Still Proud Of Daniel Kagan

My state representative, Daniel Kagan (D-HD 3), offers up an assessment at Colorado Pols of what features make the Colorado General Assembly better than the United States Congress, which is spot on in capturing the differences in political culture and process between the two bodies. Colorado legislative politics are civil and not quite as partisan as those as federal legislative politics despite having a rather similar partisan balance to the federal government. The post captures his characteristically constructive tone in legislating.

A structural approach to political theory struggles to explain why this is the case. The election rules for the Colorado General Assembly aren't materially different than those of the federal government, although Colorado legislators are term limited while federal ones are not. Colorado has a different set of procedural rules, but they could be rewritten or ignored with impunity if the political culture were different. Indeed, there are plenty of examples of procedural rules that are ignored in spirit, if not form, in the Colorado General Assembly (like the provision allowing the legislature to speed up the effective date of a bill with a "safety clause"), and the "single subject" rule he cites, while applied with rigor to initiatives, is applied largely voluntarily and with a light judicial touch to enactments of the General Assembly. The bicameral process with an executive branch veto is also similar, although Colorado lacks the filibuster power found in the U.S. Senate and doesn't allow legislators to participate in judicial appointments. It might have something to do with the fact that the Colorado General Assembly has a more manageable 100 members for both chambers combined, while the U.S. Congress has 535 voting members. One could argue that the stakes are higher at the federal level, but on some of the highest stakes decisions faced in Washington but not Denver, like deciding whether or not to go to war, partisanship is at its weakest, and states have plenty of high stakes decisions, like whether to adopt the death penalty, to resolve.

Another plausible possibility is that there is less of a culture divide between politicians of the two parties in Colorado than there is in the United States as a whole. Politicians from Denver and Montrose have more in common with each other culturally than politicians from New York City and Biloxi do. Colorado's GOP was influenced by the Tea Party movement, but not entirely replaced by it.

It could also be the case that the reality of state government, in which there are requirements like balanced budgets, TABOR, federal spending program limitations, and a much more detailed state constitution, refines the sense of politics as the art of the possible at the state level and that the best is the enemy of the good.

Whatever the reason, the fact that two superficially similar systems can feel so different from the inside illuminates what really matters in a political system.

Creating Jobs We Don't Need

The trouble with economic stimulus packages is that they improve the labor market to a great extent for people who have the easiest time finding jobs or already have them, rather than the people who most badly need jobs.

[W]e have a larger sum of money chasing the same set of well-qualified, easily-employable workers. . . . only 42 percent of the job offers went to the unemployed. . . . (It’s actually worse than that because it is 42 percent of the job offers and may well be less than 42 percent of the revenue, most likely so if you think of the unemployed as bringing lower wage offers.) That’s less than thirty percent of the initial expenditure being spent on unemployed labor[.] . . . when times are tight employers are often quite relieved when workers leave the firm voluntarily. It eases their cash flow, prevents a firing, and everyone is happy, sort of. Bad times are precisely when replacements of these workers do not happen. . . . So the claim that an ARRA hire of an already-employed worker led to a replacement for that worker at the original firm is not so strong. . . . Very often when the replacement does happen, the replacement is drawn from the pool of workers who are doing well. Some of those workers will be unemployed. But they are the unemployed who least need the help. Their average search time goes down, and that is somewhat of a social gain, but it is hardly the goal of a fiscal stimulus program. We’ve failed very badly at reemploying the hard-core unemployed and that is borne out by other numbers.

Once again, it seems like the most efficient way to provide unemployment stimulus is to simply guarantee a low wage job to anyone who is willing to take it, and then to use the pool of workers that arises to do whatever is out there needing to be done, without much regard to whether or not the value of the work done justifies the cost. A program like that is cheaper in terms of dollars per job created less unemployment insurance payments avoided than almost any other alternative. Stimulus programs create less new payroll than the amount spend, in practice, rather than having a multiplier effect. This also addresses the fact that being outstide the workforce for a prolonged period, in and of itself, makes a person less employable.

Federal Court Jurisdiction Over National Banks Expanded

The law of jurisdiction of convoluted and inconsistent.

In general, in state courts, a court has jurisdiction over anyone who has a regular office for the conduct of business or permanent registered agent in a state on any matter (this is called "general jurisdiction") regardless of the location of a principal or main office of a business, and without regard to its place of incorporation (although every state requires that an entity incorporated there have at least a permanent registered agent in that state). State courts can also assert jurisdiction over someone if the suit that they are involved in has some appropriate connection to the state, even if the party sued or suing has no other connection to the state (a concept called "specific jurisdiction" or "long arm jurisdiction").

But, in cases where the claims of the Complaint arise under federal law, in most cases where there is a sovereign party, or where the is a "diversity of citizenship" and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, a case can be removed to federal court (or brought there initially). Diversity of citizenship must ordinarily be complete (in the sense that no plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as any defendant), but incomplete diversity (i.e. some plaintiffs come from different states from some defendants) is permitted in cases where there is collusive joinder of an unnecessary party to a lawsuit to manipulate the rules, in "interpleader" actions where multiple parties other than the party in possession of property claim ownership of it, and in large class action lawsuits; the cases that are exceptions to the complete diversity rule can also sometimes involve exceptions to the amount in controversy rule.

Parties are not considered to have citizenship for diversity of citizenship purposes everywhere that they are subject to the general jurisdiction of a state court. A natural person is a citizen of the state where he or she "resides" even if that person also has houses or business officers or permanent registered agents in other states. A partnership or limited liability company is a citizen every every state where a partner or limited liability company member is a citizen. An ordinary corporation (including a state bank) is a citizen of both the state where it is incorporated and the state where its principal place of business is located.

National banks (like Wells Fargo) are citizens of the state where they are "located" for diversity of citizenship purposes. A recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, determined that this is only the state where its "main office" identified in its articles of incorporation is located, even if this is different from where its principal place of business is located. Thus, according to the 8th Circuit, for diversity jurisdiction purposes, because it is a national bank, rather than a state bank, is South Carolina where its "main office" listed in its articles of incorporation is located, rather than its principal place of business in California.

Two other circuits had previously reached the conclusion that national banks are "located" both where they are incorporated and where their principal place of business is located, but in the face of a recent decision concerning Wachovia Bank, where the "main office" of the bank listed in its articles of incorporation and its "principal office" were the same, the issue was revisited in dicta, and one of the U.S. Court of Appeals Circuits that had previously made a contrary ruling reversed itself in a later case.

The consequences aren't all that huge. The substantive law that applies in a diversity action when a case is removed to federal court is the same as the substantive law that applies in any state court where a suit is brought if the state court had general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction over the defendant. In all but a handful of states, the state rules of civil procedure for cases where at least $75,000 in controversy are directly copied from and interpreted in almost all respects consistently with, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, although there are sometimes some differences between federal and state civil procedure rule language or interpretion that matter in a particular case. Federal courts draw their juries from a larger geographic area than the specific county that is typically the source of a jury pool in a state court lawsuit, which can be quite important in personal injury lawsuits, but rarely matters very much in the most significant lawsuits of business deals gone bad (often simply very large collection lawsuits) which national banks typically find themselves to be parties.

Moreover, in cases like the jurisdiction case linked above, the primary forum for resolution of the lawsuit on the merits was a arbitration proceeding and the lawsuit was brought merely to confirm the underlying arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act because the business to business contract dispute involved had an arbitration clause in it. Absent a dispute that the contract containing the arbitration language was entered into at all, which was not present in this case, where the case is heard by a reputatable arbitration body like the American Arbitration Association, as it was in this case, arbitration awards are almost always confirmed even if there is good reason to believe that the arbitrator's decision was wrong in many material respects. A lawsuit to confirm an arbitration award where the validity of the contract containing the arbitration language is not disputed rarely requires significant in person evidentiary hearings that would make the convenience of the forum to witnesses relevant, and almost never calls for a jury trial.

Simply put, in this particular lawsuit, the outcome of the case on the merits and the court process by which the lawsuit was resolved, would almost certainly have been the same in state court as it was in federal court. Indeed, it would it have been the same in any U.S. court of general jurisdiction state or federal.

The underlying rule allowing cases to be brought in federal court on the grounds that there is diversity jurisdiction even in circumstances where both parties to the lawsuit have their principal offices in the same state (in this case California), is stupid and serves no legitimate purpose other than to give national banks more capacity to forum shop than any other kind of person or business. The law interpreted to allow national banks this privilege was likewise unclear at best, in part, because it was adopted before interstate banking was common or even, for the most part, permitted at all. One sensible place to cut the federal budget, albeit by no more than a smigen, would be to greatly narrow the scope of the diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts to cases like this one where it adds complexity without offering any meaninginful benefit to the process or advancing any genuine federalism interest. Indeed, this stupid rule is likely to produce considerably more litigation in the future because there is a conflict between the federal circuits over its meaning, thus enhancing uncertainty rather than limiting it.

But, since national banks are some of the most prolific litigators in the entire court system, and Wells Fargo alone is probably in the top ten most common non-governmental parties in lawsuits in the entire United States, the ruling is notable.

Wither Nigeria?

The Political and Cultural Communities Of Nigeria

Nigeria is a colonial era creation in West Africa of a mishmash of different tribal identities as well an even deeper divide between the mostly Muslim northern Sahel region and the mostly Christian and animist society (with Muslim minorities) in the subtropical and tropical south that it itself deeply split by tribal divisions that are somewhat, but not entirely along contiguous geographic lines. Overall, Nigeria about 150 million people, making it a third world superpower and the largest nation by population in all of Africa. The number of Muslims and the number of Christians and animists in Nigeria are roughly equal in number. It also had the wealth that comes with significant oil and mineral resources, and thriving megacities. It is home to more than 250 ethnic groups, with the Hausa, Fulani, Yoruba, Igbo (aka Ibo), Ijaw, Kanuri, and Ibibio and Tiv collectively making up just under 90% of the population. English is the official language of country and its national elites, as a legacy of English colonial rule, but Hasua, Yoruba, Igbo and Fulani are its priniciple indigeneous languages. It is organized as a federal republic with 36 states and a capital territory, and has a surprisingly modest 80,000 active duty military members for a nation so long dominated by the military and known as a regional military powerhouse.

A Brief History Of The Nigerian State

The history of the Nigerian state, it has never been a nation-state, starts in the period from 1861-1900 when the British established control over it as a colony, and then to the point at which is secured its independence, in 1960, severing ties to the British monarch entirely in 1963.

By 1967, it has been engulfed in a civil war, with Eastern Nigeria establishing a short lived Republic of Biafra, comprised most of the Ibo ethnic group, that was crushed by 1970, a million people dead in its wake.

The usual third world succession of coups, transitional governments, and short lived elected civilian regimes followed. The first round of civilian rule after independence was secured lasted just six years. The military ruled for thirteen years from 1966 to 1979. Civilians ruled for the next four years from 1979 to 1983. This brief interim of elected civilian government was followed promptly by a coup that established a military regime. In 1985, after two years this military regime was replaced in a coup by another military regime, which eventually held elections in 1993 for a civilian regime, that were annulled when the regime favored candidate lost, leading to riots that produced little less than three months of appointed civilian transitional government, followed by another coup imposing a new military regime in 1994 and the incarceration of the putative 1993 election winner who had declared himself to be the President. The leaders of that regime and the putative democratically elected President both died in 1998, and the successor held election the next year.

Since at least 2000, there have been on going clashes between Muslims and Christians leading to ongoing genocidal waves of tit for tat violence and the formation of an organized violent and radical Islamic political movement called Boko Haram. In 2011, continuing a string of elected civilian leaders in office since 1999, Goodluck Jonathan was elected President in the national election. The elections in 1999 and 2003 were won by Olugegun Obasanjo (a former military ruler), the election in 2007 was won by Umaru musa Yar'Adua, his chosen successor, in the face of serious electoral violence and irregularities in the conduct of the election. Thus, Goodluck Jonathan is the first Nigerian leader in decades to lack any ties to Nigeria's long history of military rule. His election led to bombings and an orgy of Boko Haram orchestrated violence in the North. Nigeria's current string of elected leaders has been the longest in its history of a nation, and its current President has fewer ties to the military and non-democratic forces than any leader Nigeria has seen since at least 1983.

Should This Multinational State Continue?

The fundamental political question facing Nigeria is the "Nigeria question": Does a multinational Nigerian state makes sense as a political construct at all?

The answer is not an easy one.

In practice, while the Nigerian state is a federal one, it does not practice the principle of subsidiarity (i.e. delegating governmental powers to the lowest possible level of government). Its state bureaucracy and federal division of power looks more like Spain or France ca. 1960, than it does like an American or German or Canadian style federal system. Moreover, the move by a regional block of Northern Nigerian states to adopt Islamic law in the year 2000 has set in motion a powerful schizmatic tendency on North-South lines and the end of military rule released long simmering pressures for wildly different regimes at the state level much as the end of the political power monopoly of the Communist power did in the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and elsewhere in Eastern Europe.

Choices include the status quo of a highly centralized state that is only federal in theory, a profoundly more decentralized federal state, or the actual dismemberment of the Nigerian state, probably along existing state boundaries into two or more constituent Republics. Also complicating any division of the country is the fact that regionally localized oil wealth is critical to the functioning of the state.

As a Nigerian blogger explained in May of this year:

Nigeria’s problem is not so much that Nigeria is not homogeneous. Nigeria’s problem stems from the fact that Nigeria is artificial, a colonial creation. And our people being indigenes at heart, cannot relate to it viscerally. There is no gut-wrenching reaction to anything Nigerian, in the same way we react when our tribes are taunted by outsiders or racist remarks are directed at us. That sense of belonging or ownership that we have with regard to our tribes, is not felt for Nigeria. We are still basically tribesmen: Igbos, Yorubas, Hausas, Ijaws, etc. living in a space called Nigeria.

But we were not the only people colonized. Much of the Middle-east and Asia suffered colonization too,in one shape or another. The difference is that most of those countries are historic: they were already existing in a state similar to their present form. This difference is of crucial importance.

In much of the Middle-east and Asia,the template for citizenship did not change with colonialism. The people lived within the same borders and related to each other, as well as the state, much as they had done for thousands of years before colonization. The only difference was that the king or emperor was subject to the influence of the colonial master. After colonization, they did not need any re-indoctrination to become citizens of their country, because nothing had changed. Their kings or emperor simply went back to ruling their “nations”, as they had done for millennia. The people and their kings did not have to get used to a new geographic contraption, no. It was still the same country to which they had paid allegiance for antiquity. Unlike Africa. Where colonialism meant lumping together mutually distrustful and independent tribes into new, and arbitrary unions, dictated only by imperial politico-economic rivalry.

It is this difference between African and Asian colonial experience, that explains the contrast in the quality of leadership between the two regions. Asian leaderships have a legacy of Nationalism: they can draw from a tradition of leadership, which viewed the entire country as the primary constituency of the king or emperor. You might have noticed that Middle-eastern or Asian dictators generally tend to be benevolent. While they may not have had perfect human rights records, they still developed their countries, unlike African dictators. This is because there existed a tradition of “national-scale” leadership. This contrasts with our experience, where leaderships, lacking such a legacy of “national-scale” vision, fall back on “tribal-scale” myopia. Our leaders are mere clan-patriarchs at heart, unable to provide the necessary leadership on a national-scale, because their vision cannot seemingly transcend tribe.

It is because the irredentist understands this leadership-limitation, that he advocates balkanization, believing that leadership within tribal enclaves would be fairer and more accountable. Not because of hatred of other tribes. The irredentist’s sovereignist enthusiasm is therefore functional, not necessarily sentimental. It is about living in a space where one feels comfortable not only physically, but developmentally; It is about not being afraid that one would be stabbed in the back: literally through sectarian violence or metaphorically in the shape of discriminatory government policies. It is about responsive governance, and an engaged citizenry. Understanding that the irredentist’s true craving is for good governance, should give hope to both nationalists and irredentists, that balkanization of Nigeria need not be inevitable. The question to be asked is this, ”can we secure the same governance and security that the irredentist craves, while retaining the advantages of scale and diversity that come with a united Nigeria?”

We definitely can, like the United States. But to do this would require, like the United States, faithful adherence to the principle of federalism. Although the United States is geographically, numerically and economically several times the size of Nigeria, it is much smaller administratively than Nigeria. This is because the Americans apply the principle of subsidiarity: the idea that things are better done at the lowest competent level of government. Most of the things that matter to Americans are handled locally. In contrast, in Nigeria, you cannot change your electricity meter, without reference to some bureaucrat in Abuja. There is too much power and money concentrated in Abuja. This is what frustrates, and alienates the citizenry. If we want to see a Nigerian citizenry animated by the passion that characterized the typical African village square, we need to bring back the village square. To do this would entail extensive decentralization, true federalism and resource control.

How Viable Is A Federal Solution?

I don't share Henryik2009's optimism that American style federalism could work in Nigeria. There are certainly benefits to decentralizing government to local levels, even in ethnically homogeneous nation-states. But, the first order ethnic and regional divide in American politics, the split between the North and the South that produced the Confederate States of America, the American Civil War, and the Civil War's reunion of the American nation whose scars still show, is not nearly so deep as the tribal and religious divisions that face Nigeria.

India, one of the earliest and most successful decolonizalizations involving a multiethnic state had the advantage of encompassing almost an entire continental political system that was already in place upon which its federal system was built, but even it soon fractures of Muslim-Hindu lines, and even after that schizm, which still festers in places like Kashmir, Pakistan and Bangladesh could not manage to hold together as a single South Asian Muslim state, and none of the three successor states to India as it was at the end of British rule have the unquestioned legitimacy, or staid and orderly democratic process that characterize American politics even at its worst.

On balance, I think most observations of international political affairs see the dismantling of the Soviet Union into constituent republics, the dismantling of Yugoslavia, the severance of Kosovo from Serbia, the Velvet Divorce of Czechoslovakia, and the severance of South Sudan from Sudan, as success stories. Dividing multinational federal states into their constituent parts is particularly helpful in periods of dramatic political change, allowing each component to reach its own separate aspirations in its own way with less need for large scale bureaucratic coordination.

Indeed, it isn't entirely obvious that it has made sense for Ukraine, which is deeply divided on a quite clear East-West line politically and came to the brink of schizm, or for Russia, whose restive Caucasian Republics have mounted a long and so far unsuccessful insurgency seeking independence since the Soviet Union broke up, to stay whole. Likewise, calls for the division of Belgium which has already taken federalism to a maximum level of decentralization are increasingly seen as sensible, and calls for even further decentralization for Spain's already somewhat autonomous ethnically regions are receiving have gained credibility. Schizmatic solutions to Iraq's future, de facto realized in the case of Iraqi Kurdistan already, are also being taken seriously as an option, if not necessarily a preferred option. Even the possibility of a Scotland that is independent of the United Kingdom is starting to look like a less radical proposal than it once did.

Recent historical experience has cast serious doubt on the benefits of scale for states that are not nations, at least when a relatively clean and uncontroversial way to draw the lines is visible. Less than sovereign international alliances, like the various European international arrangements, suggest alternatives to a federal regime. The economic strides of the Asian Tiger economies have dispelled any credible argument that a state needs to be large to be economically prosperous as a general rule, but in oil dependent states, the economic issues can be acute.

Concerns about schizms are now more focused on issues like the human rights implications of a split, and the economic viability of resulting states particularly in cases where mineral resources are key to the national economy.

The basic human rights issue is whether any of the resulting states are likely to show more disregard for human rights outside a federal structure, and whether the dismantling of a federal structure may protect the human rights of the populations of any of the component regions that are not a political minority in the existing larger federal state.

For example, the split of Sudan greatly advanced the human rights of the South Sudanese who were an oppressed minority in the united country, but at the expense of leaving the people of South Kordofan that remained in rump Sudan with even less political power than they had before the breakup. The departure of Kosovo from Serbia made sense because it weakened the power of Serbia, a state with a poor human rights record, while freeing a minority oppressed people within that state from Serbia's rule.

In Nigeria, the biggest human rights question is whether the departure of Northern States that have adopted Islamic law from greater Nigeria would compromise human rights for the people in those states.

Denver Public Schools School Board November 2011 Election Candidates

In odd numbered years, Denver voters choose Denver Public Schools school board members to four year terms in addition to voting on some ballot issues. This year the election date is director districts (two of which up this time around and the remaining three of which were voted upon tow years ago). This year's director district elections involve District 1 in Southeast Denver current held by Bruce L. Hoyt, and District 5 in Northwest Denver currently held Arturo Jiminez. Voters in District 3 in Southwest Denver held by Andrea Medira, in District 2 in Central Denver held by Jeannie Kaplan, and District 4 in Northeast Denver held by Nate Easley vote only in the at large school board race this year.

Ballot access was available to any candidate presenting a nominating petition with fifty signatures from registered voters in Denver by the deadline this month. Ballot placement is by lot.

There are five candidates in the at large school board race which has no incumbent candidates:
* John Daniel
* Frank E. Deserino
* Allegra "Happy" Haynes
* Roger Kilgore
* Jacqueline Carole Shumway

In District 1, the two candidates, neither of whom is an incumbent, will be:
* Anne Bye Rowe
* Emily Lipp Sirota

Outgoing Bruce Hoyt from District 1 tended to vote with the current majority on the Denver School Board. Rowe is a co-founder of the organization "A+ Denver."

In District 5, one candidate is challenging incumbent Arturo Jimenez is his bid for re-election. The candidates are:
* Jennifer Draper Carson
* Arturo Jimenez

Carson worked on Jimenez's 2007 school board campaign and is active as a parent of a child at North High School where she is a member of the parent board that is the official means by which the school's administration consults with parents on matters of school policy below the school district level.

The races are officially non-partisan and there are no primary elections for school board races, but there are two organized factions that have backed candidates in prior elections.

One faction is the Denver Classroom Teachers Association.

The other is a "business friendly" coalition that has tended to favor a greater emphasis on charter schools and specialized programs and large scale overhaul from scratch of schools they see as failing. This coalition in represented this year by two organizations, "Democrats for Education Reform and the political arm Stand for Children." The endorsement is certainly no guarantee of success. Just one of the four candidates Stand for Children endorsed in 2009 (Nate Easley) won a school board race in that year.

They have endorsed Allegra "Happy" Haynes in the at large race, Jennifer Draper Carson in the District 1 race and Anne Bye Rowe in the District 5 race. Happy Haynes is a former DPS employee and Denver city councilwoman.

Since 2009, the board has had major rifts and an increased number of 4-to-3 split votes, particularly on major reform efforts.

In December of 2009, the board voted 4-3 to turn around Lake Middle School by phasing out an International Baccalaureate program, replacing it with a new one, and co-locating a charter school on campus.

Jimenez, who represents northwest Denver, was part of the three-vote minority but now supports the changes.

A similar but larger-scale turnaround plan for the far northeast neighborhoods passed on a 4-3 vote in November.

The 4-3 vote also moved ahead on a motion that limited forced placement of teachers into the lowest performing schools while the district worked with the union to create a policy for mutual consent.

Of course, a great many issues, some significant, are not matters of dispute for Denver's school board, and received unanimous votes supporting a single approach.

Jimenez is a candidate for the DCTA leaning three vote faction. Andrea Medira, who has a recent post at Colorado Pols, in District 3, is another. The third has been Jeanne Kaplan of District 2.

The matter has gone heated including both public protocol insults in the proceedings of the Board as the 2009 election winners took office and a failed attempt to recall Nate Easely who is in the four vote majority on the board. This faction has been associated in public debate with current Denver Public Schools Superintendent Boasberg and by former Superintendent, and current U.S. Senator Michael Bennet.

Emily Sirota, not previously a public figure in her own right (although her husband David Sirota is a well known Denver based pundit), is a self-described community activist who has the backing of Andrea Medira in the current school board race.

Not all of the four at large candidates not endorsed by Democrats for Education Reform/Stand For Children, i.e. John Daniel, Frank E. Deserino, Roger Kilgore, and Jacqueline Carole Shumway necessarily line up neatly with one faction or the other, although the DCTA will probably endorse one of them before the dust settles.

Frank Deserino, a South High School teacher was an unsuccessful candidates in the 2007 school board race for District 1 where he came in third out of three candidates with 12% of the vote (outgoing director Bruce L. Hoyt won that race with 65% of the vote).

Roger Kilgore, a Park Hill water engineer, sought the endorsement of Democrats for Education Reform and was given honorable mention by them in connection with its endorsement of Happy Haynes.

Jacqui Shumway, an unsuccessful candidate in the 2009 school board election, is "a physical fitness advocate and co-founder of the Tai Chi Project." She came in 4th place out of 5 candidates in 2009 with 11% of the vote in the seat won by Nate Easely in the 4th District.

Baker neighborhood resident John Daniel's "political background includes pushing for the now-repealed Initiative 100, which impounded the cars of undocumented immigrants," which was widely opposed by almost everyone in Denver's political establishment and city administration. He doesn't seem to have a website at this point. He wants to slash the DPS administrative budget by 10% to pay for more teachers.

Nuba In Peril

The country of Sudan recently broke into two nations, a predominantly Muslim and Arabic language speaking north and a predominantly animist/Christian population with more cultural similarity to sub-Saharan Africa in the newly formed nation of South Sudan.

This didn't leave rump Sudan in the North without ongoing ethnic conflicts. Ethnic affilates with the main Northern population have carried out genocidal campaigns in the part of Western Sudan called Darfur against a population that is substantial (probably on the order of 40% of the population), but a minority, in the region, which makes the simple expedient of granting the region autonomy a less helpful solution.

There is also a pocket of ethnically South Sudan-like peoples in the South Kordofan province which include the Nuba Mountains whose adjective, Nubian, has historically been applied to black South Sudanese people generally.

From the point of view of lingustics, prehistory and anthropology, the Nuba Mountains are among the places in the world, bar none. The Nuba Mountains are home to multiple waves of small populations of relict peoples who have retreated there and retained their languages and to some extent their cultures and traditions as well when invading populations have routed them or forced them to submit culturally in the lowlands of the region.

The oldest layer of the palmpiset that is the Nuba Mountains are the Kordofan language speaking peoples. The Kordofan languages are the Northernmost, Easternmost and quite possibly the most archaic form of the Niger-Congo languages that are dominant in West Africa, on of which, Bantu, spread across Africa in the Bantu expansion, replacing indigenous languages across sub-Saharan Africa in the process.

Understanding the many languages spoken in the Nuba Mountains is critical to understanding the historical roots of the Niger-Congo languages and their likely past geographical expanse, and the historical roots of subsequent Chadic, Nilo-Saharan and Afro-Asiatic languages that have all intersected in the region. The cultural preservation of their language also makes the oral histories, traditions, legends and religious practices of these peoples likely to be closer to their ancient forms that those peoples immersed in more recent intrusive languages and cultures like Arabic speaking Islamic peoples whose cultural ties are traceable to 7th century Arabia rather than the Sahel, Chad Basin and Upper Nile basin.

Those vital human traditions are in grave peril because the military of rump Sudan, in an indiscriminate effort to punish the people of Southern Kordofan for their South Sudanese political sentiments and support of its rebellion are currently dropping more or less random bombs from planes into populated areas with no military targets, killing people going to market, in their homes, filling water from wells and so on. Many of the dead are women and children. Planes roar overhead many times a day and bombs drop out of the sky for no apparent particular reason for particular bombings.

Appeals have been made to the United Nations, but a world weary with global financial meltdown, mass starvation in Somolia, detentes reached over South Sudanese independence and reductions in violence in Darfur, the Arab Spring including ongoing military struggles in Syria and Libya, and more, are having trouble hearing the cries from Nuba for action as well.

Trends In Church Music From A Denver Perspective

The Muser

Timothy J. Krueger is the choirmaster at Saint Andrew’s Episcopal Church, Denver, the artistic director of the Saint Martin’s Chamber Choir, an affiliate music faculty member at Metropolitan State College of Denver, and if the truth were told, has any number of additional musical positions. He is certainly a notable figure in the church music community in Denver, at least among "high church" Christians.

He also issues a regular e-mail newletter called "Musical Weekly" that I read when I can which recently featured an interesting several week series of musings on trends in church music which I reproduce below with permission.

The Musings and Reactions

Part 1 (August 1, 2011):

Regarding the state of church music (musing alert!), I was fascinated recently to read the following paragraphs in an article put out by the Episcopal News Service:

"The ongoing struggle to get young people in the pews at churches across Brooklyn is motivating some clergy in the Diocese of Long Island to develop new ministries that challenge the popular way of how churches reach out to 20-somethings.

Predominant tactics -- a rock band, projector screens and altars stripped of traditional decors -- have failed to resonate with 20-somethings. Instead, it's the traditional aspects of the Episcopal faith and its liturgy that young people are now drawn to, clergy say.

(…) "It's not that they aren't interested. What they are looking for is the traditional -- silence, reflection, candles," Griffith said."

I have been observing similar things in my admittedly non-scientific survey of young adults. I remember hearing of an Episcopal Church that refashioned their 4:00pm Christmas Eve service to appeal to young adults and families with children, adding the above-mentioned rock band, projector screens, etc. The service was an abysmal failure because young people wanted to hear traditional carols and music, and flocked instead to the 10pm or Midnight service, despite the inconvenient time for their children. “We want real church, not something we can witness on the street or on TV,” one person reportedly said. The church returned the 4:00 service to a traditional one the next year. I’ve also heard it said (since I am no judge of this) that what passes for rock bands in most so-called musically progressive churches are actually aging 1960’s-style folk bands, and come off as even more dated and old-fashioned than a traditional music program, and having far less integrity to them. There’s also the now-famous example of the traditional Compline service at St. Mark’s Cathedral in Seattle, where 20-somethings flock in (and lay on the floor with eyes closed) to hear the all-male choir sing Gregorian Chant, Tudor anthems, and more modern Anglican repertoire, saying it sounds “timeless” and “New Age” to them, rather than “old fashioned.” I find in my Intro to Music courses at Metro State College that the students are like blank slates when it comes to classical music. Previous generations rebelled against their parents’ tastes, like classical music; but that generation are now the parents of college-age students today, and since they don’t listen to classical music, their kids don’t know anything about it, don’t have any negative associations or stereotypes, and are therefore are open to it.

So I predict that the next “wave” of evangelizing young people will not be to “reach them where they’re at,” as has been the watchword for the last 50 years; but to give them something that seems timeless and ancient at the same time that it is modern and relevant. The hunger in young people for the traditional, as evidenced by their depiction in Harry Potter books and films (school uniforms, gothic buildings, ancient traditions, a reverence for that which fills us with awe, the Latin language as imbued with a sort of power beyond the vernacular, etc.), will be more successfully met by pipe organs, vested choirs, liturgies rooted in ancient traditions, powerful age-old symbols, etc., than by any attempt at pandering to an age group by appearing to provide familiar settings and sounds.

Reactions?

Here’s a link to the entire article(http://www.episcopalchurch.org/80263_129223_ENG_HTM.htm) although I’ve quoted the bit most relevant to my “musing” already.

Part 2 (August 8, 2011):

I got a great number of interesting replies to my musing on the article I cited about church music and young people, and my claim that I see a sea change happening in the thinking about what attracts 20-somethings. Three or four people replied regarding theological issues, which I found interesting, and I chatted individually with them; but my intention was to focus on musical style; and since there are a number of theological positions represented by the members of this list – from conservative Evangelical to liberal Protestant to agnostic to atheist, and with a few Jewish and other faiths sprinkled in – I will confine myself to quoting those comments about music.

A number of people simply said “I agree,” or “Good to hear things might be changing,” etc., and those were naturally much appreciated (two of you said you’d even forwarded the article and my musings on to your own ministers). Of course, given the make-up of this list, that was the most likely response. Here are a few personal stories I received from young(ish) people, and by which I was quite moved. Here’s Lisa S. (a St. Andrew’s member and acolyte):

"Interesting article on reaching out to youth. I come at this from several points of view, so perhaps you won't mind my sharing. I grew up in the Roman Catholic church and absolutely hated the Masses where the "old ladies" sang (can it be called singing?) hymns! On the other hand, I loved going to the guitar Mass (no bands, just guitar, maybe piano, maybe a string bass). This probably had something to do with the fact that, when traveling across country with 4 kids in the car, our parents would play folk music to keep us entertained. Once I started playing bass, then guitar, participation in the music kept me even more involved. Even so, once I started singing in the high school choir with a director who favored sacred choral music, I developed a love for the traditional music as long as it was done well. Once I left the Catholic church, and started exploring other avenues for my spiritual needs, I heard many of these "bands" and found the music quite distasteful. When the instruments are too many and too loud to really hear the message, then I think there is no message. I still love the music I used to play (which was very intentional in its liturgical relevance) but, when it comes to meditation, the beauty of a well-sung choral anthem is really unmatched for me.

So, to some degree, I owe my young growth and interest in my faith to the St. Louis Jesuits. But I must agree that I do not see the young people I know running from tradition. To the contrary, the fact that it is timeless, that there is purpose and meaning behind it and that it draws the spirit of the Mass together, makes the musical tradition very appealing to those who are seeking solid ground. I am glad to hear that this is not just true in my little world. Of course, there will always be those kids who will be reached by the bands, and there will be those who find the mega-church atmosphere appealing. But, it is nice to know that there is always a place where one can be drawn in by the sheer beauty of the human voice and the majesty of the organ (with an occasional violin or cello). And, if I may say so, the choir and space of St. Andrew's are the perfect couple!"

Here’s Dan C.:

"I have had conversations with several people lately, friends and strangers, about a movement in church towards Tradition. I have been to the [Compline] service at St. Mark's in Seattle, have attended Emerging Churches (which focus on a return to what the early church looked like), and now find myself at a Catholic church rather than the Evangelical one that I was raised in. While I would be far from saying that the Evangelical movement should be completely tossed out, there is obviously something that has been forgotten/missed/misunderstood about the "contemporizing" of our services. The use of contemporary music and media served as a connection point between church and culture, and allowed people to see religion's relevance. However, as we have seen with countless pop artists, the ones that lack substance fail to stick around. Churches who struggled to bring substance into their relevance struggled to understand why lights and loudspeakers didn't have the sustaining draw that other churches seemed to find. The newness of technology and culture has worn off and for many even become over-stimulating or intrusive. Today, we are surrounded by so much abrasively up-front stimuli that we aren't even conscious how commonplace it is. People are becoming burnt out and lost in a society that supposedly panders to their every need or desire.

Here is where the church has an incredible position to offer something very unique that, I believe, more and more people are becoming painfully aware they are in need of. People are getting to a point where they are ready to turn on their laptops and iPods, but are unsure and uncomfortable with what will fill the space. Meditation and reflection are about as counterculture as you can get these days, but I believe it is something people are hungering for (I know I am). I'm excited for the possibilities this brings, but at the same time know some churches will still miss the point. (…)"

And here’s Ross J.:

"Young people (and I still count myself among them because I’m pretty involved in the local music scene) can go out in Denver any night of the week and hear more cutting edge, more dynamic, more interesting, and more passionate popular music, than anything I’ve ever heard in a ‘contemporary’ service, whether Catholic, Anglican, or Protestant. [In church,] a song that doesn’t grate on the nerves is considered a success!

The misguided move to ‘draw more young people’ into the church, starting for Catholics after Vatican II, was because the traditional music (when there was any) lacked a fine quality, and passion. What person, young or old, is inspired by music performed half-heartedly by a poor choir accompanied by a poor organist playing a poor organ?

The answer, then as now, is not to start over again, but to go back to the musical roots of the church and ‘get it right’. Then you’ll inspire and draw in new composers who are ‘getting it right’ and not writing drivel!

Not once in my years at Holy Ghost [Catholic] or St. Andrew’s [Episcopal] have I heard a young person after the service pine for more ‘contemporary’ music. Quite the opposite."

And finally, Sue K.:

"As for your thoughts on church music and young people, I agree. I think that, if there was any authenticity to Christian “rock” music, people might feel differently (at least with respect to the music – not necessarily the rest of the trappings of the “modern” service), but most of what’s out there is just derivative schlock. That said, I think you’re right that the timeless quality and genuine beauty of the traditional service and music are what actually have the power to connect us to the divine. Although it’s true that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” I tend to think some things are beautiful in a more universal way. Those things give us a little glimpse of the divine, and anyone who openly encounters them is drawn in. I suspect the traditional service and music have survived because of that. In a world full of cheap imitation and creative endeavors that are more about trying to make a lot of money than true creative expression, the traditional service and music offer young people something real, and I’m not surprised to learn that they prefer, even yearn for, that."

Many thanks to these and others for sharing their thoughts.

Part 3 (August 13, 2011):

One reader sent me a very interesting item about an Episcopal church in Lawrence, Kansas, and its attempts at reframing the traditional liturgy in order not to put off youth, etc. First, here’s a link to an article that talks about the service in a general way (disregard the photo caption – it says the priest is using incense – he’s clearly asperging the people [holy water, not holy smokes, Batman!]):

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/aug/29/mass-appeal-old-style-service-drawing-young-crowd/

Second, I copy a Q-and-A sheet that I like even more about this service. I’ve deleted things about where to find parking, childcare, post-service reception, etc., but retain the things about liturgy and music:

"FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS about the 6 PM Solemn High Mass at Trinity Episcopal Church

Q. How long is the service? A. A little over one hour.

Q. What style of service is provided? A. The service is sometimes called Solemn High Mass which is a celebration of the Eucharist (Lord's Supper or Holy Communion) that has a rich offering of ritual including singing, chanting, and incense.

Q. Who is welcome at this service? A. Everyone is welcome but college students are especially invited. The time of the service also intentionally provides an opportunity for those unable to attend church on Sunday mornings. This who might find an evening service more compatible with their schedule include some health care workers, fire fighters, police officers, real estate agents, those traveling or those who like to sleep late on Sunday mornings. We have also discovered that many are attracted to a more traditional form of worship. As far as we know, this is the only service of its type offered in the area. We expect all "sorts and conditions" to be a part of this community.

Q. What style of music does the service offer? A. Our Mission in Music: The Solemn High Mass has resulted in the formation of a new liturgical choir at Trinity Church under the direction of Henry Heller Smith, our Associate Music Director and doctoral candidate in choral conducting at the University of Kansas. The singers are students at the University. The choir's hymnody, psalmody, plainsong, Gregorian chant, and anthems represent the finest tradition in the church's repertoire of ancient and modern sacred music. The celebration of Solemn High Mass reminds us that liturgy, music, and ceremony are woven together from a common catholic thread. Individual performance is not the essence of what is taking place. Rather, individual efforts are shaped and formed into a sacramental whole, a mystical unity, transcending place and time, which focuses the utmost devotion and prayerful attention to the worship of Almighty God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is, indeed, an offering of worship in the solemnity and beauty of holiness.

Q. Why aren't we doing a contemporary service if one of our primary purposes is to reach college students? A. Many churches in Lawrence, including St. Margaret's, already offer contemporary worship on both Sunday morning and evening. They also do this very well. It is not our strong point and those who desire a contemporary experience have ample opportunities to do so. There are, however, no churches in the area that offer anything like we do. Not every college student, or person of any age for that matter, is attracted to a contemporary form of worship. We offer an alternative for those in the city who seek to connect the concerns of daily life in the 21st century with our ancient faith.

Q. Do I need to be familiar with the Book of Common Prayer and the Hymnal to participate? A. The service should be familiar to those who attend Sunday mornings but we also have the entire service printed out in a booklet so one need not juggle books.

Q. How can I be involved? A. Come and worship. Bring friends. We also have many leadership opportunities: Musicians, readers, prayer leaders, ushers, hosts (greeters), nursery workers, chalice bearers, acolytes, Altar Guild and even an audio technician to record the sermon."

And finally, a link to a page I found on the website of St. Paul’s Church, Carroll Gardens (Brooklyn, NY), that was mentioned in the original article I cited from the Episcopal News Service. Again, I like the way traditional and ancient worship form and style is reframed so as to be unintimidating to the uninitiated:

http://stpaulscarrollst.org/index.php?nav=worship

My Own Personal Reflections

My background in Christianity is in the liturgical tradition. I grew up in and was confirmed in the Lutheran denomination called the Evangelical Lutheran Church in American (which despite the name, is a "mainline" rather than "evangelical" denomination as that term is generally used), which was formed through the merger of denominations including an ethnically German mainline Lutheran denomination and an ethnically Scandinavian mainline Lutheran denomination, both of which were natural outgrowths of the legally established churches of the respective homelands.

I was having doubts of the existence of God by my teens, but decided to give Christianity a shot in another denomination while I was in college, where I spent all of my undergraduate years as an active member of the local Episcopalian parish (Christ Church), participated in the youth group, and was even a Sunday school teacher for a while. A minor in history that included a large helping of the history of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches and of the early years of the churches that arose out of the Reformation, provide that experience with context.

I was not church going in law school, but did attend evening vespers services at a congregation of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the largest mainline Presbyterian denomination in the United States, for quite a while when I lived in Grand Junction, Colorado, and I also attended the Korean Presbyterian Church in which my wife grew up in greater Buffalo, New York while we lived there during my wife's graduate school years.

The fact that my college was known for its music school may have played a part, but I remain convinced that the Episcopalians have the best church music, by far, and I've toyed in near future science fiction that I've written for the desk drawer with the notion of just the sort of neo-traditionalist youth movement that Tim envisions. In a lot of ways, this is a natural extension and moderation of the Goth subculture.

The meditative, solemn, serious and pure musical and artistic contributions of the church have their own deep attractions. I can understand perfectly well why someone who does not actually want to be a monk or nun might enjoy a few weeks or months of reflection in a monestary. Indeed, many of the loudest voices in the secular humanist movement bemoan the loss of the institution of the church even as they disavow its theology and worldview.

There is a substitute, the Unitarian Universalist Association, which my wife tried for a while here in Denver, but it is an institution in the right theological space for the humanists that leave more traditional churches, but one that isn't quite sure enough of its own cultural identity to attract much of a share of those who are hungry for an institution in that theological space. It is trying to find appropriate music as fast as it can, but is still in the experimental stage. It must tread ever so carefully in how it says things during services to accommodate its very big theological tent, and hasn't had so much practice doing so that its rote application is easily attained by an unsophisticated newcomer. It is so far, a promising direction but is embryonic in its development and struggling to grow as fast of the community of people who are like minded does.

I am certainly not someone who left the folds of Christianity because I found church music or the liturgy stuffy or outdated. Indeed, those were the things that kept me going to church many years after my theological faith had crumbled under the weight of science and history and bible reading that disclosed a biblical moral order that is foreign to the point of being repugnant, and a scripture with more rough edges than I had supposed that it held when I was in ignorance of it. I have more in common with the sensibilities of the urbane pagan Romans and Greeks that Christians replaced, than I do with the religion rooted in the ideals and legacies of the Semitic herder people whose religion that replaced their pagan cults.

John Shelby Spong, the former Anglican Bishop of Newark, New Jersey, is the ultimate exponent of that trajectory of religious life, suggesting an entirely metaphorical reading of the Christian tradition and suggesting a kind of Christian life that is focused on preserving this tradition for tradition's sake.

While Spong is the most visible exponent of that approach, he certainly isn't alone. The inside joke is that nothing undermines one's innocent faith more than the academic lessons one learns in divinity school.

The early efforts to integrate folk music into Christian liturgy preserved much of the emotional sense of it, but I'm certainly not alone in having a critical view of the later rock era music that has infused it, although the quality of the musicianship in rock era sacred music has greatly improved over its early days. One of the more successful approaches is to slightly twist love song forms into songs about love for Jesus.

The modernist trend in sacred music started with evangelicals, and was really mostly confined to the black church as recently as thirty years ago or so, but has gone much farther these days. My father reports that the Lutheran worship service at the Congregation in his college town that features a modernist leaning "praise band" has much higher attendance than the more traditional service featuring off key renditions of the old homophonic hymns converted from beer drinking songs in Martin Luther's day that is favored by a much older component of the Congregation. Rock era music is likewise the norm in the Pentecostal and megachurch settings favored by my inlaws (their own church, while officially Presbyterian, as an immigrant church, had always had strong evangelical leanings in any case). Grand Junction's Presbyterian church was similarly shifting strongly towards modernist music with the support of younger Generation X and Y members at the time I left it and Grand Junction generally, around 1999.

One of the mysteries for someone coming from a high church leaning mainline church direction is why there hasn't been more of a neo-traditionalist or Unitarian Universalist surge as a cultural movement for just the reasons that Tim has suggested. These denominations, institutionally, haven't seen that happen, even though it seems like an entirely possible cultural direction and has some seeds in high church environments that make all sorts of sense.

Places like the Dakotas have seen something of a resurgence in religious involvement, but not from the revitalization of the region's historically dominant Lutheran and Roman Catholic Churches. Instead, they have seen mass exodus to new more Evangelically leaning churches. Some conservative liturgical churches, like the Missouri Synod Lutherans, have received new members from this exodus, but they certainly haven't benefited to any greater extent than other theologically conservative historical Christian denominations, and post-denominational megachurches have left even conservative historical Christian denominations in the dust.

Rather than recommitting to neo-traditionalism, the ambiguous non-religious world that I and many of my cousins have ended up in has seemed to be a stronger draw. Classical music remains popular (even in teen literature). But, the classical music loving, elegant dressing, poetry embracing people who would seem to be the most likely to embrace neo-traditionalist sacred music, don't seem to be connecting with and embracing the mainline churches that would be their natural homes.

In part, I think that the issue is that the culture that the churches embrace is not threatened. Religious institutions thrive when they protect a threatened culture. Irish Catholics for whom the church was a culture preserving refuge against the Protestant English for centuries are more fervent in their support of the church than Italian Catholics for whom their faith has always been unquestionably secure. Immigrant churches are frequently more vibrant than those of the immigrant's homelands, since they preserve a cultural heritage threatened in the new country until enough generations pass for the immigrant descendants to almost fully assimilate. I think the vibrancy of evangelical Christianity is best explained through its role in the preservation of Southern culture in the face of the dominant establishment culture of the United States as a whole. Mainline Christian churches, in contrast, largely embrace the dominant establishment culture of the United States and so there is no need to call people to defend them against some cultural threat if their members are to retain their own culture in tact. In the absence of this cultural imperative to call youth to action, the hair color of the congregants in the pews increasingly trends to white, attendance dips, and the members of the younger generation who have kept the faith have awesome institutional resources and awe inspiring traditions to maintain with very few people to carry them out.

Most of the people in church on a given Sunday in England are immigrants.  Empty Anglican churches dot the countryside and even those that are used are often filled to nowhere near capacity.  The surge in non-religious identification in Europe preceded that in the United States by several decades, but ultimately, the Vatican isn't wrong to identify secularization as one of its deepest and most profound challenges. Immigration and the cultural divide between the American South and the American North have concealed the shift, but the trend towards non-religious views among whites in the American North has been stronger than even the rapidly growing ranks of those who identify that way suggest.

Mainline churches have also been slow and late in putting distance between themselves and the evangelical churches in the tradition of the American South. Rather than successfully portraying themselves as culturally threatened by Southern conservative religion, they have found themselves swept up in a broad brush characterization of all Christians with the most vocal Southern conservatives.

A Footnote On The Disappearing Generation Gap

I also have to concur with Tim on the shifting nature of the generation gap. While I don't pretend to be a "cool dad" and regularly embarrass my children with my outdated sense of fashion and music and literature, the generation gap that drove the cultural revolution in the Western world of the late 1960s and early 1970s has largely run its course.

The music my children listen to and the television and movies they watch, and the books they enjoy reading, are not incomprehensible, if not always precisely to my tastes. The Beetles are a generation neutral musical force. The younger generation's values don't seem that different from mine. We watch opera and ballet together, while also listening the Justin Bieber and the Jonas Brothers and Selena Gomez together now and then.

When I was a kid, I was part of the first generation to really embrace soccer over more traditional American sports like baseball and football. Now, my kids are playing soccer just like I did, but with a generation of adult mentors who don't have to read a book to learn the rules and understand the strategies and techniques that go into it.

The most stunning shift in fashion for the next generation is that blue jeans, t-shirts and sneakers are apparently no longer the de facto uniform of the American public schools, where a blend of athletic clothes and very casual business casual seems to prevail instead, and the declining level of concern about school uniforms as a means of controlling youthful freedom of expression.

Today's parental experience is well captures in cable TV dramedies like "Weeds" and the "United States of Tara." It is a drama of parents learning how to deal with a new generation that is reproducing closely the life choices that their parents made, only when their parents made them, their parents were rebelling against their parents and making choices dramatically different from those of their own parents. We are shocked at times at how little independence and rebellion they seem to show. The classic dilemma of the modern parent is not to convince a child to make the choices you did, but to convince your children that your choices don't all bear repeating.

Good For the Goose, Good For the Gander

After making civil procedure history by establishing the principle that customer disputes against it must be pursued in arbitration one customer at a time, AT&T is now shocked that customers are bringing antitrust suits against it one at a time in arbitration cases rather than on a class action basis as they otherwise would have and are asking the federal courts to stop the madness and enjoin the arbitration cases. Apparently, nobody told AT&T that their ability to choose a forum by contract does not include a right to ignore substantive law established by Congress as well.

If At&T wanted to carve certain cases out of the arbitration clauses that they wrote, they could have done so. Now, turnabout is fair play.

To Make A Democracy Last: Legislature First; President Second

Good weather also helps.

Steven Fish and Matthew Kroenig [did research] on how dictatorships successfully transition to democracies:

In 2009, working with data collected since 2007, the two claimed to have found a connection that could predict a successful transition between dictatorship and democracy. It was, simply put, to have a post-Revolution legislative body in place before holding national elections to put a single leader in power. The Vaclav Havels and Nelson Mandelas of the world, it turns out, are in the minority.

From Enik Rising.

Another study reported today noted the link between civil wars and uprisings and the El Niño effect in tropical climate countries. During El Niños, there are more civil wars and uprisings. "El Niño, which strikes every three to seven years, may partially account for a fifth of worldwide conflicts during the past half-century."

Then again, "La Niña conditions" which are the flip extreme of the same phenomena, are associated with current drought in Eastern Africa, that is causing tens of thousands of people a month to starve to death in Somolia right now.

Root Causes Of Poverty: Choice or Misfortune

David French at National Review Online speaking about poverty:

"It is simply a fact that our social problems are increasingly connected to the depravity of the poor. If an American works hard, completes their education, gets married, and stays married, then they will rarely — very rarely — be poor. At the same time, poverty is the handmaiden of illegitimacy, divorce, ignorance, and addiction. As we have poured money into welfare, we’ve done nothing to address the behaviors that lead to poverty while doing all we can to make that poverty more comfortable and sustainable."

French here is committing the sadly common sin of assuming a correlation indicates a causation, and he's doing so in a way that conveniently reinforces his worldview. It is certainly true that people who complete an education and stay married are less likely to be poor. But it is not obvious that the former leads to the latter. Note that the second sentence quoted above:

"If an American works hard, completes their education, gets married, and stays married, then they will rarely — very rarely — be poor."

can easily be reversed to say the following:

"If an American has money, they will complete their education, get married, stay married, and find meaningful employment."

From Enik Rising.

There is strong empirical evidence that access to higher education for people who otherwise are academically able to go to college is greatly influenced by family wealth. On this point, Seth at Enik Rising has hit the problem on the nose, and there is an obvious solution that has nothing to do with the "depravity of the poor." Fully fund scholarships based on financial need for everyone who meets merit standards necessary to have a good likelihood of success in higher education.

More generally, some people are simply more functional than others. Jobs, education, marrying and staying married are not unilateral choices. They are choices that require someone else's consent on a long term basis to a relationship, and some people aren't capable of doing what it takes to sustain those kinds of long term relationships, be they with an employer and co-workers, with teachers and fellow students at a school, or with a spouse.

Not everyone can complete the academic work necessary in an educational program successfully. At some point, a lack of academic aptitude, whatever its cause, becomes obvious and insurmountable. In any education system that has any meaningful expectations of students, somebody or other is going to fail to meet those expectations, and the people who fail are likely to disproportionately include the least able people in the system. Some people will always be incapable of providing for themselves without assistance from someone. Absent welfare or a wealthy family, these individuals will necessarily end up in poverty in any reasonably well functioning market economy. Categorical welfare programs rather than means based ones might be better, but they need help and our basic sense of community obligation to all of its members justifies help for them.

Another common reason to drop out of school is that a girl is pregnant and decides to have the child. It isn't impossible to finish an education in this situation, but it is much harder and it takes a quite compelling reason to devote large amounts of time and energy away from your infant child when any other possibility is available. It also doesn't necessarily make sense for society in the long run to encourage a new mother to put a young child in day care so that the new mother can toil away at a low wage job that barely covers the cost of day care, if that, rather than taking intense care of a child and preventing a cycle of poverty from continuing. Some of this is due to weak sex education (i.e. lack of contraception knowledge and knowledge about how one gets pregnant and how to deal with pressure from a boyfriend to have sex), but lack of hope, that is lack of alternative prospects for the girl's future that look promising, is also a major factor.

The plausible way to address this is to provide sex education and do everything possible to allow girls to see the possibilities open to them (ideally, ones that actually exist and are not just propaganda), rather than to vilify girls who do get pregnant, which is an abstinence only approach that has been empirically proven to fail.

In any case, once what is done is done, the issue is how to create the right incentives and some people are always going to get pregnant without getting married, sometimes with someone that they can bear to cohabit with and shouldn't be expected to cohabit with. The most critical issue is to not create biases in welfare program eligibility that discourage marriage, and to instead to be at least equally supportive, if not more supportive, of couples that enter into shotgun marriages.

A third reason that a person (the vast majority of the time, but not always a boy) drops out after a long history of disciplinary issues in school, despite having the academic ability to do the work and finish school. A life of crime frequently follows. Inadequately treated mental health issues, substance abuse problems (which have a strong hereditary component), learning disabilities, economic pressures and personal safety concerns arising from living in poverty, and an absence of any effective parents in life all contribute. Moreover, simply getting a GED frequently doesn't solve the behavior issues that led to the dropout situation in the first place, and a criminal record that often soon accumulates, aggravated by a tough on crime light on rehabilitation oriented criminal justice system, makes it very hard for someone in this situation to get a job with or without a high school degree. Some kids wouldn't thrive in any circumstances. Other kids are "orchid children" who can be brilliant in ideal circumstances, but will fail to thrive otherwise.

Higher mandatory attendance ages and stronger enforcement of truancy laws in a constructive manner can help. So can greater access to mental health treatment and a treatment rather than punishment oriented approach to substance abuse. A better social safety net for kids can also help to discontinue cycles of poverty.

Of course, it is also much harder for an unemployed or marginally employed high school drop out with a criminal record and a bag full of issues to get married and stay married than it is for other people. And, if someone like that is the father of a child that you have chosen to keep, it may not make sense for you to keep that person in your household.

Needless to say, getting decent job is something that lots of people can't manage to do at least some of the time. Unemployment levels do not rise and fall with tides of personal virtue. Apart from rare instants in economic history, our economic system does not naturally result in a full employment economy, and in any non-full employment economy, somebody is going to be unemployed and the less economically valuable skill and behavioral set that someone has, the more likely it is that they are going to be the one who is unemployed. Someone who doesn't play well with others, or lacks an education or job skills is going to spend time employed now and then, especially during economic downturns. You can create decent and comprehensive unemployment insurance, create "make work" government jobs, give employers incentives to create jobs that they otherwise wouldn't create, and create a better welfare system, but somehow or other, if you don't give people an opportunity to provide for themselves or work when they don't have jobs, they will have no choice but to end up homeless or take on a life of crime that only makes the hole deeper in the long run.

The very expensive option of last resort in our society is the corrections system, or having someone live on the street as a vagrant (which causes all sorts of other problems), or economic stimulus like additional defense spending or "stimulus programs" intended to boost the economy like the new home buyer's credit or cars for clunkers programs. But, every single one of these options turns out to be much more expensive and less effective than simply hiring people who don't have jobs to do something, or simply providing for the basic needs of the unemployed directly without regard to work efforts.  People evaluating the appropriate size of the welfare state because they are concerned about overall levels of government spending need to look at it as a choice of evils problem.  Failing to spend funds on welfare has consequences that lead to other kinds of government spending and other negative societal consequences.

There is nothing wrong with making life more comfortable for someone who is utterly incapable of doing anything to not be poor. Not everyone can find someone to marry them. Not everyone can convince a spouse to stay married to them. Not everyone can find a job. Not everyone is capable of obtaining a meaningful high level of education. Some people are predisposed to be much more vulnerable to drug and alcohol addiction than others or simply are addicted now and lack the personal grit to beat those addictions on their own.

No amount of incentive can get someone to leap over a thirty foot pole without assistance, and there is no virtue in making people who are economically inadequate suffer because they aren't worthy. No matter how good of an investment I think it would be to buy a downtown office building and manage it better, I can't do it without the support of people who are going to invest immense amounts of cash in that venture.

There is good reason to doubt that we have as French claims excessively "poured money into welfare" in a way that makes poverty "comfortable and sustainable." The welfare system in United States is remarkably stingy. No other developed country in the world lets people fall as far down as we do. The punishment for failing economic in the United States and the rewards for economic success are more extreme in the United States than almost anywhere else. Moreover, in the places were the political sentiment against welfare is being express welfare is most meager already. Mississippi is not at the bottom of state rankings on every imaginable statistic of socio-economic well being because its welfare programs are too generous. Complaints about excessive welfare spending mostly aren't coming from places like San Francisco, Boston and New York City that have relatively generous welfare systems.

Rather than focusing on austerity and cutting government spending on welfare, we need to look at ways to better enable people to find work, to have worthwhile alternatives to crime, to have the economic means to survive as a family unit, and to identify and obtain help dealing with substance abuse and mental health problems.

Also, often poverty has no root causes that can be addressed. We learned as a nation a long time ago that aging is an incurable disease. Rather than floundering around looking for an immediate cure for old age, we acknowledged that it doesn't make sense to insist that seniors who had failed to amass enough savings to work on pain of starvation and homelessness, and instead created Social Security and Medicare. This may have encouraged millions or even tens of millions of seniors who would otherwise have kept working to quit their jobs or scale back their hours thereby reducing the GDP. But, it also means that we have almost no seniors in dire poverty, and tens of millions of seniors who are lifted out of poverty and live longer as a result.

Part of a sensible welfare state is not only encouraging people to change what they can change, but recognizing that some people aren't capable of enough change to lift themselves out of poverty.

Evolution Belief A Function of Ideology, Not Brains and Education

While there is a correlation between evolution belief and inteligence, and between evolution belief and education, these correlations become statistically insignificant once you control for political ideology and religious beliefs. This supports the notion that your education and intelligence may influence your religious and political beliefs, but that once you have adopted as set of religious and political beliefs, those ideologies trump your intelligence and education when it comes to the issue of evolution.

I suspect that the political ideology component would also disappear if you could control for different flavors of religion and political ideology better. Hence, non-Christian political conservatives like Razib at Gene Expression and a lot of neo-conservatives are probably pretty similar in evolution belief to other non-Christians, while Christian liberals tend to have different theologies from Christian conservatives to the point that calling both religions "Christian" loses almost all descriptive power regarding how they interact with the world and live their lives and shape their beliefs about non-religious topics (and even which topics they consider to be religious).

Put another way, you first decide if you will listen or not listen to science on questions where religion arguably offers an answer, and then you put on your scientist hat only with regard to non-religious questions.

This sounds almost schizophrenic. But, it really isn't so much different from adopting one set of beliefs to try to understand the plot of a fantasy novel where magic is real, and another one to understand real life. Evolution is so far removed from the every day experience of the average person that the events it recounts may just as well be a fairy tale; unless you do science professionally, the downside of an inaccurate belief on this score (or even more in a yet more remote from experience field like cosmology) is almost nil, except for the social prices you pay for publicly holding or not holding that belief in your immediate social circle.

Disenganging

With the rebels capturing Tripoli this weekend, the U.S. military involvement in Libya, as part of a multinational campaign that it briefly led to give the rebels a level playing field against military grade heavy weapons like aircraft attacking lightly armed people on the ground, is essentially over. The war in Libya may not be over, but the U.S. can safely disengaged.

The U.S. involvement in Iraq, already winnowed to the point where there are no designated front line "combat troops" in the country, and scheduled to end entirely in December, may still linger into 2012 with a small contingent of U.S. forces to train and interface with Iraqi soldiers, but it will be as much over as U.S. involvements in places like South Korea and Japan and Germany and Italy at thhat point, perhaps not quite as safe, but simply as a long term small base, not as an occupying army.

The war in Afghanistan, despite being almost ten years old, is no where near complete, with years to go, but the brief surge there that President Obama undertook is well on its way to being reversed with troops drawing down from peak levels already. The death of Osama bin Laden and establishment of a reasonably friendly civilian government to replace the Taliban have left some partial successes. The casualty levels, despite a helicopter crash that was the worst single day ever of the war earlier this month, are not escalating and the size of the U.S. force there has always been fairly modest. The is genuinely a low intensity counterinsurgency war. The Taliban's foreign patrons, mostly from Pakistan these days, are not Cold War China or the Soviet Union. We are sliding into an era of relative peace and geopolitical tranquility

The wave of totalitarian government in the name of Islam has mostly fizzled in the face of an Arab Spring that has turned the concept of Arab democracy that many politicial scientists had feared might be inherently self-contradictory into the norm replacing most of the Arab dictatorship in North Africa and the Middle East that is not a monarchy (although the monarchies, while making some modest reforms have endured). This undermines the Taliban geopolitically.

Tunsia, Libya, Egypt, and Yemen have seen autocratic regimes fall, the Iraq and Afghan wars replaced autocrats with fledgling democrats. Politically strong monarcies in Jordan and Morocco have instituted democratic reforms. Turkey has quitely asserted civilian dominance over the military for the first time. Syria is fighting for its political life. Iran, on the verge of full fledged democracy in its last couple of elections has stepped back a bit from that trend, but the theocracy's hold has still weakened. South Sudan has cast off oppressive rule from the rest of Sudan, although that rump Sudan regime appears secure in the face of feeble protests. Pakistan displaced a coup installed President with an elected one, although violent factions in their society as it fights an active counterinsurgency war in the Northwest remain and it lacks full civilian control over the military-intelligence apparatus. And, don't forget that Indonesia is now ruled by a democratically elected civilian after decades of dictatorship, and that Bangladesh and Kashmir are in reasonably democratic and peaceful moments of their national lives after violent military led unrest and international tensions respectively. Bahrain crushed an uprising with Saudi Arabian support, and the Saudis have kept a lid on their own regime, but as annual host of pilgramages from Mecca and a wealthy country where people have satellite television, the shifting political balance of the Islamic world can't go unnoticed, at least for long. Algeria seems relatively untouched by the recent wave of uprisings, perhaps weary from its own ahead of the wave round of stuggles, but the dictators of the Sahara and Sahel must be justifably paranoid that their fall is only a matter of time. There is every reason to hope that a tipping point has been reached and that the future portends democracy for the Islamic world, and perhaps some moderation with it, rather than an intractable never ending conflict between the Islamic world and the West waged via terrorism. Frustration with local, Western backed despots has always been an important factor in anti-Western Islamic sentiment. Maybe that can change now.

Kudos to Allstate

Hey, I admit it, I enjoy listening to an advertisement from a national company as part of a nationwide advertising campaign that takes a moment to craft an ad specific to my neighborhood. So, I was charmed when a radio ad from Allstate Insurance, as part of its "Mayhem" ad series aired an ad about someone driving down Downing Street watching a volleyball player in Washington Park who gets distracted and ends up in an automobile accident, which I heard today.

Empirical Legal Research To Do

1. How often are derivative suits successful?
2. Is there a difference in success rates in derivative suits between publicly held and privately held companies? Which does it favor?
3. How many derivative suits are brought in state courts? Surely Delaware is an outlier, but what about, for example, Colorado?
4. How many claims are paid on officer and director liability insurance policies? What are the most common fact patterns?
5. What impact does a failed derivative suit have on the target company, even if it does not prevail on the merits?

Inter-American Commission On Human Rights Rules In Castle Rock Case

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has ruled that the Castle Rock, Colorado police violated the human rights of a Colorado woman when they refused to enforce a temporary restraining order that was in force, when she informed them that there was a crisis, which made it possible for her husband to kill their three children.

If it sounds familiar, it should. The U.S. Supreme Court took up the case and held in 2005 that notwithstanding language in the statutes of Colorado that seemed to create an affirmative duty for police to act to enforce restraining orders that there was no affirmative duty for police to take any action protect anyone (at least anyone who is not in their custody). This, in turn, because it presents the issue so clearly, has profound implications for the theory of the role of the state in society in the United States. For example, interpreting a right to bear arms under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as creating an individual right to armed self-defense and access to the means to do so, in at least some core circumstances, makes much more sense in a society where the state has absolutely no affirmative obligation to protect people from private violence, even though it often strives to do so, than it does in a society where it is at least possible to use the Courts to impose such a duty on the state when there is a well founded, judicially established reason to fear violence against a particular person from another particular person, and the state enacts laws that purport to compel law enforcement to implement that judicial determination.

Of course, the fact of the matter is that once the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on an issue, that a ruling from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights does very little more than add a fine print bullet point to the political debate that doesn't mean much to anyone but internationalist liberals, put a little dent in the already minuscule international tourist trade to Castle Rock (it does have a number of foreign counsels in residence which may help explain why this avenue was even considered), and to provide some sense of moral righteousness to the aggrieved widow, who was surely deeply betrayed by the law enforcement of Castle Rock, whether or not she had a legal remedy for losses as a result of their inaction.

Simply put, most of the time, international law means squat in the United States. More often than not, treaties are declared not to be self-executing, in areas as diverse as treaties we have signed relating to child prostitution to the right to diplomatic assistance for foreign nationals in criminal cases (we have been internationally condemned by international human rights courts before for executing people who were denied those rights), to extradition treaties, for example. We are happy to condemn other countries for violating treaties, but take a more cavalier attitude towards their domestic enforcement than almost any other non-rogue nation on earth.

On the other hand, it is worth considering the context that causes the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is inclined to take police inaction more seriously than U.S. courts.

In most of Latin America (and indeed most of the world), law enforcement is not primarily vested in the hands of locally elected local government officials, and there is a long history of human rights violations through systemic police indifference that amounts to implicit endorsement of vigilante or organized crime sanctioned violence against private individuals. It is a lot easier to buy off or politically win over police in that kind of system than in the United States and this kind of corruption has a long history.

In contrast, where there have been episodes in American history where this has been true in limited regions, like the Reconstruction American South where police allowed lynch mobs to operate with impunity, and police in Prohibition era Chicago who looked the other way from bootleggers, in the vast majority of the 21st century United States, over eager action directed at suspected lawbreakers by law enforcement, rather than law enforcement inaction, has been the predominant problem. Usually, cops are much more likely to face internal discipline for cowardice than they are to face internal discipline for using improper means to attempt to stop lawbreakers (with the principal exception of violations of the law by members of the law enforcement community itself).

Even in the Castle Rock case itself, no one seriously puts this tragic case in the context of a pervasive, organized, but impossible to establish, conspiracy against the widow or children in question with the intent of allowing the husband to carry out a crime. They may have not taken domestic violence, in general, or this particular domestic violence case, very seriously. They may have been lazy. They may have been incompetently bad at prioritizing their resources. They may have negligently screwed up and miscommunicated. But, no one in the Castle Rock law enforcement community thought that those children deserved to die, or would have refrained from action had they been more prescient and better organized, or was too afraid of the consequences of taking action against the husband to seriously consider trying to arrest him. Their acts may have been biased by a generalized misogyny and skepticism of a state imposed model for dealing with domestic violence that they didn't believe in, but it was not similar in kind to the common attitude of law enforcement officials in the Middle East that honor killings are justifiable homicide even if the laws on the books say otherwise.

Whatever their reasons for inaction in this case, it is highly implausible that the Castle Rock police were either bought off or intimidated by threats of harm to themselves. Nor, it is plausible to believe that they personally believed that an estranged husband has a right to kill his children by virtue of being their father as the law of the Roman Empire did. Police and district attorneys in Douglas County, Colorado (of which Castle Rock is the county seat) may very well effectively ignore the full letter of recent legal enactments like the elimination of the marital exclusion in Colorado's rape laws and may be willing to look broadly at what constitutes acceptable physical interaction between lovers or discipline of children, but they have no moral doubt that shooting one's own children with a firearm is unequivocally wrong.

The prejudices and biases that were present in the Castle Rock police department were disorganized reality filters that are typical of the conservative, overwhelmingly white, affluent bedroom community electorate who elected the people who ran the city that employed them. The fact that this mother was a Hispanic domestic violence victim surely did contribute to the overall evaluation that influenced the weight that the Castle Rock police gave to the situation. They would not have treated a plea by the Mayor's daughter related to a temporary restraining order against a man who was a stranger to her similarly.

But, this was also not even the more common American experience of a police force so defeated that it gave up on trying to figure out who is right and who is wrong is some big city ghetto where gangs contest for control of every street corner, most people distrust the police as much as they distrust the criminals, they are drastically underfunded and outgunned, and the vast majority of the crime seems to be directed at fellow criminals.

Indeed, even that situation has a notable feature that distinguishes it from the American norm of political accountability working to establish law enforcement responsiveness that is so much less routine in much of the rest of the world. Low income neighborhoods in big cities are the places where the disconnect between the residents of the neighborhoods that police are charged to enforcing order in and the electorate to whom their bosses are politically accountable is greatest. Low income neighborhoods in big cities have the lowest voter turnout rate, and as a result, voters from other neighborhoods in those cities dominate the political process.

Britain, which was recently struck by large scale riots in low income neighborhoods, is effectively one great big city in this respect. The local police are effectively responsible to the Home Secretary in London, not the local town council. There are local appointed consultative bodies that inferface with British police, but the local Mayor isn't the one who hires and fires their boss, appropriates their funds and writes their paychecks.

Conversely, it is little surprise that rural Americans, who elect sheriffs and local police and district attorneys in political units with very low populations, are demographically stable or slowly shrinking, and are extremely homomgeneous in values and demographics, tend to be the least concerned about legal limitations on police authority and the most supportive of "tough on crime" stances in the face of other considerations. Their law enforcement officials see eye to eye with them more closely than law enforcement in almost any other political context in the United States, or perhaps even the world.

All of this is a long winded way of saying that while police indifference is always a bad thing, the U.S. Supreme Court wasn't terribly off base, either given the structure of the U.S. political system and legal system, or given the general realities of the American criminal justice system, to see this as a very different kind of issue in our context than it is in the context of the Latin American criminal justice system which forms a backdrop of the bulk of the people involved in the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights which has caused them to conceptualize law enforcement indifference in the face of warnings of private violence as an important category of human rights violation. In their countries, human rights violations have been in one place or another the ordinary and most common kind of law enforcement collusion in human rights violations. The realities of proving that kind of conspiracy for individual victims of these abuses has made a human rights rule that establishes a greater police duty to private individuals who have warned them of threats of private violence through official channels the most sensible way of addressing this problem.

The parade of horribles offered up by the police in the Castle Rock case before the U.S. Supreme Court notwithstanding, it is also not at all obvious that recognizing a state created statute could create a right to some kind of response for law enforcement on pain of civil liability for their inaction in cases where a judge had considered the threat and found it to be real would actually have been the burden claimed. Nobody in the Castle Rock v. Gonzales case was arguing that the police had a strict liability duty to prevent estranged husbands who are subject to restraining orders when they are warned; the argument of Gonzales was that they were mandated by a state law to at least try to enforce a restraining order when the facts that they needed to have were handed to them on a silver platter by the mother of the children rather than blowing it off. One of the main ideas behind the concept of a restraining order is to try to get the police to take a potential threat seriously and to make it easier for them to intervene before a situation gets out of hand. The U.S. Supreme Court didn't have to create a constitutional duty of law enforcement to protect citizens in general, in order to make it constitutional for the State of Colorado to pass a statute that imposed such a duty on police in its own state to do so. But, that isn't what the U.S. Supreme Court did and the political theory it adopted in its actual holding is now central to the nature of the relationship between the state and its citizens in a broad array of areas, and to the most sensible interpretation of future cases such as Heller, the case that recognized an individual constitutional right to armed self-defense under the Second Amendment that federal courts had refused to impose in the most than two centuries that preceded it.