Don't Call the Cops

They won't come. Not for a long time, anyway. Unless it's a real emergency. And even then...who knows?

That's essentially what's happened here in our county. While most people are aware of the dramatic police and firefighter layoffs in big cities like Camden, NJ, there is a somewhat different --- and more interesting --- dynamic at work here in our little corner of Michigan.

Like most counties in our state, the territory is divided up into large townships of about 30-35 square miles. Within these, there are pockets of incorporated municipalities which are administratively separate from the surrounding township. Our particular rural township has about 2,400 rural residents, and there are about 2,300 people living in its one incorporated municipality.

Most of the incorporated municipalities, including the one we live just outside of, have a small police force. (They seem to spend much of their time camped out with a radar gun at the municipal line, where the speed limit suddenly drops from 45 to 25.) However, that police force will not respond to crimes on our property; their responsibility ends at the municipal border. We and all other rural residents are under the jurisdiction of the County Sheriff, whose services are paid for by our property taxes.

Last summer, the County announced that they would need to slash the Sheriff's budget by $2.2 million for 2011, and that they would no longer have the resources (i.e. deputies) for routine patrols or response to non-emergency rural calls. If we wanted more police coverage than that, we would need to approve a special millage on the November ballot. The money raised would be used to contract with the county sheriff or a local municipality for police coverage, or to form a new rural police force.

The assessment would've been about $150 per residence and $250 per business. Of course, Mrs. Yeoman Farmer and I voted in favor. We tend to oppose most millage proposals, but police coverage should be a no-brainer. Public safety is one of the few truly essential and appropriate functions that government provides. I simply assumed it would pass, and didn't even bother checking the election results for several weeks.

As it turns out, the millage in fact failed. Miserably. Each of the thirteen townships voted separately, and the measure only (barely) passed in one. It came close (49%) in one other township. Five other townships were in the low forties. None of the remaining seven townships, including ours, could muster a "Yes" vote in excess of 37%.

Interestingly, the one township which passed the millage has chosen not to contract with the County Sheriff for services. They are instead going to hire a local municipality's police force to cover them.

Mrs. Yeoman Farmer and I have been scratching our heads and trying to understand the election outcome. MYF's working theory is it's similar to the "boy who cried wolf" one too many times not getting taken seriously. She reasons that voters have gotten sick of being told the sky would fall down if they didn't approve an additional property tax hike, and finally decided to stop listening. That's a plausible explanation, especially given that our property taxes are supposed to be covering police protection in the first place --- and that, according to some locals we've spoken to, the county commission has proven itself less than trustworthy on some occasions. No doubt, some voters thought the County was playing "chicken" with us, and would blink if we didn't.

The County didn't blink. The first week of January, they in fact cut the Sheriff Department's staff from 223 to 187 employees. That leaves exactly two deputies on duty at any given time to respond to calls in the entire 440 square miles they are responsible for.

What does that mean, exactly? We're starting to find out. Earlier this month, when a student took a loaded handgun into a rural middle school, it took deputies 20 minutes to get there.

Fortunately, our townships are not high crime areas. But many of us are concerned that could now change. If you're a burglar, what better place to ply your trade than one where, even if you're surprised by a homeowner, it takes the cops 20 minutes to show up?

Of course, burglars know that most of us here in the country are fairly well-armed. Few would be stupid enough to break in when a rural resident is at home. Our family is especially fortunate in this regard; because we homeschool, and because I work on the property, someone is nearly always here. We're also on a fairly well-traveled blacktop road that's not far from a municipality, so lots of eyes would be upon someone carting property out of our house. But that's not true of most other rural homes; many sit empty all day, and are on isolated lanes. What better target than a house where it'll take a deputy several days to come out and even file a police report of your burglary? Just imagine how contaminated the crime scene will be by then!

Already, there is talk of putting another police millage on a future ballot; it'll be interesting to see if, as residents experience the reality of life with reduced sheriff coverage, support for a special assessment increases.

In the meantime, what's especially heartening is the grassroots response in some townships. People aren't just sitting back and waiting for the criminals to strike, or for government to act on our behalf. In the true American civic spirit, they're forming voluntary associations to address the problem themselves. Residents of one township, for example, have been extremely aggressive in forming a neighborhood watch. Signs like these:

have popped up all over the rural roads. The churches, including the Catholic church in that township, have been especially active as centers of coordination. Down in the church basement, there's a big stack of these signs that the Knights of Columbus and others have been working to distribute.

It reminds me a lot of something that happened when we lived in Illinois, and someone in our rural county began setting fire to barns on isolated properties. As the size of territory was too large for police to keep an eye on, a group of locals began organizing active patrols of roads with likely targets. I myself started taking a different route into town, just so I could drive past and keep an eye on more isolated structures. Anyway, after just a couple of weeks, one of the local patrols caught the arsonist fleeing the scene of a fire. They held him until the cops could arrive.

I'm sure hoping it doesn't come to that here in Michigan. But we're all ready to step up for our community if it does.

Why So Unusual?

I'm sure we've all been following news about the recent events in Arizona. Saturday's shootings were especially personal for me because Gabrielle Giffords is my parents' representative in Congress, and my folks live a short distance from the Safeway where everything happened. My mother learned about the shooting when a concerned friend called, frantic, wanting to make sure she was okay. As it turned out, my mom had gone grocery shopping that very morning at a Safeway not far from the one in question.

In the days since, I've read a great deal of material about the shootings. I've been particularly moved by what's come out about the victims themselves (especially Judge John Roll), and by the heroism of those who stopped the perpetrator from firing more rounds. I've also been appalled by attempts to ascribe the attacks to some sort of "climate" generated by those on the Right, especially after details about the shooter became known. Even though his victim was an elected official, he was clearly not motivated by ideology or partisanship.

I've noticed, however, that one question has gone largely unanswered: why is it that ideologically-motivated attacks on American elected officials are so exceedingly rare? In a sense, this is the "dog that didn't bark" of American public life. That dog didn't even bark in the current instance.

It took an article-length article to organize my thoughts. The good folks at MercatorNet have published the piece here. It begins like this:

In the hours following the horrific shooting at Gabrielle Giffords’ “Congress on Your Corner” event in Arizona, the rush to explain the perpetrator’s motivations began. Giffords had recently survived a hotly-contested re-election challenge from a Tea Party-backed candidate who was her ideological mirror image. In the absence of hard information about the shooter, it might be natural to wonder if he had been discouraged at the election outcome or otherwise inspired by the Tea Party’s anti-Washington rhetoric. Indeed, many on the political left ─ including the local county sheriff ─ speculated aloud in just that manner.

Although the investigation is ongoing, the principal suspect is actually a registered independent who was so disconnected from politics that he didn’t bother to vote in the 2010 congressional election. By all accounts, Jared Lee Loughner appears to be an isolated, deeply mentally ill young man suffering from multiple psychoses.

As analysts continue to debate the reasons for the Arizona events, a potentially far more interesting question has remained largely unasked: Why are violent attacks on American elected officials so exceedingly rare?

But please do read the whole thing. And comment if you feel so inclined.

More Hate

All readers know that the election didn't turn out the way I would have liked. I've thus far put up a couple of posts referencing the results; once I've caught my breath from the campaign season, I intend to put up a longer post with my thoughts about the outcome and what it means for the country. (As many of you are aware, my day job involves political polling and microtargeting on behalf of GOP candidates.)

Though I have strong partisan and ideological convictions, I am not a confrontational person by nature. As such, in addition to work for Republican candidates, I've been able to develop a strong "secondary" client base among left-leaning nonprofit organizations and foundations; they appreciate my insights, and the balance I bring to their research. In return, I have enjoyed the relationships I have built with them, and the opportunity to work on some important causes (not all of which I have agreed with).

Two months ago, I put up a post describing my first excursion into the fever swamps of the Far Left "net roots." Not a few readers of this blog are themselves left-of-center, and I appreciate the respectful tone they have always used in their comments and/or personal correspondence. But somehow or another, someone seems to have crawled out of those fever swamps and has taken it upon him/her self to tell me (and you) what they really think about this author. He/she seems to have gravitated toward my first post-election post, in which I jokingly speculated as to whether the liberals who had moved to Canada after the 2000 and 2004 elections might begin returning soon. I also joked about the rest of us trying to find Galt's Gulch before January 20th --- a literary allusion which seems to have gone over this person's head (as Galt's Gulch is decidedly not in Canada, but rather somewhere in the Rocky Mountains).

As this person did not leave an email or web address, it's impossible to verify his/her identity. But I will preserve his/her comment for the rest of you to get a good look at what crawls out of the fever swamps from time to time.

If you wish to criticize me or my ideas, please do so. I ask only that you be respectful of me and of those who take the time to comment on my posts. And leave my wife out of it. It may infuriate some of you that Mrs. Yeoman Farmer is a black conservative and did not vote for our current President-elect. You may disagree with her and my belief that these election results are good for neither blacks nor the country as a whole. Despite the highly personal investment in and commitment to racial equality that Mrs. Yeoman Farmer and our children have, I understand that others may have a different point of view. I ask only that you be as considerate and thoughtful in your commentary as I have been --- and always will be --- in writing these posts.

Vote Your Conscience

I haven't found a more succinct statement of what is at stake in this election:



Vote your conscience. And make sure your conscience is well-formed.

Say No to the Bailout

I've been wanting to comment on the financial crisis, and the proposed bailout, but have been far too swamped with work to organize my thoughts into a coherent post.

Rod Dreher over at the Crunchy Con blog has had some excellent commentary, and has summarized many of my own thoughts.

Donald Luskin is up with a piece today at NRO that really nails the critical reasons why this is a terrible idea. In part:

Even if you grant that this really is a “crisis,” and that it justifies an extraordinary intervention, there can be no doubt that the $700 billion authority being sought for the purchase of distressed mortgage-related securities is far too great an amount. Of the $1.26 trillion in non-prime mortgages — that is, “sub-prime” and “Alt-A” mortgages — $743 billion is already either owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, companies that were shored up by a government rescue earlier this month. That leaves $521 billion, which means the Treasury’s $700 billion would be more than enough to buy them all. And that’s even if the Treasury paid full value. In fact, the Treasury will get a steep discount, considering that many of the mortgages in question are in delinquency or default. Does the Treasury really have to buy every single non-prime mortgage — even the healthy ones — twice over?

And if the Treasury’s authority were scaled down to something more in proportion to the size of the asset market it claims to address — say $350 billion — must that authority be granted all those dollars at once? Couldn’t we start with $100 billion and see how it goes, and go back later for more if necessary?

In order to restore confidence in these shaky markets, there’s no doubt the administration would claim that its commitment must be both large and irrevocable. But considering the enormous powers being vested in the discretion of a single unelected official — the Treasury secretary — markets may also find solace in the idea that there will be an accountable process for learning from mistakes and making appropriate corrections.

I should note that Luskin goes on to discuss some mitigating reasons that could justify the bailout, and he does say that he's currently leaning toward supporting it --- just that he wishes it was smaller. I agree that some action needs to be taken to address liquidity in the financial markets, but the current proposal's massive size and delegation of authority to the Treasury Secretary are deal-breakers for me.

I've written my congressman to express my opposition. Whatever your position, I encourage you to let your own representative know what you think. You can follow this link to do so.

Motherhood and Vocation

The Sarah Palin nomination has led to some passionate discussions in the Catholic blogosphere about the responsibilities of mothers with young children, and whether such mothers ought to be running for public offices which demand so much of their time. These discussions have tended to be quite thoughtful, and a welcome contrast to the way these issues have been framed and discussed in the MSM.

Catholics understand motherhood to be much more than a biological function; it is above all a vocation of service, love, and self-sacrifice. Perhaps the most powerful and eloquent explanation of this is John Paul II's 1988 apostolic letter, Mulieris Dignitatem. This letter is mandatory reading for anyone who wants to understand the beauty of grandeur of the role of women in God's design. I first read it as a young single man, long before I even met Mrs. Yeoman Farmer, and it gave me a tremendous appreciation for what my future marriage and family life could be --- if I married someone who shared the Church's understanding of the vocation of women. Fortunately, I found that "pearl of great price," and the rest is history.

In Mulieris Dignitatem, the holy father does not give guidelines or instructions as to when or whether mothers should stay home full-time with children, or what kinds of jobs they ought to engage in outside the home. But given his discussion of motherhood as a vocation to complete self-giving and love for one's children, it seems that the normal thing is for a woman with a family and young children to devote herself to them as completely as possible. This is the course we have followed in our own family; MYF left her job as an attorney shortly before our first child was born, and she has been home with our kids full-time ever since. She never speaks of having "given up" her previous career, because she knew all her life that marriage and motherhood were the ultimate vocation to which she aspired. Practicing law was merely an interlude between college and that ultimate vocation.

But God has different plans for some mothers. In some extraordinary cases, in addition to granting them children, God gives women special talents and gifts that he expects to be used and invested and shared to enrich the greater community. He calls these women, and their families, to prayerfully discern the best way to fulfil their vocations to both motherhood and community service. This service can take any number of forms: education, health care, government, nonprofit organizations, charities, foundations, and so forth. In discussing this, Mrs. Yeoman Farmer and I quickly came up with several examples of extraordinary mothers whom God called to extaordinary vocations of public service:

St. Gianna Beretta Molla. She is primarily known as the "pro-life saint" who chose to carry her fourth baby to term, even though that meant delaying treatment of cancer. As a result of that choice, she died a very painful death just six days after giving birth. But what is less often remembered is, despite having three children under the age of four, she worked full-time as a physician --- even while her husband was overseas on business. (Doctors and medical facilities were scarce in post-war Italy.) As the Vatican's own website explains, "With simplicity and equilibrium she harmonized the demands of mother, wife, doctor and her passion for life." Clearly, she and her family viewed her medical practice as a vocation of service to others, something at which she was especially talented, and something extraordinary to which God was calling her to continue doing, even after the arrival of her babies.

St. Elizabeth Ann Seton had five young children, and with the death of her husband was in the position of raising them on her own and in great poverty. And yet, while those children were still young, Bishop John Carroll of Baltimore invited her to move to that city, found a boarding school, and then a religious order. That order grew to be enormously important in establishing Catholic education in the United States --- so much so that she is known as the patroness of Catholic schools. But she did all of this while raising her young children.

Queen Isabella, perhaps more than any other person, helped make Spain a great nation. At a time of enormous tumult, she and her husband (King Ferdinand) laid the foundation for the unification of her country under their grandson, Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor. In addition to defending against external threats from Portugal, and leading a fierce "reconquista" to take Granada back from Muslim occupiers, she was also the one who financed Columbus's voyage to the New World, which opened Spain's golden age of exploration and spread the Catholic faith around the globe. She and Ferdinand were also instrumental in confronting and rooting out corruption in the Church and elsewhere in their country --- so much so that the pope bestowed on them the title "Los Reyes Catolicos" (The Catholic Sovereigns). And she did this while raising five young children. (Do we see a pattern here?)

Isabella was one very tough lady, who challenged nearly every cultural norm of her day. Take a look at this exerpt from one junior high history book, which describes a time when Castile was under seige and on the brink of disaster: Isabel, now pregnant again, rode from town to town to get help. She raised troops, money and supplies. Isabel put her trust in God and spared herself not at all, riding tirelessly. At the end of June she took personal command of several thousand troops and drilled them expertly. They were animated by her spirit and her faith. Eventually she had assembled an army of 42,000 in Valladolid. (In the months leading up to the birth of one of her children, Isabella rode over 2,000 miles on horseback.)

Wiktoria Ulma was a Catholic wife and mother in Poland during the Nazi occupation. She and her husband Jozef had six young children and were expecting a seventh. But in those extraordinary times, they believed God was calling them to an extraordinary level of service to others: they sheltered several Jewish refugees in their home, despite the danger this might mean for themselves and their children. Eventually, Nazi patrols reached the Ulma home and caught them harboring these Jews --- and the entire family was dragged into the street and shot. The story can be found here and here.

MYF and I can't presume to read the mind of God, and aren't privy to any requests He may have made of Sarah Palin's family. But it seems to us that it is quite possible, and perhaps even probable, that at this extraordinary juncture in our nation's history she might be one of the instruments He has chosen to share her gifts of leadership --- five children and all. And perhaps it is precisely because she has five children, including the one whom 90% of other families would have exterminated, that God has chosen to call her onto the national stage at this time. She may be the one God wants to use to promote and defend an authentic culture of life, at precisely the time when the other side has nominated a man who thinks basic questions about when babies get human rights are "above his pay grade."

As I said, I can't presume to read the mind of God. But I do know this: I'm sure glad Queen Isabella didn't retreat behind the castle walls with her kids, when it was clear God was calling her to a great role on the world stage. If God is calling Sarah Palin to that same stage...well, God bless her and her family for answering that call.

You Go, Girl

Lest any doubts still exist as to children's absorbing the political orientation of their parents, I offer the following incident.

One of eight year old Homeschooled Farm Girl's books had a discussion today about the importance of being democratic on the playground. It was the usual stuff about giving everybody a turn, allowing everyone to have a say about the rules, and so forth. At the end, there was an assignment:

9. Write a short paragraph about how you can be more democratic.

Homeschooled Farm Girl used only a small portion of the allotted space. Her paragraph was very concise:

I don't want to. I'm Republican.

You Know You're a Political Junkie When...

...you move to a new state, and register to vote before you get a new driver's license.

Worse: you actually make a special trip to the county courthouse to do it. And take your kids along, calling it a homeschooling lesson.

Seriously, Mrs Yeoman Farmer and I wouldn't have done it this way if it weren't for the political parties in this state trying to leapfrog everyone else by moving the Presidential primary up to January 15th. Although we can't be sure that under GOP rules the MI delegates will be seated at the convention, we don't want to take any chances. And as registration closes 30 days before the election, we knew we had to hurry. So, earlier this week, we made a trip up to the county seat and made sure they had our forms.

And today our shiny new new registration cards came in the mail. I'm just wondering if, when we go to get our new driver's licenses next week, we can show these cards as proof of residency.

I guess we could call it "Motor-Voter in Reverse."

Faith in Public Life

Must say I was extremely impressed with Mitt Romney's speech yesterday about his faith and its role in his campaign for President. Not surprisingly, the pull-quote on all the network news broadcasts last night was "I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause and no one interest," and it was generally described in "game schema" terms such as "Mitt Romney sought to reassure nervous evangelical voters about his Mormon faith."

But Romney's address was about much more than that, and it ought to be mandatory reading for all those interested in the question of faith in American public life. I haven't heard this in-depth of a discussion of that issue in quite some time, and particularly not from a candidate for public office. Some examples:

There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adams' words: 'We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people.'

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

[snip]

We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust.

We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our Constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'

Pat Buchanan has an excellent discussion of Romney's speech, and why it is so different from JFK's famous 1960 Houston speech.

I've had a tough time making up my mind in the Presidential contest; I've been impressed with the different strengths of each member of the Republican field, and would be comfortable supporting any one of them against any of the Democratic contenders. But with Michigan's primary having been moved up to January 15th, Mrs Yeoman Farmer and I need to decide on a candidate quickly (and we still need to register to vote!).

Romney's faith has never been an issue for me; though I believe Mormonism is an odd religion and not truly a Christian denomination, I've always considered Mormons to be some of the strongest allies of Catholics and Evangelicals in politics and the culture wars. And I think Romney's mix of executive and business experience would make him an extremely effective chief executive. But what has made me uncomfortable with him was a nagging sense that Romney was trying to "re-brand" himself in this race, as if he were a consumer product which had been previously "branded" differently for his Massachusetts races.

Romney's speech has made me much more enthusiastic about supporting him next month, and it's not because he's made me "less concerned" about his religion or "assured me" that his faith wouldn't influence his decisions (a la JFK). Precisely the opposite: I'd been wanting to know more about how Romney's faith would inform his decision making, and in that he hit a grand slam. I was particularly impressed with his identifying a "religion of secularism" which the left seeks to impose on the country, and equally impressed by the depth of historical understanding Romney has about the nation's founding.

The great American experiment in personal and political freedom has succeeded in large part because Americans are a religious people who understand that rights and freedoms cannot survive without (and must be solidly grounded in) obligations and responsibilities. I'd been waiting for one of the Presidential candidates to tell me he understands this, too. And, like I said a moment ago: Mitt Romney blasted this one out of the park.

The War

This past week, PBS has been airing Ken Burns' new documentary about World War II. The seven-part, fifteen-hour series wrapped up last night...but if you missed it, don't worry. PBS will be airing it again this fall on Wednesday evenings --- beginning tonight.

And if you missed it, I cannot recommend highly enough that you see it the second time around. It is right up there with "The Civil War" and "Baseball." An instant classic, and something I plan on burning to DVD to keep for years.

Like all Ken Burns documentaries, it is superbly written and produced. Burns is a master of interspersing archival video with contemporary interviews, and overlaying narration or interviews with historical photographs in a way that both evokes a deep emotional response and teaches intelligently. He goes for both the heart and the head, and usually manages to hit both of them dead on. The current documentary is no exception.

What is most outstanding about The War is it is told through the eyes and experiences of the people who were there. The interviews are all done with survivors; we never have historians intrude to teach lessons. When it is necessary to broaden the perspective, Burns cuts to newsreels being shown in theaters back home --- so, again, we see and experience WWII in the same way a 1940s civilian would have, and not as a history professor would lecture.

Another excellent technique Burns uses to is focus on four individual towns, building a cast of characters from those places and sticking with them from start to finish. The documentary isn't strictly limited to these towns, however, and we do meet survivors from other places. But by constantly returning to the four towns, it helps bring the enormity of WWII down to a more human scale.

And that, I think, is what this documentary does best: it shows how the entire nation experienced the war, and how it drew all of us together. WWII literally left no family untouched; I'd known that intellectually, but this documentary really brings that to life. I found myself frequently wishing I could call my grandfather, who was a career Naval officer, and ask him to tell me more about the events that took place in the South Pacific --- or my other grandparents, who experienced WWII stateside --- but unfortunately all of them have passed away. And I found myself grateful that Burns made this documentary when he did, while enough of the original participants were still living and could give a coherent account of the original events.

The images that will stick most firmly in my mind are the brief shots we see of Catholic priests celebrating Mass on the decks of ships (sometimes on small and crowded troop transport boats), and of battle-weary Marines in tattered clothing kneeling in the sand to receive Holy Communion.

Another thing that really struck me: watching these 80 and 90 year olds getting choked up and wiping tears as they recalled learning about the passing of Franklin Roosevelt. More than 60 years later, and those memories still evoke those kinds of emotions; I can't imagine anything comparable for our generation.

The only way in which I think it falls short of The Civil War and Baseball is in the music. The music in The War is nice, but it's mostly 1940s jazzy stuff and Sinatra. There is also an original score by Wynton Marsalis that is used to excellent effect. But I think the music in The Civil War and Baseball was better because those scores used a great number of variations on just one or two songs, which gave the whole documentary a somewhat more unified feel. But in the scheme of things, that is a quibble. Another quibble is the narration; I preferred John Chancellor (Baseball) and David McCullough (Civil War) to Keith David.

In telling a story this vast, some things by necessity must be left out. I did think it odd we never saw the raising of the flag on Iwo Jima, but that may have been by design --- we all know that story, and it's been done to death. Others will have different specific events that they were looking for and didn't see mentioned. We got the usual litany of groups "other than Jews" exterminated in the Holocaust (homosexuals, gypsies, the handicapped, etc), but no mention of faithful Catholics (i.e. Sts. Maximilian Kolbe and Edith Stein). There was also no mention of "celebrities," such as JFK and PT 109, George H. W. Bush being shot down, the death of Joseph Kennedy, Jr., etc --- and the omission of these "American celebrities" was actually refreshing. I'm glad Burns stayed disciplined and kept the focus more on the ordinary people than on folks we have all heard of.

The one exception is the amount of screen time given to Daniel Inouye. Granted, I doubt the typical American knows Inouye is a U.S. Senator (though this is mentioned toward the end, almost as an afterthought), and his Medal-of-Honor-winning heroics on the battlefield (while his government kept other Japanese Americans interned in camps back home) make for a truly compelling story. But I kept waiting for even a single mention of Bob Dole; after all, both he and Inouye were severely injured while fighting in Italy in the spring of 1945 --- and the two became lifelong friends when they were recovering from their injuries at the same Army hospital in Michigan. I guess this is the only omission that really surprised me, given how hard Burns worked to keep the Baseball documentary politically balanced (Mario Cuomo got quite a bit of screen time, but so did George Will).

I know I have some readers who have ditched their televisions, and I salute them for it. But if you can see fit to drag the thing out of the closet for just one media event, I highly recommend that this be the one. It is truly outstanding, and television at its best.

Tax Time

Most folks only think about their taxes in April. Those of us who are self-employed have to think about their taxes at least every quarter, when we send in our estimated tax payments to the IRS and (for those living in states like Illinois) the state department of revenue. Today happens to be the day that third quarter checks must be postmarked.

I must admit that when I was employed and bringing home a regular paycheck, and taxes were being withheld by my employer, I rarely thought about how much I was paying. In fact, I rarely thought about taxes until I filed my return in the spring and received a tax refund check. Like most people, my first (and emotional) response to that refund check was to think of it as a bonus. It filled me with good feelings about the special treat I might now be able to afford. My thoughts rarely, if ever, took the next logical step: indignation that the Government had had control of my money for the last year and wasn't paying me a dime of interest for the privilege.

As I said, I rarely thought about taxes. Sure, when my paycheck came, I "saw" the amounts being withheld for FICA and for Federal/State income taxes...but they weren't real to me. In putting together our family budget, my "income" was the take-home amount on the check. To use round numbers, I didn't think of my "income" as $2,000 every two weeks, or whatever I was making back then. I thought of it as $1,574.27, or whatever the take-home amount was.

Once I became self-employed, and began writing out checks for my taxes every three months, my mindset changed entirely. Every dime that I earned from every project went into my bank account, and I saw it there in my account. And then I had to pull it out of that account and send it off to the government myself, just like any other bill or expense. I began planning ahead, establishing a separate savings account into which I held at least two quarters worth of tax payments. When I check my accounts, I see those amounts generating interest income for our family. And then, every quarter, I must slash those numbers and watch the interest income plummet along with our family's liquidity.

In short order, I found myself thinking a lot more about government. After all, when you're writing a check and paying a bill, you think about what you are receiving in exchange for that payment. When I write a check to the feed store, or my transcriptionist, or a focus group facility, or my survey data collection fieldhouse, I think about the quality of the product or service they provided. When I write a contribution check to our church or a charity, I think about the good works I am helping them provide.

So...when I write out those checks to "United States Treasury" and "Illinois Department of Revenue," what am I getting?

The late Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes is said to have explained that "Taxes are the price we pay for civilization." Fair enough. But if that's true, it would be a healthy thing for Americans to reflect a bit more on the nature and quality of civilization that their taxes are purchasing. Why not require each and every one of us to sit down once per quarter, open up his checkbook, and transfer money from his own account to the United States Treasury? If the government is secure and confident about the quality of civilization it provides with those tax dollars, wouldn't it be a good thing for her citizens to take a few moments each quarter to reflect upon that quality civilization?

Political Socialization

As a political scientist, it's amusing watching the way our children have been acquiring their views about politics and public policy. In the business, we refer to this process as "political socialization." Adults do not always share the political orientation of their parents, but the correlation is generally quite strong; parental party identification is an excellent predictor of a child's party identification. (I still remember a fellow UCLA graduate student sending out a birth announcement to the department; after listing his new baby's name, length, and weight, he closed with "and is reportedly a Democrat.")

We don't appear to be raising any Democrats in this family. Yesterday, my eleven year old and I were driving around running errands. At a stop light, he pointed to the car in front of us and remarked (approvingly), "Look at those bumper stickers, Daddy. 'Rush is Right,' and 'Bush-Cheney.' Those people must be Republicans!"

Then, when we got home, the eight year old greeted us with big news. Just like how Daddy had recently published a research piece about abortion attitudes, she had decided to write her own article about abortion --- complete, like Daddy's, with "numbers." Here is how it reads, in part:

Abortion's a bad thing. 3,9225,6225. Abortion's horable (sic). 6535,23560. ... I'm a Republican and do not support abortion. 3225,82201128.

Speaking of that article I wrote, one of our more remarkable findings is the dramatic pro-life swing among Generation Y over the last 15 years. The WSJ's James Taranto, among others, has speculated that this may be due in part to the "Roe Effect." In other words, those who are pro-choice tend to have more abortions than those who are pro-life, leading to a skewed population today. I've seen other research showing that Republicans tend to have more children than Democrats do. It'll be interesting to track the long term impacts of these fertility differences on the American electorate.

As for us here on the farm in Illinois...we're doing our part.

Adventures in Voting

Not only was today Tax Day...here in Illinois, it was also Election Day. If taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society, our family will be experiencing a lot of civilization this year. I'm just hoping that someday they move Tax Day to coincide with the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

The races on today's ballot, at least around here, were for educational offices like school board and community college trustees. Almost all were uncontested. "Choose two," and there were only two candidates. Or "choose one," and there was only one candidate. The one exception, and the primary motivation for us casting our ballots, was for the Paxton-Buckley-Loda school board. There were four candidates, but only three open seats. On one level, this election doesn't affect us: as homeschoolers, we will never send our children to the local public schools --- or any public schools. But, in a place like this, where the closest Catholic school is 18 miles away, public schools are the reality for almost every other family. School boards can make important decisions about what will be taught---and what will not be taught---to the children of those families. Two of the four candidates are friends of ours from the parish, and active in the Knights of Columbus; we thought it very important to cast our ballots in support of those two voices on the Board.

We took all three kids with us, as they enjoy the whole polling place experience as much as we do. And I still remember going to the polling place with my mother when I was a child; I think that may be the origin of my fascination with politics. As we pulled in to the Wall Township Hall, we gave them the usual high-minded words about civic duty and participation, and what a great country America is, and the value of showing up on election day. Funny, though, despite the "Polling Place" sign and American flag outside, there were no other cars in the gravel parking lot. Puzzled, we opened the door...and no lights were on. The place was cold and deserted. Had turnout been so light that they closed early? If so, why hadn't they locked the door?

We went back to the minivan and talked it over. The county seat was about 10 miles away; surely we could cast a ballot at the County Clerk's office. And perhaps they could tell us why the election judges had all left.

As we drove to Paxton, we passed the farm of one of the school board candidates. Much to our amusement, he pulled out in his pickup truck just ahead of us --- and we ended up following him all the way to town. "He's why we're doing this," I thought.

The Clerk's office was open, and the young woman immediately recognized me; I'd been in the day before, getting a sample ballot. "Can we still vote?" I asked, glancing at the clock. "Our polling place shut down."

"Wall Township, right?" she asked, astonished. "They haven't shut down."

"We walked in, the lights were off, and nobody was there," I explained.

She thought for a moment, then her eyes went wide open. "Ohhhhhh!" she exclaimed. "They moved it."

"But the polling place sign was up, with the flag," I told her.

"No, no," she said. "They moved it to the new addition part of the building, around back."

"I thought that was a storage shed over there," I frowned.

"It was. They finished it off. Sorry about that. I should've told you yesterday when you were in here."

"Can we just vote here at the Clerk's office?" I asked.

"Sorry," she replied. "You have to vote at your precinct. Sorry again about that."

I grumbled a bit, but we soon loaded the kids in the car and were cruising back toward Wall Township. We easily could've gone home. But at this point, casting a ballot was no longer about high-minded civics ideals...or even about getting two good guys re-elected to the School Board. This was now about The Principle Of The Thing. We'd already spent the better part of an hour driving all over rural Ford County. There was no way we were going home with nothing to show for it. Besides, elections are what I do for a living. I simply couldn't not vote.

We soon arrived at the Township Hall, drove around to the back, and found where the poll workers had parked. It was a beautiful, sunny day and they had the doors propped open; we were soon chatting and joking around with them. What's amazing is that they had FOUR election judges manning the precinct...and yet, at 5:15pm, my wife and I were Voter #23 and Voter #24 that they'd gotten all day. By contrast, in last year's primary, I think we were #55 and #56 at about the same time of day.

How rural is this place? Wall Township includes 36 square miles. There are no retail business establishments I know of. According to the 2000 Census, there were only 218 people in those 36 square miles, 148 of them aged 18 or older. Every single one of those 218 was white, making my wife now the only minority in the township.

UPDATE: We learned the next morning that our two friends from the parish were indeed re-elected to the school board. So, I guess all is truly well that ends well.