Welcome to FromDC2Iowa: Contents & Guide

Over 1,500 blog posts on a variety of topics since 2006.

What to do?

1. Old friend of the blog and repeat visitor? You already know what you want to do and how to do it.

2. First time visitor? Here are some choices:

(a) "I'm just looking." Look to right-hand column listing years. Clicking on the little triangle in front of a year will display the months of that year. Clicking on the little triangle in front of any of the displayed months will display the titles on blogs posted that month. Clicking on a blog post's title will take you to the text of that blog post.

(b) Researching a Topic? Scroll down the right-hand column to "Search;" enter key words to search on, select "FromDC2Iowa blog" or "Nicholas Johnson Web Site" and follow directions. Want ideas? Visit "Key Word Searches."

(c) Searching by Date? Scroll down right-hand column to "Blog Archive." As explained in (a), above, click on triangle in front of year to display months, month to display posts.

3. Who is this blog's author? Nicholas Johnson.

_________________________

Senator Bernie Sanders and America's 'Mainstream'

July 25, 2015, 8:45 a.m.

Like Mark Twain's Mississippi River, the "Mainsteam" Has Shifted
Contents
Face the Nation Exchange

Senator Sanders' Uniqueness

The Media's Problem with Senator Sanders

Senator Sanders' Positions

Just Where Is America's Mainstream?

Conclusion

Face the Nation

JOHN DICKERSON: What do you think . . . of Bernie Sanders and his challenge to Hillary Clinton? . . .

SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER: . . . [H]ere you have got one of the most liberal people in the Democrat Party running against Hillary Clinton . . ..

DICKERSON: What does it say about the Democratic Party?

BOEHNER: That they're out of step with mainstream America.
. . . SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: All right. Well, let me respond to that issue by issue. And you determine who is out of the mainstream.

I want to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. A recent "Wall Street Journal" poll said a majority of the American people want to do that. . . . [M]any of [Speaker Boehner's] members want to do away with the concept of the minimum wage.

I want to see this country expand Social Security benefits, not cut them. John Boehner, his party, want to either privatize Social Security or cut Social Security benefits to the elderly and disabled vets. . . .

I want to create millions of jobs by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. And I have introduced legislation to do that. [The] Republican Party is very reluctant to spend a nickel to rebuild our infrastructure.

DICKERSON: Senator, you ...

SANDERS: I want -- so, I think in terms of who is out of touch with the American people, I would say the Republican Party is. They want to give tax breaks to billionaires, not help the middle class.

-- "Face the Nation Transcripts, July 12, 2015: Boehner, Sanders, Cotton,"

.
Senator Sanders Uniqueness
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont sent out a letter in June 2015 explaining why is is running for president. This is a serious campaign, make no mistake. But it is otherwise relatively unique among presidential campaigns in general -- and amongst this year's mob of candidates in particular. See generally, "Bernie! Why the 99% Should Support Bernie's Campaign," June 1, 2015.

Sanders is neither someone who runs every four years, nor someone running the first time who has hired expensive, professional campaign managers, media manipulators, pollsters, and fundraisers who tell him what to say and do. For starters, he won't take money from billionaires, PACs, or others seeking to enrich themselves through their campaign contributions. (Years ago I once calculated such contributors get a 1000-to-one to 2000-to-one return on their money; give a million dollars, get a billion dollars or more in return: "Campaigns: You Pay $4 or $4000," Des Moines Register, July 21, 1996. I simply assume, with today's $1 billion-plus campaign seasons and unlimited Citizens United corporate contributions, it's probably worse.)

Even more important, he neither engages in new-found, crafted slogans, nor does he change positions with the political winds. Senator Sanders is still saying what he has been saying all his life as mayor, as a member of Congress, and as a U.S. Senator. "Authentic" is a word often used by political junkies who have spent their lives in a world of political "shuck and jive" and are now hearing Sanders for the first time.

He's not a college professor (though he could be). He's a politician running for the presidency. But he believes democracies are supposed to serve the 99%, not just the 1%, and that in order to do that campaigns need to include serious efforts to explore and resolve the more serious challenges facing the people, and to build the multi-million-member political organizations that will make possible the implementation of solutions.

The Media's Problem with Senator Sanders
This poses a double-barrelled problem for the media -- and therefore for Senator Sanders.

First, the media's owners are, by definition, well within the 1%. They have every possible financial, political, ideological, and social motive to try to prevent him being taken seriously. Savvy media employees who wish to stay employed can't help but be aware of the advantages offered them if they will cut back on or eliminate coverage of him (see description of the shameful exclusion of him by "Meet the Press" in "Bernie's Media Challenge," June 19, 2015), and when unavoidable (perhaps because he is getting the largest number of contributors and audience members of any candidate) diminish his reputation with ridicule, marginalization, and dismissal as "a socialist" whose views are "out of the mainstream."

Second, with rare exceptions, profit-driven media do not have the space or time, or a sufficient number of highly educated, informed and analytical journalists, to present lengthy print, online, or televised discussions of major public policy issues in a way that will involve, inform, and hold an American audience. (See "Three-Legged Calves, Wolves, Sheep and Democracy's Media," Dec. 1, 2014.) Thus, even if media owners were supportive of Senator Sanders' views, they aren't really set up to present anyone's views at length. Thus, political coverage tends to focus on fundraising (e.g., Senator Rand Paul's mediocre contributions; Jeb Bush's $100 million), poll results (e.g., leading Republicans excluded from Fox News debate), gotcha moments (e.g., Governor Rick Perry's 2012 "oops" moment), the bizarre (e.g., Donald Trump's behavior, characterized by Dan Rather as somewhat similar to "a manure spreader in a windstorm"), physical appearance (e.g., the Donald's hair; women's clothing), and those portions of candidates' past history they'd rather forget (e.g., Hillary Clinton's Arkansas Whitewater, 1990s healthcare efforts, Benghazi, 50,000 emails).

Senator Sanders' Positions
So what is this establishment-bucking Senator Sanders talking about? That brings us back to the June letter referenced above. This is certainly not the only written source, you should also check his campaign Web site generally, BernieSanders.com (Issues).

For now, here is just a brief summary of the headings for the topics he touches upon: jobs, wages, income inequality, progressive taxation, Wall Street reforms, campaign finance alternatives, climate change, universal single-payer health care, poverty programs, college for all, opposition to endless war, and finally "a political revolution." Here is where you can read a pdf of the entire Bernie Sanders' June 2015 3-1/2-page letter. A more current (yesterday) comparable and updated statement was included in a July 24, 2015, email from the campaign which you can read here.

Just Where is America's Mainstream?
Which brings us back to the question of whether his proposals position him in or out of the mainstream. The problem with conducting that inquiry without data, of course, is that the discussion tends to disintegrate into 'tis-'taint shouting matches.

That's why it seemed to me useful to find out precisely what recent polling on Americans' views actually reveals on the matter. Here are some of those results, either directly from the polling organization or as reported by others:

Josh Hakinson, "America's Views Align Surprisingly Well With Those of 'Socialist' Bernie Sanders," Mother Jones, May 19, 2015 (Wealthy should pay more taxes -- 68%; Close offshore tax havens -- 85% (small business owners); Public funding of elections -- "half" Regulation of greenhouse gas emissions - 64%; Universal single-payer healthcare -- 50%+; Breaking up big banks -- 58%; Free community college (2 years) -- 63%; Oppose fast-track for TPP trade deal -- 61%; Raising minimum wage to $15/hour -- 63%; Make union organizing of workers easier -- 53%; Expansion of Social Security and Medicare -- "majorities")

Philip Bump, "Bernie Sanders Says Americans Back His Agenda -- and He's Mostly Right," The Washington Post, June 12, 2015 (Support infrastructure spending -- 50%; Trade restrictions to support domestic industries -- 50%; High quality preschool programs -- 50%; College student loans, lower costs, longer to pay off -- 50%)

Drew Desilver, "State of the Union 2014: Where Americans Stand on Key Issues," Pew Research Center, Jan. 27, 2014 (Dissatisfied with income inequality -- 67%; One year extension of unemployment benefits -- 63%; Path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants -- 71%). And see, Drew Desilver, "5 Facts About Social Security," Pew Research Center, Oct. 16, 2013 (support for increases varies by party).

"Poll: Most Americans Support Raising Investment Taxes for Wealthy; More Than Two-Thirds Say the Rich Pay Too Little in Federal Taxes, Most Back Obama's Proposed Tax Hike on Investments,"> Associated Press-GfK Poll, Aljazeera America, Feb. 23, 2015.

Senator Elizabeth Warren presented comparable numbers in a recent speech as evidence that a majority of Americans can, in fact, be accurately labeled as "progressives."

• Last November, when Democrats across the country had a terrible day, four -- four -- Republican states voted to raise their minimum wage. In South Dakota, 55% of voters supported a minimum wage increase. In Nebraska, 59%. Arkansas, 66%. And in Alaska, 69%. That shouldn't surprise anyone: 70% of Americans across this country support an increase of the federal minimum wage to at least $10.10 an hour. Republicans may vote to keep workers in poverty, but on minimum wage, the American people are Progressives.

• Progressives believe that students shouldn't be crushed by debt and the federal government should not make a profit on student loans. And so do 73% of Americans. Beltway Republicans may vote to stomp on people who are deep in debt, but on student loans, the American people are Progressives -- and to them debt-free college sounds pretty darn good.

• Progressives believe people should be able to care for sick family members without fear of losing their jobs, and so do 80% of Americans. Republicans may pander to their big business pals, but on paid sick leave, the American people are Progressives.

• Progressives believe that millionaires and billionaires should pay the same tax rates as their secretaries, and so do two-thirds of all Americans. Republicans may support special breaks for the rich and powerful, but on tax fairness, the American people are Progressives.

• Progressives believe that after a lifetime of work, people deserve to retire in dignity and that means a commitment to strengthening and expanding Social Security -- and 79% of likely voters in last year's election also supported increasing Social Security benefits. Republicans may try to cut benefits, but on Social Security, the American people are Progressives and they are ready to take on the retirement crisis in this country.

• Progressives believe in trade, but not the kind written behind closed doors by corporate lawyers that leave American workers eating dirt. Nearly two-thirds of Americans favor some sort of trade restrictions, and more than half oppose fast tracking trade deals. Republicans -- and some Democrats -- may want to make it easier for multinational corporations to ship jobs overseas, but on trade, the American people are Progressives.

• Progressives believe that powerful corporations and billionaires have far, far too much influence over our politics and their stranglehold over our government rigs the game. Nearly three-quarters of America agrees. Republicans may cozy up to their billionaire sugar-daddies, but on campaign finance and Washington reform, the American people are Progressives.

• Progressives believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher legal enforcement -- and that, five years after Dodd-Frank -- it's time to stop pretending and really end "too big to fail" with rules like the Glass-Steagall Act. And 79% of Americans believe Wall Street should be held accountable with tougher rules. Beltway Republicans may be willing to let the biggest banks break our economy again, but on Wall Street reform, the American people are Progressives.

• And finally, I want to make one more very important point: Progressives believe that it shouldn't take a revolution on YouTube to drive a revolution in law enforcement. It shouldn't take a hurricane in New Orleans or a massacre in Charleston for Americans to wake up to what is happening -- what is still happening -- to people of color in this country. And it sure as heck shouldn't take poll numbers to unite us in our determination to build a future for all our children. House Republicans may still want to fly the Confederate flag and Republican leaders may cower in the shadow of Donald Trump, but the American people understand that black lives matter and America is not a country that stands for racism, bigotry or hatred. To build an economy that creates real opportunity, that doesn't lock up millions of our fellow human beings and that uses the talents of all our people, Americans must prove that on equality and justice, the American people are Progressives.

Amber Ferguson, "Elizabeth Warren's Message At Netroots Nation," Huffington Post, July 17, 2015 (as prepared for delivery).

Conclusion
Of course, merely because a majority of your fellow Americans hold one view or another doesn't mean that it is "right," or that you are obliged to follow. Clearly, most who number themselves in the establishment's wealthiest 1% disagree, and you may be among them -- or agree with them even though you are not so financially blessed. Nor does it mean that no one should be elected who is not "in the mainstream."

But these polling results, and others that are comparable, should at least put to rest that, whatever else Senator Sanders may or may not be, he is clearly waist deep in the mainstream.

Today's "radicals" who really are out of the mainstream, as he has pointed out, are those who want to hold down, or even eliminate, the minimum wage; continue endless wars in the Middle East; deny climate change; oppose universal single-payer health care, federal jobs programs to rebuild infrastructure, increases in unemployment benefits, and want to repeal "Obama Care;" want to reduce taxes on the wealthy, continue college student debt, cut back on Social Security.

Wherever they may be on the river bank, it is they who are clearly not in the mainstream. Senator Bernie Sanders is.
# # #

Pete Seeger and An Antidote to Apathy

February 2, 2014, 1:10 p.m.
"We Shall Overcome"
Why bother? What's the point? What difference can I possibly make?

Ever felt that way? Many do.

Yet others keep at it, whatever the odds, staring down defeat. What sustains them? What keeps them going?

One of those people was Pete Seeger. His example, commitment, and endurance was an inspiration to me as a young man -- and to millions of others during the past sixty-plus years. He was an icon, larger than life, and lots more fun. I never dreamed in those days that I would someday be sharing a stage with him at rallies, enjoying a private, quiet dinner and evening's conversation with Pete, and his wife, Toshi, in their Beacon, New York, home overlooking the Hudson River he was fighting for, or that he would be providing support for the National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting, for which I was the chair. [Photo credit: Bennett Raglin/Getty Images; multiple sources.]

What a life he led! Past tense because, as all but cave dwellers are by now aware, he died last Monday, January 27, at the age of 94. Jon Parelesjan, "Pete Seeger, Champion of Folk Music and Social Change, Dies at 94," New York Times, Jan. 29, 2014, p. A20. His wife, Toshi, predeceased him last year, Elisabeth Blair, "Toshi Seeger, Wife Of Folk Singer Pete Seeger, Dies At 91," New York Times, July 11, 2013 -- just shy of their 70th anniversary.

His death marks the end of an era, an era of folk songs and banjo, his leading audiences of thousands in song, energizing, organizing and raising our hopes that change was possible.

Memories of Pete Seeger flooded back again a couple of days ago as I read an email from a young man I know. It was going to require a response, and it got me to thinking about why it is that some are able to keep going for 94 years, while others give up after years and years of frustration.

First, here are some excerpts from what that young man wrote me:

Over the years I've written numerous letters to the editor, attended several public meetings, joined local non-profit groups and gone to their meetings, written directly to government officials (both email and postal letters), spoken with sheriffs and police chiefs, tried to change things at work by talking with management and working with the union, written gobs of blog entries, forum posts and comments on online newspaper articles -- on and on -- and essentially none of it has mattered. All my effort has amounted to practically nothing.

After one disaster in which people were killed and injured, I got the impression that no one wanted to know the truth. Perhaps there were enough people who might potentially get burned that they all just got together and buried it. When I try to bring things like this to the attention of local reporters they either never respond to my calls and emails, or don't seem to care. There is just a collective shrug. Crickets chirping.

I'm pretty much done fighting. I really don't see the point.

That's not to say there haven't been some advances in society over the last 50-100 years. Of course there have been, most of them involving civil rights. But it doesn't do anyone much good to be able to vote, for example, if powerful special interests are determining the candidates and the ship is headed for the iceberg.

Regardless of whether one thinks we are headed for nirvana or total annihilation, it really seems to me that the speed and the course are beyond the control of most individuals and groups. Any of us can rant and rave about the politics, WalMart, overpopulation, over-development, abortion, stem cells, guns, church/state issues, the Middle East, nuclear weapons, environmental destruction, Rush Limbaugh, Bill Maher, public education, and taxes, and it just does not matter. We're almost always either preaching to the choir and/or pissing off a large number of people (some of whom may be mentally unstable). It's exceedingly unlikely that one of the Waltons, or a bishop protecting pedophile priests, or a KKK member, or a cement head conservative would read something -- written by anyone really, but especially little ol' me -- and say to themselves, "You know, this guy makes a lot of sense! I realize now that I've been wrong my entire life. Gosh darn it, I'm gonna turn over a new leaf and do the right thing!"

The deck is stacked. Just one example from emails I received today -- efforts to stop the XL pipeline. I think we all know how that's gonna go. I doesn't matter how many people are against it -- there's too much money at stake. Obama will approve it.

Even in years past, for every JFK, Martin Luther King, or Gandhi -- every person who ever made a difference -- there were scores of others who worked, sacrificed, and suffered in vain. Not to mention that all of the above were eventually assassinated.

_______________
There are good reasons for millions of Americans to share that sense of hopelessness. And frankly, I don't know what the best response would be to those who feel that way. I'm sure there are many who could do a better job than I in coming up with a response. In any event, here was my feeble effort:

There are many potential responses to what you wrote.

Sadly, yours may be the majority view. Look at the voting turnout in Iowa City – the world’s third-selected “City of Literature,” a city one with one of the nation’s highest percentages of college graduates, one seen as so progressive as to be characterized as “The People's Republic of Johnson County” by those in Western Iowa. We often get turnouts of 5% to 10% of the eligible voters for city council, school board, and bond elections. Apathy rules.

There is certainly a lot of evidence to support your position. How many “public interest” organizations have shut down because their initial mission was accomplished?

(1) Strategy and Tactics. Those engaged in promoting change would do well to give more thought to strategies and tactics. When Dick Remington and I were co-directors of the Institute for Health, Behavior and Environmental Policy, we did a benefit-cost/triage analysis of where we might best put our time and money. We decided, in turn, to focus on (a) control of tobacco use, as it was the number one cause of death, (b) emphasize preventing pre-teens from taking up smoking (as more cost-effective than trying to get nicotine addicts off their drug), and (c) raising the price of cigarettes as the most effective way of discouraging children from taking up smoking. What are the causes that both hold the greatest potential for human betterment, and chance of accomplishment through the efforts of individual citizens? Success, a sense of accomplishment, what community organizers call "the fixed fight," are among the best antidotes for discouragement.

Some causes really are hopeless -– at least at a given time. “Pick your battles,” as my wife advises me. LBJ asked his presidential appointees to provide him with proposals for policies that would best serve the national interest. He said we should not make judgments about what is, and is not, possible -– he would make those judgments. As a congressman’s daughter in law, returning with the family from the south after Christmas, once put it, “Nick, some of those people are just going to have to die” -– not meaning that they should be killed, but that it is seemingly impossible to reason with them. As Thomas Paine explained a couple centuries earlier, “To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason . . . is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.” (From Thomas Paine, The American Crisis.)

(2) Words Matter. But Thomas Paine said something else that I often think of, that reflects his understanding of both what a long and hard road it is to bring about change, but also how important incremental efforts can be: “The words pile up and then men do things. But first the words.” (I can’t find the source of that right now.) His pamphlet, Common Sense,” played a major role in the American Revolution. As John Adams is credited with having said, “Without the pen of Paine, the sword of Washington would have been wielded in vain.”

(3) Of Butterflies and Politics. Do you know about what’s called “the butterfly effect” (a butterfly flapping its wings in China might potentially contribute to the formation of a hurricane in North America weeks later)? Everything you say, every email you write, every letter to the editor you get published, every comment you make to the host of a call-in radio program, is at least the political equivalent of those butterfly wings flapping. Your words do have some effect -- even if so slight as to be immeasurable. It will certainly rarely be enough, by itself, to produce action or change.

Each leaf that fluttered to the bottom of the pool millions of years ago seemed insignificant, but it ultimately became part of a billion barrels of oil. Your support of ZPG (Zero Population Growth), and writing about global population, is an example; you have been a part of a growing global awareness that has, in fact, slowed population growth in many parts of the world.

Think tanks and various task forces and commissions come out with reports full of proposals to make things better. When they do, some people complain, “Oh, just another report to go on the shelf and gather dust.” My thought is, yes, more reports do come along every decade or so on this subject. But ultimately the time is right, a public official's staff person reads through all those old reports, gets the ear of his or her employer, and action follows.

Change is slow in coming. Very slow. As Paine began Common Sense, “Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.”

Think of how long it took to convince Americans that slavery was not cool, or that perhaps it was worth taking the risk of letting women vote, or that it was not folly to create a national park system, or Social Security payments.

(4) A Swinging Pendulum Moves the Clock Forward. The pendulum swings. It’s not always “two steps forward and one step back.” Sometimes it’s “one step forward and two steps back.” Sometimes it’s no steps forward. But even a sailboat can sail into the wind by tacking; the reformer’s job is to figure out the equivalent of tacking when sailing into overwhelming opposition. Even the very best professional baseball players don't get a hit, let alone a home run, every time at bat. When I was doing door-to-door selling I read that it's normal to be turned down at least ten times for every sale. Politics, and reform of public policy is like that. A realistic sense of what's possible reduces frustration.

(5) The Personal Return from Making an Effort. Finally, there is the impact on the person engaged in trying to bring about change. There is actually some psychological data on this, I think.

Being engaged in the passions of one’s time is good for your physical, mental and emotional health. It often involves working with others you would not otherwise have come to know. It energizes you, gives you a reason to get out of bed in the morning. Discouragement? Sure. But as President Kennedy said at Rice University, Sept. 12, 1962, “We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.”

Want a little advice? Take a measured, realistic view of what anyone can accomplish, the causes that are hopeless, those that are going to take decades and yet have a chance. Don’t take on too much. Don’t stress yourself out with lack of sleep and perpetual frustration. Maintain a sense of humor about it all. Find additional activities that are predominantly pleasant. But you’ll continue to benefit, even personally, not to mention for others, by not giving up entirely on trying to improve the status quo -– Latin for “the mess we’re in now.” Help clean it up. It's worth it.

# # #

Libertarianism As Process

November 23, 2013, 9:20 p.m.

In the Excellent Society

"An excellent plumber is infinitely more admirable than an incompetent philosopher. The Society which scorns excellence in plumbing because plumbing is a humble activity and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because it is an exalted activity will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy. Neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water. . . . The tone and fiber of our society depend upon a pervasive and almost universal striving for good performance."

-- John W. Gardner, Excellence (1961), pp. 86, 132

The Goal

When Libertarians assert that the government should not forbid the sale of large sugar drinks, or foods with trans fats, or riding motorcycles without helmets -- because it interferes with what our Declaration of Independence refers to as individuals' "liberty and the pursuit of happiness" -- is there something wrong with their position? If so, what is it, and how would you articulate their error?

Is there some way that the values they hold -- indeed, all of us hold to some lesser or greater degree -- can be more deliberately incorporated into our public policy process, without necessarily adopting their position, or proposal hook, line and sinker on every given issue? These are the questions to which this blog essay attempts to find, if not the answer, at least some progress towards one.

Like many Americans, I find myself in agreement with a number of Libertarian positions -- especially their opposition to TIFs and other forms of corporatism (i.e., government transferring taxpayers' money to for profit, private businesses). It's that latter position, often seen in these blog essays, that causes some to believe I must be a Libertarian.

I'm not (in the sense of a formal, voting member of today's Libertarian Party), but I have often struggled with the questions with which this blog essay begins.

Now, thanks in part to one of my exploratory policy conversations with Jim Leach, my thinking has advanced a bit.

Here's the story.

Nouns, Verbs and Process
Buckminster Fuller (1895-1983) was a popular icon of the 1960s and '70s, whom his numerous followers referred to as "Bucky." He was, among a great many things, an architect (geodesic dome popularizer), author (30 books), and creative thinker on many topics. We occasionally shared the platform as speakers at the same gatherings.

Among his books was one with the title I Seem To Be a Verb (1970). As he explained it, "I don't know what I am. I know that I am not a category. I am not a thing — a noun. I seem to be a verb, an evolutionary process — an integral function of the universe."

I mention this because, like Bucky Fuller deciding he was a verb, I have finally come to the view that Libertarianism can most usefully be thought of as a process, or rather as having a legitimate and significant role in the policy formulation process, rather than a set of platform planks and "positions" on issues.

What's "Libertarian"?
"Libertarian" has become, in most common usage, a reference to a political party, now boasting the third largest membership after the Republicans and Democrats. By that definition it is relatively new, formed in 1971 and with its first presidential candidate in 1972. It is also, of course, a political philosophy with an American history prior to today's political party, origins around the late 1700s, and some claiming threads going back to the Greeks and even Lao-Tzu, in the 6th Century B.C.

Most Americans would find at least something with which they agree in the beliefs and positions of those who identify themselves as Libertarians. You can find Libertarians who are almost as anti-war as the Quakers, yet as strong for gun rights as the National Rifle Association; more conservative than most Republicans on fiscal matters, and yet more liberal than most Democrats when it comes to personal freedoms, such as gay rights and use of drugs.

But it was a recent column from the Heritage Foundation attacking the regulation of trans fats that got me struggling once again with the intellectual challenge of how to either utilize or respond to the Libertarian position on such issues. (Daren Bakst, "FDA's Proposed Trans Fat Ban is a Power Grab to Control Lives," The Heritage Foundation, Nov. 18, 2013; in The Gazette as, Daren Bakst, "FDA's Trans-Fat Power Grab," The Gazette, Nov. 21, 2013, p. A5.) What is the answer to those who refer to government regulation of personal life choices as the creation of a "nanny state"?

The Motorcycle Helmet Dilemma:
Wherein I Argue With Myself and Discover That
"I Can't Win, I Can't Break Even, and I Can't Get Out of the Game"
The motorcycle helmet dilemma has been the example most often used when thinking about the question, or discussing it with others.

There is probably as much diversity among libertarians' views on various subjects as there are for those of conservatives, or liberals. But it's a reasonable guess than a great many Libertarians would put the motorcycle helmet issue this way: "If someone wants to ride with no helmet, it is no business of the state. As long as they are doing no harm to anyone else, are fully informed, and know the risks, it's their life to live as they choose."

Previously, I have imagined myself being backed into an analytical corner.

First, I would say to myself -- or whomever else might be within earshot -- "they are doing harm to others, economic harm. If they are ever in an accident without a helmet, unless they have health insurance, or are independently wealthy, the rest of us -- hospitals' patients (and shareholders of for-profit hospitals), health insurance premium payers, taxpayers -- are going to be picking up some share of their initial medical bills. And if they are brain injured, or paralyzed for life, hundreds of thousands beyond that. The response: OK, but to get to the core of this,let's assume, hypothetically, that the motorcyclist posts a bond adequate to cover all costs.

Second, "Now what is your objection?" comes the real or imagined next question. I respond with something about the way the law permits plaintiffs to calculate damages in wrongful death cases -- namely, what they might have expected to receive from the decedent over the course of his or her lifetime had he or she not been killed as a result of actions by the defendant. To this the response is similar: "OK, so hypothetically assume the motorcyclist must take out a life insurance policy, too, with an initial value equal to the plaintiff's share of the decedent's future earnings." (Its value might decline over time, so long as the insured lives and the future plaintiff has received ongoing economic benefit from him or her. At any given point in time its value would roughly equal the anticipated economic benefits from then until the actuarially determined estimated year of death.)

This simply produces the same response: "OK, so now what is your objection?"

This process could probably continue, but at some point you've run out of potential economic losses, all of which have been covered in advance (at least hypothetically). You're in a corner. You're back where you started: "If someone wants to ride with no helmet, it is no business of the state. As long as they are doing no harm to anyone else, are fully informed, and know the risks, it's their life to live as they choose."

Continuing to travel further on down the wrong road doesn't make it the right road. So let's start over.

Of all the people who would not respond well to demands that they follow a particular procedure for making policy decisions, I can imagine that Libertarians might be at the top of that list.

This is Not About Libertarians; It's About the Rest of Us:
Libertarianism as Process in the Balancing of Values
So I'm not talking to or about Libertarians. I'm talking to the rest of us. And I'm suggesting that we do not need to approach Libertarianism as a body of predetermined platform planks and specific policy positions, binary yes-or-no decisions as a result of which Libertarians either "win" or "lose."

What if we viewed Libertarianism as part of a process, as a set of values that, though not decisive, not only can be, but should be, a legitimate part of the policy formulation process?

Are there analogies, or precedents, for this approach? Try the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights.

The Fourth Amendment is currently in the news as we receive revelation after revelation regarding the NSA's "searches" of Americans. The Amendment recognizes "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects." But it also recognizes that some government searches may be justified. It expressly limits its prohibition to "unreasonable searches and seizures." Thus, "privacy" is identified as a value to be constitutionally protected, certainly to be considered as a part of the decision making process, but only up to the point where a governmental search may be "reasonable."

Similarly, the Eighth Amendment is unqualified in its prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishments." But when it addresses bail and fines it, like the Fourth, once again calls for a balancing: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed . . .."

In the case of the First Amendment, the language is absolute: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . .." Indeed, Justice Hugo Black read it as such, asking his colleagues the equivalent in his day of the current line, "What part of 'No' don't you understand?"

But in the case of the First Amendment, notwithstanding the "no," a majority of the Supreme Court justices has interpreted the language to require a balancing of the values associated with free speech (e.g., as a prerequisite for a self-governing democracy, a force to check abuses of power in and out of government, a process more likely to produce "truth," among others). Congress has been upheld by the Court in numerous cases in which Congress has made a law "abridging the freedom of speech."

Companies are legally required to reveal to potential customers the ingredients in their food products (labeling laws), and to potential shareholders the truth about their company (their stock prospectus). You are prohibited by law from telling jokes around an airport security checkpoint. The Copyright Law limits what you can do with others' writing. Courts can punish for speech found to be defamatory, obscene, or inciting to "imminent lawless action."

What I am suggesting is that we approach the principles and values of Libertarianism -- not the "positions" and fixed positions of Libertarians, or the platform of the Libertarian Party and its candidates, but their principles and values -- into our decision, and policy making, processes.

The fact is that my hypotheticals, in which the citizen who takes risks pays up front for the potential economic costs of doing so, are just that: hypothetical. There is a negative impact on our nation's economy from our risky behavior, the accidents and illnesses we bring on ourselves -- driving drunk or without seat belts, excessive use of alcohol and what I call the lesser drugs, tobacco, overweight and poor nutrition, failure to exercise, and, yes, riding motorcycles when not wearing helmets (and comparably risky activities).

Citizens' and Government's Legitimate Interests Beyond Economic Costs
But even if all those economic costs were nonexistent, whether hypothetically or actually, there is another value of legitimate interest to the American people and their democratically elected government. As I quoted John W. Gardner as saying, at the beginning of this blog essay, "The tone and fiber of our society depend upon a pervasive and almost universal striving for good performance."

America's greatest potential asset is performance at levels of excellence by each of its 227 million citizens (over 21) 365 days each year. It is in the best interest of each of us, interests that go beyond mere cost saving, that the government do all it can to ensure that all 227 million come as close to that ideal as possible -- for the good of all, as well as for the good of those individuals. That is why, even after the costs are covered, there is yet one more reason why it is appropriate for the government to concern itself with our self-destructive behavior -- because an excellent society requires a striving for excellence, as John Gardner reminds us, by its plumbers as well as its philosophers.

The point of "Libertarianism as Process" is that it is equally important to weigh heavily the benefits of incorporating into our public policy decisions the values of individuals' freedom, personal choices, and individuality. (To some extent this is, today, the product of the warring lobbyists, with their generous campaign contributions, fighting each other for the votes of House and Senate members. The difference is that I would like to substitute rational analysis, fairness, and incorporation of Libertarian values -- to whatever extent possible -- for raw political and economic power.)

The Radical and the Reasonable
And how might that be done? The way we often do it -- which requires, however, that we recognize the difference between the radical and the reasonable.

The radical positions regarding motorcycle helmets are, on the one hand, simply banning any manufacture or sale of motorcycles, and, on the other, imposing no safety regulations whatsoever. Permitting motorcycles, while requiring the riders wear helmets is, in reality, a middle position, a compromise, a balancing of values. That's not, alone, enough to say it should be the policy. That's not my point. Positioning oneself along this continuum from banning to no government involvement involves personal judgment. People will differ. It is only an example of how one might incorporate Libertarian values along with the state's legitimate interest in maintaining the productivity of its citizens who are motorcyclists.

Another example would be the policy regarding cigarette consumption. Again, the radical extremes would be, on the one hand, to simply ban the sale of any tobacco products, and, on the other, to make no efforts of any kind to limit the adverse health effects of tobacco use (including the 400,000 tobacco-related deaths a year). We have done neither. Cigarettes can be manufactured and sold. Smokers can continue to buy them. Some examples of the compromises have been to limit where they can smoke (as, in part, a response to evidence of harm to non-smokers from second hand smoke), to forbid tobacco sales to minors, the creation of smoking cessation programs, and the imposition of price increases to discourage young people from starting down the path to nicotine addiction.

A more local and recent example would be the Iowa City City Council's approach to the consequences of alcohol abuse by those legally forbidden to buy, possess, or consume alcohol (those under 21). The extremes would be to forbid their entry at any time into businesses whose sole purpose is to profit from the sale of alcohol, on the one hand, or, on the other, to permit their entry 24/7. The Council's balancing of values is a compromise that permits underage individuals to be in bars 20 out of every 24 hours a day, but requires they leave the bars between 10:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. See, "Underage Drinking As Human Right? I Don't Think So; Why Bar Owners, Students, Should Embrace Iowa City's 21 Law," Oct. 16, 2013.

And that's what I mean by "Libertarianism As Process."

# # #

Gun Violence: Keeping Public Focus on Solutions

December 31, 2012, 10:20 a.m.

Newtown a "Routine Episode" or Catalyst to Real Change?

Recalling the shooting rampage that killed 20 first graders as the worst day of his presidency, President Barack Obama pledged to put his "full weight" behind legislation aimed at preventing gun violence. . . .

The president said he intends to press the issue with the public.

"The question then becomes whether we are actually shook up enough by what happened here that it does not just become another one of these routine episodes where it gets a lot of attention for a couple of weeks and then it drifts away," Obama said. "It certainly won't feel like that to me. This is something that -- you know, that was the worst day of my presidency. And it's not something that I want to see repeated."

-- Jim Kuhnhenn, "Obama wants gun violence measures passed in 2013," Associated Press/Yahoo!News, December 30, 2012

What now? [Photo credit: multiple sources.]

The Newtown Massacre understandably produced cries of grief and outrage, politicians' speeches for constituents and prayers by and for all, demands for solutions and a number of suggestions as to what those solutions might be.

Suggestions have included, as they have in the past, bans on sale of assault weapons and multi-round magazines, trigger locks, background checks, restrictions on permits and gun show sales, and especially this year, expanded mental health services. The NRA argues more good guys with guns, especially in schools, will decrease random attacks by armed bad guys. It also emphasizes education and training of new gun owners. I don't, now, express an opinion about these and other ideas. Rational, data-driven public policy proposals are almost always an essential element of progressive change -- and almost never, alone, enough to bring it about.

In a democracy, a prerequisite to change is that the political stars be properly aligned, whether the issue be the "fiscal cliff," immigration policy -- or gun violence. That alignment is, admittedly, disproportionately influenced by the "special interests" and their campaign contributions. But it is also, in no small measure, driven by public opinion.

President Obama, in the quotes at the top of this blog entry, says "he intends to press the [gun violence] issue with the public." He can be commended for his hope that the Newtown Massacre "does not just become another one of these routine episodes where it gets a lot of attention for a couple of weeks and then it drifts away."

The President is less clear as to how he will prevent that from happening. He will have a lot on his plate during 2013. There's a limit to how many speeches, on how many occasions, he can make about gun violence, or how effective they would be if he could.

Public opinion is also driven by media coverage -- news, opinionated discussions, TV shows and feature films. And the media, like the President, will have a great many things to talk about during 2013 besides gun violence.

So here's an idea, suggested by something television has already shown its willingness to do.

We are regularly shown pictures of the members of our military killed in Iraq and Afghanistan -- ABC's "This Week" on Sunday mornings, PBS' "Evening News Hour" every evening, and probably others as well, once names are released and pictures are available.

Many Americans have questioned the wisdom of the Iraq War from the get-go; others have been urging for months and years that we should get out of Afghanistan. But no one in my acquaintance questions the patriotism and courage, and the debt we owe, to those willing to say "Yes, Sir," salute smartly, and march off to war when asked to do so. Putting a face, their faces, on their sacrifice keeps those wars from "drifting away" from our consciousness.

One source puts the number of U.S. military killed in Afghanistan from 2001 to December of 2012 at 2173. "Operation Enduring Freedom," iCasualties.com. Watching their pictures, along with their names, ranks, ages and hometowns on our television screen has always been a solemn moment in our house. All multi-tasking and conversation ceases as we concentrate on the seriousness of what we're watching, as if at a funeral service.

Those 2173 deaths are 2173 deaths too many. But at an average of 181 military killed outside of our country each year, it is but a small fraction of the 32,000 who die from firearms inside our country each year.

"Firearm injury in the United States has averaged 32,300 deaths annually between 1980 and 2006 . . .. An estimated two nonfatal injuries occur for every firearm death. The 2006 age adjusted [per capita] death rate from firearm injury is 10.2/100,000 with an estimated nonfatal injury rate of 23. Firearms are involved in 68% of homicides, 52% of suicides, 43% of robberies, and 21% of aggravated assaults. Deaths peaked in 1993 at 40,000 in the early 1990s . . .. [F]irearm injury represents a significant public health impact, accounting for 6.6% of premature death in this country.

"Firearm Injury in the U.S. (Version 2009)," Firearm & Injury Center at Penn.

Imagine the impact it could have in preventing public concern regarding gun violence from "drifting away" if we could put a face on these 32,000 faces.

And putting a face on domestic gun deaths need not be any more argumentative than displaying the names and faces of those killed in Afghanistan. Pacifists undoubtedly see them as evidence of the folly of war; hawks see them as a necessary cost of national defense and glory. Similarly, the NRA could view the domestic deceased as evidence of the need for more "good guys with guns." It could point out how many were killed with guns that did not have multi-round magazines, or that were brought about by killers who needed mental health services.

Why should we not be as reminded of the 75 to 100 people killed with guns throughout the United States each day as we were of the 26 who were killed in one town (Newtown) on one day (December 14, 2012)? They are all just as dead. They were all killed with firearms. Aren't they all entitled to the same respect, and the same calls for solutions?

Of course, 32,000 deaths a year would average 88 a day. Even if an entire 20-minute network newscast were devoted to nothing but these 88 individuals they would only get about 13 seconds each. So showing them all may not be practical. Maybe only a few could be selected. Maybe it would prove to be impossible to get the names and photos of everyone anyway. Maybe they could be streamed fast, at a second or two each.

Of course, there is no way, and should not be any way, that television stations could be forced to adopt a feature like this. But if we as a caring people, and the President as our leader, are ever to be able to make a real and successful effort at reducing these 32,000 deaths, something like this proposal will have to be a part of doing so.

# # #
Addendum

The main area where the U.S. exceeds the firearm violence of other nations is in comparison to other affluent nations. Using the U.N. data, European nations -- even former eastern bloc countries -- typically have rates well below 1 per 100,000, or far less than one-third the frequency seen in the U.S. The pattern is similar in other advanced industrialized nations, such as Canada, Taiwan, Japan, Australia and New Zealand.

One study published in 2011 confirms this finding. The study, published in the Journal of Trauma -- Injury Infection & Critical Care, found that firearm homicide rates were 19.5 times higher in the U.S. than in 23 other "high income" countries studied, using 2003 data. Rates for other types of gun deaths were also higher in the U.S., but by somewhat smaller margins: 5.8 times higher for firearm suicides (even though overall suicide rates were 30 percent lower in the U.S.) and 5.2 times higher for unintentional firearm deaths.

"Facebook post says the U.S. is No. 1 in gun violence. Is it?" PolitiFact.com.

America ranks number one in the world for the number of guns per 100 individuals: 88.8. Virtually all the other countries are less than one-half our rate; over 100 countries are one-tenth or less. "Number of Guns Per Capita by Country," wikipedia.org.

We are only marginally better when measured by the annual number of firearm deaths per 100,000 population -- at 10.2, the rough equivalent of Mexico (11.14). "List of Countries by Firearm-Related Death Rate", wikipedia.org.

# # #

Mother Jones' Kevin Drum on Marijuana

July 7, 2009, 8:15 a.m.

Rare Rational Analysis of Marijuana Legalization
(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
Coffee is my drug of choice. It's not Kevin Drum's. As he writes in the current issue of one of our country's leading alternative publications, Mother Jones, "I've never smoked a joint in my life. . . . I barely drink, I don't smoke, and I don't like coffee. When it comes to mood altering substances, I live the life of a monk." (Aside from the coffee, and that part about being a monk, he and I are otherwise coming at personal drug use and the marijuana legalization issue from about the same perspective.)

When the last of the Wall Street-driven, mainstream media have collapsed the investigative reporting of publications like Mother Jones will take on even greater significance. [See, e.g., Nicholas Johnson, "Whither Newspapers," January 18, 2009; Nicholas Johnson, "Rare Washington Post Apology Misses Mark," July 5, 2009; Nicholas Johnson, "Gannett Shoots Straight -- Into Foot," May 3, 23, 2009; Nicholas Johnson, "Of Newspapers and Nails," March 8, 2009.] And while the mainstream media look about for a "business model" for the digital age, Mother Jones has come up with an approach somewhat less grandiose it calls its "tip jar" where you can drop your $5.00 for their investigative reporters. (If you're not already a subscriber I urge you to check it out as an easy investment in the information we need in a democracy.)

All of which brings me to something I seldom do: reproduce an entire copyright article. Obviously, if Mother Jones or Kevin Drum have any objections to my doing so I'll be happy to remove this blog entry.

The reasons I'm doing so, aside from bringing Mother Jones to your attention, are two. (1) Marijuana legalization has been, and remains, a significant issue -- one that I have not addressed before in this blog. Drum's presentation is one of the best I've seen. (2) More significant in a way, in terms of this blog, is what it represents as a model of analysis of any public policy issue -- especially those that are divisive and so often overwhelmed by the shouting matches of ideologues on both extremes. Here is the monk, Kevin Drum's, balanced analysis:

Kevin Drum, "The Patriot's Guide to Legalization," Mother Jones, July-August 2009.

WHEN WE THINK of the drug war, it's the heavy-duty narcotics like heroin and cocaine that get most of the attention. And why not? That's where the action is. It's not marijuana that is sustaining the Taliban in Afghanistan, after all. When Crips and Bloods descend into gun battles in the streets of Los Angeles, they're not usually fighting over pot. The junkie who breaks into your house and steals your Blu-ray player isn't doing it so he can score a couple of spliffs.

No, the marijuana trade is more genteel than that. At least, I used to think it was. Then, like a lot of people, I started reading about the open warfare that has erupted among the narcotraffickers in Mexico and is now spilling across the American border. Stories of drugs coming north and arsenals of guns going south. Thousands of people brutally murdered. Entire towns terrorized. And this was a war not just over cocaine and meth, but marijuana as well.

And I began to wonder: Maybe the war against pot is about to get a lot uglier. After all, in the 1920s, Prohibition gave us Al Capone and the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, and that was over plain old whiskey and rum. Are we about to start paying the same price for marijuana?

If so, it might eventually start to affect me, too. Indirectly, sure, but that's more than it ever has before. I've never smoked a joint in my life. I've only seen one once, and that was 30 years ago. I barely drink, I don't smoke, and I don't like coffee. When it comes to mood altering substances, I live the life of a monk. I never really cared much if marijuana was legal or not.

But if a war is breaking out over the stuff, I figured maybe I should start looking at the evidence on whether marijuana prohibition is worth it. Not the spin from the drug czar at one end or the hemp hucksters at the other. Just the facts, as best as I could figure them out. So I did. Here's what I found.

In 1972, the report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse urged that possession of marijuana for personal use be decriminalized. A small wave of states followed this recommendation, but most refused; in Washington, President Carter called for eliminating penalties for small-time possession, but Congress stonewalled. And that's the way things have stayed since the late '70s. Some states have decriminalized, most haven't, and possession is still a criminal offense under federal law. So how has that worked out?

I won't give away the ending just yet, but one thing to know is this: On virtually every subject related to cannabis (an inclusive term that refers to both the sativa and indica varieties of the marijuana plant, as well as hashish, bhang, and other derivatives), the evidence is ambiguous. Sometimes even mysterious. So let's start with the obvious question.

DOES DECRIMINALIZING CANNABIS HAVE ANY EFFECT AT ALL? It's remarkably hard to tell—in part because drug use is faddish. Cannabis use among teens in the United States, for example, went down sharply in the '80s, bounced back in the early '90s, and has declined moderately since. Nobody really knows why.

We do, however, have studies that compare rates of cannabis use in states that have decriminalized vs. states that haven't. And the somewhat surprising conclusion, in the words of Robert MacCoun, a professor of law and public policy at the University of California-Berkeley, is simple: "Most of the evidence suggests that decriminalization has no effect."

But decriminalization is not legalization. In places that have decriminalized, simple possession is still illegal; it's just treated as an administrative offense, like a traffic ticket. And production and distribution remain felonies. What would happen if cannabis use were fully legalized?

No country has ever done this, so we don't know. The closest example is the Netherlands, where possession and sale of small amounts of marijuana is de facto legal in the famous coffeehouses. MacCoun and a colleague, Peter Reuter of the University of Maryland, have studied the Dutch experience and concluded that while legalization at first had little effect, once the coffeehouses began advertising and promoting themselves more aggressively in the 1980s, cannabis use more than doubled in a decade. Then again, cannabis use in Europe has gone up and down in waves, and some of the Dutch increase (as well as a later decrease, which followed a tightening of the coffeehouse laws in the mid-'90s) may have simply been part of those larger waves.

The most likely conclusion from the overall data is that if you fully legalized cannabis, use would almost certainly go up, but probably not enormously. MacCoun guesses that it might rise by half—say, from around 15 percent of the population to a little more than 20 percent. "It's not going to triple," he says. "Most people who want to use marijuana are already finding a way to use marijuana."

Still, there would be a cost. For one thing, a much higher increase isn't out of the question if companies like Philip Morris or R.J. Reynolds set their finest minds on the promotion of dope. And much of the increase would likely come among the heaviest users. "One person smoking eight joints a day is worth more to the industry than fifty people each smoking a joint a week," says Mark Kleiman, a drug policy expert at UCLA. "If the cannabis industry were to expand greatly, it couldn't do so by increasing the number of casual users. It would have to create and maintain more chronic zonkers." And that's a problem. Chronic use can lead to dependence and even long-term cognitive impairment. Heavy cannabis users are more likely to be in auto accidents. There have been scattered reports of respiratory and fetal development problems. Still, sensible regulation can limit the commercialization of pot, and compared to other illicit drugs (and alcohol), its health effects are fairly mild. Even a 50 percent increase in cannabis use might be a net benefit if it led to lower rates of use of other drugs.

SO WOULD PEOPLE JUST SMOKE MORE AND DRINK LESS? Maybe. The generic term for this effect in the economics literature is "substitute goods," and it simply means that some things replace other things. If the total demand for transportation is generally steady, an increase in sales of SUVs will lead to a decrease in the sales of sedans. Likewise, if the total demand for intoxicants is steady, an increase in the use of one drug should lead to a decrease in others.

Several years ago, John DiNardo, an economist now at the University of Michigan, found a clever way to test this via a natural experiment. Back in the 1980s, the Reagan administration pushed states to raise the drinking age to 21. Some states did this early in the decade, some later, and this gave DiNardo the idea of comparing data from the various states to see if the Reagan policy worked.

He found that raising the drinking age did lead to lower alcohol consumption; the effect was modest but real. But then DiNardo hit on another analysis—comparing cannabis use in states that raised the drinking age early with those that did it later. And he found that indeed, there seemed to be a substitution effect. On average, among high school seniors, a 4.5 percent decrease in drinking produced a 2.4 percent increase in getting high.

But what we really want to know is whether the effect works in the other direction: Would increased marijuana use lead to less drinking? "What goes up should go down," DiNardo told me cheerfully, but he admits that in the absence of empirical evidence this hypothesis depends on your faith in basic economic models.

Some other studies are less encouraging than DiNardo's, but even if the substitute goods effect is smaller than his research suggests—if, say, a 30 percent increase in cannabis use led to a 5 or 10 percent drop in drinking—it would still be a strong argument in favor of legalization. After all, excessive drinking causes nearly 80,000 deaths per year in the United States, compared to virtually none for pot. Trading alcohol consumption for cannabis use might be a pretty attractive deal.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE GATEWAY EFFECT? This has been a perennial bogeyman of the drug warriors. Kids who use pot, the TV ads tell us, will graduate to ecstasy, then coke, then meth, and then—who knows? Maybe even talk radio.

Is there anything to this? There are two plausible pathways for the gateway theory. The first is that drug use of any kind creates an affinity for increasingly intense narcotic experiences. The second is that when cannabis is illegal, the only place to get it is from dealers who also sell other stuff.

The evidence for the first pathway is mixed. Research in New Zealand, for example, suggests that regular cannabis use is correlated with higher rates of other illicit drug use, especially in teenagers. A Norwegian study comes to similar conclusions, but only for a small segment of "troubled" teenagers. Other research, however, suggests that these correlations aren't caused by gateway effects at all, but by the simple fact that kids who like drugs do drugs. All kinds of drugs.

The second pathway was deliberately targeted by the Dutch when they began their coffeehouse experiment in the '70s in part to sever the connection of cannabis with the illicit drug market. The evidence suggests that it worked: Even with cannabis freely available, Dutch cannabis use is currently about average among developed countries and use of other illicit drugs is about average, too. Easy access to marijuana, outside the dealer network for harder drugs, doesn't seem to have led to greater use of cocaine or heroin.

So, to recap: Decriminalization of simple possession appears to have little effect on cannabis consumption. Full legalization would likely increase use only moderately as long as heavy commercialization is prohibited, although the effect on chronic users might be more substantial. It would increase heroin and cocaine use only slightly if at all, and it might decrease alcohol consumption by a small amount. Which leads to the question:

CAN WE STILL AFFORD PROHIBITION? The consequences of legalization, after all, must be compared to the cost of the status quo. Unsurprisingly, this too is hard to quantify. The worst effects of the drug war, including property crime and gang warfare, are mostly associated with cocaine, heroin, and meth. Likewise, most drug-law enforcement is aimed at harder drugs, not cannabis; contrary to conventional wisdom, only about 44,000 people are currently serving prison time on cannabis charges—and most of those are there for dealing and distribution, not possession.

Still, the University of Maryland's Reuter points out that about 800,000 people are arrested for cannabis possession every year in the United States. And even though very few end up being sentenced to prison, a study of three counties in Maryland following a recent marijuana crackdown suggests that a third spend at least one pretrial night in jail and a sixth spend more than ten days. That takes a substantial human toll. Overall, Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron estimates the cost of cannabis prohibition in the United States at $13 billion annually and the lost tax revenue at nearly $7 billion.

SO WHAT ARE THE ODDS OF LEGALIZATION? Slim. For starters, the United States, along with virtually every other country in the world, is a signatory to the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (and its 1988 successor), which flatly prohibits legalization of cannabis. The only way around this is to unilaterally withdraw from the treaties or to withdraw and then reenter with reservations. That's not going to happen.

At the federal level, there's virtually no appetite for legalizing cannabis either. Though public opinion has made steady strides, increasing from around 20 percent favoring marijuana legalization in the Reagan era to nearly 40 percent favoring it today, the only policy change in Washington has been Attorney General Eric Holder's announcement in March that the Obama administration planned to end raids on distributors of medical marijuana. (Applications for pot dispensaries promptly surged in Los Angeles County.)

The real action in cannabis legalization is at the state level. More than a dozen states now have effective medical marijuana laws, most notably California. Medical marijuana dispensaries are dotted all over the state, and it's common knowledge that the "medical" part is in many cases a thin fiction. Like the Dutch coffeehouses, California's dispensaries are now a de facto legal distribution network that severs the link between cannabis and other illicit drugs for a significant number of adults (albeit still only a fraction of total users). And the result? Nothing. "We've had this experiment for a decade and the sky hasn't fallen," says Paul Armentano, deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. California Assemblyman Tom Ammiano has even introduced a bill that would legalize, tax, and regulate marijuana; it has gained the endorsement of the head of the state's tax collection agency, which informally estimates it could collect $1.3 billion a year from cannabis sales. Still, the legislation hasn't found a single cosponsor, and isn't scheduled for so much as a hearing.

Which is too bad. Going into this assignment, I didn't care much personally about cannabis legalization. I just had a vague sense that if other people wanted to do it, why not let them? But the evidence suggests pretty clearly that we ought to significantly soften our laws on marijuana. Too many lives have been ruined and too much money spent for a social benefit that, if not zero, certainly isn't very high.

And it may actually happen. If attitudes continue to soften; if the Obama administration turns down the volume on anti-pot propaganda; if medical dispensaries avoid heavy commercialization; if drug use remains stable; and if emergency rooms don't start filling up with drug-related traumas while all this is happening, California's experience could go a long way toward destigmatizing cannabis use. That's a lot of ifs.

Still, things are changing. Even GOP icon Arnold Schwarzenegger now says, "I think it's time for a debate." That doesn't mean he's in favor of legalizing pot right this minute, but it might mean we're getting close to a tipping point. Ten years from now, as the flower power generation enters its 70s, you might finally be able to smoke a fully legal, taxed, and regulated joint.
______________

* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source, even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson

# # #

Money in Iowa Politics

January 24, 2008, 8:00 a.m.

The Register has done Iowans a favor this morning with its perusal of, and then reporting about, the "newly released state campaign finance disclosure reports for 2007." Jennifer Jacobs, "Democrat McCarthy Raises Most Money at $251,000," Des Moines Regislter, January 24, 2008.

But it has only scratched the surface.

"Knowledge Management" literature (for which the linked document is but the first on Google's list) draws a distinction between "data," "information," "knowledge: and "wisdom."

The disclosure reports, and the Register's reporting, provide the "data" -- or at least some of it.

What we now need is the additional data, and discovery of relationships, that can turn that data into "information" and "knowledge."

(I'll save for the day that happens an exploration of what "wisdom" might be with regard to Iowa's needed campaign finance reform.)

For example, as one reader commented following the Register's online story, "Why is it McCarthy's biggest donors were from out of state? Does this not raise any questions with anyone? What pull, and on what project are these people looking for help on?" ("TheWizard," 1/24/2008 4:36:06 AM).

If the Register is still interested in Pulitzer Prizes (it was once the proud possessor of a collection of them second only to the New York Times) -- not to mention the very substantial community service of cleaning up Iowa politics -- here are some of the questions to which they might want to seek answers.

1. "Follow the money." That was "Deep Throat's" advice to Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein as they investigated and exposed the Watergate scandal ultimately leading to President Nixon's resignation. And it's my first bit of advice to the Register. Who is giving what to whom and what do they do with it? Individual Iowa legislators tell their constituents they need money for re-election campaigns -- even when they're running unopposed. What do they do with it? Much is simply passed through to their party's leaders, or the state Democratic or Republican organizations. Why? What do they, what do their contributors, what do we, get for that money? To what extent is this pass-through procedure used to shield from public disclosure how much is really coming from special interests to party leaders? And, in reverse, what are party leaders (and the special interests they may be representing) gaining by passing out money to other members? Where do the major state parties get the (largely unregulated) money they have and how do they spend it?

2. Who are these donors and what are their interests? A name (of a donor) and amount (of a contribution) is data. "Knowledge" requires that we know the economic or other interests of that donor. Sometimes that's easy, when the donor is a registered lobbyist for a special interest, or the CEO of a corporation, or is known to be a highway contractor or major land owner. At other times it's more difficult, especially if the money is coming through employees (who have been given raises and are then asked for checks, which are bundled, donated and amount to little more than an illegal contribution from a corporation), spouses, children, relatives or friends of that individual.

3. What is being bought? Some special interests are regular donors. They are like the wealthy Texan, asked by the airline ticket agent where he wanted to go, who replied, "It makes no difference; I've got business everywhere." Some of those funding Iowa's campaigns always have some kind of business with the legislature or governor -- or know that they might. Others are primarily focused on a specific bill they want to defeat, or have enacted, or an earmark, tax break, or bit of "corporate welfare" cash they would like from the state's taxpayers. In any case, "knowledge" requires that we know the relationship between who is giving and what they are getting: what bills on their behalf were introduced by party leaders, or individual legislators, who benefited from their contributions? If they gave to the governor, or other executive branch officials, what agency decisions affected their economic interests? (The rule of thumb in Washington is that major contributors get at least a 1000-to-1 return on their money; contribute $1 million and get $1 billion of government largesse in return. For documentation see, e.g., Nicholas Johnson, "You Pay $4 or $4000," Des Moines Register, July 21, 1996.)

There are lots more questions to ask and trails to follow, but hopefully these few illustrative examples will get our editors and reporters thinking about how their "data mining" these golden nuggets could end up providing some real "knowledge" -- and maybe someday even "wisdom" -- for their readers, and a few extra prizes to hang on the walls of the board room and news room.

# # #

Secrecy, Presidents' Blogs, Paying for Government

January 20, 2008, 11:00 a.m., 12:45 p.m.
[Sexual Assaults; Hogan's Blog; Paying for Government]

Oct. 14, 2007 Events Still Unresolved, Continue to Fester
UI Holds to Secrecy Regarding Adherence to Process
I have written at great length here, in a number of blog entries, about the University of Iowa's handling of the process surrounding the alleged sexual assault some three months ago on its campus. See Nicholas Johnson, "UI, Sexual Assaults and Secrecy," January 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, 2008 -- along with its links to prior blog entries.

Throughout, I have consistently endeavored to make unambiguously clear a distinction between secrecy regarding

(a) County Attorney and Court actions, evidence, subpoenas, documents or other information that could have an adverse impact on the legitimate privacy interests of the parties, the criminal investigation, and any potential future trial -- as to which I have offered no objection to secrecy -- and

(b) information regarding University administrators' process, communications and actions in following their own procedures that could easily be made available to the media and public (redacted to the extent necessary) with no adverse impact on anything or anyone (except, perhaps, themselves) -- as to which I have seen no legitimate reason for secrecy.

Now it is suggested the reason for the UI's secrecy is that there was a court order preventing them from revealing the existence of, or content of, subpoenas served on the University. Tom Witoskey, "Court Order Keeps a Lid on Alleged U of I Assault," Des Moines Register, January 20, 2008.

1. It is not clear from the story (or those appearing in the Press-Citizen and Gazette) whether the court order (that the subpoenas, and court order forbidding mention of the court order) applied to my category (b), above, or not. Intuitively, I would think it would not have. If that's the case we still have no explanation for the UI's secrecy regarding compliance with its own processes.

2. It may be that the UI, from the moment this court order was issued, tried to get it changed -- to at least permit the University to respond to the public and the media that it was forbidden by court order to comment about the contents of any subpoenas received, the documents or other evidence they produced, or copies of any such documents. But if not, why not?

3. It would seem to me that a simple statement -- "We are bound by court order not to reveal whether we have or have not received subpoenas for documents or evidence regarding this matter, or if there were such subpoenas what they might have contained, or what evidence or documents they might have produced" -- would have saved everyone (parties, County Attorney, University of Iowa, media and the public) a lot of unnecessarily wasted time, effort and stress.

And so the conflict (County Attorney, UI, media; the judge's addition of 60 more days to his 90-day order) goes on from October to November, December, January, and . . ..

Mike Hogan Praised for Blog
The UI's former Provost and Executive Vice President, now President, University of Connecticut, Mike Hogan, is the subject of a Harford Business Journal story tomorrow [Jan. 21] recognizing his leadership among college president bloggers. Sean O'Leary, "College Presidents Slow To Launch Informal Web Format," Hartford Business Journal, January 21, 2008. Of the 31 college presidents with blogs it turns out that there are only four who are presidents of state universities.

The Journal notes that President Hogan and the University of Connecticut have made no effort to hype the blog or make a big public relations deal out of it -- a modesty to which the Journal has contributed by failing to provide a link to the subject of its story. Here, if you're a part of the old "Hogan's Heros" Facebook gang, or otherwise interested, is a link to Mike's blog, the "PresRelease."

“So, how do you want to pay for this?”
The Feds, ignoring what is now roughly $40 trillion in unfunded entitlements, a war the costs of which are already estimated at $2 trillion and climbing (for what Senator John McCain estimates may be another 100 years), a 38% decline in housing values ($12 trillion), and in the value of the dollar (once able to buy a Eurodollar for 95 cents that now costs $1.47) while gold climbs from $200 an ounce to nearly $1000 an ounce, is proposing an "economic stimulus" package involving another $150 billion in debt to be distributed to Americans thought willing to buy stuff from American companies. (Unfortunately, as a "tax rebate" it won't do much for those 45 million Americans who don't earn enough to pay taxes, for seniors on low, fixed incomes, or the unemployed.)

The Iowa Governor is now trying to explain and defend why he doesn't think he has enough money to adequately fund one of Iowa's best hopes for building a skilled workforce, stimulating economic growth, and keeping Iowa's best and brightest young people in Iowa: our community college system. See Nicholas Johnson, "No Time to be Cutting Community Colleges Budgets or Raising Tuition" in "Community Colleges Are Iowa's Answer," January 17, 2008.

And the Iowa City City Council, believing the representations that we need more police and fire fighters, have yet to answer Mayor Reginia Bailey's question with which I headed this comment, "So, how do you want to pay for this?" See Nicholas Johnson, "'How Many Police Officers and Fire Fighters Does It Take To . . .'" in "Rational Thought About Realistic Needs: Police & Fire," January 15, 2008.

Well, I have a couple of suggestions on how we can deal with these public finance challenges.

Stop the talk about "taxes." It drives me nuts that politicians (including those, primarily Republicans, running for president) try to outdo each other over who has been, or promises to become, the biggest tax cutter. Talk about "programs." Which pay back, in future revenue or savings, many times over what we invest in them? Which are essential if we are to continue to represent ourselves to be a humane, civilized country? Which involve essential needs that can only, or most efficiently and effectively, be provided by public rather than for-profit-private efforts?

Eliminate the "socialism for the rich and free private enterprise for the poor." For an example of my, perhaps dozens of, comments about "corporate welfare" both before and after the following blog entry see, Nicholas Johnson, "Follow-Up: Corporate Welfare," July 21, 2006 -- and of course this blog's index.

In an op ed column, Nicholas Johnson, "Courage, Councilors," Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 3, 2007, I laid out some reasons why public funding of for-profit, private projects doesn't ever make sense for any city (plus some additional reasons why it makes even less sense for Iowa City). The column developed the following sub-heads:

The "opportunity costs" are enormous.

They reek of hypocrisy.

Corporate welfare tilts the playing field.

If the market won’t back a project, why should the public?

It doesn’t work.

“Money can’t buy love.”

The subsidy-grantors' record’s not great.

Alternative approaches do work.

Try “seed funds.”

“Need” is impossible to know.

Lack of transparency.

If you want to know more just click on the column's link, above.

But in addition to those always-applicable reasons for rejecting the tin cup appeals of for-profit businesses for taxpayers' money, another becomes relevant in the context of funding shortages at the federal, state and local level.

When citizens are taxed to fund the government's public programs and projects, at a minimum such money as is collected should first go to fund legitimate public programs and projects. If all those needs have been met, and there's money left over, we can then begin the dialog about the appropriateness of giving it to the for-profit private sector and the wealthy (whether in the form of TIFs and other tax breaks or outright subsidies). But there's absolutely no reason to accept the argument that there's not enough for public programs when the reason there's not enough is the money that's been given away to for-profit, private projects before the public programs were adequately funded.

The Feds can begin by eliminating earmarks (such as the Iowa indoor rain forest, and the Alaska "bridge to nowhere"), the 200 or so "corporate welfare" programs, and tax breaks for business. That would free up more than enough billions for their current "economic stimulus" package.

Iowa could do the same with the millions it passes out to businesses under a variety of names. And we could start taxing Wal-Mart and other major firms on their Iowa earnings, rather than letting large corporations pass big chunks of those earnings, tax free, out of state and onto their bottom line.That single effort could provide enough to build one of the strongest community college programs in the nation -- and the economic growth it would feed -- without raising any Iowan's tax rate.

Ditto for Iowa City. The local Chamber of Commerce recent wish list is a string of creative corporate raids on tax money. Local taxpayers, rather than bar owners, are paying to clean up the vomit left by their under-age illegal patrons from the night before. Major businesses get reduced rates on water consumption. And don't get me started on TIFs. If the City Council would insist that business keep its hand out of the cookie jar there's more than enough money available to the City Council to provide the citizenry the police and fire protection they've already paid for.

And I'd like to see a major task force address the University-City budgeting relationships. (See the comment from "cato's apologist" that inspires this thought on Nicholas Johnson, "Getting Real About Alcohol," January 18, 2008.) Obviously, there would need to be representatives from the University and City who understand these budgets, but I'd like to see it perhaps led by the Iowa Policy Project, and include representation from local citizens groups and whoever the Register, Press-Citizen, and Gazette think are their best investigative reporters. It's my understanding that there are some payments from the University to the City, but -- especially considering how much land and real property the University has taken off the property tax rolls in Johnson County -- are they enough? ("Cato's apologist" suggests this marketplace approach to getting the University's attention, and engagement in addressing the costs associated with the University's failure to do anything meaningful about students' binge drinking.)

# # #

Getting Real About Alcohol

January 18, 2008, 11:30 a.m.

Don't Get Tough, Get Effective
Alcoholism, alcohol abuse, binge drinking, drunk driving, under-age drinking. We should not be surprised that our nation's number one hard drug problem by any measure (e.g., economic impact, health/medical consequences, numbers of people affected, involvement in crime and violence, adverse impact on the brain, prison population, unwanted sexual activity ("accidents cause people"), impact on fetus, automobile and other death and injury) is a major problem in Iowa as well.

As I write, Ben Kieffer is broadcasting one of his outstanding "The Exchange" programs devoted to the subject (with an emphasis on under-age drinking). Ben Kieffer, "The Exchange," Iowa Public Radio, January 18, 2008 (a streaming, or downloadable, version should be available from this site, if not later today then by early next week). (Alcohol is the hard drug of choice for Iowans. Iowa is in the top fifth of the nation's states for under-age and binge drinking; one-third of Iowa's 11th graders engaged in binge drinking during the past 30 days. Sixth graders are drinking.)

Last evening KCRG-TV9 devoted a segment to the subject, focusing on the latest efforts from the University of Iowa. Steve Nicoles, "UI Studies Underage Drinking," KCRG-TV9, January 17, 2008

This morning's Press-Citizen reports that even the alcohol-promoting-pro-bar Iowa City City Council has decided it can no longer turn a blind eye and deaf ear to the brazen violations of law by local bar owners. Lee Hermiston, "Que Bar's liquor license suspended," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 18, 2008, p. A1.

The alcohol-related problems at Lake Macbride have become so severe that it's likely there will soon be a total ban on any alcohol inside the park boundaries. Rob Daniel, "Alcohol ban possible at Macbride; Complaints about behavior have increased," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 17, 2008.; AP, "Booze May Get Boot at Lake Macbride," The Gazette, January 17, 2008, p. B5.

Meanwhile, the University of Iowa -- whose students are a major part of the problems -- has once again decided it wishes to appear to be "doing something." Diane Heldt, "Options instead of alcohol; Groups trying to cut underage drinking," The Gazette, January 17, 2008, p. B1. And see "UI team aims to end underage drinking," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 17, 2008.

But what, exactly, does Diane Heldt report it is proposing to do?

UI Interim Provost Lola Lopes announced the creation of the two groups Wednesday. One group is to look at the legal and policy issues and the other is to look at alternative activities for students late at night other than drinking in bars.

A lot of the cultural and entertainment activities on campus end at 10 p.m., Lopes said, with little for students to do on weekends between 10 p.m. and 2 a.m. UI administrators want to change that, she said.

The idea of forming the groups, Lopes said, was spurred by the defeat in November of an ordinance that would have made Iowa City bars 21 and older after 10 p.m.

“We knew we had to try another tack, so these two working groups are the result of that desire to look further,” she said.

Suggestions from faculty and staff for evening activities include unusual educational offerings, volunteer programs and roller skating and dancing, she said.

This is not the UI's first effort to "do something." For over a dozen years there has been a very generously funded project called "Stepping Up." ("We received three grants from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation: a start up grant in 1996, a five year grant in 1997, and an additional four year grant in 2002"). Unfortunately, these efforts have produced little more than an increase in the numbers of students (both legal and under-age and illegal) who are regularly stepping up to the bar.

This is no accident. It could very well have been, and was, predicted.

Now don't get me wrong. I have great respect for UI's Interim Provost Lola Lopes. And her second task force -- the one that "is to look at the legal and policy issues" -- may ultimately come up with some proposals that would actually have an impact.

But assuming we have responsibility to "fix" students' perceptions that there is "little for students to do on weekends between 10 p.m. and 2 a.m." (has anyone considered suggesting they might sleep?) or that if we do so by providing opportunities for "unusual educational offerings, volunteer programs and roller skating and dancing" that it will have a meaningful impact on students' binge drinking and its consequences is a true example of "the triumph of hope over experience." That is what we've been doing for over a decade while students continue to prefer "Stepping Up" to the bars.

Note the differences in the UI's approach and the approaches that work.

Ames (Iowa State University) logically concluded that if it's illegal for those under 21 to buy and consume alcohol in bars it only makes sense to say they can't enter bars, the sole purpose of which is to profit from the legal and illegal sale of alcohol.

The proposal in Iowa City -- inaccurately described by opponents as "21-only" -- was nothing of the sort. It was nothing like as rational as the Ames approach. It only dealt with those hours the Provost is addressing: 10:00 p.m to 2:00 a.m. For four hours every 24 Iowa law would be enforced. With City Council members opposition, and the University Administration sitting it out as "too political" (while noting that those 18 and over are serving in the military), and the local bar owners who take in $235,000 a month from illegal sales organizing the binge-drinking students to vote against it, not surprisingly the measure failed. (Had the University undertaken even a wee bit of effort to get the ordinance understood and passed it might well not have failed -- a defeat now cited by Provost Lopes as what "spurred" her two task forces.)

This is not a matter of "getting tough," it's a matter of "getting effective."

The Ames approach is effective.

The proposed Iowa City ordinance would have been effective.

The Lake Macbride ban on alcohol will be effective.

Suspending and refusing to renew liquor licenses (especially if accompanied with stepped up enforcement efforts at the bars known to be flagrantly violating the law) is effective.

Giving students the option of roller skating at 2:00 a.m. is not likely to be effective.

What could the University do if it wanted to give this problem something more than lip service?

It could encourage, and support with more city and campus police in bars, stricter enforcement of the law.

It could do more to publicize the names of students caught violating the law -- in their hometown papers as well as here.

It could at least notify parents.

It could petition to deny the liquor licenses of those bars known to be violating the law.

It could put students' violations on their transcripts, and inform potential employers.

It could use suspensions and expulsions for students' liquor violations and arrests.

Is it likely to do any of these things? I doubt it -- based on the last decade of inaction (as distinguished from rhetoric).

[3:30 p.m. insert:] State29 takes issue (that's law professor talk for "blasts the hell out of me") for even mentioning these items. State29, "Prohibition Always Works," January 18, 2008 1:05 p.m.

It's not necessary that State29 and I agree on all issues -- which is fortunate, because we certainly don't. But in this instance we're not as far apart as would first appear. As I wrote last Tuesday in the context of considering options and rational analysis in assessing the needs for additional police officers (and increased budgets), it may very well be that the best thing to do about underage drinking is nothing; or, more properly, to simply lower the drinking age to 18. Nicholas Johnson, "'How Many Police Officers and Fire Fighters Does It Take To . . .'" in "Rational Thought About Realistic Needs: Police & Fire," January 15, 2008.

Nor, even without that clarification, was my list, above, a wish list that I was advocating the University adopt. I was simply noting that IF the UI wanted to do something effective about binge drinking there are a number of things it could have done over the last 10 years. It's not what they say -- or what they do (or in this instance don't do) -- that bothers me so much. What I'm addressing is the inconsistency between the two: representing that this is a serious problem, that they don't want to be known as one of the intercollegiate binge drinking capitals of America, that they're doing all they can to stop it -- when in fact that does not seem to be the case.]

If the University were interested in becoming truly effective there are plenty of things it could have been doing all along -- far more than I thought up in the couple of minutes it took me to write those above.

Whether it wants to be effective will become clearer as the spring semester evolves and the two task forces discuss their options and prepare their reports. But so far, over the years, effective efforts by the University have not seemed to have been a goal.

# # #