How Wrong Is Usury?

Last week, the Standard Examiner published its own report on the payday loan business in Utah (here). The article attempts to present a balanced view, but it left me somewhat incredulous.

The SE article cites high customer satisfaction rates, saying, “According to a customer-satisfaction survey conducted by researchers from Syracuse University, 63 percent of payday borrowers are satisfied, compared to 28 percent with credit cards.”

One satisfied regular payday loan customer makes relatively good money in computer engineering. He travels frequently for business and his employer doesn’t reimburse him until a couple of weeks after each trip. He gets payday loans to fill the gap, paying around $80 for a two-week $500 loan.

This guy explains that he doesn’t have a credit card because he got in lots of trouble with credit cards when he was younger. So he actually “appreciates … the stiff fees” that help “keep him in line.” Although this guy makes good money, he is obviously bad at math. He says that he prefers a payday loan to a credit card because he doesn’t “want to pay that 18 percent interest.” This is a totally bizarre statement, because he avoids that high 18% rate only by paying a 416% rate on his payday loans.

Tellingly, the reporter writes that this man is now considering getting a credit card with a $500 limit because he realized, he says, “If I pay it back within a month, I won't pay any interest at all.” Ah, the light has turned on. Maybe this guy can work on your computer system, but don’t hire him to handle your finances.

This is the kind of fiscal ignorance upon which payday lenders prey. They rely on a steady stream of dupes that are mystified by simple finances. They need people that don’t understand the availability of more viable financing options or that have made enough bad decisions in the past that some of these options are now closed to them.

Other articles have cited the fact that part of the reason payday lending flourishes is that more respectable financial institutions do a poor job of servicing the people mentioned above. Actually, the real problem is that people don’t learn how to manage their finances early in life and they develop patterns early in life for expecting to get things they can’t afford. We have a huge credit industry that encourages this type of behavior and many people fall into their traps.

The article notes that payday lenders service people with “a high discount rate.” A university professor defines this, saying, “People with a high discount rate value present consumption more than future consumption. The pleasure they are getting today outweighs the costs they are going to have in the future.” In other words, payday lenders need a stream of customers that live for the moment and demand immediate gratification regardless of the consequences.

Reporter Marshall Thompson also notes that payday lending has exploded in Utah because it is one of the eight states in the nation that hardly regulate the business. Most states have usury laws that prohibit “lending money at exorbitant interest rates,” but Utah does not.

But don’t worry. An industry rep says that “the term usury doesn't apply to the payday industry since it only charges what the market will support.” Whew, that’s a relief. He also says that with “a high customer satisfaction rating and booming demand for services, the payday loan industry must be doing something right.”

When I read this, I turned to my wife and said, “I’m sure that the prostitution industry also charges only market rates, has plenty of demand, and has a high rate of customer satisfaction. But most people don’t think it should be legal.” I also noted that we have plenty of demand for gambling in Utah and plenty of satisfied gamblers that cross the border, but that most Utahns don’t think gambling should be legal in the state either.

Libertarian critics of regulating payday lending will correctly note that doing so will limit supply; thereby, driving costs even higher and creating a black market. But there are other matters to consider. Right now the state is complicit in the payday lending industry’s scheme to dupe people. The basic business plan is to get people to default on their loans, and then take them to court where the state rules against them so that the lender can get a revenue stream from garnishing wages, getting a much higher return on the lender’s investment. The state even helps collect revenue at this point. Since the people of this state are de facto partners to this business plan, state government has a right to have a say in how it is played out.

Critics of regulating payday lenders will also say that government has no right trying to keep people safe from their own bad choices and that the state has no business legislating morality. I both agree and disagree. This is like saying that we should never put up guard rails and concrete barriers along mountainous roads with steep drop offs because it would keep people that want to drive over the edge from doing so, or because it would keep people that veer off to the side from suffering the natural consequences of their actions. Of course we should take care of public safety, including public financial safety. This is a large part of what government does. It constantly attempts to achieve an optimal balance between public safety and individual liberty. The problem happens when we put up guard rails where none are needed.

This issue also involves considerations of natural law. Some hold that our laws should pretty much follow only natural law. There are two types of law: malum in se, which means that something is naturally wrong of itself, and malum prohibitum, which means something is wrong only because it is prohibited by authority. Murder, stealing, and lying, are wrong in and of themselves, for example. It doesn’t matter whether we have laws to prohibit them or not; they are still wrong. But driving 35 mph in a zone marked 30 mph is only wrong because it is prohibited by authority.

To be sure, there are disagreements as to what fits into the definition of malum in se. The classic modern example is abortion. One side sees abortion as malum in se, while the other side does not. Some would argue that usury falls into malum in se under the pretext that it is wrong to take advantage of someone even if that person agrees to the action. Usury is prohibited in both the Bible and the Koran. People in the payday lending industry would either argue that their 500%+ rates are not usury or that usury does not fall into malum in se.

Prostitution is prohibited in most places under the pretext that it falls into malum in se. It does not matter that consenting adults enter into an agreement to sell/purchase sexual favors for money. Society mostly believes that there are still victims in this type of transaction. Whenever anyone is harmed in a democratic society, all of society is harmed; thus, prostitution is illegal in most of the U.S.

Strict libertarians will argue that questions of this nature should not be regulated by government, and that the natural operation of the free market will sort out all such moral dilemmas. They will argue that the majority has no business imposing its moral will upon the minority, as this is simply tyranny of the majority, which our Founders sought to prevent by forming a republic.

When this point is made, someone frequently throws in an argument along these lines: “You want to enforce your view of morality at the point of a gun.” This takes the valid point that government has coercive powers and demagogues it by taking it to an extreme. Certainly there are times when a law might need to be enforced with violence, but for the most part, we’re talking about putting up guard rails rather than posting a guy on the side of the road with a bazooka ready to blast you if you veer too close to the edge.

Our democratic republic was created in a way that government should only play a role in certain enumerated areas. And for the most part, it should only play a role when there is fairly broad consensus on points. When this pattern is followed, government necessarily has a narrow focus, because such consensus can only be achieved on a few points. Other than that, government should stay out of the way.

Does payday lending fall into the categories specified above? The Standard Examiner published an editorial on Saturday arguing that does. I tend to agree. We ought to put limits on businesses whose main practice is to create victims, even if they’re willing victims. We especially ought to implement limits when a significant portion of the business’ operating plan involves the unwilling complicity of state government.

Proportionate Debate Time

The line item veto discussion (see here) between Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani during the recent GOP debate was incident to an exchange about which of the two leaders have the best record on cutting taxes and spending. Romney touts his tax cutting record as Governor of Massachusetts, but critics contend that his record is not so pretty when you look at the fees he imposed in lieu of taxes. Yesterday morning on Bill Bennett’s radio show, John McCain said that “you can call them bananas or fees,” but no matter what you call them they’re taxes on the public.

The media seems to be working hard to make the GOP race look like a two-man race between Giuliani and Romney, despite the fact that most polls have Giuliani as the clear leader, with Fred Thompson coming in second, John McCain third, and Romney fourth. Part of the reason for this is that the Giuliani and Romney campaigns are well organized machines that perform very well, while the Thompson and McCain campaigns have money and organization problems.

Ron Paul supporters argue that the polls ranking GOP candidates are improperly skewed because they survey only people identified as likely Republican voters, while many of Paul’s supporters come from outside those ranks and are registering as Republicans to vote for him. I don’t know how accurate that view is, but there is clearly some truth to it. Paul will still have to convince a whole lot of traditional GOP voters that he’s their guy to become viable.

The establishment clearly wants to ignore Paul’s surging popularity. USA Election Polls says that their “statistical analysis of the [GOP] debate transcript proves that Ron Paul was censored beyond expectations.” They posit, “A candidate raising $5 million dollars, winning 14 straw polls, and at or above the margin of error in 8 states only had 5.8% of the time to speak?” (See here for more info.)

Paul isn’t the only candidate that the media is trying to shunt aside. USA Election Polls has a more detailed report written a month and a half ago that considers candidates on both sides of the aisle. They conclude that the media is more or less anointing the top tier candidates in both parties.

The biggest problem candidates like Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee have is recognition. Gallup’s recent polling indicates that very high percentages of likely GOP voters have never heard of these guys (65% for Huckabee and 71% for Paul). Even upper tier candidates have this problem. 13% and 15% don’t know who Giuliani and McCain are respectively. I realize that most voters really don’t follow politics much, but if you don’t know who these guys are you must be living in a cave. Thompson and Romney have more of a problem, with 37% and 40% respectively that don’t know anything about them.

Everyone watches positive polling numbers, but negative polling numbers are also very important. These are people that know about the candidate, but that have an overall negative opinion of the candidate. Pollsters know that these people are unlikely to be persuaded to vote for the candidate. Of the likely GOP voters that have formed an opinion, 15% don’t like Giuliani and 15% don’t like Romney. Only 10% don’t like Thompson, but 24% don’t like McCain. McCain’s a great guy and a bona fide hero, but some find his politics wrong headed. Only 9% don’t like Huckabee, but only 26% do like him. 14% don’t like Paul, which is equivalent to the number the do like him.

Due to the changing election cycle, some of the traditional rules of primary elections no longer apply. The trouble is that nobody knows for sure how the rules apply and to what degree they apply. Some feel that if you’re not in the top tier by now you have no chance of taking the nomination. Others aren’t so sure about that. Some Al Gore advisers floated a rumor just the other day that he might still get in on the Democratic side, particularly now that he has won a Nobel Prize. That would shake things up.

There is no question that the MSM and the political establishment are working to push out candidates that they don’t want to see coming to the final round. I’m in favor of keeping as many candidates in play as possible. It broadens debate and expands choice, even if it’s difficult to manage a large number of candidates in a single debate forum. And I think expanding choice is a good thing. I’m sorry if that doesn’t fit into the plans of the MSM and the political establishment.

Dueling Law Professors

During the GOP debate the other night (which I, like most other Americans, did not watch), there was a spirited interchange between Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney about the presidential line item veto.

For some quick history, ever since Ronald Reagan repeatedly called for it, conservatives have wanted the president to have the authority to veto individual provisions of bills passed by Congress, mainly to control runaway spending. Governors in 43 states have this authority and use it frequently to great effect.

The GOP controlled Congress finally succeeded in passing legislation granting the president such power, and Bill Clinton signed it into law in 1996. In 1997, Clinton vetoed a spending provision in a budget bill that would have sent a chunk of money to New York City. Giuliani, who was mayor of New York at the time, sued to get the funding restored under the premise that the line item veto was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled in 1998 that it was indeed unconstitutional.

During the debate (see transcript), Romney said that Giuliani’s suit was a mistake. Giuliani responded, “The line item veto was unconstitutional. I took Bill Clinton to the Supreme Court and beat Bill Clinton. It's unconstitutional. What the heck can you do about that, if you're a strict constructionist?”

When pressed on the issue, Romney said that the veto was “not properly structured,” but he argued that a statutory line item veto could be formulated that would pass constitutional muster. He said that President Bush put forward such a proposal last year.

Giuliani responded (in a rather saucy way) by saying that he was in favor of a legal line item veto. He continued that segment by saying, “And as the mayor of New York, if I had let President Clinton take $250 million away from the people of my city illegally and unconstitutionally, I wouldn't have been much of a mayor.” He then bragged that it wasn’t “a bad idea to have a Republican presidential candidate who actually has beat President Clinton at something.”

Today, the National Review Online has opposing articles by two respected law professors that are recognized for their prowess in constitutional matters. Douglas W. Kmiec of Pepperdine University takes Romney’s side of the argument in this article. (Disclosure: Kmiec is a Romney adviser.) Steven G. Calabresi of Northwestern University takes Giuliani’s side.

Both lawyers know their stuff and make persuasive arguments. Read both articles and decide for yourself who is right. I will merely make the following observations.

Romney essentially argues that Giuliani shouldn’t have challenged the line item veto law, although, he agrees that it was unconstitutional. He seems to lament that since the illusion of constitutionality has been dispelled, it is now necessary to find some other statutory way to accomplish the desired outcome. So, it’s OK to support an unconstitutional law if it achieves something you believe to be desirable? That kind of reasoning just doesn’t sit well with me. And why can’t we just bite the bullet and try to get a constitutional amendment approved if this is such a good and necessary thing?

But Giuliani’s argument that to be a good mayor he had to fight to have a quarter billion American taxpayer dollars funneled to his city is equally unimpressive. It always bothers me when people are free with other people’s money. But it bothers me even more when people selfishly feel entitled to other people’s money. This kind of thing has been a problem in our world at least since Cain.

It's a Court; Not a Supreme Council of Ayatollahs

Steven G. Calabresi, a law professor at Northwestern University and co-founder of the Federalist Society, argues in this WSJ op-ed article in favor of a strict originalist interpretation of the Constitution. That is, he contends that the only sure way to interpret the Constitution is to apply “the original public meaning that [it] had when [it was] enacted into law.”

“The belief that judges and justices should decide constitutional cases” based on original intent, laments Calabresi, “may seem so obvious that it should hardly need a name, let alone a defense.” He notes that people would go nuts if any court were to interpret “statutes, contracts, wills and even old Supreme Court opinions” based on any standard other than their original public meaning. He wonders how these documents are somehow held to a higher standard than the Constitution itself; the basic law upon which all of these others merit any standing at all.

Calabresi is not ignorant of arguments that modern interpretations of the Constitution should flex to reflect “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” However, he contends that doing so destroys the very authority upon which these interpretations are based. He writes, “Non-originalist judicial review severely distorts the allocation of powers that is central to the Constitution.”

Citing a great deal of whining that the Supreme Court failed to follow some earlier court precedents in recent rulings, Calabresi argues that the Constitution itself should always take precedent. He cites the clearly erroneous 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson ruling that upheld racial segregation. He says the court plainly ruled correctly in 1954 to overturn this long-standing precedent, despite the fact that no constitutional amendment to correct the ruling could have passed at that time.

Speaking of those that agree with originalist interpretation of the Constitution, Calabresi states, “We think the Constitution is enforced by the Madisonian system of checks and balances, of separation of powers, and of federalism. We do not think that the Supreme Court is some kind of Supreme Council of Ayatollahs that can do anything it wants to do on a 5-4 vote.”

If you don’t use original intent as the basis for interpreting a document or a law, what valid basis can be applied? All that is left is the personal philosophies of the judges and justices. Although they may cite various sources as pseudo backup, you end up with rulings where they create new law out of thin air. Why should anyone believe this tiny group’s personal philosophies to be superior to those of the citizenry and their elected representatives?

Relying on “an unelected, unaccountable, life-tenured, elite group of judges” to determine “the most sensitive issues of morality and religion” according to their own philosophies (or erroneous precedent) instead of according to the Constitution’s original intent, argues Calabresi, “concentrates absolute power in one place, when the whole thrust of the U.S. Constitution was to disperse and balance power through the system of checks and balances.”

The courts have their appropriate role, of course. But it is important to keep them strictly within the boundaries of that role. Of this, Calabresi writes, “It is legitimate for courts to decide such [sensitive] issues only when they are enforcing the Constitution as originally understood and ratified by the people--and not enforcing the justices' own views as to what is good public policy.”

Any other standard is no standard at all.

Using the Wrong Tool for the Job

People have long known that government agencies perform poorly when compared with the private sector. Despite the abundant examples of people being poorly served by the private sector, empirical studies show that government agencies perform far worse. Not only do government agencies operate in a cold and emotionless manner, but their productivity and efficiency levels are deplorable in comparison with the private sector.

None of this is to say that people working for government agencies are bad, lazy, or uncaring people. That’s not it at all. However, they are stuck in an environment where all of the caring and hard work in the world simply cannot overcome the organizational culture. All of this has been studied and well documented by organizational behavioralists.

MehRan Rastakhiz, PhD has a short paper that discusses the shortcomings of the bureaucratic structure. Dr. Rastakhiz cites a number of studies to support his discussion. He notes that private sector organizations used to be similar to public sector organizations. But the private sector has evolved away from the bureaucratic structure to “fluid networks reinforced by core values of empowerment and learning.”

Consequently, private sector organizations are becoming more “holistic,” “environmentally aware,” and “publicly conscious.” Government agencies, on the other hand, are “steeped in historical tradition” and “continue to operate in isolated, mechanistic, and emotionless ways.”

Dr. Rastakhiz includes a brief, but decent discussion of the important role that government organizations play.

“Governments … maintain control, make the rules by which organizations operate, and retain the monopoly of legitimate coercive power. Often, they are the stable guarantors of open and fair dealing …. Governments facilitate the establishment and enforcement of the fundamental understandings necessary for action: who is entitled to what uses (use rights); who may legitimately sell products, land, and equipment (ownership rights); and what actions are acceptable (contract law).”

So now we know that governments are important and that government agencies are stifling bureaucracies. Dr. Rastakhiz encourages government agencies to make actual cultural changes and break out of the bureaucracy mold to gain the advantages found in private sector organizations. He mentions a number of initiatives (“incentive programs”) underway that aim to accomplish this by “select[ing], recruit[ing], and train[ing] a new generation of managers and leaders.”

In other words, Dr. Rastakhiz feels that government agencies are capable of changing from the bureaucratic style of organization to a more dynamic style. All they need are incentives. I mean, why shouldn’t they be able to make the shift to become more like the private sector? The private sector was once bureaucratic, and it has made the jump. Why can’t government?

The answer to these questions lies in Dr. Rastakhiz’s discussion of the role of government. The private sector and the government play dramatically different roles. Government is the maker and maintainer of the rules — the laws that govern society. Bureaucracy is a hierarchical system based on laws, written rules, and clearly defined career paths, among other things. It is the type of organization that is best suited for implementing and administering laws. Flexible, dynamic organizations are well suited to meeting customer needs, but are ill suited for implementing and administering laws.

Dr. Rastakhiz wants to make a dog out of a cat. He’s not alone. People argue all of the time that you can make government more productive, efficient, and customer friendly if only you have the right elected and appointed officials. If you have this nirvana cadre of individuals, you can certainly improve government, but you can never make it something it is not. You can hire the best trainers in the world and get your cat to do some of the things a dog does, but you will never turn your cat into a dog.

While promoting incentive programs, our good PhD conveniently failed to mention research, such as this 2002 University of Albany study that found no evidence that these programs (some of which have been going for more than 20 years) produce any desirable results or even have the potential to do so. This is because they are fighting a losing battle. Government agencies can be improved, but you cannot make them into something they are not. The primary role of government simply precludes this possibility.

Today, many people are clamoring for government to do more than it ever has in the past. Many people, for example, seem willing to entrust government with our health care because they are fed up with the problems in the current system (many of which stem from current government intervention). Unfortunately, confidence in government to adequately manage these types of programs is ill placed. We are asking a system whose main purpose is laws and rules to step in and provide services that in no way fall into its designed roles or competencies.

This kind of thing begins with the best of intentions, but the goals that are sought simply cannot be achieved through the tool of government. You may be frustrated with the performance of your screwdriver, but dumping the screwdriver in favor of a hammer is going to produce a worse result. The same is true when we assay to use government for purposes for which it is not suited.

This is why I favor limited government, as did our Founders. Government should stick to the business for which it is suited and should keep out of endeavors for which it is poorly suited. When we use government for the wrong purposes, it results in coercion, oppression, and limitations on liberties that each of us should regard as precious.

The Coronation Cycle

Do we like political dynasties in this country? Are political dynasties good for the country? Peggy Noonan discusses in this article the very real possibility that we could go Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. She says that on the Democratic side, people seem to be in a trance that causes them to ignore great candidates and focus only on Sen. Clinton (D-NY). But Noonan also seems to think that this is precisely the same kind of trance the GOP was in back in the 2000 race when it focused on then-Gov. Bush.

Why the trance? Noonan explains that it is because in modern politics, “A political family gains allies--retainers, supporters, hangers-on, admirers, associates, in-house Machiavellis.” She continues her analysis of this modern day royal court, writing, “The bigger the government, the more ways allies can be awarded, which binds them more closely. Your destiny is theirs. Members of the court recruit others. Money lines spread person to person, company to company, board to board, mover to mover.”

These political support systems become somewhat self-sustaining. They are “machines” that are “up and ready and good to go every election cycle.” Some of the people in these mechanisms are good people. Some are bad people. And some are just useful idiots.

Noonan asks, “Is this good for our democracy, this air of inevitability?” She then adds, “It would be understandable if they were families of a most extraordinary natural distinction and self-sacrifice. But these are not the Adamses of Massachusetts we're talking about.”

I think Noonan buries the lead on this issue, only briefly alluding to the role of expanding government in all of this. Actually, bigger government is THE problem. These powerful political family dynasties exist BECAUSE of the expanding size and role of the federal government. Noonan strikes true when she says that as government grows, so too do the number of people who owe their destinies to the politically powerful.

Even if you think that the central government should be providing all kinds of services and does a good job of administering its massive bloat, this is a reason to consider the case for limited government. We have discovered through sad experience that campaign finance reform does nothing to fix this problem. Even publicly financed elections would not fix this problem. The money lines Noonan talks about would not evaporate under such a system, but would only be obfuscated and made less transparent.

I agree with LaVarr Webb that due to the growth of the federal bureaucracy, the job of president has become too difficult for one person. We will likely never have another president that we consider to be competent unless we not only stop this growth, but substantially scale back our current system. This would involve farming activities out from the federal government to their most appropriate level of government, and getting rid of activities in which government has no business being involved.

And what happens four or eight years down the road? Another Bush? If you want to break this cycle, limiting the federal government is the solution.

Honest, Good, Wise, and Constitutional

I still haven’t nailed down precisely who I will vote for next month in the city council races for my little town. And I personally know almost everyone that is running. So don’t be surprised that I can’t bring myself to commit to any presidential candidate 13 months ahead of the 2008 election. I don’t personally know any of these people. I only see them through their media filters.

There has been a lot of campaigning and the presidential race has been at the top of the national news for months. I know plenty of people that enthusiastically support a candidate and feel that they have very good reasons for doing so. But I’m a long way from getting to that point. I’ve taken a good look at all of the candidates and I find things I like and things I dislike about each of them.

Someone once said that the only time you’ll find the perfect candidate is if you run for office yourself. Even that is not completely true, because I even disagree with myself or find my performance wanting at times.

Plenty of people are running around saying that they would never vote for a given candidate under any circumstances. I have gotten to that point with only a few. But I’m still quite open to considering most of them.

It’s just that no single candidate currently appeals to me enough to make me ready to choose them and dump all the others. Perhaps I am suffering from the problem grocery retailers have long known about: that given too many choices in a given category, people will often buy none of the products in that category. I’m waiting for the winnowing process to reduce the field of available choices.

The other night as I was contemplating various candidates, a scripture kept running through the back of my mind. Finally, I looked it up. I realize that for the non-religious, it can seem weird (or even scary) that someone would refer to religious texts for guidance on voting. But bear with me here. The scripture is found in a modern book of LDS scripture known as the Doctrine and Covenants, in section 98, verses 5-10:

5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.
6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;
7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.
8 I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free.
9 Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn.
10 Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.

The way I interpret this scripture, we are admonished to apply four criteria to candidates: 1) they must be honest, 2) they must be wise, 3) they must be good, and 4) they must support laws that are constitutional. We could quibble and say that this fourth criterion actually is directed to the reader rather than to public servants, but if the reader is required to support constitutional laws, it would seem that this extends as well to the reader’s support of public servants.

I find it interesting that when it comes to the laws of man, any that are “more or less” than constitutional come “of evil.” When discussing seeking for rulers, the scripture requires candidates that are honest, wise, and good. Any that are “less than these cometh of evil.” It’s OK if candidates are better than this. But it’s not OK to support a law that is extra-constitutional.

This raises the bar pretty high for candidates. I mean, the first criterion of being honest precludes many candidates right off the bat. You could probably fit all the names of politicians in history that have been renowned for their honesty on a 3x5 card, even using a 20-point font. We are not sanctioned in supporting candidates that are less than honest.

Now, we’re unlikely to find anyone that is perfectly honest 100% of the time. We are talking about humans with faults. However, we all probably know people that we consider to be sufficiently honest to be considered generally honest. In an imperfect world, this is probably the best we can hope for in a candidate.

How do you rank wisdom? It’s a sliding scale. Once again, this is a judgment call that the Lord leaves up to us. It’s easy to spot the fools when the national media make people look foolish. Wisdom is more difficult to judge than foolishness.

Like these other traits, goodness is a judgment call left to us. Jesus said in Matthew 19:17 that “there is none good but one, that is, God….” By that measure, we won’t find a single candidate that is good. The only way to gauge goodness is to take the full measure of the person and decide whether she/he is generally good.

Finally, how do we decide whether a candidate supports only constitutional laws? Do we go by what the Supreme Court has ruled? This is perhaps a decent rule of thumb, but it must be tempered by the fact that the court has pronounced blatantly immoral rulings from time to time. Consider the Dred Scott case, in which the court ruled that black people could never be U.S. citizens and that Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories. This evil became the constitutional law of the land for a while until it was rendered moot by amendments to the Constitution.

So constitutionality presents a bit of a sticky wicket as well. I’m afraid that the only way to determine what is constitutional is to study the document and related writings yourself. In my mind, some candidates support legislation that should be clearly unconstitutional, although, the courts may rule otherwise.

All of this is to say that all of the criteria we are called upon to apply to candidates is highly subjective and/or runs on a sliding scale. It requires a fair amount of personal effort to find out about each candidate and determine how well each measures up to the criteria. We should avoid a knee-jerk reaction to any candidate. Sometimes we just assume that a person is or is not good because we either like or dislike them, or because we support some of the same issues they support. We are called to apply a higher standard than this.

It seems that we can also be prone to supporting or not supporting a candidate based on a single incident or a single utterance. Occasionally a single event can reveal a candidate’s unworthiness or prove a candidate’s value. However, this is generally not the case. Most often, we should form an opinion based on the weight of a representative balance of evidence. This cannot be done if we only look at the good or bad of any candidate.

As I look at the six individuals running for city council seats in my town, I will do my best to support ones that are honest, wise, and good, and who will uphold the Constitution. As I get serious about considering my support for presidential candidates, I will do my best to apply this same standard. In the end, I think I will feel good about my choice even if it differs from the choices of my friends, neighbors, and family.

Will Social Conservatives Leave the GOP?

Per this AP report, some influential conservative Christians are considering breaking the GOP alliance to field a third party. Both major political parties in the U.S. are effectively alliances of groups with enough common interests to unite them on significant issues. However, both parties have a lot of internal disagreements because groups that make up the alliances have disparate and often conflicting interests. The alliances function to the point that the competing groups agree to set aside their disagreements and focus on areas where more agreement exists.

Intra-party competition is a safety valve that limits party power and narrows party focus. It is a sifting mechanism that winnows out less popular ideas in favor of those ideas where some consensus can be achieved. However, in a large party, this can mean that issues that are highly important to even good-sized blocs can fall by the wayside. This can leave fairly powerful groups feeling disenfranchised and underappreciated. This phenomenon occurs in both parties.

Party leaders are constantly working to maintain a satisfactory balance. That’s why they often speak and act inconsistently: they are pandering to groups in their alliances in order to keep the alliance intact. Both parties often ignore their own leaders’ inconsistencies, while loudly criticizing the inconsistencies of the other party’s leaders.

Four decades ago, the South was reliably Democrat. The South was filled with Democrats that were social conservatives. But things began to change in the late 60s and early 70s. The civil rights era resulted in a slow change of the political power structure in the South. When social liberals seized control of the Democratic Party, social conservatives felt sufficiently disenfranchised that they began moving to the Republican side. During this time, long-time alliances in both parties broke and there was a major realignment. Feminists that had been aligned with big business in the GOP moved to the Democrats, for example. Many groups changed parties as party ideologies shifted.

As is always the case whenever changes occur, some were able to take advantage of this shift, while others got the short end of the stick. I have often mentioned that political novice Orrin Hatch (R-UT) benefited from this shift in 1976 when was able to unseat unsuspecting three-term Senator Frank Moss (D-UT), whose power base evaporated before he realized what was happening.

The GOP alliance between social conservatives and the other major players in the GOP has always been a marriage of convenience. Social conservatives came from decades of simply having power and being naturally consulted on issues, to having to get into the filthy trenches of politics and fight for their causes. It has been a rude awakening for them as well as for competing groups. Instead of being able to stay above the fray, they have had to act like common politicians, which many competitors and some of their own have decried as unbecoming of the ideals they claim to uphold.

But what is happening today? The statement by Richard A. Viguerie, quoted in the AP article says it all when he says that social conservatives “have been treated like a mistress as long as any of us can remember.” Presumably speaking of the GOP powerful, he says, “They'll have lots of private meetings with us, tell us how much they appreciate it and how much they value us, but if you see me on the street please don't speak with me.” Viguerie is saying that social conservatives are tired of putting out for the party without getting respect for their issues.

I have previously discussed the infeasibility of the emergence of a viable third party in U.S. politics (see here and here). Social conservative leaders aren’t stupid. They know that splitting from the GOP to form a third party would not produce a viable party. But they also know that it would cripple the GOP. What these people are doing is threatening to take their ball and go home in the hope that the rest of the GOP will wake up and realize how much they need the social conservatives. They want some bones thrown in their direction. They want more than the lip service they have received over the past three decades; they want actual results on some of their hot-button issues.

Social conservatives may be asking for more than the GOP is capable of delivering. For one thing, there simply isn’t consensus among other groups in the GOP on many of the social conservatives’ major issues. For another thing, granting this group more power in the party necessarily means diminishing the power of one or more other groups in the alliance. None of these competing groups are going to willingly acquiesce on this.

Other groups in the GOP alliance are also not very happy with the party’s recent strong focus on the South. They note that GOP popularity in the more liberal Northeast has been rapidly disappearing as the party has ignored this area, perhaps figuring that it is a lost cause.

The fact is that the South cannot get much more Republican than it is today. A stronger focus on the South isn’t going to yield a whole lot more votes. To be viable, the GOP needs much more vigor in the liberal Northeast, in the labor-minded growing population centers of the Midwest, in the burgeoning multi-ethnic centers of the Southwest, and in the libertarian West. The GOP ignores or offends these people at its own peril. Besides, many GOP insiders wonder (even out loud) where else social conservatives could go. Certainly not to the Democratic Party, in which social liberals still have very strong sway.

It appears that at least some social conservatives are saying that they might be willing to leave the GOP to prove their value to the party. Other social conservatives are not ready to jump. They know that this is like the underappreciated spouse that gets a divorce to prove his/her worth to the other partner: it would leave everyone worse off in the long run.

It seems to me that rather than try to force their political will on other members of the GOP alliance, social conservatives would do better to get out and convert people in the Northeast, Midwest, Southwest, and West to their cause. To be sure, this would be a very long-term project. But I’m not sure it would require any more resources than they have been willing to put into politics over the past couple of decades. If enough people in the essential voting areas of the nation adopt socially conservative ideals, corresponding political power will grow naturally.

Researchers already know that the strongest and most diverse community structures in the nation are found in mega-churches, which are a fairly recent phenomenon. This would suggest that social conservatives need to expand the popularity of the mega-church beyond its current confines.

Now for a quick disclaimer. For those who seethe with unpleasant sentiments toward the Christian Right (and those who regularly point out that most members of the Christian Right detest my religion), I am merely analyzing what I see happening and suggesting what I think is a reasonable course. I am not making any judgments about the Christian Conservative movement or about those that politically promote socially conservative ideals. You can do that on your own time.

I understand that many social conservatives are frustrated with their lack of definable political successes. But threatening to form a third party is going to create more enemies than friends. I know that the course I have suggested is a long-term project that will only yield desirable political outcomes after years of work. But it is the only reasonable path, since social conservatives simply do not currently have sufficient political capital to get their way. Think about it. What is more likely to get you what you really want: bullying or reaching out to others?

Universal Health Coverage to be Pushed in Utah in 2008

A working group (see membership) made up of bankers, doctors, politicians (both Dem and GOP), insurance company executives, business people, nonprofit organization executives, and public employees has developed a proposal for solving all of Utah’s health care woes.

The group’s objective is: “To make health care more affordable (cost), improve health care outcomes (quality), and increase health coverage for the uninsured (access).” That sounds all mom, America, and apple pie-ish. How do they expect to pull off this magnificent feat? By lobbying the legislature in 2008 to pass a comprehensive package along the lines of Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts universal health coverage plan.

The plan has four parts: 1) Essential benefit package. 2) Health benefits commission. 3) Health insurance exchange. 4) Individual and shared responsibility.

To satisfy #1, all insurers in the state would be required to offer a package that would be deemed by a commission to be the minimum requirement. Services would become more expensive as treatments become more elective. The package would also “include financial incentives for healthy lifestyles and disincentives for high risk choices.” The escalating co-pay structure would eliminate deductibles. Anyone could buy more insurance if they wish.

#2 would establish a commission that would be made up of medical and financial folks that would determine what the minimum insurance package must include. It would also establish an appeals mechanism for disputes. Unspecified tort reform is passively suggested in a mealy-mouthed way.

#3 would establish a nonprofit non-government organization that would administer a health insurance exchange. It would function kind of like a stock exchange. The claim is that this exchange would provide everyone with adequate information upon which to base decisions and would reduce costs.

Finally, #4 is simply a fancy way of saying wealth transfer. If you earn more, you pay more. If you earn less, you pay less, but everyone gets the same thing (unless they pay for the upgrades).

The idea is to decouple health insurance from employment by providing to everyone the tax benefits currently reserved for employer provided health plans. Oh, and there’s this one little thing. No one can opt out. They will hunt you down and force you to buy this insurance. And if you’re below the poverty line, they will cram this insurance down your throat, whether you want it or not.

You can go online and vote on this proposal. You can also leave comments. Here are the comments I left:

“Many portions of the proposal sound interesting, but I have serious problems with other portions. I disagree with forcing everyone to obtain coverage. I understand the burden that the poor choices of others place on our medical system, but coercion further limits our precious liberties. It also doesn't always work.

“We have laws that require all automobiles operated on our roads to be insured, and yet a number remain uninsured. There are qualifying people that have refused to be coerced into signing up for government sponsored insurance programs that would cost them nothing out of pocket. I do not believe coercion will work any better for this program.

“I have a problem with a group of unelected "smart" people that would dictate to the rest of us what kind of health coverage we should have. The proposed board would ostensibly be political appointees. As such, their decisions would be incentivized at least as much by their political loyalties as by their desire to serve the public. Their decisions would reflect this. A good political decision does not necessarily translate to a good medical decision or a good market decision.

“What kind of risky behaviors does the central committee wish to discourage? This plan seems to transfer too much power to too few people to make such decisions. It all starts with the best of intentions, but a poorly designed power structure can lead to future serfdom.

“In fact, much of this plan seems to be based on the notion that free people are incapable of governing themselves on matters of health. Our Founding Fathers thought differently. Our current health system has problems, to be sure. But I find it strange that so many think that the solutions are found in more government regulation and meddling.”

I should have mentioned that studies have found no link between health outcomes and whether an individual has health insurance. This is important to note, given that improving health outcomes is one of the group’s main objectives. Chiropractor David Deardeuff says in this article that the two main problems with our medical system today are “lack of agency and lack of accountability.” Deardeuff hits the mark with this observation, although, I think his proposed solution is overly simplistic.

Frank Staheli has an interesting post on health care that discusses how we respond to incentives and how the current system insulates us from appropriate incentives. Frank suggests increased use of health savings plans. These operate without a lot of government meddling. HSAs free people to make health care choices and place a significant portion of the responsibility for those choices on their own shoulders; all the while shielding people from catastrophic costs.

People will argue that consumers make too many bad choices under such plans, opting to forego preventative or early care that would cost them out of pocket, thereby, allowing problems to escalate to a more serious level. Once again, we are assuming that free people are incapable of governing themselves.

The answers to our current health system’s woes are not going to be found in more government control of the system. Rather, they are going to be found in returning to people their freedoms as well as their responsibilities. You can demagogue this and say that I am an evil person that hates the poor and wants them to die. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t help the poor. I am saying that there are good ways to do that, and using government power to coerce people is not among those good ways.

Ogden Canyon Realities

Ogden Canyon is one of the many beautiful mountain locations near where I live. The canyon connects the Greater Ogden Area with Ogden Valley, which is home to Huntsville and Pineview Reservoir. Three ski resorts are accessible from Ogden Valley, including Snowbasin, which was a venue for the 2002 Winter Olympics. Prior to the construction of the Trapper’s Loop Highway, Ogden Canyon served as the most improved road between Ogden Valley and the more populous areas of the Wasatch Front, including Ogden City.

The naming of the Ogden City and of Ogden Valley is confusing, even to residents of the area, because Ogden Valley is six miles over the mountain from Ogden City. Peter Skene Ogden headed a company of trappers in 1824-25 that trapped in the area that came to be known as Ogden Valley. Apparently other trappers started to call the valley by that name, and the name stuck when the valley was later settled. Ogden and his company didn’t spend much time in the valley, and records seem to indicate that Ogden never entered the area where Ogden City was later built.

Fort Buenaventura was purchased from trapper Miles Goodyear by Mormon settlers. The settlement was then named Brown’s Fort and later Brownsville in honor of the group’s captain, John Brown, who lived there only for a couple of years. Four years after settlement, the name was changed to Ogden City at the encouragement of Brigham Young, the President of the LDS Church at the time.

The Ogden River runs through Ogden Canyon. In the mid 19th Century, settlers cut a wagon road that ran along side of the river. Eventually the entire canyon was re-graded during the construction of a rail line. And in the early part of the 20th Century, an improved automobile road was constructed. The WPA built a low rock wall along the road in many places in the 1930s. Remnants of this wall still line the road. In the days before air conditioning, the wealthy and elite of Ogden built summer retreats in the canyon, which was markedly cooler than the city. Many of those homes still exist. You can see a fun photo history of the canyon on the walls of Dylan’s Drive Inn Restaurant.

The bottom of Ogden Canyon is very narrow. In many spots along this six-mile stretch, there is barely enough room between the rocky canyon wall and the river for a two-lane road. In the broader portions of the canyon where homes exist, the road usually runs on the narrow area on the other side of the river from the homes. And on the side where the homes are built there is usually only one to three hundred feet of real estate between the river and the canyon wall.

During my life there have been projects to improve the Ogden Canyon road, and for the most part, those projects have been quite helpful. But driving in the canyon can still be hazardous, especially when people speed or pass in no passing zones. One rarely drives through the canyon without encountering large vehicles, including semi trucks, motor homes, and vehicles pulling recreational vehicle trailers.

Every so often when there is a serious accident or a spate of accidents in Ogden Canyon, people write letters to the editor of the local newspaper complaining about the lack of proper traffic enforcement. This letter is representative of those kinds of letters. The writer complains, “I see speed traps all the time on quiet city streets where no one has ever been killed, but never in Ogden Canyon where there have been many fatalities over the years!”

What many of the writers of these letters seem to dismiss is the sheer physics of the situation. There are very few spots throughout Ogden Canyon where police could safely and effectively radar or patrol. There are only a couple of spots where drivers could be safely pulled over without creating a greater safety hazard than is caused by their bending of the traffic laws. The road is like a luge chute. Once vehicles enter either end, it’s very difficult to safely get them off the road. Traffic enforcement officials are in a Catch-22. Enforcing traffic laws in Ogden Canyon can be more hazardous than tolerating traffic law violations. Motorists seeing violators can’t even call 911 in many parts of the canyon due to spotty cell phone coverage.

Ogden Valley is following in the path of Heber and other communities surrounding Park City. It is transitioning from a sleepy agricultural area to a resort area. It is now common for million-dollar homes to be built in Ogden Valley. As the valley’s population increases, the pressure on Ogden Canyon also increases, despite the availability and quality of Trapper’s Loop. Trapper’s Loop is great if you’re headed to points south, but for access to the Ogden area, Ogden Canyon is still the best route.

While road officials can and do work to keep the Ogden Canyon road well maintained, there really isn’t a whole lot more they can do to make the road safer. It simply can’t be widened. And all of the curves that could reasonably be straightened out have already been straightened out at great cost. Concrete barriers have been added on the river side where necessary. Road officials have pretty much maxed out their capacities in Ogden Canyon.

Any further steps would require traffic regulation that many travelers would consider oppressive, such as prohibiting larger vehicles during certain hours or having traffic lights at either end timed to promote safe distances between vehicles (which would cause long lines). Utahns have strongly rejected photo-cop systems as an infringement on the presumption of innocence.

The fact is that there are no seriously good options to improve the safety of access between Ogden City and Ogden Valley. Ogden Valley has a number of outlets, but there are no remaining places to build more outlets. We can’t construct a road over the top of the mountains and we can’t blast a new canyon. What you see is what you’ve got. Whining and complaining about it won’t change anything. If you deem Ogden Canyon too unsafe to traverse, then use Trapper’s Loop instead. There is an alternative. Your use of Ogden Canyon says that you’re willing to accept the risk of doing so. It’s harsh, but that’s the way it is.

The Feasibility of Biofuels

The October edition of National Geographic Magazine includes a very interesting article on biofuels. I always have to insert a disclaimer when referencing NGM. Several years ago its editor openly stated that they were giving up on attempting objectivity when it comes to environmental issues because “the stakes are too high.” So, while we can’t expect objective reporting in NGM, we can at least derive value by seeing it for what it is.

The article’s author, NGM staffer Joel K. Bourne, Jr. does a very good job of exploring the various possibilities of using biofuels to reduce or replace our dependence on fossil fuels. He examines corn ethanol, sugarcane ethanol, biodiesel, cellulosic ethanol, and even algae ethanol. The illustrated chart side panels accompanying the print article help you wrap your mind around and compare the feasibility of each of the fuels explored.

While corn ethanol is enjoying great popularity in the U.S. at the moment, Bourne says that “even if we turned our entire corn and soybean crops into biofuels, they would replace just 12 percent of our gasoline and a paltry 6 percent of our diesel, while squeezing supplies of corn- and soy-fattened beef, pork, and poultry. Not to mention Corn Flakes.” The problem is that you only get an output ratio of 1.3 to 1 for corn ethanol. You expend almost as much energy producing the ethanol as you get out of it. Also, the production process turns out to be less than environmentally friendly.

Brazil has enjoyed substantial success with sugarcane ethanol, which has an output ratio of 8 to 1. But the U.S. can’t grow sugarcane like Brazil does. The production of cane ethanol in Brazil takes both an environmental and human toll; mainly it seems from the article, due to archaic harvesting methods and expanding croplands. One public official in Brazil is quoted as saying, “If alcohol is now considered a 'clean' fuel, the process of making it is very dirty.” Not to mention the fact that Brazil was only able to develop an ethanol production and distribution system under the heavy hand of its former dictator.

Biodiesel comes from soybeans in the U.S. and from canola in Germany. Biodiesel is derived from a chemical process rather than a distilling process. It has an output ratio of 2.5 to 1, so it’s better than corn by double. But it’s awfully expensive.

What we could grow in the U.S. that might produce well are perennial prairie grasses like switchgrass. These grasses can grow on marginal lands and could be used to improve soil health. Production methodology is still developing. The most common methodologies have a 2 to 1 output ratio, but developing processes promise a ratio as high as 36 to 1. It “could produce as much ethanol per acre as sugarcane.” But, like most other biofuels, they still have to learn to make it a lot cheaper for it to work.

The big pie-in-the-sky resource that the article discusses is algae. They’ve been able to use algae for smokestack carbon dioxide scrubbers, but nobody has quite figured out how to feasibly produce ethanol from it. Oh, they’ve produce algae ethanol, but Bourne doesn’t list the output ratio and he suggests that the process is currently just too expensive. But some keep working on it because the potential is massive. Algae can be grown in any U.S. climate, and unlike annual crops, can be harvested continuously.

Even with all of these possibilities, Bourne says, “There is no magic-bullet fuel crop that can solve our energy woes without harming the environment.” He also quotes one scientist that is a critic of biofuels as saying, “Biofuels are a total waste and misleading us from getting at what we really need to do: conservation.”

Bourne is more careful on environmental evangelizing than many other NGM authors. He carefully weaves it into his writing rather than bashing you over the head with it. He writes more like a reporter than an editorialist. Bourne concludes the article by noting that “the United Arab Emirates has launched a 250-million-dollar renewable energy initiative that includes biofuels,” and then he opines that this is “perhaps a sign that even the sheikhs now realize that the oil age won't last forever.”

Our fossil fuel industry enjoys massive government subsidies, ostensibly because our national economy relies on fossil fuels. But this type of protectionism raises the barriers for entry into the market. Subsidies stymie competition, so they are ultimately counterproductive. The same holds true for the subsidies currently being thrown at corn ethanol production.

Government has a role in encouraging competition rather than discouraging it. Alternative fuels seeking to compete with fossil fuels already face huge barriers to market entry, including a deeply entrenched and ubiquitous distribution system. Rather than trying to improve the chances of alternatives through subsidies, government should discontinue its programs that artificially stymie competition and promote monopolies in the fuel industry. We might be amazed at what kind of presently unanticipated developments would result from this freedom.

Civically Disengaged

As a kid, I remember seeing Fred and Barney go to their fraternal lodge meetings on the Flintstones. Our community was filled with a broad variety of groups that cheerfully did volunteer work: the local Civic League, Kiwanis, Elks, Jaycees, Shriners, Lions, Rotary and a host of others. There was a smattering of home-grown volunteer groups as well. Many of these clubs/organizations were exclusively for males or for females.

Many of the volunteer organizations that were around when I was a kid are still around today. But almost all of them have seen declining membership as well as significant aging of remaining members. It’s not just fraternal organizations that have seen declining membership; it cuts across all kinds of organizations, including bowling leagues, Red Cross, Boy Scouts, and labor unions.

This phenomenon is not new. American demographer Dan Frost reported at length on this issue in 1996. Frost cites Robert Putnam (who recently made the news with his study that shows the serious impacts of diversity on society — see here) as saying that the loss of vitality of these civic organizations constitutes a serious loss of “social capital.”

Putnam notes that those born prior to 1945 were substantially more civic minded than those born after that time. He cites a general trend toward disengagement.

Why has this happened? Part of it has to do with the mass movement of women into the workforce. Americans have become uncomfortable with single-sex organizations. Although women still do most of the work at home, men have accepted many more domestic duties than their fathers did. Thus, they have less free time to devote to pursuits outside of the home and family.

The whole of our society has become less formal as people have sought out more flexibility. People are less comfortable with conformity. People of the boomer generation and younger aren’t into special handshakes, funny hats, and mandatory meetings.

Another factor is mobility. People are far more mobile than ever before. It takes time to sink roots in any new location. Increasing diversity, as Putnam’s recently released study shows, decreases interpersonal and communal trust, even among people that are most alike, resulting in people drawing inward and away from social connections. The tendency increases with population density.

Putnam says, however, that the biggest factor in civic disengagement is TV. He said that back in 1996 before many people were connected on the Internet. Going online can be far more interactive than TV. It can even lead to civic discussion and coordination. But certainly not in the same way or at the same level as involvement in traditional civic organizations.

People also have more offerings competing for their discretionary time than ever before. And people have more capacity to take advantage of those opportunities than ever before. But every such opportunity competes for a finite resource: personal free time. And by extension, that means family together time.

All of this leads to a diminution of the sense of civic responsibility that was dominant among the pre-boomer generation. Consequently, people have turned JFK’s request on its head. They continuously ask what government can do for them rather than what they can do for their country/state/city. No, that’s not quite right. They demand that government satisfy their whims rather than being pro-active in bettering their country.

Politicians respond by campaigning on expanding government, much to the delight of their constituents. And then they raise taxes to cover those expanded services, always couching the increases in terms of discretionary things. They claim it’ll only cost as much as one Big Mac a week or one can of soda pop a day. They never say that it’ll only cost two weeks of groceries or a month’s dosage of a critical medication.

Voters, too busy with other matters, often go along or aren’t informed enough to even know that taxes are being raised. Regulatory agencies get into the act by raising taxes as well in the form of fees with no debate whatsoever.

A properly functioning democratic republic requires citizens that do their civic duties. Civic disengagement ultimately leaves a political class in charge of more of our lives than we ever thought possible, and without adequate checks and balances. We need to teach citizens both the importance of doing their civic duties and how to go about doing them in every possible venue. Otherwise we bequeath a faulty legacy to the next generation.

Why Should I Care About Sports?

Yesterday morning I glanced at the Bathroom Bible (aka Reader’s Digest), splayed open on a horizontal surface adjacent to the commode so that both the front and rear covers were visible. The rear cover of the current edition, like most others over the past several years, features an illustration by C.F. Payne.

Payne is famous for his distinctive style that over-emphasizes certain human features, often in a comical way that drives home a certain point. (See some of his RD cover illustrations.) Some think of him as the latter-day Norman Rockwell, whose popular illustrations of Americana graced the cover of the Saturday Evening Post for more than four decades. While both artists’ works demonstrate a knack for capturing features and emotions that strike close to home for Americans, Rockwell is known for his realistic portrayals, while Payne works in caricatures and excels at good-natured lampooning.

The illustration I saw on the magazine yesterday morning is entitled Odd Man Out. Centrally and prominently featured in a crowded subway car is an arrogant-looking young man wearing a Boston Red Sox jersey and hat. He is broadly smiling like the cat that just ate the mouse. He is surrounded by a variety of dour looking New York Yankees fans. This plays on the renowned long-standing bitter rivalry between the two teams. I guess the assertion is that Boston is perceived to be on top of the rivalry at the moment.

My take on this is; so what? I’ve made it clear before that I’m not a sports guy. I watch sports when one of my kids is involved. Occasionally I see some event for the sheer spectacle of people trying to do their athletic best. I prefer individual or small team sports where contest results are clear. For example, there’s nothing quite like those people that fly off the end of a ski jump and sail through the air further than the length of a football field. It is immediately apparent who is winning.

Similarly, I can enjoy many track events (not long distance runs), rowing, luge, bobsled, cycle races (shorter ones), skeleton (you’ve got to be insane to do that), etc. When I see stuff like this, I want each participant to do his/her best. I want each team to do its best. I enjoy a good performance, regardless of which person or team accomplishes it.

But I’m not personally invested in the success or failure of these people. In fact, it’s very difficult for me to comprehend investing oneself in the performance of a sports team, especially a professional sports team, unless I have a personal relationship with one of the players. I mean, why should I care whether the Utah Jazz wins a game? Already I hear people answering, “Because it helps bring economic development to Utah.” You can argue that line all you want, but let’s be real: that’s not the reason you’re sitting on the couch and cheering during a Jazz game. And why should I care who wins between BYU and Utah, which so many people around here seem to care about with such religious zeal?

Seriously, folks, why should I give one hoot in a holler about the performance of any professional sports team — or college team for that matter? Most of the players are recruited from outside of the area, so I don’t even understand thinking of them as my hometown (or home state) representatives. Why should my self worth be tied to the performance of any sports team? Why should any sports team command my allegiance?

Perhaps this is something genetically ingrained. In junior high and high school, I avoided school sports events, except for when I attended as a member of the school band. Even then, I didn’t really pay attention to the game, nor did I much care who won or lost. It just didn’t matter to me.

I have family members that are die-hard sports fans. I grew up with this sentiment all around me. But I didn’t understand it then and still don’t understand it. My wife has always known that my schedule was never beholden to “the game.” Heck, when guys in the office talk about “the game,” I usually don’t know what teams they are talking about, and I am only remotely aware of what sports season it is. I know basically nothing about the individual players.

Even when I watch my kids play sports, I’m not that enamored of a win, nor am I very disappointed at a loss. I want my kids to do their best and to demonstrate good sportsmanship. I want them to win only if they earn it. I want them to pay the price to win. If they play lousy, I would prefer that they lose. Those are good lessons to learn early in life.

But my interest in sports diminishes substantially if my kids aren’t involved. And it diminishes even further when it involves a bunch of adults that play a children’s game as their profession. I understand that these people are all very talented and have all made significant sacrifices to get where they’re at. But frankly, I work with people who are talented and have made many sacrifices to perform fantastically in their professional lives. And they don’t promote a bad-boy culture or entice my kids to engage in risky behaviors. Talent and hard work should be appreciated in any ethical pursuit. Our society goes way overboard in focusing on sports figures.

I’m sorry if you sports fans out there think I’m criticizing you. All I am saying is that I don’t understand what drives you to be sports fans. And because I don’t understand that, I don’t find personal value in it and I live my life accordingly. It's kind of like being on the outside of a tent revival looking in. I can see all of the excitement, but it just doesn't do anything for me.

I realize that sports is a huge business, not only in the U.S., but throughout the world. I’m very likely in the minority in my non-sports orientation. I’ve come to accept that I just don’t get it when it comes to sports and that I likely never will. I’m fine with that.

The Purpose of National Political Conventions has Changed

Eminent political wonk Michael Barone discusses in this WSJ article how the purpose of national political conventions has changed. Barone recounts the history of U.S. national political conventions. Candidates were once selected at conventions, he asserts, because that was the best medium for political operators to exchange information and to deal. That is, conventions used to be primarily about communication.

Barone discusses how the communication world has changed. As recent as the early 60s, long-distance phone calls were rare because “they cost about $1 a minute at a time when factory workers earned $100 a week.” Political operators still relied on mailing letters as a significant form of exchanging information.

Not long after those days, however, the communication world started to change. An increasing number and variety of communication channels have opened up, and communication costs relative to earnings have plummeted. In this day of cell phones, ubiquitous long-distance calls, easy air travel, Blackberries, the Internet, blogs, etc, exchange of political information is open and easy.

Conventions are no longer needed for the exchange of information and deal making. That happens on an ongoing basis. Today, national conventions are spectacles that “can be (though aren't always) effective advertisements for [party] nominees, who have of course been chosen months before.”

But isn’t there a chance in both parties that no candidate will emerge from the primaries with a majority of delegate votes? Yes, that chance exists, says Barone. But he insists that in that case, deal making will occur on the fly. Regardless of how the votes fall, Barone says that each party’s presidential and vice presidential nominees will have been selected long before the national conventions.

The mystique of the national convention is something now relegated to a bygone era. Instead of smoke-filled rooms, deals are cut today in conference calls and net meetings. It’s a similar process, but it happens in real time with participants scattered across the nation.

Consequently, few people nowadays tune into more than a few minutes of the political conventions. Most people that show any interest at all are content to catch a few sound bytes. If the day comes that political parties no longer have any hope of national conventions being effective advertising, we will see those conventions disappear altogether.

Rambling Stream of Consciousness

This past Saturday dawned very beautiful in my neck of the woods. Having finally recovered from a minor but persistent ankle injury, I saddled up my bicycle for the first time in weeks and went for a serious ride.

The weather was perfect. There was no breeze. The temperature was perfect. The road conditions were perfect. Even the color of the sky was perfect. The mountains around me blazed with a smattering of red and orange where some of the leaves have taken on their autumn colors. As I rode, I considered the thought that people pay a lot of money to go on vacations to places like this, and somehow I am blessed enough to live here.

The only drawbacks were that there was a minor squeak on my bike that I have yet to diagnose and fix, and the battery on my speedometer finally failed, so I couldn’t tell how fast I was going. I had to guess based on my level of exertion. I suppose that’s OK. The speedometer just lets me measure my performance against past rides.

Oh, and I had to fix a flat before getting started. My son borrowed my bike the other day to do his newspaper route when his bike had a flat tire. That kid has flattened tires on four of our family’s bikes over the past few weeks. He’s a one-man tire-flattening crew. And he’s just doing street riding. What’s up with that?

*****

Later on Saturday I was at a store that has bicycles and I found myself coveting a nicer model than the one I have. My bike is really just dandy for the type of riding that I do. It’s not an expensive thing, but it performs just fine for my use. I ended up standing by the bike display and found myself checking out a bike with nicer front forks and disc brakes. I shook my head at my silliness. I doubt the difference in performance would be more than minimal. My current bike will continue to serve me well for some time to come.

*****

Summer is waning and autumn is in the air. Fall has always been my favorite time of year. A friend of mine dislikes autumn because it reminds him of the onset of winter. But I kind of like having four seasons. Early autumn as the summer wanes but the winter is not yet here just feels good to me for some reason. I love the crisp mornings, the ripe, warm afternoons, and the earlier sunsets.

*****

Sunday morning we found out that a lady that lived around the corner from us had passed away from a heart attack a few hours earlier. We’ve lived in our neighborhood for 19 years and we’ve known this lady quite well. Linda was mother to a large family, all of them now grown and raising their own families. She taught at a local junior high school. I’m sure that her students are shocked at the news this morning. Linda was always serving others. She had a marvelously calm but rye sense of humor. She was an educated lady with a down-home demeanor.

Linda’s husband is currently our town’s mayor. Gary retired from a career as an architect a couple of years ago, but Linda needed to work a bit longer before she could retire. They had plans for post-retirement that Gary will now have to retool. Linda will be missed. I wish Gary and his family all the best as they go through the grieving process. They believe their family ties are eternal. Godspeed, Linda.

*****

One of my sons has just surpassed me in height (by a quarter inch). He’s immensely proud of this fact, as if he had something to do with his physical height. I knew from the day he was born that he’d be taller than his older brother. For years, this son wore my older son’s hand-me-downs until the boys got to be the same size. Then in the past year, he just kept getting taller when his brother had pretty much stopped.

My growing boy has been having my wife measure the two of us every few weeks since he got close to my height last spring. But then he seemed to hit a plateau. The other day we were both standing on the kitchen tile and neither of us was wearing footwear. I looked at my son and said, “I think you might be taller than me.” My wife measured us, and sure enough, he is. He’s still growing, so I suspect he’ll eventually be several inches taller than me.

*****

I have been teaching my 16-year-old son to drive. In Utah you can get a learner permit at age 15 by passing a written test. Then you can drive with a 21-year-old licensed driver sitting next to you. To get a diver license, you have to get 40 hours of driving under your belt, 10 of which must be nighttime driving. (You also have to complete classroom training, pass a written test and a pass a driving test.) The idea is to make sure newly licensed drivers are sufficiently experienced. This is a relatively new thing, so I’m not sure if there are any statistics on how it’s working out.

My son was not particularly motivated to get a learner permit until a couple of months before his 16th birthday. I got him out driving a few brief times last spring, mainly in large vacant parking lots, but then he went away to work at Boy Scout camp all summer. When he got home, he couldn’t remember which pedal was which. He was pretty nervous behind the wheel.

Over the past several weeks we have gotten my son out driving a number of times. He started driver education classes a couple of weeks ago. He is slowly improving and getting a little more comfortable. Oncoming traffic on narrower roads still freaks him out, but he’s overcoming his tendency to pull to the right. He’s still got some work to do on learning how to multi-task, such as managing the gas pedal while doing everything else he’s got to do to safely change lanes.

We’ve been having my son drive three different vehicles. His grandparents have offered to take him out driving in their two vehicles as well. But none of these cars have manual transmissions. I learned to drive a little red Volkswagen bug, as well as an old 4-door Chevy Impala and a new Buick Regal sedan. The bug was loads of fun. I’d like my kids to learn how to drive a stick-shift, but I don’t currently have such a vehicle.

I’m sure we’ll make it through the whole learning to drive thing. Then comes paying a heavy bounty for insuring a teenager on the auto insurance. My boy’s going to have to cough up the money to do that from his own earnings.

While my 16-year-old has warmed only gradually to driving, his 14-year-old brother anticipates getting a learner permit the moment he turns 15. He plans to get as much driving under his belt as possible between then and the day he can get his official driver license.

*****

My 14-year-old son has been ill for a month. He ran a low-grade fever, had aches and pains, occasional chills, and a cough. He generally felt lousy. But he was mostly able to carry on with life. After about 10 days of this, we figured it was abnormal enough to take him to the doctor. They ran a variety of tests, but nothing jumped out. One test showed a somewhat higher rate of inflammation. So they did more tests, looking for less common things. Nothing.

After three weeks of this routine, even the inflammation test came back normal. That evening, my son’s low-grade fever climbed to 101.5°. Then to 102.5°. And then to 104°. We hauled him to the nearby urgent care center. They took a chest X-Ray and took more tests. They said there was a slight spot in one lung, but that it was nothing to worry about. This time, however, my son’s white blood cell count was high enough that they had us haul him to the emergency room.

In the emergency room, they did a CAT scan of his head and neck and ran more tests. Like every other medical practitioner that had seen my son, the doctor and nurses said that his lungs seemed clear. But they knew he had some kind of infection, so they gave him antibiotics and painkillers intravenously. They said to take him home to rest, and then to bring him back for another dose when he woke up.

The next day, the ER doctor that checked out my son pulled together all of the data they had on him. After carefully reviewing it, he came in and asked a number of very specific questions. He then added those answers to his data and looked at it some more. He said that this all pointed to a diagnosis of walking pneumonia, or more specifically, Mycoplasma pneumoniae. In fact, the doctor said it seemed like a classic case of the disease.

The doctor was shocked that nobody had taken a chest X-Ray until the night before. He said that the spot on the X-Ray would be nothing to worry about if you were only looking for typical pneumonia, but that it was definitely something to worry about if you’re looking for walking pneumonia. To be sure (and to get more money), they ran more tests, which included a CAT scan of my boy’s lungs. This allowed the doctor to confirm his diagnosis.

Unfortunately, the IV antibiotics my son had been getting are ineffective for the illness he had. So he was prescribed a 10-day course of two different antibiotics. Within a couple of days, the fever abated. But my son continued to feel lousy. He had stomach pain, occasional nausea, lack of energy, and a nasty headache that got worse when he got upright. Unfortunately, the strong antibiotics my son has been taking can cause some of these problems.

After more than a week away from school (which kills my son because he’s an academician), he went to school for half a day today, but then he felt too lousy to make it through the rest of the day. It looks like full activity will return only gradually.

Bacterial walking pneumonia occurs most often in children ages 5-15 and in the elderly. It is often contracted at summer camps, in dormitories, and in places where people have sustained close contact. The symptoms my son experienced are classical. It can take two to five weeks to develop symptoms after exposure. The victim will then have two to three weeks of feeling run down, having low-grade fevers, body aches, sniffles, cough, congestion, etc. And if the condition isn’t remedied in that amount of time, it will often rapidly blossom into a full-blown case, such as my son’s.

At least one of the boys at the summer camp where my son worked had walking pneumonia. My nephew roomed in the same tent as my two sons. After camp he started with the same symptoms. After my son’s diagnosis, he was taken to the doctor and was immediately prescribed antibiotics to take care of the problem before it got worse.

I realize that medical practitioners are faced with dealing with many different types of conditions and that it’s difficult to be well versed on everything. But I have to wonder why it took a week and a half to diagnose my son’s condition when he had a classical case of this illness. I guess the lesson is to be as well informed as possible and to be persistent.

The Best Way to Fund School Choice

The Cato Institute’s Adam B. Schaeffer has a series of four articles on school choice funding that were published this week in the National Review Online (1, 2, 3, 4). The entire series is worth reading.

The gist of Schaeffer’s series is that tax credits are a far better vehicle for empowering parents with functional and sustainable school choice than are vouchers. I don’t get the idea that Schaeffer is completely opposed to vouchers, but he thinks they are not as good as tax credits.

Tax credits simply let parents keep money they spend on private schooling instead of paying it as taxes. That is, their tax assessment is reduced by some of the amount they pay for their children’s private school tuition. Vouchers, on the other hand, are money that government disburses to parents to help cover the cost of their children’s private school tuition. (In some voucher programs it is paid directly to the school of choice as directed by the parents.)

The big difference between the two programs is that in the case of tax credits, the money never goes through the government. Even school choice opponents agree, says Schaeffer, that tax credits are not technically government money. As voucher proponents in Utah have discovered, it’s difficult to get past the idea that vouchers are a form of government handout.

But Schaeffer argues that avoiding the use of direct government money is just the beginning of the advantages tax credits offer. He notes that tax credits are substantially favored over vouchers in pretty much every study. He writes, “Even current and former public school employees support education tax credits by a margin of nearly two to one.”

Popularity aside, Schaeffer argues that tax credits (when businesses are permitted to participate by creating scholarship funds) end up spawning robust, self-sustaining institutions that support and help expand the program. “Tax credits establish a self-implementing form of school choice that relies on the private-sector alone,” he says. “Voucher programs,” on the other hand, “do not create these institutions, and thereby their beneficiaries have difficulty overcoming collective action barriers to organize and defend school choice.”

After reading Schaeffer’s articles, it would seem that proponents of school choice should be ready to dump vouchers and jump on the tax credit bandwagon. But there seems to be a significant issue that education tax credits fail to address. What about those that are less well-off?

One of the major complaints by school choice opponents is that programs that help parents pay for private school tuition help mainly wealthier families that can already afford to send their kids to private schools. Those that can’t afford to send their kids to private schools without the programs, they argue, would still be unable to afford to send their kids to private schools with the programs.

While allowing businesses to offer scholarships probably answers some of this, tax credits seem to favor those that pay more taxes, which happens to be those that make more money. A tax credit of up to $4000, for example, wouldn’t be very helpful in paying for private schooling if your total state tax assessment (and therefore your total credit) amounts to $400. And if you’ve got three or four kids, the disparity only gets worse. Schaeffer seems to completely ignore this problem.

Utah’s voucher law would pay a maximum of $3000/child and a minimum of $500/child. But this is on a means tested sliding scale, with the poorer folk getting the most and the richer folk getting the least. Opponents argue that even a $3000 voucher wouldn’t be enough to help poorer people afford private school tuition, so only the rich will take advantage of it. That’s poppycock. The largest private school in my area (a Catholic school) draws a significant number of its students from families that earn below median income. And yet these people somehow make enough sacrifices to send their kids to private school. Think of how many more families that are less well-off could make it work with the voucher system.

My point is that education tax credits would benefit the rich far more than the poor, and that this is exactly the inverse of how Utah’s voucher system is designed to function. I think that most Utahns that favor school choice favor a progressive system that provides more aid to those that need more aid. I realize that this goes against pure libertarian philosophy, but I also believe it to be a political reality.

Those that oppose any kind of taxpayer funded school choice as a matter of principle will completely disagree with me. (And don’t give me any of that guff about parents having plenty of choice within the present public system.) But it seems that a combination of education tax credits and vouchers could be designed to create a school choice program that would maximize opportunities for the greatest number and broadest spectrum of school children. I see no reason that both vehicles can’t be pursued or why one of them should be excluded. The idea is to provide the highest quality of education for each student.