Are growing income disparities real?

For whoever has, to him more will be given; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. - Jesus

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics. - Benjamin Disraeli by way of Mark Twain

Economics are a hard thing.  Utterly dependent on statistics, economists defend theories ranging from laissez faire free markets to strictly regulated communist programs.  Entire think tanks and institutes are dedicated to advocating libertarian and socialist economic policies alike.  The truth is that, not unlike theology, once someone believes that they've gotten their mind completely around economics, they become dangerous.  Enter the politicians.

Americans in the 21st century, even in the throws of a major recession, enjoy the benefits of one of the richest economies in history.  As that economy has grown, the rich indeed have gotten richer, with the top 20% of wage earners significantly improving their lot while the bottom fifth have actually seen a decrease in their already dismal earnings.  However, Steve Horwitz argues below that such disparities are in fact deceiving, arguing that economic mobility actually discredits such disparities.

Horwitz's argument is convincing.  He shows a critical component of understanding poverty - that not all poverty is created equal.  Many who live below the poverty line are only temporarily poor, either just having entered the workforce in a low-paying job, or in-between jobs.  These poor are, as Horwitz argues, remarkably economically mobile - accounting for the lego man's movement all the way to the top earning strata by the end of the presentation.  Horwitz makes an excellent case for maintaining the US's free-market system, based on a utilitarian ethic of the greatest good for the greatest number.

Unfortunately, a Christian's call is not to utilitarian ethics.  We instead are called to care for the least of these, even at the cost of ourselves and our economic peers.  In his example, Horwitz neglects the long-term, permanently poor.  There is in this country a class of people who will never, despite their efforts to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, climb into an upper income bracket.

So many of the homeless men that Rachel works with are African Americans with crack-cocaine addictions.  Interestingly, the majority of these men don't try crack until they are well into mid-life, in their late 30s and 40s.  Most of them had manual or unskilled labor positions, and many of them were "productive members of society" until they decided to take their first hit.  They did what they were supposed to do - find a job and do it (it is funny how college-educated white folks like to remind us that "college isn't for everyone").  Many of them earned decent livings until the reality of their fate set in.  Regardless of their efforts, they would never move out of the lowest income bracket.  Economics are not completely to blame for their decisions - serious trauma is a common theme, and every recovering addict will confess his or her ownership in addiction.  But it is interesting how many of her clients are former members of the lowest 20% of earners.

It would be compelling to see how Horwitz's model would play out if he divided the income brackets into twentieths instead of fifths.  I trust we would see far fewer from the lowest five percent climb into the upper five percent - or even out of the bottom 20%.  Few of the permanent, generational poor have either the education or resources to escape that low bracket.  Add in structural discrimination and a touch of fatalism and you have yourself an economically immobile population.

If Horwitz broke down the statistics even further, he would show that the top 1% of earners in the US earned upwards of a quarter of the nation's income - far more than the bottom 50% of earners combined.  That percentage has increased significantly from the 8% that top percentile took in back in the 1970s.  I question whether even the most driven of the temporarily poor would ever enjoy a slice of that pie.

Treatment instead of punishment

Ten years ago, Portugal shifted its drug policy away from a punishment-based system to one of drug treatment.  The results have been encouraging, as users of both hard and intravenous drugs have dropped to half of what they were, as Molly McDonough of ABA Journal reports here.  This adds to the mounting evidence that US drug policy is in dire need of redirection in the face of overflowing prisons and a multi-billion dollar drug war being held on our southern border.  Props to Michael Stewart for passing along the link.

Independence Day

Gone, gone, gone

Not gone for long

When you're taught to be proud

Of where you come from

- Trevor Garrod

Speaking of revolutions, it is the fourth of July.  You may have noticed here at viva la re, we're prone to take a critical perspective towards a number of things: the Church, politicians, Alabama and the USA.  The tones of frustration can come across as condescending and hopeless.

Here's something that might not come across: I love America.  My homeland has afforded me privileges that I could not have enjoyed if born in most other places and times.  I have been provided with means and education at the sacrifices of countless others, both voluntary and involuntary.  Dissent is an essential component of democracy, and my hope is that as I criticize, I do so with hope and conviction. But even the right to dissent exercised frequently here is constitutionally protected.   I pray that my position of power and privilege will be poured out in pursuit of the virtues of liberty and justice.

The times I find it easy to be critical of America are abounding, for instance a tone-deaf woman in a karaoke bar shouting, "We'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American way!"  But there are also moments when I take immense delight in my nationality.  In few times do I find more pride than Fourth of July fireworks.  One of my earliest memories is standing out of Eck Stadium watching the display with my parents.

And so as Rachel and I prepare to depart the Union at the end of the month, I hope tonight's fireworks over the Vulcan will again stir pride and thankfulness.  Happy Independence Day, friends.  Celebrate well the revolution.

Tax cut rhetoric and government revenues

And so the 24 hour election cycle continues.  Even though we are still a year and a half out of the 2012 presidential elections, Republican hopefuls are kickstarting their campaigns with intentions on limiting Barack Obama to a single term as president.  Several candidates are hoping to harness the populist power of the Tea Party, looking to maximize on frustrations over a struggling economy and government spending.  Issues such as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and spending cuts are fueling the conservative fire, while others have been nearly altogether forgotten (the word education was not mentioned once during the first Republican candidates debate).  Most candidates (ABC news provides a list of contenders here) are lobbying to champion themselves as the Tea-Party-Friendliest, including upstart Michele Bachmann and former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty.

While many shifts and surprises will change the direction of the campaign trail in the coming months, a safe bet for most candidates is to wield boldly Reagan-esque economic ideology, one that energized economically conservative bases last fall and remains promising in the midst of a poor job market.  Tim Pawlenty has done so, calling for an $8 trillion tax cut.  Citing Ronald Reagan's trickle-down economic policy, he claims that history has shown that tax cuts will actually result in no decrease in revenues.  According to Bruce Bartlett of Capital Gains and Games, Pawlenty is totally wrong.  Bartlett should know - he worked as an economic adviser for Reagan and G.H.W. Bush.  Here he shows how Reagan's cuts did not pay for themselves.  Nor, economists agree (an uncommon occurrence), have the Bush cuts.

Pawlenty is at best misinformed, at worst he is manipulating the truth as he jockeys for position in the coming year.  This brings me back to my frustrations with the current conservative deification of Reagan.  My libertarian friend Thomas Pearson will point out that the federal government grew more under Reagan than any president since Roosevelt.  And while his early tax cuts are the legend that fuels Glenn Beck, everyone seems to have forgotten that Reagan raised taxes eleven times.

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter

Apparently I am on a president kick.  For the second time in a few months, I picked up a biography of an American president that challenged the depictions offered in mainstream history.  For the second time, I was not disappointed.

Image Credit: amazon.com

Growing up in the Deep South, the circumstances and saga of the American Civil war presented to me were occasionally in conflict with the "official" record.  In Alabama, those imparting the story like to emphasize the infringement of government on states' rights, and the travesty that is a federal government taking up arms against those who choose liberty over federal control.  In contrast, most textbooks (which we were taught to read with much skepticism) contest that the war was over the moral issue of slavery.  Monuments have been erected to Abraham Lincoln for preserving the Union and freeing the slaves.  I had thus found a skeptic's middle ground: the South hid the detestable practice of chattel slavery behind cries against federal infringement (a tried and true argument used to defend almost any morally repugnant practice we choose to employ; see segregation and, most recently, immigration), while Lincoln was an opportunist that seized on "freeing the slaves" to justify the violence of a war aimed at preserving the southern agricultural engine essential for sustaining the industrializing North.

According to Seth Grahame-Smith, I am way off.  In fact, the Civil War was contested for one purpose: the eradication of vampires from North America.  In Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, Grahame-Smith presents a detailed account of Lincoln's life, based upon Abraham's never-before published journals.


As a child, Lincoln watched his mother succumb to a rapidly-progressing illness, only later to learn that what had been diagnosed as typhoid was actually the workings of a vampire to whom his father had defaulted on a loan.   "Henceforth," declared Abe, "my life shall be one of rigorous study and devotion. I shall become a master of mind and body. And this mastery shall have but one purpose..."
Possessed of legendary strength, stature and ax skills, Lincoln engaged in a lifelong pursuit of eradicating vampires from the burgeoning country.  Grahame-Smith relates the story with consistency and detail, exposing the very real presence of death throughout Lincoln's life, as he lost mother, sister, fiance and children to untimely ends.  He depicts Lincoln as a complex character, filled with the wisdom and drive commonly attributed him, as well as an undying disdain for vampires.  This unique look at American history, and the role played by vampires in that history, provides a fun read.  Should you not have time to pick it up, a movie based on the book is set to release next summer.  If you are not convinced by this review, take a moment to watch the book trailer below.  Recommended.

Autism screening

In 1998, The Lancet published a study by Andrew Wakefield that associated the Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccine with increasing incidents of autism.  Autism awareness and advocacy groups everywhere began crying out against vaccinations, with voices such as Jenny McCarthy (the mother of an autistic child) declaring that a few kids getting the measles is better any kids having autism.  Wakefield's science has not been replicable, and several of his co-authors have distanced themselves from the article after evidenced emerged that Wakefield was receiving funds from a lawyer suing vaccine companies.

Despite a wealth of science refuting Wakefield's study, and despite The Lancet retracting Wakefield's article in 2010, many parents remain wary of vaccines, maintaining that a link exists.  The figure below, compliments of The Lancet, shows a compelling correlation between rising MMR rates and rising rates of autism diagnoses.  Making matters more complicated is that autism doesn't typically manifest until after the first round of MMR is given at 12 to 15 months of age. The debate is fueled by passionate parents of autistic children, and it can be paralyzing for middle class parents with enough knowledge to be dangerous.  As we have moved into an age of democratic information, a quick search of the internet can provide a wealth of information, and mis-information, on autism and its causes.  Despite strong recommendations for vaccinations by providers, the decision is still hard for well-meaning parents.

A critical blow to the MMR-autism link may have finally come thanks to an article in press by the Journal of Pediatrics.  Researchers in San Diego have developed a 5 minute autism screening tool that can be administered at one year of age.  The assessment has shown a positive predictive value of 75%, meaning three-quarters of the kids that failed the test ultimately showed some type of developmental delay.  Until now, the subtle clues of autism have rarely been detectable early in childhood.  Children with autism do much better with earlier interventions, and this tool will enable clinicians and therapists to begin treatment at a much earlier age.

The study has not yet determined how sensitive the screening assessment is, that being how many cases of autism it misses.  If the screen, administered before the first series of MMR is given, shows a strong negative-predictive value, it could be the final blow to Jenny McCarthy's crusade against MMR vaccinations, not to mention a critical tool in reducing the effects of autism.

JFK and the Unspeakable

I've never been big on conspiracy theories.  In college, I picked up Holy Blood, Holy Grail, the book on which Dan Brown based The Da Vinci Code, and knocked it out in a matter of days.  However, after a brief enchantment, I began to note the wide gaps and assumptions made by the authors and easily dismissed them, just as the scholarly community had decades before.  I don't believe in aliens and I think Bin Laden is dead.  So the grassy knoll JFK stuff was not really up my ally.  However, given that I had gotten to know the author's wife, and given that he'd spent 12 years on the book, and given that Jim is a Ph.D. and former university professor, I thought I would give the book a try.  It didn't hurt that names like Oliver Stone had given strong reviews.

JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters by James W. Douglass quickly drew me in.  However, in contrast to the medieval lore and mystery of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, Douglass captured my attention with thoughtful reflections on Christianity and the military-industrial complex.  The book is told through the lens of Thomas Merton, a Trappist monk from Kentucky, who as a poet and writer championed peace and faith.  In 1962, not long before the Cuban Missile Crisis and only a year and half before Kennedy's assassination, Merton wrote these haunting lines regarding nuclear war:

"What is needed is really not shrewdness or craft, but what the politicians don't have; depth, humanity and a certain totality of self-forgetfulness and compassion, not just for individuals but for man as a whole; a deeper kind of dedication. Maybe Kennedy will break through into that some day by miracle. But such people are before long marked out for assassination..."

Douglass writes with tireless consistency, and provides a feasible rationale as to how Kennedy would have beeen marked for death.  Using the resources that have been made available in the last decades, Douglass also provides a coherent and detailed narrative for how the event occurred.  Striking contradictions are neglected by the Warren Report, the government's official investigation of the case, which involved Allen Dulles, the former CIA director who was fired by Kennedy.  From Lee Harvey Oswald's intelligence connections to the remarkably similar plot uncovered by Chicago investigators only a few weeks before the assassination, Douglass brings to light numerous loose ends worth considering.


More than the how of the story, the why of the narrative is where Douglass invests most of his time.  He chronicles Kennedy's conversion from a hawkish presidential candidate running on the platform of "closing the missile gap with the Soviets" to, at times, the lone voice against preemption in his cabinet.  In the wake of the Cuban Missile Crisis, perhaps the moment nearest to apocalypse in the history of the world, Kennedy turned from his cold-warrior mentality in pursuit of lasting peace.  He engaged in secret correspondence with his chief "enemy," Nikita Khrushchev.  He stood against leaders in his government advocating for deceit and violence as a means of winning the Cold War.  He championed Third World liberation, and was ultimately marked as a traitor by those who could not see peace as a viable option.

Can I say for sure that Douglass's postulate is the absolute truth?  No.  But the theory he unfolds is remarkably thorough and consistent.  Even with the critical eye that quickly dismissed previous theories, I have a tough time refuting much of his information.  It has re-shaped the way I comprehend national defense, intelligence and the workings of the military-industrial complex.  The book is certainly worth your consideration.  Highly recommended.

By the way, if you have some time, check out this interview.

The end is near

If you are yet unaware, the world is coming to an end.  When is that end? May 21, 2011.  That's Saturday around 5 pm CDT.  Better get your ducks in a row.


At least, that's according to Harold Camping of Family Radio Worldwide.  Harold claims to have examined the scriptures and done the math, and proclaims that Judgement day is upon us.  He's not the only one.  The message has gotten out, and numerous followers are preparing themselves for the rapture by spreading the news all over.  Some have even quit their jobs and budgeted their funds in such a way as to run out on the 21st.

In response to all this, I have two questions: 1. Even if I don't actually believe that the rapture is coming on Saturday (I have some serious misgivings about the rapture anyway), do I get to go? 2. What does all this say about the God we believe in?

Firstly, if this is all true, I hope I get to go.  I read Left Behind in high school, and it is bad news for those who don't get the call.  As I said, I have some misgivings about the theology of the rapture, like when Jesus prayed that God wouldn't take believers out of the world but that He would protect them from the evil one.  But maybe these folks are right.  Maybe God has chosen to make the timing (with which He wouldn't share with Jesus) known to an 89 year old white preacher with a $100 million radio network.  Reading some interviews, like here at NPR, folks have literally given their lives over to what this guy is selling.  NPR also notes, importantly, that Brother Camping has incorrectly predicted the world's end before as September 6, 1994.  (In his defense, he had yet to complete his research.)

If all this isn't true, what does it say about our perceptions of God?  Why is He poised in anger to torture and destroy most of the world?  And why do Christians work so hard to escape the world around us?

Three things strike me about the interviews in the NPR story linked above.  First, there is a tremendous amount of uncertainty among the believers interviewed.  They are not uncertain about Brother Camping's predictions, but they are uncertain about their salvation.  It is as though our God is one who sits in heaven measuring our good deeds, and He's not taking many with Him.  In fact, despite one-fifth of the world claiming Christianity, only 3% will supposedly be rescued.  The need for an in and out group, even within the church, is disheartening.  The same Jesus whose compassion extended to the weak and heavy laden, the orphan and widow, the outcast and the harassed is now going to massacre 97% of the world's population, most of whom used to be within His range of compassion?

A second point I noticed is that all of them are fearful of one thing: the suffering to come.  What could be more American than a gospel that assures avoidance of suffering?  Why are we, as Christians, so committed to a faith that allows us escape from suffering when it is one of the few things that Jesus promised?  Jesus assures few things, and suffering is on the list.  Thankfully, we also get a Helper, and the comfort of knowing that He is coming back.  I don't think Brother Camping would get much of a following if he promised his followers that they get tortured and killed, but somehow Jesus sold the promise of a cross and it worked.  (If that isn't divine intervention, I don't know what is.)

Finally, these folks are wholeheartedly committed to this cause - enduring rejection, forsaking their loved ones and selling all they have.  What if these folks were doing these things not to escape Judgement but to bring Justice?  In some ways, I am jealous of them.  They have found the proverbial pearl of great price, something so valuable that it is worth forsaking all else.  Though Brother Camping may be distorting the gospel and truth of scripture, he has managed to convince these folks that he has something worth value.  What if I believed in something so much that I forsook finances and relationships and social standing?  I am afraid that might actually be the call of the gospel.

Jon Stewart vs. Bill O'Reilly

I found this link thoroughly enjoyable because I think O'Reilly and Stewart actually like each other.  O'Reilly's criticism is a bit ridiculous as we have so many other things to criticize (both right and left), but I like him more after watching this.

A Letter to My Legislators

Jim Wallis at Sojourners God's Politics Blog has posted today an entry entitled "Woe to you, legislators,"  where he employs a scathing verse from Isaiah that seems remarkably pertinent.  In it he offers a link to a form letter written to representatives regarding the current budget.  I've rarely been one to write a congressman.  In fact, I don't really know anyone who does write their representatives, save for my postally-prolific Aunt Nancy.  Anyway, I decided to give it a shot.  Modifying their message a bit, here's what I sent:

Subject: A request regarding the federal budget


I find the current tone and direction of the conversation regarding the federal budget concerning.  From the plan offered by Congressman Ryan to the strict cuts made to the current fiscal budget, the choices being discussed by Congress are morally lacking.  Lawmakers seem to be sacrificing proven, essential programs that benefit low income earners, seniors and the international community while maintaining corporate subsidies, tax loopholes and a military budget that dwarfs the combined budgets of all combined foes.

As your constituent, I urge you to oppose any budget proposal that cuts domestic and international programs that benefit the poor, especially children, including:

1. Critical child health and family nutrition programs
2. Proven work and income supports that lift families out of poverty
3. Support for education, especially in low-income communities
4. International aid that directly and literally save lives.

I know that the political climate in Washington is challenging, and I am aware that difficult choices must be made.  I recognize too that political affiliations can limit a lawmaker.  But I pray that you will have the courage to defend the afflicted in the face of opposition.

Sincerely,

Frank Williams

Juan Crow

Last week, the Alabama State House passed a comprehensive immigration bill patterned after the controversial Arizona law enacted last summer.  The Senate is expected to take up a similar bill later this spring.  Tough economic times generally coincide with harsh views towards immigrants, and Alabama lawmakers are rallying their constituents by making undocumented residency in the state a crime of trespassing, punishable by a year in prison.  Like the Arizona law, Alabama's version will require law enforcement officials to demand papers on those whom they deem suspicious (read: Hispanic), and the law promises a boon to Alabama's overpopulated prison system.


Birmingham News blogger John Archibald discusses the measure here, where he points out that all but one of the names co-sponsoring the bill have a common denominator: English heritage.  Perhaps this is an opportunity to learn from our governmental predecessors -- get tough on immigration now, or the immigrants will engage you in an unjust war, commit genocide against you and force you to march to Oklahoma.  If the Creeks, Choctaw, Cherokee and Chickasaw tribes had passed some tough, "don't tread on me" legislation, maybe they wouldn't be dealing with an influx of Latinos right now.

Or maybe they would.  In truth, we know the story.  And regardless of how hard the locals resisted the immigrants, the story did not change.  It's time for Alabamians to get the message: immigrants are here, and more are coming.  Alabama saw a 7.5% increase in population from 2000 to 2010 (this Interactive 2010 Census Map is really cool), but the increase in Hispanics was 145%.  No amount of unfriendly legislation is going to slow that wave, especially legislation that cannot reasonably be enforced.  While passing a law like Arizona's will serve to perhaps deter a few, it will moreso drive the current Hispanic population further into hiding.  Kids won't go to school because of their parents' immigration status.  The oppressed group will become more isolated, creating a haven for an underworld of gangs and mafias, bringing with them drug and human trafficking.

Every state has issues with immigration, and the federal government stays away from it like the plague.  Alabamians who pride themselves on their morality and hospitality need to re-examine their attitudes regarding immigration, perhaps looking to Utah as an example of how church and state can come together to create an environment that realistically deals with the challenges of immigration into the future.

For another perspective, Jake Olzen of God's Politics blogged about the burgeoning Immigrants Rights Movement here.

The Souls of Black Folk

"HEREIN lie buried many things which if read with patience may show the strange meaning of being black here in the dawning of the Twentieth Century. This meaning is not without interest to you, Gentle Reader; for the problem of the Twentieth Century is the problem of the color-line." - W.E.B. Du Bois

A cornerstone of African-American studies, The Souls of Black Folk is a series of essays spanning from religion to economics, and from politics to music.  W.E.B. Du Bois had a unique perspective of the meaning of being black in America at the turn of the century.  Raised as the lone black child in a New England town, Du Bois claims he didn't realize the significance of his skin color until he was an elementary student barred from a playmate's home.  His higher-education opportunities were limited by that same skin color, and thus he headed south to study at Fisk University in Nashville.  He spent time teaching in rural schools for a time before moving back north to become the first African-American to graduate from Harvard.  He studied at the University of Berlin and held teaching positions at Wilberforce and UPenn before returning to the South to teach at Atlanta University.

Du Bois writes in a style that will strike today's reader as remarkably humble regarding his race.  His ideas at the time, however, were far from mild.  Booker T. Washington was the leading black voice of his day, and he advocated social policies of "separate but equal" standing among the races, working to ensure blacks had access to trade schools and agricultural policies that would provide the race an opportunity to accrew financial and social standing before moving towards integration.  Du Bois, however, was adamantly opposed to Jim Crow and segregation, challenging that equal rights are essential to the progression of African-American, and ultimately American, society.  The Souls of Black Folk laid the groundwork for the Civil Rights Movement that ensued a half-century later.

The book is well-written, and provides insight into the challenges afflicting African-Americans in the South over a century ago.  Sadly, many of the same issues remain.  While legislated racism fell during the civil rights movement (Though some are pointedly calling the wave of Arizona-style immigration legislation "Juan Crowe"), racism and disparities still remain a blight on our country.   The overt, explicit racism of a generation ago is slowly dying away, but it is being replaced with a much more insidious implicit racism that is often imperceptible by its perpetrators.  Implicit racism occurs in subconcious attitudes that we hold that affect the way we treat other races.  For instance, while I would never use an ethnic slur (I am far too P.C. for that), I will (unconsciously) apply an unfair stereotype to an obese, slightly unkempt African-American patient with a chief complaint of "abdominal pain."  While I may not perceive my racism, the patient suredly will.

Du Bois's topics range from reconstruction to education, and he does a masterful job of using story to convey injustice.  The book also details some history I find interesting, none more than the last chapter which provides an anthropological history of the "Negro Spiritual."  Another essay details the conflicted grief he suffers in the death of his child, whom was denied entry to an all-white hospital before succumbing to illness.  Importantly, Du Bois introduces the concept of "the Veil" through which blacks separated from the general population and a common symbol employed in African-American discourse.

T. Boone's Got a Plan

Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens is backing a bipartisan bill in the House of Representatives to provide tax incentives for heavy-duty truck manufacturers to begin building vehicles that run on natural gas.  You can learn more about it here, where Joe Nocera of the New York Times advocates for the legislation.  As Nocera points out, big rigs consume 23% of the fuel used for transportation in the US, and natural gas supplies in this country are projected to last for a century.  Thoughts?

When questioned about the violence ensuing from Terry Jones Quran-burning stunt, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) suggested that congress needs to take up the issue of freedom of speech, given the country's current situation in war.  Funny how, when faced with deciding between civil rights and war, lawmakers choose war.

A moral budget

For years in church, I have heard that if you want to see where your priorities lie, look at your budget.  Hannah Lythe, blogging at Jim Wallis's God's Politics Blog, comments here on budget cuts proposed by the House on international development and public health programs.  The head of USAID suggests that scaling back current programs for malaria, vaccinations and provision of skilled birth attendants will result in the death of 70,000 children.  70,000.  How can Republicans, the chosen party of the "religious right," be allowed to even suggest such cuts without a deafening outcry from the church?  Is maintaining tax cuts really our chief priority?  If these are where our priorities lie, may God have mercy on our souls.

Immigration Reform on a State Level

Helene Slessarev-Jamir, a blogger at Sojourners God's Politics blog, says that after a trip to Washington to meet with lawmakers regarding immigration reform, she is confident that federal immigration reform will not happen anytime soon.  She contends here for fighting for immigration reform at the state level, where laws such as those in Arizona and Utah have set an example that many other states are considering imitating. This morning's Diane Rehm Show takes up the topic, comparing and contrasting the harsh Arizona law with the more progressive Utah law.  You can listen to the broadcast here.


History shows that economic downturns almost always result in a fingering of immigrants.  This go round, those immigrants happen to be Latin American.  Robert Bentley stated during his campaign that he would consider an Arizona-style immigration legislation for Alabama.  With a Republican-dominated government, he shouldn't have too much resistance.  Should Alabama follow the model of Arizona, whose law has already resulted in numerous Hispanic parents keeping their children out of school in order to avoid prosecution?  Certainly no one would assert that there is any long term benefit of an uneducated cohort of minority citizens (recall that children born in the US, even to an undocumented immigrant) is good for the long-term well-being of the country or state.  And are Republicans willing to alienate the largest and fastest growing minority group in America for the sake of winning the next few elections?


I don't have the answers.  I know that immigration reform is essential, and I am called to hospitality towards the alien and the outcast.  Is there a way to enforce law while remaining humane?  I think the Utah law comes much closer to this goal, though admittedly with shortcomings.

Death and Taxes

For the past few months, we have been participating in a book club at the home of Mikey and Lindsay Hannon, where we have had the great fortune of getting to know Shelly Douglass.  Shelly is wonderful, a bona fide hippie who has spent her life trying to live a life consistent with her reading of the New Testament - sharing what she has with those who need it, loving her neighbor as herself and going to jail for protesting nuclear weapons.  Shelly and her husband, Jim, run a Catholic Worker hospitality house in Ensley, Alabama called Mary's House.

In a couple of weeks, Rachel and I will participate in Mary's House Lenten Retreat.  Shane Claiborne is the guest speaker, and he will be talking about The Gospel in the Empire: Consistent Living in the Belly of the Beast (As you can probably guess from the title, Shane's reading of Revelation most likely does not line up with that of John Hagee or Tim LaHaye).



Anyway, I didn't know much about Shane Claiborne before I heard about the retreat, but recently I have read a little bit of his stuff, and he seems pretty smart.  He's a staunch opponent of what he would call an empire characterized by an ethic of death.  He's not wild about military spending, and he is advocating this year for Christians to engage in civil disobedience on one of the two sure things (taxes) in response to it's role in precipitating the other (death).  You can read his interesting post here.

As a good hippie, our friend Shelly and her husband intentionally make just below the taxable income so that they don't contribute to the military industrial complex.  Given that you (like me) are not interested in cutting income to below that of the poverty line, what do you think?  How do you feel about withholding from the government a small amount in protest of their use of your funds?  As tax day approaches (April 18, for those who share my gift for tardiness) and in the wake of the most recent US military action in Libya, would you be willing to engage in what he calls the "third way?"

Nuclear Meltdown and Libertarianism

Harold Meyerson recently published an editorial in the Washington Post on three supposedly infallible structures - the American financial system, deep-water oil drilling and nuclear power.  He sites our current faith in the infallibility of science and technology as a potential Achilles heel, as evidenced in the recent economic recession, BP disaster and Japanese nuclear crisis.  He sites the danger of a hands-off, libertarian policy towards such structures, calling instead for regulation in the realms of food safety, economic and environmental policy.  A quote:


"The market may in time punish bad actors, which is the ostensible safeguard that libertarians prefer to regulation. Yet as the people sealed inside their homes in the vicinity of Japan’s malfunctioning nuclear plant could tell us, untold numbers of innocents may pay a much higher price, more quickly, than the executives and shareholders of offending companies. "


While I believe his calls for "active, disinterested government regulation" are a bit naive (government is never disinterested), I think he makes a sound point against libertarian philosophy that assumes inherent morality in the free market.


So, the question remains, what do we do with nuclear power?  Many of the old-guard environmental activists have, in recent years, converted to a pro-nuclear stance.  They site the cleanliness of the energy and rising energy demands fueled by development and population growth.  I am reluctant to make decisions on policy in the midst of turmoil, but in the wake of Japan's emergency, what do we do with the obvious risks posed by nuclear energy production?


Props to Jim Rice of God's Politics for the Meyerson link.

Supply and Demand (and Ecstasy)

One quarter of the world's prison population resides in US prisons.  Comparatively, 3% of the world's population lives in the US.  I think we are doing something wrong.  The prison population began expanding rapidly in the 1980s as a repercussion of President Reagan's War on Drugs.  Under the new policy, drug possession and trafficking took on severe penalties, leading to a boon in the prison population (not to mention the prison building and private prison industries).  The implications are particularly stark for the African-American population, where one in four black men will serve time during his third decade.

Much work on drug addiction and policy has been done in the realm of behavioral economics.  Behavioral Economics is a trans-disciplinary field, combining concepts from B.F. Skinner's Behavioral Psychology and Consumer Demand theory in microeconomics (For an introduction to Behavioral Economics, I highly suggest Dan Ariely's Predictably Irrational. It is a quick read, and it does a great job of presenting the science in a clear format.)  If protecting a population from the dangers of illegal drug use is our objective, then there are two sides that must be controlled - supply reduction strategies and demand reduction strategies.

From the beginning of the war on drugs, the US has focused a disproportionate amount of resources to supply reduction strategies.  We have flexed our foreign muscle to force countries into coca, reefer and opium eradication programs while neglecting the US demand for drugs.  Our foreign policy on drugs has resembled the imperialistic cowboy style that demands other countries to get in line.  However, we have neglected the cause of elastic demand for street drugs in the US - addiction.  The RAND Corporation 1995 table below shows US expenditures on drug policy.

The strategy has served to inflate street drug prices in the US as supply decreases and demand remains constant.  As risk increases, so to does price.  For reference, you can review recent Mexican history to understand the climate shaped by our drug policy.  Meanwhile, un-addicted but bored middle class white kids are steering clear of the heavy penalties associated with cocaine and heroine, choosing instead gray-market "herbal supplements" or new designer chemical substances they can get on the internet, or crystal meth they can make at home.  

Fiscal Conservatism?

In the firestorm that has surrounded government budget debates on the state and federal level, folks from all sides are chiming in.  Tea Party-supported "fiscal conservatives" have entered the scene on a mission.  I am a firm believer in fiscal discipline, but much of the controversy has been over what amounts to politics as usual. As I've discussed in recent posts, states everywhere are slashing programs that are social investments - research, public media, education and healthcare. Scott Walker is using the budget crisis in Wisconsin to strip state employees of collective bargaining rights, describing their benefits as luxurious and their salaries as disproportionate to the private sector (by the way, 60% of public employees have college degrees versus 20% of non-government workers).  The problem with his argument is that stripping collective bargaining has nothing to do with the current budget.  It is nothing more than manipulating a current crisis to change the rules of the game.

The federal government is following suit, as new Republicans are vying to make good on pledges of cutting $100 billion from the 2010 budget.  Refusing to touch the sacred cows of defense and Medicare (which along with Social Security account for 88% of the federal budget), they take aim at "discretionary spending," namely things that people who vote for Democrats use.  All of this is done in the name of "fiscal conservatism," but as blogger Jim Wallis of God's Politics points out, what is being sold as fiscal conservatism is simply politics as usual:
This is not fiscal conservatism. It's just politics.