Bible as textbook

Georgia is poised to make the Bible a standard textbook in public school cirricula. I can understand the reasoning behind it. The Bible, after all, is a tremendously important social and political document, both in its original creation (the fascinating book "The Bible Unearthed" presents a very compelling case that the Old Testament was written to generate popular support for a Judean land grab in about 700 BC) and its well-known influence on Western and American history. But, as numerous people point out in the article, the Bible is surrounded by so much baggage that it is difficult if not impossible to isolate it into a strictly educational context, especially in a place like Georgia. In fact, I have a hard time believing that the motiviation behind this action is purely for reasons of historical study. We should all keep an eye on this. It's another salvo in the "culture war." The Right like to use the slippery slope argument with gay marriage, abortion, and the like. Well, it goes both ways.

FCC broadcast content regulation

Conservative commentators are calling for the end of the Federal Communication Commission's broadcast content regulation. Conservatives (not including libertarians), despite their overall distaste for government regulation, have always supported FCC content regulation because it furthers their cultural and social values agenda. So when a prominent conservative group like the Heritage Foundation starts to question the practice, well, I take notice. As Adam Thierer notes in his interesting discussion here, our choice of media is so wide that regulating one aspect of it just doesn't make any sense. When it comes to regulating content, I am and have always been a proponent of making that the parents' responsibility.

United Nations and Lawful Orders

Here's an interesting case. Michael New was court-martialed and dishonorably discharged from the Army because he refused to wear United Nations regalia and carry a UN ID card. This is newsworthy because New is still fighting his conviction, and a US Appeals Court has recently heard his case and should issue an opinion soon. The Army claimed that the order was lawful, and so New was charged with disobeying a direct order. New claims that the order was unlawful because Congress, under the United Nations Participation Act, never approved the Clinton administration's deployment on a UN mission to a hostile area, as the law requires. There are two things here. First, New's story. I obviously don't know the whole of it, but I'm certain there must be more to it than his web site says. The military does not like to court martial people, and will go to lengths to prevent it. If we look at New's timeline, we see that there was about 3 months between when he was told about the UN uniform items and when he actually had to wear them. Ten days passed between his refusal and the recommendation to court-martial. In all that time, I'm sure that he was given alternatives. I think that New martyred himself. I'm not saying that I necessarily agree or disagree with his position, but the severity of the story must be understood in context. Second, the issue at hand. Article VI of the Constitution says: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." In other words, treaties, such as our treaty with the UN, have the same power as the Constitution. I think that New was wrong. I know that a couple of members of the armed forces read this. I wonder what they think.

Illegal Immigration

...Huges demonstrations in LA, Houston, Milwaukee, and elsewhere as people protest recent immigration reforms. What are we to make of them? Is illegal immigration just an issue of free-loaders who want US civil rights without civil responsibilities? Or is it one of exploitation, danger, and family destruction? I would say that, as usual, the reality is somewhere in the middle, a little of both. The rhetoric surrounding the issue makes it very hard to discuss rationally, a fact I think that everyone understands. Also, the problem is multi-faceted and encompasses numerous, often conflicting, agendas of various interest groups. But I think that we can make some concrete statements. First, illegal immigrants are coming. Second, immigrants come here because there is opportunity here. As bad as the work illegal immigrants have it here, it is better than where they came from. Three, illegal immigrants are for the most part filling low-skill, low-paying jobs. The conventional wisdom is that illegal immigrants make our high-octane economy run by filling these otherwise unfillable jobs. Their cheap labor keeps our food and service prices down. The Center for Immigration Studies, though, tells us that illegal immigration is actually a net drain on our economy. Further, it says that those low-skilled jobs are in fact fillable, that illegal immigrants are displacing native workers. Finally, the human cost to the illegal immigration must be added into the equation somewhere. So, given all the above: that immigrants will continue to want to come to the US, legally or illegally, but that illegal immigration is a net negative, what do we do? Become a Minuteman? Mass deportation? What do you think?

Radio Stations Licensing

Here's an interesting companion piece to the couple of posts that I've made concerning national telecommunications policy (here and here). It concerns licensing of radio stations.

Gay comments

I accidentally turned off comments for the post below about gay marriage, so if you want to comment, you can do it here.

Gay Acceptance

A recent Pew Research Center poll shows that opposition to gay marriage in this country is dropping. The survey also shows less opposition to gays in the military and to gays adopting children.

More economics and bike racing

Yesterday, I linked to an article that attempted to highlight the strengths of laissez faire markets and the weaknesses of government intervention in markets. I found numerous flaws in the author's reasoning. I asked readers to tell me if they found the same. Squantum, a regular contributor, provided an astute analysis. You can read it in the comment section of yesterday's post. To his, I will add my own below. First of all, Jim Fedako (the author and a former pro cyclist, hence the analogy), mischaracterizes public choice theory. It's helpful to remember that the Austrian School of thought arose in direct response to the growing influence of market socialism in the late 19th century. Market socialism combined centrally-owned means of production and central price setting with a free consumer market. So when Fedako says "Public Choice is predicated on the belief that individual preferences can be known and quantified," he's confusing public choice with his arch-enemy, socialism. In other words, he's the proverbial man with a hammer, and every other economic theory is a nail. Public choice theory, on the other hand, is predicated on the fact that there are numerous flaws in the free market system, so-called market failures. Second, as squantum noted, an elite bicycle race is not exactly a situation in which everyone has widely different and unknown goals. On the contrary, I would suggest that everyone's goal is almost exactly the same--to complete the externally pre-determined course as fast as he can. Therefore, when a breakaway forms on the basis of an ad hoc contract, it's no mystery why this contract was so easy to create: 99% of the information in the contract is already known to all the parties. Third, Fedako dispatches externalities way too easily. What if the road were wet and the lead cyclist's tire spray were blinding everyone behind him, creating a very dangerous situation in the peloton? This is a classic negative externality: the lead cyclist's behavior is imposing costs on other people, costs that he himself does not have to pay. In this case, would it be unreasonable for fenders to be required? Sure, fenders incur a weight penalty, thus marginally slowing the lead rider, but it makes everyone else much safer. In short, externalities deserve a much more detailed rebuttal than Fedako gave them. Finally, his hypothetical centrally planned race--a leisurely, boring bike tour of the French countryside--is a reductio ad absurdum of his bugaboo communism, not of public choice. He is creating a false dichotomy. In sum, I find Fedako's argument wholly unconvincing. That's probably why the Austrian school has been out of favor for at least 50 years.

But is it hate speech?

A couple days ago, I talked about Google's decision, one with which I agreed, to refuse to carry Alain's Newsletter because it carries hate speech. The arch-conservative crowd was joyously up in arms over the welcome slight. But what do you think of a news site that runs ads like this: (I pulled this off today's edition). Is it hate, or just irrational fear?

Economics and the Tour de France

Here is an interesting article that uses the Tour de France, the world's most important bicycle race, to illustrate the truths of free market economics. The article, called "Free Riders: Austrian v. Public Choice," refers to the Austrian school of economics, a way of economic thought led by two, surprise, Austrians, Ludwig von Mises and Frederick Hayek, that stresses individual choice and laissez faire markets, and public choice theory, another school of economic thought that deals with government intervention. The article is entertaining to read, but I think that it contains a number of flaws. For the record, I am a public choice proponent. Read the article for yourself and let me know what you think. I'll discuss the flaws I saw in a different post.

More on the Flat Tax

Way back in September last year, I expressed my displeasure with the flat tax. Two recent articles, though, remind me that the flat tax is not going away any time soon. The first links it to our future prosperity. The second calls it the way of the future. The second article in particular perpeptuates the confusion. Mitchell conflates changing the tax rate with changing the tax code. But the truth is, we can simplify the tax code without getting rid of a progressive marginal tax rate structure. We can still have the much-desired postcard-sized tax return without a flat tax. I address this in more detail in my September post. So, one might ask, why am I against the flat tax? Two reasons. First, when conservatives tax about a flat tax, it's really means lowering taxes. Second, the flat tax shifts the tax burden from the rich onto the poor. This is illustrated in the chart below. This shows two hypothetical tax curves. The blue one uses the current marginal tax rates (10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, and 35%), and the second uses a flat 17% as recommended by Wilson in the first article. Total tax receipts is the area underneath the two lines. Note two things. First, the flat tax, the red line, produces less tax revenue total. Second, at low incomes, to the left, the red line is above the blue line, while at high incomes, the red line is below the blue line. This means that a flat tax will increase the tax for poor people and decrease the tax for rich people. This fact would be exacerbated if the flat tax rate were made higher, in order for it to produce the equivalent amount of tax revenue as the current rate structure. Why do I support a progressive tax? Because I believe that the rich should pay more in taxes, both absolutely and relatively. By the way, I don't necessarily support high taxes for anyone. But I do believe that taxes are a necessary evil, and that a progressive tax structure is the best one.

Same-sex Marriage

Hap Corbett at Alain's Newsletter rightly points out that marriage, in particular same-sex marriage, is a civil issue, not a religious one. Unfortunately, he misses the mark on what that actually means. He says that since it is a civil issue, government has the right to set mininum requirements for it. These requirements include age and gender. And since government has set the opposite-sex requirement for marriage, gays or lesbians who are refused marriage are not being discriminated against, "not any more than a plumber is discriminated against because he can’t get a job as an electrician." I think he's wrong for two reasons. First, marriage is not merely a sanctioned union, but a vehicle for enormous socio-economic gains. A recent GAO report identifed over 1,100 direct federal benefits that marriage bestows, ranging from those related to family leave, health care decision-making, and parenthood to those involving taxes, property rights, and inheritance. In my opinion, committed homosexual couples should have access to those same benefits. Second, by his reasoning--"Because it is a civil institution, it is a proper function of society to determine its requirements"--if government enacted a law that prohibited interracial marriage, well, so be it. This, in fact, used to be one of the requirments until as late as 1967, but I don't think anyone would support it now. In other words, the issue at hand is not whether government can or cannot set the requirements. It's that sometimes the requirements are wrong. So Hap had it half-right. Marriage is a civil issue. And sometimes society is wrong.

Thought Police

Thomas Brewton, in a show of solidarity to two of his fellow right-wingers, complains about what he calls "PC thought-police suppression." It seems that Alain's Newsletter (a favorite of mine) was informed by Google that it would not be included in sites referenced by Google, because in Google’s opinion the site publishes hate-speech. To Brewton, this smacks of the liberal media conspiracy. Well, as a devoted Alain reader, I completely understand Google's decision. As I commented to Brewton, some of the vitriol on Alain's site is hair-raising. But more importantly, let's not forget that Google is a private company that presumably makes sound business decisions. Is it suppression when Wal-Mart refuses to carry music with "dirty" lyrics?

Down but not out

The Hammer of Judgement was down for a couple of days because of some technical difficulties as the host server. Those problems are fixed now, it appears. I apologize to any who went through withdrawal from my insightful commentary. I was warned that using a blog service such as this one opens me up to these sorts of vulnerabilities. But, the service is free, and I guess I get what I pay for.

Nuclear India

A couple weeks ago, the US and India signed a nuclear energy/weapons accord. This deal has been controversial because India has never been a signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), and so by entering into this agreement, critics say the US is undermining both the NPT and the ability to deal with rogue regimes like Iran and North Korea. I disagree with this critical view. First of all, even though the NPT is important, it is not the one and only tool for nuclear control. Both Iran and North Korea have signed the Treaty, so obviously, the NTP is not working as intended. Other measures must be taken. Second, India has shown itself to be a responsible nuclear power (contrast that with Pakistan). The US needs responsible allies in that region, as leverage against both Iran and China.

Beware Big Words

I've always prided myself on having a large vocabulary. It served me well on the battery of standardized tests that we are all forced take as we wend our way through the higher education system. High verbal scores=smart, right? But a new study suggests otherwise: Writers who use long words are seen as less intelligent than those who stick with basic vocabulary and plain text. Time to put that thesaurus away.

Federal Communications Commission

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is fining CBS for a particulary raunchy episode of "Without a Trace" (a show that I have never seen). I find this noteworthy because FCC control over the "decency" of radio and broadcast TV content is hardly ever questioned--not by the free speech advocates nor by the free market types. Sure, sometimes particular FCC decisions are questioned, such the FCC's [over]reaction to the famous Superbowl wardrobe malfunction, but overall we pretty much accept it (except for maybe George Carlin and Howard Stern). Now, contrast this with FCC control over deregulation of media outlet ownership. Here we have a clear battle between free speech advocates, who worry that sole ownership of every news source in a given market will distort the news, and the free market supporters, who believe that capitalism will produce a better media product than central planning will. So far the free market is winning. But the two issues go hand-in-hand, especially as the lines between pay and free content are being blurred. And interestingly, the normal left-vs-right viewpoints are strangely reversed in this debate. The FCC has a new chairman, who is responsible for the CBS fine. I think we will see some large changes in national telecommunication policies in the coming years. Let's hope they're good.

Dubai ports

Here are a couple of nice pieces on the [idiocy of] the Dubai port scandal from Reason.com: one and two. Read in particular the first one. It sums up my position. The Dubai port issue is the rare one in which I agree with Bush.

Judicial activism

There is a real fear, slightly misguided in my opinion, of so-called judicial activism in this country. Judicial activism can be defined as the judiciary, through its decisions and intrepretations of state and national constitutions, implementing an ideology that countervails that of the legislative branch (which is assumed to be that of the people). Not surprisingly, as the myth goes, the judges are all ultra-liberals, bent on subverting American traditional values. Adherents to this myth point to such famous cases as Kelo v. New London, Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (the "pledge of allegiance" case), and, the granddaddy of them all, Roe v. Wade. This backlash has produced some interesting, albeit worrying, results. One is the "We the People Act," which will limit the types of cases that the federal courts can hear. This is a conservative initiative, so it is aimed at First Amendment rights. Another is the Judicial Accountability Initiated Law (J.A.I.L., get it?) movement, which is a national push to remove judicial immunity from judges. I have a couple problems with this judicial activism concept. First, there is no coherency to the "activism." For instance, the recent Supreme Court decision FAIR v. Rumsfeld says that no university, public or private, has the right to deny military recruiters access to campus, regardless of whether federal money is involved. That seems like something no liberal judge worth his salt would decide. If there is a disconnect between the Court and populist opinion, it is not the result of ideology, but of being out-of-touch. Second, judicial activity of this sort has been with us a long time, and for the most part, it has been a force for good. Consider, for instance, such cases as Euclid v. Ambler, Brown v. Board of Education, or Miranda v. Arizona. Of course, it can just as much be a force for bad. See Dred Scott v. Sanford, Plessy v. Ferguson, or Korematsu v. United States. In other words, the Supreme Court is acting now as it has acted since 1789. Therefore, these hackneyed solutions are bad, bad ideas.

Yale Taliban, part 2

Army Artillery Wife clarifies her objection to the Yale Taliban: he was admitted solely because he is ex-Taliban. Fair enough. It's similar to my objection to Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor: he was elected solely because he was a movie star. Let's hope that Hashemi's perfomance is better than Ahnold's has been.

Yale Taliban

As you know by now, Yale has admitted a former high-ranking Taliban official named Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi into a special study program. Not surprisingly, there has been an outcry. (Yale alums are particularly upset). So what is all the hubbub about? Is it that Yale has admitted this guy while at the same time banning ROTC? Is it that Hashemi doesn't meet Yale's high entrance standards? Is it that he represents a "heinous regime" that the US shouldn't countenance? What in hell was Yale thinking? Well, before we go off half-cocked, let's remember a couple things. First, Hashemi needs a student visa to study in the US, so someone in the homeland defense bureaucracy felt that that the guy is okay. Maybe the problem, if there is one, is with the Department of Homeland Security. Second, it was Al Qaeda, not the Taliban, that attacked us on 9/11. Sure, the Taliban was an oppressive regime that harbored Al Qaeda and had strong ties to it. But after 9/11, they offered to try Bin Laden before an Islamic court and then send him to a neutral country to be tried for war crimes. The US refused the offer and the rest is history. My point is that the Taliban became our enemy because we attacked them. We were fine with the Taliban when they beat their women and blew up world heritage sites. It was only after the work of someone living in their country that we decided we didn't like them. (This doesn't mean, by the way, that I disapprove of US actions in Afghanistan). Third, the US has friendly relations with plenty of other questionable regimes. Pakistan, Uzbekistan, China, and Saudi Arabia quickly come to mind. Should we deny their government or, more properly, ex-government officials from our univerisities? Or just if we disagree with their politics? (Incidentally, World War II taught us the hard way that retribution doesn't pay. US-led reconstruction of Europe and Japan after the war, in the place of heavy reparations a la the Treaty of Versailles, has proven to be an unparalleled success story. Perhaps in their own small way, that's what Yale has in mind).

National ID Card

How many people know that in May 2005, Congress passed the REAL ID Act, which by creating uniformity standards for state-issued driver's licenses, will create a national ID card? I didn't, but I do now, and it worries me. The intent is, of course, anti-terrorism. (Though some say the major sponsor, Congressman Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, pushed it through as an anti-immigration measure). How many people think this is a good idea? Bruce Schneier, a noted electronic security expert, certainly doesn't. He discusses all the various pitfalls and weaknesses of this sort of security measure. Privay advocates definitely don't think it's a good idea. To them, it is truly Big Brother Incarnate. Finally, it's not clear how the whole thing will be funded and managed. It's yet another unfunded federal mandate. And to make matters worse, no one seems to have explained how a national ID card will actually prevent terrorism. Timothy McVeigh, for instance, could have done everything that he did even with a national ID card, and the 9/11 hijackers could still have done everything they did with one, as well. I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist or shrill civil libertarian, but this seems like just the thoughtless, knee-jerk reaction that the Hammer was created for in the first place.

Constitutional Amendments

I am against all stupid constitutional amendments: anti-flag burning, anti-gay marriage, anti-whatever. Take a look at what others think.

New Gimmick

Take a look at the link called "Frappr" to the right. It's a link to an interesting new web feature I came across. It shows a world map with the physical location of all readers. I hope that it will produce an interesting graphical commentary on readership, but it may just embarass me with the lack of interest in my site. Help me make it the former and not the latter.

First Amendment

I got in a discussion over at Alain's Newsletter, a rich source of humorous arch-conservatism, on the First Amendment and freedom of religion. (Make sure to read the comments). There are those, many of whom we heard from during the build-up to the Global War on Xmas, that feel that actions that remove Christian symbols from the public sphere, such as prohibiting the display of the Ten Commandments in the state courthouse, are actually assaults against Christianity. Therefore, the thinking goes, these actions are in fact restrictions on the freedom of religious expression. This thinking really irks me. It illustrates an aggressive aspect of the conservative agenda. You see, no one is actually preventing them from practicing their religion. They are just being prevented from stuffing their religion down everyone else's throat, and that is what pisses them off. As McMillen, the author, said, "The only one that might be offended is the Atheist! So What?" So what, indeed. Maybe this article explains why they are so confused.

Putting your money where your mouth is

I've always admired companies that have and act on their values. For instance, I've long been a customer of the outdoor gear discount retailer Sierra Trading Post. Take a look at #3 in their company philosophy. Not something that stores often broadcast. So I was rather pleased to read about a major bank, BB&T, that will refuse to lend to developers that have benefited from eminent domain proceedings. I may disagree with the decision, and I may think that its practice will be rather sticky, but I am glad to see that companies will sometimes still put value above profit. (The cynics might say that BB&T is affecting values in order to maximize profit; let's hope they're wrong).

Price of Affluence

The San Francisco Chronicle had an interesting piece about the worldwide obesity epidemic. Obesity is not just an American problem. In fact, obesity is actually an unpleasant side effect of affluence, the result of the intersection of increasing per capita incomes, increasing availability of high quality (read high calorie) food, and increasing leisure. It's also an example of what I call the exculpation of America. The US is often the world's whipping boy for our decadent, indulgent, consumption-heavy lifestyle. Just look at our obesity, our auto use, our suburban sprawl, our energy use. But I contend that Americans are acting in a way in which any group would act if they reached our level of wealth. For instance, look at personal mobility, expressed in person-kilometers per year, or the distance a person travels in one year. Mobility is a consequence of affluence. North American mobility is basically flat, while the developing world is skyrocketing. Now look at the cause, or result, of this: auto ownership rates. Current developing world auto ownership rates are equivalent (actually slightly higher) to the rates in the US, when the per capita income in the US was equal to what it is in the developing world now. If one were to look at per capita energy consumption, per capita land consumption for urbanization (0r more properly suburbanization), one would see the same trends. My point is not to validate the US's profligate ways, but to show that the US is not the evil aberration. We are not different, we are just leading the world in every way, good as well as bad. In my mind, this gives us more responsibility.

What's Wrong with America?

Ed Feulner of the Heritage Foundation has just published a book called Getting America Right. Feulner is of course a prominent conservative, and so this book is getting a lot of attention in the conservative press: here, here, here, here, and here. The book is meant as a "handbook for the average citizen" to help Americans answer six questions about the federal government actions. These questions are: - Is it responsible? - Is it the government’s business? - Does it promote self-reliance? - Does it make America more prosperous? - Does it make us safer? - Does it unify us? The book obviously presupposes that something is currently wrong with America. So, is that a valid supposition? Well, what's interesting (or maybe so banal as to be uninteresting) is that no one disagrees that there is something wrong with America. But what exactly is wrong, now there's the rub. If a liberal organization were to have written this book, you can be assured that the questions and the answers would be a lot different. So, what do you think is wrong with America? And how do we fix it? Let me know what you think. In the coming days, I'll let you know what I think.

Religion of Peace

As we criticize and generally disparage Islam, let's remember that as a religion, it does not have a monopoly on hate.

Conservative fantasies

Note to the conservatives: The United States is not "without a doubt, the most generous country in the world." As I've stated before, the US ranks 21st out of 22 in terms of generousity among OECD nations. The reason this incenses me is that the Right is forever accusing the Left of succumbing to fantasy, and yet they persist in trafficking in fantasies of their own. Other fantasies: -The Iraq-al Qaeda connection -Saddam had WMD's -Racism is gone or on the wane -The poor are poor because they are lazy Can you think of others?

Liberal Fun Facts

If you are a Liberal, but you don't know what you think, don't worry, because the Right will help you out. Here are some interesting Liberal Fun Facts: For instance, did you know that your heros are Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, and Saddam Hussein? Did you know that your goal is the very destruction of America and to replace it with "an evil, foully perverted ideology that stamps approval upon perversions of every sort"? Did you know that since you don't believe in God or the Bible (and, oh yes, since you are a Leftie, you certainly do not believe in God or the Bible), you believe that society is completely baseless and therefore can be "melted down" and "reformed" like plastic figures? (Is it just me, or are the Linda Kimballs of the world growing extremely tiresome?)

Utopian Restrictions

The founder of Domino's Pizza is building a master-planned community in Florida called Ave Maria that will be governed according to strict Roman Catholic principles. This means, for instance, that there will be no contraceptives or pornography sold and that abortions will not be allowed. This will be possible because the development company will maintain ownership of all commercial property and will include restrictive clauses in the leases. Not surprisingly, civil libertarians are taking issue with this. As one critic said, "This is un-American. I don't think in a democratic society you can have a legally organized township that will seek to have any kind of public service whatsoever and try to restrict the constitutional rights of citizens." But I think the case is more interesting than that. First, is Ave Maria any different from other master-planned communities such as Celebration, Florida (developed and built by the Walt Disney Company)? In Celebration, in order to preserve the "feel" of the community, residents must must keep their lawns mowed; they aren't allowed to park a boat or an RV in front of their house for more than a few hours; there are rules on what kinds of 'for sale' or political signs they're allowed to display; there are restrictions on putting birdbaths, lawn gnomes, or pink flamingoes in front yards. They must have approval from the town's architectural board before they can paint their house a different color or put up a fence. Are those restrictions also violations of constitutional rights? In fact, such restrictions are very common in new developments (a topic I touched on in December ). I personally believe that such restrictions do curtail rights, but the rights are voluntarily given up for the privilege of living in a community that offers stability or security or whatever else they offer. Is Ave Maria different? Second, what exactly does Ave Maria offer? Residents won't be able to buy condoms in town but why couldn't residents just drive to the next town over? No porn sold? Well, what about the US mail or satellite TV? In fact, if I were an entreprising convenience store owner, I would open up a shop right outside city limits and sell everything that couldn't be sold in town. My point is that utopian visions as these, which have a long history in this country, never work (except in the movie The Village). All in all, I think that Ave Maria bears watching. I certainly wouldn't want to live there. Let's see who does.

Market Theory of Religion

Rodney Stark, a noted sociologist who studies religion, has a theory that religion as a human activity is best understood as a market or economic phenomenon. This is not to say that religion is concerned with consumption or wealth accumulation or materialism. Rather, it means that religion exists in a world where there is religious demand (the religious or spiritual behavior of people) and religion suppliers (organized faith or churches). According to this theory, religious supply and demand act just like the supply and demand for any other good or service. The range of both religious supply and demand is wide, and in a perfect market, every person would find the exact religious supplier to meet his needs. But just like other markets, the religion market is subject to market failure, the most notable of which is the monopoly. A state-sponsored or official religion is a religious monopoly. In a religious monopoly, since there is only one religion, the number of people who will actually have their religious demand met will be quite small. On the other hand, in a religious free market, the level of religious demand that is met will be quite high, because people can join the church or belief system that optimally meets their needs. The final bit of Stark's thesis is that there is and has always been a stable religious demand in human society. The question is always of rising or declining supply. Stark uses his theory to explain several things. First, he says that this is the reason for low church attendance in western Europe. These countries have official religions (Church of England, Lutheranism in Scandanavia, Catholicism in the Meditteranean, etc), so most people don't have their religious needs met and thus have repressed religious behavior. He also explains why America seems unusually religious. In truth, we are no more religious than the Swedes or the Dutch. Instead, we have such a pluralistic, wide religious supply system that most people can find an outlet for their religious needs. If this is not clear, substitute "restaurant" for "religion." There is an underlying demand for eating out. In a free market, everyone will be able to find the restaurant that meets their needs, whether they be based on price, type of food, level of service, etc. But if there were state-sponsored monopoly of, say, Kentucky Fried Chicken, then people who don't like chicken or fast food or low service quality (which would probably encompass the majority of people) would never eat out. Their restaurant demand would be repressed. This theory makes a lot of sense to me. Economics is in one way the study of human choice-making, and religion should definitely be considered in that sphere. It also explains the many goofy oh-so-American religous expressions such as the Rapture Index (the speedometer of the end of the world), the Branch Davidians, or the Church Universal and Triumphant. It also explains why America is an outlier in the World Values Survey--the only rich country that is not becoming increasingly secular. Finally, I think it explains what Bill McKibben calls the Christian paradox.

Global Climate Change Heats Up

I think that disavowing global climate change (GCC) has become something of a religion among many on the right. And like any group whose belief system is threatened, they must resort to ever more extreme defensive measures. For instance, take this column by Jennifer Biddison. In it, she addresses the Evangelical Climate Initiative, a coalition of evangelical christians who think that their christian duty is to fight GCC. (I talked about this group a month or so ago). Biddison, not content to merely discount the consensus that GCC is real, attacks the Evangelical Climate Initiative itself, claiming that the group has been "duped," is a "political hijacking," and, horror of horrors, is supported by "one of the primary funding sources of abortion programs around the world." Such ad hominem attacks are acts of desperation. Indur Goklany at the National Center for Policy Analysis, a conservative think tank, takes a more guileful tack. His study, Living with Global Warming, argues that it will be more cost-effective to live with the effects of global climate change than it will be to actually try to combat it. While it is noteworthy that Goklany is the rare conservative who admits that GCC is real, his study is a lesson in duplicitous logic. First, it assumes that we know what the consequences of GCC will be. We don't. We think that average global surface temperatures will rise, as will sea levels. We think that climatic events will become more extreme, the hots hotter and the colds colder. But with such a complex system, we can only guess at what the results will be. Second, he bases his study on a false dichotomy, comparing the effects of the Kyoto Protocol to various GCC "adaptive measures." But this assumes that the Kyoto Protocol is our last, best effort to fight GCC, that in the next 80 years, we will do nothing else to try to reverse GCC. The reality is that the Kyoto Protocol is merely an important first step, as much political as scientific. We will adapt and adopt much more effective measures as time goes on. This study is seriously flawed, but that doesn't stop the anti-global warming crowd to trumpet its results. Luckily, I think weak rebuttals like these show that the anti-GCC movement is losing steam. If only our national leaders would take notice.