Came across this little nugget over at Neal Boortz in today's Neal Nuze.
It was on this day in 1938 that the leaders of Britain, France and Italy decided that it would be better to appease Hitler than to fight him. They allowed a Nazi annexation of part of Czechoslovakia. Europe still has politicians like this today, and so do we. They're called Democrats.
I'm not one for adding a lot of holidays to the calendar, but if we were going to do so, I think this would make a great one. We could call it "Appeasement Day", or "Failure to Confront Evil Day", or "Peace in Our Time Day". Whatever.
The point of this day would be to think about the utter failure of appeasing evil. We'd be able to point out to children that the quickest way to encourage aggression is to say you aren't willing to fight back. The schools would describe world politics by drawing an analogy to the playground:
--> Who do bullies pick on, the weak, or the strong?
--> When a bully twists someone's arm until he says "uncle," does appeasing the bully today satisfy him, or does the bully just come around and twist your arm again tomorrow?
--> Do bullies ever stop picking on the weak voluntarily, or does cessation only come when you confront him?
I think I should make this into a t-shirt:
Everything I Know About Foreign Policy, I Learned In Kindergarten
Tuesday, September 30, 2003
Monday, September 29, 2003
To Fix Education, Register Pines for...wait for it....More Money
Today's Register Editorial takes Gov. Vilsack to task for starting up a new commission to look into improving education when the answer is so obvious. What is that solution "properly funding" education. The Register then trots out all the old saws about low teacher pay, not enough books, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Now, that teacher pay thing always really sticks in my craw. The problem with teacher pay is not what they get paid, per se. The problem is that starting teachers don't make squat. And that is by design. That is a union deal. The union negotiates a contract whereby teachers, whether good or bad, make squat when they start. Teachers with 20 years experience, whether they are good or bad, make a lot more. If you want to go into teaching but have been disuaded by the "low pay" that you see being offered the first year out of college, don't go complaining to the school board or the tax payers. Go straight to the union reps and give them an earfull.
You see, the National Education Association wants a closed shop. It's how they pad their own wallets. If you could improve your pay simply by being a better teacher, then you wouldn't need the union. By negotiating a system where only those with more years teaching and more years in the union, regardless of ability, get more money, the union becomes self-propogating. To make more, you go along.
You'll also note how corrosive this is to actually putting more effort into being a better teacher. No matter how good you are, no matter how much time you put in to lesson planning, or creating unique and interesting ways to get the kids hooked on learning, if you are in your first or second year, you get nothing extra. If you are in your twentieth year, no matter how many times you phone it in, you don't get any less. So, why should you bother.
Now, this is nothing against teachers. Some of the most influential people in my life have been teachers. I've even thought about becoming an educator at times. The situation I describe above is based upon human nature. Even the noble who dearly love teaching and helping develop kids into productive members of society will eventually fall victim to the very subversive nature of this pay scale system. They are human. As humans, you aren't going to bust tail each and every day when it doesn't get you anything more in the way of added perks, pay, vacations, or bonuses.
As an aside, I'd like to point out that the union is constantly telling us to consider teachers as "professionals." Can you name another professional group, aside from athletes, that are unionized. Doctors aren't. Accountants aren't. Lawyers aren't. Part of what it means to be a professional is that you can be hired and fired on the spot. There isn't some union contract that sets your pay rate. Professionals get paid to perform. When professionals perform adequately, they get to keep their job. If they perform extraordinarily well, they get raises and perks. If they don't perform adequately, they get fired. Because of the NEA, teachers don't operate in that real world scenario. The NEA has undermined both the education of our youth, and the professionalism of our educators.
Now, that teacher pay thing always really sticks in my craw. The problem with teacher pay is not what they get paid, per se. The problem is that starting teachers don't make squat. And that is by design. That is a union deal. The union negotiates a contract whereby teachers, whether good or bad, make squat when they start. Teachers with 20 years experience, whether they are good or bad, make a lot more. If you want to go into teaching but have been disuaded by the "low pay" that you see being offered the first year out of college, don't go complaining to the school board or the tax payers. Go straight to the union reps and give them an earfull.
You see, the National Education Association wants a closed shop. It's how they pad their own wallets. If you could improve your pay simply by being a better teacher, then you wouldn't need the union. By negotiating a system where only those with more years teaching and more years in the union, regardless of ability, get more money, the union becomes self-propogating. To make more, you go along.
You'll also note how corrosive this is to actually putting more effort into being a better teacher. No matter how good you are, no matter how much time you put in to lesson planning, or creating unique and interesting ways to get the kids hooked on learning, if you are in your first or second year, you get nothing extra. If you are in your twentieth year, no matter how many times you phone it in, you don't get any less. So, why should you bother.
Now, this is nothing against teachers. Some of the most influential people in my life have been teachers. I've even thought about becoming an educator at times. The situation I describe above is based upon human nature. Even the noble who dearly love teaching and helping develop kids into productive members of society will eventually fall victim to the very subversive nature of this pay scale system. They are human. As humans, you aren't going to bust tail each and every day when it doesn't get you anything more in the way of added perks, pay, vacations, or bonuses.
As an aside, I'd like to point out that the union is constantly telling us to consider teachers as "professionals." Can you name another professional group, aside from athletes, that are unionized. Doctors aren't. Accountants aren't. Lawyers aren't. Part of what it means to be a professional is that you can be hired and fired on the spot. There isn't some union contract that sets your pay rate. Professionals get paid to perform. When professionals perform adequately, they get to keep their job. If they perform extraordinarily well, they get raises and perks. If they don't perform adequately, they get fired. Because of the NEA, teachers don't operate in that real world scenario. The NEA has undermined both the education of our youth, and the professionalism of our educators.
Sunday, September 28, 2003
Agriculture Subsidies
Steven DenBeste has put up a lengthy post on ag subsidies in the U.S. (and to a lesser extent, Europe) and how those subsidies affect the rest of the world. His theory, written in response to comment, is that our subsidies hurt agricultural production in other parts of the world.
It's getting a little late here tongiht. However, this is an issue with more than passing importance here in Iowa. I hope to get a little more background info rounded up on this and post a little more on this subject in the coming days.
It's getting a little late here tongiht. However, this is an issue with more than passing importance here in Iowa. I hope to get a little more background info rounded up on this and post a little more on this subject in the coming days.
Saturday, September 27, 2003
Iowa ranks 41st
The Small Business Survival Committee has just released its survival index for 2003. Iowa’s 41st place rank was most adversely affected by it’s ratio of government employees per 100 residents (40th), top capital gains tax rate (43rd), unemployment tax rate (46th), and top corporate tax rate (49th). Click on the suvival index logo if you want to see the whole pdf.
Thursday, September 25, 2003
Re: No connections to al Qaeda, Huh?
We should not have to find Osama’s cell-phone number on Saddam’s speed dial to accept that there is a connection between the terrorist leaders. Thanks to Richard Miniter and TCS for compiling a history that should convince anyone with an open mind. I have no expectation that the Des Moines Register editorial staff will be convinced, however.
The DMR seeks by accident or design to blur the distinction between Iraq having a general connection with al Qaeda and having a direct connection with 9-11. Like those word games in which you change one letter at a time, the editorial evolves from “Bush said ‘we have no evidence Saddam Hussein was involved [with 9-11]’,” to “[there’s no] link between terrorism in the United States and the Iraqi dictator.” If the DMR wants to claim it was taken in by an “implication” of a connection between Iraq and 9-11, perhaps it should read the administration’s actual words more closely. As Rush likes to say, “Words have meanings” – at least they do during Republican administrations.
And the Left says that it is we conservatives who lack the intellectual capacity to distinguish a subtle nuance.
The DMR seeks by accident or design to blur the distinction between Iraq having a general connection with al Qaeda and having a direct connection with 9-11. Like those word games in which you change one letter at a time, the editorial evolves from “Bush said ‘we have no evidence Saddam Hussein was involved [with 9-11]’,” to “[there’s no] link between terrorism in the United States and the Iraqi dictator.” If the DMR wants to claim it was taken in by an “implication” of a connection between Iraq and 9-11, perhaps it should read the administration’s actual words more closely. As Rush likes to say, “Words have meanings” – at least they do during Republican administrations.
And the Left says that it is we conservatives who lack the intellectual capacity to distinguish a subtle nuance.
No Connections to Al Qaeda, Huh?
As an antidote to the Des Moines Register editorial excoriating the Bush Administration for the lack of connections between Saddam and September 11, I present the following list of connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda compiled over at Techcentralstation.com.
Hey, just because the Register writers stick their heads in the sand doesn't mean we have to.
Hey, just because the Register writers stick their heads in the sand doesn't mean we have to.
Wednesday, September 24, 2003
More WKRP
Definitely, Mr. Carlson held the show together. And while "I thought turkeys could fly" is probably the single most classic line from the series, we could come up with dozens more great ones.
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
Gordon Jump, R.I.P.
Since I mentioned WKRP earlier, I can’t let the day go by without noting the passing of Gordon Jump, a.k.a. Arthur Carlson. If I did, people might think I’m really not that big a fan of the show.
It was Loni Anderson (Jennifer Marlowe) who first drew my attention to the show, and it was Howard Hesseman (Johnny Fever) with whom I most identified at that stage in my life. But after only a few episodes, I realized that the Big Guy, Mr. Carlson, was the glue that held the whole show together. For example, after throwing some turkeys out of a helicopter to celebrate Thanksgiving, his line, “As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly,” was delivered with exquisite expression and perfect timing.
If the show ever shows up in reruns again, watch a few episodes and see what I mean.
It was Loni Anderson (Jennifer Marlowe) who first drew my attention to the show, and it was Howard Hesseman (Johnny Fever) with whom I most identified at that stage in my life. But after only a few episodes, I realized that the Big Guy, Mr. Carlson, was the glue that held the whole show together. For example, after throwing some turkeys out of a helicopter to celebrate Thanksgiving, his line, “As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly,” was delivered with exquisite expression and perfect timing.
If the show ever shows up in reruns again, watch a few episodes and see what I mean.
Stories From Around the World
U.N. Official and Son of Former French Leader Involved in Illegal Arms Dealing -- I am shocked! Simply shocked!
Should we be getting rid of the IMF? -- Let me consult my Magic 8-Ball: "Signs point to Yes."
One British School getting rid of "failing" grades. If there was a way for this proposal to increase union dues, the NEA would be all for it.
Should we be getting rid of the IMF? -- Let me consult my Magic 8-Ball: "Signs point to Yes."
One British School getting rid of "failing" grades. If there was a way for this proposal to increase union dues, the NEA would be all for it.
Another Education Mantra Damaged
Ask ten people what should be done to improve education and you'll get one of two answers: spend more money or hire more teachers to reduce class size.
Now, both of these ideas are clever marketing by the teacher's unions. More money for teachers salaries, or administrative positions, means more members, and more dues money flowing to the unions. Smaller class sizes means more teachers that the NEA can force into the union.
Thing is, neither of them works.
The school districts that spend the most per pupil, such as public schools in Atlanta, Georgia, or Washington, D.C., are the worst in terms of student performance. And while the disparity between spending and results is magnified in such districts, the trend is visible throughout right up through the naton as a whole. As pointed out in an article linked to this blog last week, the U.S. spends, on average, more on education than most other industrialized nations. And we only get moderate results. Even if you thought that the article I linked to was bogus because it included money spent on college, as pointed out today in the Cornfield Commentary, reports from the American Federation of Teachers indicate that only about five nations spend more per pupil than we do on primary public education. So, just throwing more money at public schools doesn't improve education.
Now, hot on the heals of that revelation, is an article from Canada discussing how smaller class size doesn't necessarily result in better education either. This particular article is based upon years of study in multiple nations. The result: reducing class size doesn't necessarily improve the education of the students. The studies suggest that smaller classes can help in some situations. However, when class order and discipline is maintained, the studies indicate clearly that class sizes in the 28 to 30 range yield fine results.
Read between the lines in this article, and you'll see that even when they say that smaller class size helps--in some traditionally bad inner city schools with behavior problems--the problem is not the "large" class size per se, but rather, that a teacher can't be expected to teach 28 good students while managing 2 or 3 disruptive ones. Now, I suppose you could hire a teacher's aids or add ten new teachers to get the all the classes down to 24 students in such schools. Or (this is going to be a radical idea) we could try disciplining the disruptive kids with real punishment.
But let's pretend for a minute that discipline is impossible. In order to help those inner city schools, we're decide we're going to hire 100,000 new teachers with federal money (to take one idea from the NEA/Democrat playbook). Sounds good. There's just one problem. We won't actually put the 100,000 teachers where they are needed. Why? It's called the U.S. Congress. Each member of the House and Senate is going to make sure that his district or state gets its fair share of the new teacher pork. The schools in Atlanta or DC that most need the help don't get it. And the schools in Iowa or South Dakota that need the least help end up with extra teachers that don't improve the education. That is not an efficient use of limited resources.
Education is too important of subject to leave to the federal government and/or the NEA with their one-size fits all approach, especially when that one-size is going to help the unions and not the students.
Now, both of these ideas are clever marketing by the teacher's unions. More money for teachers salaries, or administrative positions, means more members, and more dues money flowing to the unions. Smaller class sizes means more teachers that the NEA can force into the union.
Thing is, neither of them works.
The school districts that spend the most per pupil, such as public schools in Atlanta, Georgia, or Washington, D.C., are the worst in terms of student performance. And while the disparity between spending and results is magnified in such districts, the trend is visible throughout right up through the naton as a whole. As pointed out in an article linked to this blog last week, the U.S. spends, on average, more on education than most other industrialized nations. And we only get moderate results. Even if you thought that the article I linked to was bogus because it included money spent on college, as pointed out today in the Cornfield Commentary, reports from the American Federation of Teachers indicate that only about five nations spend more per pupil than we do on primary public education. So, just throwing more money at public schools doesn't improve education.
Now, hot on the heals of that revelation, is an article from Canada discussing how smaller class size doesn't necessarily result in better education either. This particular article is based upon years of study in multiple nations. The result: reducing class size doesn't necessarily improve the education of the students. The studies suggest that smaller classes can help in some situations. However, when class order and discipline is maintained, the studies indicate clearly that class sizes in the 28 to 30 range yield fine results.
Read between the lines in this article, and you'll see that even when they say that smaller class size helps--in some traditionally bad inner city schools with behavior problems--the problem is not the "large" class size per se, but rather, that a teacher can't be expected to teach 28 good students while managing 2 or 3 disruptive ones. Now, I suppose you could hire a teacher's aids or add ten new teachers to get the all the classes down to 24 students in such schools. Or (this is going to be a radical idea) we could try disciplining the disruptive kids with real punishment.
But let's pretend for a minute that discipline is impossible. In order to help those inner city schools, we're decide we're going to hire 100,000 new teachers with federal money (to take one idea from the NEA/Democrat playbook). Sounds good. There's just one problem. We won't actually put the 100,000 teachers where they are needed. Why? It's called the U.S. Congress. Each member of the House and Senate is going to make sure that his district or state gets its fair share of the new teacher pork. The schools in Atlanta or DC that most need the help don't get it. And the schools in Iowa or South Dakota that need the least help end up with extra teachers that don't improve the education. That is not an efficient use of limited resources.
Education is too important of subject to leave to the federal government and/or the NEA with their one-size fits all approach, especially when that one-size is going to help the unions and not the students.
The most exciting candidate since Howard Dean
General Wesley Clark, as the newest official entrant into the Democrat nomination sweepstakes, has shot to the top of various polls and many Democrats’ wish lists. You might wonder how a virtual unknown can gain such support so quickly. The fact is, it’s his very newness that is so appealing.
The Quad City Times asked its readers who they were supporting and why. I believe it was before General Clark had declared his candidacy, but that’s not important. The point is, SIXTY-NINE PERCENT of respondents made their selection based on the candidates perceived ability to beat George Bush. What the candidates’ policies are on the economy, the environment, the war, the color of the sky, telling the truth, etc., didn’t matter to more than a few percent of them. Overwhelmingly they want somebody who can unseat the President, and nothing, NOTHING ELSE matters. In fact, strong positions on issues can only hurt a candidate as they might alienate some voters. Therefore, the Democrats’ ideal candidate is an unknown without a lot of baggage. In the immortal words of Herb Tarlek, General Sales Manager of WKRP in Cincinnati (still the all-time finest TV comedy, IMHO), “The less people know about you, the less they’ll think you’re a jerk. At least, that’s what I’ve always found.”
NRO’s Jim Geraghty sees this phenomenon affecting Howard Dean and the other candidates, particularly in this quote from Joe Klein.
'Those of us demented enough to follow electoral politics have been living with the nine Democrats for most of a year now. They've become pretty boring. They gather occasionally to debate one another and succeed only in diminishing themselves. Howard Dean's exciting candidacy was an exception for most of the summer, but he has spent much of September stepping on his epaulets, too.'
Geraghty doesn’t seem to think it will also hit General Clark, but flaws are already starting to appear. In his seemingly endless flip-flopping, some see inconsistency, others see indecisiveness. The Democrats want to capitalize on his being a military man. I think, however, as time goes on he will increasingly be seen as a blue beret-wearing United Nations concept of a military man.
I was watching a press conference in Iraq, a few weeks ago, in which the soldier in charge – a colonel, I think, but I don’t remember his name – was asked by a reporter, how he intended to settle the quandary [of doing A or doing B]. He replied, “I’m an American soldier. I don’t have quandaries.” Now THAT’S a military man.
It’s a good question how long Clark will appear new and exciting before he also becomes diminished and boring. I have a theory on that, but it’s a topic for another day. (Hint: it involves Hillary and the need to protect her from too much exposure.)
UPDATE [From Jeff] I saw this Top 10 list over at IMAO. It's pretty funny, and dovetails nicely with Don's post.
The Quad City Times asked its readers who they were supporting and why. I believe it was before General Clark had declared his candidacy, but that’s not important. The point is, SIXTY-NINE PERCENT of respondents made their selection based on the candidates perceived ability to beat George Bush. What the candidates’ policies are on the economy, the environment, the war, the color of the sky, telling the truth, etc., didn’t matter to more than a few percent of them. Overwhelmingly they want somebody who can unseat the President, and nothing, NOTHING ELSE matters. In fact, strong positions on issues can only hurt a candidate as they might alienate some voters. Therefore, the Democrats’ ideal candidate is an unknown without a lot of baggage. In the immortal words of Herb Tarlek, General Sales Manager of WKRP in Cincinnati (still the all-time finest TV comedy, IMHO), “The less people know about you, the less they’ll think you’re a jerk. At least, that’s what I’ve always found.”
NRO’s Jim Geraghty sees this phenomenon affecting Howard Dean and the other candidates, particularly in this quote from Joe Klein.
'Those of us demented enough to follow electoral politics have been living with the nine Democrats for most of a year now. They've become pretty boring. They gather occasionally to debate one another and succeed only in diminishing themselves. Howard Dean's exciting candidacy was an exception for most of the summer, but he has spent much of September stepping on his epaulets, too.'
Geraghty doesn’t seem to think it will also hit General Clark, but flaws are already starting to appear. In his seemingly endless flip-flopping, some see inconsistency, others see indecisiveness. The Democrats want to capitalize on his being a military man. I think, however, as time goes on he will increasingly be seen as a blue beret-wearing United Nations concept of a military man.
I was watching a press conference in Iraq, a few weeks ago, in which the soldier in charge – a colonel, I think, but I don’t remember his name – was asked by a reporter, how he intended to settle the quandary [of doing A or doing B]. He replied, “I’m an American soldier. I don’t have quandaries.” Now THAT’S a military man.
It’s a good question how long Clark will appear new and exciting before he also becomes diminished and boring. I have a theory on that, but it’s a topic for another day. (Hint: it involves Hillary and the need to protect her from too much exposure.)
UPDATE [From Jeff] I saw this Top 10 list over at IMAO. It's pretty funny, and dovetails nicely with Don's post.
Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist Ideology: The Gift that Keeps on Giving
You know, the Berlin Wall came a tumblin' down over a decade ago. The Soviet Union collapsted not so long after, yet we are still cleaning up the remnants of the Cold War.
Our example today, this article penned by a former Romanian general who has, shall we say, firsthand knowledge of various KGB-sponsored intrigue.
The gist of the good general's piece is that Yasser "That Bomb's My Baby" Arafat was a creation of the KGB. For twenty or thirty years they worked closely with him to develop both his long-term strategy and near-term tactics. Moreoever, reading between the lines, you see that the KGB did it not out of some noble "Save the Palestinians" effort, but as a means to cutlivate anti-American sentiment throughout middle east and the rest of the world.
The Soviet Union is a dimming memory from a decade or more in our past, and we are still picking up after it. And to think, there are still people out there, mostly on college campuses and in the press, who laud the accomplishments of this failed ideology. Two words: Useful idiots.
Our example today, this article penned by a former Romanian general who has, shall we say, firsthand knowledge of various KGB-sponsored intrigue.
The gist of the good general's piece is that Yasser "That Bomb's My Baby" Arafat was a creation of the KGB. For twenty or thirty years they worked closely with him to develop both his long-term strategy and near-term tactics. Moreoever, reading between the lines, you see that the KGB did it not out of some noble "Save the Palestinians" effort, but as a means to cutlivate anti-American sentiment throughout middle east and the rest of the world.
The Soviet Union is a dimming memory from a decade or more in our past, and we are still picking up after it. And to think, there are still people out there, mostly on college campuses and in the press, who laud the accomplishments of this failed ideology. Two words: Useful idiots.
Chief Wiggles as Santa Claus
One the many good guys we've got over in Iraq, Chief Wiggles, made the mistake of mentioning on his blog one time that he wished he could give toys out to all the Iraqi children that don't have a darned thing. Quicker than you can say "Santa Claus," people were commenting on his site that they'd love to send toys if he would just give out his address. Well, ask and thou shall receive. The good Chief has gotten up an address.
I'm not saying there aren't maybe better ways to spend some money, but I can't really think of any right now. This seems like a heckuva good idea.
I'm not saying there aren't maybe better ways to spend some money, but I can't really think of any right now. This seems like a heckuva good idea.
Monday, September 22, 2003
Laughing at Gray Davis
Royce Dunbar beat me to the punch today on laughing at Gray Davis pining away for California to join the United Federation of Planets. Frankly, I too thought this Davis faux paus was just a big side-splitter.
But, then I saw a photo of Al Gore and Gray Davis together at Rich Galen's Secret Decoder Page. This picture has scared me. Gray Davis may, in fact, be a space alien.
The image is of Al Gore and Gray Davis singing. Now, the caption indicates that they are singing "Oklahoma." I think it is highly likely that they are communicating with their home world.
I base this on theory on observations made by Jonah Goldberg almost three years about the curious behavior of Al Gore that might indicate he was from another planet. I recommend reviewing each of the following: here, here, and here.
You combine Al Gore's odd personality, herky-jerky motions, and bizarro statements with Gray Davis's complete lack of human emotions and bizarro statements, and I'm just about convinced that this is Kang and Kronos wearing human suits.
If we catch them holding hands and saying, "Do you know of a better way to transmit long chain protein nucleides?" then we'll have our absolute confirmation. Frankly, I don't think it's too soon to man the barricades right now.
But, then I saw a photo of Al Gore and Gray Davis together at Rich Galen's Secret Decoder Page. This picture has scared me. Gray Davis may, in fact, be a space alien.
The image is of Al Gore and Gray Davis singing. Now, the caption indicates that they are singing "Oklahoma." I think it is highly likely that they are communicating with their home world.
I base this on theory on observations made by Jonah Goldberg almost three years about the curious behavior of Al Gore that might indicate he was from another planet. I recommend reviewing each of the following: here, here, and here.
You combine Al Gore's odd personality, herky-jerky motions, and bizarro statements with Gray Davis's complete lack of human emotions and bizarro statements, and I'm just about convinced that this is Kang and Kronos wearing human suits.
If we catch them holding hands and saying, "Do you know of a better way to transmit long chain protein nucleides?" then we'll have our absolute confirmation. Frankly, I don't think it's too soon to man the barricades right now.
Dixie Chicks to Leave Country!
Unfortunately, this doesn't mean exactly what I had hoped for. I thought maybe it meant they were moving to France. But, they are just going to become rock stars.
I used to like the Chicks. For starters, it seemed vaguely iconoclastic of them in the modern, P.C., world to call themselves "chicks." But, now, geez, it turns out they are just another bunch of spoiled, brainless, stardom-addled, rock star wannabes who feel the need to run down their country.
Cry all you want about your fans throwing away your albums and turning off the radio when your songs get played. Sniff...sniff. Country fans are overwhelmingly red-state southern-midwestern-mountain-folk who wave Old Glory and don't cotton to people who run 'er down.
Cry all you want about how country stars didn't defend you. Boo-frigidity-hoo! Unlike you twits, the rest of the country-singing clan knows where their bread is buttered. (See above) Bitching about this reality is akin to showing up to the company picknic/softball game with a football then getting made when nobody wants to use it for the softball game. Pouting and stamping your feet about how stupid everyone else is and how you're going to go work for a real company, where the people understand your genious, only makes the other employeess think you are more insane.
On the Rachel Lucas scale, I can't decide if the Chicks are "Wankers" or "Loathesome Scumbags."
I used to like the Chicks. For starters, it seemed vaguely iconoclastic of them in the modern, P.C., world to call themselves "chicks." But, now, geez, it turns out they are just another bunch of spoiled, brainless, stardom-addled, rock star wannabes who feel the need to run down their country.
Cry all you want about your fans throwing away your albums and turning off the radio when your songs get played. Sniff...sniff. Country fans are overwhelmingly red-state southern-midwestern-mountain-folk who wave Old Glory and don't cotton to people who run 'er down.
Cry all you want about how country stars didn't defend you. Boo-frigidity-hoo! Unlike you twits, the rest of the country-singing clan knows where their bread is buttered. (See above) Bitching about this reality is akin to showing up to the company picknic/softball game with a football then getting made when nobody wants to use it for the softball game. Pouting and stamping your feet about how stupid everyone else is and how you're going to go work for a real company, where the people understand your genious, only makes the other employeess think you are more insane.
On the Rachel Lucas scale, I can't decide if the Chicks are "Wankers" or "Loathesome Scumbags."
I Gotta Do A Better Job of Blogging on Weekends
I notice...sigh...that I failed to get anything in here since last Thursday. I'll try to make up for it with some posting today.
And, thanks to Cornfield Commentary for linking us on MSAs. As an FYI, I would like to point out that Chad is an attorney who spends all day, every day, tackling legal issues surrounding the law of employer-sponsored group health plans. When it comes to this field of law, he knoweth of what he speak.
And, thanks to Cornfield Commentary for linking us on MSAs. As an FYI, I would like to point out that Chad is an attorney who spends all day, every day, tackling legal issues surrounding the law of employer-sponsored group health plans. When it comes to this field of law, he knoweth of what he speak.
Thursday, September 18, 2003
Medical Savings Accounts
Since Hogberg apparently actually reads some of this drivel, I feel compelled to contribute to the extent that I can. By the way Dave, thanks for the plug on Jeff's education take.
I promised to come back to the issue of Medical Savings Accounts. Unfortunately, I’ve lost the Des Moines Register Editorial which sparked my initial outrage. For those unfamiliar with the concept, Medical Savings Accounts propose combining a very high deductible “traditional” health plan with a bank account funded by the employer, employee, or a combination of the two. In theory, the employer self-funds the lower dollar claims that make up the vast majority of plan expenditures and buys a relatively cheap catastrophic insurance policy for the really big claims. Importantly, MSAs differ from Flexible Spending Arrangements in that funds left over in the MSA can accumulate year after year on a tax favored basis and eventually be distributed at retirement or used for catastrophic illness or long term care. Without the advantage of the Register Editorial here is the short and sweet on arguments against MSA’s and why they are or are not bunk.
MSAs don’t work, no one uses the ones we’ve got.
Congress approved a pilot project for MSAs in 1996. And to the extent the anti-MSA folks are making a factual statement they are correct. MSA’s as authorized were a resounding flop. What they don’t tell you is that the authorization was intentionally designed to ensure failure.
For instance, only the employer or the employee but not both can contribute to the MSA account. Accordingly, employers unwilling to fork over a large portion of the account balance would actually be seen cutting health benefits during the dot-com bubble. No way they could do that and remain a competitive employer. Worse, employees couldn't even contribute their own salary to make up the shortfall.
Second, the establishment of MSA’s was restricted to the smallest employers. I know and appreciate economic arguments that 10% savings for GM is the same as 10% savings for the corner drug store but they absolute value of the savings did not outweigh the transaction costs and additional administrative burden of the switch for small businesses.
Third, employers generally were only allowed to contribute 75% of the deductible to the account. Leaving a gap of 25% which could be substantial given that the higher deductibles produced greater savings on the insurance side.
Absent these restrictions MSAs might be the dominant health benefits structure today.
Adverse selection
The second argument is that MSA’s only attract healthy people (because they will get the advantage of the fund rollover). If the healthy people leave the insured plans the insured plans will have to raise premiums to cover the costs of their sicker population, driving more healthy people out of the insurance market creating a premium death spiral for traditional health insurance. To which I say, (tongue very slightly in cheek) GOOD RIDDANCE. First I am not all that enamored with adverse selection as an economic theory. Oh, I think it happens, but it is just a description of a market clearing phenomenon where entities with better information drive prices or service levels to a more perfect equilibrium. Individual’s know best their own health status and healthy individuals will always try to choose the least costly health insurance. There was really no premium death spiral when HMOs arrived and sucked up the healthy participants. HMO’s just drove a lot of traditional indemnity carriers to compete better. I suspect the same will happen here and, if it does not, too bad for the shareholders of the health carriers who couldn’t adapt. Worst case scenario is that everything becomes MSAs (much like everything became HMOs in metro areas) and employees will have a new set of negotiating criteria.
Tax breaks for the wealthy
The third argument is that MSAs are just another way for wealthy individuals to shelter retirement income from taxation. So what? Roth IRA’s, top hat pensions, rabbi trusts, deferred stock, etc. are all ways for the wealthy to shelter retirement income and would be much more effective than the couple thousand a year some executive making $1m plus in salary could shelter in an MSA. This a stupid argument. The lower and middle class would benefit much more from the retirement feature of MSAs and the possibility that MSA’s would actually open the possibility of health and retirement benefits to their small business employer who would not otherwise offer either.
Big entities can negotiate better than individuals
The final argument is that big entities like insurers, preferred provider organizations, HMOs, and the government can negotiate prices better than individuals can. This is true to a point. However, these big entities do not negotiate to maximize individual happiness they do so to maximize aggregate happiness (or misery as the case may be). They can drive down the costs but will also drive out the service. Just look at what happens to doctor’s office who take lots of Medicare patients. Good luck getting an appointment where you see the doctor for more than 30 seconds. Individuals should be free to choose the level of service they want based on the price they are willing to pay. That is the foundation of our economy and the most important feature of MSAs.
This argument also conflicts with the premium death spiral argument. If MSAs are going to pay higher prices for services then they would not be as competitive and healthy people would not be as likely to adverse select. Opponents can’t have it both ways.
I promised to come back to the issue of Medical Savings Accounts. Unfortunately, I’ve lost the Des Moines Register Editorial which sparked my initial outrage. For those unfamiliar with the concept, Medical Savings Accounts propose combining a very high deductible “traditional” health plan with a bank account funded by the employer, employee, or a combination of the two. In theory, the employer self-funds the lower dollar claims that make up the vast majority of plan expenditures and buys a relatively cheap catastrophic insurance policy for the really big claims. Importantly, MSAs differ from Flexible Spending Arrangements in that funds left over in the MSA can accumulate year after year on a tax favored basis and eventually be distributed at retirement or used for catastrophic illness or long term care. Without the advantage of the Register Editorial here is the short and sweet on arguments against MSA’s and why they are or are not bunk.
MSAs don’t work, no one uses the ones we’ve got.
Congress approved a pilot project for MSAs in 1996. And to the extent the anti-MSA folks are making a factual statement they are correct. MSA’s as authorized were a resounding flop. What they don’t tell you is that the authorization was intentionally designed to ensure failure.
For instance, only the employer or the employee but not both can contribute to the MSA account. Accordingly, employers unwilling to fork over a large portion of the account balance would actually be seen cutting health benefits during the dot-com bubble. No way they could do that and remain a competitive employer. Worse, employees couldn't even contribute their own salary to make up the shortfall.
Second, the establishment of MSA’s was restricted to the smallest employers. I know and appreciate economic arguments that 10% savings for GM is the same as 10% savings for the corner drug store but they absolute value of the savings did not outweigh the transaction costs and additional administrative burden of the switch for small businesses.
Third, employers generally were only allowed to contribute 75% of the deductible to the account. Leaving a gap of 25% which could be substantial given that the higher deductibles produced greater savings on the insurance side.
Absent these restrictions MSAs might be the dominant health benefits structure today.
Adverse selection
The second argument is that MSA’s only attract healthy people (because they will get the advantage of the fund rollover). If the healthy people leave the insured plans the insured plans will have to raise premiums to cover the costs of their sicker population, driving more healthy people out of the insurance market creating a premium death spiral for traditional health insurance. To which I say, (tongue very slightly in cheek) GOOD RIDDANCE. First I am not all that enamored with adverse selection as an economic theory. Oh, I think it happens, but it is just a description of a market clearing phenomenon where entities with better information drive prices or service levels to a more perfect equilibrium. Individual’s know best their own health status and healthy individuals will always try to choose the least costly health insurance. There was really no premium death spiral when HMOs arrived and sucked up the healthy participants. HMO’s just drove a lot of traditional indemnity carriers to compete better. I suspect the same will happen here and, if it does not, too bad for the shareholders of the health carriers who couldn’t adapt. Worst case scenario is that everything becomes MSAs (much like everything became HMOs in metro areas) and employees will have a new set of negotiating criteria.
Tax breaks for the wealthy
The third argument is that MSAs are just another way for wealthy individuals to shelter retirement income from taxation. So what? Roth IRA’s, top hat pensions, rabbi trusts, deferred stock, etc. are all ways for the wealthy to shelter retirement income and would be much more effective than the couple thousand a year some executive making $1m plus in salary could shelter in an MSA. This a stupid argument. The lower and middle class would benefit much more from the retirement feature of MSAs and the possibility that MSA’s would actually open the possibility of health and retirement benefits to their small business employer who would not otherwise offer either.
Big entities can negotiate better than individuals
The final argument is that big entities like insurers, preferred provider organizations, HMOs, and the government can negotiate prices better than individuals can. This is true to a point. However, these big entities do not negotiate to maximize individual happiness they do so to maximize aggregate happiness (or misery as the case may be). They can drive down the costs but will also drive out the service. Just look at what happens to doctor’s office who take lots of Medicare patients. Good luck getting an appointment where you see the doctor for more than 30 seconds. Individuals should be free to choose the level of service they want based on the price they are willing to pay. That is the foundation of our economy and the most important feature of MSAs.
This argument also conflicts with the premium death spiral argument. If MSAs are going to pay higher prices for services then they would not be as competitive and healthy people would not be as likely to adverse select. Opponents can’t have it both ways.
Condi Rice Rocks!
Condi Rice has crystalized something that should be repeated ad nauseum to anyone dumb enough to say things like:
We're just creating more terrorists in the middle east by liberating Iraq.
or
It was peaceful in Iraq before we invaded, now look at all the terrorism there.
or
We've lost more soldiers during the peace than during the war.
Her response (with a little bit of artistic license on my part):
Look here you bozos. The people attacking us were bad guys before we got there--they've always been bad guys. They weren't sitting around watching Survivor on Thursday evenings, or sipping coffee at Starbucks on Friday morning, and then wake up the next morning and say, "Hey, I used to think the U.S. was the bees knees, but now that they invaded Iraq, I see the error of my ways. I think I'll go and fight the Yankee pig-dogs." The guys fighting us are the ones who were standing there with Uday when he shredded people alive. They are the ones who were spittle lickers for Saddam. They are the ones who were handing out candy to small children on the streets of Damascus on 9/11. And, every minute they spend fighting our soldiers and Marines in Iraq is one less minute they have to plan or execute another attack against civilians on our own soil.
If you want to get the actual quote, you know, as Condi said it, drop by the Cornfield Commentary . Incidentally, Dave, did she say "Yes"?
We're just creating more terrorists in the middle east by liberating Iraq.
or
It was peaceful in Iraq before we invaded, now look at all the terrorism there.
or
We've lost more soldiers during the peace than during the war.
Her response (with a little bit of artistic license on my part):
Look here you bozos. The people attacking us were bad guys before we got there--they've always been bad guys. They weren't sitting around watching Survivor on Thursday evenings, or sipping coffee at Starbucks on Friday morning, and then wake up the next morning and say, "Hey, I used to think the U.S. was the bees knees, but now that they invaded Iraq, I see the error of my ways. I think I'll go and fight the Yankee pig-dogs." The guys fighting us are the ones who were standing there with Uday when he shredded people alive. They are the ones who were spittle lickers for Saddam. They are the ones who were handing out candy to small children on the streets of Damascus on 9/11. And, every minute they spend fighting our soldiers and Marines in Iraq is one less minute they have to plan or execute another attack against civilians on our own soil.
If you want to get the actual quote, you know, as Condi said it, drop by the Cornfield Commentary . Incidentally, Dave, did she say "Yes"?
Wednesday, September 17, 2003
Interesting Take On Tony Blair
Over at the Europundit, they've got an interesting analysis on what Tony Blair got, politically speaking, out of siding up with the U.S. so strongly last spring.
I'm not certain I agree with all of this, but I found it a nifty little take on events.
I'm not certain I agree with all of this, but I found it a nifty little take on events.
Explain to Me Again Why Education Needs More Money
So, it turns out that the U.S. is spending more on education than just about anyone else. And yet, are results are somewhere in the middle. Hmmm.....maybe throwing money at a problem doesn't actually solve it.
In other education news, the wonderful teacher's union in Sacramento, California, is attempting to stop a charter school from opening it's doors. Nothing new in that, really. The interesting part is in the details.
The gist of the situation is that this particular Sacramento school was failing miserably at teaching students and faced being taken over by the state. Former NBA player Kevin Johnson, who attended the school, took it upon himself to improve the situation. He put together a group of donors and got the proper licenses to open a charter school. The proposal was so well designed and thought out that the local school board agreed to shut down the existing school at the end of school year last spring and let the charter school reopen using that same facility this fall.
The charter school then set about hiring teachers for the staff. That's when it really hit the fan. The local teacher's union filed suit because California law allows charter schools to hire non-union teachers. You see, the union thought that the charter school should be FORCED to hire the same teachers who had been failing so miserably before. It appears that the argument would basically have to be that, somehow, the union teachers had some sort of property interest in their jobs in that particular building. So long as a school, any school, was in that building this fall, union teachers would have to staff it. After having one judge throw out the case, the union went judge shopping until they found one who's record indicated that she would go along with the union.
And, of course, this pinko judge did just that, issuing an injunction that the charter school immediately appealed.
The St. HOPE team's appeal was successful. Accordingly, the legal wrangling, so far, appears to have a happy ending. The union, however, will keep fighting...especially once this school begins to do a dramatically better job of teaching their children. The teachers unions can't risk having it become known that non-union educators can do just as good job, and probably better, as they can.
In other education news, the wonderful teacher's union in Sacramento, California, is attempting to stop a charter school from opening it's doors. Nothing new in that, really. The interesting part is in the details.
The gist of the situation is that this particular Sacramento school was failing miserably at teaching students and faced being taken over by the state. Former NBA player Kevin Johnson, who attended the school, took it upon himself to improve the situation. He put together a group of donors and got the proper licenses to open a charter school. The proposal was so well designed and thought out that the local school board agreed to shut down the existing school at the end of school year last spring and let the charter school reopen using that same facility this fall.
The charter school then set about hiring teachers for the staff. That's when it really hit the fan. The local teacher's union filed suit because California law allows charter schools to hire non-union teachers. You see, the union thought that the charter school should be FORCED to hire the same teachers who had been failing so miserably before. It appears that the argument would basically have to be that, somehow, the union teachers had some sort of property interest in their jobs in that particular building. So long as a school, any school, was in that building this fall, union teachers would have to staff it. After having one judge throw out the case, the union went judge shopping until they found one who's record indicated that she would go along with the union.
And, of course, this pinko judge did just that, issuing an injunction that the charter school immediately appealed.
The St. HOPE team's appeal was successful. Accordingly, the legal wrangling, so far, appears to have a happy ending. The union, however, will keep fighting...especially once this school begins to do a dramatically better job of teaching their children. The teachers unions can't risk having it become known that non-union educators can do just as good job, and probably better, as they can.
Couple of Quick Ones From The Corner
Jonah Goldberg turned this phrase in The Corner this morning:
Lieberman looks like a rodeo clown who hasn't had his foundation make-up removed yet.
Hahahahaha. Just picture Joe Lieberman for a minute and tell me that isn't true.
This freaky little nugget was also in The Corner this morning. I read about half-way through before I noticed it.
Lieberman looks like a rodeo clown who hasn't had his foundation make-up removed yet.
Hahahahaha. Just picture Joe Lieberman for a minute and tell me that isn't true.
This freaky little nugget was also in The Corner this morning. I read about half-way through before I noticed it.
Monday, September 15, 2003
I must now negotiate the Peace
(begin sarcastic voice) Thanks Don! (end sacrcastic voice) Now Chad's going to come back from vacation, see your Cyclone posts, and then he'll start leaving Hawk droppings all over in here.
Okay, I'm going to nip this in the bud. In order to keep you two separate, from now on, the only college football team which will be glorified in this blog, our own little slice of cyberspace heaven, is the University of Southern California Trojans. This has nothing to do with either the fact that it is my alma mater, or that I am the only one with editorial control.
Okay, I'm going to nip this in the bud. In order to keep you two separate, from now on, the only college football team which will be glorified in this blog, our own little slice of cyberspace heaven, is the University of Southern California Trojans. This has nothing to do with either the fact that it is my alma mater, or that I am the only one with editorial control.
Friday, September 12, 2003
Have a good weekend
So this scientist invents a robot with voice synthesizing capabilities and takes it to the mall to test it out. He puts it in a kiosk with a sign inviting people to come talk to the robot. First guy comes up, says hi to the robot and the robot says (best mechanical voice here) “What is your I.Q.?”
The guy says, “It’s 160 and I have two PhD’s.”
The robot whirs a bit and says, “Shall we discuss Nuclear Physics?” So that’s what they do, and after a nice conversation, the guy leaves and another guy walks up. “What is your I.Q.?” says the robot
“It’s about 120,” says the guy.
“Let’s talk politics,” says the robot. And after a nice discussion, with only a few disagreements, this guy leaves just as another guy walks up. “What is your I.Q.?” intones the robot.
“Uh, 75, I think” says the guy.
The robot says, “How bout them Hawks?”
The guy says, “It’s 160 and I have two PhD’s.”
The robot whirs a bit and says, “Shall we discuss Nuclear Physics?” So that’s what they do, and after a nice conversation, the guy leaves and another guy walks up. “What is your I.Q.?” says the robot
“It’s about 120,” says the guy.
“Let’s talk politics,” says the robot. And after a nice discussion, with only a few disagreements, this guy leaves just as another guy walks up. “What is your I.Q.?” intones the robot.
“Uh, 75, I think” says the guy.
The robot says, “How bout them Hawks?”
Thursday, September 11, 2003
Ah, Ann, Tell Us What You Really Think
Ann Coulter has one of her typically insightful, and yet delightfully caustic, columns up at Townhall.com.
Today's topic: Why the multilateral nation-building is an oxymoron. Here's my favorite paragraph:
Inconsolable that their pleas to "work through" the U.N. did not stop Bush from invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein, now all the Democrats are eager for the U.N. to get involved so it can wreck the rebuilding process. Since we didn't let the U.N. lose the war for us, the least we can do is let them screw up the peace.
This part is good, too:
After World War II, the United States ran the Japanese occupation unilaterally. Without the meddling of other nations, the Japanese occupation went off without a hitch. Within five years, Gen. Douglas MacArthur had imposed a constitutional democracy on Japan with a bicameral legislature, a bill of rights and an independent judiciary. Now the only trouble Japan causes is its insistence on selling good products to Americans at cheap prices.
By contrast, the German occupation was run as liberals would like to run postwar Iraq – a joint affair among "the Allies," the United States, Britain, France and the Soviet Union. It took 45 years to clean up the mess that created.
The Soviets bickered with the French, refusing to treat them as "allies" (on the admittedly sensible grounds that they didn't fight). While plundering their zone, the Soviets refused to relinquish any territory to France. Trying to be gallant, the U.S. and British carved a French zone out of their own sectors. The Soviets then blockaded Berlin, built the Berlin Wall, and Germany was split for the next 45 years.
The British made Germany's war-torn economy worse by trying to impose socialism in their zone (as well as in their country). Predictably, economic disaster ensued. Over the next five years, the U.S. was required to spend the equivalent of about $200 billion annually in today's dollars to bail out Western Europe under the Marshall Plan. I note that there was no need for a Marshall Plan in Japan.
Today's topic: Why the multilateral nation-building is an oxymoron. Here's my favorite paragraph:
Inconsolable that their pleas to "work through" the U.N. did not stop Bush from invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein, now all the Democrats are eager for the U.N. to get involved so it can wreck the rebuilding process. Since we didn't let the U.N. lose the war for us, the least we can do is let them screw up the peace.
This part is good, too:
After World War II, the United States ran the Japanese occupation unilaterally. Without the meddling of other nations, the Japanese occupation went off without a hitch. Within five years, Gen. Douglas MacArthur had imposed a constitutional democracy on Japan with a bicameral legislature, a bill of rights and an independent judiciary. Now the only trouble Japan causes is its insistence on selling good products to Americans at cheap prices.
By contrast, the German occupation was run as liberals would like to run postwar Iraq – a joint affair among "the Allies," the United States, Britain, France and the Soviet Union. It took 45 years to clean up the mess that created.
The Soviets bickered with the French, refusing to treat them as "allies" (on the admittedly sensible grounds that they didn't fight). While plundering their zone, the Soviets refused to relinquish any territory to France. Trying to be gallant, the U.S. and British carved a French zone out of their own sectors. The Soviets then blockaded Berlin, built the Berlin Wall, and Germany was split for the next 45 years.
The British made Germany's war-torn economy worse by trying to impose socialism in their zone (as well as in their country). Predictably, economic disaster ensued. Over the next five years, the U.S. was required to spend the equivalent of about $200 billion annually in today's dollars to bail out Western Europe under the Marshall Plan. I note that there was no need for a Marshall Plan in Japan.
Words from Better Writers than Me
David Horowitz: I can't really describe this column by Mr. Horowitz, but it seems appropriate for today nonetheless.
Brad Todd: this one courtesy of the Instapundit. Mr. Todd talks about why we, as individuals, are not whipped and why that means America will not be beaten by terrorists.
James Lileks: scroll down about half-way, to the righteous anger section.
Brad Todd: this one courtesy of the Instapundit. Mr. Todd talks about why we, as individuals, are not whipped and why that means America will not be beaten by terrorists.
James Lileks: scroll down about half-way, to the righteous anger section.
Wednesday, September 10, 2003
Things That Make You Go 'Hmmmm.....'
If things are so bad (i.e. quagmire) in Iraq, then why are the Iraqi people generally so....how do you say....ah, yes.... supportive, of the liberation.
This poll linked above, an AEI sponsored Zogby poll, has some very interesting numbers--the kind you won't hear on the network news. It shows that the people of Iraq are fairly supportive of the liberation. By a staggering percentage think that the nation, and their invidicual lives, are improving.
The Shia, 60% of the nation's total population, based in the central and southern parts of the country seem especially optimistic about the liberation, freedom, and democracy. For example, when asked to describe the type of government that Iraq should have, based upon representative types (Ba'th strongman al la Syria, Sunni Monarchy al la Saudi Arabia, Shia theocracy al la Iran, or American-style democracy), the favorite choice of the Shia was American democracy. It wasn't even close. The Shia went 68% for American democracy and only 27% for Iranian theocracy. This is even more impressive when you consider that while the U.S. has done very little in the way of setting up radio stations and television, Iran has been very busy getting their propaganda machine running. And yet, the Shia favor a democratic government over an Iranian inspired theocracy by the margin of 68% to 27%. Wow!
This poll linked above, an AEI sponsored Zogby poll, has some very interesting numbers--the kind you won't hear on the network news. It shows that the people of Iraq are fairly supportive of the liberation. By a staggering percentage think that the nation, and their invidicual lives, are improving.
The Shia, 60% of the nation's total population, based in the central and southern parts of the country seem especially optimistic about the liberation, freedom, and democracy. For example, when asked to describe the type of government that Iraq should have, based upon representative types (Ba'th strongman al la Syria, Sunni Monarchy al la Saudi Arabia, Shia theocracy al la Iran, or American-style democracy), the favorite choice of the Shia was American democracy. It wasn't even close. The Shia went 68% for American democracy and only 27% for Iranian theocracy. This is even more impressive when you consider that while the U.S. has done very little in the way of setting up radio stations and television, Iran has been very busy getting their propaganda machine running. And yet, the Shia favor a democratic government over an Iranian inspired theocracy by the margin of 68% to 27%. Wow!
Email to Andrew Sullivan Nails It
Andrew Sullivan is posting a an email sent to him that just nails it.
"To me the real lesson of September 11 is something that came out almost immediately - that the reason our airport security failed was because it was oriented toward detecting dangerous objects rather than dangerous people. Muhammad Atta and company were able to pierce our defenses because they had no "weapons". But they didn't need any - THEY were the weapons. Now apply that lesson to the broader world. Possession of dangerous objects (WMD's) by Iraq was not what made Iraq dangerous - a lot of countries have WMD's. What made Iraq dangerous was the dangerous person - Saddam Hussein - who ruled it. Saddam had definitely possessed WMD's in the past, had definitely used them in the past, had attacked his neighbors without provocation in the past, was implacably hostile to the U.S., and friendly to terrorists and terrorism in general. Some evidence (inconclusive) indicated he might have a relationship with al-Qaeda. But most of these Middle Eastern terrorist groups have common or compatible goals, and formal and informal channels of communication. Saddam didn't need to be tied directly and irrefutably to al-Qaeda to make him dangerous to the U.S."
Bingo.
"To me the real lesson of September 11 is something that came out almost immediately - that the reason our airport security failed was because it was oriented toward detecting dangerous objects rather than dangerous people. Muhammad Atta and company were able to pierce our defenses because they had no "weapons". But they didn't need any - THEY were the weapons. Now apply that lesson to the broader world. Possession of dangerous objects (WMD's) by Iraq was not what made Iraq dangerous - a lot of countries have WMD's. What made Iraq dangerous was the dangerous person - Saddam Hussein - who ruled it. Saddam had definitely possessed WMD's in the past, had definitely used them in the past, had attacked his neighbors without provocation in the past, was implacably hostile to the U.S., and friendly to terrorists and terrorism in general. Some evidence (inconclusive) indicated he might have a relationship with al-Qaeda. But most of these Middle Eastern terrorist groups have common or compatible goals, and formal and informal channels of communication. Saddam didn't need to be tied directly and irrefutably to al-Qaeda to make him dangerous to the U.S."
Bingo.
Tuesday, September 09, 2003
Democrats Debate
Tonight, I'm trying to watch the Congressional Black Caucus/Fox News Channel debate among the (announced) Democratic candidates for President........Sorry........ Can't do it........I'll have to let Rush give me the low points tomorrow. He must have a stronger stomach than I do. I feel a little sorry for the moderator, Brit Hume, but he must have known what he was letting himself in for.
My recollection of the Republican debates of 2000 is that the candidates were respectful of each other, spoke knowledgeably and without rancor, and the debates were actually worthwhile in trying to decide whom to support. Tonight, as I expected, these characters are engaging in pure Demo-goggery.
Senator Edwards thinks No Child Left Behind is awful and we need to eliminate the discrepancies in education quality. (I thought the NEA was already doing this.) Vouchers are awful - why let students leave crappy schools? We should simply pay teachers more. (This was a big applause line.)
Dennis Kucinich thinks the way to solve the health care "problem" is to take profit out of health care. Perhaps he would like to make doctors practice at the point of a (single shot, non assault-weapon, Handgun Control Inc., approved) gun, or put drug company executives in jail if they don't produce enough new wonder drugs..... In all seriousness, I just don't see how you can have any kind of conversation with a guy who doesn't understand that the way to get more of something good is to offer a financial incentive for people to provide it.
Joe Lieberman, whose positions occasionally approach rationality, was heckled unmercifully by the audience as a result. When you get any of the looney leftist constituencies that make up today's Democrat party together, I guess this is what you have to expect.
Incidentally, have you heard that some Democrats are complaining that when we say Democrat Party (without the "ick"), they think it's a pejorative? I guess we do agree on some things after all.
Anyhow, I would like to have done my duty, watched the Dem. debate and made a thorough, accurate professional report on it. I just didn't have enough vodka to get through it. Come to think of it, there may not be enough vodka in all of Russia.
My recollection of the Republican debates of 2000 is that the candidates were respectful of each other, spoke knowledgeably and without rancor, and the debates were actually worthwhile in trying to decide whom to support. Tonight, as I expected, these characters are engaging in pure Demo-goggery.
Senator Edwards thinks No Child Left Behind is awful and we need to eliminate the discrepancies in education quality. (I thought the NEA was already doing this.) Vouchers are awful - why let students leave crappy schools? We should simply pay teachers more. (This was a big applause line.)
Dennis Kucinich thinks the way to solve the health care "problem" is to take profit out of health care. Perhaps he would like to make doctors practice at the point of a (single shot, non assault-weapon, Handgun Control Inc., approved) gun, or put drug company executives in jail if they don't produce enough new wonder drugs..... In all seriousness, I just don't see how you can have any kind of conversation with a guy who doesn't understand that the way to get more of something good is to offer a financial incentive for people to provide it.
Joe Lieberman, whose positions occasionally approach rationality, was heckled unmercifully by the audience as a result. When you get any of the looney leftist constituencies that make up today's Democrat party together, I guess this is what you have to expect.
Incidentally, have you heard that some Democrats are complaining that when we say Democrat Party (without the "ick"), they think it's a pejorative? I guess we do agree on some things after all.
Anyhow, I would like to have done my duty, watched the Dem. debate and made a thorough, accurate professional report on it. I just didn't have enough vodka to get through it. Come to think of it, there may not be enough vodka in all of Russia.
Hillary Most Poisoned Name Ever
Great post on the name Hillary being the most quickly poisoned name in history. Apparently, only ten or fifteen years ago, Hillary was in the top 200 names in the U.S. and on an upward trend. Now, it has fallen out of the top 1000 names for girls.
To put this in perspective, it took over 20 or 30 years for Adolph to fall out of the top 1000 after World War II.
Impressive, Hillary Clinton has been more corrosive to her own first name than even Adolph Hitler was to his own.
To put this in perspective, it took over 20 or 30 years for Adolph to fall out of the top 1000 after World War II.
Impressive, Hillary Clinton has been more corrosive to her own first name than even Adolph Hitler was to his own.
Iran Update over at Winds of Change
Winds of Change has up a nifty roundup of events in Iran.
There are a lot of liberals, some conservatives, and a few in the media who complain that we need to pay more attention to Saudi Arabia. Or we need to focus on North Korea. I think a lot of that misses the boat. Iran is going to be one of the next great battlegrounds in the War on Terror.
First, Iran, unlike many other nations in the middle east, has a distinct national identity that goes back thousands of years. And the people of Iran are fiercely loyal to the country, in much the same way many citizens of the U.S. are. There is a deep, warm, patriotism for the nation, it's culture, and it's people.
Second, Iran has a bit of a functioning democratic system. The represetative body in Tehran, the Majlis, does actually have authority over many areas of civil government. This is not a top down, Stalinistic society like Iraq prior to the liberation.
Third, the theocratic/authoritatian portion of the government, the Council of Guardians and the Ayatollah Khameni himself, is much more adept at playing international politics than Saddam was. They know when to bluster and when to blink. They are generally more sophisticated in their approach to dealing with Europe and playing different people off of each other.
Fourth, the population is generally pro-American. There are a lot of Iranian expats in the U.S. They travel back and forth to Iran. They share stories about freedom and prosperity in the U.S. The population of Iran is very young. Most of them have no memories prior to 1979. (Almost two-thirds of the population is under the age of 30.) So, they view most problems in the country as the responsibility of the theocracy, not the U.S.
Fifth, bringing everything to a head, the authoritarian portion of the government is determined to acquire nuclear weopons. They've announced that once they have it, they'll nuke Tel Aviv. Now, perhaps this is bluster. On the other hand, year in and year out, they Ayatollah's government is the number one sponsor of world terrorism. They are instrumental in operating Hezbollah. There is no reason to think that they wouldn't use one of their proxies to actually carry out the threat against Israel.
That puts us in a precarious spot.
The people of Iran are against the government of Iran and in favor of more freedom and democracy. That might generally lead you to believe that they would like to be liberated in a fashion similar to what occurred in Iraq. However, because they are instinctively nationalistic, the people of Iran probably would rally to the flag in the event of U.S. military action. We sure as heck don't want that.
However, if Iran does develop nuclear weopons, we can't sit idly by while Israel is threatened, or while our troops in Iraq are threatened. The theocracy would desperately like to expand it's control by setting up a proxy government in Baghdad. They likely believe that with Iraq being 60% Shia, that it'd be an easy sell...if the U.S. military wasn't present. Scaring us off with the bomb would be quite the feather in their cap. And would be a source of great nationalistic pride for the population.
Accordingly, we can't really let them get the bomb. That puts us back into that problem of invading and turning a people that generally like the U.S. into people who genuinely detest us.
So, we are left with the hope that the student uprisings in Iran will gather steam and eventually overturn the theocracy. However, they haven't reached critical mass. Indeed, it appears that perhaps they have died out some. The theocracy is very good at identifying leaders of the movement and imprisoning them, or disappearing them. That stifles new leadership from arising. And, more importantly, it's hard to have a spontaneous popular uprising that is more than a mob. You need organization and leaders in the uprising so that if you are successful, you can replace the old with something rather than just devolving into chaos.
So, you might be tempted to argue that the U.S. should undertake a little intrigue, maybe actively suport a coup. That has some appealing aspects, accept, that fierce nationalism also still blames the CIA for taking out Mossadegh, an old-time socialist who had nationalized the oil industry back in the 50's. Though Mossadegh's star had somewhat dimmed by the time the CIA did get around to asserting the Shah's authority, the coup made Mossadegh something of a martyr. So, the U.S. needs to tread carefully in how it might work to undermine the current government of Iran.
That puts us in the position of only offering vocal support of the democracy movement, while simultaneously attempting to get Europe to back off of any deals it would like to enter into with the theocracy in Iran. More money and effort into hard news via Radio Farda. More support of hard news about the middle east on any of the satellite television stations based in Los Angeles beamed back to Iran would be great as well. President Bush has made some moves in this direction, such as giving a speach for one of those L.A. based Persian language stations, but a sustained and concentrated effort is going to have to be made.
This is too important to go at it half-assed.
There are a lot of liberals, some conservatives, and a few in the media who complain that we need to pay more attention to Saudi Arabia. Or we need to focus on North Korea. I think a lot of that misses the boat. Iran is going to be one of the next great battlegrounds in the War on Terror.
First, Iran, unlike many other nations in the middle east, has a distinct national identity that goes back thousands of years. And the people of Iran are fiercely loyal to the country, in much the same way many citizens of the U.S. are. There is a deep, warm, patriotism for the nation, it's culture, and it's people.
Second, Iran has a bit of a functioning democratic system. The represetative body in Tehran, the Majlis, does actually have authority over many areas of civil government. This is not a top down, Stalinistic society like Iraq prior to the liberation.
Third, the theocratic/authoritatian portion of the government, the Council of Guardians and the Ayatollah Khameni himself, is much more adept at playing international politics than Saddam was. They know when to bluster and when to blink. They are generally more sophisticated in their approach to dealing with Europe and playing different people off of each other.
Fourth, the population is generally pro-American. There are a lot of Iranian expats in the U.S. They travel back and forth to Iran. They share stories about freedom and prosperity in the U.S. The population of Iran is very young. Most of them have no memories prior to 1979. (Almost two-thirds of the population is under the age of 30.) So, they view most problems in the country as the responsibility of the theocracy, not the U.S.
Fifth, bringing everything to a head, the authoritarian portion of the government is determined to acquire nuclear weopons. They've announced that once they have it, they'll nuke Tel Aviv. Now, perhaps this is bluster. On the other hand, year in and year out, they Ayatollah's government is the number one sponsor of world terrorism. They are instrumental in operating Hezbollah. There is no reason to think that they wouldn't use one of their proxies to actually carry out the threat against Israel.
That puts us in a precarious spot.
The people of Iran are against the government of Iran and in favor of more freedom and democracy. That might generally lead you to believe that they would like to be liberated in a fashion similar to what occurred in Iraq. However, because they are instinctively nationalistic, the people of Iran probably would rally to the flag in the event of U.S. military action. We sure as heck don't want that.
However, if Iran does develop nuclear weopons, we can't sit idly by while Israel is threatened, or while our troops in Iraq are threatened. The theocracy would desperately like to expand it's control by setting up a proxy government in Baghdad. They likely believe that with Iraq being 60% Shia, that it'd be an easy sell...if the U.S. military wasn't present. Scaring us off with the bomb would be quite the feather in their cap. And would be a source of great nationalistic pride for the population.
Accordingly, we can't really let them get the bomb. That puts us back into that problem of invading and turning a people that generally like the U.S. into people who genuinely detest us.
So, we are left with the hope that the student uprisings in Iran will gather steam and eventually overturn the theocracy. However, they haven't reached critical mass. Indeed, it appears that perhaps they have died out some. The theocracy is very good at identifying leaders of the movement and imprisoning them, or disappearing them. That stifles new leadership from arising. And, more importantly, it's hard to have a spontaneous popular uprising that is more than a mob. You need organization and leaders in the uprising so that if you are successful, you can replace the old with something rather than just devolving into chaos.
So, you might be tempted to argue that the U.S. should undertake a little intrigue, maybe actively suport a coup. That has some appealing aspects, accept, that fierce nationalism also still blames the CIA for taking out Mossadegh, an old-time socialist who had nationalized the oil industry back in the 50's. Though Mossadegh's star had somewhat dimmed by the time the CIA did get around to asserting the Shah's authority, the coup made Mossadegh something of a martyr. So, the U.S. needs to tread carefully in how it might work to undermine the current government of Iran.
That puts us in the position of only offering vocal support of the democracy movement, while simultaneously attempting to get Europe to back off of any deals it would like to enter into with the theocracy in Iran. More money and effort into hard news via Radio Farda. More support of hard news about the middle east on any of the satellite television stations based in Los Angeles beamed back to Iran would be great as well. President Bush has made some moves in this direction, such as giving a speach for one of those L.A. based Persian language stations, but a sustained and concentrated effort is going to have to be made.
This is too important to go at it half-assed.
Monday, September 08, 2003
Blame the Fungi/The Reason Global Warming Should Be Viewed with a Skeptical Eye
Interesting story at the Washington Post on newly discovered fungi species which are unlike any discovered before. They were discovered beneath the snow and ice. What tipped us off to their existence? The fact that we were noticing a lot more carbon dioxide being given off in winter than what we thought was possible, given that most trees and plants are almost dormant.
This could have all sorts of impacts on science. First off, these are different, perhaps entire an entirely new family of fungi. Second, they operate in temperatures that cause most bacteria and some plants, to go dormant. This might have nifty implications for those interested in breaking down hazardous materials in places where it is too cold for bacteria to do so. And also, it adds to our understanding of climate and the natural cycle.
But, my favorite line in the story is when scientist Steven Miller says, "We're living in a world where global warming is a constant threat, but in fact we have relatively little knowledge of what the inputs and outputs are for CO 2." That's a lot like saying, "While I still believe in mankind creating global warming, I have to admit that we really didn't, and still don't, have squat when it comes to a foundation for what we are talking about."
This reminds me of a guy who had married into the family (a big-time watermelon* climate researcher at Cornell University) who told my mom, "Well, we know what is going to happen with global warming, but we can't get the computer models to demonstrate that right now. We keep working on the model to get the right result." Hmmmm....that sounds a lot like, "We're going to keep tweaking the data until it gives us the result we want."
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but for the past twenty years, we've been hearing from climatologists that they really really understood the cycle. Mankind's burning of carbon-based fuels was throwing the system out of whack. Cut back now! Or face the consequences! (Fade to scenes of crops withering, lakes evaporating, and fish flopping around on cracked-dry riverbeds.) So, now, they are admitting that they really didn't have any understanding of the system and still don't. I mean, taking those two statements above together
I would think that would make it hard to make accurate predictions, unless your goal isn't discovering truth, but rather scaring people into curtailing their economic freedoms.
*For the unitiated, watermelons are people who wrap their communist/Marxist intentions in environmental rhetoric as a way to mask their awful desires in a more palatable, huggable, exterior.
This could have all sorts of impacts on science. First off, these are different, perhaps entire an entirely new family of fungi. Second, they operate in temperatures that cause most bacteria and some plants, to go dormant. This might have nifty implications for those interested in breaking down hazardous materials in places where it is too cold for bacteria to do so. And also, it adds to our understanding of climate and the natural cycle.
But, my favorite line in the story is when scientist Steven Miller says, "We're living in a world where global warming is a constant threat, but in fact we have relatively little knowledge of what the inputs and outputs are for CO 2." That's a lot like saying, "While I still believe in mankind creating global warming, I have to admit that we really didn't, and still don't, have squat when it comes to a foundation for what we are talking about."
This reminds me of a guy who had married into the family (a big-time watermelon* climate researcher at Cornell University) who told my mom, "Well, we know what is going to happen with global warming, but we can't get the computer models to demonstrate that right now. We keep working on the model to get the right result." Hmmmm....that sounds a lot like, "We're going to keep tweaking the data until it gives us the result we want."
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but for the past twenty years, we've been hearing from climatologists that they really really understood the cycle. Mankind's burning of carbon-based fuels was throwing the system out of whack. Cut back now! Or face the consequences! (Fade to scenes of crops withering, lakes evaporating, and fish flopping around on cracked-dry riverbeds.) So, now, they are admitting that they really didn't have any understanding of the system and still don't. I mean, taking those two statements above together
I would think that would make it hard to make accurate predictions, unless your goal isn't discovering truth, but rather scaring people into curtailing their economic freedoms.
*For the unitiated, watermelons are people who wrap their communist/Marxist intentions in environmental rhetoric as a way to mask their awful desires in a more palatable, huggable, exterior.
Thursday, September 04, 2003
There is a lot of talk in the media today about the U.S. going back to the U.N. to get some sort of help in Iraq. Here's a post from the Armed Liberal writing over at Winds of Change that just about sums up my feelings.
I just don't see how going to the U.N. can do us any good. One of a few bad things can happen.
1. The U.S. goes to the U.N. with a proposal, but insists on retaining operational control. The France (and other members of the Security Counsel) conspire to block us, or dilly-dally around for months, causing us to lose valuable time and look foolish to the rest of the world.
2. The U.S. goes to the U.N. with a proposal, and then caves in on giving operational control to the Blue Hats. The U.N. agencies go in and promptly start effing up what we've done. Nations such as Syria (Security Counsel member), Iran (Weopons Proliferation Committee chair), and Libya (Human Rights Committee chair), in an ironic twist, undermine the security, weopons control, and human rights of Iraq. The U.S. still gets blamed for the resulting chaos.
Some have speculated that the Bush Administration is aware of all this, and is going to the U.N. as a ploy, to prove to the rest of the world that we aren't running with scissors, and can be trusted to play with others. Then, when the French stab us in the back again, it'll prove again how useless the U.N. is. But I'm afraid that at this point, showing the U.N. to be a feckless and backstabbing organization, besmirched with arrogance, is merely preaching to the choir. If they didn't believe that after the dog and pony show they put us through last winter, you'll never see it. So, what constituency is the administration trying to get on board that they don't already have?
I just don't see how going to the U.N. can do us any good. One of a few bad things can happen.
1. The U.S. goes to the U.N. with a proposal, but insists on retaining operational control. The France (and other members of the Security Counsel) conspire to block us, or dilly-dally around for months, causing us to lose valuable time and look foolish to the rest of the world.
2. The U.S. goes to the U.N. with a proposal, and then caves in on giving operational control to the Blue Hats. The U.N. agencies go in and promptly start effing up what we've done. Nations such as Syria (Security Counsel member), Iran (Weopons Proliferation Committee chair), and Libya (Human Rights Committee chair), in an ironic twist, undermine the security, weopons control, and human rights of Iraq. The U.S. still gets blamed for the resulting chaos.
Some have speculated that the Bush Administration is aware of all this, and is going to the U.N. as a ploy, to prove to the rest of the world that we aren't running with scissors, and can be trusted to play with others. Then, when the French stab us in the back again, it'll prove again how useless the U.N. is. But I'm afraid that at this point, showing the U.N. to be a feckless and backstabbing organization, besmirched with arrogance, is merely preaching to the choir. If they didn't believe that after the dog and pony show they put us through last winter, you'll never see it. So, what constituency is the administration trying to get on board that they don't already have?
An On Location Description of Iraq You Rarely Hear
Here is an article from the Washington Times (via UPI) that was written by a former human shield. When this particular gentleman went to Iraq early in the year, he was one of the few who was not given an Iraqi companion/overseer. It didn't take long for him to start getting the straight dope from the Iraqis. That straight dope consisted primarily of, "What are you doing? Why are you here protecting Saddam? He's a monster." After just a few days, our writer had gone from being a human shield, to more or less being an advocate for removing Saddam.
Once the war was over, our author was one of the first to go back into Iraq with humanitarian supplies. This particular article is a continuation of his talks with regular Iraqis. He reports new businesses opening, schools starting, and life beginning anew. He describes people going about their lives with a sense of hope and purpose that had been lacking for over three decades. Frankly, his description makes it sound--I can't think of another way to say it--normal.
Once the war was over, our author was one of the first to go back into Iraq with humanitarian supplies. This particular article is a continuation of his talks with regular Iraqis. He reports new businesses opening, schools starting, and life beginning anew. He describes people going about their lives with a sense of hope and purpose that had been lacking for over three decades. Frankly, his description makes it sound--I can't think of another way to say it--normal.
New Links
Added a few new links at the right side of the page. (And to steal a line from Pejman, the best links are always on the right.)
Since anything is better when there are some conservative ladies around, I've added Right We Are.
And, to keep up with other parts of the world, I've added links to blogs in Denmark, Scotland, Norway, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, and one group blog covering Europe in general.
Since anything is better when there are some conservative ladies around, I've added Right We Are.
And, to keep up with other parts of the world, I've added links to blogs in Denmark, Scotland, Norway, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, and one group blog covering Europe in general.
Wednesday, September 03, 2003
More On Iraq
Of course, while I was noting the lack of anti-American protesting and the lack of looting or violence as part of the funeral procession to Najaf, the press saw something entirely different. The elite media universally picked a couple of sentences from the eulogy given by the brother of the slain cleric in which he proclaimed that the U.S. was responsible for all bloodshed in Iraq and demanded the withdrawal of U.S. troops.
However, in the stories, there was a complete lack of any indication that the crowd agreed with this cleric. No reports of any desired retribution against the U.S. No description of looting. No taunts or slurs yelled at American troops. No signs being carried with pictures of George Bush with devil horns. The crowd, at least in the photos and footage I've seen, displayed virtually no anti-American signs or sentiment.
Moreoever, while the headlines screamed things like, "Senior Iraqi Cleric Blasts U.S. Occupation," the content of the stories included passages describing how the local Iraqi officials had asked for U.S. help, including the F.B.I., in investigating the explosion. Seems odd that if the people of Iraq so vehemently want us out that there officials would ask us to help investigate the explosion.
The press has been, and will continue to be relentlessly negative in reporting all news from Iraq. It's a shiboleth, their new great Immutable Truth, that all the Iraqis hate us and want us out. Don't let the press fool you. It just isn't so. Most Iraqis are glad the U.S. removed Saddam and understand that it'll take some time to get things up and running. I suspect the vast majority over there are more fearful that we'll leave before the job is done than they are fearful that we'll do to much.
However, in the stories, there was a complete lack of any indication that the crowd agreed with this cleric. No reports of any desired retribution against the U.S. No description of looting. No taunts or slurs yelled at American troops. No signs being carried with pictures of George Bush with devil horns. The crowd, at least in the photos and footage I've seen, displayed virtually no anti-American signs or sentiment.
Moreoever, while the headlines screamed things like, "Senior Iraqi Cleric Blasts U.S. Occupation," the content of the stories included passages describing how the local Iraqi officials had asked for U.S. help, including the F.B.I., in investigating the explosion. Seems odd that if the people of Iraq so vehemently want us out that there officials would ask us to help investigate the explosion.
The press has been, and will continue to be relentlessly negative in reporting all news from Iraq. It's a shiboleth, their new great Immutable Truth, that all the Iraqis hate us and want us out. Don't let the press fool you. It just isn't so. Most Iraqis are glad the U.S. removed Saddam and understand that it'll take some time to get things up and running. I suspect the vast majority over there are more fearful that we'll leave before the job is done than they are fearful that we'll do to much.
Tuesday, September 02, 2003
First day of preschool
Well, I had intended to post something about Medical Savings Accounts spurred on by an idiotic editorial in the Des Moines Register last week. Let me sum it up for you: MSA’s good, Des Moines Register bad. Maybe I’ll come back and flesh it out a little later. Regardless, even Rekahabaeukanuba Basuba can understand the prior sentence.
What I’d much rather write about is the fact that today is my 3 year old son’s first day of preschool. I didn’t think I would have to mentally prepare myself for this day. I mean how tough could it be? I’ve long since gotten over leaving him and his 1 year old sister at daycare twice a week. Even leaving them with the grandparents overnight brings only minor pangs of hurt. Preschool is only twice a week for two and a half hours (at the exorbitant sum of $90 a month). Should be a piece of cake. How little did I know.
Being the ripe old age of 29, I can’t even remember my carefree former life of mindless, selfish, drunken debauchery. Now my drunken debauchery is well considered and selfless. Anyway, I took a later lunch than usual to ensure that I could participate in the dropping off ceremony. I was a little later than intended though, and my much harried wife was nonplussed to see me pull up nearly FIVE WHOLE MINUTES later than she expected me. Nevertheless, we piled into the comforting dead cow interior of our highly consumptive SUV for the short jaunt to the nearby church preschool.
As I sat there driving along I began to choke up. I’m not the emotional type, but there was something that got to me through that infernal father-son bond. As I looked as his excited, smiling face in the rear view mirror all I could see was his childhood slipping away like the proverbial sand through the fingers. Could it really be three years ago that I held him tenderly in my arms sobbing from the emotion of his birth? If this snuck up on me so quickly, how long would it seem until Kindergarten, High School, or College? It would be mere moments and I would be carrying his stereo up to his first dorm room. Watching him have his tassel turned at graduation. Moving far away to start his own life and his own family. See his own kids grow up before he was ready.
As we got out he stood their with his little red an blue backpack filled with glue sticks, markers, and Kleenex. The wife got a picture and we went inside to sign him in, hand over the supplies, and introduce him to his teacher. Barely inside the door he rushed to the teeny table and sat down to play with the play-doh (a mixture of black and gold play-doh. He’ll never be a Cyclone fan.) He had no time for us anymore. New friends, new knowledge, and new experiences awaited. We stood their and got one last picture and one last look. I admonished him to be good for his teacher and left. We drove off with tears in our eyes knowing that our little boy was fast becoming a little man and that the seemingly unbearable pain we felt now was a fleeting shadow of the pain he would cause us later in life without ever meaning to.
Having had kids it’s understandable why God alternately wiped humanity from the face of the Earth and then forgave us over and over again. You love your kids so much you want and expect them to be perfect knowing perfection is unattainable. They grow. They rebel. They screw up. They hurt you deeply. They smile. They laugh. They make you laugh. They kiss you and tell you they love you. And everything is right with the world again.
What I’d much rather write about is the fact that today is my 3 year old son’s first day of preschool. I didn’t think I would have to mentally prepare myself for this day. I mean how tough could it be? I’ve long since gotten over leaving him and his 1 year old sister at daycare twice a week. Even leaving them with the grandparents overnight brings only minor pangs of hurt. Preschool is only twice a week for two and a half hours (at the exorbitant sum of $90 a month). Should be a piece of cake. How little did I know.
Being the ripe old age of 29, I can’t even remember my carefree former life of mindless, selfish, drunken debauchery. Now my drunken debauchery is well considered and selfless. Anyway, I took a later lunch than usual to ensure that I could participate in the dropping off ceremony. I was a little later than intended though, and my much harried wife was nonplussed to see me pull up nearly FIVE WHOLE MINUTES later than she expected me. Nevertheless, we piled into the comforting dead cow interior of our highly consumptive SUV for the short jaunt to the nearby church preschool.
As I sat there driving along I began to choke up. I’m not the emotional type, but there was something that got to me through that infernal father-son bond. As I looked as his excited, smiling face in the rear view mirror all I could see was his childhood slipping away like the proverbial sand through the fingers. Could it really be three years ago that I held him tenderly in my arms sobbing from the emotion of his birth? If this snuck up on me so quickly, how long would it seem until Kindergarten, High School, or College? It would be mere moments and I would be carrying his stereo up to his first dorm room. Watching him have his tassel turned at graduation. Moving far away to start his own life and his own family. See his own kids grow up before he was ready.
As we got out he stood their with his little red an blue backpack filled with glue sticks, markers, and Kleenex. The wife got a picture and we went inside to sign him in, hand over the supplies, and introduce him to his teacher. Barely inside the door he rushed to the teeny table and sat down to play with the play-doh (a mixture of black and gold play-doh. He’ll never be a Cyclone fan.) He had no time for us anymore. New friends, new knowledge, and new experiences awaited. We stood their and got one last picture and one last look. I admonished him to be good for his teacher and left. We drove off with tears in our eyes knowing that our little boy was fast becoming a little man and that the seemingly unbearable pain we felt now was a fleeting shadow of the pain he would cause us later in life without ever meaning to.
Having had kids it’s understandable why God alternately wiped humanity from the face of the Earth and then forgave us over and over again. You love your kids so much you want and expect them to be perfect knowing perfection is unattainable. They grow. They rebel. They screw up. They hurt you deeply. They smile. They laugh. They make you laugh. They kiss you and tell you they love you. And everything is right with the world again.
Monday, September 01, 2003
Good News from Iraq
While watching the taking heads on the Sunday shows, I noticed something interesting in the coverage of the funeral procession in Najaf. No, it wasn't in the network presentation, or the commentary. It was the images and footage itself. I didn't see any anti-American demonstrations. No burning American flags. No George Bush scarecrows being incinerated. No signs screaming, "Yankee Go Home!" Now, I'll admit, I didn't spend hours watching. I didn't see coverage from every network. But, the lack of overt anti-American protesting is very interesting.
Moreover, reports are coming in that indicate the Shi'ites are maybe taking to the rule of law . If true, this really demonstrates how far Iraq has come in just a few short months. (Or, 23 weeks, if that's how you are keeping track.)
Hat tip to Instapundit for this news story. Also, read the commentary at ZogbyBlog.
Moreover, reports are coming in that indicate the Shi'ites are maybe taking to the rule of law . If true, this really demonstrates how far Iraq has come in just a few short months. (Or, 23 weeks, if that's how you are keeping track.)
Hat tip to Instapundit for this news story. Also, read the commentary at ZogbyBlog.
Governor grants bonuses
Yesterday, the Des Moines Register broke a story about the Vilsack Administration granting bonuses to certain agency heads, even as the state is trying to cut costs. Nine are listed whose total compensation, including bonuses, exceeds salary limits set in the Iowa Code and who received bonuses totaling about $164,000. The biggest single recipient of the Iowa taxpayer’s largesse is Michael Blouin, Dept. of Economic Development. He received what was described as a “recruitment bonus” of $55,000.
It wasn’t clear how long Mr. Blouin has been working on economic development for the State of Iowa; let’s assume not long. It would be a lot easier to be critical if the governor was trying to say he had really earned this bonus, rather than it being a hiring incentive. I mean, $55,000 is a little out of line for the soaring prosperity and the booming economy we see all around us in this state. Yes, sir. Soaring and booming, that’s us. (I hear rumors that, excluding California, there are places in this country that businesses move into rather than out of, and which actually attract job-seekers.) So, clearly, Mr. Blouin’s bonus is based on what he can and will do for us in the future.
But just in case something else is at work here, I took a look at opensecrets.org to see what Mr Blouin’s politics might be. As you might suppose, he’s a strong supporter of Democrats. In 2002 he gave $1500 to Tom Harkin ($500 refunded the next day), and $1000 to Democrat candidates for the House. His wife, Suzanne, is an even bigger player. In the election cycles for 2000 through 2004 to date, she has apparently given $6800. Ann Hutchinson (Loser-D, 1st District) was the recipient of $250 when Suzanne Blouin listed her occupation as “Homemaker” on May 18, 2002. Three days later Suzanne Blouin, occupation “State of Iowa/Governor’s Office” gave $1000 to the Democratic Party. In a weird coincidence, that was the last contribution for Suzanne Blouin, homemaker, while Suzanne Blouin, State of Iowa, has been kicking in a thousand big ones with regularity since that date.
Many of the other bonus recipients do not show political contributions. An exception is Cynthia Eisenhauer, Dept. of Management, whose bonus was $3000. In an even eerier coincidence, she gave the Iowa Democratic Party $3000 over the past three years. Another exception is Kevin Techau, Dept. of Public Safety, who has given $4650 since 1999 and received $7000 in June.
Now it would take a real cynic to think there’s some kind of quid pro quo in operation here. Maybe the governor’s party has a direct pipeline from the taxpayers to the party and maybe it doesn’t. But think about this the next time you hear some politician say “we HAVE to win this time!”
It wasn’t clear how long Mr. Blouin has been working on economic development for the State of Iowa; let’s assume not long. It would be a lot easier to be critical if the governor was trying to say he had really earned this bonus, rather than it being a hiring incentive. I mean, $55,000 is a little out of line for the soaring prosperity and the booming economy we see all around us in this state. Yes, sir. Soaring and booming, that’s us. (I hear rumors that, excluding California, there are places in this country that businesses move into rather than out of, and which actually attract job-seekers.) So, clearly, Mr. Blouin’s bonus is based on what he can and will do for us in the future.
But just in case something else is at work here, I took a look at opensecrets.org to see what Mr Blouin’s politics might be. As you might suppose, he’s a strong supporter of Democrats. In 2002 he gave $1500 to Tom Harkin ($500 refunded the next day), and $1000 to Democrat candidates for the House. His wife, Suzanne, is an even bigger player. In the election cycles for 2000 through 2004 to date, she has apparently given $6800. Ann Hutchinson (Loser-D, 1st District) was the recipient of $250 when Suzanne Blouin listed her occupation as “Homemaker” on May 18, 2002. Three days later Suzanne Blouin, occupation “State of Iowa/Governor’s Office” gave $1000 to the Democratic Party. In a weird coincidence, that was the last contribution for Suzanne Blouin, homemaker, while Suzanne Blouin, State of Iowa, has been kicking in a thousand big ones with regularity since that date.
Many of the other bonus recipients do not show political contributions. An exception is Cynthia Eisenhauer, Dept. of Management, whose bonus was $3000. In an even eerier coincidence, she gave the Iowa Democratic Party $3000 over the past three years. Another exception is Kevin Techau, Dept. of Public Safety, who has given $4650 since 1999 and received $7000 in June.
Now it would take a real cynic to think there’s some kind of quid pro quo in operation here. Maybe the governor’s party has a direct pipeline from the taxpayers to the party and maybe it doesn’t. But think about this the next time you hear some politician say “we HAVE to win this time!”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
