Category: Public Policy

When John concluded his gospel, he supposed that if all of Jesus’ doings were written down, “that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.”

The last two millennia have seen quite a bit of change, to be sure. Christians have done their best to make John’s comment come true, filling the world with writings on the life of Jesus, the biblical revelation, and the implications of the gospel for every aspect of all walks of life.

But at the dawn of the third millennium, we are seeing an increasing shift to digital media (sometimes, but not always to the detriment of analog media like books), it’s conceivable that a single hard drive might have room for all the books that have ever been written (and not just the religious, theological, and biblical ones).

And as there has always been demand for the Bible (said to be the best-selling book of all time), so too there is demand for new and innovative ways to apply the power of computers to religious and theological texts. Currently these demands are being met by the de facto cooperation between non-profit and for-profit enterprises.

Take, for instance, the developing relationship between the non-profit Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) and the for-profit Logos Bible Software.

In addition to advertising on CCEL’s website and in their electronic newsletter, Ken Verhulst, a spokesman for CCEL, says that there’s an agreement for Logos software to be sold by CCEL. The non-profit then receives a share of the sale price. “These funds are used to keep CCEL going,” he says.

Phil Gons, who works in Logos’ press relations department, says that his company has “a good relationship with CCEL” and that they are in talks “about ways we can work together.”

Gons also points to BibleTech, a newly-inaugurated conference held in January hosted by Logos that had a large turnout of open source and non-profit folks. The conference website lists participants like, “a web-based initiative to provide an annotated corpus of Greek texts and tools for their analysis,” and the CrossWire Bible Society, “an organization with the purpose to sponsor and provide a place for engineers and others to come and collaborate on free, open-source projects aimed at furthering the Kingdom of our God.”

That isn’t to say that non-profits don’t feel some market pressures, too. Verhulst says that there is a strong push to move CCEL towards self-sufficiency. The donor who keeps CCEL going “is encouraging us to strive towards ‘independence’ — not profit status, just the ability to sustain ourselves.”

All this is a new twist on an old story in theological and biblical publishing. There have always been critics of major publishers like Zondervan, Thomas Nelson, and Tyndale, which are for-profit enterprises. Crossway, by contrast, is a non-profit venture that focuses on publishing around the English Standard Version.

The reality of the situation in the digital world is that open source and for-profit ventures are just as much partners as they are competitors. Given its practical focus, for example, CCEL generally limits itself to “public domain” works, while companies like Logos can use tools like their pre-publishing and community pricing systems to gauge market demand and bring major projects like Luther’s Works and Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics to digital publishing.

As in other sectors, enterprise is the driver of innovation, without which other non-profit ventures might not be possible. Even “public domain” works were once published for sale. It isn’t the case, either in traditional or digital publishing, that the choice is simply between for-profit or non-profit efforts. Instead, we live with the all-or-nothing complementary reality of both for-profit and non-profit publishing. And we are better off for it.

Blog author: kschmiesing
Wednesday, April 9, 2008

A few weeks ago I blogged about the California homeschooling ruling. (And Chris Banescu wrote about it in an Acton Commentary.) As you may have heard, the ruling was vacated so the threat has gone away, for now.

But in the meantime, Acton senior fellow Jennifer Morse offered some interesting thoughts on the matter at ToTheSource. Especially striking to me was this passage:”Perhaps this California homeschool dispute represents a larger conflict over the future of society. Whose children are these, anyway?” She goes on to cite the argument of a recent book, “that the competition for the control of children will only increase as children become more scarce.”

Remember that study two years ago showing conservatives having more children than liberals? Connect the dots. I feel a conspiracy theory brewing.

Blog author: kschmiesing
Friday, April 4, 2008

Catholic institutions provide a large percentage of the worldwide care devoted to those infected by HIV. That, combined with the Church’s stand on the immorality of contraceptive use, puts it at the center of debates about AIDS and condoms.

There have been several cases over the last two decades of criticism of religious organizations for compromising their faith dimension for the sake of some other end (often government dollars).

At the intersection of these two trends is a new controversy over Catholic Relief Services, the umbrella organization for much of the Church’s charitable work. Some are questioning whether CRS’s new policy on the dissemination of condom information is in line with Catholic teaching not to mention sound health policy.

Germain Grisez summarizes the problem in a First Things blog entry.

Jeff Mirus offers a fuller treatment at his Catholic Culture blog.

This evening, I attended a showing of Michael Moore’s movie Sicko

I wasn’t expecting much, so maybe it was easy to exceed my expectations. But I was pleasantly surprised that the movie wasn’t far more painful for me to watch. Although certainly not without its flaws, it has something to add. And the movie was well-made, humorous in places, poignant in others– effective and provocative.

Moore is quite critical of insurance companies and HMO’s– and quite complimentary of the health care systems of France, Cuba, Canada, and England. With that combination, you would expect him to be optimistic about the United States moving toward single-payer health care. But his cynicism toward our government– in particular, the often-unsavory relationship between politicians and interest groups– leads him to criticize our system (correctly in many cases) without embracing government as a practical means to his desired end.

Some examples? Early-on, he mentions that Medicare fails to cover a lot of things (although he fails to pile on by talking about the program’s extraordinary expense). And he points to the government’s selective provision of health care to the heroes of 9/11. He also notes that the government provides awesome health care for the detainees at Guantanamo. (He could have bolstered this with the observation that our troops receive health care that is largely illegal in the states– since interest groups have restricted competition from competent providers like physicians’ assistants and nurse practitioners.) Implicitly, he notes the absurdity of restricting trade in pharmaceuticals, health care services, and health insurance. In a word, he isn’t happy with the status quo, but he’s not at all optimistic that our government can or will fix the problem.

The problem with health care– from the point of an economist– is that government is too heavily involved in health care: in addition to the above examples, we could also list Medicare, Medicaid, and most notably, government’s subsidy of health care insurance (as a non-taxed form of compensation).

Because of the subsidy, ironically, those who can afford health care insurance have too much of it. First, by definition, something that is subsidized will be purchased too much (at least in terms of efficiency). Second, imagine how insurance typically operates: it covers rare, catastrophic events. In contrast, health care “insurance” covers everything from allergy shots to cancer. By way of analogy, car insurance of this type would cover everything from door dings and oil changes to severe car accidents. And what would happen to the cost of oil changes, the paperwork associated with oil changes, etc.? We’d have exactly the same sort of mess we have in health care.

With government’s current level of involvement– very far from a market-based system– one can make an argument that a single-payer plan would be an improvement over the status quo. But of course, one can also argue that a single-payer plan would be even worse. A quick look at our education system and the post office indicate that a government-run monopoly is unlikely to deliver decent quality with any kind of efficiency or without special interest politics. This seems to be Moore’s dilemma in the proverbial nutshell.

Sure, there were examples of poor analysis in the movie. For example:
-There was a strange reference to “full employment” in England (when all of Europe struggles with significantly more unemployment than us– due to various employer mandates Moore seems to appreciate);
-He repeats the common reference to U.S. infant mortality rates (vastly oversold since we treat premies different for the purposes of that statistic);
-He repeats the tired canard that schools just need more money (while they already spend more than $10K per student; how much more money do you want to inject into a government-run entity with tremendous monopoly power?); and
-His analysis of other countries seems to miss the important factor that their populations are smaller and more homogeneous than ours.

And I suppose that other viewers– perhaps most who would see Moore’s film– could see a call for bringing socialized medicine to the U.S. in Moore’s work. But a more nuanced reading of the film points to an idealistic but laudable desire that our health care system would be something better– without holding out much hope that our politicians will be able to deliver us closer to that outcome.

— Also see Dr. Don Condit’s Acton Commentary: What’s Wacko about Sicko? — Ed.

Blog author: jballor
Thursday, April 3, 2008

Rod Dreher links to a piece by Cato’s Brink Lindsey, “Culture of Success.” The conclusion of Lindsey’s piece is that familial culture is more important to child success in school and economic achievement than external assistance, in the form of tuition grants or otherwise:

If more money isn’t the answer, what does have an impact? In a word: culture. Everything we know about high performance in all fields of endeavor tells us that, while natural talent is a plus, there is no substitute for long hours of preparation and hard work…. Apply these lessons to doing well in school, and it becomes clear that the class divide in academic achievement is fundamentally a cultural divide. To put it in a nutshell, the upper-middle-class kid grows up in an environment that constantly pushes him to develop the cognitive and motivational skills needed to be a good student; the low-income kid’s environment, on the other hand, pushes in the opposite direction.

Lindsey, to his credit, recognizes the fact that these sorts of trans-generational, cultural and familial concerns typically lie outside the competence of his own libertarian ideological camp:

We insist on the central importance of individual responsibility for the healthy functioning of a free society. Yet, by the time people become legally responsible adults, circumstances not of their own choosing — namely, how they were raised and whom they grew up with — may have prevented them from ever developing the capacities they need to thrive and flourish.

I’m disappointed to find that Lindsey then makes the move to say that on that basis there exists “the possibility that government intervention to improve those circumstances could actually expand the scope of individual autonomy.” I’m not disappointed because the statement is false (it is in fact true), but because the government isn’t the first place we should look to find solutions to cultural problems. What about other institutions, most especially the church?

Dreher’s post is lengthy and worth a read in full, in part because it takes Lindsey’s piece as a point of departure to bring in a number of other insights and sources. Dreher writes of the government’s relation to culture among the poor,

…I don’t believe all the government programs we could possibly imagine will fundamentally change their condition, because their condition is not fundamentally a matter of material deprivation.

Culture is more important than politics, as Moynihan said. But he also said that politics can save a culture from itself. What kind of politics could save inner-city black culture from itself? Ideas? Because we certainly need them in society at large, not just the black inner city.

Dreher also echoes my question: “Here’s what I don’t understand: where are the churches in all this?”

Where are they? If they aren’t actively engaged in responsible urban evangelism, which many are, then they are probably doing (A) nothing or (B) lobbying the government to do something. A is bad and B might be worse.

Dolly Parton was featured on American Idol this week. One of the songs a contestant performed from her body of work was the song, based on her real-life experiences, “Coat of Many Colors,” and it teaches a lesson directly relevant to this topic.

Here’s the last verse, after the children make fun of her for her coat:

But they didn’t understand it
And I tried to make them see
That one is only poor
Only if they choose to be
Now I know we had no money
But I was rich as I could be
In my coat of many colors
My momma made for me
Made just for me

Blog author: dwbosch
Thursday, April 3, 2008

Ted Turner in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution today: (via)

One way to combat global warming, Turner said, is to stabilize the population. "We’re too many people; that’s why we have global warming," he said. "Too many people are using too much stuff." Turner suggested that "on a voluntary basis, everybody in the world’s got to pledge to themselves that one or two children is it."

Admitting that he’s "always suffered from foot-in-the-mouth disease," Turner added, "I’ve gotten a lot better, though. It’s been a long time since anybody caught me saying something stupid."

There’s an obvious retort here; I’ll leave that to you smart folks.

Will also leave Jordan to weigh in on the population control stuff. But I will point out that Turner is one of those guys for whom overpopulation is a problem (for whatever reason), but who never seems eager to be the first to leave the gene pool.

[Don’s other habitat is the Evangelical Ecologist]

Blog author: jballor
Wednesday, April 2, 2008

Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) has released their “Pig Book” for 2008, which is an “annual compilation of the pork-barrel projects in the federal budget. The 2008 Pig Book identified 11,610 projects at a cost of $17.2 billion in the 12 Appropriations Acts for fiscal 2008. A ‘pork’ project is a line-item in an appropriations bill that designates tax dollars for a specific purpose in circumvention of established budgetary procedures.”

According to CAGW, “despite last year’s ethics and lobbying ‘reform,’ pork-barrel earmarks – the currency of corruption in Washington, D.C. – are alive and well.”

Senators of note (PDF):

Clinton: 281 projects, $296.2 million
Levin, Carl: 255 projects, $301.4 million
McCain: 0 projects, $0.0 million
Obama: 53 projects, $97.4 million
Stabenow: 220 projects, $232.5 million