Reason Magazine - Contributors

Light Fuse, Get Away

info@reason.com (Robert Stacy McCain) — Mon, 03 Jul 2006 00:00:00 EDT

On July 4, 2005, the skies over Staten Island, N.Y., exploded with a fireworks display that stunned those who saw and heard it. Beginning shortly after sundown, Staten Islanders witnessed what one reporter called "an almost constant barrage of color and noise." Some residents said it rivaled the Manhattan fireworks spectacular sponsored by Macy's.

Staten Island's thunderous tribute to America's independence was not, however, provided by a professional crew. The aerial displays were produced by dozens of amateur pyrotechnic afficianados—"pyros," they call themselves—using consumer fireworks that are illegal in New York.

Far from appreciating the free show, many Staten Islanders spent last Fourth of July furiously phoning 911. The Staten Island Advance reported that 14 residents were arrested for fireworks violations, but that wasn't enough for the complainers. "That's nothing. That's absolutely nothing," one angry resident told the local newspaper. "They needed three times as many cops out there."

While the displays were illegal—and annoying to some Staten Islanders—they weren't very dangerous. Local hospitals reported only a handful of injuries. As a safety measure, anti-fireworks laws have no discernible benefit. In recent years, sales of consumer fireworks have skyrocketed, even as injury rates have fizzled.

According to federal data compiled by the American Pyrotechnics Association (APA), while U.S. fireworks sales increased roughly eight-fold from 1976 to 2004—from 29 million pounds to over 236 million pounds per year—estimates of annual fireworks-related injuries decreased from 11,100 in 1976 to 9,600 in 2004.

Fireworks injuries are relatively rare, accounting for an estimated 0.01 percent of annual U.S. injuries, according to an APA analysis which found that injuries from cooking ranges are four times as common as fireworks injuries.

APA officials point out that all consumer fireworks sold in the United States—most are imported from China—must meet safety standards enforced by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). The APA, the National Fireworks Safety Council (NFSC) and retailers have also engaged in extensive safety education efforts. In addition to safety labels on each product (e.g., "Place on ground, light fuse, get away") fireworks buyers now usually receive safety pamphlets with each retail purchase.

Beyond CSPC inspections, the federal government has little involvement in regulating consumer fireworks, which are instead covered by a patchwork quilt of state laws. Forty states and the District of Columbia permit some types of consumer fireworks, although most of those allow only "safe and sane" products, such as fountains that spew showers of sparks into the air. Firecrackers and aerial items—such as shells, rockets and roman candles—are only legal in 20 states, mostly in the South and West.

Yet anti-fireworks activists, led by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), still prophesy the rise of a generation of maimed halfwits, victims all of the grasping, growing Firecracker Trust. "Fireworks are too risky for amateurs," warns the NFPA, which last year organized a coalition of 21 groups to demand an outright ban on consumer fireworks. Calling fireworks a "significant public health concern," NFPA President James Shannon said, "Every year consumer fireworks injure and maim our children." Children? The majority of those injured by fireworks are 15 or older—and 72 percent are male.

Activists and public officials continue to incite anti-fireworks hysteria—with the eager aid of a fear-mongering media. Under a headline warning of "More fireworks danger," the Fort Wayne (Indiana) Sentinel recently editorialized about the hypothetical dangers posed by Indiana's recent deregulation of consumer fireworks: "It's hard to say how much more dangerous Indiana will be, but make no mistake: The danger will increase." The paper ominously quoted Fort Wayne Fire Chief Ray Davie: "I'll hope for the best but prepare for the worst."

Americans don't seem to be heeding such warnings. The APA reports that last year, U.S. consumer fireworks sales jumped by 40 million pounds—the largest annual increase since the association began keeping track in 1976. So when the sun goes down on July 4th, folks on Staten Island and elsewhere around the country can be ready once again to dial 911, or just go outside, look up, and enjoy the show.

God, Guts, and Granola

info@reason.com (Robert Stacy McCain) — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 00:00:00 EDT

Historians may some day look back on 2006 as the year of the Great Conservative Freakout. Former Reagan administration official Bruce Bartlett wrote a book declaring that Dubya is no conservative. The Republican Congress mutinied against the White House. And leaders of the religious right were implicated in the scams of a casino lobbyist.

Into this right-wing meltdown steps Dallas Morning News columnist Rod Dreher, with Crunchy Cons: How Birkenstocked Burkeans, Gun-Loving Organic Gardeners, Evangelical Free-Range Farmers, Hip Homeschooling Mamas, Right-Wing Nature Lovers, and Their Diverse Tribe of Countercultural Conservatives Plan to Save America (or at Least the Republican Party) (Crown Forum), a book remarkable in several ways, not least of which is a subtitle so long I should earn $10 just by repeating it in this review.

But see? There I go again, thinking like the greedy materialists of the "GOP mainstream" who are the chief objects of Dreher's scorn, to wit: "The tragic flaw of Western economics is that it is based on exploiting and encouraging greed and envy."

Absolutely. Right now, I'm envious of Dreher, whose anti-materialist conservative book is selling like crazy at Amazon.com. But I'm exploiting Rod by reviewing his book for the greedheads at Reason, so that's cool.

What is a crunchy con? Dreher provides a "manifesto" describing those "who stand outside the conservative mainstream" and therefore "can see things that matter more clearly." According to Dreher, "Modern conservatism has become too focused on money, power, and the accumulation of stuff, and insufficiently concerned with the content of our individual and social character."

I've got no problem with much of Dreher's crunchy agenda. If he wants to eat free-range chicken and organic vegetables, more power to him. Scorn exurban "McMansions" and buy a century-old Craftsman house in a hip in-town neighborhood? No problem. (I can't afford any of that stuff myself, despite my greed.)

Heck, I'm a fundamentalist father of six homeschooled children—the very epitome of crunchiness, according to Dreher. Yet because I believe in economic freedom, he says I don't even exist. Crunchies "orient their lives" toward "serving God, not self," Dreher writes. "By way of contrast, a libertarian conservative sees the point of life as exercising freedom of choice to serve his self-chosen ends."

Look, Rod: My kids have to eat, our minivan needs a new transmission, and my daughter wants to go to college in the fall. Unfortunately, the grocer, the auto mechanic, and the university registrar seem to be libertarians who expect payment in something more substantial than spiritual bliss. So I write for money, not because these are my "self-chosen ends," but because God cursed our mutual ancestor Adam: "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread" (Genesis 3:19).

Others have chastised Dreher for praising Hillary Clinton's mantra "it takes a village," but I'm more disturbed by his economic views. Crunchy Cons mentions neither Ludwig von Mises nor F.A. Hayek, and it seems entirely possible that Dreher has never read anything by the free-market Austrian economists or their successors. Instead he relies on Small Is Beautiful author E.F. Schumacher, practically the only economist mentioned in the book.

This is a telling choice. As the economist Mark Skousen has pointed out, Small Is Beautiful has a substantially Malthusian message that "enslaves everyone in a life of 'nonmaterialistic' values." For Skousen, Schumacher's Buddhist economics was a primitive mysticism that "clearly results in a primitive economy." Dreher, no doubt, would dismiss Skousen as a soulless libertarian.

National Review's Jonah Goldberg concluded an anti-crunchy jeremiad by voicing the suspicion that Dreher might eventually follow the leftward footsteps of ex-righties such as Michael Lind and David Brock. I think Goldberg's wrong. Dreher is Catholic, and his anti-market mood echoes the economic gnosticism of encyclicals like Rerum Novarum (1891) and Quadragesimo Anno (1931). Dreher might trust the Vatican with his soul, but he should seek economic insights elsewhere, and not from Buddhist economists. I'd suggest starting with St. Leonard Read's gospel of "I, Pencil," the 1958 parable that explains the spontaneous nature of economic order.

Hate the sin, but love the sinner. I'm praying for Dreher, who, thanks to the Invisible Hand, gave me the chance to write this greed-motivated review. God bless you, Rod. Go in peace.