posted by Curt, on October 1, 2008 08:21 pm

Yes, the Senate passed the bailout bill today. Overwhelmingly. Both of Utah's Senators--Hatch and Bennett--voted in favor. Now it's up to the House.

But I thought I'd take a break from doom and gloom bailout analysis and ranting to have a chuckle and shake my head in disbelief at CNN's newest invention: Headline t-shirts, in your choice of many different colors.

Now you can go on CNN and off to the side of a headline (where you might ordinarily see a video icon, you may also see a t-shirt icon like this:

If you click on that t-shirt icon, you get taken to this page:

You can order your "CNN Headline T-shirt" in any color of your choice for only $15.00.

CNN apparently doesn't offer this service for every headline it displays on its site, apparently only for those they deem worthy of it. Here is a sample of offerings current as of October 1, 2008:

A conservative problem for Palin?

How financially afraid are Americans?

Football star plays drums at halftime.

Tripe, feet, offal back on grocer shelves.

Massive Facebook pillow fight erupts.

Pot-bellied dolphins put on diet.

McCain Palin decry 'gotcha' journalism.

Hollywood shows Palin fascination.

Haunted house faces $2500-a-day fine.

Pastors' politics may break IRS law.

Sax 'genius' stunned by $500,000 gift.

Skydiver proposes; rings falls out plane.

Rescuers free whale from shark net.

Ahh, America's capitalistic, innovative mentality at work. I just have a feeling this isn't going to last long folks. Either get your CNN t-shirts now or pick them up at DI in a couple months. If the badness of the idea doesn't kill this one, then the recession should. CNN t-shirts should be the first thing axed from your discretionary spending list.

posted by Curt, on July 21, 2008 08:05 am

OK, I'll admit right up front that I enjoy them, in a strange sort of way. One of the first things I do when I find an interesting article to read online is to browse through the comments that readers have posted. I even have commenting enabled on my own site . . . and I check for new comments regularly, even if it's always in vain. Rarely a source of any kind of wisdom, comment boards are generally a source of amusement. You can see what stupid, funny, offensive things people say about news. It's like a thousand mini-editorials without hardly any restriction on content. Many of the boards, while supposedly "moderated"e; by site administrators, are largely user patrolled--adding to the craziness. For me, comment boards are a source of amusement, much like the Opinion Section of BYU's student-run newspaper, The Daily Universe, was for me when I was a student at BYU (all of three months ago).

But lately, I've been thinking that perhaps comment boards aren't as harmless as I thought. In fact, I sometimes feel relieved when I read an online article from a site that doesn't all user comments. I don't feel compelled to browse through the comments and see how other people react to the piece. This surprises me a little bit, since I oft-times enjoy reading comments so much. My thoughts are so undefined at this point that they're probably better referred to as feelings. So, more accurately stated, I've got a feeling that comment boards are doing some damage and that we might be better off without them. Here's my attempt to put all this into words.

In the best worlds, comment boards exists so that a writer can get feedback on what they've written. Anyone who's ever been willing to go through the pain of letting someone else read what he's put down on paper knows how valuable another reader's perspective can be. But I rarely see any of this type of commenting on the stories of any large-scale publication or news source. Inevitably, it seems, when there are a large number of readers, the comments posted on online boards degenerate into tangential arguments (in the most childish sense) so rambling that they are impossible to follow, snide and offensive remarks, and personal rants/gloats by those to whom the issue involved has special significance. I'm not sure what's gained by it all. Although I'm sure it's something of an exaggeration, I can't remember the last time I saw any really valuable constructive criticism posted in the comments for a story on a major news site. It doesn't happen. People react to the news, not any analysis that happens to be in the posting. To me, there appears to be no benefit to it all.

Arrayed on the other side, I think there are some serious negative effects from comment boards. Not only are people using the anonymity of the Internet in order to engage in socially irresponsible behavior (as is the case with the creation of much Internet content), but there's something more wrong with it. I can't exactly put my own gut feeling into words, but it has something to do with the glorification of childish argument masquerading as legitimate debate. It's not a good thing, and I think that it does some harm to the people who post in that way and the people who read it. The apparent "e;thrill" that comes from posting comments results generally from tearing down someone else's work in a way that makes you look superior. This type of tear-down takes many forms . . . even (and perhaps especially) the self-righteous form: by criticizing other people for tearing down others (am I engaging in this type of tear-down right now?).

There's not much good that comes from all this. I'm not a Lincoln expert, by any means, but I've heard stories that he had a fairly large collection of letters he wrote but never sent. Generally, these were "angry" letters . . . ones in which he (usually justifiably) took another person to task for something they had done or failed to do. He wrote quite a few of them--but he didn't send most. Instead, he put his frustration down on paper, and then gathered his thoughts and responded again when he was more measured. This is the antithesis of the modern Internet commenter--who dashes off little more than an emotional response to what someone else has said, and hits the "send" or "post" button and then continuously reloads to page to see others' immediate responses. While his heart rate is still elevated, he finds that another has responded to him and dashes off a reply. Even better is when someone gives one of his responses a "quot;thumbs up." Before he knows it, an afternoon is wasted and the comments page is miles long.

While I've have seen good commenting on the internet, I've never seen it on a news site. It's generally found is small doses, and on small blogs, where an author writes about something with an uncertain and questioning attitude. Readers then respond with helpful feedback. But where an author takes a strong position on something, or simply reports a happening, commenting inevitably degenerates in ways that are no good for the author (because the response probably simply encourages him to stir up some more contention), the commentators, or the comment-readers. That's why I think that "reporting" or "position" sites should disable comments.

I think I'm going to be boycotting the comment boards of internet news sites, and any large-scale online publication, from now on. And feel free to laugh at my astounding hypocrisy as I leave the comments feature on my site enabled for now. It's really mainly so I know if anyone has even read what I've written. Perhaps I'll write in a disabling comments feature into my code for posts where I take a position.

posted by Curt, on July 17, 2008 09:56 pm

I thought I would post this very amusing quote from a new article by The Onion: Recession-Plagued Nation Demands New Bubble To Invest In

"Every American family deserves a false sense of security," said Chris Reppto, a risk analyst for Citigroup in New York. "Once we have a bubble to provide a fragile foundation, we can begin building pyramid scheme on top of pyramid scheme, and before we know it, the financial situation will return to normal."

You can read the whole, and highly amusing, article here.

posted by Curt, on July 11, 2008 05:25 pm

A few months ago, people were debating about whether the US economy was really in recession. It looked like, perhaps, the Federal Reserve had staved off financial collapse and that, even with the demise of their "housing ATMs," the American consumer was still spending enough to get the economy through its rough patch with minimal or stagnant growth. In addition, increasing US exports (fueled by the weak dollar) were propping up American industry, inflation was moderate (so we were told), oil was rising, but not yet out of control, and the government was getting ready to hand out checks via its stimulus package. Even though the housing news was bad, the economic situation didn't look extremely dire--in fact, it looked better than it did in other recessions, which seemed to get much less press.

It seems as though the debate is now over. The lack of the "traditional" bad economic news (i.e. hundreds of thousands of job losses), instead of showing that the economy was withstanding the housing bubble, really just betrayed this as what it is--a different kind of economic crisis: one not based so much on the cyclical economic cycle, but one rooted in the continuous abuse of credit and debt leveraging by both American businesses and consumers. This is a collapse of a system, not a normal downturn within the system. These collapses build up slowly and occur with relatively little warning (at least to those who aren't paying attention). I think people have sensed that this is what is going on, and that this is why the economic news has gotten so much press, even though much of it has been fairly mild (outside of the housing price decline).

These types of systemic collapses are not all that rare. They've happened before, and more often that just in the Great Depression. And when they come, they're painful. The last time America had this type of collapse was 70 years ago. Yes, that's right, in the Depression. And I suspect that we may be headed for another one. Hopefully not as severe, but I'm becoming more and more certain that it's going to be more severe than anything we had since 1929.

So what does this all mean for housing prices? They've already declined significantly, but what's so interesting (and scary) is that thus far the decline has been entirely self-induced. The decline in home prices has not resulted from any weakness in the broader economy. People still have their jobs: unemployment remains low. No, the "losses" in home values so far as just the elimination of the bubble excess. The whole problem is that many Americans have relied on those excesses, and can't take their elimination. We haven't even hit the bottom of housing prices in a good economy, and it's scary to think how far they could fall if the economy turns bad, and it looks like it's starting to. If the economy turns bad, and people start to lose their jobs, they'll have to start putting their homes on the market. The increase in supply will drive prices lower, especially when combined with tight credit and high mortgage qualifying standards, which are rapidly becoming the norm rather than the exception. Things will get even worse for homeowners if the Federal Reserve raises interest rates. The run up in value was driven primarily by cheap credit, not wage increases. If credit becomes expensive, sellers will be forced to lower their prices because higher interest rates will make a $300,000 home much more expensive (monthly payment wise) than it was back in the heady days of 2005 and 2006. This will further shatter the construction industry, already reeling from the current home price declines and $4 per gallon gas.

It's not a pretty scenario, and I haven't even mentioned inflation and lack of savings. If even part of this unfolds (and I suspect that it will), I would not be surprised to see home prices fall another 30 percent.

Now, one thing I've learned from watching this whole thing is that government intervention can be a game changer, and that you can't just assume that things will unfold according to the status quo. But it appears that even the massive resources of the federal government might be unable to steer us away from this one--even as willing as they seem to be to try. But you need to be aware that they are going to try (probably unadvisedly) and plan accordingly.

Even though citizens in a democracy should get what they want good and hard (see prior post about H.L. Mencken), they don't very often. But, sometimes they do. It seems that years of government softening the consequences of easy consumer and business credit might be finally coming home to roost. I have a feeling that we're about to get it good and hard and that there's not much anyone, the government included, can do to prevent it.

posted by Curt Bentley, on June 26, 2008 06:22 am

I just had to post the comment that I found on Marketwatch.com. I thought it was one of the funniest things I have read in a while. People certainly seem scared about things . . . more so than I ever remember. I haven't been able to make up my mind as to whether this time is scarier than normal, or I just wasn't paying attention during any of the other recessions. In any event, enjoy the humor:

Ladies and Gentlemen:

This is your Captain Ben Bernake speaking. Welcome to the now-bankrupt U.S.A. Air, flight number 1929, non-stop service to Depressionville.

After reaching a cruising altitude of 5.25 percent, we'll steadily drop down to 2.0 percent and hold it there for a long time before crash landing at Depressionville.

For your safety, please bundle-up Treasury Bills and stay in dollars. Federal law prohibits speculating in commodities.

Our in-flight entertainment will feature two Market Watch films, "2 Dollar Gas," starring Rex Nutting as comedian, and "Bull Run," starring Mark Hulbert.

In the unlikely event we loose cabin pressure, there will be a ten dollar surcharge to use the Oxygen mask.

After reaching the cruising altitude, we will be serving you complimentary doses of Prozak and Maylox.

If there is anything we can do to reduce your inflation pain, please do not hesitate to contact one of our flight attendants to receive a low CPI number.

Thank you for choosing U.S.A. air for your final destination, sit back and rest in peace.

posted by Curt, on May 6, 2008 09:42 pm

Well, we're back after finals, graduation, and a move. We now live in the exclusive town of Holladay . . . as renters. Yes, it's sad but true: we have not yet become a part of President Bush's "ownership society." But I'm really working to get into the homedebtor crowd by the time I'm 35. If I fail at that goal, Ros (and her family) are really going to wonder about the guy she married.

We moved up to Holladay the Tuesday following graduation at BYU. It made graduation week perhaps the most hectic week of all of law school--finishing finals and packing with three sick kids and a wife who almost threw herself into labor 5 weeks early by working too hard. But, we did it and couldn't be happier right now. Actually having a yard (for the first time in our married life) combined with a big downstairs playroom with brown carpet and walls has made all the difference in the world. The kids love it here. We live on a quiet dead end street with nice neighbors and plenty 'o birds. Randy loves it. He spends most of his days digging for different types of bugs and worms, taking a break every once and a while to chase after quail and robins.

Perhaps we're making it sound a bit too idyllic, but it certainly seems like heaven to us after three years of living right on the edge of big streets in dark apartments. We are very happy and can't believe our good fortune. Anyway, now that I've shared all my "thank yous" with anyone who happens to read this, I'll sign off. But before I do, here's a photo of our new home. Nothing fancy, but we sure love it.

posted by Curt Bentley, on April 3, 2008 07:35 pm

It's been hard to miss the gloating over the economy--both by those who are convinced that we are about to enter into a major, major recession and those who criticize the doom and gloomers. My prior posts leave little doubt that I find myself more aligned with the former group. Both sides seems convinced that recent events have shown that they've been right all along. The doom and gloom crowd can point to Bear Stearns and bad economic data and the more optimistic group can point to . . . Bear Stearns and somewhat better economic data. So, is the sky falling or isn't it, and what will it take for this thing to be finally resolved?

Nobody doubts that we're going/have gone through a rough time. It appears that the doom and gloomers were right about that. If you take government officials seriously, apparently the entire financial system came close to collapse (whatever that means) with the run on Bear Stearns. However, the more optimistic group views that same news with optimism. The entire point, to them, is that there has bee no financial Armageddon; the government institutions set up to prevent that reality stepped in and did their job. While it's not going away, the liquidity crunch fears that were so palpable in the immediate aftermath of Bear Stearns seem somewhat diminished. So, are we out of the woods or not? That's what millions of Americans, including yours truly, want to know.

Let me weigh in with my two cents. One of the hard things here is that it is impossible, in my view, to know what's really going on. People thought we were coming out of the woods right before Bear Stearns collapsed. One of the problems here is a tremendous lack of reliable information. I suppose that's inevitable when so much of the functioning of the financial system depends on the maintenance of confidence. Now, it seems, many realize that the confidence we had might have not been well-placed. At one level, the credit crisis is a confidence crisis. Nobody knows the exact financial condition of the banks that drove the easy credit economy of the last five years--perhaps not even the banks themselves. That's a scary thought--and people are starting to confront it. Could there be another Bear Stearns around the corner? Perhaps, perhaps not. Whoever it might be certainly won't tell us about it beforehand. And, if there is, how many more can the Federal Reserve engineer a rescue for? These are big, unanswered questions . . . and it appears that nobody can answer them right now (or at least no one reliable is stepping up and claiming that they can, and that, should tell you something).

The second huge unanswered question out there is what the Fed's actions mean for our future. Article after article talks about the taxpayers being "on the hook" for Bear Stearns now. What exactly does that mean for the next couple years and what does it mean for our future? What does it mean for us if the Fed steps in to act in a second, third, or fourth Bear Stearns situation? The whole thing strikes me as a rather ominous precedent that (even though it is getting some significant media attention) is not really getting the attention that is deserves. In the collective sigh of relief that went up upon the saving of Bear Stearns, we may be evaluating the action a little bit uncritically. We're told it was necessary to save the Wall Street fat cats in order to protect John Doe middle class. The "we had to save the bad guy to protect the good guys" rationale is unconvincing at the best of times, yet it seems like it is being embraced a little too readily in this case.

So, is the sky going to fall? I'm not entirely sure any more. At one time I was completely convinced that it was. So, I've moderated my views a bit at this point (and give Bernanke a little more credit for intelligence than I did before, although I still disagree with him on principle). But, despite my uncertainty about the short-term economic result, I am completely convinced that the landscape that we operate in is going to be significantly changed by our love affair with houses, big trucks, boats, and credit cards. It strikes me that, during the last few years, we made many promises that we're still going to have to keep and that there's a long way to go before we can sleep knowing exactly what type of bed it is that we've made for ourselves. Hang on for the ride, and, for once, America, live on the cautious side. We should all at least be able to agree on that.

posted by Curt, on March 31, 2008 10:22 am

I finally set up an AStore for Amazon.com this morning. I plan on listing all the books that I review as well as my current lineup of camera and running equipment (as well as any other interesting stuff that comes to mind). The good part for me is that I get a referral fee (it's not much, trust me) for everything that someone buys from Amazon through my site. So, I encourage all my fellow Amazonians to buy away! I figure if we get a few people (combined with me) buying through the site every month or so, I might be able to get $10 from Amazon every year! Doesn't the generosity astound you?

Anyway, there's a link to my store off to the left, but you can get there any time by going here:

http://astore.amazon.com/curtsnew-20

Enjoy!

posted by Curt, on March 21, 2008 05:47 pm

I've mentioned before that I am reading a book titled Devil Take the Hindmost: A History of Financial Speculation. I've even quoted from it in some of my other posts. This week I've been reading the chapter on the speculation leading up to the stock market crash in 1929 (and subsequent depression). Some of what I read was startling in the way it tracked almost exactly what we are seeing today. I'm not the only person who has noticed the parallels. People are writing about it all the time, wondering if we're headed for another Great Depression. Some say that we are, others say that the financial protective structures we've set up during the last 80 years make it almost impossible--in their minds the Great Deperssion was close to a once in history event that involved the coincidence of so many unusual factors that it will never be repeated. They may be right . . . I'm not sure. But what is remarkable is the extent that the last few years parallel the 1920s. Here's some history. Judge for yourself.

The first premise of the "new economics," as it was otherwise called, was that the busines cycle--the periodic undulations of trade first observed in Sir William Petty's successions of "dearth and plenty" back in the seventeenth century--had been effectively abolished by the establishment of the Federal Reserve System in 1913. Before this date, financial crises in the United States had been exacerbated by the absence of a central bank to provide funds to the banking sector durinf periods of instability. The Federal Reserve, with its ability to control itnerest rates and conduct "open market operations"--buying and selling government bonds in order to affect the supply of money available to banks--was hailed in the 1920s as "the remedyto the whole problems of booms, slumps, and panics." As a result, bankers and speculators alike were lulled into a false security which led them to operate irresponsibly, exacerbating the severity of the ensuing crisis (page 192).

Another:

Radios, fridges, cars, and clothes could all be purchased on credit. By the end of the decade, when outstanding installment debt had risen to $6 billion, it was estimated that around an eighth of all retail sales were made on credit. There was a decidedly speculative element in the growth of installment credit: present consumption was being financed with anticipated earnings. Put another way, in their appetite for immediate gratification, the consumers of the 1920s were devouring their future. When the future eventually arrived, they found the cupboard bare. At the time, however, installment purchases were seen as yet another beneficial new era development. Credit and consumption, it was argued, formed a virtuous circle since from the immediate increase in prosperity would come the ability to pay off debt. (page 198)

Some more:

The Federal Reserve in Washington--the institution that had supposedly abolished panics--had inadvertently ignited the stock market boom by lowering interest rates in 1925. This policy was intended to accommodate the Bank of England, which was suffering from an outflow of gold after a disastrous return to the gold standard at the prewar exchange rate. In the summer of 1927, the Fed bowed once more to British demands (backed by the French and Germans) and lowered the discount rate to a record low of 3 1/2 percent. Faced with the growth of speculation, the Fed changed tack and from February 1928 successively raised the discount rate until it reached 6 percent in August 1929. Yet the profits from buying shares on margin were simply too enticing. As long as the market continued rising, speculators were prepared to pay more for their margin loans. While interest rates remained too low to restrain speculation, they became too high for the economy as a whole (or what in the nineteenth century used to be called "legitimate commerce").

This sounds familiar to those of us who watched the market this last week:

In the face of minor stock market panics--in June and December 1928 and later in March 1929--the bull forces succeeded in regrouping. They came out stronger for their trials, until the point was reached when speculators became deaf to warnings they did not wish to hear and developed a belief in their own invincibility. Instead of reasoning, they thrived on countless rumors of fabulous wealth gained in the stock market by valets, chauffeurs, cattlemen, actresses, farmers' wives, and so on. In Only Yesterday, Frederick Lewis Allen described the trance into which the average American had fallen by the summer of 1929:

He visioned an America set free from poverty and toil. He saw a magical order built on the new science and the new prosperity: roads swarming with millions upon millions of automobiles, airplanes darkening the skies, lines of high-tension wire carrying from hilltop to hilltop the power to give life to a thousand labor-saving machines, skyscrapers thrusting above one-time villages, vast cities rising in great geometrical masses of stone and concrete and roaring with perfectly mechanized traffic--and smartly dressed men and women spending, spending with the money they had won by being far-sighted enough to foresee, way back in 1929, what was going to happen. (page 213)

And, finally, a long but good one:

Although stocks continued to slide until the middle of November, Hoover's administration acted promptly to mitigate the fallout from the Crash. The President's public pronouncements were consistently upbeat. He convened business leaders and urged them to maintain wages in order to sustain demand; private and public organizations were asked to bring forward their construction plans; and Treasury Secretary Mellon announced a small tax cut in November. The banking authorities also acted speedily. On 31 October, the Federal Reserve reduced the discount rate to 5 percent (followed by a further reduction of half a percent two weeks later). The New York Federal Reserve Bank oversaw a massive shift in the call loan market, as outstanding margin loans dropped by 50 percent between September and November. Foreign and corporate lenders continued to withdraw their funds from the call loan market, and were replaced by the New York banks which maintained low rates on loans and reduced margin requirements to 25 percent. There were no significant banking or brokerage failures in the immediate aftermath of the Crash, apart from the Industrial Bank of Flint, Michigan, which was forced to close its doors after it was discovered that a cabal of employees had stolen $3.5 million and lost it in the stock market. American corporations also did their best to steady nerves. The day after Black Tuesday, U.S. Steel and several other companies announced increased dividends. Samuel Rosenwald of Sears, Roebuck and Samuel Insull declared they would guarantee their employees' margin accounts. When General Motors announced an extra dividend on 14 November, the news was greeted jubilantly and the Dow Jones stepped off its low of 198 and rose by nearly 25 percent over the next few days.

Optimism was quick to resurface. On the day the market turned, Bernard Baruch cabled Churchill to inform him that the financial crisis was over; although this was of little comfort to the future prime minister, who lost more than L10,000--roughly L300,000 at today's values--in the Crash and was obliged to live frugally for the next few years. Baruch's was a conventional opinion shared by many of the smaller market players who believed the Crash presented them with yet another buying opportunity. The news was mostly positive. Turnover in the stock market was lively at five to six million shares a day; many corporations announced record profits for the previous year; and mergers in banking and utilities continued, as did the property boom. People took comfort in the fact that the major banks appeared well-capitalized. In New York, J.J. Raskob continued with his plans for the hundred-story Empire State Building, which he described as a symbol for "a land which reached for the sky with its feet on the ground." In his ambition to build the world's tallest building Raskob faced competition his fellow speculator, Walker Chrysler, who was building his own 1,146 foot high skyscraper. Meanwhile, William Crapo Durrant busied himself with new stock ppols. In March 1930, President HOover announced that "the worst effects of the crash upon employment will have passed during the next sixty days." The following month the Dow Jones broke through the 300 barrier, up nearly 50 percent from its post-Crash low.

Yet the "sucker's rally," as it was later called, came to an end in the spring of 1930 and the market resumed its downward course until the summer of 1932, when the Dow reached a low of 41.88 on a turnover of under 400,000 shares. In the intervening period, the country's gross national product had fallen by 60 percent from its 1929 level, and unemployment had risen to twelve and a half million. Over a third of the nonagricultural workforce was unemployed.

As the nation sank into depression, the apotheosis of the businessman came to an end (pages 217-219).

Some remarkable parallel's, huh? I'm not sure what will happen this time. I doubt it will be a 60 percent decline in GNP . . . but who knows? It's an uncertain time, and it seems to me as though it's time to go back to the basic, certain principles as much as possible (if you ever left them).

posted by Curt, on March 16, 2008 08:23 am

I ordered Beautiful Boy just less than a week ago, got it on Wednesday (I love Amazon Prime!) and finished it the same day. It's fearful and riveting and I couldn't put it down. It's a story of a father, his son, and his son's methamphetamine addiction. I bought it kind of impulsively. Thankfully, I have never been tempted to experiment with drugs . . . I have an irrational fear of them. It's hard to get me even to take a pill to relieve my sinuses. But, I live in fear of the possibility of addiction--especially with regard to my kids. I'm especially afraid of meth, because of the stories I've read about it in the news. When I saw the book getting great reviews, I bought it hoping that it would give me insights into the problem and what I could do to protect my kids.

The book begins with an introduction to the author's son, Nic. According to the book, Nic was a remarkable boy who had everything going for him. It then proceeds to show how his addiction to drugs and alcohol (initally marijuana and liquor, and then later, harder drugs) destroyed his life (and also put serious strain on the lives of his other family members). The book is written from the father's point of view, and you follow the father through his denial, his rationalization, and all of his grief and worry. David realizes, consistently with many other parents whose children are addicted to drugs, that he ultimately cannot protect his child from the consequences of his choices. Nic is in and out of sobriety, rehab, gone for weeks at a time, assumed dead, and did, in fact, almost die. At the book's end, Nic is sober, but the reader is left with the thought that this period of sobriety is as fragile as the ones before it: it could all end in a moment, and, indeed, the probabilities of a relapse are probably greater than not. The story is absolutely heartbreaking. While it may be comforting reading for those who are struggling with a family member's addiction, it is not comforting for all the rest of us, who continue to fear for our children.

That said, I do recommend this book for something beyond the story. It reinforces the fact that drug addiction affects all types of people. By all accounts, Nic was and is highly intelligent, successful, outgoing, conscientious, and loving. His parents (although a little left-leaning for my tastes) were and are devoted, concerned, involved, and tried from the very start to do the right thing. Indeed, their actions are the actions of model parents in many respects. In other words, Beautiful Boy reminds us that simply being a good parent may not be enough to save a child from drug addiction. There are other forces operating on children (just as they do on parents) and a child makes choices about how to deal with those. One thing that comes out of this book (and subsequent things written about it) is that a person (especially a teenager) may appear outwardly to have everything going for them, but may nonetheless be having a hard time coping with things . . . and may turn to drugs in order to cope. What I take away from Beautiful Boy is that parents have to be ever vigilant about their child's life and be ready to intervene at the first sign that things are getting out of control. While even early intervention is no guarantee, it's often the best that can be done.

The other piece of advice in this book is that those who have a family member addicted to drugs must guard against allowing the addiction to consume their life in a way that ruins their other family relationships. David Sheff references becoming addicted to his son's addiction in a way that had the potential to harm his relationships with his wife and other children. It strikes me that this is extremely important and one of the potentially most subtle and dangerous consequences of a drug addiction. It's good advice for people who have an addicted family member as well as something important to think about for those of us who may eventually face that reality.

In any event, I highly recommend this book--even though it scared me to death. It's an intimate and personal chronicle of many parents' worst nightmare. Finally, Nic has written his own story in Tweak: Growing Up on Methamphetamines. I haven't read it yet, but probably will when I get a chance. I've linked to the Amazon pages for both of the books below.

posted by Curt, on February 24, 2008 08:20 pm

I have been thinking about writing this post for a while now. The idea developed primarily as a result of a conversation that I had with my wife about Americans' general ignorance about the world around them. My wife was raised in Canada and during our conversation I explained to her my belief that Americans' ignorance of other places is just as much a product of cultural attitude as a failing school system. It is an historical relic of an isolationist history that seems absolutely astonishing given how much influence America exerts in a world that the majority of its citizens don't know or particularly care about.

But, this is not the main focus of this posting. As part of this conversation I expressed my belief that foreign language education in high school is an absolute waste of time and resources that could be better spent in geographic education. While I'm sure there are those who have gotten a great deal out of their high school Spanish class, I have never known one. I myself took three years of high school Japanese, and cannot remember any more than my father taught me on his own (and I knew prior to beginning the class). Now, this failure may not be unique to foreign languages. I strikes me as entirely probable that most people can say the same for their high school trig or algebra classes, and probably most social studies as well. However, even though ineffectiveness in outcomes is not necessarily a reason to abandon attempts at education in a particular subject (otherwise we'd pretty much abandon most, if not all, of the current high school curriculum), I am still convinced that foreign language education, at least in high school, is close to useless and should be abandoned. Let me set out my reasons and invite responses :)

Again, since I refuse to use ineffectiveness in teaching/learning as my criteria for which courses of study should be offered/discontinued, I'll begin by looking at purposes. What is it that schools are attempting to accomplish with foreign language education? At a broad level, we are told that it is necessary to prepare our students for a culturally integrated society and economically integrated world. In other words, society and the students themselves will be benefited by a student's ability to speak with others of different backgrounds in their own language. It seems obvious to me that high school foreign language courses have failed in successfully teaching the ability to communicate in another language. But, perhaps they have not entirely failed in preparing students to interact with others who speak different languages. In that sense, they may be somewhat effective in what we are told is the broader goal of such programs: preparing students to interact in an integrated society and world.

A second possible purpose of high school foreign language programs might be to serve as a introductory course that introduces students to various languages and stimulates interest in those who might want to pursue those courses in college. In all actuality, this is probably the purpose (at least in the current public educational system) of many high school courses. It certainly seems that high school courses serve this function for a number of people.

I think these are legitimate and even important purposes. Even assuming that high school foreign language programs serve these purposes, however, there are, I believe, more effective ways. Geographic education, which is largely ignored in today's America, would introduce people to cultures and places in a way that creates interest (at least in some) in future interaction and learning. It also has the benefit of exposing students to a larger array of places and cultures than does a single foreign language course. Geographic education also need not be limited to language education (which, in order to be effectively done, requires a level of concentration and classroom focus that simply cannot be found in an average high school classroom), but can be broader, encompassing other aspects of environmental, ethnic, cultural, and state relations as well. This broadness would, I think, stimulate more interest in a broader number of people than would a course targeted solely at language (and the necessary culture that accompanies it). While there is undoubtedly some overlap with the current "social studies" program, I envision geographic education as being much more place-focused; perhaps involving a mandatory course on American geography (discussing cultural, ethnic, and physical spatial patterns) as well as an elective regional course.

Admittedly, my views about what an effective geographic education would be are ill-defined at this point. But I am pretty sure that foreign language education is ineffective at accomplishing any of the purposes it could be plausibly be directed at and that geographic education would be more effective at, not only accomplishing those goals, but also at mitigating the average American's astounding ignorance about the world in which his country has become so involved.

And finally, let me offer my thought on why high school foreign language education--despite its obvious ineffectiveness--is praised, championed, and even accelerated. I think that there are two reasons. First, it's politically correct in today's America to be internationalist and inclusive; and second, foreign language education is viewed as an avenue for not only teaching cultural awareness but also teaching a practical skill (the ability to speak another language). In that sense, I think its champions view it as being able to accomplish the same goals as social studies/geographic education but with the added benefit of practicality. My own life experience (and that of those I know) refutes that idea, but anyone who has had a contrary experience, please let me know.

posted by Curt, on February 18, 2008 10:28 am

When I've had a spare moment lately, I've been reading a book on the history of financial speculation titled The Devil Take the Hindmost. It starts with the Tulip Mania in seventeenth century Holland, and talks about all the major speculative events up to the dot com bubble of the 1990s. I just finished reading about the railway speculation in 1840s England. I found some quotes from newspapers of the time that I thought pretty accurately described the economic attitudes of the last few years. Here are some of them:

There is not a single dabbler in scrip who does not steadfastly believe--first, that a crash sooner or later is inevitable; and secondly, that he himself will escape it. When the luck turns, and the crack play is sauve qui peut, or devil take the hindmost, no one fancies that the last mail train from Panic station will leave him behind. In this, as in other respects, "Men deem all men mortal but themselves."

And another:

It is only the play of children, trying to lift one another in the air at the same time . . . It is the simpler part of the public which is deceived.

One of the other things that was interesting about the chapter on railway speculation was that the author noted that it took "nearly two years for the full impact of the

And finally, ending with a quotation from none other than Bill Gates:

Gold rushes tend to encourage impetuous investments. A few will pay off, but when the frenzy is behind us, we will look back increduously at the weckage of failed ventures and wonder, "Who funded those companies? What was going on in their minds? Was that just mania at work?"

That seems to be just what people are saying right now.

Anyway, for anyone interested, I recommend Devil Take the Hindmost. If you have the inclination, buy it from Amazon. As always, if you use the link below, I get a referral fee :)

posted by Curt Bentley, on February 13, 2008 09:58 am

Our Securities Regulation Professor shared with us a story from a Dr. Seuss book that I hadn't heard before. This comes from the book "Did I Ever Tell You How Lucky You Are?" It is dedicated to all the business majors out there, the new crop of "bee watchers." Here it is:

Oh, the jobs people work at!
Out west, near Hawtch-Hawtch,
there's a Hawtch-Hawtcher Bee-Watcher.
His job is to watch . . .
is to keep both his eyes on the lazy town bee.
A bee that is watched will work harder, you see.
Well . . . he watched and he watched.
But, in spite of his watch,
that bee didn't work any harder. Not mawtch.
So then somebody said,
"Our old bee-watching man
just isn't bee-watching as hard as he can.
He ought to be watched by another Hawtch-Hawtcher.
The thing that we need
is a Bee-Watcher-Watcher."

WELL . . .

The Bee-Watcher Watcher watched the Bee-Watcher.
He didn't watch well. So another Hawtch-Hawtcher
had to come in as a Watch-Watcher-Watcher.
And today all the Hawtchers who live in Hawtch-Hawtch
are watching on Watch-Watcher-Watchering-Watch,
Watch-Watching the Watcher who's watching that bee.
You're not a Hawtch-Hawtcher. You're lucky you see.

In case you're interested, you can always get it at Amazon.com (remember, I get a referral fee :)):

posted by Curt, on February 10, 2008 09:06 am

Today I read an article in the Deseret News about a kid who got a perfect score on his ACT exam. Supposedly he's the only one in the state to have done it on the October iteration of the test. You've got to be impressed when someone does something like that--especially a high school student. However, as I was reading along, I found out that this was his fifth time taking the test. I had no idea that people took the test so many times. Ros kind of laughed at my naivety . . . her response was "of course they take it more than once." So, I thought I would do a search to try and find out how many people got a perfect score on the ACT on their first try. I couldn't come up with a single result (although I'm sure there are those who do). All this confirmed a suspicion I've had for some time: a number of these students think (and not totally without reason) that their performance on these standardized tests controls their destiny. Why else would someone put themselves through the pain of a college admissions test more than once? I only took that ACT once, and I checked out an old ACT book from the library and looked over it for a couple hours the night before the test. That was the extent of my test prep. Nowadays, it seems that the question is no longer "what did you get on the ACT?" but "what did you get on the ACT last time?"

It also got me wondering, how meaningful are standardized test scores in this day of prep courses and retakes (assuming they were ever meaningful in the first place)? This, of course, begs the threshold question of what exactly standardized test scores are supposed to measure. If they are supposed to measure ability to study for and perform well on a generalized test, then they are probably doing a better job than ever. If, instead, they are supposed to provide some kind of measure of raw intelligence, then the retakes and preparation is probably rendering them less effective (as well as potentially biasing those with the $$ to afford expensive classes and materials).

Here's something from FairTest (an anti-standardized testing organization):

Increasingly the ACT and SAT are seen as 'wealth tests,' not accurate predictors of a teenager's capacity to do college academic work," Schaeffer continued. "That is a major reason why more colleges and universities are moving toward test-optional admissions." FairTest calculates that more than 740 accredited, bachelor-degree granting institutions now have test-optional policies for substantial numbers of applicants, with 21 colleges and universities dropping ACT and SAT testing requirements in just the past year.

FairTest also claims that more and more colleges are devaluing the ACT/SAT scores in their admissions process (see their list here). However, the list of schools they provide hardly reads like a list of preeminent educational institutions. If you take the perspective that students and their parents are "rational actors" and this test preparation and retaking craze is a response to legitimate economic incentives, it seems that standardized testing is alive and well even though tests are no longer seen as a one-shot deal that measures ability.

While I'm conflicted about whether the prep classes and the retaking makes standardized testing results less meaningful than they otherwise would be, I am not conflicted about whether I think this is a good thing: I absolutely do not. The pressure has got to be incredible--and I doubt that the pressure is coming from the students themselves. That, to me, does not seem to be in the nature of most high school age students (and that's probably a good thing). It may be coming from parents, it may be coming from educators. But wherever it comes from, it's not a good thing. And I have a feeling that, even though FairTest's current announcement of the death of standardized testing is probably significantly exaggerated, if this keeps up there will have to be some changes in the standardized testing regime. It creates in students an attitude that their ticket through life is guaranteed by high test scores. I see this in some of my fellow law students (and perhaps even myself, at times). The attitude is that, so long as you are in the top XX percent of the class and on law review, you are guaranteed XX. While to some extent is true, I have a feeling that the world hits individuals whose most significant ability is taking an exam better than the competition smack in the eyes rather quickly.

I don't know that standardized admissions testing should be eliminated (especially given the volume of applicants), but I think that schools would do themselves (and students) a favor if they really deemphasized the importance of good scores on these exams. One of the things that would enable them to do that is if high schools would stop giving so many students straight A's. But grade inflation is a topic for another post . . .

posted by Curt, on January 16, 2008 11:29 am

It seems like the economy is the thing on everyone's mind these days. The Iraq War has really faded in to the background, partly because it has been shoved out of the picture by fears of recession but primarily (at least, according to me) because the troop surge has cut casualty rates to almost nothing (although there has been some bad news the past couple days).

Most people seem to accept the idea that the economy is headed for a recession, now. Poof! There goes the only potential bright spot of the Bush legacy--at least his immediate legacy. Time will tell as to how people think he did on terrorism. I know people think he has failed miserably now, but the passage of time has resulted in some pretty substantial shifts of opinion before.

The real question for me is: how long is it going to take before we really start to feel the effects of recession in Utah? By all accounts, Utah's economy is booming right now. People are still moving in and companies are starting up and things are generally good--at least that's what we're told. I, for one, am already feeling a pinch. Food prices are up, and gas prices don't feel like they've really gone down this winter (although they have receded from their high of $3.25 during the summer). Also, new home construction has basically slowed to a stop in my area of Provo (and I'm not sure it's any better anywhere else in the valley). It won't take long for these effects to start rippling through the local economy.

In any event, we will soon find out just how much of Utah's rosy economy of the last few years was driven by real estate. I suspect it is a substantial amount--more substantial than many people think. It seems like one of every 3-4 people I meet are either in the construction or real-estate industry. Both of those industries have been driven mainly be two things: (1) investment and (2) credit. Now, with the extension of credit coming back to earth and the flood of investment from California, Florida, Arizona, and Nevada becoming a small trickle, these industries are going to take a hit. This hit, combined with bad economic news from around the country will put us in the classic downward spiral. I think we're going to see some substantial negative effects here in Utah. Our economy here, like those in most other places, was built on property investment and consumption. The combination of the decimation of the residential construction industry with inflation is bad news for Utah--in my humble opinion.

As a final note, I find it instructive (and sad) to think back on President Hinckley's comments in the October 1998 General Conference. Here's a quote:

Now, brethren, I should like to talk to the older men, hoping that there will be some lesson for the younger men as well.

I wish to speak to you about temporal matters.

As a backdrop for what I wish to say, I read to you a few verses from the 41st chapter of Genesis.

Pharaoh, the ruler of Egypt, dreamed dreams which greatly troubled him. The wise men of his court could not give an interpretation. Joseph was then brought before him: "Pharaoh said unto Joseph, In my dream, behold, I stood upon the bank of the river:

"And, behold, there came up out of the river seven kine, fatfleshed and well favoured; and they fed in a meadow:

"And, behold, seven other kine came up after them, poor and very ill favoured and leanfleshed. . . .

"And the lean and the ill favoured kine did eat up the first seven fat kine: . . .

"And I saw in my dream . . . seven ears came up in one stalk, full and good:

"And, behold, seven ears, withered, thin, and blasted with the east wind, sprung up after them:

"And the thin ears devoured the seven good ears: . . .

"And Joseph said unto Pharaoh, . . . God hath shewed Pharaoh what he is about to do.

"The seven good kine are seven years; and the seven good ears are seven years: the dream is one. . . .

". . . What God is about to do he sheweth unto Pharaoh.

"Behold, there come seven years of great plenty throughout all the land of Egypt:

"And there shall arise after them seven years of famine.

". . . And God will shortly bring it to pass" (Gen. 41:17­20, 22­26, 28­30, 32).

Now, brethren, I want to make it very clear that I am not prophesying, that I am not predicting years of famine in the future. But I am suggesting that the time has come to get our houses in order.

So many of our people are living on the very edge of their incomes. In fact, some are living on borrowings.

We have witnessed in recent weeks wide and fearsome swings in the markets of the world. The economy is a fragile thing. A stumble in the economy in Jakarta or Moscow can immediately affect the entire world. It can eventually reach down to each of us as individuals. There is a portent of stormy weather ahead to which we had better give heed.

I hope with all my heart that we shall never slip into a depression. I am a child of the Great Depression of the thirties. I finished the university in 1932, when unemployment in this area exceeded 33 percent.

My father was then president of the largest stake in the Church in this valley. It was before our present welfare program was established. He walked the floor worrying about his people. He and his associates established a great wood-chopping project designed to keep the home furnaces and stoves going and the people warm in the winter. They had no money with which to buy coal. Men who had been affluent were among those who chopped wood.

I repeat, I hope we will never again see such a depression. But I am troubled by the huge consumer installment debt which hangs over the people of the nation, including our own people. In March 1997 that debt totaled $1.2 trillion, which represented a 7 percent increase over the previous year.

In December of 1997, 55 to 60 million households in the United States carried credit card balances. These balances averaged more than $7,000 and cost $1,000 per year in interest and fees. Consumer debt as a percentage of disposable income rose from 16.3 percent in 1993 to 19.3 percent in 1996.

Everyone knows that every dollar borrowed carries with it the penalty of paying interest. When money cannot be repaid, then bankruptcy follows. There were 1,350,118 bankruptcies in the United States last year. This represented a 50 percent increase from 1992. In the second quarter of this year, nearly 362,000 persons filed for bankruptcy, a record number for a three-month period.

We are beguiled by seductive advertising. Television carries the enticing invitation to borrow up to 125 percent of the value of one's home. But no mention is made of interest.

President J. Reuben Clark Jr., in the priesthood meeting of the conference in 1938, said from this pulpit: "Once in debt, interest is your companion every minute of the day and night; you cannot shun it or slip away from it; you cannot dismiss it; it yields neither to entreaties, demands, or orders; and whenever you get in its way or cross its course or fail to meet its demands, it crushes you" (in Conference Report, Apr. 1938, 103).

I recognize that it may be necessary to borrow to get a home, of course. But let us buy a home that we can afford and thus ease the payments which will constantly hang over our heads without mercy or respite for as long as 30 years.

No one knows when emergencies will strike. I am somewhat familiar with the case of a man who was highly successful in his profession. He lived in comfort. He built a large home. Then one day he was suddenly involved in a serious accident. Instantly, without warning, he almost lost his life. He was left a cripple. Destroyed was his earning power. He faced huge medical bills. He had other payments to make. He was helpless before his creditors. One moment he was rich, the next he was broke.

Since the beginnings of the Church, the Lord has spoken on this matter of debt. To Martin Harris through revelation, He said: "Pay the debt thou hast contracted with the printer. Release thyself from bondage" (D&C 19:35).

President Heber J. Grant spoke repeatedly on this matter from this pulpit. He said: "If there is any one thing that will bring peace and contentment into the human heart, and into the family, it is to live within our means. And if there is any one thing that is grinding and discouraging and disheartening, it is to have debts and obligations that one cannot meet" (Gospel Standards, comp. G. Homer Durham [1941], 111).

We are carrying a message of self-reliance throughout the Church. Self-reliance cannot obtain when there is serious debt hanging over a household. One has neither independence nor freedom from bondage when he is obligated to others.

In managing the affairs of the Church, we have tried to set an example. We have, as a matter of policy, stringently followed the practice of setting aside each year a percentage of the income of the Church against a possible day of need.

I am grateful to be able to say that the Church in all its operations, in all its undertakings, in all of its departments, is able to function without borrowed money. If we cannot get along, we will curtail our programs. We will shrink expenditures to fit the income. We will not borrow.

One of the happiest days in the life of President Joseph F. Smith was the day the Church paid off its long-standing indebtedness.

What a wonderful feeling it is to be free of debt, to have a little money against a day of emergency put away where it can be retrieved when necessary.

President Faust would not tell you this himself. Perhaps I can tell it, and he can take it out on me afterward. He had a mortgage on his home drawing 4 percent interest. Many people would have told him he was foolish to pay off that mortgage when it carried so low a rate of interest. But the first opportunity he had to acquire some means, he and his wife determined they would pay off their mortgage. He has been free of debt since that day. That's why he wears a smile on his face, and that's why he whistles while he works.

I urge you, brethren, to look to the condition of your finances. I urge you to be modest in your expenditures; discipline yourselves in your purchases to avoid debt to the extent possible. Pay off debt as quickly as you can, and free yourselves from bondage.

Remarkably prescient, huh? But what else would you expect from the Prophet. What I think is sad is that it is pretty clear that the members in Utah generally ignored his counsel. The house of the average member of the church in Utah today is more "out of order" than it was in 1998. We've had our 7 years of prosperity since 2001, and now the bill for our consumer debt is coming due.

I just hope it's not too high of a price to pay.

posted by Curt Bentley, on November 12, 2007 08:20 pm

I have a great new idea for a law review article: The Misapplication of the "Indisputable Evidence" Standard of Review on Instant Replay Challenges in College Football. It seems to me that most replays are reviewed under a de novo standard, when it should be abuse of discretion or clear error. Maybe I'll work on this one over the summer :) I'm thinking that the solution might be to have college referees take first-year civil procedure.

posted by Curt Bentley, on November 11, 2007 03:40 pm

I have been looking this song for quite a long time. I heard it played and sung many times -- including by my dad and brother who both served missions in Japan. This afternoon I thought I would site down and search the internet until I found it. Given that I didn't know the title, artist, or lyrics, it took me a little while. But, sure enough, I found it, and here is a video of it from YouTube. Enjoy "Sukiyaki," or, as more appropriately titled, "Ue o muite arukou" (I look up as I walk) by Kyu Sakamoto:

posted by Curt, on November 7, 2007 01:24 am

This is the first in a line of posts that I'll be adding about ideas/writings that have had a significant impact on the development of my own opinions. I hope they'll be interesting posts and perhaps point the occasional reader to a source that I've found helpful.

One of the many good experiences I've had at BYU Law School is the professional development seminar available to first-year students during their first semester. Some at the law school refer to this (and somewhat derisively) as the "Sunday School" class because it is often LDS focused. I, however, as LDS and a future attorney, found it a very valuable experience. One of the "talks" that we read that I remember most was a BYU Devotional given by Bruce Hafen, probably sometime during the 1980s, entitled "Dealing with Uncertainty."

Elder Hafen's talk is directed at college students, who, he notes, when confronted with (1) the ambiguity and uncertainty of life, and (2) the gap between the real and the ideal often have a difficult time in dealing with it. Elder Hafen's talk is advice to college students who "yearn with nostalgia for simpler, easier times, when things seemed not only more clear but more under [their] control."

Elder Hafen sets out three possible approaches to dealing with uncertainty--the uncertainty about how the principles of the gospel should be applied to "particular situations in our lives," especially those that are "not the subject of detailed discussion in Church manuals or courses of instruction." I'll quote from his talk in setting them out:

Approach 1: focus on the ideal and ignore the reality. These are those who have difficulty reconciling the gospel ideal with reality, and therefore simply ignore reality and live as though everything were the ideal. Elder Hafen's description of those who adopt approach one is amusing and substantially accurate:

For those in this category, the gospel at its best is a firm handshake, an enthusiastic greeting, and a smiley button. Their mission was the best, their ward is the best, and every new day is probably going to be the best day they ever had. . . . They are able to weather many storms that woudl seem formidable to more pessimistic types, though one wonders if they have somehow missed hearing that a storm was going on.

Those in this category eliminate the frustating distance between the real and the ideal by, in effect, . . . cling[ing] to the ideal so single-mindedly that they are able to avoid feeling the pain that would come from facing the truth about themselves, about others, or about the world around them. I suppose it is this category that is so frequently represented in the letters to the editor of the school papers at BYU and Ricks, where such shock is occasionally expressed that some person or some part of the institution has fallen short of perfection and the writer is aghast--"surely not at the Lord's university."

Approach 2: focus on reality and become cynical about the ideal. For this model, Elder Hafen uses law students as his example--not surprising to me after 2 1/2 years of experience :). Those who adopt the second approach confront the gap between the real and the ideal but also becomes victims of that confrontation. While "grappl[ing] with the frustration that comes from facing bravely the uncertainties we encounter" is necessary to develop the spiritual maturity necessary to endure well in the gospel, Elder Hafen warns that this confrontation of the "real" can "be so complete that the iron rod fades into the receding mist and skepticism becomes a guiding philosophy." How about this indictment of law students (yes, even at BYU):

[B]y the time our law students reach their third year of study, it is not uncommon for them to develop such a high tolerance for ambiguity that they are skeptical about everything. Where formerly they felt they had all the answers, but just did not know what the questions were, they now seem to have all the questions but few of the answers.

I find myself wanting to tell our third year law students that those who take too much delight in their finely honed tools of skepticism and dispassionate analysis will limit their effectiveness, in the Church and elsewhere, because they can become too contentious, standoffish, arrogant, and unwilling to commit themselves. . . . The dangers of which I speak are not limited to out relations with others. They can become very personal, prying into our own hearts in unhealthy ways. The ability to acknowledge ambiguity is not a final form of enlightenment. Having admitted to a willingness temporarily to suspend judgment on questions that seem hard to answer, having developed greater tolerance and more patience, our basic posture toward the Church can, if we are not careful, gradually shift from being committed to noncomittal. That is not a healthy posture.

Indeed, in many ways, a Church [member] who moves from a stage of commitment to a stage of being tentative and noncommittal is in a worse position that one who has never experienced a basic commitment. The previously committed person may too easily assume that he has already been through the "positive-mental-attitude" routine and "knows better" now, as he judges things. He may assume that being submissive, meek, obedient, and humble are matters with which he is already familiar, and that he has finally outgrown the need to work very hard at being that way again. Those are the assumptions of a hardened heart.

Elder Hafen warns those who acknowledge the gap between the way things are and the way they ought to be against becoming "so aware of 'reality' that [they become] unresponsive to the whisperings of heaven."

Approach 3: acknowledge the real and pursue the ideal. Those who follow this approach when, confronted with uncertainty or difficulty, acknowledge the reality but give "the Lord and his church the benefit of any doubts that [they] have when [the] case seems too close to call." Elder Hafen uses the LDS hymn Lead, Kindly Light as the example of the third approach:

At level one, people either do not or cannot see that there are both a kindly light and an encircling gloom, or that if there are both, there is no real difference between the two. At level two, the difference is acutely apparent, but one's acceptance of the ambiguity may be so wholeheartedly pessimistic as to say, "Remember that the hour is darkest just before everything goes completely black."

How different are these responses from that calm but honest prayer at level three,

Lead, kindly light
Amid th'encircling gloom;
Lead thou me on . . .

I do not ask to see
The distant scene-
One step enough for me.

The person at level three acknowledges the difficulty or uncertainty and yet still pursues the ideal as best he or she can because of the assurances in their heart that it is both possible and right.

I remember the profound influence that Elder Hafen's words had on me two years ago when I first read them. They taught (and perhaps reminded) me that the principles of the gospel are just that -- principles -- and that the application of principles to the various situations in life is never a certain thing, as much as we may want it to be otherwise. I have since noticed the approaches to uncertainty that Elder Hafen described being played out in real life as members of the church who are certain (or what desperately to be certain) about the truths of the gospel deal with their reconciliation of this certitude with the uncertainty of life. Some abandon the certainty; others attempt to convert all of their own personal approaches to the problems of life into the principles of the gospel.

There are some things I am certain are right, there are others that I'm certain are wrong. But there are a great deal more that I am simply not sure about. I just go ahead and try and figure out the way I think the principles of truth should apply in the situations I'm confronted with and act accordingly. But, perhaps the most valuable thing I've taken away from what Elder Hafen has said is the fact that, in a great many situations, the fact that another feels differently from me is not concrete proof that either he or I have somehow gone astray.

I encourage anyone who actually reads to the end to look for Elder Hafen's talk and read the whole thing. I also appreciate any comments.

posted by Curt Bentley, on November 7, 2007 12:25 am

The voucher program passed by the Utah State Legislature has been defeated at the polls in a referendum vote today. While I was a supporter of the vouchers legislation I'm not all that discouraged by the defeat, and here's the reason: I did not think that the bill would have had much of an impact. I was for it primarily as a means of experimentation as a way to improve Utah's educational system. But, unfortunately, the Utah Education Association was successful in its all-out marketing blitz against the proposal. The thing that disappoints me most is that I think that most votes against the voucher legislation were based on non-legitimate concerns. So, in what may very well be the most useless post on a site full of useless posts, let me set out, post hoc, what I believe are the non-legitimate and legitimate reasons for voting against Referendum 1:

Non-Legitimate

(1) It takes $$ out of public schools. I thought that the Oreo Cookie commercial rebutted this concern rather effectively. I'll let it speak for itself.

(2) We should be investing in our public schools instead of providing vouchers to private schools. This may be a credible argument, but the political will simply isn't there. Investing in public schools is the status quo and it hasn't received enough support. Also, it seems to me that the ultimate concern should be with children rather than teachers or school. The only ones for whom the end-all be-all is to preserve the current public education system are those who derive their living from it. For the rest of us, the concern should be children, not the public schools. If a different system would serve our children better than the current one, why not try it? While we should be skeptical about proposals to replace public education with private, the vouchers legislation hardly does that, and is, if anything, overly cautious about displacing public education.

(3) The vouchers legislation doesn't require that the private schools receiving state money be accredited in the same way public schools are. I thought this argument was the most ridiculous of all. Since when have we been concerned about private schools being held to the same standard as public schools? On this one you've got to have some faith in parents. Parents will not send their child to a private school (at cost to themselves) where their child is not being taught as well as they would be in a public school. It's just not going to happen. Whether they want to say it or not, this argument boils down to a concern that parents will be duped by sham private schools set up to receive the huge grant of $3,000 per year that the vouchers legislation would provide . . . I just don't think that's a legitimate concern.

Legitimate

I saw two legitimate grounds for opposing the vouchers legislation, and since none of these was compelling to me, I chose to support it.

First, people who have an objection to state money being directed toward religious schools certainly have a legitimate grounds for objection. As a matter of constitutional law, this has been "settled" (or at least currently decided) by the Supreme Court in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris. Still, I understand that there are many, even here in Utah, who have a principled objection to the state's funding of parochial education and I believe this is a perfectly reasonable reason to vote against Referendum 1 (it's just a reason that's not compelling to me).

Secondly (and what I think is the most compelling reason), is the concern that the vouchers program would just enable further social stratification of the educational system: comparatively rich religious children would attend private schools and everyone else would attend public schools. I think this is a real concern, and if this is the true impact of the vouchers legislation than one should really think hard before supporting it. On the other hand, we already have a great deal of that stratification in the public school system currently . . . our boundaries are set out geographically and often lead to some schools being classified as "rich" and others "poor" and parents make living choices based on these realities. I'm not convinced that the vouchers legislation would really do much to exacerbate this problem but there are others who disagree, I'm sure.

Anyway, those are my irrelevant thoughts. I think we'll see more of this type of legislation in the future. Give vouchers a little more time in the states that have adopted them and people will be able to see that it does not destroy public education and simply shows some faith in parents. Once the specters that the public education defenders used to defeat Referendum 1 are shown to be more apparent than real, this will come up again, and likely with a different result.

posted by Curt Bentley, on October 26, 2007 05:52 pm

When I first purchased Photoshop (v. 7.0), I was excited to have the top image software available. One of the first things I tried to do was to fix the red eye in our family photos. Imagine my surprise (maybe you've had a similar experience if you're here) when I found that there was no "red-eye reduction" tool in Photoshop 7.0. I was actually beside myself . . . how could I pay hundreds of dollars (even with the student discount) for photo software and not be able to fix red eye? Eventually, the help of other online tutorials, I finally figured out how to do it . . . and have not been disappointed. While Photoshop may not (or it may, I don't check anymore) have an automatic red eye tool, this way looks way better and is easy once you get the hang of it.

So, here it is, the answer for all of you wondering how to fix red eye in Photoshop. First thing you need is a photo with a red eye problem -- most of us have plenty of these. I used the one below.

Step 1: get a red eye image

The next step is to create a new adjustment layer. This is done by going through the menu structure: Layers > New Adjustment Layer > Channel Mixer.

Step 2: create new channel mixer layer

Once you have your channel mixer layer, then you change the properties of the "Red" option to 0%, the properties of the "Green" option to 50%, and the properties of the "Blue" option to 50% as well. Then simply hit OK. When you do this your photo should change colors to a bluish/greenish tinge. That's exactly what should happen.

Step 3: adjust properties of channel mixer layer

The next step is to change the foreground color to black. You can usually do this simply by clicking on the arrow symbol on the lefthand toolbar next to the color boxes (this switches the foreground/background colors). Otherwise, you can simply click the foreground color box and choose black as your current color. Once you have done this, then press the "Alt" and "Backspace" keys at the same time. This should return your image to its normal colors.

Step 4: change the current foreground color to black


Step 5: hit alt+backspace to return the image to normal colors

Next, change the foreground color to white. You might be able to do this simply by clicking, once again, on the arrow symbol that switches foreground and background colors. Otherwise, just select the foreground color box on the lefthand toolbar and choose white as the current color. Next, choose the brush tool from the lefthand toolbar and make the brush size a little smaller than the pupils in the eye you are trying to fix (also make sure that it has something of a soft edge). Then zoom in on the eye that you want to fix.

Step 6: change foreground color and select and size brush tool


Step 7: zoom in on the eye you want to fix

Now that you have the foreground color set to white, are using the brush tool, and have zoomed in, all you have to do is just run the brush tool over the parts of the eye that are red . . . voila, the red eye is gone and the natural color variations in the eye are preserved! NOTE: don't run the brush over the skin, because it will pull the red out of the skin as well, leaving it looking bad. Repeat the fix for each eye in the photo that has red eye problems. Finally, zoom out to see your result!

Step 8: fix the red eye


Step 9: the finished product!

Anyway, I hope this helps someone. This tutorial might be available elsewhere as well . . . but if you found it here first, I'm gratified.

posted by Curt Bentley, on October 21, 2007 09:48 pm

One of the big surprises of my semester so far, for me as much as for anyone else, is that I enrolled in a global climate change class at the law school. I consider myself to be a global warming skeptic, albeit not a strident one. My concern with emissions has never been climate change. It has always been air pollution--especially the effect of particulate pollution on children's lungs. Keeping the air clean for kids is a cause I can get behind. Same with reduction in fossil fuel use to eliminate energy dependency. As far as desired policy goals, I actually have quite a bit in common with global warming crusaders. I already do everything Al Gore suggests at the end of An Inconvenient Truth :). And, I despise the fact that so many people (especially here in Utah) appear to drive high pollution vehicles (that spew black smoke in my face every time their automatic transmission shifts down) for no apparent reason other than their vanity and the weekend boating trip. But the global warming crusaders have always rubbed me the wrong way.

Why? Well, I find crusaders quite annoying as a general rule. I have been one, at times, and I don't generally look back on my crusading episodes as my best moments. I, as a rule, prefer logic and reason to emotion. Maybe that is why the stop global warming crusaders annoy me so much. Al Gore is my case in point. He travels the world, convinced in his own mind that he is saving it, and derogating the intelligence and sense of responsibility of everyone who disagrees with him. Most times these derogations are quite subtle. They often appear in the form of "we need to educate those who don't understand what is going to happen . . ." and "they are well meaning, just like us, but misguided." I'm not sure whether those words are used, but that's the thought behind whatever is said, I'm sure. It's just like when Republicans attempt to appear broadminded by acknowledging that "Democrats are patriots, too" . . . a backhanded compliment if there ever was one. I experienced all this during my time at the University of Iowa, where my liberal colleagues viewed me as a casualty of a religious upbringing. I could just see the thought in their heads as we debated . . . "Curt has the intelligence necessary to do good in this world, if only he hadn't been raised as a conservative Mormon . . ." That was never said, and my friends treated me very well, but I sensed it nonetheless. Anyway, global warming folks have always alienated me (and perhaps others like me) by their alarmist (this is the end of the world for our children) and condescending approach.

But, I have, for the first time in my life, seen a different side of the global warming camp since taking my class at the law school. My professor, from the political science department, is an advocate for dealing with global warming, but not a crusader. Here is his approach to the problem. He argues that the science is not certain, but there is substantial evidence to suggest that problems may be coming down the road if we continue certain policies. Therefore, shouldn't we take preventative measures in order to hedge against the possible consequences of climate change? Additionally, he advocates economic development in the third world as a way to deal with any negative effects that come. The position is as follows. The best way with dealing with the effects of climate change is economic development. It allows people the ability to adapt to changing conditions (such as drought or sea-level rise or whatever). Therefore, one of the best climate change mitigation policies is to develop the third world . . . and the best approach to that may not be limiting emissions. This seems somewhat in line with the Kyoto Protocol's approach. I'm not sure if I agree with my professor's positions, but I seriously consider them because he presents them reasonably, and not like a crusader. He acknowledges the uncertainty in causation (although he thinks it is minimal) and more importantly the uncertainty as to the effects that global warming will have if it continues. In my opinion, global warming crusaders would have a lot more success if they tried to be more reasonable about their positions and (1) stop the fear mongering by acknowledging that global warming probably won't end the world, (2) present their policies as a classic risk-mitigation strategy rather than the response to the crisis of our generation, and (3) talk about the air pollution and energy dependence implications of their policies.

I'm sure there are those out there (perhaps many of them) who are already doing this. However, people like Al Gore are hurting the cause, I think. Just my opinion.

posted by Curt Bentley, on October 20, 2007 10:34 am

Here's another video clip of Andy "picking," "stranging," or "scrubbing one off" with Briscoe, the boys, Charlene, and even Ernest T. Bass. Just jump in where you can and hang on!

posted by Curt Bentley, on October 20, 2007 10:31 am

One of my favorite past times is watching old Andy Griffith Show reruns on KBYU. They come on every night about 11:15 or so. Ros and I end up staying up most nights to watch them. We still haven't seen them all, and it will be a sad day when we do. Anyway, one of my all time favorite Barney clips deals with him explaining his decision to release dogs in the wild to Opie. The YouTube clip is embedded below and the transcript, courtesy of http://home.hiwaay.net/~thefanns/barnisms.htm

Here's the video:

And the transcript:

Opie: Pa, them dogs are out there. They are out there in that open field. (Thunder) I'm worried about 'em Pa.

Andy: Well, you needn't be.

Barney: Opie, you don't have to worry about 'em. What could happen?

Opie: Well, that lightning, what about that?

Barney: Oh, a dog can't get struck by lightning. You know why? Because he's too close to the ground. See, lightning strikes tall things. Now if they were giraffes out there, then we'd be in trouble. You sure don't have to worry about dogs. (Thunder)

Opie: I'm worried about 'em, Pa.

Andy: Ah..

Barney: What were dogs a million years ago, wild animals, right? Wolves, coyotes, they know how to hunt and fish and look for shelter. You take them two big Airedales. Why they looked as healthy as horses to me. And the little spotted one, he was in fine shape.

Opie: But the little one I first came in with, he was a trembler, wasn't he?

Barney: Him? why, the big ones will take care of him. The big ones take care of their own. (Thunder) And you know dogs have a way of keepin' dry. Ya know that, They're insulated, you see, they've got this fur...it keeps them cool in the summer and warm and dry in the winter. They're really set up better than human beings as far as that goes. (Thunder and lightning) And as far as the little one goes, why the big ones, they'll take care of him...the little trembly one...(Thunder) and they're short, you see, close to the ground, that way they can't get struck by lightning. Now if they wuz giraffes they'd have been hit by now, uh..., but dogs are short and they take care of their own. Giraffes don't. No, giraffes don't at all. Boy, giraffes are selfish, just run around looking out for number one, getting hit by lightning, but dogs....(Thunder) You just gonna sit there or you coming with me??

Andy: What?

Barney: To get them dogs, are you coming with me?

I just can't get enough of it.

posted by Curt Bentley, on October 20, 2007 10:17 am

Yesterday was the 20th Anniversary of Black Monday in 1987, when the stock market dropped over 500 points in a single day. Well, the stocks dropped over 360 points yesterday, which might be the biggest one day drop in the last 20 years. However, a comparison of the two statistics shows just how the stock market has increased during the intervening time.

When the market dropped on Black Monday, the 508 points lost was a 22.6 percent decline in the market. Yesterday's drop of 360 points (just over 70 percent of 508) only lowered the total value of the Dow Jones Industrial Average by 2.6 percent. Just with my initial calculations, the Dow Jones is "worth" almost ten times more than what it was in 1987. Does that strike anyone else as remarkable? It seems to me that no one should be surprised that the stock market is correcting itself. That type of growth seems, to me, to be unsustainable. But, then again, I am not a financial analayst, and base all my conclusions off of the basic principle of the Law of the Harvest, which my dad taught me when I was a kid.

I've been saying for a while now, but I am really pessimistic about the future of the economy. I think the growth of the last few years has been built on an unsound foundation--people trying to reap what they haven't sown--and that we are headed for a major correction. I am pretty sure it will be a major correction because I think that only a major correction will effect the change in behavior necessary to get people back to sound principles. In my mind, the chickens are coming home to roost. Only part of me hopes I'm wrong.

posted by Curt, on October 16, 2007 07:22 am

This article showed up on MSNBC.com this morning, and says some things in line with what I've posted about a couple of time (see here and perhaps here). This whole article is about whether the crash of 1987 could happen in the stock market again. I particularly liked this quote from the end:

While it’s unlikely that either the stock market or the credit markets will replay the scripts that led to their collapses, nothing can rule out the possibility of future panics. The stage for both events was set by hubris as the wizards of Wall Street thought they had somehow outsmarted the risks that had reined in their forebears. Investors — both individuals and institutional money managers — willingly went along for the ride. Once that confidence began to unwind, the resulting panics fed on themselves, fueled by fear.

So as long as investment decisions are ultimately made by human beings – governed by those primal emotions of fear and greed — there’s little chance that financial markets can be insulated from future panic-driven sell-offs.

The only thing I potentially disagree with is whether it's unlikely that the market will crash again.