rereason

Haitus

2007-04-06T19:05:00.000-05:00

Dear readers:

I feel I owe you something of an apology.

I haven't written for three months, and you may be wondering what happened to me.

I'm still here.

My new job drains away creative energy that I used to tap for this blog and others. I spend my days writing letters to VIPs, explaining the complex operations and programs of a giant government enterprise in simple, clear, direct language. It's not as easy as it sounds.

I also do a huge amount of editing of the written work of others.

Intense pressure and amazingly short deadlines - yesterday I had four hours to comb through a year's reports and make a half-dozen phone calls, then compile a report - these have taken a toll.

Jane says I'm a lot more grouchy than before.

My home business is starting to take off - we are consistently turning a solid profit from week-to-week. And I have discovered that I enjoy using my wits as an entrepreneur and succeeding well at it. In short, making money can be fun.

But, like everything else, it takes time.

I have no plans to abandon blogging. I have some initiatives under way to shed some responsibilities at work and simplify, through automation, others. I am refining my home business operation so that certain tasks that took as long as an hour now take only a few minutes.

So check back in a month or so. There might be something here worth reading.

Cheers!

We Can Win Iraq - But We Don't Want To

2007-01-10T19:11:00.000-06:00

We lack the will to win Iraq.

Regular readers should be surprised to learn I believe victory in Iraq can be won. Not only can we win the war, but we can also win the peace. Moreover, the problems we face have more to with our own irresponsibility, stupidity, self-centeredness and lack of resolve than the recent explosion of sectarian violence in that horrible place.

In short, we are unwilling to make the sacrifices needed to win.

Tonight, as I write this, the president is expected to repudiate former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's war policies by announcing a substantial increase in the number of American solders sent to Iraq. He is also expected to announce a jobs program for Iraq.

Mr. Bush remains true to form with too little, too late. But why too little?

In thinking about what it takes to conquer a nation with a dictatorship form of government and install a genuine, functioning democracy, we should look to the successes of the past. We need not look too far, because we can fairly claim success in Germany and Japan.

At the end of the Second World War, Germany lay shattered and broken. The vaunted German military machine which had rolled over the European continent with astonishing speed was smashed; the great arms factories shattered, along with much else. Clearly, they no longer threatened us or our allies.

We could have withdrawn, as we did at the end of WWI, but we did not. Instead, under the brilliant Secretary of State George C. Marshall, we gave Europe $20 billion, a staggering sum in those days. The Marshall plan required the Europeans to work together to decide how to spend the money, which they did. Some thinkers believe the bodies created by the plan eventually evolved into the European Union. (Read more about the plan here.)

We also established many military bases in Europe, and especially Germany. And guess what - we're still there, some sixty years later.

Not that it took them sixty years to establish an effective democracy; that probably took much less time. However, you can bet it took more than four years.

The United States made huge sacrifices for WWII. People at home accepted rationing and wage-price controls, while the nation fielded huge armies in a titanic struggle.

Nowadays, the vast majority of Americans are unaffected by the war. We continue to drive our gas-hogging SUVs, much to the delight of our enemies. We mourn the loss of over 3,000 American lives over the course of the last four years, but really, that's a tiny fraction of the number killed on our highways each year. (42,000, or 168,000 over four years.)

During WWII, everyone bought bonds to finance the war. But this is being financed by the Chinese buying up our debts. We are not even expected to pay higher taxes to support the war, though it appears likely our children and grandchildren will.

Many of the same things principles that applied to Germany also applied to Japan. That nation is the only one in history to have been attacked with nuclear weapons. We're still there, too.

While we're considering the lessons of history, let's think about the big war we lost - Vietnam. We tried to install a democracy there, too. We tried to turn the war over to the local forces there, too. We left, promising the South Vietnamese aid that, as it turned out, the Congress was too stingy to send. President Lyndon Johnson's request for a half-billion dollar aid package was turned down, and Siagon fell two months later.

If we pour enough into Iraq, we can the outcome we want. To win would require genuine sacrifices. Not an increase in troops of ten or twenty percent, but a doubling or tripling of the forces there. The aim would be to disarm the Iraqi people, and to protect the defenseless survivors. We would need to search every shed, every house, every building for weapons on micro-destruction; pistols and rifles, as well as bomb making supplies. We would need to watch and patrol every street in every city, day and night; siezing arms and explosives and arresting people. At the same time, we would need a new Marshall plan. Money could be given to the Iraqis, conditioned on their internal agreement on how to spend it.

Lastly, we would have to recognize we are there to stay. It might be possible to reduce our troop levels after two or three years of intensive pacification, but we would still need a sizable force, more or less permanantly.

This would work. But we do not have the will to make it work.

It would require tremendous sacrifices of the American people. It would require a military draft, and untold billions of dollars, and tax increases. It would take too much.

But too little effort can only worsen the situation. We cannot build a house with just one nail, or a village with a single barrel of nails. Anything we put up will fall back down. In a previous post, I detailed why the "surge"can only worsen the situation.

Perhaps the president will explain tonight why he is ignoring the lessons of history. Perhaps he will put forth a compelling case for his "surge" in troop level. Perhaps he will give us an intellectually honest, rigorous and thorough discourse which will persuade us that our assessements and the assessements of his generals are mistaken.

Perhaps.

But don't bet money on it.

I Fear to Speak

2007-01-09T18:14:00.000-06:00

I fear to speak.

I fear the words in this space will be used against me.

I know that my fear seems a little, well, paranoid. Most any reasonable person, looking at my writing as a whole, would conclude that I am a patriotic American.

But reasonable people do not worry me. The people I fear measure your patriotism by how closely your words match their thoughts. They say it is unpatriotic to disagree with the president - which I do. They say opposition to the war encourages the enemy - and I oppose the war.

Reasonable Americans value our long traditions of civil liberties, freedoms that come to us earlier than the Bill to Rights to pre-revolution days and back to very old British common law. I fear the guys who arrested and held an American citizen without trial. I fear the guys who feel that they should be allowed to torture anyone they suspect of being a terrorist - and they decide who that is.

I fear the equation that says opposition to the war equals aid to terrorists equals being a terrorist.

In todays news we learned that the NSA, the most secretive spy agency in the country, has established a cozy relationship with Microsoft. Read about it here. The spies helped the giant software company create security for their newest operating system, Vista. We also learned that other operating systems, including Apple's OS X and Windows XP, have been operated on by the wizards at NSA.

Who knows more about electronic security than the master spy agency? No one.

But in a climate of warrentless wiretaps and expanded presidential power to open our mail, the thought that the NSA may have written code used in computers all around the world gives one pause. Who know what they did with that opportunity? It's plausible that they could plant a few lines of code to enable them to spy on any computer, any time, for any purpose.

Six years ago, anyone saying the United States would launch a war on Iraq based on thin, possibly fabricated intelligence would have gotten zero airtime. The notion that we would spy on our own citizens and open mail without a search warrent would have been dismissed as absurd. That we would hold people without trial or charges, that we would operate secret prisons and condone torture would have been labelled hopelessly insane.

Paranoid beyond belief.

Like the Germans in the 1930s, we would be saying, "It can't happen here."

I fear speaking out. I feel paranoid.

But I fear remaining silent even more.

Drownings of the New Year

2007-01-05T19:00:00.000-06:00

Well, here we are, with the New Year lapping over our heels, and no resolutions in sight. Not that I'm all that enthused about New Year's resolutions, or the New Year, for that matter. But it seems a fit topic for thought, before 2007 gets any deeper.

Individuals and cultures change, over time. My boss and I had a short philosophical discussion about that change, and the shape it takes. His thesis is that people no longer care about anything that does not directly affect them; moreover, interest quickly dies beyond the very short term. He thinks people used to care - our parents' generation did.

They are all of sufficiently advanced age, if still living, not to care any longer.

Pinpointing the sea changes of the culture one belongs to must be one of the hardest tasks imaginable. I cannot imagine how to do that. It's like swimming in an ocean and trying to rise up high enough to see beyond the waves.

We often observe how we detest that awful rap music, just as our parents hated rock-n-roll. Of course, our grandparents hated the music of their children, and so on, beyond living memory.

And people still complain of the same flaws from generation to generation. Ever since the sixties (my generation) the indifference of the young to social and moral responsibility appears to worsen continually.

But does it, really?

We can point to the structure of TV shows, movies and video games to see an erosion of attention spans. The news cycle gets shorter and shorter. People not much younger than myself don't read newspapers - our house is the only one on the block with regular delivery. Ours is also the only one with a re-cycling bin at the curb every week.

But we can see very clearly that something in American culture has changed - as if the waters we swim in had cooled, or the waves become rougher. Silly us, we forgot to pack the thermometer.

It is said that a culture and a society, particularly a democracy, gets the leadership it deserves. A rougher, cruder nation earns rougher, cruder leaders. Where are the Truman's, the Adlai Stevensons, the Kennedys of today? If we don't vote - and the number of people exercising that right continues to decline - we mute our own voices. The loudest, emptiest voices are all that's heard. We get stuck with dull, dumb leaders lacking in foresight but full of themselves and arrogant pride, drowning out the sounds of moderation, temperance and wisdom.

If we remain silent when injustices are inflicted on others, then only time lies between us and fresh pain.

This New Year marks the start of a new presidential campaign. (Does a shorter attention span require a longer campaign season?) As of today, ten men and women are running for president.

How's this for a resolution: I resolve to work to deserve the best leadership.

Happy Bloody New Year.

Iraq - Blame the Victim

2006-12-29T19:03:00.000-06:00

American politicians and commentators started a new shift in the blame for the Iraq situation recently: it's all the Iraqi people's fault.

The argument, superficially valid, points out that the civil war in that long suffering country consists of Iraqis killing each other. The United States did not start the sectarian violence, we have been trying to stop it.

For those who avoid the depressing news, the KC Star ran a fascinating look at the current situation in Baghdad in today's edition. The streets are full of armed men, belonging to various groups. Trucks piled high with belongings ferry the last few stragglers in and out of enclaves. Illegal checkpoints dot the roads; people are detained and killed pretty much at random, based on the most superficial signs of which sect a person happens to adhere to. Anyone foolhardy or desperate enough to leave whatever shelter they've found must carefully consider how they tie their head scarves, which colors they wear, and what phone numbers are programmed into their cell phones. Even if you don't make any mistakes, you still risk death by torture.

Much of the violence is between Sunni and Shiia followers of Islam.

Before the United States travels too far down the road of blaming the Iraqis for the current state of affairs, a review of very recent history would be helpful.

Under the leadership of president George Bush, the United States invaded and occupied Iraq. Under Mr. Bush, the United States dismantled the Iraqi military and police forces, and nearly all the government. Under the direction of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, the occupying force was too small to replace the functions of the police force. Looting broke out almost immediately. With the advice of Vice-President Dick Cheney, the United States, instead of employing the jobless men of Iraq, awarded no-bid contracts to Halliburton and other rich domestic companies to re-build the nation. The United States made no discernible effort to disarm the Iraqi people, who were already well armed by Saddam.

Therefore, the United States created a large, hostile, idle pool of armed men in a nation which already held deep sectarian hatreds with long histories.

So be very clear; yes, the Iraqis are killing each other. But it is the United States that bears the brunt of the moral responsibility for allowing that to happen.

The Power of No and the President

2006-12-28T19:53:00.000-06:00

In his two years in office, President Gerald Ford vetoed 66 bills approved by Congress. This is a little less than Reagan's 78 times in eight years and exactly 66 times the current Bush's single veto.

Ford reluctantly took office in the spirit of public service, to help the nation overcome the disastrous end of the Nixon administration. Although one could argue Nixon's foreign policy included some brilliant successes, his domestic policies were an unqualified disaster. Years of wage-price controls only worsened the economic problems they had been designed to cure.

Who remembers the short-lived "Whip Inflation Now" campaign? Ford's first attempt to fix the economy pitted implacable market forces against slogans, buttons and stickers. It didn't work.

But Ford hit the brakes on Congressional spending. His vetoes saved billions and billions of dollars of public spending. Even though he was a Republican and the Congress was in the hands of the Democratic Party, most of his vetoes were upheld. When he left office, the nation was much better off than when he took office. We were at peace, and the economy had improved.

As many will say in the next few days, Ford helped heal the nation after the trauma of Nixon's resignation and the bloody end of the Vietnam war. But Ford deserves quite a bit a credit for his veto record as well, something often overlooked in noting his accomplishments.

The Xmas Season - Xcess, Xhaustion, and Xscasty

2006-12-22T18:45:00.000-06:00

The air fairly crackles with pre-Xmas tension. Two weeks worth of errands, work, and tasks must be accomplished in the next 24 hours.

First, an Xcess of material goods must be amassed; gifts, we call 'em. These objects embody in physical form our love for our family and friends. We hope the Xpressions on the faces of those recipients unwrapping our presents to them will justify the Xtra effort and cost of placing those things in their hands. The children, unskilled in the poker game of social relations, will give us honest answers with their smiles and grins, and the twinkles in their eyes.

We wish we could give a facile dismissal to the crass materialism of an American Xmas, but we cannot. The tradition thrives because so many people use it to confirm the tender feelings we have for each other. To those of us who grew up poor, a new tv, cell phone or camera means we are loved. To those of us who grew up poor, giving an expensive gift represents the sacrifice of love.

Yes, time, attention, devotion and providing food, warmth and shelter for another are superior markers of affection; but the material gifts of toys and gadgets also symbolize and convey love when the other needs are already abundantly met.

The frenzy of wrapping means four hours of sleep on Xmas eve, typical for a parent. Long after late night church, long after the kids begin to dream of Santa, Mom or Dad or both, labor to produce those golden early Xmas morning minutes. In the wee hours we manufacture those happy moments, a few hours later, when the kids wake and the gift exchange starts.

Legend holds that gift giving on Xmas began with X's birth, when the Magi rode into town carrying gifts for the baby X. But the ancient rituals pre-date X by untold centuries. The traditions varied greatly, so what we know today really is the product of today.

Even in the good old USA, Xmas itself declined sharply during the early 1800's. It fell out of favor for a while, and was barely practised. A fellow named Dickens revived it, almost single handedly.

Nowadays, midnight or late church services mark Xmas eve. For me, the church service is the highlight and the best part of the whole Xmas season. Holding a lit candle, in a large darkened room, singing with hundreds of others about the most holy and elevated feelings, is close to Xcasty. The feeling of joy lightens my heart and removes the crushing oppression of the many Xcesses and Xhaustion.

Each Christian forges his own relationship with X. So, too, Xmas means something different for each practitioner.

Incidentally, the versatile "X" as stand-in for the word "Christ" goes all the way back to very early Greek versions of the New Testament. The letter "X," or Greek "chi" is the first letter of the word, "Christ."

Merry Xmas, gentle readers. Merry Xmas to you all.

Blood Will Have Blood

2006-12-20T18:25:00.000-06:00

Now brought to you by those same fine folks who started the Iraq War: The Iraq "Surge."

"It will have blood, they say, blood will have blood." MacBeth, Act III, Scene 4.

Less than 60 days after we were assured that the escalating violence in Iraq was aimed at influencing our own elections, the folks who always get it wrong are now saying we need to throw more troops into the fray.

Fellows, if the October violence was aimed at dislodging Republicans from power, why is it now so much worse? What kind of arrogant narcissism thinks that mass killings half a world away are aimed at prying loose the scoundrel's grasp on power? Try to grow up and face your mistakes: you got it wrong, wrong, wrong.

Bill Kristol, among other talking heads, advocates a short deployment of 30,000 additional troops to Iraq, and soon. He says we could change the mission (again) of the occupying force to secure the city of Baghdad.

Boys, here's a tip you can use: don't hose a blaze with gasoline.

In Act III, Lady Macbeth sorrows deeply; grief and conscience stricken, she clearly foresees the deadly consequences of her murderous acts. Shakespeare illustrates the tragic consequences of greedy ambition, pride, and blind lust-for-power. The path of vendetta must run its course; the tragedy, once set in motion, cannot be stopped.

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it
-- Omar Khayyam as translated by Fitzgerald.

I would not expect the frat boys in the executive branch to know Macbeth or Omar Khayyam; but you would at least think they looked at Machiavelli back in college.

"The injury we do to a man must be such that we need not fear his vengeance." The Prince.

The United States, under the leadership of the Bush administration, attacked and occupied a foreign land out of pride, ignorance, blind ambition and endless arrogance. The United States, its leaders and its people, neither understand nor care to learn about the ancient tribes now suffering in that miserable place. How many Americans know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite? Do Americans know where the Kurds live? (No. The newly appointed head of the Senate Intelligence Committee was embarrassed last week because of his stunning ignorance. Learn some history here.)

The brutal dictator Saddam held the various factions of Iraq together by ruling with an iron fist. By all objective accounts, his treatment of his subjects was horrendous. The world reacted with horror as accounts of attacks on civilian populations with poison gas leaked out.

Before the latest war with Iraq, the suspicion that he still had weapons of mass terror seemed quite reasonable. Saddam himself wanted to make it appear he was hiding those weapons. The world situation called for prudence, wisdom, and strategic thinking.

But the United States cast aside prudence, wisdom and strategic thought by recklessly invading Iraq without bothering to learn about it. Saddam's armies and his political party were crushed. The iron fist restraining the ancient feuds and hatreds was broken.

This is the kind of action one would expect from a power grown soft in the head. It is the act of a bully, taking his fury out on a target, not because he was wronged by that individual, but he was wronged by someone, and someone has to pay.

The phrase coming from our leaders, spoken at various times by president Bush, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Homeland Security Chief Chertoff, the phrase that will become the most haunting and telling phrase of our times is, "No one could have foreseen this."

The truth is, many, many, many people foresaw the bloody consequences of smashing Iraq's iron fist.

Now we are left with "ignorant armies that clash by night." We are left with too many blood feuds and vendettas to count.

The facts on the ground are that Baghdad has already split geographically into Sunni and Shiia neighborhoods. If a Sunni or Shiia strays into the wrong part of the city, death will be slow and painful, but certain. But factions of the Shiia and Sunni camps are also waging war on themselves. The fact is inflation runs at 50 percent in Iraq. The fact is that 60 percent of the men are unemployed.

They join militias because they can. They join militias to protect themselves. They join militias to get revenge.

The facts is that more US troops will not bring back the dead; more US troops will not employ millions of men; more US troops will not bring security to the city.

The fact is that our own general in command of US forces in Iraq opposes bringing more of our troops to the battle.

The "surge" theory finds support from the same right-wing talking heads who thought the invasion was a fine idea. These guys spin their fantasies from the safety of their studios and then go to a comfortable home at night; while on the other side of the earth, real people die.

Please pray with all your might that our leaders become wise. Pray that God will open their eyes. Pray for the poor people of Iraq. Pray for our troops. It would appear that only God can save them now.

Time for JoCo RINOs to Switch Parties

2006-12-13T18:45:00.000-06:00

In a bizarre post-Halloween joke, the Johnson County Republican Party re-animated Phill Kline and installed him into the post vacated by Attorney General Elect Paul Morrison.

For you out-of-state readers, Zombie Klien was the man overwhelmingly rejected by the county and the state as a leader in last month's election. The now undead former Kansas AG sustained his political life with his binary view on abortion. In fact, he achieved his 15 minutes of fame on O'Reilly, when host Bill claimed to have received inside information from private abortion clinic records Kline had subpoenaed. Of course, if Kline did give the talking head information from those files, then Kline would have violated any number of laws. Kline claimed the records contained evidence of crimes. To date, no charges resulted from his fishing expedition into the private lives of Kansas women.

Because Morrison ran for Johnson County prosecutor as a Republican, the party got to select his replacement. Precinct captains and party functionaries got together earlier this week to choose. One of the candidates was a deputy prosecutor who has actual experience under Morrison. Of course, Kline has no experience as a prosecutor. Kline surprised the assembled Republicans by asking for the chief prosecutor's job. The day before, he had declared his residency in a Stanley apartment belonging to two Republican party stalwarts.

If moderate voters needed proof that the Kansas Republican party is totally uninterested in their views, this Kline appointment is it.

So, as we moderates wipe this spit from our eyes, lets wipe away some illusions, too.

Like many others, I registered as a Republican because Kansas has a long history of electing only Republicans. I hoped to influence the party to become more moderate by voting for moderate candidates in the primaries.

This strategy failed. The Kansas Republican party has moved right while the rest of us returned to the center. The party has become more monochromatic than ever.

As proof, consider their taking this proven loser and installing him as DA. The project should have been DOA, but the party just can't seem to get too far too the right to suit themselves, so it made perfect sense to the right-wing activists in charge.

The time to switch parties is now. Let them keep their progress towards an ever more radically conservative party. Let them cling to 19th century thinking. The rest us of need to move on.

Information on how to switch party affiliation can be found here.

The elections of last month prove that Kansas moderates do have a voice and do have a chance to get elected - if they run as Democrats. Look at Nancy Boyda, Paul Morrison, and Dennis Moore.

Both national parties look at the numbers of registered Republicans and Democrats when deciding on which races to support with money and volunteers. Growth in the numbers of registered Democrats in the county and the state will definitely attract attention. So will losses on the Republican side.

Help bury the political career of Phill Kline - the dead should stay dead, it's not right that he walks among us in Johnson County.

The time has come to register your protest to the Kline fiasco by registering your vote with the other party. Let them know how you really feel.

Brag Letter

2006-12-06T19:33:00.000-06:00

This is the time of year when we start getting those lengthy inserts in the Christmas cards, detailing the highlights of our friends and families past year. Reading them can seem like a test of our forbearance; the writers go on and on, assuming we are thrilled by every detail of little Clotto's pre-K art project and the Branson vacation. Or sometimes they mention all the wonderful, positive things going on in their lives; promotions, marriages, new babies and such.

Never have I written one of these letters, but this year, for the first time, I will mention some of the blessings we have been fortunate to receive:

We shared our wealth, giving what feels like a substantial part of our income to the church and to others less fortunate than us.
We shared a trip to a fabulous Mexican Riviera resort with a friend who is suffering from cancer.
Natasha traveled hundreds of miles on a church mission trip to help people she had never met.
Samantha helped every day with Vacation Bible School.
We bought three gallons of milk every month and donated them to a food kitchen.
We set out and took up flags marking the graves of vets during the week of Memorial Day.
We taught Sunday School.
My lovely wife and I attended religious instruction at a friend's home.
We organized activities at church.
My lovely wife served as Girl Scout leader.
She also continued as President of a VFW Ladies auxiliary.
We helped a neighbor who had an unfortunate incident with her dog.
We helped a friend who's baby was born with no mental functions.
We went to funerals.
I posted stories, opinions and ideas to the Internet, hoping to increase awareness and to provoke thought.
We regularly went to church.
We donated food to the school food pantry drive.
We donated to the charity drive at work.
We recycled plastic, metal, cardboard and newsprint every week.
I continue to try not to speed on the highway.

Gentle readers, you may think these activities blessed others, and you would be right. But these things blessed us more. Forgive me if I regard these as the really noteworthy accomplishments for the family in the past year.

"Food Insecurity" Shows Little Improvement

2006-11-16T22:03:00.000-06:00

A report released yesterday by the United States government shows that some 35 million Americans could not put food on the table at some time last year, 2005.

That's right, nearly 12% of American households lacked food; looked at another way, that's over one in ten.

Skeptics have frequently claimed in the past that the annual report by the USDA was fabricated. According to an article in the Washington Post, Texas governor George Bush said words to that effect in 1999, accusing the democratically controlled administration of trying to cast Texas in a bad light. Texas is one of the worst states for "food insecurity," which is the current term used to obfuscate the issue. This year, the report was delayed until after the election, and Democrats charged the department with political motives.

Politicians can attack the motives behind the report, but curiously, there does not seem to be specific criticism of the methodology and process used to compile the figures.

Nearly 11 million Americans reported actually going hungry in 2005.

The data bolsters my contention that we are becoming more like a third world nation every day.
The statistics show some improvement of the problem; the current "food insecure" figure of 11% is higher than the previous year's 11.9%.

We can only hope and pray that God softens the hearts our people; for Americans are a stiff-necked people, unable to hear the words of hope and unable to answer the call to compassion.

(The report itself can be found here.)

Kansas Gov Cadidate Barnett Visits Adult Sunday School Class

2006-10-23T19:04:00.000-05:00

State Senator Jim Barnett honored my "Issues and Us" class by visiting with us recently and sharing his ideas for the future of Kansas.

Such a nice man, a doctor, and pretty well-informed. He is, of course, wrong on many things, but I must say, he struck me as sincere. He just needs someone with a deeper understanding of public service to brief him.

He opposes school vouchers, for the same reasons right-thinking Kansas everywhere oppose them. Vouchers undermine public schools by taking tax money and spending it on private schools.

He is running against the state government, a time honored tradation now - to run on a platform of attacking the institution you wish to head. He says the state government in Kansas has grown faster than the governments of the other 49 states, and points to numbers of employees as evidence.

This is worth talking about, because the number of employees is only one indicator of the size of government. Because many government services are contracted out, the actual numbers of employees could decline markedly over a few years while the size of the government mushrooms. (In fact, this is precisely the situation at the federal level - we now have far fewer feds, but the size of the national goverment has exploded. We now have vast numbers of "shadow" employees through contracters.)

A more interesting measure would be percentage of gross state product spent on government - sort of GDP at the state level.

I asked Barnett about the school finance formula. He said he would change it by increasing the local option budget, but not by too much. In essence, he would leave the present system in place, with only minor adjustments that would appeal to Johnson County.

If you read my posts of a few months ago, you know I feel the whole rotten system must be scrapped.

He did take the time to denounce governor Sibelius, although his manner was polite.

Barnett feels very strongly that the current system of health insurance does not meet the needs of the state. He would patch the current system by requiring insurance companies to offer low cost coverage to certain classes of poor people.

He rightly identifies part of the problem, but the solution still escapes him. His proposal simply shifts the cost of an expensive, ineffective system to those who already have insurance, with a dollop of gravy reserved for the insurance companies.

Barnett would require proof of citizenship before any state services would be permitted to an individual. When asked if he would give medical treatement to somebody without papers, he said he would.

As a nation, we are moving towards having a national i.d. card. Resistance to the idea has waned in the face of terrorism. I can forsee a day, soon, when any person can be stopped at any time, and have to produce proof of identity. Although I'm sure Barnett would argue that his proposal does no such thing, I fear it is another step down that path.

Barnett looks you right in the eye. He says "I'm not a politician." For the record, he talks like a politician, walks like a politician, shakes hands like a politician, and thinks like a politician.

Foley: Hysteria or Hype?

2006-10-06T07:29:00.000-05:00

I must confess, I chortled with glee when I first heard about Representative Foley's resignation, and the reasons for it.

"Leaders" in Congress and the talking heads on Fox news blame the democrats and ABC news for Foley's troubles. The democrats are to blame? Those antics make it hard to keep a smile off my lips.

But a more thoughtful response might put Foley into perspective.

Let us note: he did not take bribes from contractors working on Iraqi reconstruction; he did not (as far as we know) take money and favors from the crooked lobbyist Jack Abramoff; he did not order troops into battle or start any preventitive wars.

In fact, no body fluids were actually exchanged.

Not that I condone sexual messages from an adult to a minor, far from it. But I'm not going to froth at the mouth over it, either.

On the grand scale of outrages, this hardly registers. My concerns are the increasing concentration of wealth and widening pool of poverty in this nation. I worry about the 8,000 kids in my town who go to bed hungry every night. I worry about friends and acquaintances who, despite having good insurance, cannot afford life-sustaining medicines.

Every single day we waste time focused on this scandal, we are not focused on the men and women fighting and dying in Iraq. Every hour we worry over some instant message to a 16 year-old, is an hour not spent pursuing the billions of dollars being stolen from the United States and Iraq by crooked contractors; each minute of airtime spent castigating the Speaker of the House is a minute spent not working to end the genocide in Darfur.

Foley did wrong; he resigned, he's in treatment and under FBI investigation.

Lets move on to truly important issues.

Did Al Qaeda or Bush Start the War in Afghanistan?

2006-10-03T05:40:00.000-05:00

A reader says, "I was under the impression that Al Qaeda started the war in Afghanistan. Something about crashing jetliners into skyscrapers." This in response to my statement that, "The new, 21st Century Republicans started two wars, Afghanistan and Iraq."

Thanks for taking the time to comment on my blog. You have a legitimate point to make, though I feel you could have made it better.

If I took your comment at face value, it would be like saying "Oklahoma declared war on the United States when Tim McVeigh blew up 195 of our people." But I will try to respect what you meant.

Given the tolerance the Taliban had for Osama and his minions, the case for going to war in Afghanistan was pretty strong. That being said, it's crystal clear that the Taliban is not the same thing as Afghanistan; and, of course, Osama and his followers are not native to that country. If we are to win, we must be clear about the facts and not blur important distinctions for the sake of scoring rhetorical points. Neither Afghanistan nor the Afghan people attacked the United States.

I urge you to think, write and speak clearly, long-term and strategically; our enemies do.

Try thinking through the purpose and operation of terrorism. It is not simply a blind outpouring of hatred; it has its own "think tanks," sophisticated logic and ideology. The September 11th attack proves the danger of underestimating the enemy.

We chose our response to the attack on September 11, and we chose war. We could have responded by narrowly focusing on Al Qaeda, the gang that instigated the attack. Instead, we invaded. Given the facts on the ground, that is, that a narrow retaliation like the cruise missle strike Clinton ordered during his term would most likely fail, war to rout the Taliban and Al Qaeda was logical.

Of course, from a larger, strategic perspective, the issue is more problematic. One of the certain consequences of war is to make more enemies. This calculation, incidentally, is the logic that drives genocides.

The purpose of terror tactics, briefly, is not merely to strike terror in the heart of the enemy. In fact, history shows that a people's resolve is strengthened during a struggle; so long as hope of eventual victory remains, people will keep on fighting. No, the purpose of terror is to provoke an overwhelming and disproportionate response that harms innocents. The aggrieved innocents then become the enemies of the one struck by terror, and allies of the terrorists. This is why the national intelligence estimate says that the war in Iraq has actually made us less safe.

We must understand history, politics and look at how other movements have succeeded or failed. Our enemies do. At this point, it would be most illuminating to examine the French experience in Algeria. (Here: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PBZ/is_4_85/ai_n15674586)

I think it is important that we explore whether or not agreement on the facts is possible as part of working together towards making us and the world safer.

So, yes, there is a sense in which you can say Al Qaeda started the war; just as you can say the United States fell into the trap and continues to respond according to Osama's plan.

Mayans

2006-10-01T23:54:00.000-05:00

(Note the photo is a link to a larger version of the image.)

These guys are actually descended from the ancient Mayans. They dress up for the tourists and strike a pose as part of the show put on at Xcaret.

The show features these guys, barefoot and barelegged, playing hockey with, literally, balls of fire. The wooden balls are about the size of a basketball, and have been soaked in some flammable liquid. The guys slap the ball hard enough to send if flying across an 80 meter or so long arena. Sometimes the ball shatters in a shower of sparks and flaming shards. The arena has a stone floor, and seats maybe five thousand or so. The games and show are way cool - highly recommended.

They also play a traditional game with a heavy leather ball. In this game, only the hips can contact the ball. A sideways stone hoop is mounted on the wall; the first team to get the ball through the hoop wins.

The Mayans were playing these sports and building a high civilization at about the time of Plato and Aristotle. I seldom think of any ancient civilzation as very advanced other than our own ancient European ancestors, but that's a bad habit.

Vacationing With Cancer

2006-09-25T21:06:00.000-05:00

My friend Dawn battles stage four kidney cancer. She fights it every day that she gets up and goes to work. She fights it when she comes home and cooks for her son. She fights it when she insists the doctors give her a second opinion.

She fights her cancer with dignity and determination.

(In the photo at left, we see Dawn with a hat made from a cloth napkin.)

Some time ago, Jane and I laid plans to travel up to Canada in July. A nice vacation to get away from the heat of what we thought might be an unusually hot summer. Our children wanted to visit Chicago on the way; I have never seen Niagra Falls. But when we learned of Dawn's diagnosis, we reconsidered.

Dawn had never been to the Carribean; never been in waters so clear you can see fifty feet; never had a vacation that didn't require at least a few chores each day; never been snorkling; and never had done many things we thought she would enjoy. So Jane and I invited her and her son to accompany us to a beach resort in Mexico, south of Cancun. At the resort, literally everything would be done for her and provided for her; all meals were included, full maid service, room service, entertainment, beach activities, etc., etc.

She could hardly contain her excitement.

Though I worried about whether her health would hold, it gave Jane and me a lot of satisfaction. As Jane said, this trip gave Dawn something else to live for.

We cancelled our Canadian reservations and made arrangements to travel to Playa del Carmen.

When our closest friends learned of our plans, they wanted to come, too. One of our friends stepped up and paid a share of the cost of taking Dawn and her son.

Nine of us flew to Cancun at the end of July. Our flights went well. Dawn, in a wheelchair, moved our party to the head of various lines. We received extra help from the airlines and at the airports. We got a chuckle out of the helpers in the Cancun airport who assumed that Dawn and our single gay friend were married.

Funny how things work out. Dawn gets comfort and relief from an herbal tea she brews at home. Since the rooms at the resort lacked any kind of cooking facility but did have mini-fridges, she brewed up some in advance. The tea, packed in a cloth cooler and surrounded by frozen water bottles, survived as a carry-on quite well. Of course, only a week after our return home all carry-on liquids were banished.

We went to the beach or the swimming pool or both every day. The weather remained perfect for us all week long, never raining and never getting as hot as it was back home. The ocean waves helped with Dawn's arthritis, and she was getting around better when we left than when we arrived.

We went to the ruins and the world-class beach at Tulum; we toured the fabulous eco-park at Xcaret; in short, we had a wonderful vacation.

What does it mean, to vacation with cancer? What is it like, to think the time left might be only months and not years? Of course, what cancer brings with it is immediate awareness of mortality. But are we not all mortal? Do we not all choose how to ration our days? Dawn's example teaches us to make these choices carefully; to spend time with friends and loved ones; to do that which matters and forsake that which doesn't.

Her example teaches us to rely on God for sustaining strength.

Dawn gets around with a walker now, and continues to fight for her life. She works every day, and does what she can for charity and to help others. She also continues to plan for the future; she knows who she wants to conduct her funeral services.

In her quiet, determined way, Dawn shows us how to be worthy.

Republican Angst

2006-09-19T18:56:00.000-05:00

Many of my very best friends are Republicans. For some reason, they don't talk politics much these days.

My friends, sensible, reliable, people you would be glad to have in your home, grew up on a Republican party that stood for high moral values. The party they supported stood for fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility, small government, and maximum personal freedom. They were from the proud tradition of Abraham Lincoln.

Theirs was not the pro-torture, pro-secret prisons party the Republicans have become. Their party would never have openly advocated the general suspension of civil liberties. Their party, somewhat isolationist, would never have supported a "pre-emptive" war.

I remember being told by a staunch Republican friend in the 1980's that the Democrats always got us into wars. After all, a Democrat held the presidency at the outbreak of both World Wars, the Korean War and Vietnam. Well, no longer.

The new, 21st Century Republicans started two wars, Afghanistan and Iraq. The 21st Century Republican party presided over the largest increases in federal spending in history. The 21st Century Republican party vastly expanded the reach and scope of federal government intrusion into the private lives of all of us.

My Republican friends don't talk politics much anymore. But they still vote.

Osama & George Bush - BFF

2006-09-15T18:29:00.000-05:00

The president speaks the name of his best friend forever (BFF) quite often these days. He talks about how dangerous Osma bin Laden is, what a great threat Osama is, how Osama wants to murder our families.

If Osama is so dangerous, Mr. President, why is he still at large? Where are the resources, the money and manpower, needed to capture him?

Well, we knew he was in Afghanistan, so we invaded and now we own the responsibility for the world's prime source of opium. But we let Osama get away. Why and how is that?

And, instead of chasing him, we invaded Iraq. Why, Mr. President, why?

Why did you dismantle the CIA unit charged with finding him?

Now, five years later, Osama the bogeyman is trotted out as evidence we need to continue the policies of wars and invasions.

In a rational universe, his continued freedom would instead be taken as evidence of incompetence. He is the world's most wanted man; he has been for five years. Yet he is still free. In what warped perception can that be taken as proof of efficiency and effectiveness? How can that be used to claim we should continue with more of the same?

When I was in ROTC, they pounded a few very simple messages into my head. "Don't exploit failure," they repeated. It means do not continue to squander men and wealth in futile operations that have been shown not to work. This particular piece of military logic applies to all aspect of life, but especially to war.

Osama used modern technology, which gives great power to individuals; a mere 19 men struck on September 11. Yet they caused the kind of damage that formerly took a whole army of enemies.

What would be the proper reaction to a blow dealt by an "army" of 19 men? (We used to call them "gangs," but now that seems hardly appropriate.) The president decided the proper reaction was to marshall our own armies of and invade foreign nations. We now have over one hundred thousand troops in Iraq.

In what reality is it smart to react to sporadic attacks by a few dozen individuals with bombs dropped on the families of ten thousand innocents? What do we gain, other than whole hosts of new enemies?

In what cruel world did the United States, the "last, best hope of mankind" become the sponsor of secret prisons, indefinite confinement without trial, and torture?

The nation I grew up in was a nation of high moral standards and the best conduct in foreign affairs. It was a nation that followed the golden rule in international politics.

My father, a career Army officer, a former golden gloves boxer, taught me to never strike the first blow in a fight. But this is exactly what the president's doctrine of "preventative war" is all about. The president's notion that we should hit them first was condemned by every major religious group, every Christian denomination in the world except one. (The Southern Baptist.)

Osma is the president's best friend because he can be trotted out as justification for all the mistakes and all the atrocities committed in the name of the American people. Osama is the president's best friend because only Osama can save the Republican party.

Kansas AG to Stump from the Pulpit

2006-09-13T19:11:00.000-05:00

According to an internal campaign memo written by Phill Kline, published in Monday's Lawrence Journal-World, the Kansas Attorney General plans to campaign for re-election from the pulpits of various "conservative"churches. He tells his staff to "Get me in their pulpits."

In his memo, the AG also discussed plans to "Get the pastor to invite 5 money people, whom he knows can help."

Of course lawyer Kline knows a church cannot maintain tax-exempt status if it allows fundraising on the premises or actual campaigning from the pulpit. What I do not understand why the churches aren't worried about their tax-exempt status; the law so very plainly prohibits a church from endorsing a candidate.

That's why Kline will likely avoid direct electioneering during his "sermon" and will probably meet prospective contributors offsite.

One has to wonder - will the meetings discuss Jesus's concerns about the poor and needy; or the wants of those who, in Kline's words, "... can drop $1,000 to $2,000."

The thought of a candidate campaigning for office from a Christian pulpit, or any pulpit, makes my skin crawl.

You can call it a "dirt removal implementation device" but it's still a spade. And a stump speech is still a stump speech, even when given from a pulpit.

More Work at Low Pay Increases Household Income

2006-08-31T23:40:00.000-05:00

The Census Bureau released a report Tuesday with a positive spin, noting that income in most US households rose for the first time since 1999. Other data in the report shows that the rise in income results from taking on part-time jobs, not real increases in hourly wages.

"A rising tide lifts all boats," lost all meaning some time ago. Of course, the economy is not an ocean tide, an information system, a price structure nor anything other than a socially constructed system of agreements on the production and distribution of the material goods of life. All such systems evolve to increase the benefit of the rule makers to the detriment of everyone else; which evolution seems to be accelerating in our country over the last few years.

We can take little comfort from the increase in real income detailed by the Census Bureau report. Instead, the brazen attempt to put lipstick on this pig fills me with revulsion. Bad enough that the children of the poor often live in environments hostile to healthy families; now we see the parents of poor children forced to take on second jobs just to survive.

Coupled with the large increase in the uninsured population, the total picture is one of increasing social inequality.

Rumsfeld & Rhetorical Errors

2006-08-31T21:04:00.000-05:00

The Washington Post yesterday said "Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld warned yesterday that "moral and intellectual confusion" over the Iraq war and the broader anti-terrorism effort could sap American willpower and divide the country, and he urged renewed resolve to confront extremists waging "a new type of fascism."

The ancient rhetorical tactic of attacking one's opposition in lieu of their arguments was identified centuries ago and given a Latin name, ad hominem. Beginning students of rhetoric and logic learn to recognize this fallacy in first-year classes.

Rumsfeld is further quoted as saying, "Any kind of moral and intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong can severely weaken the ability of free societies to persevere." So, his argument appears to mean that free and open debate will lead to our conquest by the enemies of free and open debate, thus ending free and open debate.

I guess we can no longer blog for fear of bringing down Western civilization.

Asked to name the morally and intellectually confused enemies of free and open debate, Rumsfeld flamed out, unable to come up with even a single example.

Well, Mr. Secretary, I humbly submit that you should spend some quality time in front of a mirror.

Of Gutters and Murder

2006-08-27T20:46:00.000-05:00

His father was murdered.

C.J.,the little boy in this picture, plays with water pistols while his sister strikes a pose. His father just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The family tells me he never hurt anyone, he was a harmless man tied up in nasty business.

C.J.'s mom works for the postal service.

I borrowed the photo from the grandmother of the kids, a woman I work closely with. Connie is blessed with a sharp mind and a kind heart. I often seek her help with puzzling questions of the application of law and regulations. She is white; her former husband was black; by the illogic of race relations, that makes the grandchildren black.

Whenever I would visit Connie in her cubicle, this photograph would catch my eye. Something about it disturbed me deeply.

It was not Imani, looking pretty and happy in the yard. And God help me, the fact that C.J.'s father was murdered didn't really hit me emotionally. I regret the man's fate in a sort of general, abstract way. Like something that happened in a foreign country, far, far away.

Incidentally, the family lives in Kansas City, Mo. Last year, that city experienced 120 homicides. Adjoining Johnson County, Kan., with roughly the same population, had a total of 10 murders in 2005. Of course, in Kansas City, virtually all the victims were black.

No, the gutter torn from the back of the house bothered me. You can see it hanging off the house in the picture, right behind C.J.'s head. The angle artfully echos Imani's pose.

In the last few years I've put gutters on three houses. The new, plastic materials make the job relatively easy, well within the reach of even a rank amatuer like myself.

I have no reason to think that C.J.'s father would have fixed the gutter, and no reason to think he would not. Connie told me that, before the murder, he had started to do things around the house. I knew after the murder, no one would fix it any time soon.

Connie told me about water problems at the house where her grandkids lived. I told her if she would pay for materials, I'd fix the gutters for free.

So, on a warm day a few years ago, I headed off to the builder's supply store and bought all the materials I'd need. I lashed them to the roof of my ancient Aerostar minivan, along with my 32' and 16' ladders, and off I went.

Once at the house, I unloaded the gutters, downspouts, nails and other stuff. I set the long ladder up at the corner of the house. The angle was less than ideal, and the ladder's feet sat on very damp soil. But I charged right up anyway, eager to get to work.

A moment after I reached the top, the ladder slid down and I landed on top of it. Stunned, I paused for a moment. My chin bled profusely and my shin hurt like the devil. After a moment, I picked myself up and went inside.

Connie gave me bandaids and tylenol. I waited to see if the bleeding would stop, but it didn't. I wanted to finish what I had come to do, but I started feeling weak and lightheaded. I decided to go home.

I drove slowly, across the state line, a drive of about 40 minutes on I-435. I left an area of smaller homes and somewhat unkept yards and arrived in my neighborhood of big houses on immaculately groomed lots. From one-car garages and torn gutters to three car garages and lawn services.

The rest of my family was at church for some social activity. I showered and put on fresh clothes and band aids, then I joined them.

As I was eating my pizza, my wife came and found me. "Someone told me you were here, and you are bleeding."

"I am?" I asked.

"Don't you think you should go see the doctor?"

"Oh, I guess so."

So I called the doctor and they sent me to the ER. I got 12 stitches in my chin and 13 in my shin. I went home and parked myself in front of the tv.

A few weeks later I called Tony, a pal at work. He agreed to help me fix the gutters, so long as he did not have to climb the ladders.

We met over at the house on a week-end morning and went to work. Tony held the ladder and watched what I was doing. He helped me think through the work and kept me from making some mistakes. After working most of the afternoon, we were done. About five hours of work.

The black spot on my shin is long gone, but I still have a little scar on my chin to remind me not to take on too big a project on my own.

And now, when I look at the picture of Imani and C.J., the hanging gutter does not bother me.

In Memory of Abigail: June 20 - July 7, 2006

2006-08-13T23:30:00.000-05:00

The infant cradled in my arms would never know love. She could not cry; could not suffer pain or hunger; could not see or hear.

Two weeks earlier, almost two months ago now, Abigail entered the world with no heartbeat. She did not breathe. Doctors labored heroically to revive her, to no avail. The death certificate was signed.

Then someone noticed her trying to breathe.

Jane and I, not knowing, were on our way to work. Our friend Sunny called "What are you doing?" she asked.

"Going to work," Jane said.

"Pray for my baby."

We headed immediately over to the hospital. Sunny lay in the maternity ER, suffering. The baby's father, J.P., stood close by her side. Family and friends surrounded her.

After some time, the staff wheeled in an incubator on a small cart. Little Abigail, pale and beautiful and still, appeared. She was to be whisked off to Children's Mercy hospital, where she would receive the highest level of care. But she paused in her journey long enough for her mother to touch her. Then Abigail and her attendants left.

Premature separation of the placenta from the wall of the uterus occurs in about one in every 120 pregnancies. In many cases, the baby remains unharmed by a partial separation; even with only half of the placenta working; a sufficient supply of oxygen still passes from the mother to the baby. In Abigail's case, most or the entire placenta tore off the uterine wall without warning, suddenly ripping away for no apparent reason. Starved of oxygen, her brain cells began to fail.

When I visited Abigail a few days later, in the neo-natal intensive care unit, I found the signs of encouragement I wanted to see. She appeared to respond to the sound of my voice. Her tiny hand clasped mine with a firm grip. Despite the disturbing way her eyes rolled around, I took away hope she would improve.

But tests performed a few days after birth confirmed our worst fears. Abigail's brain showed virtually no signs of normal function. The doctors said she would have constant seizures and gave her medicines to mitigate the electrical storms raging in her skull.

Sunny, J.P. and Pastor Jan from St. Paul's arranged for Abigail's baptism into Christianity to be performed at the hospital. And, the Sunday after she was born, in a large room that looked like an OR, surrounded by the love of family and friends, Abigail was baptized.

The following Sunday, she went home with her mother.

Abigail turned two weeks old on the Fourth of July. Family and friends gathered in her mother's home to wish her well. We took turns holding her. As I looked on the perfect, sleeping infant in my arms, I found it difficult to think about her spirit. Though I knew that, with no brain function there would be no mind, I found it hard to believe she was anything less than a whole, perfect human being. Though my own mind told me I held an empty shell, my heart refused to accept it.

No, if her soul had ever been present, it had left before I ever got a chance to hold her.

As human beings, we often confuse wishful thinking with hope. We grab hold of the slightest flimsy excuses to justify our heart's desire, and run with them, telling ourselves our wishes will come true.

We easily fall into the traps of cliche and empty headed repetitions of piety when faced with immediate, personal tragedy. We say "Everything happens for a purpose," and then proceed to construct our own reasons why the conclusion came as it did.

I know Abigail strengthened the bond between her parents. She did the same for Jane and me, and perhaps other friends and family. She reminded me of my own blessings, chief among which are my daughters.

But if that was Abigail's true purpose, the price was too high. The loss outweighed the gain. I can only imagine some of the pain her mother and father feel; at some point, imagination recoils and will go no further.

Here we see the defects of cliched piety. The pain of this suffering cannot be justified by anything we understand. And exactly what do we understand?

I turn to the understanding in the book of Job. I find myself thinking about it a lot. Job, though a righteous man, suffers mightily. He complains to his friends at length, and finally, to God. His complaints are well founded. But God does not justify His actions. He responds to Job in some of the most poetic language of the Bible: "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand." (Job 38:4)

Well, this answer is no answer. It explains nothing. God is God and we are not. God understands what He understands, and we do not. God does not justify Himself to us.

Even with limited human understanding, we can replace wishful thinking with genuine hope. We can face the real world, as it actually is, with clear eyes, and a calm and steady gaze. Sunny and J.P. endure, and in the midst of tragedy, they make plans for the future.

Abigail died at home Friday, July 7th.

On a very stormy Tuesday evening, July 11th, over eighty, perhaps over a hundred people came to visit Abigail and her family. As we drove to the funeral home, a rainbow struggled to appear in the East.

Led by Pastor Jan, we prayed together, commending the spirit of the infant to God.

Abigail lay by herself in a small room, away from the crowd of friends and family gathered in the larger room nearby. She looked pale and peaceful. She wore a white crotched cap and dress; beads around her neck strung together just for her; a grandfather's rosary at her feet. Ever so gently, I touched her tiny hand. Then we left.

As we drove away, rainbows stretched across the sky, under torn curtains of black and gray clouds. The rainbows reminded all of us of God's promises of renewal and hope. I, for one, could think about little else.

Every normal human being shares a heritage with his or her fellows. We occupy the time between birth and death with hopeful activities, striving to fully realize the promises within each of us. Our maker built us just so, giving us certain needs. We observe the same details of our nature whether or not we credit God, evolution or God-guided evolution with our design.

We never exist alone. We live in community. This is how we are made.

Our communities lift us up; they sustain us. Our families and friends share our joys thereby multiplying them. When we share our grief, it divides.

I also believe we find the greatest happiness and serenity when we embrace faith in God. When we choose to trust God, we find courage to endure the suffering that life inflicts on us. We do more than merely endure; we rise up out of the ashes with hope. This is how we are made.

Fluffy white clouds drifted in blue Midwest skies on the day of the funeral; the air purified by the rampaging thunderstorms of the night before. The tiny pastel casket came to rest on a grassy hill; bells rang in the distance.

Towards the end of the service, individuals took one of several dozen balloons and walked to an open space. As they handed out the balloons, a single green one escaped. It climbed quickly out of sight. A minute later, three dozen or so pink, green, white and yellow balloons took off together.

I could not help but think about April 19, 2005. Then, with a mere handful of friends, I released a balloon into the air in memory of children taken too soon. This time, I just watched.

The human condition requires us to know grief. Sooner or later, each and every one of us faces irrevocable loss. But our endowment includes the capacity to choose our response to grief. We can allow ourselves to fully experience it, and then to move on. Or we can make a vain attempt to avoid it. This is how we are made.

The weight of our burdens lightens when we choose to share them with God. This is how we are made.

Many people choose not to believe in God, choose to deny Him and therefore cannot trust in Him. They require external proof, as if it makes sense to require proof of the transcendent. By their understanding, that is the wiser path. But what a lonely, empty path; everything reduced to matter and matter in motion. Is this how we are made?

The choice, really, is one of choosing how to live. One can seek to live only by philosophically, logically justified beliefs, or not. To me, the choice is between an ultimately sterile, barren, meaningless existence; or a life worth living.

Whatever other purposes the life of Abigail served, she challenged us to hold on to our faith. She teaches us about hope, and about God. She shows us the way. This is how we are made.

Becoming a Force for Good

2006-06-22T17:18:00.000-05:00

Like, I imagine, most people, I have bumbled and stumbled my way through life, preoccupied with various petty concerns and no sense of purpose. Unlike most, I often looked up, wondered why; but then I returned to my focus on me, myself and I. Never, in my wildest imaginings, did I think of myself as doing much for others.

No, I could never identify with those do-gooders giving away years of their lives helping others. Peace Corps - ick! Wiping the eyes of a half-starved, African child - no way. Going places that might smell bad - not for me.

I always thought of myself as a strange little man with passions that mattered to no one else. Though I sought out people like professors of philosophy and members of Mensa, I encountered few who really cared about the same things I did.

Nearly every guy I ever met really wanted to avoid talking about anything of even remote interest. Sports, cars and bragging about girls filled their heads, with an occasional movie, TV show, or work related topic for seasoning.

Every female I knew then engaged in the forensics of other's private relationships; they brought considerable analytical prowess to parsing who dated who, and why; who wore what, when, and for what reason; what celebrity committed which minor or major offense; and so forth.

Alas, baby pictures bored me. Stories about kids put me to sleep.

The things that interested me then and now are like - How and why do things really work? No, really exactly, completely and fully how: be specific, detailed, and carefully justify your answer.

For as long as I can remember, I knew the first story explaining most anything, the first notion that's planted in the ordinary mind, grows like a giant weed and crowds out any new growth. But the full story blooms only after careful tending to the garden of ideas. Try it again: how do things really work? I want details. No, really, lots of exact details. (See prior posts below.)

In addition to a passion for detail, I also crave "big picture" understanding. Why do things work? Why be good? What kind of life is most worth living?

But my horizons as a young man, for myself, were limited to what I could see close about me. My wife, my child, my job, my house, my debts - my, me, mine. My ego.

But somehow, as time passed, I began to take a genuine interest in other people. I started to enjoy looking at photos of other people's kids. I started listening more.

Like most people, I still work, I have a family, I take pleasure in television comedies, wine, cigars (though not often), music, museums, travel, etc.

But unlike others, one fine fall day a few years ago, as I drove with the top down to give a speech, it occurred to me that I had become a force for good. My speech that day persuaded people to give money to charity. In the space of six weeks, with a lot of help, I raised over $400,000.00.

Whoa!

A huge sum for a guy with absolutely no rich friends. For the donors, all ordinary working people, the money represented actual sacrifices.

Now, I find myself teaching Sunday school. I find myself leading prayers. I find myself helping people through crises. I find myself an authority figure, not just to my own children, but to other adults.

I find myself puzzled, wondering what happened. How did a typical, self-centered guy change to become a little less self-centered, a little more giving?

No longer a sponge, soaking up the good given by others, I now produce more blessings than I consume. How did that happen?

True believers will point to my faith, and say it changed me. Could be.

At this point in life, I find my self happier and more productive most days than I've ever been. I'm much nicer now than ever.

Too bad it took so long to reach this point.

Personal Reflection on Father's Day - 2006

2006-06-17T12:30:00.000-05:00

A few days ago, my wife asked me what I wanted for Father's day. Alas, what I truly want the most, she cannot give me.

I told her that I already had all the material things any man could want.

And I do: a nice home, fun old convertible to drive, etc, etc; I already own what people the world over are striving to get.

But she cannot make me more generous and loving; she cannot reduce my ego or make me less self-centered. She cannot stop me from worrying or teach me to trust in God.

She can, and has helped me to become a better person. She can point out those things that I am blind to; things I want to see and understand but never think of.

I am a son and a father and a grandfather. Though I understand the flaws I inherited, and the mistakes I passed on to my son, I cannot place blame or fault others for my own defects as a person.

The sad truth is that I don't really enjoy my parents that much; neither do I feel all that deeply attached to them. I call them out of a sense of duty, and listen to them; I guess my gift to them is attention. My father always thanks me at the end of every call; my mother's love for me shines through every conversation. The fact that I don't enjoy talking with them just makes me feel guilty.

My own son calls me from time to time; he is 25 years old now, with a wife and children of his own. Over the last few years, I gave him money from time to time, as he experienced various crises. The very last time he asked, I said no. What's more, I didn't feel all that badly about it. He didn't call me for three months. As if I needed further proof that I am a shallow person, I really didn't miss hearing from him all that much. He always yells at his kids a lot when he's on the phone with me; I don't really enjoy listening to him.

However, I do delight in my two daughters who live at home. The older daughter, well on her way to becoming a lovely young woman, is a modest but self-assured girl. She does well in school, helps around the house, does not complain overmuch and generally behaves very well. My youngest child - let's just say she shares many of my personality flaws. I do so enjoy, however, going to her soccer games.

My friend "Ralph" puts his children above all other things. His one wish is always to do as well as he can for his kids. He devotes himself to them.

Frankly, I'm not so sure that's wholly good or healthy. Our children are reflections of ourselves; they are proxies we send into the future. By subsuming ourselves in them, do we not build monuments to our own egos? In as much as they carry on our genetic endowment, are not engaged in a form of self-worship when we make them the goal of our lives?

Of course, each child is far more than a mere shadow of her parent. Perhaps these thoughts come to me as justification for my own inability to shake off the rule of my own ego. I admit I haven't spent my days and nights wholly devoted to even my beloved daughters. I watch TV, read, or play on the computer instead of engaging them. I sporadically harass them about homework and chores, to little effect. Sometimes I play with them. Not as much as they would like, I suppose.

I must regard myself as a work in progress, not a finished product. I pray that I continue to improve; and thank God for the changes He has wrought so far.

The easiest writing for Father's Day would get all warm and fuzzy and mushy in a vaguely impersonal way. The second easiest, at least for me: commentary on the obvious ironic, oblivious, massively insensitive cultural contradictions inherent in an American Father's Day.

Instead, I served up a tiny fragment of my actual self.

Now, my Father's Day wish: That, not only I, but all men, become the kind of sons, Fathers and Grandfathers that the Father of us all would have us be.

Shrinking Enrollments Challenge SMSD

2006-06-06T19:48:00.000-05:00

The Shawnee Mission School District (SMSD) faces a two-fold financial challenge: declining enrollments and a politically distorted, state administered financing formula. This paper will examine the implications of this challenge for the financial condition and the policies of the Shawnee Mission School District

On May 9, 2006, the Kansas Legislature passed a school finance bill which will present a significant challenge to the SMSD. The bill passed in the house on a 66-54 vote[1], with all 22 Johnson County legislators opposed. All the Johnson County senators also voted "Nay" when the upper chamber passed the bill.

Kansas School Finance Basics

Kansas primary and secondary education is funded through the state. The state sets an amount of money paid to each district for each full time student or equivalent (FTE) enrolled on September 20 of the previous school year. The school's FTE is adjusted by a complex formula which takes into account ten factors impacting costs. The distribution of funds was held by the state Supreme Court to violate the state constitution, which requires the provision of an adequate education.

The state funds basically come from a 20 mill levy on property[2].

Added to the money provided by the state are funds generated under a "Local Option Budget" (LOB). The LOB is capped by the state legislature, at 27% for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). The cap is based on general fund budget provided by BSAPP. For example, in Shawnee Mission, the FY06 general fund budget was $147 million; 27% was $39.8 million. Thus the FY06 LOB authority was capped at $39.8 million. The bill passed a few days ago increases the cap to 30% in FY07 and 31% in FY08.

Under current rules, the state compensates districts with low assessed property valuations who adopt LOBs. Supplemental general state aid ensures no district LOB will be based on less than 81% of the statewide average assessed valuation per pupil. Thus, no district's LOB can rise more than 19% above any other district in the state.[3] If the cap were removed, increases in LOBs by wealthier districts would doubtless put even more pressure on the state school finance budget because of the equalization provision.

The district also receives a small amount of money from a ¼ cent sales tax in that applies to Johnson County. The "economic development" tax passed in 2002, with money divided among the school districts, county and cities. The cities receive 36% of the revenue generated; a portion of the county's 64% share is given to the school districts in the form of grants. SMSD received $5.3 million from this source in 2004.[4]

Effect on Shawnee Mission School Finances

The bill provides for a $236.00 increase in the "Base State Aid Per Pupil" (BSAPP) for 2006-2007 (FY07) for the district under the formula over the previous year (FY06). The BSARPP is set at $4,316, an increase of $59 over FY06. Adjustments to the FTE for FY06 meant the district's operating revenue was $5,293.44 per student. Thus, the adjusted BSARPP income will be $5,529.43 in FY07, an increase of 4.3%, if enrollment remained stable at 27,874.9.

In fact, enrollment in the district has declined significantly over the last few years, and is projected to decline in the future. District superintendent Marjorie Kaplan said that the increase, coupled with local option funds, would amount to $14.7 million for the district with last September's enrollment. However, with the projected decline in enrollment, the increase is much more likely to be about $1 million less.[5]

Falling Enrollment

The district has had to cope with falling enrollment almost since its very inception. A peak of 45,702 students attended in 1970. In 1974, the district operated 51 elementary schools, 10 junior high schools and 5 high schools. SMSD closed 19 schools over the last 35 years[6]. In recent times, headcount for FY05 was 28,522; for FY00, it was 31,238[7].

Even though headcounts continue to decline along with operating funds based on BSAPP, fixed costs move in the opposite direction. For the Kansas City area as a whole, the Consumer Price Index increased by 4.4% in 2005.[8]

The loss of enrollment, spread as it is over dozens of facilities, does not admit of easy solutions. With student teacher ratios of 15:1, a loss of about 450 students should mean 30 fewer teachers would be needed across the district. This would translate to less than one teacher per school. In practice, the difficulties of eliminating a single instructor position in a particular school can lead to unacceptable results.

If a hypothetical school had three fourth grade classes of 15 students each, and attempted to reduce to two positions, the likely result would be two classes of about 22 students each.

This difficulty can be over overcome by pursuing a strategy of building new schools and consolidating older, smaller facilities. Since the successful bond election of 2004, the district has pursued exactly that strategy[9].

Likely Court Challenge

As noted above, the Johnson county delegation unanimously opposed the bill funding schools for the next three years. The Kansas Supreme Court determined the prior school finance plan violated the state constitution in two ways; first, it failed to provide for an adequate education; second, "... the ways in which vastly differing amounts of resources are distributed across Kansas school districts are "politically distorted" and "not cost-based.""[10] One representative said, "... Johnson County has 18 percent of the state's students and will contribute 30 percent of the tax revenue to pay for the $466 million plan. The county's schools will receive only about 8 percent of the $194 million first-year state aid total."[11]

The state Supreme Court, in a supplemental opinion to its ruling on Montoy v. State of Kansas, ordered the legislature to conduct a study of the cost of providing an adequate education to the primary and secondary students in the state.[12] The resulting study shows substantially more money than the legislature appropriated would be required to fully fund an adequate education in Kansas.[13]

In view of the remaining political distortion and the inadequacy of the amounts provided, additional court action, possibly the appointment of a special master, appears likely.

Chief Recommendations

Continue to build new schools and consolidate old facilities. The district's policy in this regard represents sound planning in the face of declining enrollments.

Prepare updated briefs to file with the state supreme court. According to a private e-mail from Mr. Tim Rooney, the district's finance director, SMSD filed a "Friend of the Court" brief in the Montoy case. Since future court action is at least possible, and is actually probable, SMSD should be ready to make sure the court is fully apprised of the district's views.

Continue to lobby for local control of locally generated funds. Almost half the levy of 42 mills in the district, 20 mills, goes to the state and the district has no control over these funds. In addition, the Local Option Budget (LOB) remains capped.

The use of local sales tax revenue for schools will likely be challenged in the future in the legislature. The district should continue to lobby for integrity of local sales tax.[14]

Additional Recommendations

Increase the visibility of the Shawnee Mission Educational Foundation as a public/private partnership. The foundation gives grants to individual teachers and schools for educational projects and equipment. The foundation is funded by private donations. Increased visibility and the promotion of a public/private partnership could result in additional money for the schools.

Market the school system so as to slow the decline in enrollment. There are an estimated 4,852 students enrolled in private elementary and secondary schools in Johnson County.[15] A study could be done to explore ways to bring some of those children back into the school system. Emphasizing the excellence of the product, the diversity and advanced nature of the districts programs, and the numbers who go on to graduate from college would very likely result in some home schooled or privately schooled students returning to the system. The matter should at least be studied for feasibility.

Study the effect of tuition assistance grants to boost enrollment from out-of-district. Such grants could be funded through the SMEF or other sources. A grant which resulted in cost sharing might bring students in for specific programs, such as the outstanding foreign language or culinary arts programs offered at South High School.

Conclusion

Existing policies to lobby Topeka and to present the district's views to the state Supreme Court are prudently being followed. The effort to increase local control over school budgets cannot worsen the district's situation even if the results have had limited success so far.

Intense opposition can be expected because the equalization requirements will force the state to ante up more money as LOBs increase. The legislature has proven that any form of tax increase is anathema; they have also directly challenged the court to make the tough decisions for them. However, the court has a reputation for being unpredictable.

Existing strategy of building new facilities and consolidating older schools is financially prudent and needs no modification, only careful monitoring. The long term effects of recent increases in gasoline prices, which appear to be permanent, remain to be seen. The higher transportation cost for private individuals may slow urban sprawl, increase density and thus affect enrollments in presently unforeseen ways.

Creative strategies to slow the decline in enrollments should be explored, such as marketing the schools. The district, like any successful enterprise, serves a specific customer base. The cost-effectiveness of various ideas to retain or even expand the customer base should be on the table.

A Personal Note

As a parent and taxpayer, my exploration of the district's finances leaves me with mixed feelings. I see the district as well run, with reasonable and prudent strategies in place to cope with the financial challenges of the present and foreseeable future. I feel angry at the legislature for shirking its responsibilities and failing the state's children. I remain hopeful the Supreme Court will remedy the situation, and that the children will get what they need.

[1] Kansas City Star, May 10, 2006. http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/14541804.htm

[2] Blue Valley School District "Understanding School Finance" Current Kansas School Finance Formula Glossary of Key Terms http://www.bluevalleyk12.org/SupportServices/downloads/
understandingschoolfinance.pdf
[3] Ibid.
[4] JoCoGov "Cover Stories" March, 2004: http://www.jocogov.org/coverStories/mar04.htm
[5] Kansas City Star, May 11, 2006. http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/
living/education/14549368.htm
[6] Inside Shawnee Mission Schools, spring 2005, vol. 13, issue 2. After Unification, Enrollment Still Counts, http://www.smsd.org/parents/
Documents/Inside/Spring2005.pdf
[7] Statistics from the Kansas State Board of Education: http://www.ksde.org/leaf/reports_and_publications/
enrollment_headcount/enrollment.htm
[8] KC Chamber of Commerce http://www.kcchamber.com/Resource/Index.asp?IdS=03320A-3679390&x=021%7C010&Id=392
[9] Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, 2005, p. ii. http://www.smsd.org/custom/
budgetfinance/CAFR/FY05CAFR.pdf
[10] Baker, Bruce D., Kansas Policy Review, vol. 27, no 2. December, 2005.
http://www.ku.edu/pri/publicat/
kpr/kprV27N2/kprV27N2A3.shtml
[11] Rep Pat Colloton, quoted in the Kansas City Star, May 10, 2006. http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/14541804.htm
[12] Monty v. State of Kansas, http://www.kscourts.org/kscases/
supct/2005/20050603/92032.htm
[13] "Cost Study Analysis Elementary and Secondary Education in Kansas: Estimating the Cost of K-12 Education Using Two Approaches Executive Study" January 2006, p.5. http://skyways.lib.ks.us/ksleg/KLRD/Publications/
Education_Cost_Study/Cost_Study_Summary.pdf
[14] Shawnee Mission School District Legislative Platform 2005: http://www.smsd.org/parents/Documents/LegPlatform05.pdf
[15] Private School Review: http://www.privateschoolreview.com/county_middle_schools/
stateid/KS/county/20091

Sowing the Wind

2006-06-05T12:23:00.000-05:00

Saturday was a sad day in the annals of the Presidency of the United States. The President embraced discrimination on the basis of identity. He threw his support to those who would limit human rights based on the accidents of birth and genetics.

The president saddened those of us who have faith in the intrinsic worth of human beings. He embraced a discriminatory constitutional amendment; discriminatory based on identity. But we believe morals and ethics concern action, not identity. What people do concerns us, not the endowment of DNA given to them by the creator.

Murder is wrong, regardless of the identities of the perpetrator and victim. It would be wrong to murder a black man, a homosexual, a mother, a Hutu, a Tutsi, a Serb, a Muslim, an Iranian, a Jew, a Christian, an Arab, a politician, or whomever, because it is the act of murder that is wrong, not the identity. And murder is wrong because it harms another human being.

People say attraction to members of the same sex is a choice; one supposes they would say they choose to be attracted to members of the opposite sex. As if, over coffee, one suddenly says to oneself, "I think I'll date only people of this or that sex." Evidence, as well as simple common sense, shows that homosexuality is no more a choice than blue eyes, red hair or brown skin. Homosexuals are not self-made; they are born the way they are. Believers in a just and merciful god must have faith that the choice was His, not ours.

God challenges us to deal with each other in justice and brotherhood. He requires that we have faith in Him, and through our faith, we learn to live together in community. God does not preach or teach hatred, fear, disgust, loathing or discrimination.

In the United States, we face many real and significant issues. Two wars occupy our troops, with daily violence in Iraq. And Iran pursues nuclear ambitions virtually unchecked, knowing the world's only superpower is stretched far to thin to challenge them on the battlefield. The Chinese own more and more of our debts. Decades of poor energy policy leaves us now highly dependant upon our enemies. Decades of barbaric, third world healthcare financing allowed medical costs to accelerate at double and triple the rate of inflation, so that now a cancer diagnosis often means bankruptcy. More and more citizens of the United States slide over the line into poverty every year, even as state governments slash public aid budgets. The looming debts of the United States government threaten to ruin prosperity for ourselves and future generations.

The president rightly identified the millions of undocumented people in the United States as a priority, and charted a wise policy. A moderate, reasoned policy opposed by his own base.

Now he announces this "protection of marriage" amendment. He proclaims the ancient, malleable institution of marriage in peril, and plans to freeze the form of marriage into a 1950's mold. All in the name of his god.

Mr. President, with all due respect, how can you take seriously the idea that the eternal institution of marriage, ordained by god, could possibly be threatened by mere human activity? How can you reconcile your belief that heterosexual serial monogamy is the only form of marriage approved of by god with the actual polygamous marriages blessed by god in scripture?

Perhaps the term "serial monogamy" needs some explanation. It means marriage of multiple male and female partners, but only in succession, one partner at any given time. (It could also be called "serial polygamy.") It means the actual form of marriage, as practiced in the United States, does not resemble the one-man, one-wife model this amendment is meant to protect.

Mr. President, how, exactly, are you threatened if two men pledge their loyalty to each other? Will this shorten your life by even one hour? Will it decrease the pleasure of your next meal? Will it cost your children more to drive to work? Will it place a young soldier in harm's way halfway around the world?

Mr. President, precisely how is society damaged if two women pledge an exclusive commitment, "forsaking all others?" Will the cost of educating our children increase? Will the jails fill up with felons convicted on petty drug charges? Will the poor receive even less than they get now? Will taxes for the wealthy go up? Will undocumented homosexuals pour over our borders, shouting "Casemosnos!"

Mr. President, I have friends who choose to unite and raise families, adopting children that would otherwise be raised in foster care or orphanages. Are these children harmed by being given loving homes? Or would they be harmed by an amendment outlawing the only homes they've ever known?

Mr. President, just how many wives did Abraham, David or Solomon have? Do you think god blessed their unions?

What do you think Paul meant when he wrote, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28)? Do you think he meant to exclude all people who are not white, middle-class heterosexuals?

Mr. President, even your friends are saying you take this stand, not on principle, but for mere political gain. By doing so, you again align yourself with people who cannot compromise. You again support the narrow, exclusive, views of a minority of Americans. You again champion the cause of extreme Christianists. If you help elect and re-elect these people, you will again face paralysis whenever you attempt to cajole moderation and reason from the Congress. These are the same people who oppose you on immigration in the House of Representatives. You do yourself no good by currying their favor. They are not interested in governance, only power and their own theocratic agendas.

Alas, reason that does not seek power gets no power. The only course left is to beg.

Therefore, Mr. President, I beg you; the people of the United Sates implore you, forget your concern with imaginary threats and petty political machinations. Pay attention to what's truly important. You have only a short time left in office - use your time wisely. Further the ends of human dignity and uphold the rights of individuals instead of increasing the power of the executive. Answer the cries for help from the most vulnerable of our own people, instead of the imaginary oppression felt by the rich. Steep yourself in reality; do not surround yourself with people who say only what you most want to hear.

Pursue justice, not party favor.

Seek peace, not war.

Beverly Garrett

2006-06-02T19:35:00.000-05:00

Today and in the coming days, I and hundreds of others mourn and will mourn the death of Beverly Garrett. She slowed her car on I-70 yesterday as authorities pulled another vehicle from a previous accident from the median. A tractor-trailer rig slammed into Beverly's car, apparently at full speed. Four women, all riding in the car, died. The truck continued knocking cars about like so many "billiard balls" as one witness said, until it finally came to rest on the other side of the interstate. Airlifted out, doctors at Columbia hospital in Missouri pronounced her dead.

Beverly could always be counted on to do the right thing, a rare quality.

I knew her in her role as union president and as co-chair of the Heart of America United Way. I thought of her as a friend, although not a close friend. She was someone I could ask for help whenever I needed it, and I would have been glad to return any favors. She certainly would have been welcome in my home. But we came from different worlds.

A few years ago, I asked her to visit my adult Sunday school class, and talk about ethics from a labor point of view. She told the class she grounded her morals and ethics on the Holy Bible; and the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. We shared that commonality, and it bridged the gulf between our two worlds.

She certainly stood out; a tall, imposing black woman with considerable presence and force of personality, she was in some ways the opposite of my suburban, homogenously white, professional and managerial Sunday school class.

Whether addressing several thousand volunteers on behalf of the United Way, or a single individual in the hall outside her office, she brought her sense of humor, love of life, and total commitment to all that's best to everything she did. She did more than talk about social justice, she fought for it on the front lines. She was a genuine bridge builder and an actual unifier, in her lived life as well as her words.

So it goes. All day long, I received e-mails with links to news stories about the accident. I heard many conversations in hushed tones. People who knew her well stood around and cried. Even members of top management appeared teary eyed; people who were often on the opposite side of Beverly the union leader.

Well, we will gather together soon to say our goodbyes. Black and white, union and management, Beverly will bring us together in community once last time.

Financial Condition Analysis of SMSD

2006-05-30T19:03:00.000-05:00

The Shawnee Mission School District (SMSD) is stable and prosperous. The district is highly successful in accomplishing its mission, and enjoys overwhelming support from the population it serves. The success of the district and the support it receives translates into taxpayer willingness to fund the district. The district has won every election for bond issues and tax increases since 1981. Residents strongly support bond issues to finance capital projects for the district. A bond issue passed in 1994 with a two-thirds approval margin. A similar issued passed again in 2004, with a similar margin.[1]

The district is located in Johnson County, Kansas. The county is generally recognized as the source of economic growth in Kansas.[2] Population in the county grew every year since at least 1980, from 270,269 to 2005's estimated 506,562.[3] However, despite county-wide growth, the district has seen declining enrollment for the last few years.[4] The assessed valuation in the county has also risen steadily, from $2718.9 million in 1992 to $6160.2 million in 2002.[5] The total assessed valuation of real property in the district was $2883.2 million for 2004,[6] an increase of $167 million from 2003.[7] The county's average job growth rate of 4.2% compares well with 2.0% for the metropolitan region and 1.8% for the nation.[8]

The table below was compiled using statistics from Standard and Poor's "School Matters"[9] and from the Kansas State Board of Education.[10] The three districts are the largest in terms of enrollment in Johnson County.

Performance Measures
District	Reading	Math	Students	Enrollment	%Econ.
/Entity	Prof.	Prof.	per Teacher		Disadvan.
Shawnee Mission	81.5	75.3	16	29,389	14.2
Olathe	80.6	82.5	14.5	22,794	13.2
Blue Valley	82.7	80.6	15.5	18,906	2.7
Statewide	69.5	64.6	14	441,867	37.4

The table shows the district succeeds in its mission of education, ranking significantly above the average for Kansas as a whole. The percentage enrollment of economically disadvantaged students, a rough measure of the overall economic well being of the district, is the highest of the three compared in the county, indicating Shawnee Mission is not quite as wealthy as the nearby districts of comparable size. Yet the proficiency ratings of all three schools compare favorably. The success of the district is critical to continued support from the taxpayers.

The independent auditors, Lowenthal, Singleton, Webb and Wilson said the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reporting (CAFR) for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2005, was correct in all material aspects.[11] This echoed the letter from the 2003 CAFR, which was worded virtually the same way.[12]

The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) awarded the district Certificates of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for 2002 and again for 2004.[13] The Association of School Board Officials awarded its Certificate of Excellence in Financial Reporting, also for the years 2002 and 2004.[14]

The 2005 Management Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) portion of the CAFR noted that revenues exceeded expenditures, leaving a fund balance of $179.5 million. The fund balance includes a $68.1 million excess in revenue over expenses for the capitol fund, due primarily to the $65 million bond issuance. This issuance was in May, 2005, right before the close of the taxable year.[15] The comparable figure for the 2003 FY was $92.8 million, which represented an increase of $0.9 million from the preceding FY (2002).[16] Subtracting the $68.1 million attributed to the bond issuance in 2005 would leave a fund balance of $111.4 million. This represents healthy growth over the last few years.

The independent auditors also reported the district to be in compliance with the requirements of OMB Circular A-133.[17]

The CAFR was released October 3, 2005, which is significantly less than the six month time frame required to meet standards of good financial reporting.

The table below shows some commonly used financial ratios, the figures were derived from the 2003 and 2005 CAFRs.

Financial Ratios
Indicator	2003	2005
Current Ratio	9.364	5.729
Quick Ratio	3.353	1.314
Days Cash on Hand	47.31	144.38
Debt Ratio	.385	.537
Debt/Equity Ratio	.626	1.161

(Current Ratio equals current assets divided by current liabilities; Quick Ratio equals cash plus cash equivalents divided by current liabilities; Debt Ratio equals total liability divided by total assets; Debt/Equity Ratio equals total liability divided by net assets.)

The ratios reflect the effects of the bond issuance. The current ratio declined significantly, which is consistent with undertaking a significant increase in liabilities. The quick ratio also declined. The days of cash on hand reflects the influx of cash at the end of the fiscal year, primarily from the bond sales. The debt ratio also rose, as did the debt to equity ratio. Since the bonds sold at the very end of FY 05, the financial ratios for that year are atypical.

A standard text states the common ratio should be approximately 2 and the quick ratio about 1.[18] The change from FY 03 to FY 05, then, would bring the district closer to the norm.

For Shawnee Mission, the key question appears to be how large is the untapped reservoir of financial capacity. The per capita debt increased significantly in 2005, to $1,073 from $613 in 2003. Since the school district's primary source of revenue is from real estate taxes, a ratio comparing assessed valuation to debt might be useful. The estimated assessed valuation for FY 2006 is $2,971 million; the bonded debt is $224 million.[19] Dividing the bonded debt by the assessed valuation and multiplying by 100, the debt represents 7.55% of the valuation of the district. To benchmark this figure, similar calculations yielded 14.5% for Blue Valley[20] and for Olathe, 17.12%. This suggests the Shawnee Mission School District retains substantial capacity to issue additional bonds, as the debt to valuation ratio is low.

The tax burden the district imposes on taxpayers declined significantly in the ten year period ending with 2004. For 1995, the total tax rate was $61.779 per thousand of assessed valuation. By 2004, that figure had dropped to $42.655 per thousand.[21] This also suggests unused capacity to raise revenue.

Public school financing in Kansas is capped by the state. The state currently uses a formula based on a dollar amount per pupil (BSAPP).[22] This led to problems in districts with declining enrollments, notably Shawnee Mission. Accordingly, a special adjustment for declining enrollments was passed for 2005.[23] This may enhance the district's revenues in the future, but implementation was stayed by an order of the Kansas State Supreme Court issued June 3rd, 2005.[24]

The Supreme Court of Kansas found the funding formula had not kept up with inflation, and ordered the Legislature to add additional funding to schools. The court retained jurisdiction of the case, and reserved the right to act in the future.

Since the state limits the operating budgets of the school districts, significant uncertainty in the budgeting process has been introduced. For example, districts do not hire for the following school year until after the legislature approves the funding package.[25]

Current pressures on the state budget may ease, however, with a reevaluation of projected revenues for the coming year. An additional $289 million over the next two years[26] will cover at least part of the additional funding mandated by the state.

A study published by the Kansas Policy Review found that various adjustments to the funding formula over the years since 1992 had the effect of discriminating in favor of certain school districts.[27] It appears likely that any new funding formulas will be cost based.[28]

According to the district's finance director, Mr. Tim Rooney[29], plans presently under consideration will add approximately $7 million in revenue for the district. Thus it appears that, despite the current controversy in Kansas over school funding, the district will not lose any ground.

So long as the district continues to deliver high quality education, it will maintain the support of the population it serves. With continuing popular support, the district will be able to tap unused revenue capacity to the limits allowed by the state. This excess capacity results in a positive long-term outlook for the district.

In addition, change to a cost-based formula for capping the budget, rather than a per-pupil reimbursement, will ease concerns that declining enrollments will result in declining revenues without proportionate declines in fixed costs. As noted by The Kansas Policy Review,[30] some form of cost-based funding appears likely in the near future.

Moody's Investor's Services has rated Shawnee Mission School District at Aa1 since 1990.[31] When considering the broad economic, political, social and demographic factors as well as the purely financial indicators, it appears likely the district will retain this rating for years to come.

[1]This and other indicators of voter support taken from historical data provided by the county election commissioners http://www.jocoelection.org/History/HistoryofSchoolDistricts-JCCC.htm#ShawneeMission
[2] "A Brief Economic History of Kansas" Hall, A. and Orazem, P., August, 2005: http://www.kansasinc.org/pubs/working/Brief%20History--Exec%20Summary.pdf
[3] Data from U.S. Census http://www.census.gov/ and County Economic Data Survey (EDS) http://www.ku.edu/pri/ksdata/kcced/profiles/pdf/20091.pdf
[4] Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, 2005: http://www.smsd.org/custom/budgetfinance/CAFR/FY05CAFR.pdf
[5] Op. Cit.p.3.
[6] 2005 CAFR p. 31.
[7] Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, 2003, page 31. : http://www.smsd.org/custom/budgetfinance/CAFR/2003.pdf
[8] Profile of Johnson County from the Johnson County Community College http://www.jccc.net/home/depts/6111/site/profile
[9] http://www.schoolmatters.com/
[10]
[11] Pages 20-21 at: http://www.smsd.org/custom/budgetfinance/CAFR/FY05CAFR.pdf
[12] Pages 18-19 at: http://www.smsd.org/custom/budgetfinance/CAFR/2003.pdf
[13] Page 15 at: http://www.smsd.org/custom/budgetfinance/CAFR/2003.pdf
and page 16 at: http://www.smsd.org/custom/budgetfinance/CAFR/FY05CAFR.pdf
[14] Page 15 at: http://www.smsd.org/custom/budgetfinance/CAFR/FY05CAFR.pdf and page 14 at http://www.smsd.org/custom/budgetfinance/CAFR/FY05CAFR.pdf
[15] 2005 CAFR, p. 10
[16] 2003 CAFR, p. 7
[17] Page 116: http://www.smsd.org/custom/budgetfinance/CAFR/FY05CAFR.pdf

[18] Financial Management for Public, Health, and Not-for-Profit Organizations, Finkler, S. 2005. p. 527.
[19] Source: "Budget Profile 2005-2006" p. 25: http://www.ksde.org/budget/d0512pi6.pdf
[20] Source: "Budget Profile 2005-2006" p. 25: http://www.ksde.org/budget/d0233pi6.pdf
[21] 2005 CAFR, table 5.
[22] "Current Kansas School Finance Formula": http://www.bluevalleyk12.org/SupportServices/downloads/
understandingschoolfinance.pdf
[23] Ibid.
[24] Summary of Montoy v. State : http://www.kscourts.org/kscases/ojasumm/2005/20050603-92032.htm
[25] "Schools can't hire till state sets budget," The Wichita Eagle, April 17, 2006. http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/
living/education/14358118.htm
[26] Kansas budget healthier than lawmakers previously thought 49News, April 17, 2006.: http://www.49abcnews.com/news/2006/apr/17/
kansas_budget_healthier_lawmakers_previously_thoug/
[27] What will it Take to Make Kansas School Funding "Cost Based"? Kansas Policy Review Vol. 27, No.2., fall 2005: http://www.ku.edu/pri/publicat/
kpr/kprV27N2/kprV27N2A3.shtml
[28] Ibid
[29] Discussed with me in e-mail correspondence.
[30] OP. cit..
[31] Ibid

Planting Flags for Vets

2006-05-27T16:50:00.000-05:00

Every year, Jane plants nearly a thousand flags on the Saturday before Memorial day. And people do or say the most astounding things.

The flags fly over the graves of veterans for a week, and then Jane harvests them. In her capacity as president of a local chapter of the "Ladies auxiliary of the Veterans of Foreign Wars," an office she apparently holds for life, Jane lines up volunteers, supervises, and manages an operation that may take four hours or ten hours, depending on who shows up.

Over the years I have helped my lovely wife whenever I'm not working those Saturdays. I have been cussed, insulted, called a liar and had the error of my ways pointed out nearly every time.

We use a simple method to place the flags. One or two volunteers carry a bundle of thirty or forty flags down each row of the cemetery. By every grave marker that identifies military service, we plant a flag.

The weather in Kansas varies greatly; some years the ground squishes underfoot, other years it breaks the little wood sticks that serve as flagpoles. Several years ago one of the vets welded together steel rods with handles, footrests and pointed ends, which we call "pokers." With a poker, we make a hole that we can put the flagpole into the ground even when it's like rock.

The boy scouts or girl scouts who help the elderly ladies of our VFW post enjoy using the pokers. Planting flags and picking them up count as service projects for the scouts, so we can usually get a least a half-dozen to help.

Once, a man shook his fist at me as I walked down the cemetery row. "It's disrespectful for you to walk over my Papa's grave," he yelled at me. I simply ignored him. I could have explained our task would become impossible if we tried to accommodate his concerns. Can you imagine walking around two or three hundred graves to plant flags, doubling the distance walked?

One day a woman told me for the amount of money I got paid, I should be doing a much better job. I said all the work was done by volunteers. She told me she knew the government paid for the work and supplied the flags, and that I was making a huge amount of money as do all government employees. Of course, in reality the VFW supplies all the flags; and they are an all volunteer fraternal organization. But how can you argue with someone who already knows you are a liar and is assured her version of Truth is correct (even though it is so wrong?) Why would you even attempt to set such a person straight?

Often, people visiting their relatives' graves would ask why no flag was planted by their loved one. "Because it's not marked to show he was a vet," was always the answer. "Don't you have maps showing where all the vets are buried?" is the usual response. Or sometimes, "I thought the government kept track of where all the vets were buried." Or, "You government people are so incompetent, didn't your office keep a map of where all the vets were buried?"

Sometimes people would ask me very nicely for a flag to plant on a grave. Even though I might get in trouble with the VFW AUX president, I usually would go ahead and give away the flag.

The worst headache is picking up the flags. Far fewer volunteers turn out, and the day is always pretty long. The flags must the bundled and counted. The worst thing is rain in the previous 24 hours; all the flags must be taken home and individually dried. I get involved more often in this project than setting them out because they are often still at it when I get off work at 3:00 p.m. on Saturday.

One year the cemetery operator picked up all the flags and tossed them in a heap in a garage. A couple of the vets got mad at the mistreatment of the flags. At least they them put them on a tarp. I had to drive over and try to deal with the mess. What really burned a few of the VFW people were the flags that had been unceremoniously tossed into the trash by the cemetery operator. You know, the proper way to dispose of a US flag is by burning.

For every ten people who complained, one person would thank me.

And its nice to be thanked, to be appreciated and recognized.

But we don't put out the flags because we are looking for approval (if we did, we'd be sorely disappointed.) We don't put them out because it gives scouts a service opportunity - opportunities to serve abound, and many needs go unmet.

Each grave marked with a flag contains the remains of a man or woman who served our country in the military. They risked their lives, they may have been shot at, known unimaginable hardships, or have been wounded or even killed in battle. They made these sacrifices for us, that we might be secure and enjoy the blessings of liberty.

We honor their memory and their service by setting the symbol of our nation to fly over each one, individually. We knowingly choose to honor them, fully aware of the meaning of our action as well as theirs. By bestowing this honor in this way, we show who we are, what we believe in, and we teach those who will carry on after we are gone.

Finance Paper on School District Finance Policy

2006-05-25T19:31:00.000-05:00

Analysis of Selected Aspects of the Financial Policies
Of the Shawnee Mission, Kansas, School District

March, 2006

I examined the financial policies of the Shawnee Mission School District because I am a parent of students in that district; I pay taxes to the district; financial information about the district is relatively easy to obtain and because school finance is currently a hot political issue in Kansas.

I specifically looked at fund balance policy because I naively assumed the district's revenues were likely to fluctuate significantly in the near future. While examining the fund balance policy, I discovered a decision to ignore a credit risk management problem, and also a clever debt restructuring.

In the recent case of Ryan Montoy, et al v. The State of Kansas et al, decided upon remand from the state supreme court, the district court found "...the legislature statutorily found as a fact that the current funding scheme is inadequate and inequitable ..."[1] As a result, the state legislature is considering new funding formulas which will increase funding to Kansas public schools. Since Kansas school funding appears to be headed for major changes, it appears logical to study the financial policy of a Kansas school District. However, according to an e-mail from Tim Rooney, the manager of budget and finance for the Shawnee Mission School District (SMSD), the district will gain only between five to seven million dollars under any of the formulas currently under consideration. This is not a significant increase for this district.

The Shawnee Mission School District serves a suburban population of over 29,000 students. It occupies a geographic area of 72 miles in Johnson County. The district operates 37 elementary, 7 middle and 5 high schools. [2]

The budget is prepared on a fiscal year basis which runs from July 1 through June 30. [3] The 2005-2006 budget of about $275 million[4] is funded from a mix of several sources; including state aid granted on a "per-pupil" basis; federal grants; bonds; a mill levy; interest income; fees; and RV and motor vehicle taxes.

Most SMSD financial management policies could serve as a model for other school districts to follow. In general, policies are written, clear and concise and cover many essential aspects of financial management. The district's policies as set by the board of Education (BOE) are posted on the internet[5]. According to a standard text, "GFOA and the NACSLB strongly recommend that a government create and adopt formal financial polices." [6] The district met this criterion in several categories.

However, according to an e-mail from the district's finance manager, the district fails to meet this criterion on fund balances. He said, "The district doesn't have a written fund balance policy. The fund balance level is considered as part of the budget."

To further confuse the issue of fund balance, the budget is stated using cash accounting but planning, auditing, and any other significant financial management uses a modified accrual accounting under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).[7] The requirement to state the budget on a cash basis is set by state law. [8] Careful study of all the budget and financial materials available produces confusion, although it appears a certain amount of confusion is beyond the control of the district. The budget book contains a wealth of details; but summary information is not presented there in an easily digested format. This is the book given to citizens who ask. The figures in this document do not match the figures used to plan operations or published on the Kansas Board of Education's internet site. For example, the total district expenditures for the current FY are shown as $328 million in the budget[9] and $275 million on the website.[10]

Transparency in the budget process is considered a key ingredient of sound public financial management. Overwhelming detail without clear explanation provides the appearance of transparency without the substance. A citizen unschooled in accounting who had only the budget document to examine would not be able to reach any meaningful conclusions about the management of district funds. The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), on the other hand, does show useful and meaningful data, as does the online "Budget Profile." One would have to know enough to ask for the CAFR, however. In addition, though I searched for online information, I didn't find it on my own: the finance manager gave me the links.

Given all the above, I conclude that the district's finances are transparent to individuals who are willing to invest the time and effort to understand the available information. I further think the average person who walks into the district office and asks to see the budget would be confused. (The budget document itself does not identify that it is based on cash accounting - maybe it should.)

The issue of transparency is also pertinent to the district's fund balance policy. The lack of formal fund balance policy should be considered a defect, at least according to a standard text on government financial management.[11] In the case of the district, with a combined fund balance of $179 million,[12] a formal fund balance policy would seem wise. Of course, most of the funds are encumbered; however, the unencumbered fund balance of $51 million[13] would seem to an area of concern that could be addressed by formal policies.

The budget profile explains the uses of unencumbered fund balances: 1.) support of current budgetary limit; 2.) transfers to various funds as needed; 3.) debt service; 4.) completion of late summer capital projects; 5.) contingency reserve of $5.6 million; and 6.) miscellaneous program purposes not otherwise funded.[14] These statements resemble a formal policy; however, they are not included in the collection of formal policies posted by the Board of Education on the internet.

The district finance manager, in his e-mail to me, said, "Since the legislature doesn't typically tell us what the budget will be until May of each year, we use fund balance as a buffer so the district can make budget decisions earlier." In response to additional questions regarding the size of the fund balance and the unreserved, undesignated money, he said, "On a cash basis, the state tries to maintain a 7.5% balance."

With an operating budget of $275 million, the unreserved, undesignated fund balance would be about $20 million. However, the actual amount held by the district is hard to pin down, since they don't use that terminology to describe fund balances. The $51 million unencumbered fund balance is obviously earmarked as shown above, except for the contingency reserve fund of $5.6 million.

The contingency reserve fund obviously fails to meet the state guidelines of 7.5%. In addition, it seems rather low, at just over 2%. The CAFR showed a revenue increase from 2004 to 2005 of 18.9%.[15] The expenditure increase for the same period, however, was 1.3%. [16] With such wide swings in revenue but little room to maneuver on the expense side, a larger cash reserve would appear advisable.

For comparison purposes, I examined the Blue Valley School District. Their current budget is $234 million[17]; unencumbered cash balance is over $83 million.[18] Like the SMSD, they do not have an easily discovered contingency fund. Unlike SMSD, there are no financial policies published on the internet.

While looking for information about fund balances, I found the following statement in the CAFR, "The majority of the district's investments were with three banks which constitutes a concentration of credit risk."[19] Accordingly, I asked the financial manager if the district had any plans to address the concentration of credit risk. His response:
The credit risk is caused by the very limited investment opportunities allowed by a school district. The risk is mitigated by the requirements that securities be held by a 3rd party to back deposits. Therefore, if a bank liquidated, FDIC would pay and then enough remaining securities would be surrendered to the district to satisfy the amount on deposit.

The problem identified in the CAFR is therefore not seen as a problem. The district's written investment policy states:

The investment goals should be ranked in the following order:
1.) Safety of principal
2.) Maintenance of adequate liquidity to fund operations
3.) Maximization of earnings
To provide adequate safety, investment alternatives will be selected in accordance with state law.[20]

The policy goes on to describe, in general terms, the bidding policy for eligible banks and savings and loans.

It may be the case that limited opportunities constrain the investments of the district. However, this is not the question I am trying to answer.

The district's policy does clearly spell out the goals of the district's investments and the process for investment decision making. The policy names the officeholder with responsibility for supervising investments. Thus, the policy meets several of the guidelines of sound financial management policy as explained in a standard text on the subject.[21]

The district has no formal, written debt policy. However, debt policy can be inferred from practices and statements contained the CAFR and elsewhere. The CAFR shows a restructuring of a significant part of the district's debt in January, 2005.[22] The district anticipates interest savings of $1.8 million and realized an immediate gain of $2.1 million from the restructuring. In his e-mail to me, the financial manager said "We do watch the market to see if refunding is possible." This constitutes part of an informal debt policy.

SMSD policies concerning fund balances and debt management give the school district the most amount of freedom for decision making possible to a school district. Policies in that area are unwritten and informal, de facto evolution from past practices.[23]

Written, formal policies offer many advantages that the school district should consider. They are strongly recommended by both the GFOA and NACSLB.[24] They provide stability to the institution as leadership changes; they increase efficiency through standardized operation; they can have a favorable impact on bond ratings; they educate and guide decision makers; and they promote long-term and strategic thinking.[25]

If legal constraints prevent the implementation of the district's formal investment policy, which appears to be the case, that policy should be reviewed. It may be possible to find ways to solve the concentration of credit risk identified in the CAFR and yet still stay within the statutory guidelines.

In conclusion, the district could improve policy in the area of fund balances and debt by adopting formal, written policies.

[1] http://www.schoolfunding.info/states/ks/Montoy12-3-03.PDF (emphasis in the original.)
[2] Shawnee Mission School District Budget Profile for 2005-2006, page 1. http://www.ksde.org/budget/d0512bg6.pdf
[3] Fiscal Management Statement DBB, http://www1.smsd.org/boeweb/dbb.HTM
[4] Shawnee Mission School District Budget Profile for 2005-2006, table 1, page 1
[5] http://www1.smsd.org/boeweb/d.HTM
[6] Kavanagh, Shayne and Williams, Anderson Wright. Financial Policies: Design and Implementation. p 3.
[7] Comprehensive Annual Financial Report FY 2005, p 26.
[8] Ibid p v.
[9] Shawnee Mission School District Budget 2005-2006, Budget Form USD-B. p 2.
[10] Shawnee Mission School District Budget Profile for 2005-2006, page 1 of 19 http://www.ksde.org/budget/d0512bg6.pdf.
[11] Kavanagh and Williams, p71-80.
[12] Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Shawnee Mission, Kansas, Unified School District NO 512, p9.
[13] Ibid p 31.
[14] Shawnee Mission School District Budget Profile for 2005-2006, note 14, Unencumbered Cash Balance by Fund, page 7 http://www.ksde.org/budget/d0512bg6.pdf
[15] Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Shawnee Mission, Kansas, Unified School District NO 512, p7.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Budget Profile 2005-2006 Blue Valley School District. p 7. http://www.ksde.org/budget/d0229pi6.pdf
[18] Ibid. p.22.
[19] Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Shawnee Mission, Kansas, Unified School District NO 512, p33.
[20] Fiscal Management Statement DFA, http://www1.smsd.org/boeweb/dfa.HTM
[21] Kavanagh and Williams, p 125ff.
[22] C comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Shawnee Mission, Kansas, Unified School District NO 512, p36.
[23] Kavanagh and Williams. P3.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Ibid. p 3-4

Communists Triumph in Topeka

2006-05-19T12:49:00.000-05:00

What the "Red" in "Red State" really stands for.

Specifics on how Kansas school finance resembles Soviet style communism:

1.) Both appear to take from the rich and give to the poor.
2.) Both rely on highly centralized command bureaucracies.
3.) Both destroy incentives for efficiently operated enterprises.
4.) Both display the exercise of raw power.
5.) Both rely on one-party rule.
6.) Both create egregious injustices.
7.) Both violate the state constitution.
8.) Both are intellectually exhausted and morally bankrupt.

Point One: Johnson county, "the rich" will provide 30% of the funds for the increase in school financing just passed by the legislature. This money will be distributed to the rest of the state, "the poor." JoCo gets 8% back. That's what we call an old-fashioned re-distribution of wealth, also known as Socialism or Communism.

Point Two: School districts cannot make any decisions, such as staffing, etc, until the state tells them how much money they will have. The school finance bill, passed this month, gives the districts only a few weeks to plan a budget and organize staffing for the start of the next school year. The finance bill passed in mid-May; school starts in mid-August. The critical decisions, such as how many teachers are needed, are actually decided indirectly by the legislature, who very directly determines the money available for all 300 local districts, and thus the staffing, etc.

Point Three: The Shawnee Mission School District (SMSD), arguably the most efficiently run district in the state, has been heavily penalized by the state legislature. The second largest district in the state, with enrollment over 28,000, it will receive $236.00 per pupil under the newly approved finance plan. The district with 12.5 students gets over $900 per pupil. The formula clearly gives a heavy subsidy to tiny, inefficient school districts and penalizes SMSD for having had the foresight to unify and to operate efficiently. For a great district-by-district summary, go here.

Point Six: The DeSoto school district furnishes a new laptop computer for every child; SMSD continues to lay off school nurses and cut arts programs to one-day per week.

Point Seven: The Kansas Supreme Court already ruled the statewide distribution of school finance funds as unconstitutional, for two reasons: the state fails to provide sufficient funding to meet the constitutional requirement to provide for an adequate education and the funds are distributed based on politics rather than costs. It would appear that both defects remain in the newly passed financing plan. My personal feeling: the state Supreme Court will appoint a special master to correct these problems. Study by Kansas Policy institute here.

Point Eight: In modern times, the people demonstrate their contentment by ignoring politics and civic duty. Honest, earnest individuals with strange beliefs and powerful motivations run for local office. Characters you would not invite to your home become your elected representatives. Fellows we would not ordinarily label "the best and the brightest" end up deciding our children should receive a 1950's education in the 21st Century. Females who claim they believe "A woman's place is in the home," go to the capitol and pass laws. Guys who honestly think the whole of creation is at most eight thousand years old decide on science education standards.

The state chose to slash taxes when economic times were good. Now only the most courageous of legislatures would consider raising taxes and providing adequate schools to the children of Kansas. It would take a legislature of statesmen, of people not afraid to take a clear stand and not afraid to lose an election for the sake of doing the right thing. It would take a legislature unwilling to burden the state Supreme Court with shirked duties.

Where do we get a legislature like that?

The First Hour of Work, Friday, May 19

2006-05-19T09:27:00.000-05:00

I approved two cases, each paying over $50,000.00 on the initial payment. My approval typically commits the government to payment $500,000 up to $1,000,000 over the life of the claim. I have approved as many as 20 such cases in a single day. One of the two approved this morning was approved only after I had sent it back to the technician to correct errors. Even then, I still ended up making minor corrections myself.

I called a lawyer about errors made by a judge on one of his cases. Since it deals only with the legal fees in this case - total over $15,000 - we can work out any problems without further court action.

I turned down a chance to take a course on effective writing - who has time?

And, did all the other things I do every morning - read my e-mail, responded to urgent messages, picked up my phone messages and read the latest updates on our technical processes.

It's a living.

Million Monkeys Succeed After Five Years

2006-05-17T18:29:00.000-05:00

They say if you give a million monkeys a million typewriters and a million years, they eventually will hammer out an acceptable policy for the United States.

Happily, the Bush Administration succeeded in only five years. Their approach to immigration seeks and finds the rational middle ground on this issue. And it appears Congress will do the right thing, much to the dismay of the most "conservative" groups who chose to make this an issue and a crises.

The Christianist Minutemen watching the border with Mexico will be replaced by National Guard Troops. At least, we can have confidence that they will obey the orders not to shoot.

The people who are already here will given a stake in the system and a chance to integrate into the rest of America.

Well done.

Legislature Whacks Golden-Egg Laying Goose

2006-05-12T04:48:00.000-05:00

"Ain't dead yet - let's see how much punishment she'll take."

In an amazing display of short-sightedness, the Kansas legislature passed a school finance bill over the objections of all 22 representatives from Johnson county. The bill provides very large increases of $927.00 per pupil to the smaller school districts in the state; Shawnee Mission, already spending significantly less per capita, gets $236.00. Thus, the incentives for local jurisdictions are to remain as small as possible, which eliminates any possibility of economies of scale.

Rocket science - not a requirement to understand why strangling Johnson County schools hurts the whole state.

People chose to live where their children can get a first class education. The mix of good public safety, good schools and good roads that Johnson county offers its residents is the engine of economic growth in the county. Take away any one of these three fundamentals, and people will go someplace else. For example, Lee's Summit, MO, which offers a similar base of essentials at a lower cost than Johnson County.

Although the rest of the state intensely dislikes Johnson County, the county is the only bright spot in the entire state economy. If it were not for JoCo, the state of Kansas would be in an economic recession; that is, the economy in the rest of the state has steadily shrunk.

In voting for this school finance plan, legislators voted against economic progress for the state; voted against local control of school finances, and voted against economically run large school districts. In supporting this plan, legislators voted in favor of small, costly, fragmented school districts; voted in favor of moving the middle and upper middle class across the state line into Missouri; voted in favor of public school mediocrity; and voted in favor of continuing to let Topeka decide how much money citizens are allowed to spend on public education.

The legislature ignored their own study, which they commissioned and paid for, in crafting this bill. The governor passed the last school finance bill directly to the state supreme court without her signature for expedited review. She should do the same with this one.

Actions have consequences. The die is cast. We live, as the ancient Chinese curse goes, "in interesting times."

How Lack of Universal Health Care Hurt One Woman

2006-05-11T19:05:00.000-05:00

The problems of my very good friend - call her Ms. X - underscore the danger, irrationality, and unfairness of the present healthcare "system" in the United States.

She must choose between hope coupled with financial ruin; or abandonment of hope for herself, leaving an uncertain future for her son.

Stage IV renal cancer is a grim diagnosis, but my friend's oncologist tells her an experimental drug may arrest or even cure the disease. The catch: $7,000.00 monthly cost of treatment.

The Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan (FEHB), the umbrella under which my friend's particular insurance is chartered, is often held up as a model plan. Congress, as well as rank and file employees, are all covered under this same plan.

Hearing the price of the medicine, I sorrowed. I had the same particular insurance plan as she does for years: I fired them last year for poor service, slow payments, and third-rate performance. Much to my surprise, though, they came through, and said they would cover the drug under their usual terms.

Ms. X is a lovely person; gentle, kind and unassuming, the modest kind of self-reliant person who would never ask for help. It was my family's great pleasure to host her and her son on a recent trip to Orlando and then the beach. She insisted on paying a significant part of the expense. On her modest salary as a government clerk, she had never been able to have a real vacation; she had never before seen the ocean, waded in the surf or had the feeling of sand between her toes. She experienced magic then, and we shared in her perfect contentment.

Alas, the story does not end happily. The co-pay for the drug would run about $1,600.00 per month, or approximately the same as Ms. X's entire take-home pay.

But wait! Aren't there programs for people like Ms. X? Programs to keep the light of hope glowing? Well, yes, there are. In her locality, there is a program made exactly for people in her situation. Trouble is, that program spent the final dime of their 2006 budget last month. Only eight months short of having enough for the whole year. The program met 25% of the need. Ms. X was literally only a few days too late for this help.

For me, her story puts a face on the Harvard study that showed about half of all personal bankruptcies in the US result from medical bills. One researcher summed up the dismal findings by saying health insurance is "Like an umbrella that melts in the rain." (The full study can be found here.)

My generous wife risked hurting the pride of Ms. X by offering to pick up the co-payment. We could cut our gifts to the church and skip a few nice vacations, maybe make other small sacrifices, and absorb the cost without giving up anything we really need.

Ms. X refused. She's that kind of person.

If only Ms. X had the good fortune to be born in Canada, or England, or France or Germany or any of 28 developed nations. Those countries enjoy systems of universal healthcare, and their citizens never declare bankruptcy because of health crises. Her misfortune is to be born in the US, the nation where healthcare costs double the amount it costs in any other nation. Her misfortune to be born in the US, where healthcare is mediocre compared to any other industrial nation. (For more information, search the internet. Some of the better charts and articles are here, here, here, here and here.

My family cannot help Ms. X except to pray for her.

But what we can do for our children and grandchildren is support the establishment of a system of national health insurance. My online petition is here. I ask anyone reading this to look at the petition and to consider signing it.

And to pray for Ms. X.

Up the Bureaucracy

2006-05-09T23:53:00.000-05:00

K.U.'s own Prof. George Fredrickson satirizes the state of comtemporary american politics here. Very funny, as the truth often is.

"Christianist" Proposed Term for Political Movement

2006-05-09T18:36:00.000-05:00

Read here for a suggestion about a new label for right wing ideology based on fundamentalist Bible interpretation.

The old labels no longer hold up, which is why I like to think of myself as a "Red Letter Christian."

Maybe people with that viewpoint would claim the title "Christianist."

Why the Cock Isn't Crowing

2006-05-08T16:20:00.000-05:00

A few days ago I wrote about why the Republican run Congress and the president can't see to take advantage of what is widely seen as good economic times.

Here, a pollster says it much better than I did.

"People cannot eat GDP, pay for prescription drugs with the interest-rate spread, clothe their families with orders for capital goods or pay college tuition with the money supply … The public's leading economic indicators are the cost of gasoline, the cost of health care and the number of jobs exported overseas." GOPers "... will not get credit for raising the Dow as long as they are squeezing the middle class."

Light Bulb Joke Link

2006-05-08T16:11:00.000-05:00

The Methodist part of this gave me a real chuckle.

One Way I Spend Your Money

2006-05-04T21:22:00.000-05:00

So, okay, yesterday my boss informally met with me and a couple of other team leaders.

"Not everyone in your teams are correcting the defects you find in their work. From now on, you are to check the defects five days after you write them up; if the defect is not fixed, e-mail the employee and cc their immediate supervisor. If its still not fixed after a couple of days, notify the immediate supervisor and go and sit in the employee's cubicle while they fix it."

I reflected on the fact that I had not been responsible in following up on defects I found. But, the immediate supervisor sees these people every day. I would think the immediate supervisor, not me, would be the logical person to enforce defect correction.

Nearly all of the team members will fix identified defects as a matter of course. But they all feel swamped and pressured to produce. They get little credit for fixing a defect, and a case defect that takes hours to correct counts the same as a case that takes five minutes.

I hate sitting in a cubicle watching someone work as much as I hate sitting at the kitchen table watching my kid do her homework. A sure way to de-motivate someone is to take away responsibility them and to treat them like little children.

But in my little corner of government, sometimes getting it exactly right trumps everything else. And who knows? It might be salutory for those few slackers to have a baby-boomer standing in their cubicle, shaming them into doing their work. But somehow, I doubt it.

How a Dad is Like a Deer in Headlights

2006-05-03T22:15:00.000-05:00

Okay, so my ten-year and I walk out of a store this evening. She said "You need to take me shopping before Mother's Day. You never take me shopping."

"We'll see if we can go," I said. "At least you have a card." She picked out a card last week and I bought it.

"You bought that for me," she said with a matter of fact tone. "I wanted to buy those earrings, but they were so expensive! You didn't even offer to buy them for me."

She had approached me with a little blue box after I'd already paid, saw me putting my wallet away and turned around without saying anything.

"You never buy me anything to give to Mom."

"Well," I said, "I don't think I have a rule about that."

"Yes, you do have a rule. The kid has to spend her own money on anything the kid wants."

I smiled, thinking about the source of her allowance - her mother and me.

"You only buy me food and stuff you think I really need. That's your rule. Mom always pays for things for me to give to you." She sounded a little angry. I said nothing.

At some point, and soon, my daughter will take all the responsibility for her own gift giving. I look on my job as her Dad as giving her the means and ability to assume responsibility, as well as an incentive to do so. That's my gift to my child. The rest is up to her.

I guess her Mom will have some lean years ahead, giftwise.

Who's Good Economy?

2006-05-03T06:59:00.000-05:00

Although the economy as a whole grew by nearly five percent last year, the party in control of the Congress and the presidency is in a poor position to make political capital from it. At times, the White House seems almost puzzled by its inability to take credit for the good news.

Of course, what's good for Exxon is not necessarily good for American voters. Last year, while Exxon racked up record breaking profits of $27 billion in a single quarter, real wages for American workers actually decreased by 0.7%, after inflation is taken into account.

According to US Census Bureau figures released earlier this year, the numbers of Americans living in poverty also increased last year. This at a time when states all around the nation are slashing Medicaid budgets, leaving the poorest and most vulnerable citizens without critical health services.

Poverty, living wages and Medicaid are all issues for people of faith. The Christian Bible speaks about social justice issues and poverty far more often than any other topics.

The conflict between the politics of greed and the politics of sharing may never be resolved. Our system of charges us with finding a middle ground, where people who are unable to help themselves receive the minimum needed for survival, and the rest of us work to provide for them and ourselves.

The fundamental problem of politics remains: who gets how much? In a growing economy, the workers who make it grow must get ahead. Otherwise, a political price will eventually be paid.

Strangers in the Land

2006-05-02T16:55:00.000-05:00

"People born in America are lucky." The voice coming through my radio carried the unmistakable inflections of an Asian Indian.

"All over the world, America is recognized as the land of hope," he said. Tejvir Singh described how he had applied for his green card ten years ago. In the meantime, he continues to legally work as a doctor in a medically underserved area. "I'm lucky, too," he said, "I get to live and work here."

As I listened, I reflected on how America is the land of hope and promise, just as Christianity is the religion of hope and promise. People born into the faith are lucky. But so, too, are people who travel great spiritual distances to come to the faith. People in America are lucky, whether or not they were born here or travelled great physical distances to come here.

The descendents of Abraham, spiritual ancestors of Christians, were aliens in the land of Egypt. After Moses led them out of Egypt, they were enjoined never to forget.

Jesus once said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel," meaning, of course, that he was sent to minister only to the Hebrews. (Mat 15:24.) The woman who sought his healing aid persisted, finally saying, "...even the dogs eat eat the crumbs that fall from their master's table." Jesus relented, saying "Woman, you have great faith!"

Like it or not, the illegal aliens now living among us are literally our neighbors. We can chose to love them as we love our selves, or not. We can chose to give them a stake in this country, or not.

People around the world have great faith in America. They have hope. The decisions we make now, the course we chart, will prove or disprove the faith the world has in us. We will either remember the time our spiritual ancestors were aliens in Egypt, or not.

Our leaders should be praying, not that God is on their side. Rather, they should pray they are on God's side.

From Doubt to Doubt to Faith - My Story

2006-04-24T16:21:00.000-05:00

From the age of four, my parents called me "Doubting Thomas." Before I turned five, my father was stationed in Germany.

This synopsis, this disjointed, terse narrative, tells only the most critical events that influenced my beliefs. I omitted volumes. I left out the transitions. I traveled from the most profound, ingrained doubt to sublime hope. I offer this to share faith.

We took the train from Bremerhaven to Stuttgart, pulled by an old, well preserved steam locomotive. We moved into a Guesthaus. On my fifth birthday, I got a little wind-up boat made of tin. The tiny, shiny propeller spun very fast. Figures painted on the upper half suggested a pilot and passenger. I cruised my boat in the small ornamental fountain out front.

On one nice day, we climbed a hill on the outskirts of Stuttgart. It seemed very tall, but was probably no more than 300 or so feet high. It was a perfect, grass covered cone with a narrow road spiraling up the side; huge pieces of rubble and fragments of broken buildings lay exposed at the top. I leaped and jumped from concrete block to marble facade to jagged stone, pretending to climb Everest. My mother worried. I pretended to be a billy goat. After the war, the Germans had piled up the shattered remains of allied bombing into a huge monument, and that was my mountain.

I remember visiting a death camp. The name escapes me -- I would have been about six years old. In one room, black and white photos of living skeletons watched me as I studied them in return. Their eyes seemed huge because the skin, shrunken from starvation, stretched so tightly across their skulls. I saw a big shower room, like a boy's locker room at school, with drains in the tile floor and showerheads along the wall. My mother or father explained that poison gas, not water, came out the shower heads. I struggled to understand. I saw a lamp. A parent explained that the lampshade had been made of human flesh. We stood outside, looking into a ditch. The Nazis forced people into the trench and machine gunned them. They buried the victims in mass graves. My child's mind struggled with the enormity of the horror.

My father told me no one can prove or disprove God. He said the world and the things he'd seen undermined any faith in a merciful, loving God. He saw enough innocents suffering and dying to cause him to doubt the Methodism he grew up with; to doubt seriously the very existence of God. He said he was agnostic, leaning towards atheism.

We never went to church.

We owned a small black-and-white television, but all the programming was in German. After six months, we moved onto an American military base and I started school. I learned to read. I made friends -- my best friend, whom I loved with all my heart, was a little black classmate of mine named Jimmy. In first grade, we would hug and even hold hands. Older boys made fun of us because we were so close. I didn't understand why until much later.

In the third grade, I began to read a lot. I read every biography and every science book the modest library at our little American school contained. My family traveled Europe. We spoke German among ourselves, English in public. Once, in a hotel in Rome, an Englishwoman complimented us on how well we spoke English, although, "Sometimes we sounded like Americans." We were highly amused.

When I turned nine, my father was posted to Ft. Monroe, VA. The island, though small, had a decent library. With no close friends, I began to read voraciously. I graduated from children's books to novels. I enjoyed science fiction and mysteries. I discovered Ayn Rand and read all her works. I continued to read science non-fiction. During the summer, I read six or seven and sometimes ten books every day. When school started, that reduced to two or three. My nickname morphed, but I remained a puzzled, skeptical child.

I went on long, solitary walks on the beach. I studied the moods of the sea. I pondered and played. In hot weather, I swam every day, often for more than a mile. I made friends. I played chess competitively. I started dating.

In 1968, we moved again. San Antonio was muggy and slightly cool in winter, wet and hot in summer. I read; read and read some more. I dated. I joined the debate squad. I read and acted in MacBeth; read Hamlet and King Lear. I read the plays of George Bernard Shaw. I fell in love with poetry. I published essays in the school literary magazine.

The "National Honor Society" made me a member.

(It occurs to me that each incident, described with barely any detail, deserves full treatment. But this is already a long, boring story.)

Early in the school year, we took some kind of big test. After the results came in, my English and science teachers asked me to attend the library every day instead of going to class. They did not really want me disrupting their work. They said as long as I kept up a perfect "A" average on tests and assignments, I need not come to class. That suited me. My English teacher gave me a self-study book of 10^th grade grammar. She told me that was my assignment for the year. I finished it in a week or so, but didn't turn it in until it was due. That way, I could continue to read what I wanted to.

The "National Honor Society" booted me out.

One day the principal called me in. He handed me some papers, "You might be interested in this." So it was that I helped organize the first ever Earth Day celebration.

My father retired. A military band played. I met a good number of general officers, with one, two and three stars on their lapels. There were medals, a ceremonial sword, and, I think, a salute involving guns or artillery. We moved to the Kansas City area.

I got a job and enrolled in high school. Lee's Summit, Missouri, though a hateful little town at the time, did have some good high school teachers. Special science "classes" were set up, one of which included a handful of other students. So long as I got advance permission for my experiments and filed good reports, I could do what I wanted. I weighed air. I did a trigonometric analysis of the results produced by adding two ac currents of various voltages and frequencies together. I did lab tests on bacteria cultures to identify the germs. I dated. I went to the art gallery a lot. I scored a couple of scholarships.

The "National Honor Society" inducted me again.

In college, I read Freud and Plato and Aristotle. I read Kant and Wittgenstein and Maslow. I read Russell and Achinstein and Rom Hare. I wallowed in Hume, Locke and Hobbs -- especially Hobbs. I struggled with Foucault, and laughed at McLuhan. (Sorry, I can't list them all -- not in one post.) I'd originally planned on majoring in psychology, but one day I wandered into an upper level philosophy course and realized I had no clue what they were doing. First real challenge I'd ever faced in school. So I decided to add it to my major.

I was one of eight philosophy graduates out of a class of over 2,500. I remained the doubter, still seeking wisdom. I went back and studied economics. I discovered Samuel Barber, Debussy, Prokofiev, Rimsky-Korsakov, Grieg and Gershwin.

I fell in love and married; had six months of real happiness and fourteen and a half years of pure misery. I divorced. I kept on reading, and writing. I sold a little good poetry here and there and a lot of really bad fiction. Kept my day job; started teaching various technical subjects at work. My employer banned all writing on the side for money, so I stopped.

I met the true love of my life and remarried. I followed her to church -- I'd follow her anywhere. I got interested in the same problems that troubled my youth. We went to Sunday school. For her sake, I played the part of a believer. I tried to overcome 35 years of skepticism.

We decided to take a Christian Disciple class. Then we took another. And then another. After years of intensive study, I became familiar with the Bible. I learned what Jesus actually said and did - so different from the shrill, hateful, divisive theology I had gleaned from reading newspapers, magazines and books. I learned what the Bible really teaches us about God - so very different from the spiteful supermaniac the television preachers worshipped. I learned that for Jesus' first miracle, he turned water into wine: proof He could not be the relentlessly grim, anti-fun God my high school friends had worshipped.

After 40 years of skepticism, I learned, and began to believe.

I began to believe, and joined the community of faith.

St. Paul says, "Act as if you have faith, and faith will be given to you." Amen.

It still bothers me to hear so much hatred uttered in the name of Jesus. It saddens me to read snippets of scripture used to rationalize greed, injustice and fear. Most disturbing is the abuse of the Word in the relentless pursuit of power.

I still work on understanding theology. I remain troubled by doubts.

Yet, by the grace of God, I do believe. Thanks be to God.

Belief and Faith

2006-04-14T08:22:00.000-05:00

At some point in our lives, we must take responsibility for our beliefs.

As children, we absorb beliefs from our parents, teachers, church and peers. We learn and correct these beliefs as we go. We know we don't understand much, and our brains soak up information like sponges.

As adults, we know that beliefs of other adults can be odd, misguided, ill-informed, poorly conceived, misbegotten, peculiar, funny, goofy, patently false, wrong, or even evil and malicious. But most of us never think these things of our own beliefs.

We think what anyone believes is beyond control. As a friend of mine said recently, "You either get it or you don't."

On this view, if we believe we must fly an airplane into the Capitol and blow it up, we cannot be held responsible for this belief. We should neither be blamed nor praised for this belief, any more than we could be praised for blond hair or blamed for brown eyes.

Also, then, faith or lack of faith deserves no judgement. "You either get it or you don't."

And yet....

Yet.....

We do hold people responsible. We do say it is wrong to think you should use a jet as a weapon, it is wrong to kill innocent life. Even when a man claims his religion teaches this belief, we hold him morally and legally accountable for it.

The progress of science consists of refining and sometimes completely changing beliefs about the way the physical world works. We progress from a demon theory of disease, in which disease results from possession, to a germ theory of disease. Our beliefs as a culture both evolve, building on prior belief; and undergo revolutions.

As individuals, we can continue to learn and grow in our understanding. We can choose to take responsiblity for that progress. Or not.

Sadly, the end of adolesence marks the end of mental and spiritual as well as physical growth for the multitudes.

When we grow up, we put our families and loved ones first. Other interests, while important, become secondary.

Consider the formidable task of going to school, to Sunday School, to lessons and classes as an adult. Think about the challenge of fitting a decent reading schedule with good books and articles into an already full life.

Then there's the temptation to watch tv, to go to the movies, plays, games, concerts, clubs, dancing, drinking, poker, casinos, boating, golfing, etc., etc., etc. Any of these activities may increase wisdom or uplift the soul, but mostly, they don't. These entertainments have their place, but all too often their place is to displace other, more important activities.

Now, a word from Jesus: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened. (Mat 7:7-8.)

And: He who has ears to hear, let him hear. (Mark 4:9.)

What could be more important than wisdom?

We Americans strive to own the biggest house, the shinest new cars, the youngest looking, most perfect bodies. We work hard to conquer our competition, and reckon our success in piles of lucre. Always, we want the best.

We know also, that beliefs guide our actions. Beliefs carry moral consequences.

Why then, do we not struggle to form the best beliefs? If beliefs form on the basis of evidence, of learning and thought, why don't we put real effort into forming the best beliefs?

A belief can be rational, clear, well-thought out, internally consistent, consistent with other knowledge and belief, helpful and good. We predict the future based on our beliefs, and can check the accuracy of our ideas by examining the results.

We must be open to the possibility of error and ready to change our minds when presented with sufficient evidence.

We must become schooled in the arts of logic and rhetoric. We must identify fallacies when confronted with the writing and speech of those who seek to deceive us.

We should take as much pride in our mental conditioning as we do in our physical conditioning. We should praise what is wise and condemn what is foolish, and struggle to become wise enough to know the difference.

Faith that grows out of this effort is hard won faith. Faith that results from work and study, from seeking wisdom, is the kind of faith I believe Jesus challenges us to earn.

If you simply soak up faith from your upbringing, how is that worthy of praise? You might as well take credit for having the right parents, or being born into a peaceful country. Those things reflect good fortune, not merit.

Of course, it is blessed to born into faith, a blessing like the grace given to us by God.

But it is also blessed to ask, and be answered; to seek, and to find; to knock, and to watch the door open.

It is blessed to have the ears to hear; and then to hear.

What Immigration Reform Must Include

2006-04-13T06:24:00.000-05:00

We must avoid the mistakes made by France and the other European nations. The policy of the United States must be designed in such a way so as to give people who come here a stake in our system and our way of life.

It hasn't been long since the smell of burning cars drifted out across the Atlantic. Recall that the rioters in France had nothing to lose. They were children of immigrants, at the table but with no stake with which to play.

To say that we did not invite the millions of immigrants who are here illegally is absurd. We hired them, gave them jobs and looked the other way. If you employ a worker, not only are you inviting them, you are paying for them to stay and help with your business. We, all the people of the United States, benefited from this cheap source of labor. But now their numbers are too great to be ignored.

Whatever reform the Congress passes, it must give the people who are here a stake in the peaceful progress of the United States. Otherwise, the burning cars will be Fords and Chevys, not Peugots and Renaults.

I dealt with immigration issues last fall, when I invited speakers to my Sunday school class. Reports are here and here.

Faith and Its Opposite

2006-04-10T13:46:00.000-05:00

Just as day cannot exist without night, and truth without lies, so it is with faith and doubt.

What does it mean to never know doubt? It is like sleeping with the lights on and never going out after sunset. It is like never seeing ugliness, only beauty.

But the night follows the day, and the day follows the night, eternally renewing each other. And how can anyone truly avoid the darkness? At times, the lamps lit by men fail, and darkness falls despite heroic efforts to keep it at bay. To see only the beautiful is to close the eyes; for these times are ugly. To hear only truth is to deafen yourself to evil; for lies are ever on the lips of those who steal from the multitude.

To proclaim faith and ignore doubt is to spread the Gospel blindly. It is to speak the Truth without understanding the difference between the Truth and what is not true; and without knowing why men need to hear it.

Suppose the lamps lit by the man who keeps the dark at bay never fail? When his children ask him, "What is night?" what will he answer? If those children leave home and make their own way in the world, they will surely seek out darkness.

Why would someone keep the lights on at all times? Perhaps so as to never be lost, and always find the way? Or is it fear?

But with the armor of faith, fear is overcome. If there be faith, then doubt need not create fear. Doubt is a natural state, as is the night. Doubt renews faith, doubt complements faith. Doubt and faith are like the two sides of the same coin. We say the opposite of night is day, and the opposite of faith is doubt.

But the true opposite of faith is fear.

Why I'm a Red Letter Christian

2006-03-31T17:22:00.000-06:00

The call, first issued by Tony Compolo, Jim Wallis and other leaders, has gone out. The nation needs a new Christian movement, one not bound by the false distinctions of "conservative" or "liberal." This new movement avoids the labels "left" and "right" or "red state" and "blue state." By basing positions on the teachings of Jesus Christ, we can avoid the acrimony and divisiness of party politics and stand on a common, unified ground.

The words of Jesus in scripture appear as red print in many Bibles, thus the term, "red letter Christian."

I greet this new opportunity with joy, and am happy to share why I consider myself a follower of this movement.

I chose to believe in Jesus the Christ; His teachings, His life and His ministry and the saving grace He gave to me and to everyone.

I believe in the Kingdom of Heaven, as He taught. The vision Jesus gave to the world is ever before me. I believe this is the vision:

In the Kingdom of Heaven, no child is hungry.
In the Kingdom of God, the sick find healing.
In the Kingdom of Heaven, no one harms another.
In the Kingdom of God, no one is cold.
In the Kingdom of Heaven, sins are forgiven.

In the Kingdom, humans live at peace, with dignity, and never suffer because of the indifference, anger, hostility, or hatred of their fellows.

I feel called to work to establish the Kingdom of Heaven here on earth. I want to live in obedience to Christ's teachings. That is the struggle for me and the challenge for Christians everywhere.

I continually study the words and the works of Jesus, and always try to keep His thoughts close. One must know Jesus to follow Him. The only way to truly get to know Jesus is to spend time with Him. To listen when he speaks and watch when He acts. We hear priests and preachers talk about Him, we watch movies that fictionalize His life, and we learn much but we are misled. Why listen to the words of another when we can go straight to the Bible and hear the words of Jesus himself? Why listen to me preach about what Jesus says, when you can easily look at the red letters on your own?

He said, "Blessed are the peacemakers..." and "As you do to the least of these, you do to me..."

As a red letter Christian, I care about issues. I view political parties as servants of entrenched power. As a red letter Christian, I challenge rich and powerful Christians to live out their faith by obedience to Jesus.

As a red letter Christian, I feel the tide of our times has turned against Jesus and his teaching. I see us, as a nation, taking away from the poor and giving to the rich. We could provide for the all the physically sick in our own country, but choose not to. We could open our doors and welcome the oppressed, but as I write this Congress debates ever harsher penalties for immigrants. We boast to each other of our generosity, but as a nation we give a smaller percentage than most to charity. We talk endlessly about peace, but spend as much on arms as all the rest of the world together. We talk a lot about free markets while pouring out vast sums to protect our own farmers and oilmen. I see the consequences of our reckless wars, and my heart cries out.

Jesus commands us to love our neighbors; He wishes us to care for the poor, the sick, the widow and the helpless. Jesus wants us to welcome the stranger as Abraham did so long ago. Jesus did not bear arms; He lived under the oppression of a foreign occupation. Jesus did not dine with the elites and celebrities, but broke bread with the despised and outcasts. Jesus did not deny anyone His healing power, but gave it freely, never asking anything in return.

As a red letter Christian, then, my politics are informed by simple ideas based on the teaching of Jesus:

Don't start wars. Ever.

Welcome those who need help, and do what you can. Sacrifice.

Take care of sick people.

Feed hungry people.

Give to those who have the least; instead of taking from them.

Teach the children what they need to know. All of them.

Always be fair, even if you must lose.

Always chose the high road. Even when no one notices.

Always speak well of your brothers, no matter how boneheaded they are.

Assume the best of people unless shown direct evidence to the contrary.

The whole of the Bible bears study. All of the Bible matters to Christians; but the red letters are the actual words of Jesus, and thus merit a special place. Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Habbukuk, Elisha and the rest were prophets of God and deserve our attention. Entire books and lifetimes of scholarship have been devoted to most them. But our days on this earth are short. As a red letter Christian, I emphasize the words and works of Jesus, and I choose to devote more of my study to Him than to those who went before Him. I choose to draw most of my inspiration from Him, and less from the prophets. In church, it is God we worship, not His prophets.

In my view, the leaders of our nation act as though ignorant of basic Christian precepts. They profess Christianity, but seem to forget the text of the red letters. They offer up all sorts of justifications for injustices. They explain, with considerable force, why it is necessary to give vast sums to the wealthy while reducing the pittance allotted to the poor. They shout out loudly that we must fight an unjust war, that we must strike the first blows lest we be struck. Their barbarous barks echo on our televisions, repeated in excited tones by talking heads. People who should know better nod in agreement. Christians, men and women who go to church every week, allow fear to deaden them to the teachings of Jesus.

But the words Jesus said more often than any others were, "Be not afraid."

I am just a Sunday school teacher living in Kansas. I have no power. I have no influence. My voice is a whisper in Arrowhead on game day.

But if there were enough red letter Christians, if we banded together and spoke with one voice ... our roar would shake the very foundations of the capitol.

Class and Queues in Kissimmee

2006-03-28T22:15:00.000-06:00

The sharp class divisions in America that usually hide in neat little geographic units are all illustrated by a vacation to central Florida.

Heaven help me, I do love nice things. I grew up sharing one room with my two brothers, wearing cheap clothes that had passed from boy to boy until they got all shiny and thin, etc, etc. So I hope to be forgiven for my fondness for five-star resorts. Who wouldn't want to stay in beautiful surroundings with fountains and waterfalls; golf courses; tennis courts; spacious rooms fully equipped with all the amenities of luxury living like Jacuzzi tubs, balconies and decks, a tv in every room, full kitchen, attentive staff, etc, etc.

If it were not for the attentive staff, and the knowledge (in the deep recesses of the back of one's mind) of the maids and groundskeepers and janitors making minimum wages to clean up behind us; if it were not for them, the underclass would truly be invisible in Kissimmee. But if you hang around your suite and check out late, you can't help but run into teams of smiling, seemingly happy, friendly women with crooked teeth. They are mostly Hispanic, and you see them pushing carts laden with rolls of toilet paper, bottles of cleaner, linens and feather dusters.

But the underclass never makes it to the theme parks that draw millions of visitors each year. At least, not on their own. With parking, a single day admission for one person actually costs roughly two full day's labor at minimum wage. For a family of four, a week and a half of work covers the price of just one day at the park.

People blithely accept the divisions between middle and upper income; divisions Universal Studios capitalizes on by segmenting the market within its two parks. Patrons line up in two queues at nearly all attractions in those parks, a short queue and a long queue. For an additional fee, nearly equal to the day’s admission price, anyone can purchase an "Express" pass and use the short queue. "Skip the regular lines!" say the ads.

That part of Florida is dotted with toll roads, in some cases running exactly parallel to "free" highways. The limited access of a toll road provides a faster trip, avoiding the traffic massed at stoplights and construction zones.

It strikes me as odd how we see line jumping as rude and boorish, except when extra fees pay for the privilege.

Well, not that I would be above paying for the privilege of moving to the head of a line. And I used the toll roads this vacation, to save time. In fact, I have seriously considered the purchase of those express passes and would definitely do it if I ever get caught down there during the peak season (again.)

It’s just that it all seems somehow so … unfair.

Highway Queues

2006-03-27T22:17:00.000-06:00

We seldom fully realize how much we trust and rely on each other as human beings. Experience teaches us that, most of the time, our behavior falls within easily predictable norms. We adhere to basic rules of decency, fairness and consideration for others.

Even the modern tasks we most take for granted, like cruising down the highways, rely on cooperative, communal efforts that have no precedent in history. Not merely the financing and construction of the interstate, an effort involving tens of thousands of workers, millions of taxpayers, and untold billions in treasure; but the promulgation of dozens of rules and the education of over a hundred million drivers to enable them to follow those rules.

Not that very many people actually obey speed limit laws.

A traffic jam is a kind of queue. The number of people – drivers and passengers – who want the same thing exceeds the capacity of the system to deliver. A bottleneck forms – my family and I went through two such backups last weekend – and the cars and trucks form a line, waiting their turn to get down the road.

As we waited our turn, a few cars and trucks blew by on the shoulder. Perhaps somone in one of these illegally driven vehicles was having chest pains. Maybe one contained a woman in labor. All good reasons to drive past a jam on the shoulder; but not the way to bet.

I turned on my CB radio and eavesdropped on the truckers. The first backup, from the Florida turnpike up along I-75, stretched out for twelve miles. A camper had gone off the road and cracked open like an egg, spilling clothing and household items two hundred yards along the side of the road. A family sat on a blanket on an embankment, watching a lone woman picking up her belongings. Everyone one the freeway slowed to a crawl to get a good look. Our hearts went out to them in sympathy.

It would be interesting to know if the numbers of people driving on the shoulder during traffic jams has changed over the years. Fortunately, I was able to resist road rage. Despite the morons who risked their own safety and those of us around us, the social order was maintained.

Maybe this is a hopeful sign.

QUEUES: PART ONE

2006-03-22T20:53:00.000-06:00

Academic economists, by focusing nearly all their attention on the price system, ignore many critical mechanisms people use to allocate scare resources. Queues, for example, serve as a means to equally and fairly divide scarce resources. My recent visit to Florida gave me ample opportunity to observe queues on the highways, in a hospital emergency room, and at amusement parks. Each place displayed a rich message of social cooperation and conflict.

The ER in the Florida hospital located in Celebration, Florida, partakes of the general craziness common to so much of central Florida. After checking in and getting screened, I approached the nearest empty chairs.

"Those chairs are occupied," said a woman seated nearby. She sounded angry. I waved my arms over the empty seats, trying to find the invisible occupants. A couple of people laughed at my antics, but the hostile woman was in no mood for humor. "It's a woman with a baby, she went to change a diaper" she said. I wandered over to the other side of the waiting room.

Aren't cell phones wonderful? What a blessing! For nearly four hours, I was able to hear a woman seated nearby explain, through her cell phone, to her family and friends that she last took her meds three weeks before, last slept two days before, and had decided to try to get more meds. She thought maybe she was going crazy and needed the meds worse than the rent, car payments, and so forth.

I watched people carry in bags from MacDonald's, Chick-Filet, and Kentucky Fried Chicken. I supposed their loved ones got hungry during the six or seven hour wait.

A tall, heavy set man with slicked back, oily black hair came in with a small, wiry woman. He looked acutely ill. After a few moments, he was seated in a wheelchair and whisked away. A short time later, the woman who had accompanied him sat near me.

"How long have you been waiting?" she asked.

"About four and a half hours."

She shook her head. "In Brazil, we would never allow such a thing. It's outrageous, it's intolerable. Why do you Americans put up with it?"

"Many of us are annoyed with the state of healthcare in our country," I said. We chatted a while more, then my turn for service came.

It turned out the woman from Brazil told me only part of her story. The next day, at the pharmacy, I ran into her again. The tall man approached me, "Weren't you there, in the emergency room last night?"

"Yes."

"How long did you end up waiting?"

"About six and one-half hours.

"I told them I had chest pains. I really just had a bad cold. But if you say you’ve got chest pains, they look at you right away."

I said nothing.

"Back in Brazil, I’m a doctor. In Brazil, you have to have a good plan. If you have a good plan, you get seen quickly. I never have to wait more than a few minutes. Not like here. But if you don’t have a good plan, it's worse."

So the doctor from Brazil lied about his symptoms to jump the queue. Talking with a friend who is an ER nurse, I heard that this is all too common. She explained that when the EKG results came back, she knew when the patient lied. It occurred to me to wonder how many EKGs ordered up in the ER result from lies. I wonder how much the excessive waits in ERs add to our medical costs. She told me the average wait in her ER is four hours.

And it turns out that eating often worsens the problems for the patients who need surgery. Since they cannot have surgery on a full stomach, they must wait even longer for treatment.

Obviously, one cannot generalize from the poor behavior of one Brazilian doctor; but my friend the ER nurse confirms that people often lie about symptoms to avoid the long wait for service. To put the situation in terms an academic economist might understand, the situation in ERs across the country represents a market failure. For a simple person like myself, I worry about how we allocate scarce resources. I worry about undermining the social contract that enables queues to operate effectively in the first place. I worry about the care my children and grandchildren will get in a world where it’s every man for himself.

Opponents of National Health Insurance often argue that any workable plan will result in rationing healthcare. Such an argument assumes two things: first, that rationing is a bad thing; and second, that we don’t already have rationing. The second assumption is patently false; the "facts on the ground" show that health care is already rationed in this country. The real question is, do we want to ration health care intelligently and with foresight; or shall we have an ad hoc hodgepodge of de facto rationing lurching forward into the future?

Next: the highway as a queue.

Mike's Vacation

2006-03-05T19:40:00.000-06:00

What are the social implications of "Hulk" the roller coaster versus "Spiderman" the ride? How about "Space Mountain?" Not to mention "Tower of Terror" or "The Mummy?"

It's been over a year, so I obviously need to refresh my memories of the fantastic plastic experience of central Florida.

Sorry, I won't post for about 2 weeks while I investigate "The Rock n Roll Rollercoaster" and the like.

And I've got so much to say! I've read a really good book recently - Freakonomics. I want to write on some deep topics. I've got a draft of a long piece about causality and I.D. The excellent Bill Tammaeus wrote recently about not seeking the historical Jesus. Plus, why I'm a "Red Letter Christian."

Not enough time, what with the wife and kids, 50 hour workweek, grad school, the part-time business, Adult Education and Sunday school at my church, etc, etc.

Till next time, cheers!

Federal Civil Service Future Bleak

2006-03-01T23:00:00.000-06:00

Like canaries dying in mines, the recent resignations of federal inspectors general has gone largely unnoticed by all except a few. These warnings, like the lack of air, are silent.

March 3 will be the last day for Nikki Tinesly, widely respected IG for the EPA. In her resignation letter, she said "I fear the pay inequities that were created with the implementation of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2004 will make it increasingly difficult to convince career employees to accept IG appointments in the future." Behind the reserved language of a professional bureaucrat lies a story of potential disaster that needs to be told.

For over a hundrend years, the federal professional class has been prohibited from taking part in public partisan politics. The abuses of the spoils system resulted in the passage of laws designed to limit the influence of partisan politics on the day-to-day operation of the federal government.

Title 5 of the United States Code governs the traditional federal civil service. The 2004 Act referred to by IG Tinesly exempts over 70% of the federal workforce from Title 5.

In place of the staid, insulated civil service we now have a civil service that runs on "pay for performance." Who could oppose linking pay to performance? It sounds so reasonable. And many people have had the experience of frustration when dealing with the vast, complex federal bureaucracy.

Of course, the supervisor determines performance, and thus pay. And therein lies the rub.

If your job is to criticise the superior's performance, to audit the agency, then your pay is determined by the political appointee you are critiquing. So much for honest audits. The conflict of interest is intolerable, and auditors with intregity and ability will refuse to serve under such a system.

The wider implications remain to be seen. The potential for abuse is there. Certainly, smart young civil servants serving in a partisan environment will now have incentives to align themselves with the party of their appointed bosses; incentives that were banned over a hundred years ago, but are back.

But the same civil service that employs only Lake Wobegon executives may not be able to make real use of the new system. (You know - they are all above average. About 60% of all Senior Executive Service employees are currently rated at the highest level.") Actual experience with limited pay for performance expriments in the federal service shows that nearly everyone is found to be performing at the top level within a few years of adoption of the new system.

The new system is clearly bad for auditors since it creates a prima facie conflict of interest. No internal federal audit in the future will be free of the taint of suspicion.

We can only hope that the future will prove the system merely ineffectual. Otherwise, we'd better be ready to answer the IRS man when he asks us who we voted for in the last election.

Letter to Congressperson

2006-02-28T22:28:00.000-06:00

Dear Senator/Representative:

I write to ask you to investigate the President's recent actions which appear to undermine the rule of law.

In apparent defiance of Constitutionally provided checks and balances, the Bush administration recently admitted publically a program of wiretapping citizens of the United States without warrents. On the face of it, the NSA eavesdropping was simply illegal.

The American people need to trust the elected leadership of our nation. The erosion of that trust harms the nation in myriad ways, and complicates the already vexing task of governance.

To resotre trust, to bring openess, transparency and appropriate checks and balances to the highest levels of the government of the United States, I urge you to weigh carefully the nature and gravity of the possible offenses of the Bush presidency. I urge you to hold public hearings. I urge you to take appropriate action on the findings of those hearings.

Signed
Voter/Constituent

Above is a model letter. Readers, send this or a similar letter to your congressional delegation and your local newspapers.

To obtain the e-mail address, click here.

What Would Patrick Henry Say Today?

2006-02-27T11:23:00.000-06:00

Some forty years ago I memorized the speech of Patrick Henry before the Virginia Assembly in order to pass seventh grade. You know the one, "Give me liberty or give me death." Visiting Williamsburg not long ago, I stood in a replica of the original building in which Patrick Henry gave many of his impassioned speeches.

As I looked around the chamber, I imagined what the patriot and founder would say today. His speech might go like this:

Friends, we gather today to debate the policy and law of the United States. As we chart the course for our generation and the generations that follow, let us remember that foundation which we laid out so well more than two hundred years ago. The tyranny we fought then came not from aliens and foreigners, but from our own good King George. The oppression we overthrew was not that of a faceless, nameless enemy that lurks in the dark; but was of edicts, decrees and illegal acts from our own sovereign.

Parliament in London passed Acts usurping our own powers and rights, granted to us in our original charters. I denounced them, saying "Caesar had his Brutus--Charles the first his Cromwell--and George III--may he profit from their example."

Today we face a nameless, faceless enemy who desires to ruin us; to end our way of life; and to stamp out all our freedoms. We call these criminals "terrorists" and invoke a vast, shadowy conspiracy as justification for all sorts of egregious abuses of power. When we abrogate the powers reserved to the Congress and to the courts to the executive, we do the work of these would-be tyrants. Nothing will so surely bring our American dream to ruin as to allow the executive the privileges he now claims; nothing will crush our people as much as permitting the president of the United States to claim supremacy of power in the name of safety and security.

And he is doing just that. He says he does not have to obtain warrants to search our own citizens. He says he can hold our countrymen without charges. He takes the power to make war wholly on himself, without the people's Congress given the opportunity to object. He undermines the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, all in the name of security.

The Bill of Rights was not written to protect the guilty or those plotting the overthrow of the United States. It was created to protect the innocent. It stands as the finest work ever wrought by free men, protector and guarantor of those liberties this nation fought for from its birth to this very day. The Bill of Rights rests on the rule of law; centuries of American and British tradition; and ancient political wisdom reaching back to Plato and Socrates.

This president, George W. Bush, and his men, would destroy the rule of law in the name of saving it. He would crush the Bill or Rights to preserve the people who created it.

Once we can search or wiretap without a warrant, where does the power end? If the Congress passes a law, and the executive ignores it, what limit is on power? If the courts no longer hold sway over the law, but only the President, who can stop him?

You may say, "They have no interest in me, I'm no terrorist." But how can you guarantee they may not someday take in interest in you? You may say, "The citizen imprisoned without charges is suspected Al Queda." But if we imprison men on suspicion, how long before some enemy of yours accuses you, and sends you to prison? The long and sad history of human kind shows that power always seeks its own increase. History teaches that unlimited power is always abused. Motives, however noble, become corrupt when harnessed to power.

The stamp that I, Patrick Henry, put on this nation, remains written within you. You know I would never submit to this kind of slavery. Your ancestors fought and died that you would never bow before King George. What security is worth your priceless freedoms? Why do you pretend to forget the lessons of our youth? You know how I feel; I would chose death.

Selections from Patrick Henry’s 1775 speech to the Virginia Assembly follow:

This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.

The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us.

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Scattered Thoughts About Muslims, Sharia and Democracy

2006-02-21T09:31:00.000-06:00

Recent events surrounding the publication of the cartoons disrespecting the Prophet Mohammad gave pundits around the world ample opportunity for inane commentary. Pronouncements that simply affirm "We're okay - they're not" are always well received, no matter how bone-headed. We saw and heard a lot of, "they simply don't get what free speech is all about," and precious little effort to really understand the Muslim viewpoint, much less genuine effort to reach out and engage them.

It's not enough to dismiss their complaints by saying, "they just don't get it." The implication - that they are stupid - generates understandable resentment. They would say that we do not take them seriously, and they would be right. These pronouncements come from people who do not feel threatened, but should be.

The advantages of allowing free speech, which we so take for granted, are not at all self-evident. Leaner societies than ours say they cannot tolerate the disorder free speech engenders. Of course, there is where freedom is needed most.

In our culture nearly everyone gets a public education up through secondary school, and a substantial number continue at a higher level. Here, free speech can be a given. In a culture where most instruction comes from religious schools, and few individuals advance beyond elementary levels, political authorities will say speech must be constrained. If someone says the wrong thing, riots in the streets could well result, as they have.

Even with our advantages, we are not so far removed from the cartoon rioters. In the USA,
no one dismisses people who want to ban flag burning by saying "they just don't get it." Surveys of American high school students show that over a third think the first amendment goes too far, over half think the government has the power to censor the internet and nearly three-fourths take our rights for granted. Oh, and 75% think flag burning is illegal (it's not... yet.)

Some Muslims, for example the daughter of the founder of the Fedayaeen, say the people in Muslim countries have been encouraged by their leadership to think the worst of the West. The leadership in those poor countries stir up fear, hate and now anger for their own political ends. Instead of honesty and democratic reform, the people are fed a diet of lies designed to unite them with a common enemy. Nothing so unites a people as a common enemy, and nothing else so entrenches the existing power.

Muslims immigrate to the West to take advantage of the material superiority we enjoy. Like everyone else, they want a better life for their families. At the same time, their leaders have no wish to integrate into our culture. For example, there is a Muslim movement within Great Britain to establish Sharia, or Islamic Law over British citizens. If they were to integrate into our culture, then the leaders would have to earn their positions through democratic processes. They fear democracy and the rule of the people because their own positions of power would be threatened. They are attempting to export their own tribal, feudal social order and establish it in western democracies under the name of "pluralism."

We have utterly failed to show the world how our material success relies on our free institutions. We failed to teach our own children the connection between the ability to publish offensive cartoons and the capacity to invent the internet.

We must do two things: First, we must insist that any adequate education include the rationale for and functioning of democratic governance. Courses that show the connection between productivity and free institutions must be part of any adequate education. These concepts need to be integrated into history and government classes. The government can influence religious schools by insisting that students seeking higher education receive these lessons and refusing aid to schools that do not teach them.

We need to do a better job of educating our own people and the rest of the world on why we need freedom of speech. People need to be shown how they personally benefit from allowing freedom of speech and the other rights we take for granted.

We cannot win this war with bombs. No quantity of munitions dropped on the hapless Afghans, Iraqis or Iranians will prevent the spread of Sharia. But I will fight it to my dying breath. We cannot allow our sons and daughters to come under the rule of narrow minded, absolutist intolerance.

Human Value Sans Theology

2006-02-17T06:52:00.000-06:00

If we remove disputed theology from the question of what is essentially human, what is left? Well, it turns out, quite a bit.

We still have the facts of embryonic development. While it is clear that a human fetus, at the earliest stages of development, does not experience the human condition, it is equally clear that the fetus does know at least some things before birth.

We can safely say that at some time in its development, it can feel pain. It can react to light. It hears sounds. The eyes, ears, brain and the rest develop slowly, inexorably, as the cells strive to become a human being. .

If we base our choices on well established facts rather than theological dogmas, we will have great difficulty deciding exactly when an abortion is or is not permissible. We cannot define human life with precision without reliance on dogma. But we still must make the attempt, no matter how messy the result. The easy way out is to reach for whatever brand of dogma feels most comfortable, and to stop thinking or worrying about it. Far more difficult is the attempt to reason and think through the questions.

To forbid late term abortions, when the fetus surely can experience pain, seems like the appropriate course when we consider the facts. Likewise, to allow early abortions, when the fetus cannot properly be said to experience anything, also seems reasonable. But somewhere in between these two points is where we will want to draw the line.

To determine where, the most sensible course would be to make a case-by-case adjudication. The only person in possession of all the facts in a particular case would be the pregnant woman.

Under these circumstances, it seems necessary to grant to the woman the exclusive prerogative of making her own decisions in early pregnancy. By the same token, it would seem reasonable to legislate restrictions on late term abortions.

So, it turns out that we have an apology for the current state of affairs. This is not fully satisfying to anybody: we have two camps, each one convinced of their own utter moral superiority and each one bitter enemies of the other. A position that says simple answers are too simple cannot fit either ideology.

The battle between these two camps will likely continue until science and other developments render the conflict irrelevant.

In the meantime, there it is, the value of human life rereasoned.

Who's Counting the Dead?

2006-02-16T09:34:00.000-06:00

In the last 4 posts, I yammered on and on about how we Americans express the different values we place on different lives. This will be short.

We know with great precision exactly how many American lives have been lost in Iraq. We have no clue how many Iraqi lives have been lost. President Bush estimated the figure at 30,000. It could easily be three times that number.

We carefully counted the dead civilians from September 11th. All we know about civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan is that they vastly outnumber the deaths of our solders and September 11th combined.

We take "every reasonable precaution" to prevent civilian deaths as a result of our combat operations. But during the early days of the Iraq war, we read of many horrible tragic deaths of women and children at the hands of US forces. Read in the Kansas City Star, not some leftist, fringe publicaiton. And, in the last month, we killed as many as a dozen bystanders when we used a remote controlled aircraft to strike at a terrorist in Pakistan. (The terrorist got away.)

What is the value of an Afghan, Pakistani or Iraqi life? How do our actions square up with our rhetoric?

If you were God, what judgment would you pronounce on the United States?

Every Person is a Sacred Child of God; More or Less, and With Exceptions

2006-02-15T09:34:00.000-06:00

We, as a people, accord unequal values to different human lives. In this we copy our ancestors and every known human society. What is unique to us is our complete lack of self-awareness and our denial of patently obvious truths. Understanding actual practice gives us fresh insight into the controversies that swirl around us today, including the abortion and capital punishment issues.

As individuals, we commonly set money values on our own lives and the lives of others. What is a life insurance policy but an assessment of the cash value of a particular life? A family policy like some people get through work may provide for $5,000.00 payment on the death of a child, $75,000.00 on the death of a spouse, and $350,000.00 on the death of the worker. (These are figures from an actual policy.) This is just the most obvious way in which we express the different values of human lives.

Of course, wealthy lives carry much higher cash values. Policies for millions of dollars are actually more common than we suppose. We can purchase policies for key personnel in our companies, too, assessing the cash value of each particular life.

Although we would not want to say homeless bums and poor people are without value as human beings, we should face up to the fact that people without life insurance are not valued in the same way as those of us with life insurance.

A minor controversy in the Blogosphere erupted last October because one of those insufferable Hilton sisters was quoted in Vanity Fair as saying, "I'm 21 years old, I run two multi-million-dollar companies, I work my ass off. Like, what were you doing that was so fucking important at that age?" Of course, many of us were in teacher's college; or pre-med; or police or fireman's academy; or other endeavors that Ms Hilton would consider unimportant. A significant number of us were single mothers. Some of us, like me, struggled just to earn a living and continue getting an education. Clearly, though, she spoke for a large number of people who equate the value of a life with current earning power. (Anybody remember the film Roger and Me?)

I don't want to suggest that money is the main way we express the value of human life. "By no means!" as St Paul would say. We have lots of ways to assert that lives are of unequal value and importance.

When we allow people in our streets to murder each other with handguns, we also express the relative value of different human lives. The lives of a few hundred drug dealers in the inner city do not outweigh the value of our "right" to sell and profit from handgun ownership. Ooops, maybe that's a little unfair. Let's say, rather, the value of these lives is less than the investment it would take to stop the killings. To be fully fair, the cost of that investment would mean some actual sacrifice for the middle and upper classes. It would take integration of neighborhoods, opportunities for poor people, changes in gun laws, better policing, better education, etc, etc.

Speaking of murder, it is obvious that the life of a convicted murderer often carries a negative value; that is, many people feel that murderers deserve death themselves. In recent centuries, the death penalty has declined significantly in the civilized world, with only two of the top 30 developed countries in the world still using it. And even in the United States, we no longer execute people convicted of witchcraft or even theft. (Why did they stop public hangings of pickpockets in England? Too many spectators had their pockets picked.)

Of course, the death penalty is still quite popular in countries Americans sneer at: communist China, Laos, Cuba, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, North Korea, and Iraq, to name a few. (The last three were called an "axis of evil.")

Even though black people represent a relatively small minority in this country, some 43% of all people executed in the US in the last 30 years were black, and 55% of the people currently awaiting execution are black. It's interesting to think about why this is so; but one conclusion is inescapable: if we judge only on the basis of actual practice, black lives are valued much less in the US than white lives. Death penalty statistics are simply another way of expressing the unequal value of various lives.

I cannot help but think the denial of health insurance to poor people and the unequal distribution of care also speaks volumes about how we value life in this country. The health of the poor matters very little, even though, ironically, the middle class and upper class pay when the health of a poor person deteriorates to a life-threatening level. Of course, I am referring to the fact that hospital emergency rooms are obliged to attempt to save the life of a dying individual. (But live or die, that care is paid for by the hospital through overcharging insured individuals, government subsidy and charitable donations. A more sensible approach would be to provide preventative care to the poor, so as to keep them from becoming disabled by their chronic diseases. Instead, we wait till they go on Medicaid and are totally disabled to give them care. But I digress.)

If we extend life-saving preventative measures to middle and upper class persons but not to poor people, we act in a way that demonstrates the relative value assigned to the lives of those concerned. As a culture, without making a deliberate choice, we decided the lives of those with money are worth more than those without.

Let's see, I covered insurance, earnings, crime and healthcare. My point: our modes of action in these areas demonstrate how we actually value life. Here it is useful to remember the distinction between words and deeds; what we admit to ourselves and others as opposed to actual conditions on the ground.

Next: How We Wage War

It's Still Not Murder

2006-02-14T12:59:00.000-06:00

Suppose, for the sake of argument, we say an immortal soul enters the human egg along with the sperm's DNA whenever gametes unite. What follows? Does it automatically follow that the deliberate destruction of the fertilized cell is murder?

Well, you may say a soul is a soul is a soul, and that is that. But remember, the Bible itself gives us conflicting guidance and little insight into the precise nature of souls.

My belief: no, it's not murder, even if you grant, for the sake of argument, that the soul enters the body at conception.

To understand why, we must consider two things: the nature of what it is to be a human being and our ignorance regarding the precise nature of the soul.

Consider the ball of cells that very quickly results from the fertilization of the egg: call it a "blastocyst." This ball of cells has no nerve cells, no brain, no eyes, etc, etc. We can safely say if has no ability to experience physical pain or suffering, no capacity to fear, hate or love.

It is human, of course, but is it a human being?

The hallmarks of being human consists of at least the following attributes, singly or in combination: self-awareness; intelligence; ability to use tools; ability to use language; and sociability. Human being are essentially moral creatures; that is, they alone may truly be said to worthy of praise or blame. Only human beings have a conscience; only human beings can learn the difference between right and wrong. Only human beings experience shame and guilt (as far as we know.) I'm sure the average person could think of more attributes of being human. Now, I don't want to say that the absence of any one of these traits is the total absence of humanity. But the absence of all these traits in any form other than potentiality must mean the absence of true humanity.

Because the Bible is contradictory on the precise nature of the soul, any guesses about the capacities of the soul are mere speculations. But let me guess anyway. It does not appear likely that the soul, incarnated in a physical human, would be able to experience anything not experienced by that body. For example, it would not make sense to say of a two month old child's soul, "He's in a real moral dilemma; he's made poor choices." Or speaking of a sixteen cell blastocyst, "Her soul sorrows for all the poor people in the world." Or of a one-month old fetus still in the womb, "His soul was uplifted by the sermon."

The soul, at the blastocyst stage of development, does not make moral choices. It does not have opinions; it has no self-awareness. It feels no love, not even for its mother. Neither does it experience pain. It cannot make moral decision because it has no capacity to act. It cannot sensibly be said to face choices: it has no nerves, bones, muscles or sinews. It cannot speak. It cannot think.

Thus, the destruction of a blastocyst cannot rise to the level of murder, even if an immortal soul enters the egg cell at the moment of conception. This is because the cluster of cells at that stage is only potentially a human being. It lacks any of the attributes or properties essential to being human, other than its origin as human cells.

As an aside: if we restrict the definition of "human being" to mean, "cells from a human body" then the whole argument is moot. That definition excludes the "soul" or any non-material aspect of being human. We would not want to argue that the soul resides in each and every cell. To do so is to invite madness: for example, we could never treat cancer if we thought the malignant cells were, each one, human beings.

We can posit, of course, that the soul does undergo human experiences even before the body can. No Christian that I know of has advanced this idea. But if it were true, it leads to some very interesting questions. Is the soul awake when we sleep? Is the soul conscious when we are in a coma? What purpose would be served by having a soul that is fully aware, awake, and experiencing life when the human body it is attached to is not aware, awake, or having any experiences at all? What's the point of that? Is this a Hindu concept? If the soul has experiences prior to the development of a body, then how does it do that? Where does it come from? Does it exist before conception? And is that to claim re-incarnation? Are we Christians or Hindus?

I wish Jesus had spent more time on Earth after the resurrection. Perhaps he would have given us some clear, specific information that would answer these questions. In the meantime, we are left to ponder events we cannot experience and mysteries we cannot solve.

In the face of our overwhelming ignorance, it seems unwise to declare ourselves in sole possession of the truth and to try to force others to bow to our arrogance.

If we believe that God created us, then He must have hidden the answers to these questions for His own inscrutable reasons. Do we want to claim for ourselves the knowledge of the mechanics of the soul? How can we know these things, when the Bible itself speaks with many mixed messages and conflicting views? On what evidence do we base our beliefs about souls?

Of course, there are many people with "proof" of the precise nature of the soul; "proof" of the existence of God; "proof" that the world is flat; "proof" that souls reincarnate like so many aluminum cans; "proof" that un-baptized souls go to hell; "proof" that animals have souls; "proof" that the soul weighs exactly 6.3 ounces; "proof" that the earth is only 8,000 years old; etc., etc.

What's wanted is a little healthy skepticism and a little critical thinking. What's needed is a careful reading of the Bible, a reading of what it actually says as opposed to what we need it to say to support our theories. God gave us brains. Let's use them.

Next: How We Actually Value Human Life

2006-02-13T09:31:00.000-06:00

The way we as a culture value human life is demonstrably inconsistent, incoherent and conflicted. The values of a significant number of Americans are founded on religious considerations that defy reason and spit in the eye of compromise. As tolerance declines, the possibility of consensus fades and the fear of the majority trampling on the minority appears well founded.

How we value human life obviously makes a huge difference in our ethics and morals. Our ethics and morals dictate what laws we favor and thus what politicians we support. The conflict rages in the Senate and the Supreme Court even as I write this.

What's a rational person to think? What is a reasonable approach to valuing human life?

With a series of short essays, I'd like to share one Sunday school teacher's notions. And I'd like to start with a deconstruction of the "Conservative" view, the view that I would prefer to call "radical right-to-life."

These people think, like a lot of us, that humans are endowed with immortal souls. They believe the soul enters the body upon conception, that is, at the precise moment the egg and sperm unite. Thus every fertilized egg is a human being. To deliberately prevent implantation in the womb; the subsequent growth and development of the embryo; and the birth of a child, all these things are (in their theology) quite literally murder.

The beauty of this view is that it can be fully developed in four sentences. It involves simple, clear ideas and even a fairly young child understands it. The extreme simplicity of this version of reality sends up a warning signal, but doesn't automatically make it irrational. Just note in passing that when there is controversy; and one side claims a simple truth, that side is often wrong.

So why would anyone disagree with such a straightforward set of statements?

Well, there's the Christian Bible, the foundation of Christian thought. The Bible does not clearly and unequivocally claim that there is such a thing as an immortal soul, much less that the soul enters the body at the moment of conception. If I err in this assertion, I invite correction. (E-mail me: rereason@hotmail.com .)

Now, at times, the Bible does have God saying things like "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart…" But this can be taken in any number of ways: God knows everything, including the future; souls exist prior to conception and God knows them; God selected you before you came into existence.

People do try to make this passage mean what it clearly does not: that the soul of the prophet entered his mother’s womb. Now it does say that he was conceived in his mother's womb, which is pretty strong. But what human being, what mammal is not normally conceived in its mother's womb? Interestingly, in places the Bible says that animals have souls. Some more modern writers have concluded that animals have souls in exactly the same manner as humans. Some passages support this: for example, Ecclesiastes 3:21 "Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?"

Then there's that little matter of immortality. Certain passages of the Bible speak of the death of the soul. Ezekiel 18:4 "The soul who sins is the one who will die."

Other more modern writers draw distinctions between souls and spirits: for example, here, and here.

It's not always clear from the text what the Biblical writers thought. In some places, there are suggestions of an afterlife; in others, the text suggests there is not. The afterlife imagined by various readers of the Bible also varies greatly. Some theologians argue that, upon resurrection, humans will experience an odd sort of half-material, half-nonmaterial existence. Others flatly assert that we will be the same as we are now, only more so. It's not clear that a soul is required in either case, because it is the body that is resurrected.

Of course, each modern writer claims to know the one correct, unique truth. They also assert that disagreement with their views is sin and will lead to the death of the soul or its roasting in the fires of hell.

Now, I'm no expert. I don't speak Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic. I figure most people are more like me than the experts who staked out their positions and earn their living from it. I figure most people want to be reasonable and reach sensible conclusions that are helpful, not dogmatic. The point of the foregoing exercise is to say expert opinion is well and truly divided on the nature of the soul as written about in the Bible. In such a case, it seems unwise to legislate or engage in hostilities based on any particular version of the truth. Of course, the radical right-to-life movement wants to outlaw abortion, and is often quite hostile to views that slightly differ even just a little from its own views.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, we grant that souls enter the egg along with Dad's DNA. What follows from that? See my next post to find out what sorts of troubles arise.

Person or Property?

2006-02-10T11:32:00.000-06:00

Senator Sam Brownback, interviewed on NPR, said recently that legally, everything is either a person or property. He believes, in his heart of hearts, that a human embryo is a person. He said the courts have treated "the unborn" as property.

As I listened to the man who would be president, I reflected on how wonderful, how easy, simple and clear life is for people who can neatly divide the cosmos into two well defined categories. Up and down, north and south, property or person, on or off, us and them, right and wrong - neat and tidy. Binary views such as Brownback's have great appeal; answers to questions that seemed hard become quite apparent; even young children can understand you when you explain your views; and your message carries through the news media quite well. This kind of off and on logic serves as the conceptual basis of computer programming. Alas, it does have limitations.

Brownback then went on to compare the status of "the unborn" with the status of slaves before the civil war. In his view, before the war, slaves were property; after the war, they became people. He wants to "emancipate" the "unborn." What could be more noble, or more wrong?

I'm no lawyer, so I can't say for sure that his concept of the law is oversimplified. It does seem to me that the law creates entities that are persons for some purposes and property for other purposes. We call these creations "corporations." And I hate to confuse the issue with facts, but the Constitution of the United States originally provided that slaves were counted as "three-fifths of a person." Clearly, not completely human but not purely property either. Further, it also seems to me there are whole classes of objects the law does not address. For example, does the moon belong to the United States? It would seem so, if we applied 16th Century concepts of international law. After all, we are the only power to actually set foot there, and we planted our flag there. But who owns the sun? Since it's not a person, it must be property. I guess it's just unclaimed as of yet.

Here's a binary idea to chew on: there are properties (or attributes) of objects that emerge only with time and use; and there are properties that are inherent in the composition of objects. (These are logical, not legal uses of the word "property.") That is, some aspects of what a thing is can only be seen as the result of action, while other aspects of a thing belong to it no matter what happens. The former might be called "emergent" properties and the latter "inherent" properties. An example might help.

Suppose you are examining a computer. You take apart the machine. You find wires and microchips, magnets and lasers, motors and whatnot. You do this with several computers. From your analysis, you can make a list of the inherent properties of computers: they are mostly plastic; they contain metals; the internal construction follows an orderly pattern; etc, etc. But based on this kind of dissection, you would never know that computers are word processors. The attribute of "word processing" is an emergent property, not an inherent property. It is based on what the device can do, not how it is made. No matter how skilled your dissection, you would never know that the computer was used to write an essay.

In my view, the attribute of being a "human being" is an emergent property. That is, what makes us human is more than the accidents of genetics and biology. The fact that a group of cells has human DNA is not enough.

I want to ask Senator Brownback, "How about a lock of hair, Sam? Is it a person or property?" After all, it has all the DNA needed to make a complete human being? And what about a tumor? Is my friend's cancer "sacred" human life and in need of legal protections? Any given tumor cell contains all the same DNA as an egg cell from the same person.

Of course, a human embryo is not a cancer or a lock of hair. Neither is it a human life, at least in the early stages of development. It is potentially a human life. As such, it must be treated with respect. However, its destruction is not murder.

Of course, if you believe the human soul enters the egg cell along with the sperm, you will have a different view. That's the subject of another essay.

NPR's write up of the interview is here: it includes a link labelled "listen."

Index Social Security to Life Expectancy

2006-01-23T21:50:00.000-06:00

Numerous attempts to "fix" Social Security over the last thirty years failed to address the underlying root cause of the imbalance in the system. The president attempted to solve the problem with a bizarre scheme of putting the security of the elderly into the hands of the stock market.

The patches and fixes of the last 30 years failed because people are simply living a lot longer. This trend shows no signs of slowing down, and some scientists speculate the "natural" lifetime of human beings might actually be as high as 120 years.

Over the years, the minimum retirement age of 62 has remained basically the same since early retirement for men was instituted in 1961.

Under the current system, increasing full retirement age to 67 is being phased in over a period of many years. With each passing year, the penalty for retiring at age 62 increases in the form of lower monthly benefits. Yet, for the vast majority of people, the financial incentives to retire early remain. That is, with early retirement, most people end up with more money in the long run.

The solution: index the minimum retirement age to average life expectancy.

The minimum retirement age would be revised annually, much as we do now with cost-of-living adjustments. Average life expectancy would be determined by a government bureau, just as the increases in the cost-of-living are now. A phase-in period would be needed to allow people time to adjust their retirement planning.

Indexing the minimum retirement age would:

-Permanently solve trust fund balance problems
-Set up an automatic mechanism
-Insure the security of our elders
-Avoid the need for tax increases

It has been argued that longer lifespans do not mean people retain the ability to work much longer than they do now: but this idea has never been proven. Raising the minimum retirement age does not affect the rules on disability benefits. As it stands now, anyone under full retirement age can apply for a disability. If people age 64 became disabled, then they could still retire under the present rules.

Another argument against raising the minimum retirement age itthat it would disproportionately disadvantage those minorities who have shorter average life spans. Since some minorities have significantly shorter average life spans than others, the payout of Social Security would not be as great for them. In fact, it would be interesting to analyze the contributions and payout ratios for various minorities and see who receives more as relates to the contributions. Since the average pay for minorities varies significantly, the situation is far more complex than it first appears.

As a nation, we still have time to solve Social Security’s long term financing problems. Current projections are that the system will be able to meet 100% of its obligations for 30 to 40 years. After that, the system will pay out about 70% of its obligations; a percentage which will decrease as time goes by.

We still have time, but whatever we do, we need to do it soon. With each passing day the solution becomes more difficult and expensive.

A report on the current state of the system is available here.

Ike on Guns vs Butter

2006-01-21T14:03:00.000-06:00

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, from those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. Dwight D. Eisenhower

(Quotation verified from four different sources.)

Science & Magic Part II

2006-01-12T23:14:00.000-06:00

Yesterday I said science functions like magic in the popular mind. Some of the comparisons I made should have riled up any scientifically literate readers I may have; therefore, I lay out these conflations in a little more detail below.

I said, "Both entail long apprenticeships in arcane and esoteric arts." I can easily imagine a science teacher objecting that basic science is neither arcane nor esoteric. Here we need to distinguish between technology and science, application and research, results and process. I would agree that requiring children to look through a microscope presents nothing obscure or terribly difficult. However, the means by which we came to understand what we are looking at, something we call the "scientific method," takes a great deal of effort to effectively communicate.

Science as generally understood, as the cutting edge of human knowledge, is nothing if not arcane and esoteric.

Just try to explain a Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, dark energy and the expansion of the universe to someone you bump into on the elevator. Or try to explain the research on new DNA analysis technology; or the theoretical limits on integrated circuit technology.

Well, maybe you could produce a cogent description of these matters in 30 seconds.

But imagine the process by which one comes to work on these problems. Typically one needs 27 to 30 undergraduate college credits in physics, chemistry or mathematics; then another 36 or so credits of graduate work for the Master’s degree; then additional credit hours plus a dissertation to get the PhD. For the vast majority of working scientists; that is the apprenticeship. And the day-to-day details of working with, say, a Bose-Einstein condensate are, unh, arcane and esoteric.

Speaking of science and magic, I said, "Both involve secret or dead languages" In stories about magic, we often see a book of runes, mysterious symbols, and writing in dead languages. Like Indiana Jones, deciphering ancient codes betwixt battles with sorcerers and Nazis. It wasn't that long ago that the primary language of scholars was Latin. The idea was to insulate and isolate scholarly work from common eyes. Nowadays, we see medicine, with its need to elevate the authority of physicians, as an exemplar of the use of needlessly complicated Latin phrases. Why do prescriptions bear the letters "B.I.D.?" They stand for bis in die, Latin for "twice a day." The cultural reasons for this are quite interesting, but not pertinent. Suffice it to say that modern medicine requires a scientific basis and rationale.

But medicine is not the only place where we see a dead language on life support. Biology uses significant amounts of ancient Greek and Latin in nomenclature, almost of necessity. With millions of species to classify, the use of these languages seems almost mandated.

Physics, astronomy and chemistry each have their own special vocabularies. There is no need to go into the justification for terms like mole; Planck's constant; or event horizon. The point, that these terms are not part of the common vocabulary, is obvious.

Another assertion I made about science and magic was "Both follow their own, internal logic and posses internal consistency." The objection could be raised that the whole point of magic is the violation of commonly observed natural laws. Magic, by definition, is inconsistent with everyday experience of the way things usually work. Such an objection misses the point; stories about magic require internal consistency. If, for example, the story says that spells are required for magic to work, you cannot suddenly eliminate this requirement and grant wishes that are not in the form of a spell. Suppose your hero's mouth is taped shut. Since he cannot utter spells, he cannot work magic. To violate the internal consistency rule would annoy readers. This actually stems from the requirement of all narratives for internal consistency.

The other points in yesterday's post appear sufficiently evident to obviate further explanation.

As an interesting aside - the criticism of evolution and science in general is often made that science is "incomplete." That is, there are "gaps" that are not explained by a particular science story such as evolution. To a scientist, any actual gaps are the most interesting parts of his discipline, because that's where new discoveries are most likely. But consider extending the argument of Kurt Goedel's incompleteness theorem to consistent science. In essence, if science if consistent, it is logically required to be incomplete.
As always, comments are welcome.

Not a Blogger? E-mail me at: rereason@hotmail.com

Intelligent Design, Magic and Science

2006-01-11T22:46:00.000-06:00

Recent commentaries in Slate and other venues move me again to write about the conflation of magic and science in our culture. For the average scientifically illiterate citizen, science functions exactly like magic in important ways. This conflation plays a role in the cultural success of intelligent design.

Science, like magic, gives humans abilities and powers far beyond the unaided limits of the physical body. Science, like magic, allows communication over great distances. Both enable transmission of voice, sound, images; material objects; and people through the air. Both have long histories in healing the many ailments the human body is prone to. Both can be used to create great destruction. Both entail long apprenticeships in arcane and esoteric arts. Both involve secret or dead languages, the application of complex formulae, and bad smells. Both make use of rare, esoteric and peculiar ingredients. Both use complex, fantastical equipment. Both follow their own, internal logic and posses internal consistency. Both have a history of state sponsorship. Both have distinct uniforms to be worn by practitioners. (For an expanded discussion of these points, see the next post.)

Neither is really well understood by the average high school graduate.

This last point seems beyond dispute, but must be placed into context. The vast majority of working adults spend very little of their days involved in science. True, we have a good number of science teachers at all levels, practicing scientists and engineers, but beyond that, how many people are interested? In a population of hundreds of millions, two million people, even five million, remain a tiny minority. The other three hundred million took their biology classes in high school or college, scraped by, and never learned much about the conceptual foundations of science.

And why should they?

After all, one need not be an expert auto mechanic to drive a car. Most people have no need to know how to construct a rigorous experiment or how to analyze a data table. We do not need to understand a double blind study to take our blood pressure medicine.

In the United States, high school and college students are not generally encouraged to learn for the sake of learning. (I will never forget the hostility of the dean at UMKC who had to approve my enrollment in undergraduate economics classes after I'd got my first degree. "What do you hope to accomplish?" he demanded. My answer, to learn something, was definitely wrong.) To this particular dean, as well as nearly everybody else, college is merely a superior kind of vocational training.

The nation of the common man often sneers at higher education; places little value on knowledge and experience; often rejects elitist notions of learning to read, speak, write and think well. We reward folksy politicians who stumble over simple declarative sentences with electoral success while punishing other politicians who speak at a higher level.

Ghetto culture, I read, viscously rejects education as "white." Redneck culture, on the other hand, embraces ignorance and produced men like George Wallace, famously both racist and anti-intellectual.

In such an intellectual environment, bizarre notions like: astrology, Bigfoot, tarot, phrenology, alien abduction, flying saucers, cold fusion, parapsychology, telepathy, Scientology, DaVinci codes, left behind; and yes, Intelligent Design, find ready support.

ID comes with all the trappings of science/magic; statistical probability; images of microscopic phenomena; discussions of bacterial flagella; guys dressed in white lab coats; talking heads and PhDs.

If science is no better understood than magic; if the two function almost interchangeably in pop culture, then how can we differentiate between legitimate science and ID? That is, if we as a culture do not know the difference between science and magic, then how can we tell them apart? If a presentation looks like science, talks like science, reads like science, then how can we say it is not science?

The simple truth: most voters cannot or do not recognize the difference between science and magic, much less legitimate science and intelligent design.

The problem reflects a dearth of critical thinking, not defects in science education. And I know of no solid evidence that the ability to think critically can be successfully taught. However, teaching basic logic and reasoning skills could only help. Encouraging open dialog and discussion would help. Taking the time to listen and understand other points of view would also help.

There are no easy answers; no simple way to tell a complex story. But we will continue to keep the conversation going.

Façade of Muslin Unity Threatens Schism

2006-01-09T22:26:00.000-06:00

The retired bishop of a Christian denomination from an Islamic country joined my Old Testament class yesterday.

Unlike Christianity in America, Christianity in his home country suffers from actual persecution. (In America, persecution of Christianity is a fiction used to fuel talking heads.) Christians are a small minority, about 10 percent of the population. But despite, or perhaps because of the persecution, it is growing quite rapidly in that country.

Here are excerpts from the Wikipedia article on religious persecution in his country:

the government has banned usage of the (…) -language Bible and (…) language Bible, both known by the name "al-kitab". The reason for the ban is that both books use the term Allah for God. However, there is no closer translation from the original Hebrew since both Allah and the Hebrew word for God come from the same Semitic root. Other Christian materials in the (…) language have been banned at various times.
Mel Gibson's movie, The Passion of The Christ was restricted in 2004. Officially, the movie was open to Christians only. Attendance was discouraged since tickets were not carried by the usual box offices. Christian groups such as the National Evangelical Christian Fellowship arranged block bookings of cinemas and distributed tickets to various churches. An initial run of two-months was extended, making it appear doubtful that only Christians viewed the picture.

(I deleted the references identifying the country because the bishop plans to return there and I've not discussed this writing with him.)

Most of the Christian sects in that country claim to have the only truth. They claim that adherents to others sects will go to hell. This infighting in the Christian community keeps the religion from taking full advantage of recent easing of persecution and restrictions. It hampers efforts to spread the gospel. And, of course, it runs counter to the idea that all believers in Christ are part of the "body of Christ," as expressed by St. Paul.

The bishop then went on to talk about Islamic unity, hidden divisions, and some of the implications.

He compared the state of Islam today to Christendom before the Reformation. Of course, in Christian nations before the reformation, adherents to other religions were persecuted, just as Islamic nations often persecute non-Muslins in those countries. Before the Reformation, the Catholic church and the Eastern Orthodox church were two sides of one monolithic religion. In Islam, we see two sects, Shi'ah and Sunni; though they are often in conflict.

The bishop has become convinced that Islam is no more unified in practice than Christianity. He cited an Islamic author who wrote recently on the subject (don't remember the name - sorry.) But tradition decrees a façade of unity, a fiction that all Muslins regard themselves as brothers and sisters. The resulting tension between practice and avowed tradition, between the pretend unity and actual diversity, has produced what the author called "dishonesty" in Islam. Christianity confronted and dealt with similar "dishonesty" when Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of Wittenberg's Castle Church in 1517.

So, from the bishop's point of view, Islam's development lags Christianity by about 500 years. That religion is ripe for a “Reformation” of its own. We may live long enough to see it.

Resolutions

2006-01-07T19:26:00.000-06:00

Well, now that we're ankle deep into 2006, it must be time for some resolutions. I’m feelin' real good about the procrastination thing.

I resolve to:

1.)Never use ten words; or nine words; or any more words than the minimum number, such as one, to convey a thought.

2.)Watch more tv.

3.)Respect others no matter what bone-headed, willfully ignorant, self-serving, stupid, lazy, incompetent, garish, distasteful, hostile, childish, primitive, ill-informed, half-baked, mistaken, and silly products arise from their little minds.

4.)Humbly and gracefully accept criticism no matter how bone-headed, unwise, etc.

5.)Restrain my glee at pointing out how bone-headed, willfully ignorant, etc, etc, the writing, art, music, and so forth beloved by others really is.

6.)Try to take the petty, small-minded, trivial personal concerns of others seriously.

7.)Do more solo drinking.

8.)Take every opportunity to point out errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation in the work of guys who take themselves way too seriously. Respectfully, of course.

9.)Honestly attempt to pay attention, no matter how badly my mind wants to wander, when some idiot attempts to correct my spelling, grammar and punctuation.

10.)Let the little things go.

11.)Get rid of all needless, irritating and annoying redundancy.

12.)Use more semicolons. And italics.

13.)Stop trying to be funny.

14.)Start using fictional quotations from Leviticus to back myself up.

15.)Quit yelling at fathead politicians on tv. No matter how loud I am, I only succeed in waking the kids and making the dog bark.

16.)Lay off the angry letters to Microsoft.

17.)Stop using the cat as a soccer ball.

18.)Use shorter, Anglo-Saxon words in casual conversation. (Who knew Decalogue, epistemology, and counterfactual aren’t part of the average vocabulary?)

19.)Remember the names of my children.

20.)Quit making lists.

Going on Haitus

2005-12-05T17:58:00.000-06:00

I probably won't post anything till early January.

This hobby of mine must give way to real world duties for a while. My statistical model of US healthcare expenditures is due one week from tomorrow. My Adult Education Team budget is overdue. I have things to ship for my business. I have a final exam in two weeks. My Christmas tree and decorations are in my hallway but not on display. And I will be out-of-town for over a week. I have a full-time day job. And a family. etc, etc.

In the meantime, Scientific American has a highly recommended article about the health effects of socio-economic status.

Harpers brilliant editor Lewis Lapham wrote an essay highly criticial of the administration this month, also highly recommended.

Cheers!

Unlike Minds Unite

2005-12-01T19:27:00.000-06:00

I think Sunday school should make people uncomfortable.

Sunday school at St. Paul's encourages the open exchange of ideas from all viewpoints. We enjoy the company of very conservative Republicans, moderate Republicans, Democrats and more than a few liberals.

We unite in a belief in our common ground, our faith in the truth and the exploration of the truth. We often disagree, but we are (almost) always civil. We are open to anyone, and we encourage debate and discussion.

That makes a lot of people very nervous.

Open discussion, dialog, and the search for truth threatens anyone who already knows he has a lock on the truth. People who are accustomed to sitting around and agreeing on how great they are do not thrive at my Sunday school. That type of person is still welcomed, but must realize an open door and the invitation to stay at the table is no guarantee of immunity from intellectual challenge.

St Paul's does see a number of people come and go. People with definite ideas condemning others don't like a message of unconditional acceptance.

Sad to say, the majority of churches I've ever been to (admittedly not that many) have all been small minded closed clubs. I'll never forget how angry my first wife became on Christmas eve once because I broke some rule known to everyone at that church but not to me. That was my first and last trip to church with her.

I write a lot about Sunday school because that's where I get a lot of first hand reports on interesting topics.

We do not host a "traditional" Sunday school class where the same 20 people socialize every week for 30 years. Most of our classes last six to ten weeks, and involve viewing a video and then discussing it. We do have one-shot classes and we frequently have speakers. (We also offer long-term, intensive Bible studies.)

In recent months we have heard from two sides on the immigration issue and the intelligent design issue.

We do plenty of traditional Christian study, and it's like exploring a treasure cave. I get lots of good mental exercise in grad school. But church is where I get the highest quality exchanges between people of unlike minds.

Sometimes I get very uncomfortable. Those are the best, because I know I'm really learning then.

What Eight Billion Means to Me

2005-11-29T06:51:00.000-06:00

All I could think about was eight billion dollars the whole time Terry Wollen talked about Heifer International. Terry and Judy came to Sunday school to share their experiences in mission work. I guess my mind wandering proves how shallow I really am.

Terry currently works as "Vice President for Animal Welfare" or something for Heifer. You probably already know Heifer as the charity in the business of aiding families in developing countries through grants of livestock. Terry and Judy related wonderful stories from their time in Guatemala. I'd rather heard about their time in Nepal with the "mice-eaters" or those other exotic places they've been. One inch deep, that's me.

Judy told how so many people she met lost mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters in the war sponsored by the CIA. (I never did understand how killing peasants in Central America supported vital US interests.) Now that peace has returned to the land, people came down out of their mountain hiding places to try to make lives for themselves. A diet of berries and roots must lose its attraction after a while. Life in a country where vast numbers don't own the resources to buy a chicken bears little resemblance to a life of poverty in the U.S. Here we have food stamps; there they have - well, they don't have anything.

In order to send their children to school, family men often leave home and hearth to seek work in the U.S. This affects perhaps half the poor villagers in the areas where Judy worked. These men face a long, expensive and dangerous journey. They risk arrests, becoming crime victims, hunger, cold and many physical hardships. Just imagine walking frGuatamala to California with only the clothes on your back and less than $100.00. The hardest thing to give up is the home and family; these men miss their wives and children, their brothers and sisters. But they know that real power resides in the ability to read and to compute. They usually cannot read or figure for themselves, but they hope to give their children opportunity to learn.

I hope you're wondering about those eight billion dollars. The president wants to spend eight billion dollars on security for our border with Mexico. In fact, he's spreading that gospel even today as I write this. My thought - good news indeed, if you happen to be in the fence business.

Bob asked how many undocumented workers are in the U.S. Terry said between eight and twelve million. Bob, always quick with math, pointed out those eight billion dollars breaks down to one thousand dollars per worker.

Some discussion ensued. Judy said a little over three hundred dollars of investment keeps the men at home. So, for eight billion dollars of investment in Central America, we could keep around twenty-four million undocumented workers out of the U.S. Wow!

"What you people don't see," I thought to myself, "is that eight billion dollars spent in Central America is eight billion dollars not spent in California, Arizona or Texas." We were having such a good time though, I didn't want to depress anyone by speaking my ugly little thoughts out loud.

I hate to go all Milton Friedman on you, but I must point out that eight to twelve million undocumented workers have a huge impact on the labor force. These workers drive the price of labor down. For my very slow Republican reader (you know who you are) "the price of labor" is "wages." Your wages. (I've already preached way too much on this here.) When the supply of something increases, the price falls (other things being equal.) Political rhetoric (like that offered by our potential candidate for governor ) does not affect the economic laws involved; they continue to operate no matter how we feel about them.

One question to ask yourself: who profits the most from depressed wages? Is it the person selling his labor, or the one buying it?

Anyhow, I digress. (Oh boy! I used "affect" and "effect" correctly in the same essay!)

One very nice lady asked if those people didn't really want to all live here? Don't they want to bring their families here?

Judy just said "No." She went on to say, in her personal experience, undocumented workers from Central America do not like life in the U.S.

Now I found this part hard to swallow, but out of respect for Judy, said nothing. But how could foreigners living in the greatest country on earth, among the greatest people on earth, not want to stay here? Did I mention that, not only are we the richest nation on earth, and the most powerful, we are also the most generous nation, and the smartest; we have the best entertainment and medical care in the universe; and finally, we are the best looking. Just tune into Fox news if you doubt it. Why, it's no wonder people risk life and limb to get here!

Judy said they don't like the weather, they're always cold, and they miss their homeland and their extended families and stuff. Like they don't want to be rich like real Americans.

If I can digress again, I read a great quote in this month's Scientific American (print edition.) A Chinese representative of one of their green NGOs said, "If we wanted to live like Americans, it would take the resources of four worlds to do so." I guess I can digress after all; so much the worse for you.

Well, now you know what eight billion means to me. I wonder if I can get some stock in a fence company?

The Best Known Bible Verse that Isn't

2005-11-25T21:36:00.000-06:00

A survey shows that the best known Bible verse in America is "God helps those who help themselves." Some 82% of us think that's in the Bible.

Anyone reading this knows the Bible doesn't say that. Not that those who are not reading this think the Bible does say that; but they might. Now, I don't want to offend my 6.446 billion non-readers by accusing them of ignorance. On the other hand, kudos to my readers - both of you - for knowing what the Bible actually says.

Hasty conclusions about the moral decay of a culture that elevates a selfish maxim to Biblical proverb tempt one like chocolate twinkies. Bemoaning the Biblical ignorance of Christians - something I indulged in here - is all too easy. And fun, too.

I first read about this survey over at every thought captive . Mr. Steiger reacts by asserting that we must all admit to original sin, and that only God can save us. Not exactly a turn-on, but I agree with half of his program. (By the way, exactly where in the Bible is the term "original sin?" Leviticus?)

But have Americans always been so ignorant? Was there a time when virtually everybody went to church? When everybody read the Bible and went to Sunday school? How long ago was that, and what happened? Is there some way to pin this on television?

Probably not, so I blame the conservative right wing movement.

Biblical ignorance actually represents the fruits of a right wing Republican plot. The hugely wealthy benefit most from the elevation of this false maxim to Biblical proverb.

Just think about it. The data shows that the bulk of the nation's wealth is controlled by a very small minority. The top 1% of the nation's population controls nearly 40% of the nation's wealth. The bottom 40% of the population controls 2%. If you had all the wealth and power, wouldn't you want to appropriate the blessing of God rather than his approbation? If you believe the saying is in the Bible, then wealth is proof of God's special favor and love.

If, as I believe, the Bible actually teaches "God favors those who help others," ignorance of the actual Bible aids those who have helped themselves the most.

My theory is the right wing zealots are too darn darn busy spreading their gospel to learn the real one. I'm talking about the guys Pat Robertson speaks for. They spend all their energies spreading hate; hatred against homosexuals, hatred against Jews and muslims, hatred of those who disagree with them, hatred of Methodists. They pray for the deaths of people they don't like, interpret natural disasters as God's wrath, and threaten Dover, PA, with destruction. (Look out!) This keeps them so busy they don't have time to study the actual Bible, much less to teach it to others.

See, it's all the fault of those fellows I don't like. I'm willing to bet a dollar - make that two - they're not reading this either. But just in case you do happen to read this and disagree, know that both Jesus and I love you. How can you stay mad after that?

As church leaders, the best we can do is to teach Jesus. To quote him as often as possible. To invite others to partake in Bible study.

Incidentally, I'm very excited to offer to my own adult Sunday school class Invitation to the Old Testament. This is a 10 week course that surveys the Hebrew Bible. Some very new archeological discoveries are covered as well. It requires some reading, but is worth the effort. I'm hoping to offer the companion course on the New Testament later next year.

Cheers!

Kansas City Slums: Terra Incognito

2005-11-17T16:35:00.000-06:00

Leawood Dead Pool Causes Stir

The posh Kansas City suburb of Leawood, Kansas, made local headlines recently when city employees were fired because of an office betting pool. This betting pool involved, not college football or basketball, but homicide.

The wager was on how many murders would be committed in Kansas City, Missouri, in 2005. That town's murder rate increased significantly this year. Over the last few months, the local press has engaged in some hand-wringing over the skyrocketing murder rate, and local activists have staged some marches to raise awareness.

But the outrage over the betting pool seems to exceed any feelings of outrage at the murderers. Murder in Kansas City is part of daily life, and rarely attracts much attention. But when people place bets on it, well, that's news.

Most of the victims and suspects are black, and poor. Most of the crimes occur in the vast slums that make up large parts of the city.

Leawood was listed as one of the best suburbs to live in by the Kansas City Star during the same week that the story about the dead pool first surfaced. Leawood is 95% white, and average household income of over $100,000 per year far exceeds the area norm. None of the employees disciplined actually lived in Leawood; in fact, only four of the 250 people employed by city hall actually live there. Most simply cannot afford it.

What does it mean when employees of a wealthy, white suburb bet on the number of their black neighbors who will be murdered?

It means the gamblers feel no connection to the victims or their families. It places the death statistics in the same category as football scores. The lives of the poor, black people who are affected become the equivalent of a televised sporting event; distant, mildly entertaining, but not affecting the safe haven of Leawood city hall.

The firing of two employees and suspensions of eight others sends a clear message. The outward manifestation of indifference will not be tolerated. So we again find ourselves treating symptoms instead of disease. We place the emphasis on the symbol, the wager, while paying scant attention to what the symbol represents.

This alienation, this disconnect from one's neighbors, disturbs me profoundly. The victims and their families live about 15 minutes from Leawood by car. Crowded interstate highways cut through the afflicted neighborhoods. They may as well be on the far side of the moon.

Let's be clear.

The vast majority of suburbanites do not give a rat's ass what happens in the ghetto.

Leawood soccer moms and their doctor and lawyer husbands could say a prayer for the murder victims; but probably won't. Why pray over something literally invisible? Even after the headline, the tv coverage, and the speech by the indignant Leawood mayor, the invisible neighbors remain unseen.

Not that Leawood is unique. The murder rate in Kansas City does not enter into conversations with my Shawnee, Kansas neighbors. We don't discuss it at church.

In this regard, we are exactly like any other American city. St. Louis, Chicago, Los Angeles, New Orleans; we all suffer from the legacy of slavery embodied in racism. We all suffer from indifference to the plight of poor people.

You may say, you may even think you care deeply about those unfortunates. But when was the last time you supported a tax increase to pay for more Medicaid? Did you speak out when the Congress cut food stamps? When they raised the price of college for disadvantaged kids? Do you always put a dollar in the outstretched hands you see in our downtowns? Do you make any sacrifices to allow you to donate more to charity? Only when you can answer some of these questions in the affirmative can you say you really care.

Why Bloggers Need Fact Checking

2005-11-16T22:29:00.000-06:00

If you want others to take you seriously, then take yourself seriously.

Reading a post on another blog got me to thinking: why don't bloggers do a little fact checking?

Over at dangerous idea Victor said, "Here is a news release about the separation of church and state lawsuit concerning state sponsorship for reading Narnia in school." The headline on his post was "Now they're suing schools for reading Narnia."

Victor linked to a story on the Agape Press site that described a protest to the use of a Narnia book to promote reading in schools. The story strongly suggested a lawsuit was imminent, although it did not actually say a lawsuit was filed. Victor, in leaping to the conclusion that a lawsuit had been filed, read the story as intended by Agape but not as actually written. The Agape Press coverage would lead any reasonable person think the American Union for Separation of Church and State (AU) is a fringe group dedicated to misuse of the legal system to promote extreme and unreasonable views.

Always assume the best of people: check reports to the contrary.

If we begin with a position of mutual respect, then evidence of extremism must be treated with caution and skepticism.

In accord with that principle, I checked Google news for more details. In less than 45 seconds, I found a Court TV item covering the same story in much more depth. Turns out the AU wanted the state reading contest to include other books in addition to the Narnia book. This particular book, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is often read as an allegorical retelling of the story of Jesus.

As it happened, that same morning I had heard NPR interview the author's stepson and heir. He said the book in question is not a re-telling of the Jesus story.

The point is not, however, to debate the meaning of this book. Rather, is the AU making a reasonable request? It would appear so, although this particular story has not finished playing out.

Don't go off half-cocked.

The meta-point (please indulge me) is that Victor went off half-cocked. Agape Press earns its living by stirring people up, so they had something to gain by telling only part of the story. Victor usually writes about epistemology, and does so very well. But by not doing any fact checking and venturing outside his area of expertise, Victor erred.

Of course, I make some big assumptions here. I assume Victor is a decent person who would never smear another person or group (like the AU) except through oversight or by mistake. I assume Victor would want to be fair in his writing. I assume Victor is interested in the whole story, not just what can be slanted for sensationalism. I assume Victor does not profit from distorting the truth or not reporting salient facts. I also assume that Victor would like to be taken seriously. Judging by the quality of his other writing, he deserves it from those of us who are interested in his subject. It follows that, if he wishes to be taken seriously, credibility
matters.

Use the Internet to Get Information.

Any blogger who wants to be taken seriously or is seeking an audience should worry about credibility. Anyone into blogging knows getting more information about a story of interest takes only a few keystrokes and seconds.

What's hard to understand is why so few bloggers take that one extra step.

All it takes to undermine your credibility is a single unfair, distorted, slanted, careless or error-ridden piece. All it takes to enhance your credibility or protect your reputation is a little extra effort.

Professional journalists employ fact checkers. They often use rules that prohibit publication without verification from two or more sources. Bloggers are obviously ill equipped to do the same. But bloggers, by definition, posses internet connections.

Of course, those who profit from distortion and half-truths are a different breed. That's the subject of a whole 'nother essay.

Don Weiss for State School Board

2005-11-14T20:54:00.000-06:00

My friend Don Weiss announced his candidacy last week for the Kansas State School Board. He will run against the Republican candidate in the 3rd District, which includes Olathe.

I know Don through his service on the adult education team at my church. Don taught adult Sunday School and helps the team with our decision making duties. He is a person of faith and outstanding character. He will make an excellent addition to the school board.

He expressed frustration with the state school board’s actions over the past few years. He opposes teaching intelligent design in science classrooms.

The Lawrence Journal World recently quoted him as saying "Now Kansas is again the laughing stock of the world and the butt of a thousand jokes because the board's Radical Right have ignored education experts, made outrageous statements, and put cronyism and personal ideology ahead of their duty."

The Topeka Capitol Journal Quoted Don as saying: "In order to have schools that prepare our children for global competition, we need strong science standards as well as strong standards for all other areas. It's time to restore respect and dignity to the Board of Education and the state."

The Republican incumbent, John Bacon, sided with the majority on the intelligent design issue. He also supported hiring Bob Corkins as education commissioner. Corkins recently said he will not seek additional funding for Kansas public education, but would make school vouchers a priority. Vouchers are widely seen as supporting private schools at the expense of public schools, thereby undermining public education and having a long term harmful effect. Corkins has no public education experience.

I urge anyone reading this to support Don in his campaign and to support the traditional values of public education.

Paul Morrison: Death Penalty Advocate

2005-11-05T20:43:00.000-06:00

Paul Morrison, Johnson County Prosecutor, finds himself accused.

Accused of "being soft on crime."

Following the letter and the spirit of Kansas law, Mr. Morrison said recently he would not seek the death penalty for the man accused of the murder of Ali Kemp.

According to an article in the Kansas City Star, the law requires the existence of certain aggravating circumstances to seek the death penalty. As heinous as the crime was, these circumstances were not present.

Mr. Morrison is, in fact, a staunch supporter of the death penalty.

Not only have I seen him from the jury box, I've also heard him express his views on the death penalty in detail.

Mr. Morrison visited my adult Sunday school class to explain to us Christians why we need a death penalty. The week before, the executive director of the local ACLU had visited the class to say why the death penalty is poor social policy.

I don't recall Mr. Morrison advancing the usual easily refuted arguments. Instead, he made two very persuasive points.

Putting a prisoner to death closes the book on the crime in a way no life sentence ever will. The overworked word, "closure" does describe the result for the family of the victim.

In addition, the death penalty is an instrument needed to solve and prosecute horrible crimes. It was an important part of the Debora Green case. Kansas readers will recognize her as the woman convicted of arson and murder of her own two children.

Paul Morrison sought and got the death penalty for convicted killer John Robinson.

I've also had the somewhat discomforting experience of sitting for a jury in a capital case Mr. Morrison tried. I was in the pool of prospective jurors, and watched the proceedings very carefully.

I found the experience emotionally and physically draining. I dreaded the prospect of passing judgment on a young man accused of being an accessory to murder. For three days, the lawyers quizzed prospective jurors about their convictions and beliefs. The ability to vote for a finding that could cause the death of the accused was a critical qualification. Thankfully, I was dismissed on the third day.

Personally, I oppose the death penalty. Despite Mr. Morrison's best efforts to convince my Sunday school class, I still feel capital punishment is morally reprehensible.

Intelligent people of good faith and intentions honestly disagree on this and many other issues. Though I disagree with Mr. Morrison, I recognize him as honest and straightforward.

Kansas now has the opportunity to prove to the nation that an honest man can succeed in politics.

Kansas Halloween Scare

2005-11-03T23:31:00.000-06:00

Not really scary unless your name happens to be Phill Kline.

Judges Make Law - Get Over It

2005-11-03T21:47:00.000-06:00

What's so bad about judicial legislation?

The term "judicial activism," used to portray something radical, high-handed and anti-democratic, stands five thousand years of tradition on its head.

Judges made law in Biblical times, and a written account of their activity is preserved in the Bible as the "Book of Judges."

In the United States, law derives from three sources: the common law, the legislature, and the decisions of judges. The latter we call "judicial precedent" or "stare decisis." Precedent is often subsumed under the common law, but I would argue it deserves its own category. I would also add a fourth category, which law professors would not, and that is regulation created by the executive branch. In everyday life, regulation functions as if it were law; and judges, while not bound by regulation, must take judicial note of it when crafting decisions.

Law created by the legislature, or "statutory" law, sometimes reflects the inability of the law making body to reach a final decision. The political process, reflecting as it does the contradictions in our society, can result in a compromise that contains internal inconsistencies. Or, the legislature may not wish to take responsibility for the details of a program. The statute then, less than perfect, tells the executive what to do - or perhaps not. It may provide for the creation of regulations to carry out the program or mission envisioned by the legislature.

For example, the Congress passed a statute with the goal of protecting the environment and our natural resources. The law provided for the creation of an agency, the EPA, with the power to write and enforce regulations. It happens fairly often that the regulations conflict with some statute or other or the application of the law is unclear. Conflicts arise, and the mess gets dumped on the judge. In sorting it out, the judge looks to see what other judges have decided in similar cases. In the decision, the judge will refer to similar cases and detail any differences which flow from the particulars of the case before him.

The judge may not find cases sufficiently similar to permit a clear, short decision. In such a case, the judge will write a much longer judgment, giving a precise account of the reasoning that led to the decision made. This reasoning then, becomes a precedent. It allows the consistent application of a rule and upholds stability and order. It also insulates the law from change simply because of the changing identities of judges.

It saddens me to see people working themselves and others into a frenzy over "judicial activism" without any understanding of the history or the actual process of law-making.

If a party in the original proceedings can show that the judge made an error of law, the decision is overturned on appeal.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land. I suppose what gets people upset is when a judge rules some statute of other unconstitutional, or finds that the legislature failed to carry out some duty specified by the constitution.

Here in Kansas, the state constitution requires us to give our children an adequate education. A judge recently ruled the legislature had failed in that duty by not providing adequate funding to public schools. This got a lot of people upset, talking about "judicial activism." But the judge is not the activist here, it is the legislature. They chose to abrogate their constitutionally required duty to provide for the children's education, not the judge. The judge is required to rule on the suit brought before him by the school districts, and he did.

Well, with the Supreme Court vacancy and events here in Kansas, this seemed a good topic for today's post. Too long as usual. But I hope was worthwhile.

Tammeus: Keep Government Out of Sanctuary

2005-11-01T21:51:00.000-06:00

Bill Tammeus, faith writer for the Kansas City Star, graced St. Paul's adult Sunday school class last Sunday. He came to talk about matters of church-state relations.

I cannot hope to duplicate his humor and wit here; his is a refreshing and often amusing voice. I recommend his blog as regular reading and for a first-hand sample of his work. And, of course, his weekly column in the Star. My account of his talk, of necessity, reflects my words and understanding. I also need to say St. Paul's and the United Methodist's positions on these issues are made public elsewhere, but not on this blog.

He started the serious portion of the program with a few remarks sketching the history of church-state relations. Western culture long held that the king embodied sovereignty. The people followed the religion of the king, not by choice, but because the law of the land compelled obedience.

When the American Revolution began, the emerging nation already had a population of diverse religious faiths, albeit mostly different kinds of Protestantism. Our revolution consisted of more than the mere overthrow of an oppressive monarchy. We added the novel idea that sovereignty flows upwards from the people. Given the diverse population and the different notion of sovereignty, a state religion would have been impossible for the newly formed government.

In modern times, as in the early days of the republic, the "wall of separation" between church and state serves to keep government out of religion, not religion out of government. Mr. Tammeus observed that no one expects a judge, Congressman or president to discard his faith simply because they serve in public office. The real issue is keeping public authority out of private, personal matters of faith. We do not protect government from religion; rather, we protect ourselves from an intolerable intrusion into those affairs that matter most.

Mr. Tammeus stopped his prepared remarks early, inviting questions after having given us just enough material to serve as the basis for a healthy dialog.

In response to a question, he told the following story. Newly elected Congressman Emmanuel Clever said the first bill he would introduce would regulate how Holy Communion would be served. This would illustrate the absurdity and the danger of government support of specific faith based ideas, such as defining who churches are allowed to unite in marriage.

He said Kansas will very likely regret the amendment to the state constitution that embodied the "conservative Christian" narrow definition of who can marry. The group being discriminated against often supplies proportionally large numbers of creative and artistic people. By making those folks unwelcome in Kansas, we reduce the creativity that we will need to sustain a competitive economy in the face of globalization.

One man remarked on the inconsistency of prohibiting prayer in schools while printing the phrase "In God We Trust" on all our paper currency. Mr. Tammeus ran with the question and made several points. If the choice had been his, the phrase would never appeared on our money in the first place. But we must carefully pick and choose our battles. The phrase on the money, while not trivial, is certainly less important than almost every other issue facing the nation. Moreover, there is such a thing as "civic religion." We honor traditions anchored firmly in our history that reflect the religious impulse of the people, but in such a non-specific way that it avoids promotion of any particular beliefs at the expense of others. The "God" referred to on the money is not named, and could be the God of any religion; Jews, Christians, Muslims, Zoroastrians or whatever.

When asked about his job, he described some of the projects he works on. He noted the "Faith" coverage of the newspaper has been reduced from a full section to the back page of the Saturday "F.Y.I." The Star covers faith and religion with just two writers. The sports section, by way of contrast, has dozens of reporters. He said people do not demand full coverage of developments in religion, so they don’t get it. The issues and progress in theology generally do not make the news. A large number of newsworthy stories go unreported in the paper as a result.

When asked how people could get coverage of religion, he mentioned Christianity Today, our own Methodist publications and website, BeliefNet.com, and GOOGLE, among others.

One woman voiced optimism that dialog and genuine exchanges of ideas have increased in just the last year or so. Mr. Tammeus agreed. He said we really need to listen to each other, and try to work together to address these issues. The current administration, by pushing faith based initiatives of various kinds, succeeded in bringing this issue to the forefront. As a result, discussion increased.

When asked for an explanation of the differences between Methodists and Presbyterians, he said they were not very significant. He did talk about different emphasis in worship and traditions, and pointed out subtle distinctions between the two denominations.

For me, the most thought provoking moment came when he suggested Christians should begin talks on unification of all denominations. Because of recent agreements between Lutherans and the Catholic Church, Mr. Tammeus believes the most significant doctrinal differences that keep us apart have been resolved. Thus, now is the time to begin talks on some kind of meaningful unification of all Christianity.

Mr. Tammeus delighted and informed his audience. Many people spoke to me about the excellence of his presentation. On behalf of St. Paul's, I thank him for giving us his Sunday morning.

Paul Morrison Runs for Kansas AG

2005-10-27T14:44:00.000-05:00

The recent announcement by Paul Morrison that he has switched to the Democratic party and will run against ultra-conservative Phil Kline gives us all hope that genuine two-party politics may return to Kansas.

The extremists who presently control Kansas politics are succeeding in driving more moderate people out of the party. It remains to be seen if their drive for power exceeds their drive for ideological purity. My feeling is that they will be unable to bend enough on what they think are their God-inspired positions to allow any kind of moderation. My hope is that Paul Morrison is leading the way for others to follow.

I know Mr. Morrison, have had the pleasure of meeting him a few times, and he's been a guest in my Sunday School Class. (He made the only argument in favor of capitol punishment that made sense to me).

He is an intelligent, reasonable voice running for an office that desperately needs him.

Good luck, Mr. Morrison, and thanks!

Faith and Evolution

2005-10-23T22:28:00.000-05:00

Mr. Pat Hayes addressed St Paul's Adult Sunday School class on the subject of intelligent design (i.d.) and teaching evolution in school.

He presented part of a Powerpoint he wrote for the class, titled, "Faith and Science, are They Compatible? The Battle Over Science Education in Kansas."

Mr. Hayes started the presentation with the following quotation: "You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist."-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club, January 14, 1991

He talked about the need for dialog and mutual respect. The attitude displayed by Pat Robertson, calling Methodists the Antichrist, does not appear to represent all of the opposition. Mr. Hayes said many kind things, praising the motives and sincerity of John Calvert and proponents of i.d.

But not all of the i.d. folks are as tolerant.

"In short, the reason that Darwinism and theism are fundamentally incompatible is not that God could not have used evolution by natural selection to do his creating. Darwinian evolution might seem unpublished to some, or too cruel and wasteful a method for a benevolent Creator to choose, but it is always possible that God might do something that confounds our expectations. No, the contradiction between Darwinism and theism goes much deeper. To know that Darwinism is true (as a general explanation for the history of life), one has to know that no alternative to natural evolution is possible. To know that is to assume that God does not exist, or at least that God does not or cannot create. To infer that mutation and selection did the creating because nothing else was available, and then to bring God back into the picture as the omnipotent being who chose to create by mutation and selection, is to indulge in self-contradiction."
-- Phillip Johnson

According to Mr. Hayes, Phillip Johnson, a retired UC Berkeley law professor, helped father the i.d. movement.

"At some point in time, if you compare evolution and the Bible, you have to decide which one you believe. That's the bottom line." -- Independence, Kansas Sept. 24 -- Steve Abrams
Reported by Scott Rothschild in the Lawrence Journal-World

Steve Abrams, a veterinarian from Arkansas City, represents district 10 on the Kansas State Board of Education.

The divisive effects of the battles over teaching evolution are not without victims. As most people know, the issue has ended up in court in Dover, PA. Bryan Rehm, a high school physics teacher and one of the parents suing the school district, says living in Dover has gotten harder.

"They don't know me," he says. "They don't know that I'm the co-director of the children's choir at church ... or that, you know, my wife and I run Vacation Bible School. Yet they have no problem going around calling me an atheist because my particular religious viewpoint doesn't agree with that of the School Board."

Mr. Hayes discussed the difference between faith and science. He defined faith as: "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."

Science, on the other hand, is: "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena."

He then explained his feeling that science and faith deal with fundamentally different parts of the human experience. He quoted Steven Jay Gould: "No supposed 'conflict' between science and religion should exist because each subject has a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority - and these magisteria do not overlap (nor do they encompass all inquiry). But the two magisteria bump right up against each other, interdigitating in wondrously complex ways along their joint border."

He then showed us the United Methodist Church Official Statement on Science and Technology:

"We recognize science as a legitimate interpretation of God's natural world. We affirm the validity of the claims of science in describing the natural world, although we preclude science from making authoritative claims about theological issues...

In acknowledging the important roles of science and technology, however, we also believe that theological understandings of human experience are crucial to a full understanding of the place of humanity in the universe. Science and theology are complementary rather than mutually incompatible. We therefore encourage dialogue between the scientific and theological communities .

The UMC does not have an official statement on any theories of evolution."

From The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church - copyright
2004 by The United Methodist Publishing House.

(Several members of the congregation expressed gratitude after class for helping them to understand our own church's position.)

Mr. Hayes said, although he is a skeptic, he did not find anything in the UMC position that he could not agree with. At this point, Mr. Hayes invited questions from the floor. The class became more of a discussion than a one sided presentation. He answered questions with scholarly thoroughness and patience.

One of the arguments of i.d. draws an analogy between machine-like parts of cells and human manufactured artifacts. Proponents of i.d. argue that something like a paper clip could never evolve by chance, as it serves one unique function. Mr. Hayes clipped it to his shirt, showing how a mechanical part can serve more than one function.

Mr. Hayes then showed us a slide illustrating the flow of money from state and federal PACS into the campaigns of conservative state school board candidates. He said the use of PACS to get around state and federal limits on the size of single donations to campaigns is very likely legal. However, looking at the chart, it was obvious the campaigns were funded by one or two wealthy sources.

He then showed us a slide of all 10 Kansas education districts. The names of each representative:

District 1 - Janet Waugh
District 2 - Sue Gamble
District 3 - John W. Bacon
District 4 - Bill Wagnon
District 5 - Connie Morris
District 6 - Kathy Martin
District 7 - Kenneth Willard
District 8 - Carol Rupe
District 9 - Iris Van Meter
District 10 - Steve Abrams

I asked about Sue Gamble, who represents most of the members of the Sunday School class. He said she is a moderate. She voted in the minority when it came to changing the state education standards.

Unfortunately, time allowed us to see a little less than half of Mr. Hayes presentation. We gave Mr. Hayes a warm St. Paul's thank you.

A small crowd gathered around him afterwards, eager to continue the dialog. One gentleman asked for a copy of the Powerpoint presentation. Mr. Hayes said yes, and the man whipped out his thumb drive. (Thanks Doc, for sending me a copy.)

I recommend his website, RedStateRabble for anyone interested in following developments at this intersection of faith, politics and science.

Intelligent Design in a Nutshell

2005-10-10T20:09:00.000-05:00

(I apologize for the length of this post. I am trying to give as accurate an account of the case for Intelligent Design as is possible. In a future post, I will analyze what it means.)

John Calvert, founder of the Intelligent Design network gave St. Paul's the nutshell version of the case for intelligent design. We invited him as part of our "Stay at the Table" series exploring controversial issues.

Before we began, Mr. Calvert and I discussed the format of the class in general terms. I indicated he would have around 45-50 minutes to talk and we preferred 10 minutes or so of questions and answers. I regret to say I may have been a little vague.

We began at 9:40 a.m. I introduced our speaker and the topic and sat down.

Mr. Calvert used a PowerPoint to introduce his organization. In a nutshell, the Intelligent Design Network (IDN) wants to end state support of "naturalism." Naturalism is the idea that everything is explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. (As my old philosophy professor used to say, "matter and matter in motion.")

The "mechanistic consensus" is the predominant thinking of the age, the general agreement that all meaningful explanation relies on strictly naturalistic means.

Mr. Calvert brought up the book, The Purpose Driven Life, and said the mechanistic consensus denies the thesis of that book. The premise of the book is that every life has a purpose. Under the mechanistic consensus, any particular life is merely an occurrence, a combination of random happenings. Thus, the idea that lives are meaningful is an illusion.

Mr. Calvert knows that each and every human being was conceived in the mind of God before being conceived in the world.

He quoted from the Book of Romans: "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: ..." Mr. Calvert said this passage shows that God reveals himself through the awesome splendor of creation.

(It's as if he went to last week's sermon - where Pator Jim showed us NASA photos of objects in space.)

Mr. Calvert said "You cannot see purpose, but you can understand it." He went on to define design as "A pattern of events arranged by a mind or some form of intelligence for a purpose."

Design is contrasted with "occurrence," which is an "event that just happens." As noted above, under the prevailing mechanistic consensus, we are all mere "occurrences."

Design can be detected. Moreover, a little thought reveals how this might be done. A few commonplace examples will do the trick.

But first, lets take a moment to ponder a little epistemology. (The study of how we know what we know.)

Any and all events are explained in three ways:

Design
Natural law
Chance

To demonstrate this, Mr. Calvert obtained a coin from a member of the audience. He held the coin between his two hands and then dropped it. He then elicited responses from the audience to show:

1.) He dropped the coin on purpose: by design.

2.) Gravity pulled the coin down: Natural law.

3.) It landed on tails: chance.

Mr. Calvert then showed us slides of jets hitting skyscrapers. He explained when he heard of the first airplane crashing into the World Trade Center, like many other people, he concluded it was an accident. Explained by chance. The second impact, though, changed his mind. Because of the pattern, he realized the strikes were done on purpose - explained by design.

Formal design detection, as a scientific process, consists of three main steps:

1.) Does the event to be explained appear to have a purpose? An event can be screened out as having no discernible purpose simply by an examination on the face of it.

2.) Is the event fully explained by a material cause? For example, a salt crystal under high magnification reveals a beautiful, intricate and orderly structure. Since the structure is fully explained by material causes, i.e., natural laws: design is absent.

3.) Is the event fully explained by chance? Like the coin landing heads or tails.

Next Mr. Calvert showed us a slide of a non-descript looking fractured pebble. He said the discoverer of the rock claims it is a kind of arrowhead; an artifact. The pebble was found in 50,000 year-old strata located in the Carolinas. What makes this claim controversial is it would establish human presence in the America's some 36,000 years earlier than the generally accepted 13,500 years.

He asks, can we accept this claim based on a single example? No. But what what if we had a bucket full? If we had a large number, then we would be convinced.

We then saw a slide of the somewhat famous "face on Mars." This is an image of a mountain or hill on Mars taken by a NASA orbiter. It appears to be a human face - in the photo, it projects the illusion of design. Later pictures of the same formation showed it to be simply a pile of rocks.

These examples are meant to show how gathering more data that shows an event or occurrence can be accounted for by natural causes rules out design.

He then went on to talk about the movie Contact. The story involves a scientist working on the project to discover intelligent signals in radio emissions from outer space. This project, called "SETI" for "Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence" has carried on for many years, with no positive results. In the movie, the scientist hears a signal that sends her scurrying into the lab. After extensive analysis, they decode the signal and discover it's the prime numbers from one to one-hundred one. They conclude no natural process could account for the sequence of numbers. Therefore, it is the product of a mind; it was designed.

This conclusion was reached at the 500th character; at that point they absolutely ruled out chance.

Mr. Calvert then illustrated how difficult it is to produce a meaningful pattern by mere chance with the following example.

Suppose you were given a bag with one set of the characters of the alphabet, a blank and a dash and enough characters to total 55. The chance of drawing the letter "D" out of the bag first is 1/55. The chance of drawing an "E" next is 1/55 times 1/55. The slide looked about like this:

D - 1/55

E - 1/55 x 1/55

S - 1/55 x 1/55 x 1/55

I - 1/55 x 1/55 x 1/55 x 1/55

G - 1/55 x 1/55 x 1/55 x 1/55 x 1/55

N - 1/55 x 1/55 x 1/55 x 1/55 x 1/55 x 1/55 = 1/27,680,640,625

Mr. Calvert then said, "As complexity increases, probability decreases expotentially."

He then went on to ask how we can test DNA for design. The first test, "Does it the DNA pattern have a purpose?" he would answer "yes."

He then went on to point out similarities in Morse Code and DNA.

Morse Code -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --genetic code

2 symbols, dot (.) and dash ( _ ) ~~~~~~~4 symbols, A,T,C,G

dash dash dash ( _ _ _) = O ~~~~~~~~~~ATG = START

dot dot dot (. . .) = S ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~AGA = Arginine

. . . _ _ _ . . . = SOS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~GGG = GLYCINE

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~TGA = STOP

Unfortunately, I derailed his argument at this point by saying we were running out of time and would he allow some questions?

He tried to hurry through the next part of the presentation, skipping a great deal of what he'd prepared for us. We saw impressive slides showing the remarkable resemblance a bacterial flagellum bears to a purely mechanical artifact. We saw snippets of video depicting the machinery of the cell. To me, this would have been the most fun part of the presentation; I just love looking at the marvels science has uncovered.

We saw a talking head, Michael J. Behe, who is a biochemist at LeHigh Unversity in Pennsylvania. Behe talked about how he came to question whether or not purely naturalistic causes can account for biological structures. He said the pictures of a bacterial flagellum moved him to question accepted science and look a little deeper.

I'm afraid I rudely interrupted Mr. Calvert to ask him to please allow some questions.

An audience member prefaced his question by observing one of the hallmarks of a scientific theory is the ability to make predictions. He then asked, "What predictions come from Intelligent design?

Mr. Calvart answered that "junk DNA" is not junk. Intelligent design predicts that all the DNA in a particular gene exists for a reason, to perform a function. I would like to add to his explanation a little. Not too many years ago scientists thought as much as 95% of DNA served no useful purpose. The actual functions of the DNA previously thought of as "junk" are now being discovered.

Another successful prediction, "Mutations are not random." We had no time to explore that one.

Another questioner asked, "How is intelligent design different from creationism?"

Mr. Calvert stated that intelligent design is not Genesis. Intelligent design does not claim to know who the designer is. Claims about the designer belong to the realm of religion.

Another person asked, "How does intelligent design explain extinctions?"

Mr. Calvert said simply look at a junkyard. Extinctions are analogous to discarded machinery.

At that point I had to interrupt and end the class as services were to begin in five minutes. The audience warmly thanked Mr. Calvert for visiting us and a few people remained to continue the dialog.

A point not fully developed but clearly implied by the presentation is the incredibly low probability of any particular sequence of genetic coding. Spelling out a simple word like "design" with 55 characters (why 55?) by random selection yields a very low probability after just a few simple calculations. Although the genetic code contains only four characters, the sequences run from hundreds to thousands and even tens of thousands of characters. We can safely rule out mere chance as the explanation for how any particular sequence of genetic coding came into being.

I came away with a much clearer understanding of the position and its appeal. Mr. Calvert did St. Paul's and the community a service by appearing and attempting to explain the ideas in a little less than an hour. I know I speak for the Sunday School class in thanking him.

Corrections and comments are welcome. To leave a comment, click on the comment button below. E-mail me at: rereason@hotmail.com

Immigration Links

2005-10-08T14:06:00.000-05:00

USCIS is the federal agency for immigration.

Chuck Colson, of all people, actually has a well reasoned statement regarding immigration.

The National Bureau of Economic Research posts research they claim shows substantial economic benefits from immigration.

Marginal Revolution posts a thought-provoking story about recent changes in the typical illegal Mexican immigrant.

Many of my own thoughts run along lines found at Advocates for Self Government
and the Libertarian Party (but only about immigration.)

Welcoming the Stranger

2005-10-04T18:17:00.000-05:00

Another view of immigration.

Melinda Lewis of El Centro visited St. Paul's Adult Sunday School to speak about "welcoming the stranger." She began with appropriate Biblical quotations showing the Christian tradition of hospitality to immigrants. For example: "The immigrant that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were immigrants in the land of Egypt. I am the Lord your God." (Leviticus 19:34.) She then asked in effect, what does "welcoming the stranger" look like in the 21st century United States?

This report reflects my views only, not those of St. Paul's or the United Methodist Church.

One thing welcoming the stranger must mean is more resources to carry out established immigration policy. Immigrants wait years, not only to meet legally mandated waiting periods, but also simply because of backlogs of unprocessed cases at government agencies. An immigrant may have a legally imposed five-year waiting period from the time they are granted resident status until they can apply for citizenship. They must then wait three or four more years before they can complete the process simply because there are not enough resources invested by the government in the agencies doing the work. Folding the INS into Department of Homeland Security seems to have exacerbated the problem. For example, the "US Citizenship and Immigration Services" publishes a toll free phone number (1-800-375-5283) but no one answers it. DHS is so big, the smaller agency's needs are easy to overlook.

Another important element is policy that helps preserve families. A tragic unintended consequence of the way our policies work in practice is to separate mothers and daughters, fathers and sons, husbands and wives; often for eight years or longer. Melinda told the story of a Polish immigrant she met recently. The woman described her four-year old daughter in loving detail, how the child looks, her personality and so forth: the mother knows these details only by correspondence with relatives. She last saw the child at age eight months. Immigration lawyers and experts tell her the child will be about eleven years old before they are reunited.

This situation is far too common.

I feel the irony of our politicians loudly proclaiming the sacredness of "family values" while quietly pursuing policies so utterly destructive to families.

Another tragedy that cries out for intervention is death at the border. So far this year, an estimated 500 people died trying to cross the border. Melinda proposes two ideas to alleviate the problem. First, rationalize and ease legal immigration. Second, make use of advanced technology to monitor the border. Most of the deaths were due to the heat in the Arizona desert. She did not elaborate, but I would imagine this means we would catch more illegal aliens sooner as they tried to cross into the US. Sort of get them before the heat kills them.

I have read about proposals for an "electronic fence" to be built across the US-Mexico border. I'm not sure of the status of this technology. What I don't understand is why our politicians aren't pushing this.

Melinda addressed the issue of illegal alien college students in response to a question. She said she is reluctant to advise anyone contrary to what law professor Kris Kobach said last week. However, she believes the age of majority under immigration law is 21, not 18 as stated by Mr. Kobach.

My own skim over the rules http://uscis.gov/graphics/lawsregs/handbook/CSPA092002_pub.pdf shows the situation is incredibly complicated. In some cases, an individual will be treated as a "child" well beyond the age of 21. This is because an application process could be started for a 20 year-old but not be finished for four or more years.

Melinda said the status of an immigrant is not simple, straightforward and fixed. Status changes, sometimes from day-to-day. For example, one visa classification recently lost status because Congress forgot to keep a promise to renew. Her office was inundated by panicked callers, aware that they had suddenly become illegal. Congress missed renewing the law giving them their status by a day, so Congress made the status retroactive.

In response to another question, Melinda said that contrary to the myths about illegal aliens, they do not get their pay in cash. In fact, only about eight percent receive wages in cash. However, the stereotype that they tend to pay for everything in cash is true. This both helps them avoid debt but also keeps them from establishing credit.

Missing from both Mr. Kobach's presentation and Ms. Lewis was a realistic discussion of the overall economics of illegal immigration. I'm not referring to the price of smuggling people over the border, neither am I talking about the price of lettuce.

Mr. Kobach says there are 10 million people in the US illegally. Ms. Lewis estimates 8 to 12 million. My feeling is this situation economically benefits the United States. An illegal labor pool can be easily exploited by unscrupulous employers; after all, who will the employees complain to, the INS? Not only does this keep the price of immigrant labor low, it also tends to depress the price of legal labor. Just how much would lawn mowing or construction cost without illegal aliens doing part of the labor?

I can think of no other plausible explanation of why a nation that calls itself "the greatest" would tolerate such a large invasion of illegal foreign nationals.

Consider: An income tax refund is issued within weeks, not years. Social Security retirement claims are often processed within two weeks. Even a passport takes around three months. These are all important to us as a nation. The fact that we tolerate processing wait times of years and years for the legal workings of immigration shows that we, as a nation, simply do not care to face the issue squarely.

I would also like to ask: Why does the fact that one's great-grandparents immigrated to the United States make one morally superior to a new immigrant? This last week, I was watching wacthing Fox television news and seeing the talking heads in a frenzy over the border with Mexico. These men, in their righteous indignation, in their eagerness to cast stones, do not act in the public interest. They speak out of pride and arrogance, to further their own ends. I fail to see how whippping up public furor over this issue contributes in any way to the discussion. I fail to see how they deepen understanding. I fail to see how they build any bridges. I fail to see how they strengthen the community.

We must remember, in the United States, we are all from immigrant families.

Rules of Engagement

2005-10-01T16:38:00.000-05:00

If we disagree, will you still respect me in the morning?

A recent column by Bill Tammeus in the Kansas City Star got my engine started, and I was off down a familiar path.

How can we agree to disagree? How can we respect each other even if we know in our heart of hearts that the other is wrong? To what extent are we entitled to respect? Do opinions that are manifestly ill-informed, poorly thought out, products of prejudice, arrogant, hateful, childish and so forth: do those opinions deserve respect? How can we know we are not committing the same sins we accuse others of?

Today we see the democratization of punditry. The Internet and Blogging phenomena allow common people to voice their opinions in ways not seen before. But does this improve the quality of the dialog, or is it mere pooling of ignorance?

In such an environment, it seems to me more important than ever that we have some standards to judge and evaluate expressed ideas and opinions.

Fortunately, thinkers reaching all the way back to Aristotle discovered many common flaws in rhetoric, identified them and codified the study of these errors. The subject matter used to be called "rhetoric" and I understand it was commonly taught in high schools beginning with the middle 1800's, but it has not been taught at that level within my lifetime. In college, the course is usually identified as "Intro to Logic" or 'Logic 101."

Fortunately for us, many useful resources reside on the web to sharpen our logic skills. For example, Tim van Gelder's Critical Thinking on the Web, and Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum Project. This last one compiled by Loren Miller, who taught "Logic 101" to yours truly some thirty years ago. Some of these even allow submission of your argument for analysis.
(For those unfamiliar with the terms, "argument" is not something you engage in with a spouse. It means a developed, reasoned idea: a thesis supported by statements).

I'd also like to note the existence of many well written and fun-to-read books on the subject. (I'm sorry I can't recommend any titles - it's been thirty years). Just ask a librarian.

Having said all that, I always remember what Thomas Hobbes said in Leviathan, "... as to the faculties of the mind, . . . Howsoever [men] may acknowledge many others to be more witty, or more eloquent, or more learned; yet they will hardly believe there be many so wise as themselves: For they see their own wit at hand, and other men's at a distance. But this proveth rather that men are in that point equal, than unequal. For there is not ordinarily a greater sign of the equal distribution of any thing, than that every man is contented with his share."

In addition to the rules of logic, I also ask: is the position one of love? That is, does the argument spring from love, a desire to help others, to "love thy neighbor?" Will the results of accepting the idea be loving? Is it hurtful? Or does the idea spring from ego, selfishness, greed, anger, hatred, fear, contempt, etc, etc? Sort of my version of "Is it good for the children?' Or perhaps, "Would Jesus advocate this?"

So we have both a rhetorical standard and an ethical standard.

Now I believe that each and every human being deserves respect. The golden rule still applies. But I distinguish the person from the opinion.

If, considering the well developed rules rhetoric, I find an argument poorly formed, badly reasoned, ill-informed, flawed, or whatever, I feel no restraint in saying so. An attack on an argument is not an attack on the intelligence or character of a person. Really poor arguments do not merit respect.

The uncritical acceptance of absurd, extreme positions on issues troubles me. Even more troubling is the acquiescence of highly educated people, people trained in critical thinking. Sometimes the news consists mainly of ad hominem attacks of political opponents on each other. We need to speak out more strongly against this, to make it clear we want reasoned dialog instead of mudslinging. These people are Harvard and Oxford graduates. I want them to act like it.

So, a poorly reasoned, ill-informed, hateful or arrogant position should be rejected. Errors should be called to the attention of the author. If the response is a counterattack on the person pointing out the errors, then that should be taken as evidence of the characters of the individuals involved.

Kris Kobach at Sunday School on Immigration

2005-09-25T21:36:00.000-05:00

To my few readers across the USA: the following post was written for my adult Sunday School class. It covers my take on our speaker on immigration policy; if you like policy debate or want to know what the Bible says about aliens, then this is for you.

Conservative Kris Kobach addressed St. Paul's UMC Adult Sunday School class on the topic of immigration policy. He's wrong, he's wrong and he's wrong. Still, very well spoken, smart and interesting, all good qualities in the man who might be the next governor of the state of Kansas.

I need to say I can only speak for myself. My opinion, expressed here, is not the opinion of St. Paul's, merely my own.

Mindful of his location, Mr. Kobach opened with a Biblical quotation - sort of. He said, in Exodus somewhere, God tells us not to move boundary markers. This shows the people are to respect national borders.

He might have been wanting Exodus 22:21 "Do not mistreat or abuse foreigners who live among you. Remember, you were foreigners in Egypt." No, that's not it.

Or perhaps Leviticus 19:34 "Instead, treat them as well as you treat citizens and love them as much as you love yourself." No, I don't think he advocates the Levitical position of treating aliens the same as citizens.

Or even Deuteronomy 1:16 "When you settle legal cases, your decisions must be fair. It doesn't matter if the case is between two Israelites, or between an Israelite and a foreigner living in your community. " No, I'm pretty sure Mr. Kobach feels our laws should not treat foreigners the same way as citizens.

But I think he wanted the following: Deuteronomy 27:17 "Cursed is the man who moves his neighbor's boundary stone." Then all the people shall say, "Amen!"

How this applies to immigration policy, I don't really understand. But Mr. Kobach is a law professor, former candidate for Congress, and worked in the Bush administration on immigration policy. Maybe he knows something I don't. I just can't seem to connect the dots.

He spent the first twenty minutes of his hour talking about security issues. Turns out three of the four pilots of the September 11th planes were in the US illegally. Moreover, they had all been arrested, including the ringleader Mohammad Atta. But the arrests were on traffic violations, and the men were let go by the arresting officer. He then went on to talk about improvements in intercepting criminals and potential terrorists as they enter the US. It was not clear any substantial progress has been made on poor local-state-federal coordination. It appeared to the casual listener (me) that if a Mohammad Atta were arrested for speeding again today, that he would again be let go. (If anyone reading this knows more, please comment).

Security concerns are very important, but in my humble view, they are a very minor part of overall immigration policy. I am very concerned about the millions of legal and illegal immigrants.

Mr. Kobach turned his attention to the question at hand. He said there are an estimated 10 million people illegally in the US. He attempted to explain and then rebut arguments in favor of lenient treatment or amnesty for these people.

The idea that some people think other Americans consider certain types of work beneath them is insulting, he said. It insults Americans and Mr Kobach is offended. In his view, Americans are willing to do their own dirty work.

He further argued that the economic impact of having this type of work done at a decent wage would be minimal. He said words to the effect that about 5% of the cost of a head of lettuce is labor. If lettuce is $1.00 a head and you double the labor cost, it will still be only $1.05. He went on to say that illegal labor is a net drag on the economy. Although it is true they pay taxes like the rest of us, he believes the cost of government provided social services for them vastly exceeds tax revenue.

Putting the best face on what he said, he wants the work currently done by illegal aliens to be done by legal workers fully integrated into the US. He wants them to get jobs with health insurance benefits, for example. Who can quibble with that?

I wanted to ask him if any actual economic studies of the impact of illegal labor have been done. I suspect the ten million people he cited are not all picking lettuce. Many illegals work in construction and other higher paying industries.

And, I'm sorry, but the idea that a legal lettuce picker or fast-food clerk has health insurance is ludicrously out of touch with reality. (There are 45 million citizens without health insurance).

Mr. Kobach brought up the equity issue with amnesty. He correctly pointed out that large numbers of people immigrate legally to the US, although it is not as quck as paying a coyote to smuggle them across the border. He said it is unfair to the legal immigrants, who have waited patiently, and those who still wait, to reward law-breakers with amnesty.

In my view, that's the problem with amnesty, mercy, and forgiveness in general. If you forgive a sin, if you welcome the prodigal son, someone else who followed all the rules will see that as unfair. Christianity is unique among religions in that it offers unearned forgiveness. (A subject I hope to fully explore someday).

He then went on to talk about the "famous" lawsuit. Not long ago, the state legislature of Kansas passed a law that allows the children of illegal immigrants access to state higher education at in-state tuition rates, if they can show they attended a Kansas high school for the previous three years. Mr. Kobach represented a group of out-of-state parents who sued. He said this violates a federal statute passed in 1996, that prohibits states from giving illegal aliens any benefits not available to citizens. Apparently only eight other states, including California, offer in-state tuition to their high school graduates who happen to be illegal aliens.

Professor Kobach made a very interesting point: the minor children of illegal aliens break no US law simply by being here. They are assumed to be in the custody of their parents, thus not here by any choice or fault of their own. Once they turn age 18, they are breaking the law. If they remain here for four years, they commit a federal felony offense. Thus, they can never be hired in the US at an appropriate job, because employers at that level always check the status of new hires.

He advises children in that position to return to the country of origin and apply for a student visa. He said the wait is up to a year, but they could eventually graduate and possibly get a good job if they followed that advice. It actually sounded like pretty good lawyerly advice.

He did mention part of the problem with immigration policy stems from excessive paperwork, wait times, and other related issues. He mentioned one spouse who was waiting eight years (I think that's what he said) to immigrate to the US and join her husband.

He then opened the floor to questions.

A woman who is likely someone's grandmother, a woman I'd never seen before, someone who came just to see Kobach, asked him a question. She asked him to comment on opposition to the Bush policies and motives, and specifically mentioned the ACLU. At first he misheard the question, and started to talk about "voters."

"No," said the woman, "motives."

He talked a little in general about arguments against the policy of the administration. I have to admire his restraint: he said nothing or very little about motives. He is very skilled, and I'm willing to think he possesses a certain kind of fair-mindedness.

In rhetoric, a common ploy is to attack the person of an opponent. This is used because the attacker cannot defend ideas on their own merits, so must assassinate the reputation and character of the opposition. In logic, this is called "ad hominem" attack, and is always flawed as argument.

So whether from actual fair-mindedness, absent mindedness or because of skill at appearing to be fair, Mr. Kobach did not stoop to this type of attack, despite the open invitation from somebody's grandma. I'm very glad.

In my opinion, St. Paul's in Lenexa is a somewhat liberal church. We practice inclusion and seek to find common ground. After the talk by Mr Kobach, several people told me they were glad I'd invited him. Now we more clearly understand our differences.

My hope is we can move from understanding to finding mutually acceptable ways to resolve differences. Only by talking together, by trying to really understand, can we work together to solve problems. We have to admit these problems are too big for either side on the issues to solve without the other side's help.

Next week - the other side of immigration policy, presented by Melinda Lewis of El Centro.

Kant's Evil Influence

2005-09-23T21:49:00.000-05:00

"You should not be allowed to volunteer," said the pudgy woman. She sat across from me in a tiny conference room usually used for one-on-one interviews. Two other people sat with us, and we had been discussing how to raise money for an elderly man who needed a special diet. Every year, the office adopted people for Christmas, and that year we had an older couple.

"You really enjoy helping people. You seem to get a kick out of doing good. People like you shouldn't volunteer - you get too much out of it." She said all this with a serious, somewhat flat affect. I knew her well enough to know she'd never graduated high school, she attended church regularly and she had numerous children.

This woman never heard of Immanuel Kant, but she could apply his philosophy in everyday life.

Kant wrote about "the categorical imperative." One formulation of the idea was that moral action can spring solely from a sense of moral duty. Thus, though we are obliged to help others in need, we can only properly do so out of duty; it would be wrong to take pleasure in improving the lot of another person.

That is, of course, and over-simplified version of Kant. But the point stands; the formulation perverts doing good from being good. That is, it denys that helping others is intrinsically good; helping others becomes good only if done with the proper motives.

Consider the attitude of my coworker who refuses to volunteer for the annual charity workday sponsored by our top managers. He says his motives get all confused; would he be there to get face time with people who can promote him, or would he be doing good for the charity?

Of course, motive matters, but doing good is, unhhh, good. The refusal to participate because of confused motives sounds like a thin rationalization.

These examples demonstrate the evil influence of Immauel Kant.

Remembering the Hard Sell

2005-09-21T22:14:00.000-05:00

The recent announcement of the MacArthur "Genius" awards called to mind my experiences working for the company he owned.

Within the first two hours on the job, I'm in the car with the assistant manager of the local office when he turns to me and says, "You're not squeamish, are you?"

"Not too much," I said.

He pulled over, stopped the car, opened the door and leaned his head out. Then he vomited. After a moment, he wiped his lips, shut the door and we were on our way again. "Hiatal hernia," he said, "doctor tells me that's what causes me to puke." I said nothing.

I would watch and learn, my training would be to see how the experts worked and to copy them. The first call we made stands out in my mind. We drove out to a small house in the country to deliver a life insurance policy to a farmer. I didn't quite follow all that went on in the exchange between my boss and the farmer; at the end, the farmer filled out more paperwork and we left with a check equal to a week's pay at my old job.

The boss said a few curse words. He face turned a shade pink. The policy we'd delivered was not the policy the farmer had been sold. The guy who made the sale was in the hospital, which was why we'd delivered his policy. The boss complained very angrily to me about having to sell both the policy the farmer had thought he was getting and another policy. We would have to return to sell him the policy he'd wanted all along. I was learning a lot.

Each day started with a sales meeting (something I encountered again years later working as a "loaned executive" raising money for charity - another story.) The meeting whipped up greed and money lust in the sales force. The manager produced a parade of material prizes, ranging from cruise vacations down to inexpensive giveaways. He promised the good stuff to the top sales guys and handed out the small stuff. The top performer received special mention. A few of the guys were already getting very rich pretty quickly, so mere greed didn't motivate them as much as the need to beat the next guy. Incidentally, in those days, $50,000.00 a year represented a huge income - equivalent to several hundred thousand today.

I still remember my boss and me calling on a guy who lived alone in a tiny, one bedroom house. We told him we were there to "review" his insurance policies, to make sure he had the right amount and right kind of coverage. He obediently produced seven health polices issued by various companies. He told us how much money he made and how much went to service the policies. They took about a third of his income.

When we left, he had eight policies and we had a check.

"We'll go back and get rid of his excess coverage," the boss said as we drove away.

"If this guy ever gets sick, he'll be rich," I said to myself.

After a few days, maybe three or four, my pay started coming in. Checks for two hundred, three hundred, three hundred fifty, amounts that used to take a week to earn came to me for a single day's work. And these were splits with the boss, half commissions.

I remember the eighty-nine year old deaf woman. Actually, she had just turned eighty-nine and a half, had she been one month older, company policy prohibited any kind of sale to her, at any price. She understood we were from her insurance company, we wanted money, and she understood little else. She wrote her check and we left.

Sunday evening, before my third Monday with the company, I grew more and more depressed. A few weeks before, I'd been living on unemployment, worried about how to pay the rent and buy food and what would happen when it ran out. Now I experienced an entirely new feeling for me: I dreaded getting up and going to work.

I got sadder and sadder.

Finally, I made a decision. I found paper and pen, and wrote my letter of resignation.

Turned out, a lot of that money they paid me had to be returned. People lapsed the policies we sold, so the commissions on future earnings that I had already been paid had to be refunded to the company. It was in the contract I signed.

I can't say these experiences were typical of the industry or of MacDonald's company, and they were nearly 30 years ago. I can say the lessons my boss taught me were not the ones he intended me to learn.

I secretly think he had a conscience, though he didn't know it.

Almost everything he swallowed came back up, each and every day.