remain governor at least until then.
This SL-Trib article lists a number of possible candidates that may oppose Herbert in that election. But it also notes that Herbert has a leg up on most of these would be competitors. Many of them were planning for 2012 and simply won’t be able to pull their funding and organization together in time for 2010.
An exception to that might be Congressman Jim Matheson (D-UT). For a Democrat, he’s fairly conservative. He’s Mormon. (Let’s face it. In Utah at present that makes a difference.) He’s the son of Scott Matheson, a fairly popular Utah governor. Rep. Matheson already has a sizeable campaign war chest that could be applied to the governor’s race.
My personal opinion is that Matheson could prevail within the bounds of his current congressional district, but that it would be very difficult for him to gain sufficient traction outside of that area. I’m not sure if he has better name recognition than Herbert. Most Utahans could not tell you who their lieutenant governor is. Of course, many couldn’t tell you who their congressional representative is or who their senators are either. But by the time the 2010 election is held, Herbert will have been governor for a year and a half. You can bet that he will make every effort to be the only person most people will think about for governor during that time.
Regardless of who wins in 2010, there will be another gubernatorial election in 2012, according to the normal term cycle. Pretty much anyone that is willing to do what it takes to be competitive in the 2010 race certainly has an eye on 2012. This makes for two short fundraising cycles that will reduce the field of true contenders. Some may still compete to demonstrate interest and to start building a base for the future.
There are a lot of winners with the President’s nomination of Gov. Huntsman. Huntsman has been touted by many moderate Republicans as an up-and-comer in the party, perhaps with presidential possibilities. This new appointment will take him out of running for 2012, so Obama will never have to face him.
Huntsman wins too. He has made no bones about the fact that his true love is diplomatic work. He has suggested that he’d rather be Secretary of State than President. Besides that, he speaks Mandarin Chinese and has a good working knowledge of China and of issues related to that nation. He is eminently qualified for the position.
Utah grass roots Republicans can also be happy. Their alliance with Gov. Huntsman has never been an easy one. Given Huntsman’s recent socially liberal pronouncements and his unwillingness to show his face at state GOP events, many will be happy to see him get the heck out of Utah. There’s no great love lost there. I am not the only one to suggest that Huntsman might fit better in the Democratic Party than in the GOP. Pignanelli & Webb say that we should “not be surprised if Huntsman returns from China … as a Democrat.”
One thing’s for sure; next year’s session of the legislature will end up being a lot different than would have been the case if Huntsman were still governor. Some will say that this is a good thing. Others will think otherwise. But I’m pretty sure that you won’t see any use of the governor’s office to support civil unions and the global warmist agenda.
At some point, Gov. Huntsman will resign and Lt. Gov. Herbert will be sworn in as governor, as provided by last year’s Amendment A to the state constitution. (There had previously been confusion as to whether the lt. gov. actually became governor or merely acting governor in such cases.) As governor, Herbert will get to select a new lieutenant governor that will need to be approved by the state senate.
I explained to my son that it is my understanding that Herbert is generally more conservative than Huntsman, particularly on social issues. At any rate, Herbert’s ascendency will change the way state government works as some Huntsman staffers are replaced with Herbert’s own people, as explained in this Pignanelli & Webb column.
Since the vacancy will occur during the first year of Gov. Huntsman’s second term, the law requires that a special election must be held at the next general election to permanently fill the remainder of the term. The next general election is in November 2010. Herbert will remain governor at least until then.
This SL-Trib article lists a number of possible candidates that may oppose Herbert in that election. But it also notes that Herbert has a leg up on most of these would be competitors. Many of them were planning for 2012 and simply won’t be able to pull their funding and organization together in time for 2010.
An exception to that might be Congressman Jim Matheson (D-UT). For a Democrat, he’s fairly conservative. He’s Mormon. (Let’s face it. In Utah at present that makes a difference.) He’s the son of Scott Matheson, a fairly popular Utah governor. Rep. Matheson already has a sizeable campaign war chest that could be applied to the governor’s race.
My personal opinion is that Matheson could prevail within the bounds of his current congressional district, but that it would be very difficult for him to gain sufficient traction outside of that area. I’m not sure if he has better name recognition than Herbert. Most Utahans could not tell you who their lieutenant governor is. Of course, many couldn’t tell you who their congressional representative is or who their senators are either. But by the time the 2010 election is held, Herbert will have been governor for a year and a half. You can bet that he will make every effort to be the only person most people will think about for governor during that time.
Regardless of who wins in 2010, there will be another gubernatorial election in 2012, according to the normal term cycle. Pretty much anyone that is willing to do what it takes to be competitive in the 2010 race certainly has an eye on 2012. This makes for two short fundraising cycles that will reduce the field of true contenders. Some may still compete to demonstrate interest and to start building a base for the future.
There are a lot of winners with the President’s nomination of Gov. Huntsman. Huntsman has been touted by many moderate Republicans as an up-and-comer in the party, perhaps with presidential possibilities. This new appointment will take him out of running for 2012, so Obama will never have to face him.
Huntsman wins too. He has made no bones about the fact that his true love is diplomatic work. He has suggested that he’d rather be Secretary of State than President. Besides that, he speaks Mandarin Chinese and has a good working knowledge of China and of issues related to that nation. He is eminently qualified for the position.
Utah grass roots Republicans can also be happy. Their alliance with Gov. Huntsman has never been an easy one. Given Huntsman’s recent socially liberal pronouncements and his unwillingness to show his face at state GOP events, many will be happy to see him get the heck out of Utah. There’s no great love lost there. I am not the only one to suggest that Huntsman might fit better in the Democratic Party than in the GOP. Pignanelli & Webb say that we should “not be surprised if Huntsman returns from China … as a Democrat.”
One thing’s for sure; next year’s session of the legislature will end up being a lot different than would have been the case if Huntsman were still governor. Some will say that this is a good thing. Others will think otherwise. But I’m pretty sure that you won’t see any use of the governor’s office to support civil unions and the global warmist agenda.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Publicly Sponsored Beauty Pageants
The recent flap about a Miss America contestant’s answer to a controversial question has put beauty contests in the spotlight. For a number of years my town has held a beauty pageant as part of its annual Independence Day celebration. For the record, I think this is a misuse of taxpayer funds and a misuse of city government’s title and resources.
To me, the whole concept of beauty pageants is inane, yet there is a whole pageant industry that promotes the concept. Demand for this kind of entertainment obviously exists. Still I question the morality of it.
A few weeks ago, the front page of the community section of our local newspaper featured a large color photo of some young women that were competing in the swimsuit portion of a different local beauty contest. These girls did not look like benign catalog models. Some of their swimwear was rather minimal. The angle of the photo, the …uh… clothing, the body makeup, the high heels, and the stances made it look an awful lot like porn.
You can argue all you want that only the willing are involved and that prizes are awarded for factors other than physical beauty, such as talent, scholarship, etc. But as stated in this Wikipedia article, “Although some competitions have components that are not based purely on physical appearance, “unattractive” contestants are unlikely to win, no matter how talented, poised, intelligent, educated, resourceful or socially conscious they are.”
The desired ‘beauty’ qualities promoted by these contests unquestionably lead some (perhaps most) contestants to engage in unhealthy practices. A very narrow ideal is promoted that relatively few girls and women have the physical capacity to achieve. This type of thing is already far too prevalent in media and it certainly fosters unhealthy perceptions and practices.
I have often told my wife that I seriously hope that our daughter never develops an interest in beauty pageant competition. Ditto for drill team dance. All too frequently I see girls dressed like trollops and performing dance moves that would be considered morally reprehensible were they performed on a stage on the Las Vegas strip. Most of these are groups that are sponsored by our public schools. I’m not too thrilled about cheerleading either.
OK, so I’m an old stick in the mud. Actually, I think people ought to be free to participate in these kinds of activities as much as they want — as long as it doesn’t happen on the taxpayer’s dime or under the rubric of government. And as long as it doesn’t cross the line of child abuse, which I think may be the case in some instances.
I believe that government should in no way lend credence to beauty pageants and similar activities. I do not believe these kinds of events are in the public’s best interest. Yet, if I were to go to the city council and state these sentiments publicly, I’d be treated as a pariah.
To me, the whole concept of beauty pageants is inane, yet there is a whole pageant industry that promotes the concept. Demand for this kind of entertainment obviously exists. Still I question the morality of it.
A few weeks ago, the front page of the community section of our local newspaper featured a large color photo of some young women that were competing in the swimsuit portion of a different local beauty contest. These girls did not look like benign catalog models. Some of their swimwear was rather minimal. The angle of the photo, the …uh… clothing, the body makeup, the high heels, and the stances made it look an awful lot like porn.
You can argue all you want that only the willing are involved and that prizes are awarded for factors other than physical beauty, such as talent, scholarship, etc. But as stated in this Wikipedia article, “Although some competitions have components that are not based purely on physical appearance, “unattractive” contestants are unlikely to win, no matter how talented, poised, intelligent, educated, resourceful or socially conscious they are.”
The desired ‘beauty’ qualities promoted by these contests unquestionably lead some (perhaps most) contestants to engage in unhealthy practices. A very narrow ideal is promoted that relatively few girls and women have the physical capacity to achieve. This type of thing is already far too prevalent in media and it certainly fosters unhealthy perceptions and practices.
I have often told my wife that I seriously hope that our daughter never develops an interest in beauty pageant competition. Ditto for drill team dance. All too frequently I see girls dressed like trollops and performing dance moves that would be considered morally reprehensible were they performed on a stage on the Las Vegas strip. Most of these are groups that are sponsored by our public schools. I’m not too thrilled about cheerleading either.
OK, so I’m an old stick in the mud. Actually, I think people ought to be free to participate in these kinds of activities as much as they want — as long as it doesn’t happen on the taxpayer’s dime or under the rubric of government. And as long as it doesn’t cross the line of child abuse, which I think may be the case in some instances.
I believe that government should in no way lend credence to beauty pageants and similar activities. I do not believe these kinds of events are in the public’s best interest. Yet, if I were to go to the city council and state these sentiments publicly, I’d be treated as a pariah.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
The Rule of ... ?
The 1787 Constitutional Convention convened just weeks after Shay’s Rebellion had been put down in Massachusetts. This was not the first debtor rebellion in the states since the end of war, but it was the largest and it pointed up the inadequacy of the weak central government authorized by the Articles of Confederation to deal with certain internal problems, let alone foreign policy.
Significant conflict between “monied interests” and ordinary farmers developed in the years following the end of the American Revolution. The vast majority of the American economy was agricultural. Almost everyone was involved in agriculture at some level. The only way most farmers could get a start or deal with seasonal cash flow issues was to incur debt. Those that had money to lend could turn a profitable business, providing they could be repaid. That was becoming increasingly problematic.
The American states owed considerable war debts to foreign interests. The states could only raise funds through taxation, mostly in the forms of property, trade, and import/export taxes (including imports from and exports to other states). This inhibited interstate trade and pushed farmers at the margins into poverty. Taxation with representation was becoming as noxious as taxation without representation had been.
To make matters worse, since no reliable form of specie existed in the American states, America’s creditors demanded repayment in gold or silver, commodities that were extremely scarce in the states. This effectively established a precious metal standard for both government and private debts. When farmers could not produce precious metals to pay their debts and their mounting taxes (of ever increasing variety), courts issued judgments against them. To satisfy the judgments, properties were foreclosed and even meager personal possessions were confiscated. Many basically honest people found themselves in debtor’s prison.
Americans had been used to a certain level of democratic governance for well over a century. But representative and executive positions had mostly been reserved for the upper class. However, the wave of populism fostered by the revolution was changing things. Debtors had gained the upper hand in some state legislatures and had passed laws that were overly favorable to debtors and disrespectful property rights. Although well meant, these laws caused a credit contraction as those with resources quit lending. This harmed the very people the laws intended to help, causing yet more conflict between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots.’
America was in crisis as the Philadelphia convention convened in May 1787. The Founders’ response to the credit-debt crisis was multi-pronged. Article I Section 10 of the Constitution prohibited states from enacting any “Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.” It also prohibited states from taxing (or regulating — Article I Section 8) interstate or international commerce, reserving this right to Congress. The federal government assumed the states’ war debts under Article VI, rendering some of the state level taxation unnecessary. (This was a sticky issue because some states had been more responsible in paying down their debts than other states.) Article I Section 8 also reserved to Congress the sole authority of establishing “uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States,” ensuring that there would be some kind of standardized relief available to debtors.
These provisions taken together helped ensure the sanctity of the contract and of private properties, while also providing a pathway to relief for debtors. That pathway was only defined when Congress passed bankruptcy laws beginning in 1801. The laws regarding contracts apply to everyone at all levels. This rule of law is a significant stabilizing element that helps form the basis of our economy and of our system of government.
GMU economist Todd Zywicki argues in this WSJ op-ed that the Obama administration has violated this basic rule of law in its exuberance to save union jobs at Chrysler.
“The value of the rule of law,” writes Zywicki “is not merely a matter of economic efficiency. It also provides a bulwark against arbitrary governmental action taken at the behest of politically influential interests at the expense of the politically unpopular.” This is one of the basic tenets of our system of government. Government is to be of, by, and for all of the people, not just the politically powerful or favored.
Moving away from the rule of law to the arbitrary rule of men on contract issues will dismantle the creditor-debtor balance the Founders and their successors so carefully crafted. As occurred when state legislatures began disrespecting contract law and property rights in the 1780s, this path will also lead to a credit crunch as those with resources to lend factor in political risk factors.
Zywicki says, “we need to ask how eager lenders will be to offer new credit to General Motors knowing that the value of their investment could be diminished or destroyed by government to enrich a politically favored union. We also need to ask how eager hedge funds will be to participate in the government's Public-Private Investment Program to purchase banks' troubled assets.”
Many of the President’s fans seem to assume that their political opponents have been rendered permanently politically impotent. But history shows that they will come to power again. How will the President’s current supporters feel in some future day when their political opponents wield the method the President is pioneering to the benefit of their own politically favored groups?
The sanctity of the contract is not a partisan issue; it is an American issue. Majorities from all sides of the political spectrum (perhaps excepting Communists) should stand up against this abuse of power before it becomes another standard tool in the American political arsenal. It really doesn’t matter who is being paid off in this current instance. The danger posed by this action is enough to warrant opposing it.
Significant conflict between “monied interests” and ordinary farmers developed in the years following the end of the American Revolution. The vast majority of the American economy was agricultural. Almost everyone was involved in agriculture at some level. The only way most farmers could get a start or deal with seasonal cash flow issues was to incur debt. Those that had money to lend could turn a profitable business, providing they could be repaid. That was becoming increasingly problematic.
The American states owed considerable war debts to foreign interests. The states could only raise funds through taxation, mostly in the forms of property, trade, and import/export taxes (including imports from and exports to other states). This inhibited interstate trade and pushed farmers at the margins into poverty. Taxation with representation was becoming as noxious as taxation without representation had been.
To make matters worse, since no reliable form of specie existed in the American states, America’s creditors demanded repayment in gold or silver, commodities that were extremely scarce in the states. This effectively established a precious metal standard for both government and private debts. When farmers could not produce precious metals to pay their debts and their mounting taxes (of ever increasing variety), courts issued judgments against them. To satisfy the judgments, properties were foreclosed and even meager personal possessions were confiscated. Many basically honest people found themselves in debtor’s prison.
Americans had been used to a certain level of democratic governance for well over a century. But representative and executive positions had mostly been reserved for the upper class. However, the wave of populism fostered by the revolution was changing things. Debtors had gained the upper hand in some state legislatures and had passed laws that were overly favorable to debtors and disrespectful property rights. Although well meant, these laws caused a credit contraction as those with resources quit lending. This harmed the very people the laws intended to help, causing yet more conflict between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots.’
America was in crisis as the Philadelphia convention convened in May 1787. The Founders’ response to the credit-debt crisis was multi-pronged. Article I Section 10 of the Constitution prohibited states from enacting any “Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.” It also prohibited states from taxing (or regulating — Article I Section 8) interstate or international commerce, reserving this right to Congress. The federal government assumed the states’ war debts under Article VI, rendering some of the state level taxation unnecessary. (This was a sticky issue because some states had been more responsible in paying down their debts than other states.) Article I Section 8 also reserved to Congress the sole authority of establishing “uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States,” ensuring that there would be some kind of standardized relief available to debtors.
These provisions taken together helped ensure the sanctity of the contract and of private properties, while also providing a pathway to relief for debtors. That pathway was only defined when Congress passed bankruptcy laws beginning in 1801. The laws regarding contracts apply to everyone at all levels. This rule of law is a significant stabilizing element that helps form the basis of our economy and of our system of government.
GMU economist Todd Zywicki argues in this WSJ op-ed that the Obama administration has violated this basic rule of law in its exuberance to save union jobs at Chrysler.
“The Obama administration's behavior in the Chrysler bankruptcy is a profound challenge to the rule of law. Secured creditors -- entitled to first priority payment under the "absolute priority rule" [of U.S. bankruptcy law] -- have been browbeaten by an American president into accepting only 30 cents on the dollar of their claims. Meanwhile, the United Auto Workers union, holding junior creditor claims, will get about 50 cents on the dollar. …Moreover, Zywicki argues that “in a Chapter 11 reorganization, creditors have the right to vote to approve or reject the plan. The Obama administration's asset-sale plan implements a de facto reorganization but denies to creditors the opportunity to vote on it.” This is the essence of the Chrysler “speedy bankruptcy” that has been mentioned in news sound bites. The rule of law is being violated to pay off political cronies; in this case, “union workers whose dues, in part, engineered [Pres. Obama’s] election.”
“Violating absolute priority undermines this commitment by introducing questions of redistribution into the process. It enables the rights of senior creditors to be plundered in order to benefit the rights of junior creditors.”
“The value of the rule of law,” writes Zywicki “is not merely a matter of economic efficiency. It also provides a bulwark against arbitrary governmental action taken at the behest of politically influential interests at the expense of the politically unpopular.” This is one of the basic tenets of our system of government. Government is to be of, by, and for all of the people, not just the politically powerful or favored.
Moving away from the rule of law to the arbitrary rule of men on contract issues will dismantle the creditor-debtor balance the Founders and their successors so carefully crafted. As occurred when state legislatures began disrespecting contract law and property rights in the 1780s, this path will also lead to a credit crunch as those with resources to lend factor in political risk factors.
Zywicki says, “we need to ask how eager lenders will be to offer new credit to General Motors knowing that the value of their investment could be diminished or destroyed by government to enrich a politically favored union. We also need to ask how eager hedge funds will be to participate in the government's Public-Private Investment Program to purchase banks' troubled assets.”
Many of the President’s fans seem to assume that their political opponents have been rendered permanently politically impotent. But history shows that they will come to power again. How will the President’s current supporters feel in some future day when their political opponents wield the method the President is pioneering to the benefit of their own politically favored groups?
The sanctity of the contract is not a partisan issue; it is an American issue. Majorities from all sides of the political spectrum (perhaps excepting Communists) should stand up against this abuse of power before it becomes another standard tool in the American political arsenal. It really doesn’t matter who is being paid off in this current instance. The danger posed by this action is enough to warrant opposing it.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
To Kill a Nazi Guard
John Demjanjuk is 89 years old and is quite ill. Born in Ukraine, he came to the U.S. in 1951 as a displaced person. He and his family settled and he went to work as a diesel mechanic at a Ford plant in Ohio. He became a U.S. citizen in 1958. Life seemed to go on pretty normal for the Demjanjuk family until evidence surfaced that he had been a Nazi SS guard at a death camp during WWII.
A strange saga began 32 years ago that sought to bring Demjanjuk to justice for war crimes. Demjanjuk says that he was never in the German SS. He says he was a Soviet soldier that was captured and spent most of the war in a German POW camp.
The courts disagreed with Demjanjuk. Four years after the original charges were filed the then 61-year-old auto worker had his U.S. citizenship stripped for lying on his citizenship application. Two years later, Israel requested his extradition. He was finally extradited to Israel three years later. His trial spanned a year and a half. Finally, he was convicted of being an evil Nazi death camp guard called “Ivan the Terrible” and was sentenced to hang.
During the appeals process information was discovered in records of the newly collapsed Soviet Union that proved the charges false. However, other records surfaced suggesting that Demjanjuk was a different Nazi death camp guard. Still, he was exonerated of the charges of which he had been convicted. After seven years in Israel, a 73-year-old Demjanjuk was returned to the U.S. It took five more years before his U.S. citizenship was restored.
A year after that, a new complaint was filed against the 79-year-old Demjanjuk based on the evidence referenced above. This began a whole new round of court actions that resulted in the revocation of his citizenship at age 84. Since that time, there have been a series of actions seeking to deport Demjanjuk to Germany for trial.
This week the sick 89-year-old Demjanjuk sat in a German court in a wheelchair breathing oxygen from a tank as charges against him were read. (See AP article.) Efraim Zuroff, head of the Simon Wiesenthal Center says that Demjanjuk’s trial will reinforce “the message that the passage of time in no way diminishes the guilt of the murderers.”
Holocaust survivor Charlotte Knobloch has no sympathy for the aging Demjanjuk because he “knew no mercy for his victims.” Saying that his trial “is a race against time,” she apparently wants to hurry to rub him out before he dies of natural causes.
The evidence against Demjanjuk has not been made fully public. In 2004 the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals found that the current evidence against him is “clear, unequivocal, and convincing.” While that helps legally justify the current actions, let’s not forget that the previous evidence that Demjanjuk was “Ivan the Terrible” was likewise considered incontrovertible by courts in multiple nations for at least a decade and a half.
My Dad grew up in a small German resort town on the North Sea. He never saw anyone wearing a Star of David identifying them as being Jewish, as occurred in larger German cities. The Nazi government was fairly effective in controlling information, so news of the Holocaust only began reaching Dad’s remote neck of the woods as whispered rumors late in the war. The rumors were so horrific that they were simply not believable.
Even when evidence of the Holocaust began to become public, the concept that such dreadful events were possible was so far outside of people’s experience and thought patterns that people could not bring themselves to believe it. It required an overwhelming cascade of evidence before people would believe. And then it changed everything.
The truth, it turned out, was far more horrific than any of the bizarre whispered tales had been. Millions of human beings — men, women, and children — had been methodically annihilated in huge death factories for the crime of being among classes of people the regime disliked. The government had tried to erase an entire class of people from the face of the earth. Until that evidence became clear, the thought that human beings were capable of carrying out such atrocities was inconceivable to most people.
Dad explained to me that once the Holocaust became part of the public psyche, it engendered an entirely new level of loathing and anger. And that was among people that had not been targets of the regime’s hatred. Imagine what kind of sentiments it fostered among those who survived the terror and those that lost loved ones in this horrendous crime.
The best way to reduce the chance of another future Holocaust is to instill in the worldwide psyche a complete and total repudiation of the practice. Any sense of legitimacy of such atrocities must be stamped out. It is in this vein that nations have spent three decades and millions of dollars to bring this one accused Nazi death camp guard to justice.
I somewhat understand and have great sympathy for the idea that the Holocaust atrocities (and anything like them) need to be criminalized and broadly de-legitimized. But part of me wonders if there isn’t a point where it makes sense to cut bait. Does it really make sense to rush to get a noose around this old man’s frail neck before his body naturally expires? Are there no cases where mercy might be applied without granting legitimacy to the crimes alleged?
A strange saga began 32 years ago that sought to bring Demjanjuk to justice for war crimes. Demjanjuk says that he was never in the German SS. He says he was a Soviet soldier that was captured and spent most of the war in a German POW camp.
The courts disagreed with Demjanjuk. Four years after the original charges were filed the then 61-year-old auto worker had his U.S. citizenship stripped for lying on his citizenship application. Two years later, Israel requested his extradition. He was finally extradited to Israel three years later. His trial spanned a year and a half. Finally, he was convicted of being an evil Nazi death camp guard called “Ivan the Terrible” and was sentenced to hang.
During the appeals process information was discovered in records of the newly collapsed Soviet Union that proved the charges false. However, other records surfaced suggesting that Demjanjuk was a different Nazi death camp guard. Still, he was exonerated of the charges of which he had been convicted. After seven years in Israel, a 73-year-old Demjanjuk was returned to the U.S. It took five more years before his U.S. citizenship was restored.
A year after that, a new complaint was filed against the 79-year-old Demjanjuk based on the evidence referenced above. This began a whole new round of court actions that resulted in the revocation of his citizenship at age 84. Since that time, there have been a series of actions seeking to deport Demjanjuk to Germany for trial.
This week the sick 89-year-old Demjanjuk sat in a German court in a wheelchair breathing oxygen from a tank as charges against him were read. (See AP article.) Efraim Zuroff, head of the Simon Wiesenthal Center says that Demjanjuk’s trial will reinforce “the message that the passage of time in no way diminishes the guilt of the murderers.”
Holocaust survivor Charlotte Knobloch has no sympathy for the aging Demjanjuk because he “knew no mercy for his victims.” Saying that his trial “is a race against time,” she apparently wants to hurry to rub him out before he dies of natural causes.
The evidence against Demjanjuk has not been made fully public. In 2004 the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals found that the current evidence against him is “clear, unequivocal, and convincing.” While that helps legally justify the current actions, let’s not forget that the previous evidence that Demjanjuk was “Ivan the Terrible” was likewise considered incontrovertible by courts in multiple nations for at least a decade and a half.
My Dad grew up in a small German resort town on the North Sea. He never saw anyone wearing a Star of David identifying them as being Jewish, as occurred in larger German cities. The Nazi government was fairly effective in controlling information, so news of the Holocaust only began reaching Dad’s remote neck of the woods as whispered rumors late in the war. The rumors were so horrific that they were simply not believable.
Even when evidence of the Holocaust began to become public, the concept that such dreadful events were possible was so far outside of people’s experience and thought patterns that people could not bring themselves to believe it. It required an overwhelming cascade of evidence before people would believe. And then it changed everything.
The truth, it turned out, was far more horrific than any of the bizarre whispered tales had been. Millions of human beings — men, women, and children — had been methodically annihilated in huge death factories for the crime of being among classes of people the regime disliked. The government had tried to erase an entire class of people from the face of the earth. Until that evidence became clear, the thought that human beings were capable of carrying out such atrocities was inconceivable to most people.
Dad explained to me that once the Holocaust became part of the public psyche, it engendered an entirely new level of loathing and anger. And that was among people that had not been targets of the regime’s hatred. Imagine what kind of sentiments it fostered among those who survived the terror and those that lost loved ones in this horrendous crime.
The best way to reduce the chance of another future Holocaust is to instill in the worldwide psyche a complete and total repudiation of the practice. Any sense of legitimacy of such atrocities must be stamped out. It is in this vein that nations have spent three decades and millions of dollars to bring this one accused Nazi death camp guard to justice.
I somewhat understand and have great sympathy for the idea that the Holocaust atrocities (and anything like them) need to be criminalized and broadly de-legitimized. But part of me wonders if there isn’t a point where it makes sense to cut bait. Does it really make sense to rush to get a noose around this old man’s frail neck before his body naturally expires? Are there no cases where mercy might be applied without granting legitimacy to the crimes alleged?
Monday, May 11, 2009
To See or Not to See — (It's Only a Movie)
I read a couple of reviews of the new Star Trek movie over the weekend. Although I rarely go to movies, part of me would sure like to see this one. It sounds like it would be great if you liked the original Star Trek series.
Back when I was a kid I used to watch Star Trek on TV, especially in reruns. I was never a Star Trek aficionado. I couldn’t tell you the plots of all of the episodes, I didn’t know anything about the actors’ lives, nor did I own Star Trek paraphernalia as did a few of the really weird kids at school. (One girl in high school carried around tribbles and a toy communicator in her purse.)
But a Star Trek episode was often a good way to waste an hour, especially given what was usually on competing channels at the same time — talk shows, game shows, inane dramas, and silly sit-coms. We could only get three channels back then and home video equipment was still years away.
Having seen Star Trek reruns many times during my couch potato years, there were some episodes that I really liked — where they ended up in a 1920s mob environment, where they went back to 1969, where they were in a Roman gladiator world, and where they had an old western shootout (hmmm, I note a pattern here) — and episodes that I quite disliked — where they dealt with this powerful brat named Charlie, where kids on the ship had an evil imaginary friend, the planet killer thing, and the episode called The Empath. (I just hated that one.) Most episodes were forgettable of themselves, although, they reinforced the basic patterns of the series. (“He’s dead, Jim!”)
Give me a break; I was a kid. I haven’t seen most of these shows since then. Maybe I’d have different opinions if I were to see these episodes today. But I rarely sit down to watch TV, so that’s not going to happen.
Years went by and I found myself regularly watching the Next Generation series. More sophisticated, to be sure. Not nearly as much brute force involved. Not bad, though. Then came DS9 — the show that got stranger and stranger by the episode. Life was changing for me then. I pretty much quit watching TV at all, so DS9 (thankfully) went by the wayside for me. I saw parts of a couple of episodes of Voyager, and thought, “What the …?”
This new movie, it seems, recaptures some of the best elements of the original series. But apparently it captures some of the worst elements as well.
Last Thursday my son had to work late at his job at a movie theater because they were showing a preview of the recent Star Trek movie. He later described for me the crowd that turned out to see it. The people that were decked out in Star Trek uniforms, he claimed, were almost uniformly “very fat” and “old” (meaning middle aged). “These were grown people,” he continued incredulously; “Dad, it was pathetic.”
Although I’d like to catch the movie, I suppose that it will be like countless other movies I have thought about watching over the past few years. Somehow I will never find time to get away and watch it. There will always be more important things going on. Then it will be out of theaters and released on DVD. Even then I probably won’t even bother to rent it. Who has the time? (Which is just another way of saying that it just isn’t very important to me.)
Besides, past experience has shown me that I usually don’t see things the way most movie reviewers do. What turns their crank doesn’t turn mine and vice versa. No disrespect intended. We just have different motivations.
Back when I was a kid I used to watch Star Trek on TV, especially in reruns. I was never a Star Trek aficionado. I couldn’t tell you the plots of all of the episodes, I didn’t know anything about the actors’ lives, nor did I own Star Trek paraphernalia as did a few of the really weird kids at school. (One girl in high school carried around tribbles and a toy communicator in her purse.)
But a Star Trek episode was often a good way to waste an hour, especially given what was usually on competing channels at the same time — talk shows, game shows, inane dramas, and silly sit-coms. We could only get three channels back then and home video equipment was still years away.
Having seen Star Trek reruns many times during my couch potato years, there were some episodes that I really liked — where they ended up in a 1920s mob environment, where they went back to 1969, where they were in a Roman gladiator world, and where they had an old western shootout (hmmm, I note a pattern here) — and episodes that I quite disliked — where they dealt with this powerful brat named Charlie, where kids on the ship had an evil imaginary friend, the planet killer thing, and the episode called The Empath. (I just hated that one.) Most episodes were forgettable of themselves, although, they reinforced the basic patterns of the series. (“He’s dead, Jim!”)
Give me a break; I was a kid. I haven’t seen most of these shows since then. Maybe I’d have different opinions if I were to see these episodes today. But I rarely sit down to watch TV, so that’s not going to happen.
Years went by and I found myself regularly watching the Next Generation series. More sophisticated, to be sure. Not nearly as much brute force involved. Not bad, though. Then came DS9 — the show that got stranger and stranger by the episode. Life was changing for me then. I pretty much quit watching TV at all, so DS9 (thankfully) went by the wayside for me. I saw parts of a couple of episodes of Voyager, and thought, “What the …?”
This new movie, it seems, recaptures some of the best elements of the original series. But apparently it captures some of the worst elements as well.
Last Thursday my son had to work late at his job at a movie theater because they were showing a preview of the recent Star Trek movie. He later described for me the crowd that turned out to see it. The people that were decked out in Star Trek uniforms, he claimed, were almost uniformly “very fat” and “old” (meaning middle aged). “These were grown people,” he continued incredulously; “Dad, it was pathetic.”
Although I’d like to catch the movie, I suppose that it will be like countless other movies I have thought about watching over the past few years. Somehow I will never find time to get away and watch it. There will always be more important things going on. Then it will be out of theaters and released on DVD. Even then I probably won’t even bother to rent it. Who has the time? (Which is just another way of saying that it just isn’t very important to me.)
Besides, past experience has shown me that I usually don’t see things the way most movie reviewers do. What turns their crank doesn’t turn mine and vice versa. No disrespect intended. We just have different motivations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)