Hurricanes and the Insurance Market

I've been reading a little about property insurance markets for Gulf Coast property after Katrina. I don't think it surprised anyone that insurance rates increased after the most destructive hurricane anyone can remember. But the magnitude of some of the increases was staggering. Reliable sources for one commercial hotel/condo renovation project, for example, tell me that a budget of $60,000 per year for insurance turned out to be inadequate, even though the budget was 50% more than the proper owner was paying for insurance prior to the renovation. The quote they got back was $600,000 per year!

In an efficient market for property insurance, the remote possibility of a hurricane as destructive as Katrina would already be priced into insurance premiums, and though there would be a modest spike in premiums right after such an event, it wouldn't be dramatic and long lasting. This raises the question of why rates were so LOW prior to Katrina, and why the insurance companies have overreacted afterwards. Insurance is highly regulated; it is at least possible that the regulation has interfered with the efficient functioning of the insurance markets. I don't have good evidence to support that inference, and other culprits may be to blame. Certainly, it's clear that our government's subsidies of flood insurance for risky properties has played a counterproductive and destructive role.

There's a good economics paper in all this; possibly several careers to be made by young economists.

Sex and the City and Christians

Some friends have blogged or commented recently about the alleged mystery of why some Christians don't like the HBO series Sex and the City, which now airs in expurgated form on TBS. (It's a nice deal for TBS -- they get a popular, award-winning series in which they can insert eighteen and a half minutes of commercials in every thirty minute episode due to "edited for television" cuts.)

I neither love nor hate the show; I've only seen two or three episodes and am not qualified to judge it in critical detail. Fortunately, that doesn't prevent me from understanding (and therefore explaining to my friends in this post) why many Christians do not like the show!

In a meager attempt to pander to all three of my regular readers, who may not share the same socio/cultural/political perspective on culture/media/morality, I will provide both a reasoned and somewhat sympathetic analysis of the question and a crass, easy-to-craft jab at the Christian right/Pat Robertson/conservative evangelical crowd, of which I am in some respects a part.

Here we go, with the fun stuff first.

Top 11 Reasons Christians Don't Like "Sex and the City"

1. It's about sex
2. It takes place in the city
3. It's on HBO (or at least it used to be)
4. There's sex in it
5. Liberals like it
6. Main characters are unchaste
7. Don't want the kids to see it
8. It glorifies sinful alternative lifestyles
9. On too late
10. Did we mention the sexual immorality?
11. Owned by HBO Productions, a subsidiary of BigCorporateMedia Entertainment, which owns through several layers of shadow corporations a book distribution firm in New Jersey that used to sell pornographic literature to Barnes & Noble and now has an exclusive media supply contract with a New Age bookstore/coffee shop that runs Disneyworld vacation promotional contests (or so we heard, anyway).

I was going to add a 12th entry, "It might lead to dancing", but that one's not funny if you don't know the joke.

Now for the serious part: Generally, many Christians don't like the show because:

1. They believe it glorifies immorality. Note that you don't have to watch the show to believe this. If you know it's about four thirtysomething single women in the big city and their relationships, and the name of the show is "Sex and the City", it's not implausible to conclude that it doesn't present a Sunday School version of sexual relationships and is better left unwatched. Now, I've heard enough "sophisticated" Christians talk about the series, and even seen just enough of a few episodes, to
believe that this accusation is not entirely fair. They say, and I've seen a glimpse of this, that the show seems to deal with the dilemmas and challenges facing the main characters as a result of their life choices. This doesn't mean that their lives would have been all joy and happiness had they "settled down" and married "nice Christian men". Just that the show is, to some degree at least, honest about the real results of life choices. But I'm not sure this makes the series a morality play.

2. They fear it will lead to immoral thoughts. Hey, it's got "sex" in the title after all. Since most of the episodes I've seen have been on TBS, I can't say for sure, but I learned at an early age that HBO was the place to go for spicy programming. (That was in the days before Cinemax and the internet, of course.) Some of the women in the show look pretty good, and they are frequently portrayed in a suggestive/sexually explicit manner, so it's silly to argue that a man (or a woman, for that matter) trying to guard his thoughts and his heart shouldn't just watch something else. Or read a book. But the same can be said of Desperate Housewives or just about anything on E! Entertainment Television. Maybe it should be?

Well that's pretty much it. "It's the immorality, stupid!" say the values voters, and it's hard to argue that they're out to lunch on this one. Some of them may be hypocritical, of course, but most of us are hypocritical in one way or another. Some may oversell how bad this particular series is and underrate the immorality of other shows. But it's not entirely fair to accuse them of being "obsessed with sex" when that's a pretty big part of the show under discussion. That would be like accusing liberals of being obsessed with race when they criticize Amos 'n Andy reruns. If there were Amos 'n Andy reruns, of course, which there aren't, which is one thing we can all be thankful for.

Objectivity, Faith and Reason

"All contemporary organisms are related to each other through common descent, the products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years. Evolution is the source of the vast biodiversity on Earth, including the many extinct species attested in the fossil record." --From Wikipedia's entry on "Evolution"

"If a theory is falsifiable, then it is scientific; if it is not falsifiable, then it is not science." --From Wikipedia's entry on "Falsifiability"

In the ongoing battles over Darwinism and intelligent design, as well as the historic battles between religion and science more generally, the rationalists like to argue that religion is inherently unscientific in that it is based not on observation and experimentation but on unverifiable hypotheses of a spiritual nature. Being unscientific, it is therefore rendered unsuitable for teaching to young children or for being put to use in any matter of public policy or debate.

This faith-versus-reason dichotomy is fine if your terms are narrowly enough defined. If "science" is the body of knowledge gained from repeated experimentation and verifiable results, and "religion" is limited to speculation about matters unseen and unseeable, then the two can happily ignore each other. But no one uses their terms in such a limited way, and no scientist or religious person approaches either body of knowledge on such pedestrian terms. What scientist, after noticing the striking physical and biological similarities across animal species, or the way the continents and the rocks at their edges all fit together like a puzzle, can stop and not wonder why these things are so? Speculation is the natural next step, and Darwinistic evolution and continental drift theories soon follow. But neither Darwinistic evolution or continental drift is empirically verifiable or repeatable in any sense; both processes are much too slow to be observed. Similarly, what serious religious person can avoid curiosity about how God, or Vishnu, or Gaia, or Allah made the stuff around us, or whether he (or she!) did so?

When a scientist prays (and let's not doubt that many of them do, for they are humans with diverse opinions and beliefs like the rest of us!), we can say he is being "religious", not "scientific". When the same scientist does an experiment in the lab, he is being scientific. When the minister does an experiment (ministers can have lab equipment too, you know), he is being scientific, and when he prays, he's being religious. But in that grey area where the results of repeated, verifiable experimentation are interpreted, religion and science inevitably and inseparably mingle.

Since I tend to have much more sympathy for the intelligent design side of the debate than the Darwinism side, I'm always amazed that the Darwinism side rarely if ever admits that their "science" is mixed through and through with a religion all its own. And it's not a religion of lab coats and verifiable hypotheses! Instead, it's an unshakable faith in one plausible explanation of how things came to be, even though there are serious problems with that explanation and there are other explanations that are equally plausible. Yet they persist in claiming the "scientific high ground" by pushing the science versus faith concept past all rational limits.

Do they really think this will work? Do they really believe it themselves?

Torture, Nukes and Certainty

In a recent interview with WORLD Magazine, Barnard College professor and lefty evangelical Randall Balmer, author of the recently released book "Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts Faith and Threatens America: An Evangelical's Lament", didn't shirk from addressing a tough question about torture. It seems that Balmer's book charges the Bush Administration with condoning torture, so WORLD put the screws to Professor Balmer (who, unlike members of the Bush Administation, isn't under pressure to produce results in the War on Terror) in the following exchange:

WORLD: Agreed that torture is terrible and sometimes useless in gaining information, but if the imminent explosion of a nuclear bomb would kill millions of people, and if by applying some kind of physical pressure to a terrorist you could gain information that would lead to its location and disarming, would you do it?

BALMER: No, absolutely not, and I'm surprised that you would even suggest such a thing! I was under the impression that conservatives were allergic to utilitarian arguments; certainly that is what I learned from Paul Ramsey in graduate school. No Christian, he insisted, ever made an ethical decision solely on utilitarian grounds -- what is the greatest good for the greatest number of people -- especially if it comromises the worth and dignity of an individual.

Wow. Is the question really that easy to answer? He would really let millions die before he would do something unpleasant to a terrorist to save them? Even if I can accept his answer -- and I'm not sure I can -- I find myself wishing he'd struggle with it a little before giving it. He's surprised at the question? Really? Sure, at one time it might have sounded purely hypothetical, but in 2006? Is the answer that obvious?

At the least, it would seem appropriate to say something like "As difficult as it would be to refrain from using torture in such a situation, I still think that's the right thing to do because torture is always and everywhere wrong, just like worshipping a false god, or adultery." Then he could admit that he is not sure he'd be able to resist the temptation to beat Mohammed with a rubber hose.

Usually, when we discuss whether a particular thing that is usually evil, like killing a human being, can ever be justified, we immediately and easily turn to self defense or the defense of another as a complete justification. "It was self defense!" and "He was going to kill her!" are solid ethical and legal arguments if the facts support them. So if saving the life of person A can justify the killing of person B when person B is about to harm person A, then why is torture of person C to prevent the imminent incineration of persons D to the 10th power so clearly impermissible when person C has responsible for what's about to happen?

What am I missing here?

Real Christian Persecution

My last post was about spanking, the possible outlawing of it and how that might impact many Christian parents. Without detracting from the seriousness of that threat, it's worth keeping things in perspective with this reminder of how governing authorities sometimes treat Christians. Here are excerpts from correspondence circa 112 AD between Pliny the Younger, governor of Pontus in Asia Minor, and the Roman Emperor Trajan:

Pliny to Trajan: "It is my custom, lord emperor, to refer to you all questions where I am in doubt. . . . this is the course I have taken with those who are accused before me as Christians. I asked them whether they were Christians and if they confess I asked them a second and third time with threats of punishment. If they kept to it, I ordered them for execution; for I held no question that whatever if was they admitted in any case obstinacy and unbending perversity deserved to be punished."

Trajan to Pliny: "You have adopted the proper course, my dear Secundus, in your examination of the cases of those who are accused to you as Christians, for indeed nothing can be laid down as a general ruling . . . . they are not to be sought out: but if they are accused and convicted, they must be punished -- yet on this condition, that whoever declares himself to be a Christian . . . shall obtain pardon on his repentance however suspicious his past conduct may be."

So many fascinating angles here. First, the whole "don't ask, don't tell" approach; as if Christians were the homosexuals of the Roman Empire. Then there's the curious use of "repentance", a word we normally associate with . . . a commitment TO Christianity, not apostasy. Plenty of interesting legal procedural questions, too. But of course, foremost is the realization that innocent men, women and children were slaughtered for the "obstinat[e] and unbending[ly] pervers[e]" offense of believing their sins were forgiven and refusing to worship a man as a god.

In one sense, the Roman rulers were wise to be suspicious; in the long run, of course, Christianity DID conquer the empire, though not through rebellion or disorder. But that's another story. Violent persecution has continued, though, in different parts of the world for pretty much the entire 1900 years since this exchange between Pliny and Trajan.

Spanking and Anti-Spank

Not suprisingly in our avoid-unpleasantness-at-all-costs culture, many people (notably including some PARENTS) are opposed to the practice of spanking children. Some of them even have websites!

There's lots of ground to cover here, from spanking in public schools (outlawed in about half of US states; infrequently practiced in some others) to spanking in public. I claim no special expertise other than seven years' parenting experience, and as the recipient of numerous responsibly administered spankings as a child. (All, I think, by my father; at least, I don't recall being spanked by anyone else.)

I understand the anti-spankers' angst. How can it be good to HIT your children, after all? Ultimately, I disagree, of course -- besides the Biblical case, I have the example of my own experience and the self control I learned from it. But what has recently caught my attention is the philosophical basis for many peoples' opposition to spanking. It seems to be summed up in this fascinating quote from one anti-spanking website:

As long as the child will be trained not by love, but by fear, so long will humanity live not by justice, but by force. As long as the child will be ruled by the educator’s threat and by the father’s rod, so long will mankind be dominated by the policeman’s club, by fear of jail, and by panic of invasion by armies and navies.

--BORIS SIDIS, from "A lecture on the abuse of the fear instinct in early education" in Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1919.

What caught my attention was that many opponents of spanking (though by no means all) want to use the very "policeman's club" and "fear of jail" bemoaned by Professor Sidis to stop spanking. They want it to be against the law for ANYONE to spank children, their parents included. The threat to freedom is real, as spanking is already against the law, even for parents, in several countries.

I might be more sympathetic to the drive to outlaw spanking (though I'd still oppose it) if abortion were illegal. It seems like we could start with outlawing indiscriminate slaughter of children before we worry about whether controlled blows administered by loving parents that don't leave bruises ought to be illegal.

"Hi, I'm from Hades!"

I saw a few minutes of a new television series last night called "Jericho". It seems to be about a small town near Denver that can't figure out what has happened after they see a large mushroom cloud in the direction of Denver. Although the storyline might be interesting, what caught my attention was the name of the town -- Jericho.

As far as I know, the name "Jericho" comes from the city destoyed by Joshua and the ancient Israelites when they marched around it until the walls fell down on the seventh day at the trumpet's blast. The conquest of Jericho was part of Israel's conquering and destruction (at God's instruction) of the native peoples of the the land God had promised to Israel. WHY WOULD YOU NAME YOUR TOWN AFTER THAT?

OK, OK, it's just a TV show. But I went to mapquest and found TEN "Jerichos" in the United States, in Arkansas, Indiana, Texas, Utah, Vermont, and Connecticut, and two each in New York and Alabama.

This naturally got me thinking about other crazy names for towns. Here's a partial list of what I found just in the United States: Hades Creek (3), Hades Lake (3), Hades Knoll, Sodom (8, mostly in the Northeast, but no Gomorrahs!), Troy (10), Styx (2, maybe for the band?), Charon (he was the ferryman across the Styx), Andalusia (an Anglicization of the Moorish name for Spain; an odd choice for cities in Alabama, Illinois, Florida and Pennsylvania), Nineveh (8, though they did repent following Jonah's preaching), Hell (it's in Michigan, as it turns out), Pompeii (also in Michigan), Babylon (2), Napoleon (8), Devil (9 derivations), Satan's Kingdom (2, neither one in a red state), Lucifer, Beelzebub (I almost didn't even look for that one), Cain, Pharoah, Hitler (his pond is in Ohio, apparently), and Frankenstein.

It must be difficult to come up with a name for a new town. I've had to help name a school, two churches and two children, so I have some sympathy with the town fathers of these places, but . . . what the Hades Creek were these guys thinking?