Do your research for Feb. 5 primary

I've probably watched more television since New Year's Day than I watched in the past six months.

The slowdown after the holidays kept me inside more than usual.

Plus, I was curious to learn what kind of promises the presidential hopefuls were making on the stump as the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses marked the official start of the 2008 presidential election season.

After listening to and watching the discussions, debates and forums until blurry eyed, I'm still undecided about my vote in the Illinois primary four weeks from today.

One thing I know: only time will tell if any presidential candidate will deliver a message that strongly resonates with me.

Visits to candidate Web sites to become more educated didn't offer much support for my solution-seeking core values.

Philosophically, I've always found it difficult to understand why any American would be willing to surrender freedom by wanting bigger government.

If a new program is needed to meet unmet needs as outlined in the Constitution and our rules of law, why don't more of the candidates include talk about programs, agencies or departments they'd eliminate in order to make room for some of the programs they'd like to begin?

All the front-runners seem to be promising and proposing policies that will need government to pay for them. Oh! So much learning to do and so little time.

That said, I know my vote for local candidates is where it counts most. In the next month, I'll be carefully evaluating candidates for county offices, judges for the 18th Judicial Circuit and challengers for statewide offices.

Voters also will be answering referendum questions on the ballot.

Participate and join the process. One of our nation's biggest unmet needs is educated voters.

Circle Feb. 5. Polls are open from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m.

If you plan to vote in the primary, by the way, you must be registered by 5 p.m. today.

Consequences

Two years ago a good friend gave me the book "Freakonomics."

I've got to say, the best-seller by Stephen Dubner and Steven Levitt changed the way I began to look at creating laws and public policy. (I hope the candidates promoting change have read the book.)

A few times in this column over the past couple years, I've referred to unintended consequences -- which can be good and bad -- only to have the adjective "unintended" edited from my remarks.

(Yes! I have editors who have saved me from myself more than once! They also are responsible for the headline on this column.)

What I found particularly interesting is that during the month of December, I noted on at least two occasions the featured editorial in the front main section alluded to "unintended consequences." Perhaps Daily Herald opinion editors have read "Freakonomics," too.

We often talk about the consequences to our actions. But the unintended consequences are the ones our policy-makers many times are unable to envision when they write laws; yet they are the outcomes that dramatically can impact our lives.

Though it's not the end-all, "Freakonomics" makes you think. I recommend it for anyone who follows public policy and law-making as our elected officials plan the future of our great country.

In fact, powerful laws such as the new no smoking ban likely will become a classic example of the law of unintended consequences, both in positive and negative ways.

For instance, last week I heard mention of toddlers running around local taverns late into the evening since Illinois' statewide smoking ban went into effect Jan. 1.

Call me a curmudgeon, but whether smoking or no-smoking, infants and children do not belong in drinking establishments after the dinner hour. Where's parental common sense and respect for a child to be a child?

Further, will family-friendly restaurateurs soon see their after-dinner bar crowd find someplace else for a cold one if youngsters hang out with their parents?

Time will tell.