55 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(12/08/10 12:37am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>When the president and vice president visited Kokomo recently to tout the alleged success of the auto industry bailout and other policies, I was a bit exasperated.I already knew, of course, that President Barack Obama and many others were alarmingly susceptible to overlooking the secondary and unseen effects of his administration’s economic policies, but I suppose I was more put off than usual because an entire campaign-style trip seemed to have been built around this elementary mistake.This mistake, to one who has been made aware of it, appears as obvious as the most embarrassing mistakes politicians make when analyzing policies, from the mistake of ignoring the prevalence of divorce while crusading for the sanctity of marriage to the mistake of assuming that the latest problem could probably be solved if we would only devote more funding to the bureaucracy tasked with solving it.It is all the more embarrassing when you realize the mistake was identified explicitly by the economic journalist Frédéric Bastiat more than 150 years ago in his essay “What is Seen and What is Not Seen.”In the essay, Bastiat wrote, “There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: The bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.”Although a number of Mr. Bastiat’s insights have taken hold among even the most economically senseless politicians, it appears his basic insight about unseen effects has yet to penetrate the minds of those who look at a new government program and see only sunshine and daisies.In the case of President Obama’s recent trip, Bastiat would surely be alarmed if he knew that, a century and a half after the publication of his famous essay, the leader of a prosperous nation could say with a straight face that a policy such as the auto bailout was a success simply because he can point to one city that would be worse off without it.Bastiat would probably want to know how none of the president’s advisers realized, either before or after the bailout was implemented, that the money that would finance the measure would necessarily come from the wealth-generating — that is, private — sector of the economy in one form or another, either directly through taxation or indirectly through inflation caused by printing money or crowding out caused by borrowing.He would probably be astounded that Obama and his administration would have the audacity to tell people the auto bailout was a success while anyone who realizes the government’s money must come from somewhere also realizes that it came from other sectors of the economy that have shed jobs and reduced output as a result.The most sickening part of this whole spectacle, of course, is that we can be almost certain that the president isn’t really stupid enough to believe Kokomo’s comeback came at no one’s expense. He just seems to think we are and is willing to exploit that perceived advantage.E-mail: jarlower@indiana.edu
(11/30/10 11:54pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Unless Congress acts by Dec. 31, income tax rates for millions of individuals, households and small businesses will rise next year to pre-2001 levels.These rate increases (as well as increases in several other taxes) are set to occur because of sunset provisions contained in the Bush tax cuts, two separate laws passed during the George W. Bush administration.Most congressional Republicans support extending or making permanent the income tax cuts for all income brackets, whereas most congressional Democrats would prefer to maintain the lower rates for middle-income earners and let the cuts expire for the wealthiest filers, particularly those making more than about $250,000 per year.Opponents of making the income tax cuts permanent for all taxpayers rely on a handful of arguments that all run into problems.First, many of those who favor allowing rates to rise argue that making the cuts permanent for the wealthiest Americans will make it more difficult to balance the budget.Hearing this criticism from many of the same people who have voted for the trillions of dollars in spending enacted during the late Bush and early Obama administrations is always a bit amusing — and a bit frustrating — because it ignores the fact that the lost revenue could be matched by spending cuts. It also overlooks Hauser’s Law, which, in the words of its originator, investment economist W. Kurt Hauser, states: “Over the past six decades, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP have averaged just under 19 percent regardless of the top marginal personal income tax rate.”Second, opponents often claim that allowing the cuts to expire will simply be a return to the rates of the Clinton years.This claim, while technically true, would prove false for the many Americans affected by the phenomenon of “bracket creep,” whereby people end up in a higher tax bracket thanks to inflation without enjoying any increase in purchasing power. It also ignores the fact that many people earn more in real terms than they did in the 1990s and thus would be in a different tax bracket than before even without inflation.Third, and most exasperatingly, opponents frequently fall back on the claim that because “they can afford it,” wealthier people deserve to be taxed even more heavily than they already are.The main problem with this argument is that it makes the disturbing claim that someone owes something to the state simply because they can afford to give it. Based on that logic, one could presumably justify the seizure of any wealth not absolutely needed for survival.The other significant problem with this argument is its assumption that the burden of a tax increase on wealthier Americans would only fall on those whose rates would increase. However, as anyone who has been exposed to the ideas of welfare economics knows, the burden of a given tax rarely falls solely on those who pay it.Much of the burden of a tax increase on the wealthiest Americans is likely to fall on consumers and small business employees. This is because most small businesses pay taxes at the personal income tax rate, not the corporate tax rate.Although politics might get in the way of sound policy on this issue, there is still hope that the lame-duck Congress will do at least one good thing this month by extending the Bush tax cuts — for all Americans.E-mail: jarlower@indiana.edu
(11/17/10 12:15am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>When discussing the size and scope of government with people who aren’t alarmed at Uncle Sam’s engorgement throughout the past 100 or so years, I often encounter the following confident challenge: “If the government is too big and we need to reduce spending, what exactly would you cut?”This inquiry is usually followed by the supposed-to-be-intimidating remark that “no one can ever seem to answer that.”When I hear this, my first reaction is usually one of disappointment in my fellow advocates of limited government, too many of whom apparently have trouble pointing to particular offices, agencies and departments we don’t need.After the initial disappointment subsides, however, I cheerfully launch into a discussion of how, without question, we should be able to eliminate most of our federal departments, as they tend to be either unnecessary or (more often) downright destructive.I note that, during George Washington’s administration, there were four main departments in the executive branch — the departments of Justice, State, Treasury and War (now called Defense) — and that there has been a net increase of 11 such departments since then.Second, I point out that some of those new departments perform duties one might think the existing ones were responsible for to begin with, such as the Department of Homeland Security. That relatively young bureaucracy performs a function I had hoped the Department of Defense was already taking care of.In addition, I note that some of the new departments take responsibility for areas the Constitution leaves to the states, such as the Department of Education. That apparatus, created during the Carter administration, strikes me as not only one of the least constitutionally defensible federal departments, but also as one of the worst vehicles for improving American education. If the current system is broken, isn’t it better to let all 50 states experiment with various methods of improvement instead of imposing top-down rules that will ensure that all of our education systems falter together in the event of a mistaken policy?Fourth, I point out that several of the other new departments are responsible for stifling economic growth through the onerous regulations they enforce on the entities that drive wealth-creation in this country, from small businesses and start-up firms to the largest multi-national corporations.Finally, I point out that even the departments that should still exist often have plenty of excess expenditures. The prime example, of course, is the Department of Defense, which has the second-largest budget of any of the federal departments (at nearly $700 billion per year).The department spends a sizable portion of this budget either maintaining bases and other operations in countries where our mission has long been complete (such as South Korea and Germany) or funding the militaries of countries it currently deems in our strategic interest, a policy that has backfired spectacularly in the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan, among others.Obviously, it would be far from easy to implement the elimination or dramatic downsizing of so many ponderous bureaucracies, but it should be clear from this brief overview that it is entirely possible to get the budget under control and cut the government down to size.E-mail: jarlower@indiana.edu
(11/09/10 11:45pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>During the Vietnam War, the rock group The Who expressed an age-old sentiment about political change in the classic song “Won’t Get Fooled Again.” Among the best-known lines in the song is this: “Meet the new boss / Same as the old boss.”Now that the dust has begun to settle in the aftermath of last week’s midterm elections, it is with a healthy sense of skepticism that I evaluate the plans and promises of the incoming Republican majority in the House of Representatives.Like all hopeful advocates of a strictly limited federal government that respects the Constitution, I’d very much like to believe the federal government is on the verge of significant course correction.I’d like to believe that we might soon begin not merely halting the growth of federal spending, but actually reducing it — not merely slowing the pace at which new regulations and federal agencies are created, but actually eliminating them.However, I have reviewed the GOP’s tepid, nonspecific Pledge to America, and I am disappointed to find that the only segment of the budget the party feels comfortable cutting is non-defense discretionary spending, which excludes spending on entitlement programs and the military, by far the largest portions of the federal budget.In addition, if recent history is any guide, even the most resounding of Republican victories rarely results in the elimination of unconstitutional departments and agencies like those Ronald Reagan pledged — and failed — to abolish, such as the Departments of Education and Energy.Even when Republicans gain significant power in Congress and a mandate to limit the growth of government, as they recently have, things tend not to pan out as advertised. As Cato Institute President Edward H. Crane reported in 2000, “the combined budgets of the 95 major programs that the Contract with America promised to eliminate (had) increased by 13 percent.” He said this six years after Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America swept dozens of allegedly small-government conservatives into Congress.On the social policy front, I'd also like to believe we might soon see advocates of personal freedoms from both sides of the aisle join forces to end restrictive policies on military service by gays, immigration and drug prohibition, among other things.But the reluctance of leaders in both major parties to apply principles like equal rights, freedom of movement and freedom of choice to issues like these is, much like Reagan's and Gingrich's failed crusades for fiscal restraint, thoroughly disheartening.Fortunately for their “narrative,” as the official spin seems to be euphemized these days, GOP leaders will have a ready excuse for any lack of major progress in the next two years: With a Democratic president and Senate, it’s just too tough to enact the sort of reforms necessary to make a significant difference in the effort to shrink the state.I must grant that this excuse will hold some water. However, this excuse doesn’t work for explaining the ballooning debt, deficits and regulatory regime we saw during the early years of the last decade, when Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress.It also doesn’t absolve them of responsibility for coming to the table with an extremely weak set of proposals for limiting the size and scope of the federal government.A divided Congress will probably result in a somewhat less energetic, somewhat less intrusive federal government. But come January, when the new bosses get to work, don’t expect them to behave much differently than the old bosses.E-mail: jarlower@indiana.edu
(11/02/10 10:48pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>As many political observers have noted, only half-jokingly, the 2012 presidential election essentially begins today.In fact, for at least two GOP hopefuls, it has already begun. Fred Karger, a retired political strategist from California, has formed an exploratory committee, the traditional preliminary step to announcing one’s candidacy, and Jon Greenspon, a businessman from Montana, has already filed his intent to run with the Federal Election Commission.Now, these two little-known aspirants undoubtedly thought they had to get into the race earlier than those who already have substantial name-recognition. But if recent elections are any guide, the big guns won’t be too far behind.That’s because they all know the importance of developing the vast organization necessary to running a successful campaign as early as possible. As the New York Times noted in an editorial from January 2007, “Presidential campaign pundits were saying that if Senator Hillary Clinton had waited another minute to announce, Senator Barack Obama would have locked up every New Hampshire county committee member and hedge fund billionaire.”Starting in about January (at the latest), we can expect candidates from at least the GOP (if not also some long-shot Democratic challengers to the president) to begin forming exploratory committees and announcing their candidacies.Those candidates will spend much of the next year in a handful of early primary states speaking at town hall meetings, attending community events and raising vast sums of money in hopes of earning the chance to spend another nine or 10 months doing the same things in a different set of states. In a certain sense, the whole spectacle could be interpreted as a long, expensive, emotionally draining, but nevertheless inspiring, exercise in representative democracy.To a very slight extent, I suppose it is.However, the process could also be interpreted as a predictable consequence of a troubling combination: the staggering power of the executive branch and the fact that, unlike many parliamentary democracies, we set our elections at regular intervals so everyone already knows when the next one will be.Although creating a system in which elections occur when our legislators decide to call one instead of at predictable intervals may be a good idea, I am more interested in the first of these two factors — the immense power of the presidency — because it is the one that has changed in recent decades.That is, we’ve always had regularly spaced elections, but we haven’t always had two-year campaigns. I think a major reason why the presidential campaign has become such a lengthy affair is this: Both major parties and most relatively interested voters realize that the president wields immense power and can affect the direction the country will take during a four-year period in extremely significant ways.If the president decides a foreign regime poses a danger to our security or that a sector of the economy is in need of government intervention on a massive scale, it is frighteningly easy to obtain congressional approval for far-reaching actions. This is especially true when the president’s party controls one or both houses of Congress.People also understand that their choice of a president may determine the ideology of the next two or three people to join the Supreme Court. Because of the myriad areas in which the government is involved, the Court wields an ever-growing power to affect our lives just as meaningfully as Congress and the president do.As a result, the major parties fight tirelessly to prevent the other party from gaining the power to take actions they think will result in the country’s ruin while wasting valuable time, energy and other resources on what is essentially a zero-sum game.Instead of spending the time between January 2011 and February 2012 applying their talents to finding solutions to problems that really need solving, dozens of candidates, hundreds of campaign insiders and many thousands of volunteers will be devoting their time and efforts to solving the problem of how to lasso that legendary office and the immense power that comes with it.All of this will culminate in the selection of the next person to make another futile attempt at molding all 310 million of us to his or her will, while making life even more complicated and politicized than it should be.I can hardly wait.E-mail: jarlower@indiana.edu
(10/27/10 12:10am)
(10/27/10 12:07am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I’ve come across character assassinations before, but I don’t think I fully understood what the term meant until I read an article on tech billionaire Peter Thiel in the online magazine Slate last week.The piece, penned by Slate Group editor-in-chief Jacob Weisberg, was a classic example of how sniping commentators distort, misrepresent and baselessly disparage both the accomplishments and the ambitions of business leaders in order to perpetuate the absurd belief that the capitalist class, not the political class, is the real locus of parasitism and depravity in our society.After first reminding readers of where they might have heard of Thiel (answer: recent film “The Social Network”), Weisberg launches into an attack on what he calls Thiel’s “hyper-libertarian” politics.A central component of the attack focuses on Thiel’s recent statement that he “no longer believe(s) freedom and democracy are compatible.” Now, if, like Mr. Weisberg, you believe democracy (that is, pure, unadulterated majority rule) is an end in itself, perhaps this statement would indicate some underlying evil.If, on the other hand, you understand the tyrannical dangers of unchecked majority rule, it is clear that Thiel’s take on this is actually akin to the conclusion reached by the political philosophers who crafted our republican form of government more than 200 years ago.Upon insinuating that Thiel’s brand of libertarianism is totally without merit, Weisberg writes, “Having given up hope for American democracy, (Thiel) has decided to focus ‘my efforts on new technologies that may create a new space for freedom.’”One way is by helping to finance Seasteading, an effort to create anarcho-capitalist societies built on man-made structures at sea, and another is by investing in space exploration.Because the latter goal in particular might take a while, Weisberg discusses a related project of Thiel’s, donating “millions to the Methuselah Foundation, which does research into life-extension based on the premise that humans can live to be 1,000 years old.”Now, one can dispute the likelihood of being successful in these endeavors, but Weisberg instead chooses to contrast the previous three examples of Thiel’s interests with one he considers to actually be “good and useful.”By drawing this contrast, Weisberg seems to be implying that he doesn’t consider experimenting with novel ways of organizing society to be useful. This makes me glad he wasn’t around to discourage Thomas Jefferson and his contemporaries when they were devising the “noble experiment” we call the United States.He also seems to imply that helping fund research that continues the work of those who have created vaccines, developed new treatments and cured diseases doesn’t count as “good and useful.”After all this, Weisberg saves his vaguest and most poorly substantiated vitriol for what he calls Mr. Thiel’s “latest crusade,” a plan to “pay would-be entrepreneurs 20 and younger $100,000 in cash to drop out of school.”The only comment Weisberg offers that comes close to a legitimate criticism of this creative approach to fostering innovation is the claim that leaving college before graduating constitutes “halting their intellectual development around the onset of adulthood.”Although it is unfortunately true for many that the end of formal schooling coincides with the end of intellectual growth, Weisberg ignores that Thiel won’t be awarding these fellowships to anyone who asks — and that anyone who wins one is, similar to Thiel himself, likely to possess a much too active mind to let its progress be stopped simply by the departure from a school.Weisberg might not understand what there is to like about promoting political and economic freedom, increased life expectancy and entrepreneurship, but I’m glad to join the ranks of those who are cheering Thiel and other visionary capitalists on toward ever-bolder goals.E-mail: jarlower@indiana.edu
(10/14/10 10:56pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The Nevada Senate race between Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Tea Party-backed Republican Sharron Angle is a perfect model of races across the country: An extreme right-wing Tea Party candidate versus an lackluster establishment Democrat. Neither are great choices to most Americans. Here, IDS columnists make the case for both sides as the lesser of the two evils. Sharron Angle is the lesser of two evils. Sharron Angle would do less damage to personal freedom than Harry Reid. The race to represent Nevada in the U.S. Senate is, like several other such contests, frustrating and fascinating at the same time.As is the case with many electoral contests across the country, the race pits an insurgent Tea Party-backed candidate running as a Republican against an establishment Democrat who may actually lose to someone who wasn’t even supposed to win the GOP primary.The Tea Party-backed Republican in this race is former state legislator Sharron Angle, who has had a narrow lead above incumbent Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for much of the general election season.What makes this race a frustrating one to watch is the same thing that has made most political races frustrating for decades: the lack of a candidate who consistently and coherently defends individual freedom on all fronts, not just in the social sphere or the marketplace.Now, it is important to remember that not all Republicans are dedicated free marketeers who also want to regulate every aspect of our personal lives, just as not all Democrats are committed civil libertarians who want the state to control the economy from top to bottom.Nevertheless, we can safely say that in both the Nevada Senate race and most other races around the country, voters are faced with one candidate who will do more to fight for economic freedom and less to fight for social freedom and another who will do largely the opposite.It may be an unpalatable choice to have to make, but at a time when economic freedom is being actively curbed (while social freedoms are merely at a standstill in most cases), the less destructive choice is likely to be the Republican, who will at least help slow the slide toward tighter economic controls.Not exactly a ringing endorsement, but with choices like these, it’s the most a candidate can ask for.- Jarrod LoweryNo, Harry Reid is. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid against Tea Party nominee Sharron Angle. You’d think this could be a shoo-in win for senator. But because of the toxic political climate this year, polls have shown these candidates within the margin of error. Both candidates have had their own follies throughout this year. Harry Reid almost voted against his own health care bill (twice), he was a part of a book scandal in early 2010 and is one of the key players in the GOP’s witch hunt against the Obama administration. Sharron Angle, on the other hand, is criticized for personal comments rather than actions in public service. Among these quotes, Angle has said her job didn’t require a plan to create jobs, the Federal Department of Education should be eliminated and the press was needed only to throw their agendas out to the public. The candidates are in a neck-and-neck race and yet when it comes time to vote for the best leader, Nevada needs to select Reid. Arguments against Reid are valid. There are times when he is out-of-touch with not just his position as Senate majority leader but also his role as a senator in general. But to kick him out of his seat for a Sarah Palin wannabe is absurd and (somewhat) horrifying.A seat in the U.S. Senate is too prestigious a position to let a radical right-wing Tea Party activist have. To be a senator, you have to incorporate your state’s values into the overall goals for the entire nation’s future. Angle does not achieve this because her credibility extends only feet away from a church’s door. She does not represent a majority of her constituents, yet alone Americans. Harry Reid might have seen his best days go by, but his public service is needed for at least another six years. - Drew Anderson
(10/13/10 12:13am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I rarely read “Rolling Stone” magazine, and I was reminded of why when I read the current issue’s cover story.The story chronicles an interview with President Barack Obama conducted by the magazine’s publisher, Jann S. Wenner.I found it illuminating on several counts.First, it demonstrated Obama’s warped sense of his responsibilities as president.In response to one of Wenner’s few difficult questions, the president said his “number one job [during the early days of his administration] was making sure that we did not have a full-fledged financial meltdown.”Upon reading this, I asked myself whether that sounds anything like the oath Obama took to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States” and to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.”After reviewing the powers granted to the president in the Constitution, I am fairly certain it doesn’t.The second illuminating aspect of the story was Obama’s inflated sense of his own accomplishments, which might be linked to his apparent belief that the president’s job is to micromanage the economy.When answering one of Wenner’s more overt softball questions, Obama claimed that he had “prevent[ed] a Great Depression” and that he “ended one of those wars,” referring to the Iraq War. This, of course, totally ignores the important contributions of his predecessor and the military to steering the conflict toward a tolerable conclusion.Before listing these and other accomplishments, Obama asserted that he had done these things “in the most adverse circumstances imaginable.”Given that these things occurred at a time when his party enjoyed large majorities in both houses of Congress, I can only assume he means the situation of the country during the last 20 months has been worse than the Civil War, the Great Depression and World War II, to name just a few sets of adverse circumstances in our history.Third, Obama demonstrated his strong propensity to mischaracterize both the actions and the motives of the Republican opposition in Congress.In a discussion of last year’s stimulus package, he mentioned meeting with GOP leaders to “present our ideas and to solicit ideas from them before we presented the final package.” He said that prior to the meeting, the Republicans issued a statement that essentially said they would be voting against the bill as a bloc.Although this sounds like an example of cynical partisanship on just the GOP’s part, take a look at the end of that last quote. Obama was going to seek their ideas after his party had essentially crafted the whole bill without GOP input.Sounds more like both parties were playing partisan games, which shouldn’t surprise anyone.Finally, the piece showcased Obama’s deficient understanding of both his opponents and his supporters.In response to a question about taxes, Obama expressed his surprise about being considered anti-business. Frankly, when business groups that usually support heavier regulation (because they are composed of established companies that want to limit competition) are expressing concern about your policies’ effects on business, you should admit you’re anti-business.After the interview was technically finished, Obama briefly attempted to galvanize his disheartened supporters and admonished, “If people want to take their ball and go home, that tells me folks weren’t serious in the first place.”I know he didn’t mean that, but if the man who waged an almost detail-free campaign centered around the vague concepts of hope and change were honest with himself, I think he’d realize he stated the fact quite accurately.E-mail: jarlower@indiana.edu
(09/29/10 12:26am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Everyone knows Walmart and companies like it are, at best, destroyers of quaint communities, and at worst, heartless enslavers of the world’s producers and consumers, right?After all, that’s what we’ve always heard in public schools, on public radio and most everywhere else in the public sphere for as long as we can remember.People often acknowledge that such companies provide jobs for millions and inexpensive goods for most everyone, but, somehow, that tends to be beside the point.I was reminded of the widespread ignorance of the good Walmart does in the world when I read an article in the Wall Street Journal earlier this week.The story discussed Walmart’s recent bid to purchase South African retailer Massmart, a big-box outfit that operates in 13 African nations.Interestingly, the article focused primarily on the dynamics of the potential deal and the history of Walmart’s similar efforts around the globe.It did not focus on what almost every other story regarding sub-Saharan Africa focuses on, namely the widespread poverty, disease and political upheaval that plague the region.The most striking phrase in the whole piece was “the potentially lucrative sub-Saharan market.”Imagine that — thinking of that region as being populated, not with pitiable wretches in need of the developed world’s help, but with potential customers, employees, investors and trading partners.I found this interesting because it highlighted two important facts: First, Walmart is interested in this venture because of the opportunity it offers for increasing profits and market share, and second, this selfish action on the part of Walmart is almost certain to benefit the people of southern Africa enormously.Now, it is probably obvious that the first of these facts is accurate, but I am just as certain that the second fact is accurate as well.Why? Because Walmart will only profit from this acquisition if it delivers goods to its consumers that are of a sufficiently high quality and a sufficiently low price, as it has done in the United States and elsewhere in the world for decades.All of this brings to light an important difference between entities such as Walmart that are profit-driven and entities such as governments and charities that aren’t.Whereas Walmart seeks primarily to maximize its profits and does so by fulfilling the desires of those with whom it does business as efficiently as possible, nonprofit entities seek to do good by assessing needs and wants through means that are far less accurate than the profit-and-loss system.The nonprofit way of doing things might result in good outcomes on occasion, but, especially in the case of government entities, it rarely provides a strong incentive to discontinue activities that lead to bad outcomes.Additionally, the nonprofit approach is much more oriented toward merely alleviating suffering and putting people on par with their peers than it is toward facilitating enjoyment and creating things that will make life more comfortable for everyone in the future.That is, governments and nonprofit organizations can certainly do things that make life better, but such actions typically consist of removing barriers to enjoying life as it can currently be enjoyed, not creating pathways to enjoying life as few have yet imagined it.I’m glad various nonprofit entities are concerned about bringing the quality of life in sub-Saharan Africa up to modern standards, but I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for them to develop the products and technologies that will push modern standards toward the levels we hope to enjoy in the future.For that, I’ll be looking to the evil profit seekers and their big-box standard-bearer, Walmart.E-mail: jarlower@indiana.edu
(09/15/10 12:10am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>There are plenty of Republicans ready to strip down and run for president in 2012. Look out Mitch Daniels, we picked a few of our favorites.Scott BrownAmerica didn’t see it coming, but this silver fox never looked so good. Senator Scott Brown is the definition of the political heartthrob. Having already been a (semi-nude) model during his twenties and an accomplished legislator in Massachusetts and Congress, what’s more to love in a man? He’s got both power and looks. Plus, his wife is also a hottie (Can we say the next Barack/Michelle?). But America knows that looks only help a presidential campaign. Real public servants know how to flex their muscles while also using their brains at the same time. The senator has that covered too. Brown received his bachelor’s from Tuft University then later his JD degree from Boston College Law School. He’s smart and sexy. Now that’s hot. For 2012, Brown will have to choose between a re-election bid and the White House. If he chooses the latter, then a match up against Obama is sure to heat up. Brown and Obama’s political beliefs are oil and water. When Obama tries to fix the economy, Brown voted against unemployment benefits. The senator disapproved of Elena Kagan when the president loved her. While Obama is the face of the liberals, Brown is the GQ for conservatives. But no matter where the 2012 results fall, at least there will still be some eye candy inside 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.Ron PaulRep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, might be three times the age of his largely college-aged supporters (he turned 75 last month),but he has nevertheless generated a great deal of enthusiasm among young people since running for president during the 2008 election cycle.During that unsuccessful presidential run (who saw that one coming?), Dr. Paul generated so much enthusiasm among 18- to 24-year-olds that 500 high school and college chapters of Students for Ron Paul — which became Young Americans for Liberty after Paul withdrew his candidacy — were founded in just an eight-month span.Much of his support resulted from his adherence to traditionally libertarian principles of constitutionally-limited government, free markets, sound money, permissive social policy, non-interventionist foreign policy and free pot for everyone.Although the congressman did not win any primaries or caucuses in 2008, he placed second in seven such contests and set fundraising records that were all the more impressive given his relative lack of support in polls. Dr. Paul placed a close third in the primaries with approximately 35 of the more than 1,500 delegates available. Since end of the 2008 campaign, Dr. Paul’s political star has continued to rise, as he won the Conservative Political Action Conferance straw poll in February and was one vote shy of winning the Southern Republican Leadership Conference’s April poll. Sarah PalinJust when you thought the Republican ticket for 2012 was a boys only club, the wet dream of every young creationist is ready to take a stand for your rights. You may know her from a failed vice-presidential bid in 2008, or perhaps because of her cute almost-son-in-law spilling her family’s secrets in the media, but from now on you will know her as a Mamma Grizzly, listen to her roar.Sarah Palin says she believes in freedom, honor, liberty and a slew of other generic feel-good terms. She will fight for your right to grope a gun, respect a racist and harass a homo. Perhaps known best for use of the phrase, “No Commie” after endorsing more government oversight for oil drilling, she is sure to spice up this election season with a slew of delightfully witty catchphrases. If we’re lucky, she will hold onto her faux-folksy accent as she reaches out to (metaphorically) slap liberals with the notes on the palm of her hand. God, guns, glory and Palin in 2012.Mitt RomneyWith his reputation for (somewhat) conservative stances and dislike of caffeinated beverages (he’s Mormon, after all), Mitt Romney has impressed many in the Republican Party. He is widely credited with helping make the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City a success despite reports of corruption and bribery in the host city bid process. Romney is also well known for his venerable tenure at Bain & Company (and was a co-founder of investment firm Bain Capital). However, he may have a tough time wooing uncertain voters who question the enacting of near-universal health care, and gay marriage, In the wake of a blatantly Muslim president, American voters will have to grapple with the big question — can we afford to place another member of an extremist religious group in our highest elected spot? His apparently flexible views on a variety of issues will probably earn him success on the national stage — just ask Senator John McCain. Romney may look the part of a future U.S. president, but only time will tell if we’re willing to place another rich white man in the Oval Office in 2012. No matter what happens, he’ll still only be the second most attractive east coast politician — John Kerry’s got that spot on lockdown. (Brown’s pret ty cute, too). If Sarah Palin is any indication though, looks may be enough to propel this Massachusetts money maven to GOP superstardom. Mike HuckabeeMike Huckabee’s candidacy will mean Americans can meet another man who believes in a place called Hope. And as obesity rates soar nationwide, we all yearn for another audacious bedtime story from a commander-in-chief. Huckabee offers his book “Quit Digging Your Grave with a Knife and Fork.” Governor Huckabee believes God helped him in the 2008 campaign. In a likely field of candidates that includes new-comers such as Sarah Palin and savvy returnees such as Mitt Romney, Huckabee, a former Baptist preacher, may again need a substantial amount of intervention from above to win in 2012.Tea Party supporters will be delighted to learn about the number of ways Huckabee’s polymath skills will contribute to lowering taxpayer expenses. If elected president, Governor Huckabee won’t need to hire fancy, formally trained musicians to entertain guests at inaugural balls. In fact, winning the election might give Huckabee and his band Capitol Offense a first shot at performing at an official inaugural ball. Evidence suggests Huckabee may also be handy with the White House’s holiday festivities. His most recent book is a volume of 12 simple Christmas stories. In search of a fiscal conservative, Republicans may find themselves a Renaissance Man who cultivates a blossoming of the arts.
(09/14/10 11:55pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I arrive in the largely empty parking lot a few minutes before 8 a.m. and note that there is no sign of a mad rush at the automatic doors.It’s opening time on the biggest sales day of the biggest sales week for any Target location in the country. That’s right — despite the hype about Black Friday sales volume and the stampeding bargain-hunters of Christmastime, the prime revenue-generating period for Target stores is actually the back-to-school (specifically, back-to-college) period. And the Bloomington Target location is the king of them all.Between IU’s first day of early move-in and the Saturday before classes start, this Target store is a maelstrom of customer, worker, supervisor and (in my case) people-watcher activity.But this flurry of activity doesn’t get concentrated in the hour after opening time and dissipate throughout the day. Instead, traffic steadily picks up between opening time and about 10 a.m. and, according to several employees’ estimates, stays largely constant through the afternoon and evening.So, while I am still one of only a few “guests” (as the well-trained staff calls its customers) in the store, several workers continue to stock shelves in order to replenish the cache of goods that was depleted on the previous day.As the array of fluorescent lights illuminates the recently dim facility, I see towering stacks of excess inventory piled atop shelving units and even along the outside of the clothing area of the store.By closing time, these stacks will have diminished significantly as a result of returning students’ voracious appetite for appliances, storage devices and everything else that makes an apartment, house or dorm room a home away from home.At midday, the grand production is in full swing, as parking spaces are hard to come by, aisles are packed with nervous students and hovering parents, and staff are keeping shelves stocked and customers happy.This onslaught continues largely unabated through the dinner hours, several employees tell me.Shortly before closing time, the store has once again quieted down, but it is a far different spectacle than it was some 13 hours before.Now, many shelves — and some whole aisles — are almost totally bare, and others are strewn with products customers managed to disorganize faster than workers could put them back.This college town’s Target staff has made it through another hectic day in the back-to-college campaign.Getting ready for this week every year requires “tons and tons of planning,” Guest Service Team Leader Matt Potter, an IU senior and student in SPEA, tells me.Potter says the planning process begins shortly after the Christmas shopping season ends and that handling the surge in sales necessitates an “all hands on deck” approach, one that even requires temporary hiring.As activity in the vast retail establishment is about to enter its overnight lull, I pause to reflect on the spectacle I have just witnessed. Over the past 15 hours, a staff of several dozen people, whose efforts are supported by many thousands in a supply chain that stretches around the globe, has engaged in a monumental exercise in free exchange with the hordes of customers who came ready to pay for the goods they requested. Buyers chose to pay because the products were worth more to them than their prices, sellers chose to sell because the prices were worth more to them than the products. And all was right with the world. E-mail: jarlower@indiana.edu
(09/08/10 1:03am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>As a likely voter in the upcoming midterm elections, I am feeling decidedly unenthusiastic about the choices before me. In this, I doubt I am alone.While some may find their choices satisfactory, I’m not sure why anyone whose views are consistent would. This is because, if we focus just on the two major parties, the choices are essentially two sides of the same inconsistent coin.On the one hand, the Democrats can talk a good game when it comes to people’s right to be free from government intervention in personal affairs like marriage and government encroachment of civil liberties, but they conveniently forget about individual rights when economic issues come up.On the other hand, Republicans often hit the right notes on economic issues only to segue moments later into a discussion of why we must restrict foreigners’ freedom to enter our country and why we must continue to wage an immoral and unwinnable war on certain drugs.The problem is this: Both major parties have the right idea about one class of issues (Democrats on the social issues and Republicans on the economic) but have mostly the wrong idea about the other.As if this weren't disheartening enough, candidates in both parties tend to be inept at articulating a principled basis for their positions, even on the issues their party tends to get right.On economic issues, Republicans tend to note, correctly, that free enterprise, free trade and minimal government regulation of commerce contribute to general well-being and rising living standards. This, while true, is merely a consequence, not the cause, of capitalism’s inherent morality.Far too few people understand that the real reason behind capitalism’s goodness is that it is the only economic system that respects and protects every individual’s right to run his own life as he sees fit without infringing on the right of others to do the same. Because of this, people don't seem to realize that this system of voluntary exchange to mutual benefit is the reason why economic freedom results in prosperity.On social issues, Democrats tend to be somewhat better at supporting their positions with principle, but they frequently make the mistake of thinking and speaking in terms of racial, ethnic or other groups instead of treating each person as an individual.Just as Democrats irrationally appeal to collectivist sentiments, Republicans often make appeals to tradition without properly explaining what it is about this country’s traditions that makes (some of) them worthy of preserving or restoring.In the face of these unpalatable choices, what’s a concerned, libertarian-minded voter to do? I think the short answer is your guess is as good as mine.One solution, however, would be to determine which set of issues is trending most reliably toward the freer end of the spectrum and vote for the party that has the better policies on the other set. Using that method, I think supporting Republicans would make more sense, as recent gains on the gay marriage and drug legalization fronts indicate a trend toward greater personal freedom at a time when economic freedom is more urgently under attack.This method, however, like the two parties themselves, could certainly use some work. E-mail: jarlower@indiana.edu
(09/03/10 12:07am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The most recent surge of opposition to the extension of Interstate 69 from Indianapolis to Evansville has proved to be no less baffling than the various waves before it.As has happened occasionally through the last decade or so, opponents of the project, or at least of the sections that will be built in Monroe County, were out in force once again Aug. 27, this time at a meeting of the Monroe County commissioners.The IDS has already reported on many of the criticisms that were leveled against the project, but it will be instructive to review some of the more prevalent ones.Perhaps the most oft-repeated criticism of the project is that it involves the construction of a new road at a time when money is tight and so many other roads and bridges are in need of improvements.I suppose those who level this criticism are unaware that this state is in the middle of a 10-year, $12 billion transportation infrastructure improvement project known as Major Moves. According to the Indiana Department of Transportation, this project will result in the rehabilitation or replacement of 15 percent of the state’s bridges and preservation projects on more than one-third of the state’s roads.Thanks in large part to Gov. Mitch Daniels’ lease of the Indiana Toll Road to a private consortium, which brought the state some $3.8 billion in capital, Major Moves has not resulted in any tax increases or additional debt.In addition to all of the rehabilitation and preservation projects the effort entails, Major Moves will result in the construction of 104 entirely new roads, which means we are actually managing to build new roads while repairing old ones — all without getting ourselves back into debt like most states.Then there are the environmental criticisms of the project. While these may actually be among the best arguments for thinking twice about this project (if only because of the relative weakness of the other arguments), they have been by far the most thoroughly addressed of all the concerns citizens have raised.On the project’s official study website, www.i69indyevn.org, the list of possible environmental effects that have been under careful scrutiny for years is astonishingly long and detailed. A brief sampling of the concerns that have influenced decision-makers in their choice of a route: the highway’s effect on land use, air quality, threatened and endangered species, floodplains, wetlands, forests and water quality.Another common criticism of the proposed construction is that it would result in temporary road closures, detours and general inconvenience. Coming largely from the same people who criticize the plan on the grounds of environmental protection, this argument strikes me as remarkably short-sighted.I also wonder what those who offer this critique and feel more should be done to rehabilitate existing roads think about the fact that the rehabilitation of existing roads also causes closures, detours and inconvenience.Given that few of the major concerns about the proposed sections of I-69 that will pass through Monroe County stand up to scrutiny, I remain baffled that opposition to this project persists and continues to pervade our public discourse.E-mail: jarlower@indiana.edu
(08/26/10 12:58am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The notion of market failure is often labeled by critics of unfettered capitalism as a devastating example of the folly of leaving people free to trade with each other with no oversight from the state.This phenomenon, the argument goes, is proof enough that people can’t be trusted to organize their own economic activities.Those who employ this line of reasoning often cite examples that are actually not failures of free markets at all, but are the result either of government intrusion into private markets that has prevented their proper functioning or of a total lack of a market in the situation in question.Occasionally, however, an example of market failure in a capitalist context is actually valid.David Friedman, who is the son of renowned economists Milton and Rose Friedman, acknowledges that, while most critiques of capitalism that rely on market failure actually refer to problems not caused by markets, there are indeed some instances of actual market failure in the free enterprise system. He acknowledges that the existence of such instances is a problem for laissez-faire capitalism, but — very importantly — he asserts that this argument applies both to free, private markets and what he calls “public markets,” or the political ways of allocating resources. He claims that “it’s a much more serious problem for the public markets.” In other words, Friedman agrees that occasionally a private market situation will result in undesirable outcomes even when everyone involved acts in his own self-interest, but he is quick to point out that such situations are the exception in private markets and the rule in political markets. In a talk delivered earlier this year, Friedman discussed market failure and the closely related “public good problem” at length. He made a convincing case that every criticism of free markets that relies on market failure applies tenfold to the political markets the purveyors of such arguments usually advocate. He does so by dispelling the myth of what he calls the “civics class model of democracy,” in which all members of society are supposed to get what they want because politicians will be perfectly responsive to voters’ interests and voters will be fully informed about their representatives’ actions. This model, he correctly notes, is deeply flawed because it actually makes sense for the typical voter to be ignorant of most political happenings. This is so because the cost of obtaining complete and accurate information is so much higher than the benefit to be gained from it when one goes to exert his extremely slight influence on the outcome of an election by voting. He goes on to note, however, that even the more sophisticated special-interest model will generally fail to produce desirable outcomes because of the fact that some groups are concentrated — and thus more able to rally for a cause and lobby politicians successfully — and other groups are dispersed — and thus composed of many members who all correctly conclude that their personal involvement is unlikely to have much of an effect on the situation in question. Numerous examples drive home his point that political mechanisms allocate resources inefficiently because of the existence of concentrated interest groups. For instance, he observes that in countries where farmers are a small fraction of the population, such as the United States, farm policy is tailored to benefit farmers at the expense of others, whereas the opposite is true in countries where the majority of the people farm. Friedman also dispels the myth that private markets promote shortsightedness while political institutions foster long-term planning. He uses the example of a man who is elderly and thinking of planting trees that will bear marketable produce some decades after his death. While some would claim the market gives the man no incentive to plant the trees and thus make society richer, Friedman notes that the man actually does have an incentive to do so because, while the man may not see the trees reach maturity, he will be able to sell the trees when they have had a few years to grow at a higher price than he paid to plant them. He contrasts this example with that of a politician who is faced with the choice of advocating a policy that will benefit society years after he is out of office or advocating one that may harm society in the future but will benefit him politically between now and the next election. As Friedman’s analysis makes clear, market failure can happen in a capitalist system, but replacing the marketplace with a bureaucracy or a legislature is precisely the wrong prescription for addressing that flaw.E-mail: jarlower@indiana.edu
(08/01/10 11:53pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I believe the most important issue in this fall’s congressional elections is how voters communicate with candidates about the role of the state in society.Why such an abstract, seemingly inconsequential issue?Allow me to explain.In every political system I can think of, it seems the phenomenon of creeping statism sets in almost as soon as the state itself is set up.Many of those who are granted power (or, in too many situations, seize it) come to believe they can enrich themselves and their friends by bending what are supposed to be the impartial rules.Other more scrupulous officeholders might resist this temptation for a while, but it tends to prove irresistible to those in a position to indulge it.Some citizens who are not involved in the government might perceive the injustices being perpetrated and attempt to right them by running for office, but, much like the initially scrupulous officeholders they seek to replace, they usually end up defeated thanks to their bluntness and honesty or elected and corrupted like the rest.As a result, those who attain power seek to cultivate and keep it — at the expense of their constituents’ liberty and prosperity, and often even at the expense of those they claim to be helping.Because of the tendency of governments to increase their power at every opportunity, the only defense the people have, aside from arms, is their vigilance, which must be exercised at all times and used to ensure that the officials entrusted with protecting liberty are doing so.We have witnessed the slow but accelerating process of government engorgement in the United States during the last two centuries, and, especially in recent years, it has often left voters with two unpalatable choices: on the one hand, a party driving the government’s growth with all its might — and on the other, a party that, despite being uncomfortable with increasing centralization and regulation, does little to stop it and can rarely muster the fortitude to combat it head-on.Once again, this is the choice with which voters across America will be faced this November.While congressional Democrats have been complicit in the enactment of every one of the Obama administration’s power grabs, congressional Republicans have been unfocused in their opposition and lackluster in their efforts to persuade voters to see things their way.That is, the Democrats, the party of the ever-expanding state, have been steamrolling the Republicans, who are supposed to be the party of the constitutionally limited state but have usually been too busy bringing home the pork to be bothered about principle.Thus, it is clear that neither party is terribly deserving of the confidence and trust of the people.Before making up their minds about whom to vote for this November, voters should make an effort to press the candidates in their district on the question of what they see as the proper role of the state in society.Voters should ask questions like these.Should Congress be subject to limits on its power, or should it be allowed to declare any power it covets to be “necessary and proper” for executing its enumerated powers?Is there any economic activity Congress is not allowed to regulate under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution? If not, can you explain where in the phrase “with foreign Nations, and among the several States” you find an authorization to regulate activities that occur wholly within a single state?Do you believe that, to “provide for the ... general Welfare,” Congress should make economic or personal decisions for private citizens when it sees fit? If so, which substances’ consumption or production (from hard drugs to table salt and who knows what else) should it be allowed to restrict?Can Congress, in compliance with the Second Amendment to the Constitution, restrict or prohibit the sale of handguns to private citizens? If so, to what extent do you think it should be allowed to abridge First Amendment freedoms?Should the state require those who have provided adequately for themselves and their families to subsidize those who have not done so?Should the state be allowed to declare a commodity an absolute necessity and compel each of its citizens to purchase it from a private company, under penalty of a fine (a fine that won’t be called a tax in the campaigns but will be called a tax when defended before the Supreme Court)?Should the state be allowed to decide that some professionals’ skills are so badly needed that those professionals should have to provide their services whether they can expect to be paid or not?Should the state be allowed to nationalize favored industries and supplant normal bankruptcy proceedings with a process that enriches union bosses at the expense of bondholders who are entitled to be repaid before anyone else?Should the state be allowed to dictate the terms on which private citizens may deal with one another when, in its undoubtedly finite wisdom, it perceives that one party to the transaction is taking an excessive risk?Voters should treat with extreme skepticism any candidate whose words or actions indicate an inclination to answer “yes” to any of the above questions. And then they should vote accordingly.E-mail: jarlower@indiana.edu
(07/11/10 10:28pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Recently, as I was about to throw a piece of paper into a trash can, an environmentally sensitive colleague of mine admonished me.“I hope you’re going to recycle that.”Doing my best to approximate the moral presumptuousness of those who lecture others about their responsibilities to the rock we call home, I responded, “Why would I do that? Don’t you care about the environment?”As you might expect — and as I had hoped — a discussion about the relative merits of recycling and throwing away paper promptly ensued.My colleague informed me that I should recycle the paper I use because paper constitutes a large proportion of the waste that makes up landfills — which, she assured me, are increasing so rapidly in size that we are running out of space for them.She also told me of the detrimental effects landfills could potentially have on our groundwater supply, into which various toxins from our trash might seep.After acknowledging that there are certainly downsides to throwing away paper, I asked her a question once posed by University of Rochester economist Steven Landsburg: If we found out a way to recycle beef, wouldn’t the population of cattle decrease?My point was that, contrary to the dogma most people of a certain age have been force-fed, one of the best ways to increase the number of trees on the planet is to consume more paper.This is because consuming paper puts upward pressure on demand for it and thus for trees, many of which are grown in vast quantities on plantations maintained by the paper industry.By pointing this out, I meant to demonstrate that it is possible to promote pro-environment causes even while eschewing the rituals environmentalists assure us are moral obligations.That said, I only make sure to throw my paper in the trash because I have a mild aesthetic preference for having a few more trees in the world, not because I am under the sway of those who preach the absolute need for ever more trees.If paper plantations proliferate to the point that I think there are getting to be too many trees in the world, then I’ll probably start recycling paper again.After considering my interlocutor’s arguments about the contribution of paper to landfill waste, however, I concluded that she and I simply had differing preferences and that we were both doing what made sense in order to promote our respective goals.Then I recalled having come across some research compiled by Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg that seriously calls into question the basis for harboring much concern about the proliferation of landfills.As he notes in his book “The Skeptical Environmentalist,” if we were to place all of the trash that will be generated in the United States over the course of the next century in one landfill and pile it just 100 feet high (which is shorter than some existing landfills on the East Coast), it would all fit in a square just 18 miles on a side, which amounts to 0.009 percent of the country’s land area.This estimate is based on projections of a population increase and waste generation increases that are likely to be higher than the actual rises, so our waste will probably take up even less room than that.Additionally, Lomborg dismisses the concern about the health threats posed by landfills by noting that the EPA estimates landfills will cause some 5.7 cancer-related deaths during the next 300 years — which works out to one every 50 years.In light of these facts, it is clear that there is little to fear from throwing paper in the trash.On the other hand, one could argue that I am doing little good for the world’s tree population by throwing away paper because my personal effect on demand for paper will be fairly small. And that might be so.Nevertheless, because my preference for an increased tree population is stronger than my practically nonexistent fear of running out of room for trash (or getting cancer from a landfill), I am going to continue throwing paper away instead of recycling it.The most important lesson from all of this is not that we actually have plenty of room for our trash, that our landfills are not going to kill us or that recycling paper is unwise if you want to have more trees.Rather, it is that, contrary to the propaganda so many of us encounter over the course of our education, it is entirely appropriate for us to make our own decisions regarding our habits of resource usage on the basis of our own preferences. E-mail: jarlower@indiana.edu
(06/30/10 11:58pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Since Monday, U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan has been fielding questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee, the group tasked with questioning Kagan to determine her fitness to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court before the full Senate votes to confirm or deny her nomination. After just two days of her hearings, it has become clear that Kagan is, if not unfit to serve on the Court, at least a far-from-ideal nominee.This is not because she lacks experience on the bench. Some of the high court’s most distinguished justices ascended to their positions without having been judges before. It is also not because of any demographic consideration. As far as I’m concerned, those should matter no more than a nominee’s dietary choices, or any other aspect of her life that is impertinent to how she would perform her job.Rather, I believe Elena Kagan is unfit to serve on the Supreme Court because of her flawed understanding of the U.S. Constitution, a document she will, in all likelihood, make an oath to support upon being sworn in before October.Her answer to one significant question she repeatedly fielded from several senators makes this flawed understanding abundantly clear.When Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, asked her to discuss her opinion of the Court’s decision in the recent Citizens United v. FEC case, which struck down restrictions on corporate and union-financed political speech despite Kagan’s efforts on behalf of the Obama administration to maintain said restrictions, Kagan refused to answer directly and instead emphasized that her role in the case had been as an “advocate ... of the government’s interests.”While this is technically true, the fact that her defense of her role in the case amounts to “I said what I did because it was my job” should give our elected representatives pause.As I noted on these pages shortly after the Court’s decision was handed down in January, Kagan was put on the case after her deputy made the shocking claim that, in his opinion, current campaign finance restrictions on corporate speech in the run-up to elections would allow the federal government to prohibit the publication of books containing political endorsements.In what she apparently considered a moderating shift on the issue, Kagan told the Court when asked about her deputy’s answer that she didn’t think the government could ban books but that “pamphlets” were probably fair game.The sad fact about this issue is that, as the law was written, it probably did extend both that power and the power to ban books to the federal government.Fortunately for free speech, however, the First Amendment and the Roberts Court — at least a slim majority of it — stood in direct opposition to this regulation.That Kagan appears to consider the “just doing my job” excuse a legitimate one is troubling.I can understand why someone might hide behind this excuse in cases of minor gravity in which she had to actively argue against her firm belief on some issue, but in a case involving a fundamental right of this country’s people, that of free speech, I would expect a sincere defender of the Constitution to refuse to take the case or, if that were not an option, to quit her job before disparaging the Constitution to keep it.
(06/13/10 10:19pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>In my column last week, I discussed Mars Society President Robert Zubrin’s daring plan for putting humans on Mars in 10 years — an almost shockingly short time span when compared to the usual estimate of 20 or more.Although I summarized the reasons why Zubrin argues that NASA should make Mars its next target and explained his rationale regarding a couple of logistical questions related to getting there, I didn’t dig into the fascinating issues surrounding the details of the mission itself. Let’s dig into them now.If you’ve only heard his skeptics describe Zubrin’s plan, called Mars Direct, you could be forgiven for thinking he has put forth a plan that will a) consign astronauts to months of boredom on the Martian surface, b) expose astronauts to an unacceptable risk of cancer and c) rob the crew members of their strength due to lengthy exposure to zero-gravity conditions.In other words, you could be forgiven for thinking Zubrin has made the wrong choice at almost every step of the way in the process of formulating his plan. And, if you accept the premises on which his assailants’ arguments are based, you would be right.Among those premises are the following ideas: that extended stays in close quarters with a small group are inherently boring, that no risk of cancer is an acceptable risk of cancer and that zero-gravity conditions are unavoidable in interplanetary flight.In the process of answering these criticisms, Zubrin deftly dismantles the premises that (unconvincingly) support them.First, he disarms the concern that an 18-month stay on the Martian surface will induce unbearable boredom by noting that this is an assumption based on the experience of a small group of U.S. Navy sailors at a base in Antarctica — sailors who, he noted, were almost certainly wishing they were stationed in Hawaii or San Diego instead and who were not tasked with conducting research during their stay.He contrasts this with the experience of crew members at the Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station on Canada’s Devon Island, where volunteers conduct simulated Mars missions and have found that overwork, not boredom, is their biggest problem — because everyone involved is highly motivated about his specific mission and, far from longing for a more temperate clime, has chosen to spend a month at 75 degrees north latitude.Second, he points out that if NASA were to send a manned mission to Mars every other year (as he suggests), the crew members on the five missions would be exposed to the same dosage of solar radiation as are the members of the crew on the International Space Station in the same span. He further points out that this exposure would increase a typical non-smoking crew member’s risk of dying of a fatal cancer from 20 percent to 21 percent — something he expects won’t bother astronauts capable of being among the first humans ever to visit another planet.Finally, he neutralizes the concern that the 12 total months of flight time in zero gravity will dangerously decondition the crew by showing why they won’t have to fly in zero gravity in the first place. This is because, per his plan, the crew’s habitat unit would be tethered, while in transit, to the spent upper stage of the rocket booster that powered its initial ascent, and both components would be rotated around a common axis in order to generate artificial gravity. (During the stay on Mars, the planet’s gravity, which is three-eighths as strong as Earth’s, would be sufficient to keep the crew healthy.)As an exposition of the Mars Direct plan as a whole, this survey only scratches the surface. But, as someone who is much more inclined toward the humanities than the sciences, I can attest that anyone interested in learning more about the plan should read Zubrin’s 1996 book “The Case for Mars,” as it conveys Zubrin’s ideas and explains the related scientific concepts in a way the proverbial “well-educated layman” can understand.As Zubrin makes clear in his book, if we are serious about exploring and someday settling outer space, we should make Mars our target — and, at least so far, his plan is the best one around.E-mail: jarlower@indiana.edu
(06/06/10 10:59pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Over Memorial Day weekend, I attended the 29th annual International Space Development Conference, a National Space Society event described officially as one where those who “look forward to the opening of the ‘final frontier’ gather each year to discover the future of space exploration.”Although the conference featured many speakers who discussed fascinating topics, the most interesting aspect of the whole event was the intriguing (and, at times, frustrating) interplay between Mars Society President Robert Zubrin and those who find his single-minded enthusiasm for human Mars exploration amusing and, occasionally, exasperating.Zubrin, whose organization has been advocating Mars exploration and demonstrating its feasibility since its founding in 1998, is the author of what he calls the Mars Direct approach, a plan he believes can allow us to put men on Mars in 10 years at a fraction of the commonly quoted cost, which is usually somewhere north of $50 billion.After hearing Zubrin discuss the merits of his positions and the flaws of his detractors’ claims, it is clear that he is no more crazy or off-base than are those few members of Congress who have the gall to insist their colleagues abide by the Constitution and respect their constituents’ liberties.That is, it’s clear that one should not assume Zubrin and his cadre of followers are wrong simply because the majority disagrees with them or just because powerful people have yet to take them seriously.Over the course of just two days and three presentations, Zubrin convincingly made the case for his positions on issues ranging from NASA’s long-term focus to specific technical aspects of his proposed Mars mission.He explained why NASA needs a mission-oriented approach, one that focuses on a particular goal the agency wants to accomplish (for example, returning to the moon), instead of a technology-based approach — which it has effectively adopted — that places emphasis on the capabilities various researchers want to develop, whether they are necessary for achieving the agency’s long-term goals or not.After establishing that a mission-oriented approach is superior, he laid out the case for making a manned mission to Mars our next focus. His primary reasons are that Mars is the planet most like Earth in several important ways and that it is thus the most likely potential home for future human settlements.He then made an important point about why, contrary to the conventional wisdom, “you can’t get to Mars in 30 years” or even 20 years. You can only do it in 10 years or less, he said, because any program with a longer timeline would be far too vulnerable to being axed and would lend far too little urgency to the effort — because anyone who promises to get humans to Mars in 20 or 30 years will be long out of office once the deadline rolls around. This, of course, means those who make the initial promise will have a ready-made excuse for a lack of progress during their tenure if they are ineffective and that they will also lack the leverage to prevent the program from being scuttled if future leaders lack the courage to see it through.Once he turned to the question of getting to Mars, Zubrin pointed out that notions of building a base on the moon from which to launch Mars missions are pure folly because, while launching from the moon to Mars would be cheaper than launching from Earth to Mars, you have to get to the moon first. This, of course, wouldn’t make the Earth to moon to Mars plan a good idea “even if there were already a Cape Canaveral on the moon that was offering free rocket fuel to anyone who could come and pick it up,” he noted.He went on to illustrate the reason why a conjunction-class flight — one launched when Earth and Mars are on opposite sides on the sun — makes more sense than an opposition-class flight — one launched when Earth and Mars are on the same side of the sun. The reason is that flying conjunction allows the crew to spend 18 months out of a 30-month round-trip time on the Martian surface, giving them ample time to conduct research, whereas flying opposition allows the crew to spend just one month out of a 21-month round trip on the surface.Despite the snide remarks and dismissiveness of his critics, I found Zubrin to be not only extremely knowledgeable but also a first-rate communicator of complex scientific and engineering concepts.I was glad to have had the opportunity to hear his side of the story and can unequivocally say I’m convinced that, if we are going to have a space program, it should make Mars its target and adopt Zubrin’s plan in order to get there.Because Zubrin addressed numerous other critiques of his ideas, I plan to devote my next column to discussing Zubrin’s responses to additional, more specific criticisms of the Mars Direct plan, including those that deal with the dangers that may face the members of the crew on a Mars mission of his design during both their flights to and from the planet and their stay on the surface.E-mail: jarlower@indiana.edu