Last Week’s News About Manufactured News

I know that most of the country has already moved on from the conundrum over riots and deaths in the Muslim world as the result of Newsweek’s made up story about Koran desecration at Guantanamo Bay. But I wanted to take notice of award winning author and journalist Orson Scott Card’s angry but insightful article on the subject.

Card, a Democrat, rips the MSM for the elitist anti-American sentiment that runs rampant through its ranks. His remarks swell to cover all such elitists. Card juxtaposes Smartland – a state of mind inhabited by elitists – with Heartland – the state of mind where most of middle America dwells. Though he is talking about a state of mind, his Smartland-Heartland seems to closely align with the (mostly red) red/blue map showing how the US voted in the last general election by county.

Card also takes the politically incorrect position of taking aim at the Muslim rioters. He rightly demonstrates that Muslim extremists have become the monsters that many Christians were during the crusades.

Card concludes with a forbidding warning about what life would be like if the Smartlanders got control of our government. Hey, I think we’re largely already there.

Gunning For the Maleficent Seven

Despite MSM gushing, just about everyone that knows anything about the judicial filibuster compromise knows that conservatives took it in the shorts. Angry conservatives say that they intend to make the compromisers pay a political price. What are their prospects? Where do these senators hail from and when are they up for election?

· Lincoln Chafee (RI): 2006
· Susan Collins (ME): 2008
· Mike DeWine (OH): 2006
· Lindsey Graham (SC): 2008
· John McCain (AZ): 2010
· Olympia Snowe (ME): 2006
· John Warner (VA): 2008

Conservatives consider most of these senators RINOs (Republicans in name only). So do a lot of their constituents. The fact that many of these people aren’t real conservatives is one of the things that got them elected in the first place.

Of the three that are up for election in 2006, Chafee and Snowe are quite safe in the Northeast where social conservatives are something of an anomaly. Conservatives could cause DeWine some problems in Ohio, but they have a huge incumbency advantage to overcome.

McCain clearly wants to run for president again. Social conservatives have the power to pretty much derail his chances for getting the Republican nomination. He will definitely pay a price in that respect.

Of the 2008 crowd, Collins and Warner are like Chafee and Snowe. If conservatives succeed in toppling any of them they are likely to be replaced by people (Democrat or Republican) that are at least as liberal as the ones ousted. Only Graham could end up being game, but like DeWine, his incumbency advantage will weigh heavily in his favor.

What about the seven Democrats? Could conservatives whack them?

· Robert Byrd (WV): 2006
· Daniel Inouye (HI): 2010
· Mary Landrieu (LA): 2008
· Joe Lieberman (CT): 2006
· Ben Nelson (NE): 2006
· Mark Pryor (AR): 2008
· Ken Salazar (CO): 2010

For 2006 conservatives could hurt Nelson in Nebraska, but Robert Byrd is probably the safest senator in the nation. Joe Lieberman is arguably more conservative than his Republican colleague Christopher Dodd, and social conservatives need not apply in Connecticut anyway. Landrieu and Pryor both live in states with a strong social conservative base, so they might see some trouble in 08 – especially Landrieu who barely won her seat in a special election. Inouye and Salazar just won elections last year and Inouye is totally safe in Hawaii anyway.

Come on. These people aren’t stupid. They each calculated the political cost of their action before taking it. Some of them may have miscalculated, and that is where conservatives may find opportunities. But some conservatives will not be content merely to punish these 14. There is a current running out there that feels that the Republican leadership sold out and allowed this to happen. They aim to spread the pain throughout those they deem RINOs.

The question is what course conservatives will take to administer punishment. They could take the long view and work extra hard to groom conservative candidates to replace targeted senators as they retire while simultaneously making retirement seem an increasingly good option. I’m afraid that their patience has grown too thin for that. They could just mess things up and cause rancor among Republicans, thereby giving their opponents an even greater edge.

My personal observation is that the majority of current voters are not right-side conservatives. Most hang around the middle of the spectrum. Social conservatives make up an even smaller base than conservatives in general. However, they have enough numbers and clout to provide a swing vote where races are relatively close. I hope they use that power judiciously. Let’s not cut off our noses to spite our faces.

Non-Nuclear Deal Brings Disappointment

A deal has been reached on filibustering judicial nominees. The Senate has been spared the dreaded “nuclear option.” Some of President Bush’s most controversial judicial nominees will get an up or down vote on the Senate floor. But conservatives are not happy.

14 “moderate” senators, seven Republicans and seven Democrats, have banded together to implement a compromise that will prevent the Republican majority from changing the filibuster rules and prevent the Democrats from filibustering Bush’s judicial nominees except under “extraordinary circumstances,” whatever that means.

Senate Filibuster Basics
To understand what happened you have to understand how the Senate works. There are 101 possible votes: 100 senators plus the Vice President, who sits as the speaker of the chamber. There are currently 55 Republicans and 45 Democrats. Historically it has been easier for the minority party (regardless of who holds the majority) to put aside differences and maintain a united front.

A parliamentary device called the filibuster allows the minority party to prevent a vote on the floor of the Senate. The minority party can continue debate ad infinitum until at least 60 senators vote for cloture (this number has been changed throughout history by majority vote). This ends the debate and makes way for the vote to take place. The most infamous use of this device was to prevent a floor vote on civil rights legislation for decades by senators from southern states, despite the fact that the legislation clearly would have passed a floor vote.

Filibustering Judges and Stopping the Stoppers
During W’s first term Democrats used the filibuster to block votes on half of the President’s nominees to mid-level federal courts – the courts that are seedbeds for Supreme Court nominees. This unprecedented use of the filibuster blocked judges with conservative, religious, or constructionist viewpoints, regardless of their fitness to serve. Despite being in the majority, Republicans were unable to cobble together sufficient votes for cloture.

As the 2004 political campaign wrapped up, it became clear that Republicans had gained more power in the Senate. Encouraged by constituents, majority leader Bill Frist warned that if Democrats refused to allow a floor vote on all of the President’s nominees he would call for a parliamentary ruling from the speaker (a.k.a. Vice President Cheney) that would determine that filibusters were out of order in regard to judicial nominee votes. The speaker’s ruling would require 51 votes to become an official rule. This was dubbed the “nuclear option.”

Conservatives have been very unhappy with the amount of time it has taken to bring this matter to a head, but Frist had to work to make sure that he had at least 51 votes. Some liberal Republicans openly broke ranks. Minority leader Harry Reid suggested that he had enough votes to prevent the rule change. It was all scheduled to come to a vote today. That vote won’t happen because 14 senators have robbed both sides from having sufficient votes to either implement the rule change or to sustain a filibuster.

The Compromise: Winners and Losers
One of the central figures of the compromise is the media darling John McCain (R-AZ). While many are surprised by this development, we probably shouldn’t be. A lot of scuttlebutt has been going around about a compromise brokered by Trent Lott (R-MS). Several long-time experts on the Senate have speculated for weeks that a compromise would be reached when the vote became imminent – within 24 hours of the vote. However, we must understand that unless the Republicans pushed it all the way to the edge there would have been no compromise.

Who wins? Harry Reid sounded very happy indeed and admonished W to be humble, but Bill Frist sounded bitter and said that the agreement falls far short of ensuring a fair floor vote on each nominee. That pretty much says it all. Why would Reid be happy? Because the Democrats are now off the hook with their extremist supporters that had pushed them into an unworkable obstructionist position. Frist is unhappy because he knows that his constituents – the grass roots folks that care about this issue – feel shortchanged. Republicans might pay in the next election.

Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family represents the feelings of many conservatives. He has worked tirelessly for several years to see this matter resolved. He feels the agreement the agreement “represents a complete bailout and a betrayal by a cabal of Republicans and a great victory for united Democrats.”

The conservatives’ disappointment can be understood. When courts started creatively interpreting the Constitution in socially liberal ways, conservatives understood that they needed to get more constructionist judges appointed. To do that they needed stronger representation in Congress (particularly the Senate) and in the White House. Many have worked at the grass roots level for years to achieve this goal. Then, after getting there, the rules of the game were changed. So they worked to get even stronger representation. They thought they had a sure win this time. Now they feel like victory has been snatched away in the last seconds of the game.

What Now?
Besides, what does this compromise mean? It means that you have an even smaller group of people (14 moderates instead of 41 Democrats) holding most of the cards on judicial nominations. It means that power has shifted in the Senate. But nobody knows the strength or the durability of the coalition. We pretty much had known quantities before this. Who knows what the political landscape will look like at another time? The bird in the hand has been exchanged for two in the bush. The real gem, conservative Supreme Court nominees, can still be Borked and/or filibustered. The coalition may fall apart at any time. It may not even exist after the next election cycle. As eloquently noted by respected political analyst Michael Barone, centrist coalitions do not have a history of longevity.

John McCain is beloved by the leftist media because he regularly falls in line with their political leanings despite being a Republican. Some feel that his centrist views and contentious relationship with the Bush Administration make him a natural to win the presidency in 2008. But let’s be realistic. His actions may endear him to centrist, unaffiliated, and unknowledgeable voters, but they make him poison to the Republican machine that would have to hand him the nomination. He might be able to win a general election, but he’ll never get the chance because he can’t win the primaries.

For now we have a tenuous compromise that will allow some of President Bush’s “controversial” judicial nominees to receive a fair vote on the Senate floor. But nothing has been permanently resolved. Wait to see new fireworks when a Supreme Court Justice retires. Politics is a strange business. Part of the landscape never changes, while part of it is ever shifting. It’s sometimes hard to tell which part is which. Social conservatives are trying to play the game, but it turns out that politics is a fickle god.

Andrew McCarthy: The compromise sticks it to conservatives
Quin Hilyer: The compromise proves the Senate is a den of unprincipled back scratchers
NRO Editors: Three reasons the compromise stinks
Scrappleface (satire): Now judicial nominees need a superduper-majority
RedState.org: The deal was the best we could really have hoped for
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX): Dems admit their position was unfair
AP: Conservatives intend to make compromisers pay

Is the Medical Industy Always Right?

It seems that the medical industrial complex has grown substantially in significance in our society during my lifetime. It’s almost to the point of worship in some circles. We make many lifestyle choices based on the latest information flowing from the omniscient oracles of medicine. We are constantly bombarded with messages about what we should be doing and about new epidemics plaguing our society. Please note a tone of cynicism in my approach to this topic.

I find it humorous on one hand and pathetic on the other when information comes along that contradicts what has become conventional medical wisdom. Every year as spring moves toward summer the media spews a ponderous pile of preaching about skin cancer. I mean, we all know from years of indoctrination that sun is bad for us and that we need to slather ourselves with sunscreen if we ever think of going out in the sun, right? Check out a few recent Deseret News articles on the subject.

Some states and cities regulate tanning bed use by minors due to skin cancer concerns. (Mind you, I think that spending time on a tanning bed is idiotic, but I’m not sure government’s role is to regulate stupidity). Teenage tanning is a bad idea. Teens ignore tanning risks. (This is news? Teens have been ignoring the risks of all kinds of risky behavior for generations). UofU group cancer prevention advice includes staying out of the sun. Utah 4th in U.S. for skin cancer. Scare article about rare but increasing melanoma in kids. Vitamin D from direct sunlight a good thing (in limited doses). Two Utah women conducting crusade against skin cancer. Lack of vitamin D causes 30 times more deaths than skin cancer from sun.

This last one is a very interesting article. It challenges the medical industrial complex’s accepted view that exposure to sun is bad and that we always need sunscreen when we go outside. Dr. Michael Hollick of Boston University has research that shows that we need more vitamin D and that we need to get it from the sun. Supplements are very poor transmitters of the nutrient. Dr. Hollick says, “The problem has been that the American Academy of Dermatology has been unchallenged for 20 years. They have brainwashed the public at every level.” Dr. Henry Lim, chairman of Henry Ford Health System in Detroit says, “The statement that 'no sun exposure is good' I don't think is correct anymore.”

Undoubtedly, this is not the last word on sun exposure. But my point is that we regularly suck down whatever the medical industry tells us in a rather uncritical manner. We regulate our lives based on industry propaganda. We need to realize that even the best medical information is not necessarily the whole story. It is just the latest information. If the industry gets too bogged down with accepted “knowledge,” it may fail to do research that might refute or improve that information. There are also constituencies and politics within the medical industry that may skew public information. As we embark on crusades to stop epidemics, maybe we should consider the information basis of each crusade with a grain of salt.

Lest Europe's Fate Be Ours

As I was wrapping up my workout this morning I happened to catch a small segment of the BBC News that highlighted Queen Elizabeth’s visit to Parliament to officially recognize the results of the recent UK elections. They discussed the House of Lords and the House of Commons over images of the Lords in session dressed in regal robes that looked rather silly to me. This brief experience suddenly combined with a lifetime of experience as well as articles I have read over the past few days to create a stark realization of the significant differences between Europe and the US.

My dad came to the US from Germany at age 25. It has taken me a lifetime to begin to grasp my dad’s motives for leaving Europe, despite my having lived in Norway for two years in the early 80s. Two years ago my parents returned from serving a mission for the LDS Church in Germany. Minutes after returning to their home my dad remarked that it was very good to be back “home” in America. He said that returning to Europe reminded him of all the reasons he left in the first place. The people there are “completely screwed up,” according to him. I have always known that my dad never quite saw eye to eye with his family members, but now I understand that part of the reason for this is his unwillingness to accept the established social structure in Europe.

In a previous post I analyzed a July 2004 Wall Street Journal article (requires registration) that outlined the differences between Canadians and Americans in a very entertaining manner. Canada’s staid thinking is strongly tied to that of Europe while Americans have a strong independent streak. When I was a kid in the 60s and 70s there seemed to be a love of things European and a desire to vacation in Europe. I feel like a lot of that sentiment has long since gone by the wayside, fueled in its retreat by post-9/11 European anti-American sentiments and the weakening dollar.

WSJ Opinion Journal editor James Taranto’s blog last Friday (registration required) included a response from reader Jonathan Kahnoski to a previous post about elitist class warfare rhetoric. Mr. Kahnoski said:

When the American intelligentsia bought the whole Marxist-Leninist vocabulary back in the 1920s and 1930s, they bought into the idea of social classes. Marxism-Leninism is a product of the European experience, with its long history of often rigid social classes (royalty, nobility, bourgeoisie, etc.). This vocabulary has had great appeal to Europeans, especially on the Continent. Today, Europeans claim their societies are more egalitarian than America's because of their social welfare programs, while completely overlooking how stationary their citizens are both geographically (what Frenchman will leave his birthplace to take a better job?) and socially (can a "working class" German aspire to a university education or obtain a bachelor's or master's later in life?).

The American experience has been quite different. From the colonial period on, the ideal of America was to free the individual from the artificial constraints of social class.

The same working stiff who takes offense at being called "working class" is quite comfortable being called "blue collar." It is easy to understand why. A class is something you are born into, and trapped in--concepts completely antithetical to the American self-image. A collar, blue or white, is something a person chooses for himself--a concept congruent with the American ideal.

Thus, as you say, some janitors and secretaries and carpenters are insulted when they are referred to as "working class." However, perhaps most ignore the term because they don't associate themselves with "working class" or any other "class." They may agree they wear a white collar or a blue collar, practice a trade or a profession, but these they do by choice. They also will insist they are born-free, "jen-u-ine" Grade A, USDA Choice Americans and they don't know what class you are talking about.

Mr. Kahnoski suggests that the elitists that inhabit many posts in our colleges and universities might “feel more at home in Europe.”

Brian M. Carney, editor of the WSJ editorial page, had an op ed piece (registration required) in Saturday’s edition that discussed Europe’s dismal economic condition. He mentions post-WWII Europe’s economic growth and low unemployment rate prior to sliding into the abyss of the welfare state. In 1965 Europe’s 26% level of government spending was on par with the 25% US level. But in 2002 government spending had increased to 42% for Europe, while the US rate was only 26%.

Carney notes that the problem is less severe in the UK. He says that while the worldwide economy went south in the 70s, the Reagan policies in the US and the Thatcher policies in the UK rescued those countries from economic disaster. He says moreover that the continent has no hope of recovery from its nasty death spiral; a cycle of constant simultaneous increases in taxes and unemployment.

It works like this. Government increases spending, so taxes must increase. The increased (usually payroll) taxes result in job losses. With fewer workers to pay the taxes, rates must go up, decreasing “the benefit of working rather than collecting unemployment or welfare checks.” The problem is exacerbated by high welfare rates, such as they have in Europe. I have a German relative that has been out of work for two years, but thanks to lavish state benefits he continues to enjoy a decent lifestyle--work free. Once locked in, this cycle continually repeats itself resulting in a constantly worsening economy.

Regarding the question of whether the European social model can continue, Carney says:

Given that Europe's streak of economic underperformance can now be measured in decades, perhaps a better question to ask is: Why does anyone think that a system of generous welfare benefits, high taxes and harsh restrictions on hiring and firing would ever produce anything like a dynamic, growing economy? Why does anyone assume that there is such a thing as a "European model," rather than just a collection of ill-conceived policies having a predictably depressing effect on the economy and job creation?

I believe that Europe’s social structure lends to its current problems. My dad left Europe when the economy was booming. He didn’t leave for lack of a job; he left because he didn’t think along the lines of the accepted European social structure and way of thinking. Had he not found a sponsor in the US he would have gone first to Australia, but he was getting out one way or another. The European Union has an economy that should compete with the US, but it doesn’t show any signs of doing so anytime in the foreseeable future.

While I pride myself on being a genuine American, I believe that Europe’s experience should be a clear warning for us. The other day John Derbyshire had a particularly dour article in the National Review suggesting that the US is in lock step with Europe (well – especially the UK) in matters of declining conservatism. I don’t fully agree with him, but he has a point.

There is no end to the “good” that people argue that government ought to do, but government should only do what it 1) truly should do (check out the Constitution regarding enumerated powers) and 2) can afford. President Bush and Congress have gone hog wild with spending over the last 4½ years. That hasn’t been reflected in taxes yet, but we can’t put off paying for it forever. It is better to be wise up front than to leave the bill for today’s programs to be paid off by future generations. Bush and some Congressional leaders have given some lip service to this idea as of late, but their actions are far from the hold-the-line-on-spending tactics of the (much disdained by some) Newt Gingrich era Republicans. Where have all the fiscal conservatives gone?

Religious Favoritism or Just Politics?

Has anyone asked why Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has offered to allow a full Senate vote on Thomas Griffith (see here)? Is it because both Harry Reid and Thomas Griffith are members of the LDS Church, or maybe because the Democrats realize that they can’t get the 40 votes they need to filibuster Griffith because he’s not terribly controversial?

Can We Reform Social Security This Year?

In case you haven’t noticed, the effort to reform Social Security is going just about nowhere. President Bush has been campaigning hard for his style of reform. Various Congressional Republicans have floated a wide variety of proposals. Democrats and their allies, on the other hand, have been total obstructionists on the issue, offering no ideas and no real debate. Their strategy pretty much boils down to denying the facts and saying that whatever the Republicans offer is bad.

Let me say up front that I’m going to ignore the libertarian view that we shouldn’t have Social Security at all. While that might fit into the pure conservative idea of utopia, the argument is about two generations late. Social Security has become an integral, but admittedly socialist part of U.S. culture. It’s not going away any time soon. The question is how to deal with it given present and future realities.

Part of the blame for the current impasse goes to the Bush administration. While the administration has been running a political campaign to sell the President’s reform package, it has been very stingy on providing actual details needed by policy makers in Congress. It’s hard to promote a plan that is secret or ethereal. The White House finally provided a detailed plan less than two weeks ago, several months after starting to promote it.

With the issue stalling, the conservative Cato Institute has launched a campaign to “refocus” the debate on “ownership, inheritability, and choice.” These are all good issues, but I’m not sure why solvency isn’t added to these three points, since I think that solvency is the main reason we are having this debate at all.

In the Wall Street Journal, John Fund offers a plan to reinvigorate the reform effort and to steal the Democrats’ best talking points on the issue. The plan has two prongs. The first is to use progressive indexing. More on that below. The second is to immediately set up personal accounts that are invested only in safe government bonds. The President has already included these types of bonds as one of the investment options in his proposal.

The idea with the second point is to take the surpluses projected in the system over the next 12 years and force them into an actual lockbox instead of into government IOUs. Fund says, “Everyone knows that if nothing is done Congress–regardless of which party controls it–will spend every penny of the Social Security surpluses that will flow into the Treasury until 2017, after which the cost of benefits going out will begin exceeding the revenue coming in.”

Fund says that promoting a personal ‘lockbox’ would be a winner with the public at large. People are angry when they find out that they have no personal Social Security account and that their future benefits are determined by political whim. The idea of each person having his or her own account is quite popular, but opinion is quite mixed on investing those funds in private instruments.

By taking “privatization” off the table, Democrats would no longer be able to argue that private accounts would be gambling with your future since all investments would be in government bonds, which are just about the lowest risk instruments around. Fund hints that this could be a temporary measure that would open the door for eventual investing in other types of instruments. Indeed, I think that once people got used to having personal Social Security accounts, many would begin to clamor for other investment options similar to what they have with their 401k accounts.

Democratic investment banker Robert Pozen developed progressive indexing. It is intended to ensure that people at the low end of the economic spectrum are kept above poverty level. However, their increased benefits would be paid for by decreased benefits for everyone else. Can you say “more socialism” children?

Benefits are currently tied to the wage index, so benefits increase at the same rate as wages. However, the wage index climbs at a higher rate than the general inflation index. Some argue that benefits should be tied to the lower inflation index. Critics of this idea note that the wage index is directly tied to actual wages, while the inflation index is a complicated multi-tiered equation that is not closely tied to what real people are experiencing in their actual costs.

Progressive indexing would tie benefits for the lowest 30% to the higher wage index, while tying benefits for the remaining 70% to the lower inflation index. The projected result is a cut in the Social Security deficit from $3.7 trillion to $1.1 trillion over 75 years. Some on both sides of the aisle argue that this plan robs the middle class, but most Democrats aren’t arguing much because robbing from the rich to give to the poor has long been a staple of liberal politics.

Fund’s plan has definite bipartisan appeal. It gives everyone a safe personal account and it takes care of the poor. But the big problem with his plan is that it would take the money going into Social Security out of the budget. It would force the administration and Congress to own up to the true budgetary deficit we face. Congress would have to give up spending the money that is going into Social Security or at least count it as part of the national debt. That could make it a political hard sell. But Fund argues that the political stars are sufficiently aligned to make the plan achievable this year – with the right kind of leadership.

Fund focuses mainly on the political viability of his reform plan. He doesn’t provide much in the way of financial analysis, so I am left to wonder if his plan would actually fix the impending insolvency of the system. I also wonder if the right kind of leadership will be forthcoming to make the plan work. If it achieves solvency, it is less than what I would like, but it is probably the best that can be expected. If it doesn’t achieve solvency, why do it?

Another Six Years For Hatch?

27 years ago I walked up the steps of the Capitol building in Washington, D.C. as part of a group of Explorer Scouts from Utah. There we met with Senators Jake Garn and Orrin Hatch. I don’t remember much of what they said, but I do remember being impressed at having the opportunity to shake hands with two very powerful politicians.

Fast-forward 27 years. Jake Garn has long since retired from the Senate, but Orrin Hatch is still there. He is preparing to run for another term in that office. By the end of that term he would have served in the Senate 36 years. Is he angling to become the next Robert Byrd or Strom Thurmond? Career politicians always say the same things when they run for re-election. They need our support so that they can continue their important work, they have unfinished business, etc.

Blogger Mark Towner at Utah Politics wrote, “On Saturday at the Salt Lake County convention [Senator Hatch] asked us for 6 more years to accomplish what he has not been able to accomplish in the past 30, is that likely?” He suggests that Senator Hatch’s arguments against Senator Frank Moss 30 years ago are more than applicable to Hatch today. He has served well, but he’s out of touch with the average Utahan. It’s time for him to retire and time for some new blood. Moss then. Hatch now.

Towner notes that Newt Gingrich eloquently stated (in the heat of a climate that clamored for term limits) that the longer one breathes the rarified air inside the D.C. beltway, the more one becomes co-opted into the bureaucracies against which they once campaigned. They become attuned to the realities of political deals and compromises. I think it goes further than that. They begin to feel that the preservation of liberty-inhibiting institutions is actually the best way to serve their constituents.

Like universities, power in the Senate derives from tenure. The more senior one becomes the more power one wields. Thanks to the kerfuffle with Arlen Spector (R-PA) becoming chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee after the last elections, much has been said and written both pro and con about the Senate’s seniority system. Regardless of how we feel about that system, there is little chance that it will change because it provides predictability and stability, and it is the major factor upon which senators (who would have to vote to change the rules) base their careers.

Since the senatorial equation seniority = power is here to stay for now, Utah is best represented by having the most senior senators possible, right? I mean, if seniority is everything in the Senate, Utah would be best served by sending Hatch back for another term, right?

Towner would say that’s wrong. He says, “Senator Hatch is conflicted. Too many deals and too many years in Washington make it impossible for him to actually do what he knows to be right, but instead goes along with what will pass in the Senate.” In other words, what good does seniority do if the views of the constituency are being poorly represented? While seniority is the most important thing to a senator, it is not the primary consideration for a voter, whose first priority is how his or her concerns are being addressed.

Seniority-is-everything ideologues that argue for keeping Hatch are short sighted. Towner points out a likely scenario where Senators Bennett and Hatch will retire in 2010 and 2012 respectively, leaving Utah with two freshman senators. He notes that given the average age in the Senate (and therefore the impending retirements there), Utah would be best served by sending a freshman senator now to begin gaining status for a potential leadership position instead of being left doubly low on the totem pole down the road. Towner suggests that if Orrin were more interested in Utah than in his own career he would retire next year.

Is there a possibility that Utah won’t re-elect Senator Hatch? I don’t think so unless he miraculously steps aside. If you survey Hatch’s fundraising and behind the scenes preparation you can see that he’s fully prepared to mount a serious campaign. He’s not thinking at all about retiring soon.

Many have argued that Hatch won 29 years ago because Senator Moss underestimated his young punk challenger, and that another young challenger could do the same to Hatch next year. I think, however, that Senator Moss failed to appreciate the change in Utah’s political landscape that took place during his tenure in the Senate. Utahans fled the Democratic Party in droves during the 60s and 70s as the party allowed itself to be taken over by secular extremists that challenged traditional morality. When Hatch argued that Moss was out of touch, it was easy for Utahans to see how Moss’ party had lost touch with their values. When Hatch offered an alternative, it was easy to dump Moss because of his party affiliation.

During Hatch’s almost three decades in the Senate, Utah has become more Republican. Hatch has several factors in his favor including being Republican, incumbency (with all of its associated benefits), being active in the LDS Church, and having a weak Democratic party that is unable to offer a viable opponent. It’s not like Moss who was facing a candidate from an ascending Republican Party.

Hatch is working to fend off any serious challenge from within the Republican Party. Any serious candidate needs to be doing a lot of heavy lifting now to prepare for a campaign next year. Is there anyone out there doing that? Are there any major financiers out there helping to mount a campaign against Hatch? Can anyone wrest the party’s commitments and resources from Hatch?

It’s not that Utah lacks viable potential senators; it’s just that Hatch is working to clear and prepare the field so he can reap a bountiful harvest come fall 2006. I think Hatch would have to do something degrading or suffer a serious decline in health for someone to have a chance of bringing him down. Let’s face it, Utahans know and understand Orrin Hatch’s style. Many respect him and few think that he merits dumping, even if he is getting somewhat out of touch with his base. He has become a human institution of sorts.

My personal preference would be to elect a new senator to replace Hatch next year. Is that likely to happen? Probably not, but I’d be happy to take a look at anyone willing to give it a serious try.

Is the Judiciary Above Criticism?

Former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson had an op-ed piece in Saturday’s Wall Street Journal that is worth reading. In it he stands as a voice of reason advocating the virtues of our independent judiciary and appealing for cooler heads, civility, and respect of the judiciary so that judges can continue their important work unencumbered by untoward criticism.

I found that reading the responses to Mr. Olson’s article was more enjoyable, insightful, and informative than reading the article itself (even if some writers’ grammatical skills were less than perfect).

Some of the more sanguine responses included comments like:

• “With judges, as with any other profession, if you want my respect, earn it” (Rick Irving – Atlanta).


• “Mr. Olson's premise that the federal judiciary is respected has no basis in reality for a significant portion of the population” (Harold Finton - Charlotte, NC).


• “Your article is evidence that the effectiveness of our criticism is just beginning to be noticed” (Elliott Reed – Phoenix).


• “You sir, as an attorney, are indeed a member of that select group who think you are the only ones with intellectual capacity to read and understand the Constitution” (Ruth Skidmore - Plymouth, CA).


• “[Mr. Olsen’s] comments are mindful of the disbelief of Crown and Parliament in the 1760s and 1770s that the American colonists could have any squawk about their treatment by the British” (Joseph Revell - Pensacola, FL).

William Woodford of Little Rock starts with, “What planet has Mr. Olson been living on?” He concludes with:

As a practical matter, contemporary American jurisprudence holds that the law is whatever the lawyers say it is, no matter what the statutes or precedents say. This is called "gaming the system," and it has led to a system of arbitrary justice that has become the rule of men rather than the rule of law. Despite this, Mr. Olson argues that there is no need for someone to guard the guardians.

Many readers hammered away at judicial decisions based in foreign law and decisions that effectively destroy the true intent of the Constitution.

• “For over six decades now, enough higher court judges have independently served the political agendas of socialist liberalism to render our Constitution virtually ineffective and unrecognizable compared to it's original form, intent and protections” (Carl Withrow – Manassas, VA).


• “If a neutral observer were to read the Constitution and then to observe the state and scope of the Federal government today, he would have to come to the conclusion that we have become a nation governed by rule of men, not by rule of law” (Kevin Mawn – Marietta, GA).


• “The Founding Fathers said and wrote nothing about judges being gods. That came later when liberal activist judges starting using their cherished and concise U.S. Constitution as a Ouija Board” (Duane Speight – Prosperity, SC).

I suppose my favorite response came from Harold Finton of Charlotte, NC, who wrote:

Too many people have not respect for the judiciary. That lack of respect comes from their arrogance and abuse. Pretending they are gold-plated gods is no longer working. It is time to treat a few of them like disposable paper plates. It will put the fear of pension loss in the rest of them. And that would be a good thing.

Mr. Finton concludes with a call to arms of sorts, saying, “It is time to throw down false idols. It is better to worship at the altar of liberty than to bear the yoke of judicial tyranny.”

A significant portion of the population is fed up with the current state of the judiciary. They are well informed and are politically active. They have been around for a long time, but for years they have felt impotent to do anything about the situation. Now they sense an opportunity to actually make a difference. Mr. Olson wants these people to return to irrelevance, but that’s not going to happen. The elites may stick their heads in the sand about judicial activism, but the longer they ignore the issue the stronger the backlash will become.

Hat tip: Artful criticism of Justice Ginsburg's position of relying on foreign law to interpret the U.S. Constitution.

Hat tip: Thomas Sowell comments on Theodore Olson’s article.

Is Easy Piracy OK?

As I listened to the disc my son had popped into the computer, I was amazed at some of the songs his teenage friends had created. One friend has had one of his songs played on a local university radio station (with a listening audience of over seven people).

My son explained that his friends create music using an application called Fruity Loops Studio that they had downloaded from the Internet. I have a firewall, and I’m one of those control freak dads that makes his kids get permission to download stuff. As my son extolled the virtues of FL Studio, I googled and found the website.

You can download a free trial copy of the Express edition of the application, but it will cost you $49 to make it fully functional. Buying the Fruity edition costs $99, and the Producer edition costs $149. I surmise from product descriptions on the site that my son’s friends are using the most expensive version, possibly with additional “XXL” options that run the price up to $299. If you’re into creating music, this thing looks like a major blast to use.

I told my son that while I would love for our family to have this product, we simply don’t have the resources to buy it right now. He said that one of his friends had downloaded a key generator for FL Studio. That’s when the red flags went up.

A key generator is a cleverly written program that will give you a product key that will fully activate a software application without obtaining a key from an official source; i.e. by paying for it.

I’m hypersensitive on this issue because I work in the software development field and have a special interest in electronic intellectual properties. So I proceeded to lecture my son about laws, ethics, and the eighth commandment, concluding with something like, “We don’t have illegal media in our home!”

The next day I pulled up Windows Media Player and scanned through the library to see what I might want to listen to. I then realized that we had at least one album there that had been ripped from a CD belonging to a friend of my son. Kids nowadays seem to feel that sharing songs is an acceptable pastime. In fact, they see it as a good thing. I sense that many Americans feel the same way.

Few of us would think of walking into a store and pilfering a CD or a software package, but when it’s available electronically we suddenly have no compunction about pulling it down and using it free of charge. After all, one electronic file transfer doesn’t substantially increase the producer’s costs, so there’s really no basis for charging for it, right?

That’s the wrong question. The question should be, “Do I want this enough to pay the price for it?” When someone legally holds something for sale, the only legal and ethical way to obtain it is to pay the required price. If the seller will agree to a discount, that’s great, but there is really no excuse for ripping someone off simply because it is easy.

Researchers have found (requires registration) that pirating software and media stifles innovation and costs jobs. Some countries are working with the Business Software Alliance to strengthen their intellectual property policies so that they can improve domestic innovation and compete in the global marketplace.

Pirating media might reduce our costs and increase our convenience, but in the long run we are hurting the economy and are costing jobs. And despite any slick arguments about ease and overpricing, you simply can’t get around the fact that what you are doing is stealing.

Reining In the Judiciary

Jonah Goldberg parallels what I said in a previous post about the judiciary. The current bizarre confirmation “maneuvering is the natural consequence of giving judges more power than they deserve or need. Debate over judicial appointments used to be more decorous, largely because the stakes were lower. If we empowered the head of the U.S. Postal Service to rule vast swaths of our lives, we'd have huge confirmation battles over the postmaster general.”

Goldberg proposes to solve the problem by returning the Senate to its old filibuster rules, which “required senators to pack a thermos and ramble from a podium for hours or days on end.” He claims this would not only provide drama for politicos, but would put a human face on the issue, thereby providing voters a clear target. He concludes, “That would inject some democratic accountability into the only available vein. After all, nothing focuses the mind of a senator more than watching a colleague get fired.”

I'm not sure he's correct. Harry Reid is continuing the tactics of his defeated predecessor, Tom Daschle. At least Goldberg proposes a solution rather than simply whining.

Judicial Legislation: Solutions Needed More Than Whining

The editors of the National Review complain that recent remarks by two Republican members of Congress are not helpful to the cause of “bring[ing] judicial power down to its proper constitutional size.” After criticizing the politicians, the editors say, “it is profoundly unhealthy for the republic to have a judiciary that effectively defines the limits of its own power and a political class that regards the rule of judges as the rule of law.” They further define the problem by concluding that the kind of judicial independence we currently have is independence from the Constitution.

But for all of their haranguing of conservative politicians and definition of the problem of an out-of-control judiciary, they provide no suggestions on how to deal with the problem. My boss doesn’t mind hearing about problems, but unless you also suggest some possible courses of action, he figures you’re simply whining. That’s pretty much what the editors of the National Review are doing in this instance.

Mormons Also Revere Pope John Paul II

For a pleasant LDS perspective on the Pope, see this article by LDS authors Daniel C. Peterson and William J. Hamblin. Orson Scott Card adds his admiration for the Pope here.

What's the Big Deal On Judges?

What has happened to our federal justice system?

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has threatened to shut down business in the Senate (see here) if the Republicans limit the ability to filibuster judicial confirmation votes on the Senate floor. (Some people think that would be great). He wants to preserve a practice instituted by his predecessor, the former Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD) that created a new standard of essentially requiring 60 votes to confirm a federal judicial nominee. Although Senator Daschle’s defeat (and arguably the poor showing by Democrats in some congressional races in 2004) had much to do with this obstructionism, Senator Reid is adamant that it will continue.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) has threatened to use what has been dubbed “the nuclear option” to ensure that judicial nominees get a fair up or down vote on the Senate floor. It sounds ominous, and indeed, some former Republican senators argue that it would be a bad idea (here – requires registration).

The Senate didn’t used to get so worked up over judicial nominees. What the heck is going on here? Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), one of the Senate’s leading rules and procedures experts recently admitted that the Senate technically doesn’t even need to vote to confirm a nominee. The Wall Street Journal editors suggested (here – requires registration) that this means that, “Fifty-one of the 55 Republican Senators can simply send the President a letter expressing their support for his candidates.”

The whole showdown issue has its roots in judicial history. Historian Arthur Herman details (here) how the Supreme Court was established merely to provide a common sense check and balance on federal laws passed by politicians. The Founders felt that this body would never exceed its role of merely interpreting the laws.

Any study of federal judicial history, however, shows that the federal judiciary has continually worked to expand its role. In the Right Nation, John Micklethwait and Adrian Woodridge argue that judicial legislation came to a head in the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions. Duncan Currie, reviewing the book, says that in Western Europe abortion was legalized in over a period of time “through legislation and, occasionally, referenda.”

In the U.S., as we are all painfully aware, the Supreme Court effectively wrote a new law legalizing abortion. Duncan Currie says, “Thus the chief lesson of Roe: When citizens lose at the ballot box, they feel defeated. When they lose by judicial fiat, they feel cheated.”

Judicial legislation didn’t start with Roe, but that’s when it became mainstreamed. It has blossomed tremendously since then. One problem is that our Congressional leaders have largely been AWOL in their Constitutional duty to provide judicial oversight. Once a judge or justice is appointed, that’s the end of it. It has been many decades since any of these people have truly been called to task for their gross errors, arrogance, and legislating from the bench.

In a previous post I quoted Jonah Goldberg saying, “The meaning of the Constitution does not exist at all — outside the cranium of whichever justice provides the swing vote.”

In other words, when we are a nation of laws it does not matter so much who is appointed fill a judicial seat as long as the person is competent. However, now that judges create laws, a right expressly reserved for the legislative branch in the Constitution, we are becoming a nation of men rather than a nation of laws.

It naturally makes sense that since judges now legislate rather than merely interpret; their confirmations take on an air of an election campaign because personal ideology now matters. Anything Congress does can now be trumped by the judiciary. That is why Congressional leaders are fighting tooth and nail over this issue. The judiciary is everything.

Only a strong public outcry and a firm action by elected officials can reverse this trend. Is the public aroused enough over this issue to make it happen? Are we supporting candidates that have the will to do their job in this area? We might not be there yet, but there seems to be an increased vigor on this issue among American voters. Maybe we are on our way there.

Extending Daylight Saving Time: It's About the Money

When I was a kid and asked my mom what daylight saving time (DST) was. She said it was like a guy whose feet stuck out and got cold at night because his blanket was too short. So he cut a foot off the top of the blanket and sewed that portion onto the bottom to make the blanket longer.

Some of our lawmakers seem to actually believe this would be effective. On Wednesday, the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved an amendment to the energy bill under consideration that would extend DST by two months. (See story). Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass) said, “The more daylight we have, the less electricity we use.”

I may be picking at nits, but changing a clock does not produce more daylight. What Rep. Markey probably meant is that we tend to use more electricity later in the day coincidental with sundown, so that shifting an hour of daylight to later in the day would result in a reduction in energy usage. He cited a Transportation Department estimate showing that the proposed extension of DST would save the equivalent of 10,000 barrels of oil daily.

10,000 barrels of oil! That’s a lot, isn’t it? Well, no, it really isn’t. The country uses about 20 Million barrels daily. 10,000 barrels is a savings of only 1/20%. In other words, it’s almost nothing. It’s a symbolic feel-good piece of legislation. These people want my children to go to school in the dark for a symbolic gesture? They want our schoolchildren groggy for the first three hours of school instead of just the first two, merely so that they can pat themselves on the back for theoretically reducing energy usage by almost nothing?

The assumption seems to be that reduced energy usage is such a desirable goal that it outweighs all other considerations, even if it’s only an infinitesimal reduction. Before passing a sweeping measure that will impact the lives of every single American and the people they interact with internationally, our lawmakers should consider all of the ramifications of this proposal.

If history is any indication (see here and here and here), the legislative effort to extend DST is being promoted by lobbyists for the sports, sporting equipment, retailing, automaker and oil industries. (Can you say, “KA-CHING!” children?) They believe that people attend more sporting events, buy more sports equipment, do more shopping, and drive more when it is lighter later. Could it be that Rep. Markey and his colleagues are more interested in this than in energy savings? Never mind the documented increase in school bus accidents during the dark mornings or the fact that the DOT estimate is based on the early 70s when far fewer people had air conditioning.

If DST is such a magnificent thing, why don’t our lawmakers simply mandate it year round as has been done temporarily at least twice in the past? Many Americans hate doing the twice-annual clock shift anyway. I suppose if lawmakers were go year round right now they would give up any future bargaining chit to garner more cash from the aforementioned deep-pocketed special interest groups a few years down the road. They don’t want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs just yet.

It Is Finished

Well, it’s done. We have allowed Terri Shaivo the ‘dignity’ of being cruelly dehydrated and starved to death over a period of nearly two weeks. Many are secretly or openly glad because they are tired of this story. Now they can go about their regular lives without being inconvenienced with news about this unfortunate event.

But Mrs. Schaivo’s case does not exist in a vacuum. Its far-reaching effects may impact your own life – or death as the case may be. Our national psyche is now infused with the idea that it is humane and dignified to let someone die if we judge her/him to have a low quality of life. While this might be the case if death is imminent and machines are merely keeping failed organs functioning, Mrs. Shaivo was in no danger of imminent death prior to March 18. But the courts held that it was her will to commit suicide were she ever incapacitated. Our society is not yet willing to kill incapacitated people quickly so we employed a method that would result in a charge of murder were it applied to our worst criminals.

The editors of the National Review commented:

Why not kill Mrs. Schiavo quickly and efficiently, by depriving her of air to breathe? In principle, that would have been no different from denying her the other basic necessities of life. Why not give her a lethal injection? The law would not have allowed those methods; but the reason nobody advocated them was that they would have been too obviously murder. So the court-ordered killing was carried out slowly, incrementally, over days and weeks, with soft music, stuffed animals, and euphonious slogans about choice and dignity and radiance. By the time it ended, no one really remembered how many days and hours it had gone on. The nation accepted it, national polls supported it, and we all moved on to other things.

Sort of reminds me of the movies Soylent Green and Logan’s Run where people no longer useful to society were terminated.

Since I have MS, I could conceivably end up in a severely disabled state. I have told my wife that if it comes down to having machines keeping my organs pumping – and that I would die in minutes without the machines – to go ahead and pull the plug. But if I am a non-responsive money-consuming lump of flesh merely staying alive by means of a feeding tube, don’t let them pull the tube and kill me over days and weeks.

Radford University professor of political science Matthew J. Franck has an excellent analysis on how a 1990 Supreme Court ruling brought us to the point where murdering disabled people is legal. He includes Justice Antonin Scalia’s strong dissent and nearly prescient warnings of what the ruling would lead to.

So we’ve started down the slippery slope. Few believe that America is ready to plunge to the depths that the Netherlands has achieved after 30 years of legalized euthanasia, where just about anybody that doesn’t want to live or that is a drain on society is executed – uh, euthanized – with nary a second thought. But don’t be too sure. The National Review’s editors offered this chilling warning: “Next time it will be easier. It always is. Who’s next?”

Do Mormons File More Bankruptcies?

Michael Stastny at Mahalanobis has an interesting post about Utah’s high bankruptcy rate. Several contributors added some interesting responses. The main thesis is to question why so many Mormons in Utah are declaring bankruptcy despite the church’s teachings on provident living and avoiding debt. This same thesis is echoed by financial expert Richard Halverson in a recent article in Meridian Magazine, a publication aimed chiefly at mainstream Mormons.

The thinking goes something like this. Utah has the highest rate of bankruptcy in the nation at about double the national average. Most Utahans (70%) belong to the LDS Church. Therefore, Mormons are filing bankruptcy at a higher rate than the national average. In the case of some Mahalanobis comments, a further conclusion seems to be that this means that there must be something wrong with the LDS Church when it comes to personal finances. These deductions may seem to make sense, but one must be careful in drawing conclusions from broad data that may turn out to be only casually linked.

Utah economist Dr. Kelly Matthews says that the people that pay a full tithing are not the ones that are filing bankruptcy. Moreover, he says that a high number of Utah’s Chapter 7 filers first file for Chapter 13 in an attempt to reorganize, but eventually file for Chapter 7 liquidation when the reorganization doesn’t work out. He says that this percentage is far higher than any other state, with the result that the number of bankruptcies are much higher than the number of filers. (This was from his commentary on the Doug Wright Show on KSL Radio several months ago – unfortunately I could not get a link to the transcript).

This seems to indicate that a higher number of Utah bankruptcy filers exhibit somewhat higher morals in that they first try to fix the problem. It also indicates that fully participating members of the LDS Church are not the ones contributing to the high bankruptcy rate.

A recent article in the Deseret News cites Christian E. Weller, a senior economist for the Center for American Progress in concluding that, “Utah's high [bankruptcy] rate can be traced in part to lower-than-average per capita disposable income levels. In 2003, Utah was the fourth-lowest state in per capita disposable income at $12,392.” This is corroborated by a study done by Drs. Jean Lown and Barbara Lowe of the University of Utah. Dr. Lown stated in an article in the Salt Lake Weekly that Utahans “don’t so much have a lot of debt, just a lot of debt in relationship to income.”

This same article adds the following to the list of problems for Utah households: larger than average families, larger than average houses (to accommodate the larger families), and more cars per household (to transport those families). One might conclude, therefore, that the church’s emphasis on not limiting family size lends to the high bankruptcy rate. A Deseret News article last summer alluded to this link.

The Salt Lake Weekly article cited above explored the link between the LDS Church and bankruptcy rates in Utah. Paul Godfrey, a professor of ethics at Brigham Young University is quoted as saying, “There is no smoking gun as to why so many people are filing.” However, he goes on to say:

It’s clear the LDS Church influence plays some kind of role in bankruptcy. I had students look at different religions. The LDS Church is the only one that talks about financial literacy from the pulpit. But there tends to be some weird cultural values that may encourage people to engage in riskier financial transactions.

The article says that Godfrey “describes these as informal myths—beliefs that, though neither taught nor encouraged by the church, form among some members. Blind faith, in a sense.” The article suggests that belief in these myths can lead to gullibility (or at least being overly trusting) and accumulating possessions in an attempt to demonstrate spiritual worthiness. However, the article admits having no empirical evidence to back this up.

What I take from all of this is that:

• Utah’s high bankruptcy rate is artificially inflated somewhat by those that first attempt to take responsibility for their problems before giving up.


• Most bankruptcies in Utah are filed by people that choose not to fully participate in the LDS Church.


• Some members of the LDS Church have some strange financial ideas based on Mormon folklore rather than on actual LDS doctrine. Perhaps this is more common among those that don’t fully participate.


• Given the below average household income, larger than average family size may stretch some families to the point of default on obligations when unusual financial events occur.

Die and Leave Me Alone!

Doug Gibson in a Standard Examiner article (registration required) offers a cogent opinion on furthering the culture of death in our country. He alludes to a moral imperative to care for those unable to care for themselves, which is a situation in which we may find ourselves someday. This is more deeply explored by Rabbi Aryeh Spero here. Peggy Noonan questions in a Wall Street Journal article (registration required) why some people are so rabidly passionate about killing Terri Schiavo. She concludes:

Once you "know" … that human life is not so special after all – then everything is possible, and none of it is good. When a society comes to believe that human life is not inherently worth living, it is a slippery slope to the gas chamber. You wind up on a low road that twists past Columbine and leads toward Auschwitz. Today that road runs through Pinellas Park, Fla.

Some people seem to think that it would be OK to starve Terri Schiavo to death if it could be proven that this was her will (which Florida state courts have admitted as fact). I do not understand why that is an issue. When someone wants to take action (or have action taken) to cause his or her own death, we call it being suicidal. We don’t assume such people are in their right mind. We assume they need mental health help. Unless you’re Dr. Kevorkian, you don’t advocate or assist them in killing themselves.

Refusing to hydrate and feed a person that would otherwise live is not the same as disconnecting machines that force a person’s organs to function. We are not talking about vital organ failure here. We are talking about forced malnourishment. Infants and many quadriplegics are unable to feed and hydrate themselves, but we would prosecute their caregivers for failing to provide the sustenance they need. This is true even for an animal for which someone is responsible.

Today Michael Schiavo is having his wife slowly murdered with the assent of our legal system. It was not OK for Scott Peterson to kill his wife, but somehow, because Mrs. Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state, it is OK for Mr. Schiavo to kill her. Unbelievable. Regardless of what the federal and state judges have to say in the matter, it is morally and ethically wrong and it will lead to no good.

Are Public School Sports Programs a Good Thing?

I don’t think I represent the average guy. Of course, I guess the average guy doesn’t blog. What I mean is that I’m not into competitive sports.

That is, with a few exceptions, I don’t watch sports. I don’t participate in competitive sports. I don’t enjoy competitive sports. I enjoy some private and personal sports: biking, hiking, weight lifting, skiing, etc. I have enjoyed watching the Olympics from time to time. I have also been faithfully supporting and attending my children’s little league soccer, baseball, basketball, and karate practices and games for nearly a decade.

Having suffered through playing (or sitting on the bench for) three seasons of baseball and one season of football as a kid, I vowed that I would never force any of my kids to play sports. But what does a non-sports-oriented dad do when his kids want to play sports? He enthusiastically supports and cheers for them.

I’m very grateful to my children’s coaches, but I could never do what they do. I understand the basic rules of the various sports my kids play. I can tell you when something is good and when something is bad. But I don’t understand, nor do I really care to comprehend, the strategies involved – how to think sports.

When a group of guys gathers, the discussion frequently turns to sports, especially collegiate and professional sports. I am utterly clueless in such encounters. When other guys talk about “the game,” I usually don’t even know what sport season it is. When other guys drop the names of famous athletes, I rarely know who they are talking about. What seems to cause the greatest consternation among other guys is that I don’t even care. They’re passionate while I’m apathetic. I can’t comprehend how one feels personally invested in a group of professional athletes.

But what I have learned from watching my kids in little league sports is that there is an inherent value in sports that I had not previously recognized. The benefits are not just physical, but also social and mental.

This brings me to what for some is a very emotional topic. With the omnipresent problem of struggling to adequately fund public education, why do schools continue to sponsor extracurricular sports programs?

On the one hand, I have already conceded that participation in sports provides educational benefits. Besides the athletes, when schools field competition teams students learn about what it takes to run a team. Some students end up working behind the scenes and learning things not easily learned elsewhere.

On the other hand, relatively few students actually participate in school sponsored competition athletic programs. It seems unfair that so many of our precious education resources are concentrated on so few students, many of whom are envied for their popularity. It seems more appropriate that we should focus more resources on students with special needs.

There has been a trend in recent years for school districts to drop sports programs so that they can use the money elsewhere. Many schools have increased fees for participants, causing some to complain that only kids from well-to-do families can participate. Some lawmakers in Minnesota have proposed separating all extracurricular programs from public education, transferring them to community recreation departments (see Star Tribune article).

The article quotes two school district administrators that claim that only 1% of their budget goes for sports and that the associated educational benefit is well worth it. I think they’re underestimating. We wouldn’t build the kinds of football and basketball venues we do in schools merely for P.E. classes. One of the administrators quoted feels that moving programs to community organizations would strip out the underlying educational premise with the result that parents and communities would control who can participate without concern for the growth of the youth. I’m not sure I buy that argument.

Another article in the liberal Seattle Post-Intelligencer discusses money in sports at length. It decries the extents to which some parents go to promote their child’s athletic prowess, looking down the road to a college scholarship and/or big bucks from the pros. The author suggests that too many youth are lured into the idea that they are good enough to play collegiate and/or professional sports. He quotes long odds for anyone actually doing this. 1% of high school athletes get a Division 1 sports scholarship. Fewer than 1/100% of high school football players go pro. Fewer than 3/1000% of high school basketball players go pro. The author claims that the real driver of these problems is the money in professional sports.

We Americans have shown by the way we vote with our dollars and time that we highly value sports. Some people (including me) feel that the amount we spend on professional sports is obscene. I have difficulty understanding our national hedonistic worshipping of sports on the Sabbath, even among many self-professed religious folks. Still, as a nation we regard pro sports quite highly. Is it any surprise that our youth strive for excellence in something so important to us? Is it any surprise that we parallel related professional fields in our schools? Of course, I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised if some of the same related problems pop up in our schools – corruption, drug abuse, etc.

In its July 1996 edition, National Geographic Magazine featured an article about the Olympics and why humans play sports. The article cited volumes of research that show that humans and animals require play to develop normally and to maintain normalcy. I suppose, however, that anything taken to an extreme is not normal. Pro athletes spend their time continually playing and preparing to play. I’m not sure I would want my child to become a pro athlete.

When all is said and done, I’m not sure how I feel about extracurricular sports in our public schools. I can see both sides of the issue. I understand the value of the programs on the one hand, but I also wonder if the money might not be better spent on different programs. I would appreciate exposure to more debate on this issue.

More Evidence That Fitness Helps MS Patients – Healthy Diet Also Helps

I suggested in a previous post that MS patients should exercise. My brother clued me into an article in the March 17 edition of the Salt Lake Tribune that discusses how fitness helps MS patients. Eduard Gappmeier, who has been studying this issue for the last 14 years at the UofU says, “Exercise does not lead to a change in the MS, but a change in how patients can live with it.”

Having made myself a Guinea pig on fitness and MS for the past 17 years, I’m not sure I fully agree. I believe exercise can actually lead to a change in MS. I believe it certainly can change the progression of the disease, although, that is difficult to prove or disprove clinically.

I guess I’m picking at nits. The fact is that if you have MS, exercise and fitness can help you. It definitely can improve your quality of life. It might slow disease progression. It is less likely that it can reverse existing disease effects, but I wouldn’t rule it out. It seems to have worked that way for me to some degree.

While exercise is great, you can make it more effective through a healthy diet. Quackwatch says that the Therapeutic Claims Committee of the International Federation of Multiple Sclerosis Societies (how’s that for a moniker?) has concluded that “no special diet … has been proven to alter its course.” Of course, I have difficulty trusting my health to bureaucratic organizations with long, official-sounding names. Besides, even if the committee is right and no diet conclusively improves MS, how can it be harmful to follow a healthy diet?

Over 40 years ago Dr. Roy Swank of the University of Oregon Health Sciences Center began studying the effects of diet on MS. After years of study he published the first edition of the Multiple Sclerosis Diet Book, which was later revised and updated with new information. The book has some good suggestions. Some of them are probably too restrictive for the average person. One of the book reviewers on Amazon who has MS and follows the diet closely says, “This isn't a miracle cure for the masses because most people either won't believe it, won't try it or won't stick with it.”

Another Amazon reviewer says, “If following a diet could cure or control MS, there would not be sick people around.” That, of course, is not true. The fact that a treatment exists does not mean that people will use it. Our eating experience is emotional and cultural as well as physical. Its patterns are deeply ingrained in our psyches. Statistics tell us that most people decline to eat healthy despite the well-known benefits of doing so. The trade-off required simply isn’t worth it to them.

I tried following Dr. Swank’s diet for the better part of a decade. While I wasn’t suffering significant MS symptoms, my health wasn’t the best. I enjoyed improved health when I started following Dr. Barry Sears’ Zone diet. I believe I was getting too little protein under the Swank diet. After a couple of years of following the Zone, I implemented some principles from Bill Philips’ Body for Life. I eventually also implemented principles from Tom Venuto’s Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle. I have taken a blend of everything I have learned from these and other sources to develop the healthy eating plan that I follow today.

Here’s what I can tell you about following a healthy diet:

• A significant improvement in health will require a significant improvement in diet.


• For most people, eating a healthy diet requires a major mental shift.


• Very healthy diets are expensive, take a lot of work, and are difficult to follow. Our society simply isn’t oriented to this type of eating.


• Be careful of plans that totally exclude foods you like. Some have the willpower to stay away from a food forever, but this frequently leads to binge eating when you “blow it.”


• The best thing you can do is to inform yourself. Information can help you make the choices that will be best for you.


• Do it. Actually implement your knowledge. Do it for at least six weeks if you want to find out if it will work for you.


• If your eating plan isn’t working for you, don’t throw the whole thing out. Go back through your information. Get more information if necessary. Make a few adjustments and try it again for a couple of weeks. Repeat as necessary. Eventually you will get to something that works well for you long term.

Most doctors that treat MS would like to see their patients exercise and eat a healthy diet. Few of them prescribe such activity because the bulk of medical research is focused on drug treatments (where the money is). This is not like the cardiology field. Doctors are exposed to very little information on treating MS with diet and exercise. That doesn’t mean that individuals should assume that it’s not helpful.

I’m not repudiating the medical industry. The industry does a fine job, but it’s often not the entire answer. I’m not advocating black magic, disproved treatment methods (see Quackwatch article), or anything potentially unhealthy. I’m simply suggesting that you take responsibility for your own health. Use the resources of our medical industry to fulfill that responsibility. But also use other valid resources. Find what works for you and use it. Nobody has a greater interest in your health than you.