« October 2005 | Main | December 2005 »

November 30, 2005

Don't Call it a Strategery

In an effort to shore up flagging support for the war in Iraq, the White House is going on the offensive. Following a speech by President Bush today at the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, the White House released a 38-page NSC document entitled "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq." The strategy calls for moves along three different tracks--political, military (security), and economic--and sets goals for the short, medium, and long term. The document is available online as a PDF here. I leave it to ITA's internationally-minded readers to digest and discuss its contents.

Posted by David Darlington at 09:51 PM | Comments (2)

Wars and Rumors of Wars on Christmas

I haven't weighed in on ITA's other "War on Christmas" offerings, such as Josh's post on the John Gibson book and Ed's rejoinder, because I haven't made up my mind entirely on the matter. On the one hand, the attacks on harmless things like Christmas trees or school holiday parties (I know of an elementary school that has renamed its "Sugar Plum Festival" to "Winterfest" to avoid Christmas connotations) are your standard P.C. busybodyism and rather annoying to the traditionalist in me. On the other hand, nothing I've seen rises to the level of a vast anti-Christmas conspiracy envisioned by the likes of Gibson and O'Reilly. Perhaps I'm missing it.

This Michelle Goldberg piece in Salon (registration required) takes the anti-conspiracy position. While taking shots at modern defenders of Christmas (comparing them with the John Birch Society), she makes this good point towards the bottom of the first page, if one concedes that the anti-Christmas conspiracy is a myth: "It's a myth that can be self-fulfilling, as school board members and local politicians believe the false conservative claim that they can't celebrate Christmas without getting sued by the ACLU and thus jettison beloved traditions, enraging citizens and perpetuating a potent culture-war meme. This in turn furthers the myth of an anti-Christmas conspiracy."

Fear can be as big a motivator as much as a legitmate threat. Even if there is no vast anti-Christmas conspiracy, the fear of one can get local schools and governments to change their plans as much as a phone call from a local activist. But here's a crazy idea for nervous administrators, Christian or not: celebrate the holidays however you see fit. Be jolly. Say "Happy Holidays." Say "Merry Christmas." Don't worry about the anti-Santa crowd until they show up at your door. Something tells me their numbers aren't as vast as we've been led to believe.

Posted by David Darlington at 06:38 PM | Comments (18)

Jordan declares war. . .

on Islamic extremists. "King Abdullah of Jordan has called for a relentless war on Muslim extremists in the wake of the suicide bombings in Amman earlier this month."

The king wants Mr Bakhit to "not only deal with the security dimension, but also the ideological, cultural and political spheres to confront those who chose the path of destruction and sabotage to reach their goals".

He also called for a "relentless war on all the Takfiri schools, which embrace extremism, backwardness, isolation and darkness and are fed on the ignorance and naivety of simple people."

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 09:58 AM | Comments (3)

Indiana v. Duke

Tonight the No. 16/17 Indiana Hoosiers take on top ranked Duke in what will certainly be one of the best college basketball games of the year. It is no secret that Indiana and Duke have two of the most storied basketball programs in history. There are eight NCAA national chapmionships between the two, with five belonging to Indiana. Together they account for a whopping 141 NCAA tournament victories and 22 Final Four appearances.

But in spite of their history of excellence, this will only be the sixth meeting between the two. Who can forget their last matchup in March of 2002 when IU defeated Duke 74-73 in a down-to-the-wire thriller that would eventually result in Indiana advancing to the championship game.

Like so many of their battles, that came in the NCAA tournament. But according to an IU press release, this will be the first time the two teams have not played each other in a neutral site, and you can expect IU's loyal fans to take full advantage of that with a loud and energetic crowd.

The Hoosiers lead the series 3-2, and their superior depth this year may very well extend that lead. But Duke has talent, solid coaching, and a cocky swagger to match. No matter how you slice it, the final game of the Big Ten/ACC challenge will be one for the ages.

Update: Commenters to the Peegs message boards make two good points that I hope IU fans remember tonight. First, if IU wins, don't rush the floor. That makes it seem like a major upset when instead we should act as though we're supposed to win. Second, never chant "overrated". As the poster writes, that "basically translates 'The team we are playing can't be that good if we are winning.'" Try an underrated chant instead...directed at us.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:44 AM | Comments (14)

November 29, 2005

Katherine Harris on the Potomac

Three weeks after the fact, the last of this year's elections has been decided. Republican Bob McDonnell has been certified the winner in Virginia's attorney general race. McDonnell beat his Democratic opponent, R. Creigh Deeds, by only 323 votes out of 1.94 million cast. McDonnell is claiming the mantle of attorney general-elect, while Deeds is expected to ask the Richmond Circuit Court for another recount, which could take until Christmas to complete.

Democrat Tim Kaine won Virginia's gubernatorial election, while Republican Bill Bolling won Lt. Governor.

Posted by David Darlington at 08:50 AM | Comments (0)

November 28, 2005

Reach out and touch someone

Researchers in Singapore are working on a technology that could be used to transmit hugs over the internet, with the use of a special vibration jacket. The potential application mentioned by the researchers is the ability for parents on business trips to "hug" their children remotely. It doesn't take much imagination, however, to think of alternative uses.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 01:50 PM | Comments (4)

Colts v. Steelers

Tonight the Indianapolis Colts attempt to extend their perfect 10-0 record against the formidable Pittsburgh Steelers (7-3). The Steelers hope the return of quarterback Ben Roethlisberger, who's missed the last three games, will boost their chances.

Cole's Court cites Bob Griese as saying that 10-0 is the magic mark at which we can start talking about an undefeated season. Sportsbook.com has posted odds on the possibility of a 16-0 record at 3-1 on the Colts accomplishing the feat and 1-4 to fail. The last team to go undefeated were the 1972 Miami Dolphins, and only four teams have started off with 11 straight wins since.

Clearly, then, the Colts are already in elite company. Some may point to the Colts' relatively weak division as a reason for some success thus far. But they've already beat rival New England and followed it up against the hyped-up Cincinnati Bengals. The schedule will get more difficult before it gets easier and if they're able to go undefeated, they'll rightfully be considered one of the greatest - if not the greatest - of all time. For now they must beat the Steelers, and boy will it be fun to watch.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 11:11 AM | Comments (9)

Bush Laying the Groundwork for an Iraq Pullout

Even as President Bush was rejecting a withdraw from Iraq last week, NBC News reported the Pentagon was planning for just that. We can presume the Pentagon was planning logistics for that pullout, and now it seems the President is laying the groundwork for the political dimensions of withdraw.

The Los Angeles Times reports Bush will give "a major speech" on Wednesday "in which aides say he is expected to herald the improved readiness of Iraqi troops, which he has identified as the key condition for pulling out U.S. forces."

"The administration's pivot on the issue comes as the White House is seeking to relieve enormous pressure by war opponents. The camp includes liberals, moderates and old-line conservatives who are uneasy with the costly and uncertain nation-building effort... The developments seemed to lay the groundwork for potentially large withdrawals in 2006 and 2007, consistent with scenarios outlined by Pentagon planners."

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:00 AM | Comments (3)

November 27, 2005

Bruce Willis Wades In

Bruce Willis isn't happy about how the Iraqi conflict is being portrayed, so he's going to "make a pro-war film in which American soldiers will be depicted as brave fighters for freedom and democracy," reports the Sunday Times. Willis was rumored to have tried to enlist to fight in the Iraqi conflict but was turned away because of age. Instead he offered a $1 million bounty for the head of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and now plans to put his Hollywood weight behind a movie. "I am baffled to understand why the things I saw happening in Iraq are not being reported," he told MSNBC.

The film will apparently follow members of Deuce Four, the 1st Battalion, 24th Infantry, who spent considerable time in Mosul and were decorated heavily for it. Although the story doesn't say for certain, it appears as though Stephen Eads (Armageddon and The Sixth Sense) will produce it.

But the plot thickens, because it will be largely based on the writings of blogger Michael Yon, a former special forces green beret who was embedded with Deuce Four and sent regular dispatches about their heroics. "What he is doing is something the American media and maybe the world media isn't doing," Willis said, "and that's telling the truth about what's happening in the war in Iraq."

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 04:34 PM | Comments (5)

November 26, 2005

History's illusions

Marvin Olasky has penned a short but helpful essay reviewing Prof. Rodney Stark's book, The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success. Departing from what appears to be Stark's thesis, Olasky observes that the "good old days" mentality that yearns for the better days of yesteryear are too often unfounded. Music, culture, morality, education, etc. are all believed to be on the decline. What ever happened to the "good old days"?

But as Stark and Olasky claim, things weren't always that great, and in many ways society isn't Slouching Towards Gomorrah. For Christians who may use church attendance as one gauge, consider this: "In 1776 only about 17 percent of Americans were churched, and by 1850 that percentage had doubled. In the early 20th century slightly more than half of the U.S. population was churched, and adherence rates have recently been a bit over 60 percent."

It's true that European rates have steadily declined, and our continental forebears are often indicators of where America itself is headed. But that's not always the case, and certain indications suggest it won't be that way religiously. Olasky notes that a free market of ideas forces American pastors to cut overhead and market faith in new and more effective ways.

Mr. Stark bulwarks that conclusion with testimony from 19th-century journalists such as Austria's Francis Grund, who observed that a state church establishment makes clergymen "indolent and lazy," but in America because of competition there is "not one idler amongst [pastors]; all of them are obliged to exert themselves for the spiritual welfare of their respective congregations." Sure, supposed shepherds who gain temporary popularity by ignoring the gospel are wolves, but so are ecclesiastical leaders who feel entitled to ignore the needs of their congregants.

From what I gather this point isn't the thesis of Stark's newest book, but it's an important one nonetheless. The "good old days" may still be yet to come.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 01:17 PM | Comments (12)

Insurgent Thanksgiving

Stories like these make the character of many Iraqi insurgents quite clear:

"A suicide attacker steered a car packed with explosives toward U.S. soldiers giving away toys to children outside a hospital in central Iraq on Thursday, killing at least 31 people. Almost all of the victims were women and children."

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 09:42 AM | Comments (1)

November 25, 2005

Partisans and Ideologues

Musgrave explains that the two are certainly not the same and shouldn't be confused.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 04:03 PM | Comments (2)

"The Deadweight Loss of Christmas"

Today marks the official beginning of the holiday shopping season, and I am at home blissfully removed from the retail madness. This flurry in the marketplace no doubt delights most capitalists, but I fall into the camp that says it is lamentable. One month from today, the irrational decisions of millions of shoppers will culminate in a tremendous deadweight loss for our economy.

How can exchanging gifts destroy value? A typical illustration goes like this: Your Great Aunt spends $20 to purchase a Widget for you as a Christmas gift. You, on the other hand, would only be willing to pay $15 for that same Widget. Therefore, that extra $5 is lost value. Ah well, a lost $5 on one gift from one relative is no big deal. But what about the aggregate of all those exchanged gifts on Christmas?

Data on these losses were first published by Prof. Joel Waldfogel, then of Yale University, in "The Deadweight Loss of Christmas" (American Economic Review, December 1993, vol 83, no 5.). Waldfogel found that recipients valued their gifts an estimated ten percent to one-third less than what the givers had paid for them. This represents a tremendous amount of destroyed value, at least $4 billion in 2003. I would further add that there is a destruction of value in the time and resources expended to return or sell unwanted gifts, often for merchandise vouchers or prices even further below the sale price. And Waldfogel stipulates that the deadweight loss extends to "Hanukkah and other holidays with gift-giving rituals." The potential loss to our economy from all such rituals must be huge.

This kind of thinking leads to obvious absurdity:

It follows from this insight that, if people must persist with gift giving, they should at least minimise the loss by giving money rather than items in kind.

Trouble is, were families to assemble on Christmas morning for an equal exchange of $50 cheques, the pointlessness of the exercise would quickly become apparent.

Of course, such exchanges aren't always equal, much to the delight of the young. And as a slightly-less equivalent of cash, gift certificates, or more likely nowadays gift cards, give a bit of a hedge to the impropriety of monetary gifts. Radley Balko gives an excellent illustration of how gift cards relate to the deadweight loss of Christmas (as a fisking of Daniel Gross). I do think Gross is getting toward something on the third point. I have gift cards (and merchandise vouchers) to stores where I have very little chance of finding anything I like. In order to maximize utility, we must make the gift card ever more impersonal by making it more generally applicable, purchased from the mall, Amazon, or WalMart.

Again, gift cards can also also hold a deadweight loss. Let's say I have a $20 gift card to the "CNBC Giftshop," wherein the only thing I kind of like is a "Kudlow & Company Executive Decision-Maker," an object for which I would pay, oh, about a dollar. Since the gift card is nonfungible, $19 get destroyed. What's more, gift certificates generally sell for about 80% of their face value on eBay.

Some of our readers might find such economic criticisms distasteful, and other economists agree more-or-less, because such valuations explicitly ignore the sentimental value of gifts, which may reduce, eliminate, or reverse the deadweight loss. I am unconvinced by this argument. Deadweight losses are highest where the giver is most ignorant of the preferences of the recipient, for example, an elderly member of the recipient's extended family. We typically aren't close with that Great Aunt, whom we haven't seen in over a decade, and therefore aren't likely to put any significant sentimental value on the white elephant she sent this year. The thought doesn't count because there's not much thought (to be) given. On the other hand, I would argue that an inefficient gift from a close friend or relative would be disappointing or irritating: someone who knows you well has apparently been inconsiderate. (Sentiment may, therefore, devalue monetary gifts, perhaps the least considerate gifts of all.)

Yet economists persist in trying to determine why homo economicus engages in seemingly irrational, i.e., value-destroying, gift-giving. The Austrian School says that gift-giving absolutely cannot result in a deadweight loss -- or else people wouldn't be doing it. Here are some hypotheses culled from three articles (here, here, and here) on why they do:

1. "First, recipients may not know their own preferences very well. Some of the best gifts, after all, are the unexpected items that you would never have thought of buying, but which turn out to be especially well picked. And preferences can change. So by giving a jazz CD, for example, the giver may be encouraging the recipient to enjoy something that was shunned before." There is some empirical evidence that unexpected gifts are more highly valued.
2. "Second, the giver may have access to items--because of travel or an employee discount, for example--that the recipient does not know existed, cannot buy, or can only buy at a higher price." In other words, "[G]ift giving makes sense in cases where the giver's knowledge of where to find something the recipient wants is greater than the recipient's own knowledge. Or if the giver is in a position to get it cheaper. So the rule is that the giver gives a gift only when her 'search costs' for the gift are lower than those of the recipient."
3. "[B]ecause of the discipline many people impose on themselves to ensure they stay within their budgets and make ends meet, many of us have trouble allowing ourselves to indulge in the odd luxury purchase. So we're pleased when friends and rellos brighten our lives by giving us little luxuries . . ." "If someone else buys them . . . they can be enjoyed guilt-free. This might explain the high volume of chocolate that changes hands over the holidays."
4. "One possibility is that gifts may procure a source of insurance for the giver. Parents, for instance, may give gifts to their children in the hope the children will care for them in their old age. Adult children may give gifts to their elderly parents in the hope of being remembered at that last great gift giving with lawyers present. Then, money will do fine."
5. "Another line of inquiry is that gifts, particularly inefficient ones, serve as costly signals of the giver's intention to invest in a future relationship."
6. "Or maybe gifts are exchanged to break down mistrust, permit co-operation and build relationships. But such a model doesn't explain why people continue to give gifts in well-established relationships where there is little mistrust and dumb signalling isn't necessary."
7. "Other economists think that people might not give cash gifts precisely because cash is so valuable. You don't want people to be your friend just to get your money, yet you want to show them that you care so you give less valuable non-monetary gifts."
8. "Some people might give things rather than money because they enjoy shopping. Many Americans like to shop but have run out of relatively inexpensive goods to buy for themselves so they use Christmas as an excuse to shop for others."

Many of these seem silly and marginal. The first hypothesis seems the most rewarding, but naturally, the risk of an inefficient gift seems highest here precisely because the giver is ignoring evident preferences in the recipient. The second and third hypotheses don't seem to be useful for refuting the deadweight loss argument because it would only seem to work when the giver is reasonably assured of the recipient's preferences. The fourth, fifth, and sixth hypotheses seem too marginal to be significant, if they happen in real life at all. The seventh holds some promise, though it leads to the question of why our society would view a monetary gift as buying friendship. The eighth hypotheses strikes to the heart of the Austrian criticism: the deadweight loss is made up for by the enjoyment of the giver, which may include the enjoyment of shopping (I'll note here that "women give Christmas gifts to more people than men (on average, 12.5 versus eight), start shopping for gifts earlier than men, devote more time to selecting the appropriate gift (2.4 hours per recipient versus 2.1 hours) and are more successful in finding a desirable gift (10 per cent of women's gifts were returned to the shop versus 16 per cent of men's)"). This is, of course, little consolation to the recipients of inefficient gifts. Overall, I'm tempted to believe that some flows of wealth don't have an ultimately rational explanation.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 11:54 AM | Comments (12)

November 24, 2005

Movie Review: Walk the Line

Joaquin Phoenix likes to play roles as conflicted characters with a dark side, and Johnny Cash was certainly one such character. But in James Mangold's recently released "Walk the Line," Phoenix did more than play Johnny Cash. He became Cash. Phoenix's flawless performance of J.R. Cash and Reese Witherspoon's portrayal of his eventual wife, June Carter, are destined for Oscar nominations. The stellar acting and gripping real-life plot make this movie a definitive "must see" during the holidays.

Cash's roots are both humble and traumatic, defined most by an abusive father and the untimely death of his older brother. Cash would always feel some responsibility his brother's death, and his dad didn't help matters by proclaiming God had taken the "wrong son."

Against this backdrop Cash would fall to obscurity as a salesman before finally signing with Sam Phillips of Sun Records. From here on out we see the bulk of the film, comprising of Cash's rise in popularity and simultaneous decline in health and purpose. Through it all is June Carter, who keeps her distance - because he's married, and later because of his substance abuse - but nevertheless ends up his "angel" and anchor.

Reading the plot as I have presented it may make it seem cliche. As Roger Ebert wrote, "'Walk the Line' follows the story arc of many other musical biopics, maybe because many careers are the same: Hard times, obscurity, success, stardom, too much money, romantic adventures, drugs or booze, and then (if they survive) beating the addiction, finding love and reaching a more lasting stardom. That more or less describes last year's 'Ray,' but every time we see this story the characters change and so does the music, and that makes it new."

The comparison to "Ray" is apt, but I'd be remiss if I didn't opine that "Walk the Line" is a much better film, and that's saying a lot. Along with a more compelling plot line, Phoenix and Witherspoon both sing their own vocals. The performance is so well done that Ebert initially thought Phoenix was lip syncing Cash's recordings.

In virtually every category - acting, music, plot, etc. - "Walk the Line" is excellent, making it the best movie of the year thus far. Whether that distinction will hold remains to be seen, but for now rest assured that it's worth the price of admission.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:01 AM | Comments (6)

November 23, 2005

General Motors' Big Turkey

General Motors announced on Monday that it plans to cut 30,000 jobs by 2008 by closing nine manufacturing plants and three service and parts operations in North America. The company's stock is in the tank--it hit an 18-year low last week--and the cutbacks are designed to stall any further decline that might lead into bankruptcy.

The Economist has the bloody details. The automotive giant was on the verge of Chapter 11 in the early 1990s and fought its way back, and will have to again despite this job-cutting move and the recent shuttering of Oldsmobile. While the workers are bearing the brunt of GM's troubles, the truth is the company has been losing market share for years (now below 25 percent) and its only reliable profitmaker is the truck/SUV market, which doesn't exactly have the brightest future given rising oil prices. With Toyota poised to become the world's largest car manufacturer next year, GM's troubles might get worse before they get better.

Posted by David Darlington at 12:17 PM | Comments (4)

Felix Morley Journalism Competition

I've been alerted to a competition that I thought would be worth passing on to ITA's readership. In honor of Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Felix Morley, the Institute for Humane Studies awards $5,000 in cash prizes to outstanding writers whose work reflects the principles of individual and economic freedoms including the First Amendment, voluntarism, the rule of law, and inalienable individual rights.

The competition is open to young writers (25 years of age or younger as of December 1, 2005) and all full-time students. Articles published July 1, 2004 through December 1, 2005 are eligible for consideration ("blog" entries will not be considered). For more information or to apply online, please visit the contest website at www.TheIHS.org/morley or apply directly at apply.theihs.org.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:00 AM | Comments (2)

November 22, 2005

Sex in the U.S.A.

Men's Fitness magazine has released a comprehensive study of 11,240 men and women that may not be safe for work, and probably isn't appropriate for children of concerned parents. But judging by the survey sources and methods, it may be more instructive than some of Alfred Kinsey's research.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 02:20 PM | Comments (5)

Talkin' about Iraq

My local newspaper this morning carried wire reports of comments by both Hillary Clinton and Dick Cheney on the Iraq war and, mirabile dictu, I agreed with most of what both of them said.

First of all, Senator Clinton mildly rebuked Rep. Jack Murtha's call for an "immediate" (within six months) withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq. She made the obvious assessment that such a withdrawal would be "a big mistake." People betting on a Hillary Presidential run in 2008 can add this to the body of centrist statements she has been accumulating.

Secondly, Vice President Cheney criticized those who continue to accuse the Bush Administration of misleading America in a "rush to war" in Iraq, accusing those critics of "revisionism of the most corrupt and shameless variety." I agree with Cheney that the continued criticism is revisionism, but rather than "corrupt and shameless," I would call it necessary.

Everyone now knows that the intelligence which constituted the Bush Administration's main emphasis in the case for the Iraq war was faulty. In the words of David Kay, "we were all wrong" about Saddam having WMD. However, key Congressional Democrats saw the same intelligence that the White House and Congressional Republicans did, and they voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq. This vote makes it hard for Democrats to point a finger at the Bush Administration without having three fingers pointing back at them. Therefore, in spite of the fact that the Select Committee on Intelligence found no evidence of deliberate manipulation of intelligence to support going to war (to be fair, the more subjective question of whether Bush Administration officials misled by selective use of intelligence in public statements has not been resolved by the Committee), critics must insist that they themselves (not just the public) were misled before making those votes.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 01:54 PM | Comments (14)

November 22

Q: What was the worst thing about the JFK assassination?

A: The Johnson Administration.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 06:45 AM | Comments (3)

The people have spoken

In a 39-24 vote, readers opted for the prior, darker background. However many people that voted in the majority still favored a lighter one with certain caveats. The old backgruond will stay for now, but we welcome any and all suggestions on color changes.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 06:05 AM | Comments (0)

November 21, 2005

And now, the end is near ...

That I have chosen to stop blogging at InTheAgora.Com just days after Ed Brayton came to the same decision is entirely coincidental. Ed stopped because he was part of too many blogs. I, on the other hand, only contribute to two, and after today only one--my personal website.

Why leave? The site has changed since it began, just about a year ago; I had decided at that time that giving ITA a year to grow and develop would be the fairest thing to do. I pulled back from full-time blogging here a while ago, because my completing graduate school coursework and starting a new career in a new city in a new state while finishing my thesis left me with almost no time for outside endeavors. The pressures on my time will only increase from this point forward, and for professional reasons I welcome them; but also for professional reasons, I want to concentrate on other things now.

More important, to me at least, I felt as if my posts were no longer as welcome as they once were. That's not a knock on me or on the audience: you, the readers, are--to judge by the posts you comment on--far more interested in reading about party politics, headline news, and especially religion than I am in writing about any of those subjects. Consider, as a not-unrepresentative example, my post from this morning about China's military modernization, a subject I consider to be of far-reaching importance for all of us. Nobody has commented on it yet.

My time, then, is better spent elsewhere. Like Ed, I'll still read the site; like Ed, I'll still comment here. But those of you who read my posts can continue to do so elsewhere. Those of you who don't will hardly notice that I'm gone anyway. And I'll be able to write without wondering whether or not anyone's reading.

Posted by Paul Musgrave at 11:22 PM | Comments (8)

In The Agora: So Hot Right Now

The alma maters of ITA's authors are well represented in Newsweek's annual 25 hottest schools list. Indiana University at Bloomington won "Hottest Big State University," while my little undergraduate alma mater won for hottest school with no SAT required. Just more evidence that you should make ITA your home page.

Posted by David Darlington at 04:24 PM | Comments (3)

Big-Government Conservatism: Wave of the Future?

Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam's "Sam's Club Republicans" article in the Weekly Standard is a must read for anyone already thinking about the direction of the GOP in the post-Bush era. The "cut their pay and send them home" crowd is not going to be happy with Douthat and Salam's suggestions, but the two authors identify what I think is the greatest threat to maintaining the GOP's electoral viability--economic insecurity in the middle and lower classes.

Salam wrote earlier this year about Sam's Club Republicans. What he and Douthat grasp, which many GOP loyalists (and probably the Bush administration) do not, is that the party's new base is not "pro-growth" activists or corporate CEOs, but rather middle- and working-class social conservatives, usually white and male. These voters gave the president a supermajority in the last election because of his dedication to the war in Iraq and his defending of traditional morality (manifested last year in the gay marriage battle). These very same voters, Douthat and Salam argue, are less enamored with Friedmanesque economic policy, especially those policies that would, in the short term at least, cause economic insecurity. Social security reform and amnesty for undocumented workers are just two issues where the party's working class base is at odds with its shareholder leadership. The party's base, Douthat and Salam say, is "surprisingly comfortable with bad-but-popular liberal ideas like raising the minimum wage, expanding clumsy environmental regulations, or hiking taxes on the wealthy to fund a health care entitlement." Somewhere, Larry Kudlow just supressed a gag reflex.

Alienating this base, despite their ideological "unorthodoxy," would be disaster for the GOP. Yet, that is precisely what is happening these days, from the war (where failure is just as bad as weakness) to economics (Bush's cosiness with big business). The GOP needs to remain connected with this base, and not in the Thomas Frank (What's the Matter with Kansas?) manipulative sense. To be quite honest, I find myself in sympathy with many of Douthat and Salam's Sam's Club Republican proposals. I think there is much wisdom in their pro-big family tax proposals, because after all demographics is the future. Their other ideas have merit at least in the sense of triangulation. As Bill Clinton pre-empted much of the Republican Revolution by adopting its most popular ideas as his own, the GOP may want to get itself on the side of health care and social security reform just to outflank any bad ideas coming from the other side.

The GOP doesn't like to talk about class. Anyone who talks about the rising gap between "the haves" and "the have nots" is immediately cut off with charges of "class warfare!" I have always believed this is a mistake, as it sends anyone who wants to talk about class into the other camp, so I'm glad Douthat and Salam have brought up the division between Sam's Club and county club Republicans. A wise post-Bush GOP operative can, like Tim Pawlenty in Minnesota, jumpstart a career by recognizing this gap and making sure it remains bridged.

UPDATE (1:30pm): Michael Barone is sympathetic to the Sam's Club hypothesis: "It's a very thoughtful and creative attempt to sketch out, or at least give direction to, a new conservative Republican agenda. Bush Republicans, Douthat and Salam argue, have delivered rather little to the modest-income, culturally conservative voters who have provided absolutely indispensable votes for their agenda." Barone recognizes the importance of middle and working class voters for the continuance of the GOP majority: "Neiman Marcus isn't where the available votes are; Sam's Club is."

Posted by David Darlington at 10:40 AM | Comments (11)

"The world of bin Laden"

The Telegraph reports:

Osama bin Laden wants the United States to convert to Islam, ditch its constitution, abolish banks, jail homosexuals and sign the Kyoto climate change treaty.

Although these positions shouldn't be surprising from a fundamentalist Muslim, the intricacies of views reflect a collection of "the first accurate compendium of the terrorist leader's words, threats and ruminations from 1994 to 2004."

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 10:24 AM | Comments (3)

China's Military Buildup in Context

The Christian Science Monitor's China coverage is generally ahead of the curve, and a recent two-part series in the newspaper on China's military mobilization only confirms their position. The Chinese military has gotten far more capable in the past ten or fifteen years; it is now plausible for PLA officers to talk about China having a regional military strategy, even if it cannot yet implement it. Nevertheless, alarmism over China's potency is premature.

To take just one example of the differences in United States and Chinese power-projection capability even within Asia, within two weeks after last December's Asian tsunami, the Chinese military bragged that it had airlifted 500 tons of humanitarian relief to disaster-hit areas. The United States's airlift capability--during wartime--to the afflicted region exceeded that by several orders of magnitude, and this does not include the contributions made by the U.S. Navy.

Of course, as China's power grows, so will the temptation to use that power to assert Beijing's influence around the region--and not only in such traditional areas of concern as the Korean peninsula and Taiwan. The quasi-military disputes between Tokyo and Beijing over disputed offshore natural gas fields are one indication. Within the next decade or two, Chinese ships may make ceremonial patrols of the Straits of Malacca. And such temptations will not end there.

Posted by Paul Musgrave at 08:47 AM | Comments (0)

November 20, 2005

Quote of the Day

"Notable and historic progress has been made in China's development of a democratic political system and human rights." - President George W. Bush

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 02:37 PM | Comments (7)

Open Source Media: Huh?

La Shawn Barber is trumpeting her latest endeavor in a way that only La Shawn can and with enough name dropping to last a lifetime. This time the project is "Open Source Media" (OSM), a joint venture of 70 A-list bloggers. But it seems as though no one can quite figure out just what OSM is. Dean Peters was able to piece together a few tidbits. It's primarily made up of bloggers formerly known as Pajama Media, and it's already raised $3.5 million from venture capitalists.

Nevertheless, its underlying purpose remains unclear, and a quick stop by its website leaves the reader equally confused. It offers little in the way of substance and even less in the way of design. Just what the hell is Open Source Media? Krempasky attended the flashy opening party in New York City and is still unsure. Jeff Jarvis feels the same after attending and is even more explicit. Radley Balko notes one thing it's not - "open source." Here's the site's privacy policy:

Our Site and all its contents, which includes, but is not limited to, text, graphics, photographs, logos, video and audio content, is protected by copyright as a collective work or compilation under the copyright laws of the United States and other countries. All individual components of Our Site, including, without limitation, articles, content and other elements comprising Our Site are also copyrighted works. Additionally all of the weblogs linked to by us are likewise protected. You must abide by all additional copyright notices or restrictions contained on this site and our linked weblogs.

You may not reproduce, distribute, copy, publish, enter into any database, display, modify, create derivative works, transmit, or in any way exploit any part of this site. The only exceptions to this are that you may download material from Our Site for your own personal use, provided such download is limited to making one machine readable copy and/or one print copy that limited to occasional articles of personal interest only. No other use of the content of Our Site is permitted. Please contact our Sales Department if you wish to have rights other than those stated above.

Even the phrase OSM^TM carries a trademark. Is this really "open source" media? Whatever OSM^TM turns out to be, or not to be, I'm fairly certain that I won't be reading to find out. Based on La Shawn's "Really Important Statement", I'm not alone.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 02:16 AM | Comments (11)

November 18, 2005

News Flash: Harry Potter Movie is Entertaining

Ok, so I fought with the 14 year-olds to stand in line for the 7:30 seating of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire while all other people my age were tending to young children, making money, or getting drunk. But I am hooked on the series, books and movies alike.

For fans of the books, the movies are bound to be anti-climactic. I knew going in how Goblet was going to end. The thrill is in the sensory, not the storytelling (although it must take a bit of skill to turn a 700+ page book into a 2 1/2 hour movie). And the newest film excels at the sensory, especially visual effects. In the first 20 minutes, we are treated to the Quidditch World Cup, complete with a vibrant campground city and a stadium that makes Nou Camp look like the Reitz Bowl. A Pegasus-drawn carriage is equally impressive. This movie is fun to watch.

There is no sense in discussing the plot or the story. Just go pick up the book; despite its length, you can finish in 2-3 days of dedicated reading. One nice writing touch is making Cedric Diggory a very likable character. I remember being lukewarm on him in print. This move gives the second half some emotional weight, which is a useful addition.

Despite liking Goblet, I'd like to see a hiatus on Harry Potter movies. Let's wait 10-15 years, cast all new actors, and see how the next generation of fantasy filmmakers translates these adventures to cell.

Posted by Adam Packer at 11:29 PM | Comments (13)

Review of The Undercover Economist

If you read only one pop economics book this year, The Undercover Economist should be it. Harford, a columnist for the Financial Times among other distinctions, has written a book that could almost serve as a textbook for an Economics 101 course. But it's emphatically not dry or dull. Instead, what Harford has done is convey the excitement, the power, and the often counter-intuitive results of economic thought. In so doing, he has written more or less the economic equivalent to The Selfish Gene.

Many recent books (notably Freakonomics) have dealt with the more exciting realms of economic research, such as the application of certain economic models to what most people would consider non-economic behavior. And far more books have talked about "economics" in the context of even trendier ideas like globalization (think The World is Flat or even No Logo). Such books, however, are reflections of marginal (in the case of the former) or unsophisticated (in the case of the latter) economic schools of thought.

Harford presents the orthodoxy in all its glory, and reminds readers that economists really do see the world in a different--and fascinating--way. He explains simple, but often misunderstood, concepts like adverse selection (that is, why health insurance costs too much), as well as even simpler, but far more consequential, economic models, such as David Ricardo's explanation of why landowners, and not farmers, make money from rising crop prices. Along the way, he explains why the prices at Safeway and Whole Foods are about the same--and why the prices for items on the top shelf are higher than prices for the same goods on the bottom shelf.

Granted, the book has its flaws, principally its (market-driven) lack of any equations or graphs and, more important, its refusal to take up any serious questions of macroeconomics. If you want to understand how recessions occur or how federal spending affects the world and national economy, then you're out of luck. But in focusing tightly on basic microeconomic principles--the foundation of the most insightful parts of economics--Harford succeeds in keeping the book accessible and useful.

Posted by Paul Musgrave at 08:45 PM | Comments (3)

This Just In

Groundbreaking CNN reporter Chris Isidore has filed an insightful new report titled, "Housing boom past its peak?" He writes: "Half the homes sold for more than the median and half for less." I'm not joking, and neither is Chris.

This housing boom problem is expected to worsen because 3 out of every 4 homeowners currently make up 75% of the homeowning population. But take these figures with a grain of salt. I've been told that roughly 50% of journalists graduated in the bottom half of their class, so you never know who's reporting this stuff.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:00 AM | Comments (13)

Housekeeping

As you've no doubt noticed, the background has changed from a dark blue to a light gray. This is a trial run which will last through the weekend, or perhaps become permanent. Please leave your thoughts on that change, and any others you'd like to see to ITA's design. Until the background color is either kept or changed, the banner will look off-color on all pages but the index.

Free polls from Pollhost.com

What do you think of the new background?

I like the prior, darker background I like this lighter one

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:00 AM | Comments (7)

November 17, 2005

The Doors of Perception

IU law professor Kevin Brown's letter regarding the perception of racism in the "white faculty" criticizing IU President Adam Herbert is a puzzling document. The last paragraph, on page three, is somewhat reasonable, but the very premise that race is a theme in this debate at all is odd and surely limiting; so is the minor premise that the African-American professors at IUB have an inherent prerogative to grant legitimacy, as a community, to critiques of President Herbert.

It is equally odd that Charlie Nelms, University Vice President for Institutional Development, would be more forthright in defending President Herbert and criticizing many of the Bloomington campus's faculty--not so much that someone in his position would make such remarks publicly, but that they would publicly comment on such a controversial issue at all. The wisest course would be to stay quiet--after all, being an ally of an embattled leader is a risky strategy.

Tuesday's faculty vote to ask for a review of Herbert's record was precipitated, but not caused, by Herbert's decision to postpone a decision on choosing a new Bloomington chancellor. As noted earlier, the decision has caused longterm personnel problems. More interesting, an IDS editorial about Herbert's unresponsiveness to student media--the only real public forum for the student body--was followed the next day by an interview with the IDS (an unusually critical and well-researched piece not atypical of the paper's remarkably thorough coverage of the story).

The issues are confused. As a guide for the perplexed, I modestly offer an article I wrote back in September for the Indianapolis Star that covers much of the backstory (and, incidentally, proves that these complaints are not in reaction to the relatively minor issue of Dean Kumble Subbaswamy being passed over for the chancellorship).

Posted by Paul Musgrave at 10:53 PM | Comments (3)

The Closing of a Maddening Book

Ah, so you noticed I haven't blogged in a while. Wherefore? Well, instead of reading interesting and useful blog-fodder, I've been reading Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind. This is the equivalent of passing a kidney stone, painful and time-consuming (I'm a slow reader anyway) -- but one doesn't wish to stop halfway through. (And I suspect that the ending is the same: unsatisfying relief.)

I thought I was alone in my misery until a chum of mine mentioned that he is also reading the tome as part of his effort to understand leftism in higher education (the poor fellow is getting his PhD in English). He helpfully passed along this essay on Straussians, wherein I found even more company:

The perceived need to write obscurely also tends to obscure thought. The Closing of the American Mind is much better-written (in style, at least, if not in convoluted structure and argumentation) than anything by Leo Strauss. But even Bloom makes his argument complex and subtle to the point of evasiveness, as if he wants to confuse and mislead the reader. (In particular, his critics -- those who actually did read him -- were hardly ever able to tell when he was or was not speaking in propria persona.) Bloom, at least, writes so well that he charms rather than repulses the reader, so one is (if sympathetic) willing to read his book again and again, with closer and closer attention; but not even the most sympathetic reader can really be sure, in the end, precisely what Bloom really means, behind all the good and important things he does say.

And how! If and when I ever close this book -- and resist the temptation to re-read it -- I'll have to peruse the latest bestseller by Coulter or Hannity, just so I can feel smart again.

Which brings up an interesting note on the slide of American conservatism from marginal to populist: this book was a #1 bestseller in its day. This mystifies both myself and my chum. In fact, when a woman at an airport noticed my traveling literature and told me she had read it a few times, I regarded my figurative and literal fellow-traveler with discernible incredulity. I really couldn't imagine why someone would do that to themselves. Must be mad.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 07:23 PM | Comments (9)

A Fond Farewell

It is with a bit of sadness that I have decided to end my contributions to In The Agora. I have simply stretched myself too thin in terms of blogging. Between my primary personal blog, Dispatches from the Culture Wars, the group science blog I founded, The Panda's Thumb, and Positive Liberty, along with ITA, I'm just not able to devote the time to each one that I would like. Given the consistently excellent writing of the other contributors here at ITA, the site surely deserves someone who has more of a commitment than I am able to give and I'm sure that they will replace me with someone who has that commitment.

I want to thank Josh and Paul for giving me the opportunity to contribute here. I accepted their invitation because I have enormous respect for their intellect, their objectivity and their writing ability. I leave with even greater admiration for the same, as well as for the other excellent writers here. They never failed to challenge me and sharpen my thinking and I hope they will continue to do so at the other places where I will continue to write.

I don't plan on leaving entirely. You can still count on me to jump into arguments and leave comments. And I will certainly continue to be a faithful reader for all the reasons I mentioned above. But this will be my final contribution. So I bid a fond farewell to the contributors and readers of this fine blog. Exit, stage left...

Posted by Ed Brayton at 02:08 PM | Comments (9)

The Rise of Perception

I am not an IU alumnus, and have no strong ties to the school, so I have not been paying close attention to the saga of IU President Adam Herbert. One campus group, however, has taken an action that should concern everyone, whether connected to IU or not. The IU Black Faculty & Staff Council recently wrote a letter expressing concerns about the well-documented criticism of President Herbert. One concern contained in the letter addresses race, but it's not what you might think. The IUBFSC is not concerned that the people criticizing Herbert are racist, or that they have some racial bias, but rather that white faculty members criticizing a black executive has the possibility of appearing racially motivated. Such a concern elevates perception (more accurately the possibility of perception) above truth, and can only harm the search for truth.

The law professor who wrote the letter, Kevin Brown, even admits that Herbert's critics are not motivated by racial bias. Brown is not concerned with that reality, but he is concerned that many of the public comments and discussions about Herbert "can easily be interpreted as the white faculty attacking the black president." The appearance that criticism may be motivated by racial bias justifies the letter, and IUBFSC's concern.

I have not seen this letter, so I do not know if the Indianapolis Star's report on it is missing some important facts, but the problem with this particular argument is that it will have the effect of chilling speech (and legitimate debate) about black executives and employees. White faculty won't want to be accused of creating a possible perception of racial bias, however silly that concept may be. Under no circumstances should the potential appearance of racial bias quell the open discussion of decision-makers or public figures. To do so elevates perception above reality, and gives legitimacy to the lowest common denominator: people who don't have enough information to make rational decisions based on reality, but will be swayed by perception. Worshipping at the altar of perception is politics at its worst, whether in Washington or Bloomington.

This argument's implication is that if the school hires a black person, and there are questions about his performance, criticism should be chilled because it may be interpreted as racially motivated, even if it actually isn't. Is this really the standard the the IU Black Faculty & Staff Council wants to advance? One example: ask a Notre Dame trustee if he feels more able to level criticism at Charlie Weis than former football coach Tyrone Willingham. Several times, we saw the perception of racial bias chill honest debate about Willingham's merits. If Weis begins to struggle, there will be no such barrier to debate. The IUBFSC's complaint may backfire, if the powers at IU use ND's football situation as a lesson, or if they look at some of the debate about IU's own Mike Davis. All else being equal, a white hire will create less pressure in the long run, because criticism of the hire's performance won't be perceived as racist. Why would a university want to subject itself to this perception-based garbage by hiring minority candidates?

I can tell you why. The possible appearance of racial bias is not a legitimate reason to halt criticism of any person of power. As more and more groups give bow to the pressure of perception, however, we get closer to the day when it becomes a legitimate reason. That day truly will be a bad day for progress in race relations, and it will be built from letters like the IUBFSC's, which give legitimacy to one of the poorest forms of reasoning in the marketplace of ideas.

Posted by Adam Packer at 11:33 AM | Comments (6)

Politician Who Doesn't Seek Recognition Pilloried

The Evansville Courier & Press wrote a few days ago about Congressman John Hostettler's participation in a church volunteer group that was cleaning up after the tornados that hit Evansville nearly two weeks ago. Hostettler's involvement with the group was only revealed when he was noticed by the father of a local television journalist whose lawn Hostettler was cleaning up at the time.

Several Hoosier bloggers criticized Hostettler for what they saw as an obvious publicity stunt. One such post came from TakingDownWords. But the journalist in question showed up on the TDW site, and commented that TDW and others had the story wrong: that there had been no cameras at the scene, that the television station had given the story almost no play (and even then days later), and that (as the C&P article had strongly suggested) the incident was, really, a coincidence.

The vitriol that many direct at Hostettler is, perhaps, understandable as a consequence of many of his positions. But Hostettler never showboats. Indeed, it's more likely for his critics to bash him for being unavailable to comment. What is guaranteed, however, is that whatever Hostettler does, a chorus will rise up to denounce him.

Posted by Paul Musgrave at 06:49 AM | Comments (1)

Andrew Sullivan meets Time.com

The mainstream media is hitching a ride on the blog bandwagon, and Time magazine has latched onto Andrew Sullivan. His popular blog will now be hosted on Time.com with "new features to make the site more interactive and more easily read and searched." Andrew was nice enough to help kickstart ITA by linking to us regularly, so do drop by his new digs once they're up.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:02 AM | Comments (1)

November 16, 2005

Lileks vs. Dr. (not Mr.) Spock

Ever sit around and wonder how you ever survived to adulthood? My friends and I grew up doing daredevil stunts on our bikes (Helmets? We don't need no stinkin' helmets!), wandering around the neighborhood unsupervised for hours on end, and doing all manner of other things that would seemingly horrify a parenting "expert" today. But apparently that's nothing compared to the threats our parents faced. James Lileks, the humor genius who brought us Interior Desecrations and The Gallery of Regrettable Food has now written Mommy Knows Worst, a collection of bad parenting advice and questionable child products from the 40's and 50's.

Lileks' eye for the absurd in the pop culture of the past has not dulled, and his trademark humor style makes it even funnier. The best satire is done by those who have a foundation of affection for their target, and there is a clear undertone of fondness throughout this book by Lileks, who has described his childhood as steeped in "extreme Norman Rockwell circumstances." Mommy Knows Worst is a delightful, irreverent romp through the parenting world of a half-century ago, and a must-have for any fan of classic American culture.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 12:44 PM | Comments (1)

November 15, 2005

Walker, Texas Ranger

This clip is, in my opinion, the best of all time. As bonus trivia, here's a fun fact: George W. Bush has stated that Chuck Norris is his favorite actor.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 09:01 PM | Comments (12)

Intelligent Design's Theodicy Problem

Most critics of Intelligent Design focus on ID's status as a scientific theory, or rather, non-status. Intelligent Design, unlike scientific theories as traditionally understood, is not immediately falsifiable, meaning the validity of the theory cannot be disproved by empirical scientific research. For these critics, ID's non-theory status is enough to warrant its exclusion from the science classroom, and, at the risk of incurring the wrath of Pat Robertson, rightly so, in my opinion. However, I do think there is room for ID in a college-level "philosophy of science" class that addresses the greater issues of knowledge, empiricism, objectivity, and how we know what we think we know.

For those of us who also possess religious inclinations, Intelligent Design is not just bad science, but bad religion as well. As J. M. Tyree writes in The Revealer, Intelligent Design has a theodicy problem. Theodicy is the study of God's goodness, power, and knowledge as they relate to issues of suffering and evil in the world. We're all familiar with the questions: why does an all-powerful and loving God allow evil? Does God cause suffering through disasters, natural or man-made, and if He does, how can he therefore be considered good? Christianity has wrestled with these and similar questions for two millennia and come up with answers ranging from Open Theism (which questions either the all-knowing or all-powerful nature of God) to God controlling everything according to His unknown Will for His Sovereign Glory (the more fatalist fringes of Calvinism). While arguments over theodicy rarely convince outsiders, those of us already possessing belief have a plethora of positions where we can find answers and comfort. Tyree argues that ID is quite deficient in theodicy, and could reveal a creator who is neither intelligent nor a good designer. Or the creator could be malevolent. Tyree's question "if God [of the Gaps] is willing to meddle with the inner workings of the bombardier beetle, why won't he put a little extra spin on a hurricane to make sure it doesn't hit any major cities?" is a classic question of theodicy that ID has not answered--indeed, it cannot.

The theodicy problem is one of the myriad of reasons Christians should not use it as a means to get faith issues into the classroom. The god of Intelligent Design is not even an identifiably Christian god. Any religion that posits the existence of a supernatural creator-being can fit under its umbrella. At best, Intelligent Design represents a warmed-over deism, with an eternal watchmaker god; at worst, as Tyree illustrates, Intelligent Design supports Cthulhu, who would probably do to Dover, PA exactly what Pat Robertson has in mind. Christians who are identifying too closely with the ID movement are making a mistake. Intelligent Design is questionable science and incomplete theology.

Posted by David Darlington at 08:20 PM | Comments (27)

Modern-Day Lepers

Megan's Law statutes exist in all 50 states, requiring convicted sex offenders (including but not always limited to rapists and child molesters) to register their location with law enforcement when they move, and making this information available to the public. Although some privacy advocates have objected to these laws, they have generally survived court challenges--with occasional modifications. The US Supreme Court upheld such laws in Smith v. Doe.

Yesterday I learned that a township in my area may join many other locales in the United States in banning registered sex offenders from living in certain areas. Specifically, a proposed ordinance would prohibit an offender from moving into a home "within 2500 feet of any school, child-care facility, common open space, community center, public park or recreational facility." The township police chief stated the obvious when he said the acceptable areas for offenders to reside "will be minimal...we have a lot of parks." A similar law passed by Des Moines, Iowa last month made nearly the entire city off-limits and has caused serious hardships for those affected and their families.

To me, these expanded Megan's Laws are nearly as un-American as the Kelo decision. Surely the freedom to choose where you will live and work is one of the most important liberties of a free society. If ever there were a group of people who deserve to be treated as second-class citizens, it would be rapists and child molesters. Nevertheless, when they have served their time in prison, is it just to ban them from living in vast swathes of cities (probably including the most desirable locations) for the rest of their lives? Furthermore, many of these laws are written broadly enough that they ensnare not only violent offenders but also cases such as an 18-year-old who had sex with his/her 15-year-old girl/boyfriend. I can't imagine how this can be constitutional.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 05:44 PM | Comments (11)

Euthanasia in Katrina's Aftermath

There's been quite a bit of press attention on alleged euthanasia of terminally ill patients stuck in hospitals in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina came through. The Louisiana attorney general's office is investigating several possible instances of this. Crispin Sartwell has a compelling column on the subject that puts things in perspective. Long quote starts below the fold:

But before we start prosecuting healers for making what must have been the most difficult decisions of their lives, we had better really try to imagine the circumstances they were in.

The staff at Memorial had assumed that hospitals would be the highest priority for evacuation. Instead, in one of the innumerable examples of the deep confusion and ineffectuality of the response, they were largely abandoned for days.

CNN quoted Fran Butler, a nurse manager: "It was battle conditions. It was as bad as being out in the field." That is putting it mildly.

There was no power, and hence no monitoring or life-support equipment. The temperatures inside the hospital hovered around 110 degrees during the day. The bodies of those who had died at the hospital before the storm were decomposing. There was no running water, and routine sanitation procedures were impossible.

Family members of patients and staff and people from the neighborhood took shelter in the hospital, and they ran out of food and all other necessities.

In such conditions, terminally ill patients must have suffered immeasurably. And their caregivers must have suffered with them. They were unable to provide even basic palliative care: effective treatment for pain or relief of basic breathing, nutritional or circulatory problems, for instance.

Butler described the staff as desperate and said, "My nurses wanted to know what was the plan? Did they say to put people out of their misery? Yes. ... They wanted to know how to get them out of their misery."

Dr. Bryant King told CNN that at the point of maximum desperation, a second-floor triage area where he was working was cleared of everyone except patients, a hospital administrator and two doctors.

They prayed for guidance, and one of the physicians then produced a handful of syringes. "I don't know what's in the syringes. ... The only thing I heard the physician say was, 'I'm going to give you something to make you feel better,'" King said. King himself refused to participate. Forty-five patients died at Memorial Medical Center in the days following Katrina.

To prosecute doctors or nurses who may have hastened some of those deaths would be obscene. They faced conditions that we cannot really imagine, challenges to their identities and oaths as healers that were impossible to resolve. Whatever decisions they made, they made in prayer: They made in the midst of what could only have been the deepest and most tortured encounter with their own consciences.

I agree with him completely. To prosecute these doctors and nurses would be barbaric and serve no purpose whatsoever. They did what they did out of compassion, not malice.

Hat tip to Radley Balko.

Posted by Ed Brayton at 11:20 AM | Comments (4)

Indianapolis Police Merger Fails

RiShawn Biddle wonders what it means for Black Indianapolis; Indiana Politico ponders the theological implications; I discuss the consequences for statewide local government reform.

Posted by Paul Musgrave at 08:49 AM | Comments (0)

Another Alternative That's Easier Than Thinking

Readers of blogs frequently suffer from the disadvantage of not knowing whether bloggers know anything about the topics they write about. Sometimes, of course, it's easy to tell. A fine example comes from The Dogwood File's "discussion" of the debates wracking the IU-Bloomington campus over the conduct, and increasingly the competence, of Indiana University President Adam Herbert. (See Zach Wendling's comments on Herbert here and here; I wrote about the current crisis yesterday at my personal website.)

Dogwood (what is it about the Internet that encourages people to adopt silly names?) mainly blames the IUB faculty for the debate. And in a sense that's true: if Bloomington's professors had merely shrugged when Herbert blew off a major deadline and insulted a widely respected dean, then there would have been no debate. Dogwood finds it easiest to condemn the professors who have raised serious and valid questions about Herbert's administration--after all, those silly "tenured denizens of the ivory tower" are just prima donnas. They couldn't understand the value of a real man, like Purdue's Martin Jischke; as we all know, no "liberal arts type ... could handle taking orders from an engineer who values action more than talking."

A sloppy thinker armed with a stereotype is dangerous, all the more so because stereotypes are, not infrequently, based on some subtle truth. In this case, it is true (true enough, at least) that liberal arts and social sciences faculty members are in some ways more likely to debate than an engineering faculty. But I can't think of anything most faculty members like less than spending time on university administration instead of working on their academic research. (Turnout in faculty elections is often even lower than turnout in student government elections, even though faculty consultative bodies have far more influence.)

And it is also untrue that the faculty members who have been the most visible spokespeople for those critical of Herbert are prime donne. I know most of them, and most of the rest I know by reputation; they are among the finer faculty members IU has, and none of them are overly judgmental (or, if they are, they usually have strong grounds to be). In conversations with some of them a few months ago, some of them even brought up the Herbert-Jischke comparison themselves--and Jishcke came off better in the comparison.

The IUB faculty has problems with Herbert. But that doesn't mean that the IUB faculty is the problem.

Update 9:52 PM Tuesday: Dogwood responds. I have nothing new to add, but I will note that despite his protestations, my criticisms are still valid. Dogwood continues to blame the faculty and believe mistakenly that Herbert's passing over Dean Swamy was the major reason the faculty are in an uproar. In fact, the issue is not that Herbert did not pick Subbaswamy, but that he picked nobody--the interim chancellor has now been an interim chancellor longer than the last permanent chancellor was permanent.

Most of his other points (including his belief that the IU faculty is not ready to "do battle" with West Lafayette, whatever that means) are ridiculous. Most glaringly wrong is his supposition that stakeholders in the private sector never balk at higher-ups' personnel choices; in fact, this sort of thing is not uncommon in creative firms in competitive industries, and even the most extreme example--a shareholders' revolt--is hardly unheard of. The tenured faculty do not merely represent an interest group within the university; in a real sense, they are the university, a group comprising the longest-serving and most responsible members of that community. An administrator with mala fides, by contrast, can act like the worst corporate executive imaginable, pocketing a decent salary and enjoying excellent benefits while putting forth little benefits.

What proves, finally, that Dogwood is wrong both in his analysis of both the immediate crisis and the longer-term trends at IUB is his failure to recognize that many among the faculty were pleased, or at least guardedly optimistic, about Herbert's selection, and that far from being whiny or childish about his term in office, their criticisms had been muted until this summer. But after two years in office, two years during which many would characterize Herbert as inactive or worse, complaints do tend to mount. Yet Dogwood's dogged adherence to his stereotype of the effeminate, pampered professor of librul arts prevents him from offering anything more interesting in this debate than an anatomy of error.

Posted by Paul Musgrave at 07:50 AM | Comments (16)

November 14, 2005

Erin Texeira and the Narrative Journalism Movement

One of Yahoo News' top stories of the day, at least in terms of popularity, is Erin Texeira's Associated Press article titled, "Asian Youths Suffer Harassment in Schools." It begins with the traumatic story of Chen Tsu, an Asian-American 18-year-old living in Brooklyn. Tsu was beaten, robbed, and left scarred and injured in what we're left to believe is a racially motivated attack.

Tsu's case is dispicable, even if it's not racially motivated, but based upon a handful of such anecdotal stories Texeira wants us to believe school-yard harassment against Asians are both common and increasing. Yet no where in the article does Texeira offer any objective evidence, such as statistics or studies, that would lead us to believe it's true.

The only thing that comes close is a 2003 California survey by an advocacy group which claimed 14 percent of Asian youth join gangs for protection. But this isn't compared to other groups and states, and the objectivity of the group conducting the survey is questionable. Even if Asians are joining gangs at higher rates, which itself is questionable, there's simply no reason to believe it's due to increased harrassment.

Texeira is a member of the "narrative journalism movement" which seeks to report through stories and narratives. Narrative is acceptable and can be quite powerful, but if we're going to label them "news," such stories must still be supported by objective facts.

Texeira's foundationless reporting might be excusable if she didn't already have a history of it. In a story for the Los Angeles Times Texeira wrote that Filipinos were disproportionately favored for government positions and contracts in Carson, California.

But like the story above on alleged Asian harrassment, Texeira relied on a narrative technique that lacked objective evidence. Instead of concrete quotes and statistics Texeira hides behind words like "critics," "observers," "analysts" and "sources" without mentioning them by name. As one concerned reader wrote, Texeira's article is "shoddy journalism at best and rank racism at worst."

A brief search reveals that a signficant number of her stories are narratives on racial tension. For such a controversial, sensitive topic, one would hope the copy editors demand more substance from reporters. Erin once wrote that she is "of brown skin" and her racial identity is "complicated." But her racial confusion should not manifest itself in confusing "news articles" that are simply powerful narratives.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 04:37 PM | Comments (3)

Social Welfare, Immigrants, and the Riots in France

The Becker-Posner blog touches on the issue today. Posner has the more interesting comment, especially in light of my discussions of some of his earlier remarks on the French statist model (here and here).

What I find especially interesting is that Posner's comments on the specific relationship between the French economic system and the outbreak of riots (as opposed to his earlier, general observations on the corporatist system) is that he now brings in many unquantifiable and squishy factors, such as the French propensity for direct action and the lack of a clear relationship between economic status and rioting (a point he makes with reference to the United States' own history of urban unrest). What I would have liked to have seen, however, would have been an even more searching evaluation of specific factors at work in France--among them the differences between the loci of French and American riots. The latter happened in the "inner cities" (two of the most infamous code words in American society), whereas the former have mainly been happening in the suburbs. It may be the concentration of distinct and socially immobile populations, and perhaps most importantly if the young men in those regions are unable to find work or integrate in society, that has much to do with the propensity for rioting. That would also explain the sheer irrationality of rioting as a means of social reform. Young men are known for many things, irrationality chief among them.

Finally, Posner offers a limited defense of affirmative action, one which I am particularly sympathetic to. "The French riots are a reminder that affirmative action, although offensive to meritocratic principles, may have redeeming social value in particular historical circumstances," Posner writes, noting that were such programs in place in the French police forces, incidents like that which touched off the riots might not have occurred. Opponents of affirmative action--themselves nearly always privileged and unable to conceive of legitimate opposition to the structures which support their privilege--might want to take the distinctly un-leftist Posnerian argument into account.

Posted by Paul Musgrave at 06:49 AM | Comments (7)

With Friends Like These

One of the most honest, and thus least convincing, defenses of certain parts of American foreign policy I have yet seen:

American foreign policy is built on double standards. One should have no problem in accepting this concept. The nature of international politics requires prioritizing difficult problems. If the Bush doctrine contradicts itself, to paraphrase Walt Whitman, it is only because it contains multitudes. "Double standards" are inescapable for so expansive a doctrine.

A little later, something evident only to a few--and those either vastly more perceptive or irremediably myopic than the rest of us: "President Bush has, by any standard, made progress in defending the 'free world.' The staunchest opponents of the doctrine that bear his name are despotic regimes whose days are most certainly numbered."

Longtime readers of ITA and its antecedents will be unsurprised to learn that the author is none other than Brian Stewart.

Posted by Paul Musgrave at 06:45 AM | Comments (2)

November 13, 2005

Comin' 'round Again

Trends in popular music are cyclical. Sounds or even bands that are popular one day will disappear seemingly overnight, be unheard of for a couple of years, and then re-emerge as a variation on the original. Take boy bands for example. When I was in junior high, the New Kids on the Block were big with the young ladies. Eight years later, the Backstreet Boys emerged. Now, eight years further still, teenage girls are swarming and fainting over a group called B5. I'd never heard of these guys until today, and I wish I hadn't. If the mall riot in Minnesota marks the beginning of a new boy band era, I'm going into my bunker for a while. I'll see you again when the next generation of singer-songwriters comes around.

Posted by David Darlington at 03:48 PM | Comments (2)

Katrina victims file class action against FEMA

Attorneys acting on behalf of over a dozen Hurricane Katrina disaster victims have filed a complaint (pdf) seeking class action status against the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and other government agencies. The lawsuit accuses FEMA of wrongfully denying the plaintiffs temporary housing and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief for the plaintiffs in the form of trailers or other housing for victims living in shelters as well as increased financial relief for families with more children than others. The complaint filed Thursday alleges that once President Bush declared a state of emergency in Louisiana, FEMA was required, not merely authorized, to provide temporary housing assistance to all elligible recipients under the federal Stafford Act (pdf), and failed to do so. USA Today has more.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 02:48 PM | Comments (4)

November 12, 2005

Inconvenient Facts

Below, I argue that the effects of social welfare programs on fostering the current riots in France have been exaggerated. In fact, I suspect that--as this Christian Science Monitor article notes--certain government programs could, in fact, speed assimilation depending on social circumstances. And the simplistic idea that foreign populations=riots doesn't hold up either: the OECD reported in 2005 that there's a quarter more foreigners living in Germany than in France, and nearly four times more in Luxembourg. What matters, then, is the interaction between economic opportunity and social mobility.

Of course, as the London bombings showed earlier, these factors matter at the margin--and no matter how large that margin, there may always be extremists. Terrorism is a weapon of the disaffected, and there will always be disaffected people in societies that are either open (the United States) or homogenous (Japan).

Posted by Paul Musgrave at 07:49 PM | Comments (1)

Does Welfare Cause Riots?

The answer, it should be immediately obvious, is no--but people with poor reading skills (a group who, I've noticed, comprise a large part of blog commenters, including on this site) will take that message away from this Richard Posner blog post. (You can read the Foreign Affairs article Posner cites here, and it's worth your time to do so.)

Posner's point (as captured, mostly, in the summary posted here) is that the European social welfare model's unintended effects include discouraging (or removing the incentive for) assimilation by Muslim immigrants to the mainstream society of the country to which they have come. "If Muslims in European societies do not feel a part of those societies because public policy does not enable them to compete for the jobs held by non-Muslims--if instead, excluded from identifying with the culture of the nation in which they reside they perforce identify with the worldwide Muslim culture--some of them are bound to adopt the extremist views that are common in that culture," Posner writes.

Posner does not much discuss the mechanisms by which economic arrangements encourage or hinder mainstreaming, but based upon the papers I've read, I'll hazard a guess that it is two-fold. First, as William F. Buckley says today in a conservative must-read interview in the Wall Street Journal:

"It seems to me that a very hard dose of market discipline would distract the attention of the young revolutionaries from their frolics, traditional and otherwise, and my sense is that if they had to worry about how to eat, and buy food, they would stop screwing around and face reality. If these people didn't wake up in the morning thinking about what cars to burn -- instead of work -- they might not be having these problems."

In other words, subsidizing nonproductive (in the purely economic sense) activities allows for the development of pockets of entrenched poverty. American conservatives will recognize this arugment; it is the principal one we deployed in our quest to end, or else mend, welfare as we knew it.

But there is a second mechanism I'd like to postulate, and that is that the nature of the continental corporatist welfare model (as distinct from the Scandinavian social model) makes the situation even worse than similar social policies would if adopted in the United States or the (contemporary) United Kingdom. Because the French system more or less presumes a "breadwinner" for a household, and because many benefits are still tied to one's job, and because it is difficult to create jobs or new industries in France (because it is difficult to fire people or destroy existing corporations), there is much less job creation in France. Unemployment or underemployment is a problem for even ethnically French youth (those under thirty or thereabouts), much less the underprivileged Muslim immigrants or second- or third-generation descendants that are currently rioting.

These two mechanisms explain much of what Posner describes in his post. Posner's observations, in turn, are not too distant from what Jason Kuznicki discussed in a post last week. However, what the Posnerian model misses--and this is both a common and a frequently correct critique of all Posnerian models--are the specific and noneconomic factors at work. Chris Bertram at Crooked Timber pointed out the most obvious--namely, that many of those rioting are Algerian, and relations between the French and those whose parents (or who themselves) were once under French imperial rule are unsurprisingly strained. Mainstreaming, or even fostering toleratnce, under these conditions may be no easier to achieve than Reconstruction was. (Kuznicki, prompted by an email I wrote, covered many more specific factors in a later post.)

Similarly, Posner does not appear to fully take into account the specific terms on which "native" Europe has allowed immigrants into its borders. The Gastarbeiter program in Germany, for instance, was originally intended purely to provide more raw labor for West Germany's economic miracle following the war; a statesman whose name I have forgotten once said of the program, which brought in tens of thousands of Turks, that Germany had wanted workers, but had imported men instead. The callousness of such programs (including the United States' bracero program in the mid-20th century) cannot fail to gall those who are well aware that they are wanted by their host country merely as a pair of hands, and not as potential citizens. (Guest-worker programs in the United States are likely to create the same sorts of tensions.)

Finally, the weakness of the French state has long favored French nationalism, and French nationalism is different from most versions of Americanism or contemporary ideas about, say, Canadian, British, or Australian identity. Americanism has neither been solely nor even mainly been free of prejudice, but there has always been enough play in the ideology's joints to allow for the possibility of assimilation --if not in one generation, then in two. But how can European nationalisms of any stripe (and here I include such nationalisms as Scottish, Irish, Catalan, Corsican, Breton, Fleming, and Walloon) fail to be defined by anything but a bloodline--or, at the very least, a vision of a "shared culture" that excludes those whose grandparents or five times great-grandparents did not participate in it? To be French, one may or may not be Catholic, one may or may not like wine, one may or may not believe in republican principles--but to be dark-skinned, Muslim, and possibly not even Francophone is to push the outermost limits of the ideology. It is revealing, by the way, that even news reports (in the English-language media) I have seen from France quoting the French reinforce my suspicion that the (ethnically) French regard the rioting as taking place "somewhere else"--rather as I regard, say, Miami or Salt Lake City.

Widespread riots may develop even in polities that lack social welfare systems, although those systems may increase riots' intensities. All that is needed is a distinct class or group of the disenfranchised who lack legitimate methods to seek redress for what they perceive as injustices done them. France, where the first modern revolution happened, shoud realize this better than any other country.

Posted by Paul Musgrave at 05:38 PM | Comments (2)

Political jockeying

President Bush "is sinking deeper and deeper into political trouble," according to the latest Newsweek poll. "Only 36 percent of Americans approve of the job he is doing as president, and an astounding 68 percent of Americans are dissatisfied with the direction of the country -- the highest in Bush's presidency."

But Bush's job isn't up for reconsideration like Congress, and they may have more cause to worry. For the first time since 1994, a majority of voters would like to see their individual member of Congress defeated for re-election.

On the other hand, this dismal showing by the GOP does not yet seem to have influenced fundraising efforts. The Republican National Committee has out-raised Howard Dean's DNC two to one, and has five times as much money on hand.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 05:12 PM | Comments (7)

Anti-white bias at SIU?

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, the government may sue Southern Illinois University (SIU) for discriminating against whites, Asians, males, and anyone else who's not black and female:

"The University has engaged in a pattern or practice of intentional discrimination against whites, non-preferred minorities and males," says a Justice Department letter sent to the university last week and obtained by the Chicago Sun-Times.

The letter demands the university cease the fellowship programs, or the department's civil rights division will sue SIU by Nov. 18.

The article lists three fellowships in question, including one "For underrepresented minority students to initiate graduate study in science, technology, engineering and math." One of the primary laws cited is Title VII of Civil Rights Act. In a 2003 decision, Grutter vs. Bollinger, the Supreme Court said in a 5-4 ruling that race could be included as a factor in determining admissions, but not the sole factor.

Liberal Illinois Senator Barack Obama accuses the Bush administration of trying to divide voters. "One of my concerns has been with all the problems the Bush administration is having, that they'll start resorting to what they consider to be wedge issues as a way of helping themselves politically." But race-based scholarships aren't divisive? Obama's logic seems backward.

From my brief inspection of two of the fellowships, race appears to be the only factor. The outcome of this DOJ pressure, and any subsequent litigation, will have far-reaching implications on the scholarship culture and, in turn, higher education across the country.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 10:31 AM | Comments (35)

November 11, 2005

Veteran's Day

Today is Veterans Day, formerly called Armistice Day, in commemoration of the signing of the Armistice ending World War I. Because we also have Memorial Day, which primarily honors the dead, many unofficially observe Veteran's Day as a day to honor living veterans. About 4.7 million American men and 33,000 women served in the military in WWI. Of those fewer than 50 are alive today, according to U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs estimates. The Department offers this website to help commemorate the day. In November of 1919, President Woodrow Wilson issued his Armistice Day proclamation. The last paragraph set a good tone for future observances:

To us in America, the reflections of Armistice Day will be filled with solemn pride in the heroism of those who died in the country's service and with gratitude for the victory, both because of the thing from which it has freed us and because of the opportunity it has given America to show her sympathy with peace and justice in the councils of the nation.

Here is President George W. Bush's proclamtion reading, "Through their commitment to freedom, America's veterans have lifted millions of lives and made our country and the world more secure. They have demonstrated to us that freedom is the mightiest force on Earth. We resolve that their sacrifices will always be remembered by a grateful Nation."

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:54 PM | Comments (7)

"War on Christmas" cont'd

In Ed's post on the subject below he neglects to mention that I posted on John Gibson's book before and that I'm quoted extensively in chapter 6. You can read my take on it here. Also, Zach Wendling's post titled "You're a three decker saurkraut and toadstool sandwich with arsenic sauce" is, in my opinion, the seminal piece from a grinch's perspective.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 11:45 AM | Comments (1)

The Mythical "War on Christmas"

Tis the season to be cranky, or so it seems. Like last year, the holiday season is accompanied by shrieks of horror and outrage from the likes of Bill O'Reilly, Pat Buchanan and the Worldnetdaily at the prospect of someone saying "Happy Holidays" to them rather than "Merry Christmas". John Gibson of Fox News has a book out called The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought.

I'm sure you've all heard this diatribe by now, in which the main piece of evidence and the pretext for this chorus of discontent is the fact that a few department store chains have started using the more general holiday greeting on their advertisements to appear more inclusive, since a sizable portion of their customers are more likely to be celebrating Hannukah, Ramadan or nothing at all this time of year. For the demagogues mentioned above, this is proof of a Satanic plot to destroy Christmas and probably Christianity too.

But here's what I'm surprised no one has said: this entire "War on Christmas" meme that seems to be everywhere in the conservative media these days is incredibly insulting to Christians. If I was a Christian, I would be highly offended upon hearing O'Reilly and his fellow travelers peddling this nonsense, for the simple reason that he is painting an image of Christians as petulent drama queens who overreact to something this pointless and irrelevant.

See, here's the thing. I know lots of Christians and lots of non-Christians. None of the non-Christians I know are bothered by having someone say "Merry Christmas" because they are reasonable enough to know that Christmas is a prominent holiday that dominates the winter season in this country for Christians and non-Christians alike, and because they understand that the person who says it is wishing them merriment, regardless of particular holiday it's attached to. And quite frankly, anyone who reacts badly to being told "Merry Christmas" is just looking for something to get bothered about.

Likewise, none of the Christians I know, at least to my knowledge, would be the least bit offended at being told "Happy Holidays" or even "Happy Hannukah" by someone because, again, they're reasonable enough to understand that the person speaking is wishing them happiness and joy in whatever way they think is appropriate. And quite frankly, any Christian who is offended at being told "Happy Holidays" is just looking for something to get bothered about.

And if they take it further than that and declare, as Pat Buchanan did last year, that department stores with signs saying "Happy Holidays" are a "hate crime against Christians"? Well then they've simply lost their minds and wandered off into a bizarro universe of irrationality.

Posted by Ed Brayton at 11:17 AM | Comments (9)

Senate passes amendment to block Gitmo prisoners from court challenges

The US Senate voted 49-42 late Thursday to block Guantanamo Bay detainees from challenging their imprisonment in US federal courts. The legislation, proposed by GOP Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), conflicts with the 2004 US Supreme Court ruling in Rasul v. Bush, which held that according to the Court's interpretation of congressional intent, "aliens held at the base, like American citizens, are entitled" to challenge their detention. The amendment, attached to the 2006 Defense Appropriations Bill, received the support of three Democrats. Graham said of the amendment that "in the law of armed conflict, no nation has given an enemy combatant, a terrorist, an al-Qaida member the ability to go into every federal court in this United States and sue the people that are fighting the war for us." AP has more.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 08:28 AM | Comments (1)

November 10, 2005

Maddox on Blogomania

"If these words were people, I would embrace their genocide." (Ed.: R-rated website)

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 05:46 PM | Comments (6)

Making Sense on Abortion

It's rare to find a discussion of abortion (and abortion policies) that does not consist mostly of bold claims of morality, rights, and demonizing the opposition. Jane Galt--moderate pro-choicer and libertarian--has provided such a discussion on her blog, which grew out of a discussion of Alito's dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Most of Jane's criticisms are aimed at her former compatriots--"radical pro-choicers," in her words. Here's a sample, on the subject of parental notification laws:

I have no doubt that if I'd gotten pregnant in high school, I'd have had an abortion immediately in order to avoid telling my parents. And I have no doubt that if I'd gotten arrested for Driving While Intoxicated, I'd have done my darndest to keep them from finding out about that. But now that I am no longer fifteen, I can see that it is not a good idea for teenagers to have secret lives with serious repercussions, which is why the government tells your parents if you get arrested for doing drugs, whether you want them to or not...

I think that abortion should be legal, but I also think that it should be a last resort, and I'm all for the government using any non-coercive methods it can to encourage women to carry their pregnancy to term, including things that will make them feel bad about aborting...

...Abortion is something done for the benefit of the mother, for which the child who will not be born pays the ultimate price. Trying to e