Friday, January 30, 2004
Stop the insanity
I feel like the peanut gallery today. Just kicking in my 2 cents whenever I feel like it. I just find it ironic that Rekha would lament underage girls being married but not getting an abortion without parental notice. I know she means arranged marriages. But hey, you're only due the benefit of the doubt if you've earned it.
Jeff to Register: Stop the Insanity
Sometimes when I read a Rekha Basu column, I fell like Susan Powder at an all-you-can-eat deep-fat-fried lard buffet. Yelling, "Stop the Insanity!!" doesn't come close to expressing my horror.
Today's example of 200-proof insanity is this. (Imagine me now kneeling down next to my desk, "Forgive me, Oh Lord, for propogating this column, but I fear that I must link to it in order to castigate it.")
Rekha is all tied up in knots over the fear that women in Iraq will end up worse off than they were under Saddam. I have neither the time nor the inclination to cut all of this to ribbons, but I'll pick out out a few choice lines.
Whatever else can be said about Saddam Hussein's rule in Iraq - and plenty of terrible things can - repression of women's legal rights was not one.
It's hard to repress women more than men when you are killing both indiscriminantly.
For 40 years, Iraq's women were considered among the most advanced in the region.
Yes, the most advanced in a region where women have no rights. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
They could drive, pursue professions, be educated alongside men, inherit property, dress as they chose (be tortured, watch their husbands and sons be executed, watch their daughters be raped, be raped themselves, be whipped, have their todlers imprisoned, have their homes taken away from them, be starved while Saddam built a palace, be gassed, have their traditional culture destroyed,) and assume equal protection under the laws (as Saddam decreed them to be from day to day).
Rights were actually enshrined in Baath party doctrine.
Which, most scholars agree, sits right next to the Declaration of Independence in the Rights and Freedoms Hall of Fame. When I have kids, I know I'm planning on teaching them about the Three Great Statements of Human Liberty: The Declaration of Independence, The Preamble to the Constitution, and the Ba'ath Party Doctrine.
She gets paid to write this drivel?
It gets better.
That would open the door to the imposition of Islamic sharia laws undermining women's rights - permitting, for example, underage marriage for girls, automatic child custody for men, the favoring of males in property inheritance, on-the-spot divorce for husbands and polygamy...........That would certainly be an odd and unintended consequence of American involvement. And a reminder of what can happen when you tinker in places you don't understand and then abandon people to their fates.
Rekha has been clamoring for us to get out for weeks. "It's a failure. Pull out. Danger Will Robinson. Eject. Eject. Eject. Quagmire. Ahhhhhhh. We don't understand the region, the culture, the people. We can't force them to do it our way. Iraq for Iraqis. Viva la France."
Now suddenly, she's all concerned that we will leave.
Huh?
Oh, and notice one other thing. The logic behind the whole column is that if the U.S. allows for elections, as the Shi'ites have been calling for, then the Shi'ite majority might elect a fundamentalist government. So, she's arguing that we can't pull out and allow elections.
This is "heads I win, tails you lose" logic. If we stay, then Iraq is subjugated. If we leave, then Iraq is subjugated. Her apparent position is that Saddam should still be in power, even if she does admit that he was a pretty nasty guy.
This is what the left has been reduced to. Arguing that it is better to keep tyrants in power rather than risk an election.
Okay, I have to admit something here. I quit reading the column after that. I skimmed another paragraph about how the Taliban was all our falt, so we weren't allowed to take credit for getting rid of them. (Even if I were to agree that the Taliban was our fault, apparently Rekha is from the "Once You Make a Mistake, It Would Be Immoral to Correct It" School of thought.) And then I quit for good. I refuse to read the rest of her column in order to shake out a few more measely quotes about what a sack a bastards Americans are.
Today's example of 200-proof insanity is this. (Imagine me now kneeling down next to my desk, "Forgive me, Oh Lord, for propogating this column, but I fear that I must link to it in order to castigate it.")
Rekha is all tied up in knots over the fear that women in Iraq will end up worse off than they were under Saddam. I have neither the time nor the inclination to cut all of this to ribbons, but I'll pick out out a few choice lines.
Whatever else can be said about Saddam Hussein's rule in Iraq - and plenty of terrible things can - repression of women's legal rights was not one.
It's hard to repress women more than men when you are killing both indiscriminantly.
For 40 years, Iraq's women were considered among the most advanced in the region.
Yes, the most advanced in a region where women have no rights. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
They could drive, pursue professions, be educated alongside men, inherit property, dress as they chose (be tortured, watch their husbands and sons be executed, watch their daughters be raped, be raped themselves, be whipped, have their todlers imprisoned, have their homes taken away from them, be starved while Saddam built a palace, be gassed, have their traditional culture destroyed,) and assume equal protection under the laws (as Saddam decreed them to be from day to day).
Rights were actually enshrined in Baath party doctrine.
Which, most scholars agree, sits right next to the Declaration of Independence in the Rights and Freedoms Hall of Fame. When I have kids, I know I'm planning on teaching them about the Three Great Statements of Human Liberty: The Declaration of Independence, The Preamble to the Constitution, and the Ba'ath Party Doctrine.
She gets paid to write this drivel?
It gets better.
That would open the door to the imposition of Islamic sharia laws undermining women's rights - permitting, for example, underage marriage for girls, automatic child custody for men, the favoring of males in property inheritance, on-the-spot divorce for husbands and polygamy...........That would certainly be an odd and unintended consequence of American involvement. And a reminder of what can happen when you tinker in places you don't understand and then abandon people to their fates.
Rekha has been clamoring for us to get out for weeks. "It's a failure. Pull out. Danger Will Robinson. Eject. Eject. Eject. Quagmire. Ahhhhhhh. We don't understand the region, the culture, the people. We can't force them to do it our way. Iraq for Iraqis. Viva la France."
Now suddenly, she's all concerned that we will leave.
Huh?
Oh, and notice one other thing. The logic behind the whole column is that if the U.S. allows for elections, as the Shi'ites have been calling for, then the Shi'ite majority might elect a fundamentalist government. So, she's arguing that we can't pull out and allow elections.
This is "heads I win, tails you lose" logic. If we stay, then Iraq is subjugated. If we leave, then Iraq is subjugated. Her apparent position is that Saddam should still be in power, even if she does admit that he was a pretty nasty guy.
This is what the left has been reduced to. Arguing that it is better to keep tyrants in power rather than risk an election.
Okay, I have to admit something here. I quit reading the column after that. I skimmed another paragraph about how the Taliban was all our falt, so we weren't allowed to take credit for getting rid of them. (Even if I were to agree that the Taliban was our fault, apparently Rekha is from the "Once You Make a Mistake, It Would Be Immoral to Correct It" School of thought.) And then I quit for good. I refuse to read the rest of her column in order to shake out a few more measely quotes about what a sack a bastards Americans are.
re: If you build it . . .
Don,
Perhaps the solution is to have more transients in downtown Davenport. We could box up a few in Des Moines, Iowa City, and Cedar Rapids and ship them over. Especially now. They move a lot slower when it's this cold outside and tend to congregate under bridges. Maybe nice parking stall would be a welcome change. (By the way, I already know I'm going to hell for this, among many other things.)
Perhaps the solution is to have more transients in downtown Davenport. We could box up a few in Des Moines, Iowa City, and Cedar Rapids and ship them over. Especially now. They move a lot slower when it's this cold outside and tend to congregate under bridges. Maybe nice parking stall would be a welcome change. (By the way, I already know I'm going to hell for this, among many other things.)
Hogberg: Now Appearing in the American Spectator Online
David Hogber has a new piece in the American Spectator talking about whether deficits matter politically. He also makes a few proposals to curb deficit spending by Congress.
My favorite is the Sunset Provision for all spending programs. The short of it is that after five years, any spending program has to come back up for renewal. If it doesn't get passed again, then it gets closed down entirely. Yea! My only tweak would be to extend it to six years so that a U.S. Senator gets at least one crack at every program (to kill it, reform it, or increase it).
And, on another matter entirely, I love that post on the parking garages in Davenport.
My favorite is the Sunset Provision for all spending programs. The short of it is that after five years, any spending program has to come back up for renewal. If it doesn't get passed again, then it gets closed down entirely. Yea! My only tweak would be to extend it to six years so that a U.S. Senator gets at least one crack at every program (to kill it, reform it, or increase it).
And, on another matter entirely, I love that post on the parking garages in Davenport.
If You Build It...
CedarPundit has been all over the Iowa Rainforest boondoggle (use the link to the right and scroll down) and my colleague Jeff has weighed in as well. Why are they so pessimistic about our public servants’ judgement? We’ve all seen the heady projections of fifteen million visitors per year bringing in cash by the bucketful. Who could criticize that?
Well. Further evidence is in - as if we needed more – on the ability governments have to predict how much demand there is for new attractions they would like to offer. In a story titled Davenport wrestles with how to fund empty parking garages, the QCTimes noted that our two brand new downtown parking ramps are practically deserted.
Figures from Scott Kangas, the city parking manager, show that since the ramp at 101 Main St. opened in March, there have been an average of 5.32 transient parkers per day. The ramp at 202 Harrison St., opened in May, has an average of 8.41 transient parkers per day.
Yes, you read that right. Fewer than 14 cars per day have been using the public (non-leased) portion of these 1075-vehicle capacity parking ramps. This raises a serious question as to how the city will ever be able to pay for their construction.
City Administrator Craig Malin said that unless the city finds some way to boost usage of the ramps, “We are going to have problems by fiscal year 2006.” City staff are putting together figures to get an idea of the extent of the potential financial problems and will work to devise a plan to solve the difficulty, he said.
The city’s ability to repay the parking ramp bonds is based on an assumption that nearly all of the downtown’s empty office space will be occupied within four years.
Kevin Pollard, a property appraiser who is in private practice, said a survey done in February 2003 found 921,000 square feet of vacant office space in downtown Davenport, or about 25 percent of the total there. Tenants interested in renting space are seeking it in areas other than the downtown, he said.
“The office market is soft all over the place. It’s overbuilt,” he said. “When you have tenants moving out to newer space, it hurts the downtown.”
You might be wondering how the city planners could be so far off in their estimates of demand. The general answer is that it’s another example of that “If you build it, they will come” myth. The specific answer is that four years ago when the parking ramp project was hatched, a lack of available parking was the believed to be the only thing preventing new businesses from locating in the downtown area.
Let me come back to this later, after I am able to stop laughing.
The low usage of transient spaces in the ramps and the fact that there is more availability of metered spaces on the streets suggests there is an adequate amount of parking spaces downtown, Kangas said.
“Not only are the ramps not full, the meters aren’t full,” he said. “That suggests that we have reached the amount of (parking) needed for the area. You can find a metered space on just about any street. There are an adequate number of spaces downtown.”
It doesn’t help any that when the new ramps went in, the price of parking went up as well. The old rate at meters on the street was 50 minutes for a quarter. Now meters at the more desirable locations have been rejiggered to 50 cents per hour and the ramp prices correspond. Plus, the new meters have some magic technology in them that they reset to zero time when a car pulls out of the parking space. This means you can no longer find a meter with time left on it. The city fathers, good liberals that they are, couldn’t stand the thought that someone might get a few minutes of parking without giving the city its nickel.
Okay, I’ve stopped laughing. In fact I’m kinda torqued off now. I have this theory that one reason governments can’t estimate markets is that they treat potential customers like crap. They can’t conceive of enticing people into dealing with them voluntarily. The last thing a government entity worries about is the customer’s convenience or desire to get a good deal. I haven’t even mentioned the complicated process a transient parker, to use their phrase, has to go through to retrieve his car from the ramp. You’ll have to read that in the Times article. Suffice it to say that it is not customer friendly.
So what’s the outlook for the parking ramps and the likelihood of making them pay for themselves?
…It probably will come down to putting together a better marketing plan for the ramps that educates people about their use and draws more people into them, [Malin] said.
“We have to make people comfortable with using them,” he said. “Whether we can pay them off on schedule depends on how successful we are at marketing.”
I’m betting they flop. Any takers? And doesn’t this make you feel better about the Iowa Rainforest project?
Well. Further evidence is in - as if we needed more – on the ability governments have to predict how much demand there is for new attractions they would like to offer. In a story titled Davenport wrestles with how to fund empty parking garages, the QCTimes noted that our two brand new downtown parking ramps are practically deserted.
Figures from Scott Kangas, the city parking manager, show that since the ramp at 101 Main St. opened in March, there have been an average of 5.32 transient parkers per day. The ramp at 202 Harrison St., opened in May, has an average of 8.41 transient parkers per day.
Yes, you read that right. Fewer than 14 cars per day have been using the public (non-leased) portion of these 1075-vehicle capacity parking ramps. This raises a serious question as to how the city will ever be able to pay for their construction.
City Administrator Craig Malin said that unless the city finds some way to boost usage of the ramps, “We are going to have problems by fiscal year 2006.” City staff are putting together figures to get an idea of the extent of the potential financial problems and will work to devise a plan to solve the difficulty, he said.
The city’s ability to repay the parking ramp bonds is based on an assumption that nearly all of the downtown’s empty office space will be occupied within four years.
Kevin Pollard, a property appraiser who is in private practice, said a survey done in February 2003 found 921,000 square feet of vacant office space in downtown Davenport, or about 25 percent of the total there. Tenants interested in renting space are seeking it in areas other than the downtown, he said.
“The office market is soft all over the place. It’s overbuilt,” he said. “When you have tenants moving out to newer space, it hurts the downtown.”
You might be wondering how the city planners could be so far off in their estimates of demand. The general answer is that it’s another example of that “If you build it, they will come” myth. The specific answer is that four years ago when the parking ramp project was hatched, a lack of available parking was the believed to be the only thing preventing new businesses from locating in the downtown area.
Let me come back to this later, after I am able to stop laughing.
The low usage of transient spaces in the ramps and the fact that there is more availability of metered spaces on the streets suggests there is an adequate amount of parking spaces downtown, Kangas said.
“Not only are the ramps not full, the meters aren’t full,” he said. “That suggests that we have reached the amount of (parking) needed for the area. You can find a metered space on just about any street. There are an adequate number of spaces downtown.”
It doesn’t help any that when the new ramps went in, the price of parking went up as well. The old rate at meters on the street was 50 minutes for a quarter. Now meters at the more desirable locations have been rejiggered to 50 cents per hour and the ramp prices correspond. Plus, the new meters have some magic technology in them that they reset to zero time when a car pulls out of the parking space. This means you can no longer find a meter with time left on it. The city fathers, good liberals that they are, couldn’t stand the thought that someone might get a few minutes of parking without giving the city its nickel.
Okay, I’ve stopped laughing. In fact I’m kinda torqued off now. I have this theory that one reason governments can’t estimate markets is that they treat potential customers like crap. They can’t conceive of enticing people into dealing with them voluntarily. The last thing a government entity worries about is the customer’s convenience or desire to get a good deal. I haven’t even mentioned the complicated process a transient parker, to use their phrase, has to go through to retrieve his car from the ramp. You’ll have to read that in the Times article. Suffice it to say that it is not customer friendly.
So what’s the outlook for the parking ramps and the likelihood of making them pay for themselves?
…It probably will come down to putting together a better marketing plan for the ramps that educates people about their use and draws more people into them, [Malin] said.
“We have to make people comfortable with using them,” he said. “Whether we can pay them off on schedule depends on how successful we are at marketing.”
I’m betting they flop. Any takers? And doesn’t this make you feel better about the Iowa Rainforest project?
Thursday, January 29, 2004
New WDM Hospital
Well thanks to Jeff for trying to steal my thunder. I’ve kept my powder dry on this issue but, much like Jeff’s overflow of outrage on Hickman Road red lights, I’ve been tipped over the edge. The citizens of the western suburbs of Des Moines, including me, want a hospital. A hospital with clean, modern, private rooms. A hospital with an emergency room that can be reached in a short time frame regardless of the time of day. A hospital where, hopefully, you can take your two year old son for a high fever and not have to share the waiting room with a hooker (An actual event, and not nearly as funny or romantic as the TV show ER would lead one to believe).
Stunningly, the market has moved to fill this pent up demand as both Mercy and Methodist desire to build hospitals in West Des Moines. Who has moved in to quash the sudden appearance of market forces? ANSWER? Uh, I’ll guess the State of Iowa. SURVEY SAYS! The State of Iowa is the number one response. Who Else? Uh, I’ll guess Blue Cross/Blue Shield? SURVEY SAYS! Wellmark is the number two response.
What you may ask, is the State of Iowa’s involvement? Well, the State has to issue a “Certificate of Need” before a hospital can be granted a license. It apparently does not matter whether the facility at issue meets state or JCAHO guidelines or whether the staff is appropriately licensed or whether the investors are committed to establishing the facility. All of these issues are addressed in the licensing process which is wholly separate from the Certificate of Need process. The Certificate of Need process is leviathan state central planning if I have ever seen it. Just look here if you don’t believe me.
Short and quick, for each service to be provided covered by the CON process (acute care, obstetrics, radiology, etc.) a hospital has to satisfy the requirements of the Public Health Department. For acute care, they have to show that the number of beds proposed does not exceed the average daily census by more than a certain percentage. For cardiac surgery, they have to project a minimum number of specific procedures per year. For radiation, they have to serve a minimum number of unserved people and perform a minimum number of procedures per year, and so on.
To make matters worse the CON process is a political process that is open to “affected persons” which is where Wellmark comes in. Wellmark opposes the CON because if one hospital in WDM gets approved the other party has no choice but to build as well. Wellmark’s theory is that overcapacity will lead to higher prices as you spread out capital and operating costs to fewer customers. To which I say, in the words of Colonel Sherman Potter: HORSE HOCKEY!
With this kind of economic analysis it’s a wonder Wellmark makes the enormous coin it does. First, overcapacity will lead to price/value competition to attract customers. It is more likely that one hospital will not succeed and the other will. Most likely is that both will succeed. Regardless, it shouldn’t be the concern of the State of Iowa or Wellmark if either or both fail. Second, both hospitals are proposed to be funded almost exclusively with private donations (take a note Jungle Dome advocates). Accordingly, neither is likely to be burdened with a large amount of capital debt to drive pricing. Third, why the hell should Wellmark care if it raises costs? Higher costs mean higher premiums. Higher premiums mean greater revenue for Wellmark in the long run. On top of that, there is no comparative disadvantage because other carriers would be just as subject to the higher costs. Wellmark, due to its size and penetration in central Iowa should even be able to negotiate steeper discounts than the other carriers as is currently the case.
This is where I think Wellmark’s real agenda goes back the the pissing match they had with Iowa Health Systems (the parent of Methodist and Lutheran Hospitals) a few months ago. Wellmark & IHS could not agree on provider discounts. Wellmark was trying to squeeze IHS for higher discounts resulting in higher profits for Wellmark. A West Des Moines facility might just be enough to allow IHS to form its own HMO or join with Coventry, Principal, United HealthCare, or John Deere Health Care and exclude Wellmark in Wellmark’s most profitable and most exclusive area. That’s the prize at stake. Frankly, given the costs of health insurance in this state and the dearth of competition among insurers that might not be a bad thing.
Stunningly, the market has moved to fill this pent up demand as both Mercy and Methodist desire to build hospitals in West Des Moines. Who has moved in to quash the sudden appearance of market forces? ANSWER? Uh, I’ll guess the State of Iowa. SURVEY SAYS! The State of Iowa is the number one response. Who Else? Uh, I’ll guess Blue Cross/Blue Shield? SURVEY SAYS! Wellmark is the number two response.
What you may ask, is the State of Iowa’s involvement? Well, the State has to issue a “Certificate of Need” before a hospital can be granted a license. It apparently does not matter whether the facility at issue meets state or JCAHO guidelines or whether the staff is appropriately licensed or whether the investors are committed to establishing the facility. All of these issues are addressed in the licensing process which is wholly separate from the Certificate of Need process. The Certificate of Need process is leviathan state central planning if I have ever seen it. Just look here if you don’t believe me.
Short and quick, for each service to be provided covered by the CON process (acute care, obstetrics, radiology, etc.) a hospital has to satisfy the requirements of the Public Health Department. For acute care, they have to show that the number of beds proposed does not exceed the average daily census by more than a certain percentage. For cardiac surgery, they have to project a minimum number of specific procedures per year. For radiation, they have to serve a minimum number of unserved people and perform a minimum number of procedures per year, and so on.
To make matters worse the CON process is a political process that is open to “affected persons” which is where Wellmark comes in. Wellmark opposes the CON because if one hospital in WDM gets approved the other party has no choice but to build as well. Wellmark’s theory is that overcapacity will lead to higher prices as you spread out capital and operating costs to fewer customers. To which I say, in the words of Colonel Sherman Potter: HORSE HOCKEY!
With this kind of economic analysis it’s a wonder Wellmark makes the enormous coin it does. First, overcapacity will lead to price/value competition to attract customers. It is more likely that one hospital will not succeed and the other will. Most likely is that both will succeed. Regardless, it shouldn’t be the concern of the State of Iowa or Wellmark if either or both fail. Second, both hospitals are proposed to be funded almost exclusively with private donations (take a note Jungle Dome advocates). Accordingly, neither is likely to be burdened with a large amount of capital debt to drive pricing. Third, why the hell should Wellmark care if it raises costs? Higher costs mean higher premiums. Higher premiums mean greater revenue for Wellmark in the long run. On top of that, there is no comparative disadvantage because other carriers would be just as subject to the higher costs. Wellmark, due to its size and penetration in central Iowa should even be able to negotiate steeper discounts than the other carriers as is currently the case.
This is where I think Wellmark’s real agenda goes back the the pissing match they had with Iowa Health Systems (the parent of Methodist and Lutheran Hospitals) a few months ago. Wellmark & IHS could not agree on provider discounts. Wellmark was trying to squeeze IHS for higher discounts resulting in higher profits for Wellmark. A West Des Moines facility might just be enough to allow IHS to form its own HMO or join with Coventry, Principal, United HealthCare, or John Deere Health Care and exclude Wellmark in Wellmark’s most profitable and most exclusive area. That’s the prize at stake. Frankly, given the costs of health insurance in this state and the dearth of competition among insurers that might not be a bad thing.
A New West Des Moines Hospital v. Iowa's Stalinistic Central Planning for Healthcare Facilities
West Des Moines is the largest city in Iowa that does not have it's own hospital. Moreover, with the westward expansion of the metro area, upwards of a hundred thousand people now live 30 to 45 minutes away from the downtown hospitals (Mercy, Methodist, Lutheran). The massive growth in Waukee, Grimes, western Clive, and northwestern Urbandale will further exacerbate this situation.
You'd think, therefore, that it'd be easy going to get a new hospital built in West Des Moines, especially when millions of the dollars necessary to build it have already been collecected from private charitable donations.
You'd be wrong. (See articles and editorials from the Register here, here, and here, for more backgrowd information.)
The state of Iowa has a law on the books that sets the conditions under which a hospital may be built. Really, it is nothing short of Soviet-style central planning. 'Cause, afterall, you wouldn't want to leave healthcare to people who, you know, actually deliver the services, or something.
You'd think, therefore, that it'd be easy going to get a new hospital built in West Des Moines, especially when millions of the dollars necessary to build it have already been collecected from private charitable donations.
You'd be wrong. (See articles and editorials from the Register here, here, and here, for more backgrowd information.)
The state of Iowa has a law on the books that sets the conditions under which a hospital may be built. Really, it is nothing short of Soviet-style central planning. 'Cause, afterall, you wouldn't want to leave healthcare to people who, you know, actually deliver the services, or something.
Wednesday, January 28, 2004
NCLB, part 2
An educator has responded via the Cornfield to my No Child Left Behind post with a question as to the appropriateness of Iowa’s plan to use the Iowa Test of Educational Development (ITED) to determine students’ mastery of subject matter. ITEDs have been used for years to rank individual students, but not so much to measure them against a particular standard. I’m going to take his objection under advisement, as I don’t know of any technical reason it can’t be used both ways. Certainly, using item analysis, all sorts of comparisons can be made, from how a given class or school compares with its peers to which specific part of the subject matter needs more attention.
I would assume that raw scores (rather than percentile rankings) will be used to determine the student’s mastery or lack thereof and compared to a standard which is defined as showing proficiency. The method by which the satisfactory proficiency level is chosen is what troubles me. It is likely to be rather arbitrary, and in fact some states are alleged to have shown great “improvement” already by simply reworking the standardized tests (read dumbing down).
But I appreciate the above reader having raised this issue. He has a good point that if the goal is to have all students reach or exceed the 50th percentile, ah, well, the only place ever to make that work was Lake Woebegone. I think that questions of what tests are best, how we are going to use the results, and what standards we will expect to be met are where the debate should be. It’s refreshing to hear a teacher agree that testing and measurement of results are legitimate activities. I attended a meeting to discuss our city’s standing vis-à-vis NCLB recently. All the teachers in attendance - at least all who spoke – were utterly dismissive of NCLB, its goals, its prospects, its methodology, and most of all, its inventors. (All together now, THIS IS STUPID!) One former administrator even suggested we all should just let every school in the state go on the “Needs Improvement” list, and what could they do to us then?
So, good reader, raise your question, fight for improvement in the program (for it does need a lot of improvement) and have high expectations for your students. But be aware, your voice is being drowned out by a cacophony of negativism on the part of your colleagues who just want this stupid NCLB to go away so they can get back to raising self-esteem and giving lots of A’s.
I would assume that raw scores (rather than percentile rankings) will be used to determine the student’s mastery or lack thereof and compared to a standard which is defined as showing proficiency. The method by which the satisfactory proficiency level is chosen is what troubles me. It is likely to be rather arbitrary, and in fact some states are alleged to have shown great “improvement” already by simply reworking the standardized tests (read dumbing down).
But I appreciate the above reader having raised this issue. He has a good point that if the goal is to have all students reach or exceed the 50th percentile, ah, well, the only place ever to make that work was Lake Woebegone. I think that questions of what tests are best, how we are going to use the results, and what standards we will expect to be met are where the debate should be. It’s refreshing to hear a teacher agree that testing and measurement of results are legitimate activities. I attended a meeting to discuss our city’s standing vis-à-vis NCLB recently. All the teachers in attendance - at least all who spoke – were utterly dismissive of NCLB, its goals, its prospects, its methodology, and most of all, its inventors. (All together now, THIS IS STUPID!) One former administrator even suggested we all should just let every school in the state go on the “Needs Improvement” list, and what could they do to us then?
So, good reader, raise your question, fight for improvement in the program (for it does need a lot of improvement) and have high expectations for your students. But be aware, your voice is being drowned out by a cacophony of negativism on the part of your colleagues who just want this stupid NCLB to go away so they can get back to raising self-esteem and giving lots of A’s.
Monday, January 26, 2004
Over in The Corner at NRO, John Derbyshire and Mike Krikorian are still at it on immigration.
Today, they are going on about the theory of jobs Americans won't do. (See here and here.)
The gist of Derb's argument is that it is economic illiteracy to say that Americans won't do certain jobs and the that President was wrong to say that in a speech he gave recently in New Mexico. Now, I suppose that in one sense, Derb is correct when he says that if you paid enough money, anybody would pick fruit. But, he's dead effing wrong on the merits of the President's statement because of one simple fact. Americans won't pick fruit for five, six, seven, or eight dollars an hour. If we want to pay forty or fifty thousand a year for fruit picking, then yes, Americans will do it. However, I don't think that the general population wants strawberries that cost $10 a pound. They don't want to drop an Andrew Jackson to get the kids a pumpkin at Halloween. These are commodities, folks. There is not a heckuva lot of margin on these goods, so every little increase in production costs through wage pressure is going to go straight to the consumer.
Moreover, I have a sneaking suspicion that fruits are considered by many to be a luxury good, i.e. they are rather demand elastic. When the price goes up, demand drops precipitously. When demand for the good drops, the demand for the labor drops accordingly. A lot of people get put out of work, and those that wish to remain working have to work for less.
So, congratulations! Sure, you temporarily raised wages for fruit harvesters, but in the long run you've hindered farmers and created more demand for farm subsidies. In the long run, you've raised the price of fruits and vegetables to the American consumer. At some point, the market would stabilize, but even then, you'd have fewer jobs with only a marginal increase in pay. And Americans still wouldn't want to do it, under the necessary conditions, for the pay that was available.
But wait, Krikorian has the solution. Putting welfare recipients back to work in the low skill jobs. Now, I have no idea why he thinks 400,000 illegal immigrants a year are a terrible drag on wages, but introducing millions of welfare people back into the job market won't do the same thing.
I mean, here's what his argument amounts to:
1) Get rid of illegal immigrants.
2) Wages increase to attract legal workers.
3) Cut welfare.
4) Former welfare recipients rush to the fields, slaughterhouses, and overnight janitorial jobs.
5)
You may be asking, what's step five? Step five is my analysis above. You raise the wages, you drag that part of the economy. You end up back where you started. You get marginal increases to wages, but they are still well below average and and fewer net jobs.
America is the most educated nation in the world. Darn near half of us have college degrees. That's something to be celebrated. We really, honestly, have no interest to pick fruit all day, no matter what it pays. Even amongst those who have only a high school degree, most of those who process insurance claims, wrestle with TPS reports, or tackle that extra performance review in air-conditioned, no-heavy-lifting, year-round, office job will do so for significantly less than what it would take to get them to work in a field. Physically taxing work like steel foundries, construction, or mining, pay three, four, and even ten times the minimum wage. If that's what it takes to get fruit picked, go back to my analysis above.
I think Derb realizes this fact, but he avoids it by calling it laziness. And then he takes a shot at laziness by comparing Americans to Saudis, using a P.J. O'Rourke line from the Gulf War. The joke, as P.J. states it, was that the journalists had a pool going for anyone who ever saw a Saudi national lift anything heavier than his wallet.
Har har, Derb.
Americans work more efficiently than anybody else in the world. To think otherwise is rank ignorance. We get up and go to work every damned day. We have created the largest, most prosperous, and most dynamic economy in the world. And, the class warfare stuff doesn't cut it. "Work" doesn't mean only hoisting heavy stuff around a mill. Just cause you process forms, or program a computer, without having to break your back doesn't mean that you aren't working. It should be celebrated that we have developed wealth beyond compare, not from a single natural asset like oil, but from the intelligence, competition, eternal striving for something better, and rugged individuality of our people. Comparing the average American's desire to do something more intellectually rewarding and less physically destructive than harvesting fruit in sun-baked fields to the work ethic of idle oil-baron, hereditary-titled, "yes my sahib", Saudi princes is totally offensive.
While the pencil is sharp, I'd also like to point out that Derb and Kirkorian's apparent nostalgia for this time in American history when all the Americans worked, and all was right with the world, is the idolizing of a phantasm. It never existed. Up until the Great Depression, several waves of immigrants had come into the U.S. Each time, the natives swore that this particular new bunch would drive down wages, would never be assimilated, was different from the previous wave and was sure to destroy the place. Never happened.
Derb also defines the American dream as people starting out low and working their way up, so that their kids could do better. Uh, yeah. And throughout history, there have been two groups of people on that bottom rung, the lazy, and the immigrants. They came here for the opportunity, and they worked the worst of the jobs, got their kids through school, and maybe the kids got an apprenticeship or got into college. The kids became middle class. And heck, the grandkids might be mayor of the town, or a lawyer, or a doctor. And, by that time, a new group of immigrants were coming in and filling in the bottom jobs.
That's the promise. You get your opportunity here. Work hard and you'll have it better, your kids will have it better, and your grandkids will just blend in. That's the American Dream.
Now don't get me wrong, I'd like to see changes to our immigration system. I think that we should do much more to prevent people from coming here simply to get on welfare. (Ending welfare, or limiting it to citizens would be options.) I'd like to see us focus on the melting-pot theory of immigration rather than the "salad bowl". I'd like to get rid of English as a Second Language and replace it with English immersion so that immigrant kids get a handle on English first and then sent back in to the regular classrooms for math, science, and history, ready to rock and roll. I'd like the government to tell people that while they are free as the wind to speak their native language at home, print papers in their native language, or operate radio or television stations in their native tongue, they must also recognize that this nation conducts its business in English. So, if you want to be able to read the citizenship test, you'd better have a handle on English. Same goes for ballots, tax forms, driver's ed tests, etc. I'd like to see us do a better job of policing the actual physical borders (and ports, airports, etc.). But, I have no problem with having very large numbers of documented legal immigrants.
There are things that we can do to make this nation better, but creating a boogey man out of illegal immigrants, then stating the supposed benefits of getting rid of them without commenting on the costs is just plain wrong and dishonest. Derb and Krikorian should know that too.
Today, they are going on about the theory of jobs Americans won't do. (See here and here.)
The gist of Derb's argument is that it is economic illiteracy to say that Americans won't do certain jobs and the that President was wrong to say that in a speech he gave recently in New Mexico. Now, I suppose that in one sense, Derb is correct when he says that if you paid enough money, anybody would pick fruit. But, he's dead effing wrong on the merits of the President's statement because of one simple fact. Americans won't pick fruit for five, six, seven, or eight dollars an hour. If we want to pay forty or fifty thousand a year for fruit picking, then yes, Americans will do it. However, I don't think that the general population wants strawberries that cost $10 a pound. They don't want to drop an Andrew Jackson to get the kids a pumpkin at Halloween. These are commodities, folks. There is not a heckuva lot of margin on these goods, so every little increase in production costs through wage pressure is going to go straight to the consumer.
Moreover, I have a sneaking suspicion that fruits are considered by many to be a luxury good, i.e. they are rather demand elastic. When the price goes up, demand drops precipitously. When demand for the good drops, the demand for the labor drops accordingly. A lot of people get put out of work, and those that wish to remain working have to work for less.
So, congratulations! Sure, you temporarily raised wages for fruit harvesters, but in the long run you've hindered farmers and created more demand for farm subsidies. In the long run, you've raised the price of fruits and vegetables to the American consumer. At some point, the market would stabilize, but even then, you'd have fewer jobs with only a marginal increase in pay. And Americans still wouldn't want to do it, under the necessary conditions, for the pay that was available.
But wait, Krikorian has the solution. Putting welfare recipients back to work in the low skill jobs. Now, I have no idea why he thinks 400,000 illegal immigrants a year are a terrible drag on wages, but introducing millions of welfare people back into the job market won't do the same thing.
I mean, here's what his argument amounts to:
1) Get rid of illegal immigrants.
2) Wages increase to attract legal workers.
3) Cut welfare.
4) Former welfare recipients rush to the fields, slaughterhouses, and overnight janitorial jobs.
5)
You may be asking, what's step five? Step five is my analysis above. You raise the wages, you drag that part of the economy. You end up back where you started. You get marginal increases to wages, but they are still well below average and and fewer net jobs.
America is the most educated nation in the world. Darn near half of us have college degrees. That's something to be celebrated. We really, honestly, have no interest to pick fruit all day, no matter what it pays. Even amongst those who have only a high school degree, most of those who process insurance claims, wrestle with TPS reports, or tackle that extra performance review in air-conditioned, no-heavy-lifting, year-round, office job will do so for significantly less than what it would take to get them to work in a field. Physically taxing work like steel foundries, construction, or mining, pay three, four, and even ten times the minimum wage. If that's what it takes to get fruit picked, go back to my analysis above.
I think Derb realizes this fact, but he avoids it by calling it laziness. And then he takes a shot at laziness by comparing Americans to Saudis, using a P.J. O'Rourke line from the Gulf War. The joke, as P.J. states it, was that the journalists had a pool going for anyone who ever saw a Saudi national lift anything heavier than his wallet.
Har har, Derb.
Americans work more efficiently than anybody else in the world. To think otherwise is rank ignorance. We get up and go to work every damned day. We have created the largest, most prosperous, and most dynamic economy in the world. And, the class warfare stuff doesn't cut it. "Work" doesn't mean only hoisting heavy stuff around a mill. Just cause you process forms, or program a computer, without having to break your back doesn't mean that you aren't working. It should be celebrated that we have developed wealth beyond compare, not from a single natural asset like oil, but from the intelligence, competition, eternal striving for something better, and rugged individuality of our people. Comparing the average American's desire to do something more intellectually rewarding and less physically destructive than harvesting fruit in sun-baked fields to the work ethic of idle oil-baron, hereditary-titled, "yes my sahib", Saudi princes is totally offensive.
While the pencil is sharp, I'd also like to point out that Derb and Kirkorian's apparent nostalgia for this time in American history when all the Americans worked, and all was right with the world, is the idolizing of a phantasm. It never existed. Up until the Great Depression, several waves of immigrants had come into the U.S. Each time, the natives swore that this particular new bunch would drive down wages, would never be assimilated, was different from the previous wave and was sure to destroy the place. Never happened.
Derb also defines the American dream as people starting out low and working their way up, so that their kids could do better. Uh, yeah. And throughout history, there have been two groups of people on that bottom rung, the lazy, and the immigrants. They came here for the opportunity, and they worked the worst of the jobs, got their kids through school, and maybe the kids got an apprenticeship or got into college. The kids became middle class. And heck, the grandkids might be mayor of the town, or a lawyer, or a doctor. And, by that time, a new group of immigrants were coming in and filling in the bottom jobs.
That's the promise. You get your opportunity here. Work hard and you'll have it better, your kids will have it better, and your grandkids will just blend in. That's the American Dream.
Now don't get me wrong, I'd like to see changes to our immigration system. I think that we should do much more to prevent people from coming here simply to get on welfare. (Ending welfare, or limiting it to citizens would be options.) I'd like to see us focus on the melting-pot theory of immigration rather than the "salad bowl". I'd like to get rid of English as a Second Language and replace it with English immersion so that immigrant kids get a handle on English first and then sent back in to the regular classrooms for math, science, and history, ready to rock and roll. I'd like the government to tell people that while they are free as the wind to speak their native language at home, print papers in their native language, or operate radio or television stations in their native tongue, they must also recognize that this nation conducts its business in English. So, if you want to be able to read the citizenship test, you'd better have a handle on English. Same goes for ballots, tax forms, driver's ed tests, etc. I'd like to see us do a better job of policing the actual physical borders (and ports, airports, etc.). But, I have no problem with having very large numbers of documented legal immigrants.
There are things that we can do to make this nation better, but creating a boogey man out of illegal immigrants, then stating the supposed benefits of getting rid of them without commenting on the costs is just plain wrong and dishonest. Derb and Krikorian should know that too.
Friday, January 23, 2004
That Grinding Noise…
you are hearing comes from our public school educators around the state gnashing their teeth in response to the release of the names of 145 schools and facilities being placed on the state’s “Watch List” for failing to meet one or more of the criteria under Iowa’s No Child Left Behind (NCLB) plan. Educrats have been whining, eh, I mean, warning that NCLB is underfunded and places impossible burdens on public schools ever since it was passed in 2001. Now that results of the first few years of testing are coming out, the claims of unfairness are increasing in volume and intensity. Remember those talking Barbie dolls that would say things like, “Math is harrrrd” when you pull the string? Well, the vast majority of teachers, administrators and officials you are likely to meet all seem programmed to say, “No Child Left Behind is ruining public education.”
NCLB is too complicated for a full explanation here. The whole bill runs 1100 pages in length and I doubt if anyone understands everything in it. (NCLB is harrrd!) Basically, it requires each state to put together a plan to test public school students in the 4th, 8th and 11th grades and to determine if they are making satisfactory progress toward educational proficiency. Each state develops its own plan and testing/reporting standards, which makes comparisons between states difficult. There are requirements that disadvantaged subgroups in particular be measured for educational attainment; hence the name of the bill – NO Child Left Behind. There are penalties for individual schools that fail to meet the criteria for goal attainment for even one of these subgroups for two years running. Under the Iowa plan, the first year that a school or district does not meet all its goals it is put on the above watch list. Threatened with the one thing a bureaucrat fears – adverse publicity – the educational establishment has reacted predictably.
An AP news story in the Sioux City Journal reports Governor Vilsack’s views:
"It is a travesty that folks in Washington D.C. talk about how important education is ... then don't adequately fund the programs they believe are essential for student achievement," he said.
Furthermore,
Some education officials and lawmakers say the federal education initiative isn't adequately funded and sets unrealistic -- but high stakes -- testing standards.
"Our big struggle with compliance right now is that the testing procedures are not funded, and they are a real strain," said Kathi Slaughter, spokeswoman for the Iowa Department of Education. "Schools don't have the staff to do this."
The governor also pointed out that Iowa would receive an additional $300 million if it gets the money the Feds promised - leaving me a little curious just how much money it would take to constitute “adequate” funding. I’ve always felt that with enough money, we can do anything. But educators seem (almost) unanimous in believing there can never be enough money.
And, like young students who when faced with a difficult or unfamiliar task, inevitably complain, “This is Stupid”, the governor and the educrats rationalize how unfair it is that taxpayers are beginning to ask for some accountability and measurement of results.
Gov. Tom Vilsack said in a written statement that the state's school improvement process is more comprehensive and accurate in its diagnosis of problem areas than the federal law. "The number of schools on the watch list is not so much an indicator of problems in our schools as it is an indicator of how impractical the No Child Left Behind assessment process is," he wrote.(i.e., This is Stupid)
"This is based on a single test score, a single measure," said Lew Finch, Cedar Rapids school district superintendent. "Drawing conclusions about schools based on a single reference point flies in the face of education and logic, and is nonsensical."(i.e., This is Stupid)
"The standards are not realistic or attainable," said Roger Scott, Johnston's [Johnston School District] director of academic affairs. "We work as hard as we can. We've redoubled our efforts, which were already very good before. The bad part is, we'll never be successful. The philosophy is, "If we punish you, you'll perform better." That's not a big motivator."(i.e., This is Stupid)
[Some worry] that labeling schools will cause teachers to begin "teaching to the test" instead of teaching to meet student needs. Chris Miller, president of the Des Moines Education Association, said that hasn't happened yet in Des Moines, but teachers feel standardized tests results are being used unfairly to "beat them over the head."
"Most of our teachers see the absurdity in some of the requirements," he said. (i.e., This is Stupid)
So, out of all our public servants, aren’t there any that see some benefit to the new law? Is there no one who sees the purpose of education as developing students’ abilities to the maximum possible? Does no one in education think that improvement can come only through testing and measurement of results, and retesting and re-comparing? Does anyone believe in setting high standards, and expecting improvement?
Well, I may have found a few exceptions to the litany of excuses, complaints and general NCLB criticism from the educational establishment. Not every administrator is 100% opposed to the law.
While Davenport Superintendent Jim Blanche said the effects of the law are not all negative, he hopes the public will look beyond it to see how schools are doing.
“Our community hopefully will evaluate how their school district is doing by looking for continuous improvements,” he said, “not the arbitrary federal targets that are set. If you break this law down, it’s designed to show public education as a failure. We’re not interested in that. We’re interested in continually improving.”[emphasis added]
Never mind that the history of public education in this country has been an unbroken record of declining results for as long as many of us have been alive. The high point for SAT scores was achieved in the mid sixties. Since then, scores have declined despite (or because of) more administrators, more teacher pay, more involvement by the Federal government (the Department of Education was a Jimmy Carter era gift to the National Education Association – no other union has their own cabinet department; the others have to share the Department of Labor) and less parental control of their children.
A cynic might think that the official attitude of the educrats is “We’re the professionals here. We know what’s best for your kids. Just send us more money, shut up and leave us alone.”
"We know what it takes to help our students learn," said John Hieronymus, president of the Iowa State Education Association. "But we can't provide the quality education that Iowa's students deserve unless the Legislature pays for it."
Members of Hieronymus' group, along with the Iowa Association of School Boards and the School Administrators of Iowa, expressed support for increasing the public school districts' general fund budgets next fiscal year by 6 percent, which would generate about $200 million for schools.
But surely there are some educators who sincerely want students to learn and their schools to improve. There must be some who are willing to stand for some constructive criticism and want to know where improvement is needed. Yes, there are.
In Iowa, six Waterloo schools were cited for failing to have 95 percent of students tested. Superintendent Dewitt Jones said the district consciously tried to increase the number of students tested last October with help from teachers and parents.
"We are making strides," Jones said. "If that means we're on some lists while that happens, fine. We have to be going in the right direction."
I could be wrong about this gentleman’s attitude, but this sounds to me like the right approach. While NCLB is far from perfect, (it was basically written by Ted Kennedy, who stripped out the best parts, like vouchers and left in the bad parts, like spending tons of money), the criticism from the “education” establishment is mostly directed against the good part of the bill. That is, it requires some measurement of results. Up to now, our interest in educational attainment has always been determined by how much we are willing to pay - the usual leftist tactic of measuring inputs. At last a start is being made toward measuring outputs – the results of all our combined efforts.
Back in the early days of Federal “Aid” to Education, Bobby Kennedy is said to have asked incredulously, “You mean you spent a billion dollars, and you don’t even know if anybody learned to read?”
If he could only see it now….
NCLB is too complicated for a full explanation here. The whole bill runs 1100 pages in length and I doubt if anyone understands everything in it. (NCLB is harrrd!) Basically, it requires each state to put together a plan to test public school students in the 4th, 8th and 11th grades and to determine if they are making satisfactory progress toward educational proficiency. Each state develops its own plan and testing/reporting standards, which makes comparisons between states difficult. There are requirements that disadvantaged subgroups in particular be measured for educational attainment; hence the name of the bill – NO Child Left Behind. There are penalties for individual schools that fail to meet the criteria for goal attainment for even one of these subgroups for two years running. Under the Iowa plan, the first year that a school or district does not meet all its goals it is put on the above watch list. Threatened with the one thing a bureaucrat fears – adverse publicity – the educational establishment has reacted predictably.
An AP news story in the Sioux City Journal reports Governor Vilsack’s views:
"It is a travesty that folks in Washington D.C. talk about how important education is ... then don't adequately fund the programs they believe are essential for student achievement," he said.
Furthermore,
Some education officials and lawmakers say the federal education initiative isn't adequately funded and sets unrealistic -- but high stakes -- testing standards.
"Our big struggle with compliance right now is that the testing procedures are not funded, and they are a real strain," said Kathi Slaughter, spokeswoman for the Iowa Department of Education. "Schools don't have the staff to do this."
The governor also pointed out that Iowa would receive an additional $300 million if it gets the money the Feds promised - leaving me a little curious just how much money it would take to constitute “adequate” funding. I’ve always felt that with enough money, we can do anything. But educators seem (almost) unanimous in believing there can never be enough money.
And, like young students who when faced with a difficult or unfamiliar task, inevitably complain, “This is Stupid”, the governor and the educrats rationalize how unfair it is that taxpayers are beginning to ask for some accountability and measurement of results.
Gov. Tom Vilsack said in a written statement that the state's school improvement process is more comprehensive and accurate in its diagnosis of problem areas than the federal law. "The number of schools on the watch list is not so much an indicator of problems in our schools as it is an indicator of how impractical the No Child Left Behind assessment process is," he wrote.(i.e., This is Stupid)
"This is based on a single test score, a single measure," said Lew Finch, Cedar Rapids school district superintendent. "Drawing conclusions about schools based on a single reference point flies in the face of education and logic, and is nonsensical."(i.e., This is Stupid)
"The standards are not realistic or attainable," said Roger Scott, Johnston's [Johnston School District] director of academic affairs. "We work as hard as we can. We've redoubled our efforts, which were already very good before. The bad part is, we'll never be successful. The philosophy is, "If we punish you, you'll perform better." That's not a big motivator."(i.e., This is Stupid)
[Some worry] that labeling schools will cause teachers to begin "teaching to the test" instead of teaching to meet student needs. Chris Miller, president of the Des Moines Education Association, said that hasn't happened yet in Des Moines, but teachers feel standardized tests results are being used unfairly to "beat them over the head."
"Most of our teachers see the absurdity in some of the requirements," he said. (i.e., This is Stupid)
So, out of all our public servants, aren’t there any that see some benefit to the new law? Is there no one who sees the purpose of education as developing students’ abilities to the maximum possible? Does no one in education think that improvement can come only through testing and measurement of results, and retesting and re-comparing? Does anyone believe in setting high standards, and expecting improvement?
Well, I may have found a few exceptions to the litany of excuses, complaints and general NCLB criticism from the educational establishment. Not every administrator is 100% opposed to the law.
While Davenport Superintendent Jim Blanche said the effects of the law are not all negative, he hopes the public will look beyond it to see how schools are doing.
“Our community hopefully will evaluate how their school district is doing by looking for continuous improvements,” he said, “not the arbitrary federal targets that are set. If you break this law down, it’s designed to show public education as a failure. We’re not interested in that. We’re interested in continually improving.”[emphasis added]
Never mind that the history of public education in this country has been an unbroken record of declining results for as long as many of us have been alive. The high point for SAT scores was achieved in the mid sixties. Since then, scores have declined despite (or because of) more administrators, more teacher pay, more involvement by the Federal government (the Department of Education was a Jimmy Carter era gift to the National Education Association – no other union has their own cabinet department; the others have to share the Department of Labor) and less parental control of their children.
A cynic might think that the official attitude of the educrats is “We’re the professionals here. We know what’s best for your kids. Just send us more money, shut up and leave us alone.”
"We know what it takes to help our students learn," said John Hieronymus, president of the Iowa State Education Association. "But we can't provide the quality education that Iowa's students deserve unless the Legislature pays for it."
Members of Hieronymus' group, along with the Iowa Association of School Boards and the School Administrators of Iowa, expressed support for increasing the public school districts' general fund budgets next fiscal year by 6 percent, which would generate about $200 million for schools.
But surely there are some educators who sincerely want students to learn and their schools to improve. There must be some who are willing to stand for some constructive criticism and want to know where improvement is needed. Yes, there are.
In Iowa, six Waterloo schools were cited for failing to have 95 percent of students tested. Superintendent Dewitt Jones said the district consciously tried to increase the number of students tested last October with help from teachers and parents.
"We are making strides," Jones said. "If that means we're on some lists while that happens, fine. We have to be going in the right direction."
I could be wrong about this gentleman’s attitude, but this sounds to me like the right approach. While NCLB is far from perfect, (it was basically written by Ted Kennedy, who stripped out the best parts, like vouchers and left in the bad parts, like spending tons of money), the criticism from the “education” establishment is mostly directed against the good part of the bill. That is, it requires some measurement of results. Up to now, our interest in educational attainment has always been determined by how much we are willing to pay - the usual leftist tactic of measuring inputs. At last a start is being made toward measuring outputs – the results of all our combined efforts.
Back in the early days of Federal “Aid” to Education, Bobby Kennedy is said to have asked incredulously, “You mean you spent a billion dollars, and you don’t even know if anybody learned to read?”
If he could only see it now….
What You Could Do With $200 Million
Oh goody, the U.S. Senate passed a $370 billion spending bill yesterday, which included $50 million for the Iowa Rainforest Boondoggle. Both of our U.S. Senators, Grassley and Harkin, believe that it is simply wonderful. (The project's director, David Oman, said, "This will be a national facility. There is nothing like it in our country." Perhaps there is a reason for that, gentlemen. Perhaps that should clue you in.)
With the $50 mil from the feds, the project may actually begin construction. Notice, I'm not convinced that it will be completed. I suspect that the $200 million initial price tag will go up roughly 50% to 75% during construction. That would bring the initial outlay, just for constuction, to something in the neighborhood of $300 to $350 million. And of course, that doesn't count yearly operational costs.
But, hey, let's take them at their word. $200 mil to get 4.5 acres of rainforest under glass in the middle of Iowa. What else could we do with that money. Here are some ideas that Chad and I came up with.
1) Buy actual rainforest: Rather than just getting a warm fuzzy for teaching kids about protecting the jungle, we could, you know, actually protect the jungle. Our research indicates that you can buy land in the jungle at the rate of about $40 an acre. That's 7500 square miles. Starting fromt he southwestern edge of Polk County, drive to within about five miles of the state line with Missouri. Turn west. Drive to the Missouri River. Turn north. Drive until you get to I-80. Turn east. Drive back to Des Moines. The area you just circumnavigated is about 7500 square miles, 1/8th of the total area of Iowa. It's 4.8 million acreas, a bit bigger than Connecticut and Rhode Island....combined.
2) Fly every high school senior in Iowa down to the rainforest in Brazil. According to this, about 37,000 kids graduate from high school in Iowa during a typical year. With $200 million, we could spend about $5,400 per kid to fly each and every one of them to Brazil for a couple of weeks. Or, you could spend about one third of it, or $1800 per kid, to fly the senior class down this year. Save the other $133 million. Collect a bundle of interest off of it, then fly the senior class down next year. Collect interest on what's left. Fly a third class down. And then have a tidy little sum left over from the interest that can be put towards getting a fourth class down there.
Many of you may be saying, "Well, but Jeff, that's only three graduating classes worth of kids. The jungle-dome will be there in perpetuity for generation upon generation. Isn't that a better use of our money?"
I have a couple of responses. First, if you think that $200 is the actual building cost, think again. As pointed out above, the projected construction costs will go up tremendously before this thing is actually completed. In order to convince people it is worth it, government projects are always sold to the public on the absolute most optomistic cost projection. After all, once it's started, we aren't going to back out on it. We'll have to push through to completion. Look for the actual construction costs to be double of what is being said right now. Second, this thing is going to take millions of dollars a year to operate. We'll pay consultants millions to pick the right type of plants. We'll pay experts tens of thousands a year to take care of the plants. It'll cost about a bazillion dollars a year to keep a glass enclosure heated to steaming jungle temps during an Iowa winter. We'll have to pay people to work there. There will be liability payouts to kids who trip and fall in the place. They'll be sand and salt for the parking lot. They'll be repair costs to the dome. They'll be upkeep to the grounds. Those types of nickles and dimes, or more correctly, the Grants and Franklins, add up quickly. I feel quite comfortable saying that when you add up the interest that could be earned off of $200 million, add in the amount spent on construction cost over-runs, and the yearly operating costs, plus interest on all of that money, you could send every high school graduating class in Iowa to Brazil for a week for a time period longer than the jungle-dome will actually operate.
Could I be wrong? Yes. But I doubt it.
3) Actually, this isn't an idea for spending $200 million. It's an idea for cutting taxes by $200 million. Now, I know that tax cuts are not spending, but since folks on the other side of the political spectrum treat them like spending, for purposes of this post, I'll do likewise. Let's cut taxes on Iowa businesses, across the board, by $200 million. Heck, I'll take a $20 million cut for each of the next ten years. That should make this state a little more tax competitive and keep a few more of our homegrown businesses here.
With the $50 mil from the feds, the project may actually begin construction. Notice, I'm not convinced that it will be completed. I suspect that the $200 million initial price tag will go up roughly 50% to 75% during construction. That would bring the initial outlay, just for constuction, to something in the neighborhood of $300 to $350 million. And of course, that doesn't count yearly operational costs.
But, hey, let's take them at their word. $200 mil to get 4.5 acres of rainforest under glass in the middle of Iowa. What else could we do with that money. Here are some ideas that Chad and I came up with.
1) Buy actual rainforest: Rather than just getting a warm fuzzy for teaching kids about protecting the jungle, we could, you know, actually protect the jungle. Our research indicates that you can buy land in the jungle at the rate of about $40 an acre. That's 7500 square miles. Starting fromt he southwestern edge of Polk County, drive to within about five miles of the state line with Missouri. Turn west. Drive to the Missouri River. Turn north. Drive until you get to I-80. Turn east. Drive back to Des Moines. The area you just circumnavigated is about 7500 square miles, 1/8th of the total area of Iowa. It's 4.8 million acreas, a bit bigger than Connecticut and Rhode Island....combined.
2) Fly every high school senior in Iowa down to the rainforest in Brazil. According to this, about 37,000 kids graduate from high school in Iowa during a typical year. With $200 million, we could spend about $5,400 per kid to fly each and every one of them to Brazil for a couple of weeks. Or, you could spend about one third of it, or $1800 per kid, to fly the senior class down this year. Save the other $133 million. Collect a bundle of interest off of it, then fly the senior class down next year. Collect interest on what's left. Fly a third class down. And then have a tidy little sum left over from the interest that can be put towards getting a fourth class down there.
Many of you may be saying, "Well, but Jeff, that's only three graduating classes worth of kids. The jungle-dome will be there in perpetuity for generation upon generation. Isn't that a better use of our money?"
I have a couple of responses. First, if you think that $200 is the actual building cost, think again. As pointed out above, the projected construction costs will go up tremendously before this thing is actually completed. In order to convince people it is worth it, government projects are always sold to the public on the absolute most optomistic cost projection. After all, once it's started, we aren't going to back out on it. We'll have to push through to completion. Look for the actual construction costs to be double of what is being said right now. Second, this thing is going to take millions of dollars a year to operate. We'll pay consultants millions to pick the right type of plants. We'll pay experts tens of thousands a year to take care of the plants. It'll cost about a bazillion dollars a year to keep a glass enclosure heated to steaming jungle temps during an Iowa winter. We'll have to pay people to work there. There will be liability payouts to kids who trip and fall in the place. They'll be sand and salt for the parking lot. They'll be repair costs to the dome. They'll be upkeep to the grounds. Those types of nickles and dimes, or more correctly, the Grants and Franklins, add up quickly. I feel quite comfortable saying that when you add up the interest that could be earned off of $200 million, add in the amount spent on construction cost over-runs, and the yearly operating costs, plus interest on all of that money, you could send every high school graduating class in Iowa to Brazil for a week for a time period longer than the jungle-dome will actually operate.
Could I be wrong? Yes. But I doubt it.
3) Actually, this isn't an idea for spending $200 million. It's an idea for cutting taxes by $200 million. Now, I know that tax cuts are not spending, but since folks on the other side of the political spectrum treat them like spending, for purposes of this post, I'll do likewise. Let's cut taxes on Iowa businesses, across the board, by $200 million. Heck, I'll take a $20 million cut for each of the next ten years. That should make this state a little more tax competitive and keep a few more of our homegrown businesses here.
Thursday, January 22, 2004
Interesting Article on Events in Iran
The upcoming elections in Iran were thrown into turmoil several days ago when the Council of Guardians disqualifed upwards of 3600 hundred candidates for elective offices throughout Iran, including 83 current members of the Majlis (the parliament).
Many current members of the Majlis, as well as several regional governors, threatened to resign in protest. When the CofG didn't respond, many of them handed in their resignations.
A small, and I emphasize "small", detente was achieved when the CofG reinstated a handful of the disqualified candidates.
Now, however, situation may be turning violent. A reformist candidate speaking out against the government found himself being rushed by upwards of 200 agents of the hard-liners. Beatings ensued.
Why is this important to us?
Well, because of this. Iran is very likely on the cusp of developing a nuclear weopon.
Moreover, the democracy movement in Iran has heretofore been confined primarily to the university students. The movement has had trouble developing leaders because as soon as one would become a little too vocal, he or she would be arrested. A movement without leaders is hard-pressed to become generally popular.
But two recent unrelated events have likely begun to generate strength for the democracy movement more broadly. First, the awarding of the Nobel Prize to an Iranian women has potentially created a leader around whom the Iranian people can rally. Her status as a Nobel winner gives her a more protected status than the student leaders. Second, the aftermath of the tragic earthquake in Bam which killed perhaps thirty-five thousand people, has demonstrated to many that the existing regime is thoroughly rotten.
Therefore, the regime in Tehran must quickly, very quickly, develop a nuclear bomb. The existence of an atomic weopon would give the regime a rallying point for national pride, give the regime a shield against potential U.S. intervention in Iran or attempt to force the U.S. out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
At this point, the election stand-off in Iran is important to us, because the outcome of that stand-off might go a long way towards determining our next move in the middle east, and whether a popular and friendly democracy rises in Iran.
Many current members of the Majlis, as well as several regional governors, threatened to resign in protest. When the CofG didn't respond, many of them handed in their resignations.
A small, and I emphasize "small", detente was achieved when the CofG reinstated a handful of the disqualified candidates.
Now, however, situation may be turning violent. A reformist candidate speaking out against the government found himself being rushed by upwards of 200 agents of the hard-liners. Beatings ensued.
Why is this important to us?
Well, because of this. Iran is very likely on the cusp of developing a nuclear weopon.
Moreover, the democracy movement in Iran has heretofore been confined primarily to the university students. The movement has had trouble developing leaders because as soon as one would become a little too vocal, he or she would be arrested. A movement without leaders is hard-pressed to become generally popular.
But two recent unrelated events have likely begun to generate strength for the democracy movement more broadly. First, the awarding of the Nobel Prize to an Iranian women has potentially created a leader around whom the Iranian people can rally. Her status as a Nobel winner gives her a more protected status than the student leaders. Second, the aftermath of the tragic earthquake in Bam which killed perhaps thirty-five thousand people, has demonstrated to many that the existing regime is thoroughly rotten.
Therefore, the regime in Tehran must quickly, very quickly, develop a nuclear bomb. The existence of an atomic weopon would give the regime a rallying point for national pride, give the regime a shield against potential U.S. intervention in Iran or attempt to force the U.S. out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
At this point, the election stand-off in Iran is important to us, because the outcome of that stand-off might go a long way towards determining our next move in the middle east, and whether a popular and friendly democracy rises in Iran.
Short Takes
-->The general concensus around the internet seems to be that Howard Dean blew it when he said that Saddam's capture had not made us safer. I suppose there is something to that idea, but really, I think that a lot of his supporters actually agree with him. Heck, I think that a lot of the hard-core, primary-voting, Democrats believe that.
Instead, I really think that the turning point was when Howard took such obvious offense at being referred to as George Bush's neighbor and then essentially yelled at the gentleman to sit down and shut up. That little snippet got a lot of play around here. That was the point at which many people said, "Whoa, this guy doesn't know when to turn it off." Giving voice to anger in a stump speech is one thing. Telling a citizen, a potential voter who you are suppose to be courting, to sit down and shut up is just plain stupid....unpresidential. Howard's poll numbers didn't dip back in December when he announced that Saddam's capture wasn't a big deal. But those poll numbers starting nosediving within just a couple of days of the "Sit down" episode.
-->I have no idea how the Democrat primaries will go from this point on. I still think that Dean is in it for quite a while yet. He's got a lot of money in the bank. And since money is the mother's milk of politics, he'll have enough nourishment to make it through several more states. That allows him to trade delegates for time. If he can control the temper for two or three weeks, the Iowa fiasco will recede from memory. By Super Tuesday, he may have had enough time to rehabilitate himself. He's down, but he isn't out.
-->John Edwards is definitely the flavor of the day for the Democrats right now. Many people really want him to be the next Bill Clinton, but without the moral turpitude. He will make it or break it in South Carolina. The betting money is that he will win there because he's a local. But, that primary is still a couple of weeks away, an eternity in this primary season. The proper military packaging for Clark or Kerry could seriously dent Edwards in the south. Moreover, because Kerry, Clark, and Dean think that Edwards is the one to beat in South Carolina, they will all make a point of tearing him down. While Edwards was able to stay above the fray when Kerry and Gephardt were going after Dean, he won't be able to stay above the fray when he is the one being attacked. He'll have to respond.
-->I only saw about the last fifteen minutes of the SOTU. So, I only saw the annoying parts. And, really, seriously, what the heck was up with urging professional athletes, coaches and owners to get steroids out of sports? Even my thoroughly unpolitical girlfriend responded to that by saying, "What the heck does that have to do with the State of the Union?" That sort of felt like jump the shark moment.
-->
Instead, I really think that the turning point was when Howard took such obvious offense at being referred to as George Bush's neighbor and then essentially yelled at the gentleman to sit down and shut up. That little snippet got a lot of play around here. That was the point at which many people said, "Whoa, this guy doesn't know when to turn it off." Giving voice to anger in a stump speech is one thing. Telling a citizen, a potential voter who you are suppose to be courting, to sit down and shut up is just plain stupid....unpresidential. Howard's poll numbers didn't dip back in December when he announced that Saddam's capture wasn't a big deal. But those poll numbers starting nosediving within just a couple of days of the "Sit down" episode.
-->I have no idea how the Democrat primaries will go from this point on. I still think that Dean is in it for quite a while yet. He's got a lot of money in the bank. And since money is the mother's milk of politics, he'll have enough nourishment to make it through several more states. That allows him to trade delegates for time. If he can control the temper for two or three weeks, the Iowa fiasco will recede from memory. By Super Tuesday, he may have had enough time to rehabilitate himself. He's down, but he isn't out.
-->John Edwards is definitely the flavor of the day for the Democrats right now. Many people really want him to be the next Bill Clinton, but without the moral turpitude. He will make it or break it in South Carolina. The betting money is that he will win there because he's a local. But, that primary is still a couple of weeks away, an eternity in this primary season. The proper military packaging for Clark or Kerry could seriously dent Edwards in the south. Moreover, because Kerry, Clark, and Dean think that Edwards is the one to beat in South Carolina, they will all make a point of tearing him down. While Edwards was able to stay above the fray when Kerry and Gephardt were going after Dean, he won't be able to stay above the fray when he is the one being attacked. He'll have to respond.
-->I only saw about the last fifteen minutes of the SOTU. So, I only saw the annoying parts. And, really, seriously, what the heck was up with urging professional athletes, coaches and owners to get steroids out of sports? Even my thoroughly unpolitical girlfriend responded to that by saying, "What the heck does that have to do with the State of the Union?" That sort of felt like jump the shark moment.
-->
Re: My Favorite Part
Personally, I am fond of the listing of all the nations in the coalition. Although, I would have announced them with more vigor. You know, kickin' it Dean Style.
We're getting troop support from Great Britain. And we're getting the support of Poland. And we're getting the support of Italy....Spain.....Norway.....the Czech Republic.....Australia.....Japan......Ukraine.....yeeeeeeaaaaarrrrrggggg!
We're getting troop support from Great Britain. And we're getting the support of Poland. And we're getting the support of Italy....Spain.....Norway.....the Czech Republic.....Australia.....Japan......Ukraine.....yeeeeeeaaaaarrrrrggggg!
Wednesday, January 21, 2004
My Favorite Part
Of the SOTU was when the President said,
“…Key provisions of the PATRIOT Act are set to expire next year.”
(pause for applause from the Democrat side ONLY)
“The terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule.”
And then he paused with a hint of his trademark smirk as if to say,” Gotcha! Don’t you feel like fools now?” before continuing, “Our law enforcement needs this vital legislation to protect our citizens. You need to renew the PATRIOT Act.”
My least favorite part was after the speech ended and the CNN reporterette observed that there were many things the president said that got a cool response from the Democrats. [That Bush is SO divisive, you know.]
I guess this means that Republicans were always enthusiastic about everything Clinton said in his SOTU speeches.
“…Key provisions of the PATRIOT Act are set to expire next year.”
(pause for applause from the Democrat side ONLY)
“The terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule.”
And then he paused with a hint of his trademark smirk as if to say,” Gotcha! Don’t you feel like fools now?” before continuing, “Our law enforcement needs this vital legislation to protect our citizens. You need to renew the PATRIOT Act.”
My least favorite part was after the speech ended and the CNN reporterette observed that there were many things the president said that got a cool response from the Democrats. [That Bush is SO divisive, you know.]
I guess this means that Republicans were always enthusiastic about everything Clinton said in his SOTU speeches.
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
Hmmm.....Interesting......
This is an interesting story from the Register today. It appears that the Edwards camp made some deals around the state to get the Kucinich, and possibly the Clark, supporters to switch to their man in precincts where Kucinich and Clark failed to get the necessary fifteen percent.
Now, why do I find this interesting. Well, frankly, Kucinich Clark (especially in the last couple of weeks) have been the candidates of the extreme, loopy, left. It says something about Edwards that he courted these people. What does it say, you ask? Well, I'm not certain. I'm torn.
It might mean that Edwards has decided that to stay in view, he needs to shore up his support amongst the hard-core liberals and will start moving further to the left.
Or it might mean that he felt that if he came in third or fourth here that he was done. He needed Iowa to remain viable and was looking for votes anywhere he could get them, having no intention to let the fringe dictate his positions.
However, in either case, it might mean (and I emphasize the word "might") that his campaign wasn't as strong as indicated. He was the second choice of a lot of people, not the first choice. That position can be quite valuable in Iowa. But it doesn't really do much good in a primary state.
Edwards is a darling for a moment. It remains to be seen if his campaign has legs.
Now, why do I find this interesting. Well, frankly, Kucinich Clark (especially in the last couple of weeks) have been the candidates of the extreme, loopy, left. It says something about Edwards that he courted these people. What does it say, you ask? Well, I'm not certain. I'm torn.
It might mean that Edwards has decided that to stay in view, he needs to shore up his support amongst the hard-core liberals and will start moving further to the left.
Or it might mean that he felt that if he came in third or fourth here that he was done. He needed Iowa to remain viable and was looking for votes anywhere he could get them, having no intention to let the fringe dictate his positions.
However, in either case, it might mean (and I emphasize the word "might") that his campaign wasn't as strong as indicated. He was the second choice of a lot of people, not the first choice. That position can be quite valuable in Iowa. But it doesn't really do much good in a primary state.
Edwards is a darling for a moment. It remains to be seen if his campaign has legs.
Post-Caucus Thoughts
Well, I certainly missed on my predictions by a great deal. Gephardt got about half of the support I thought he would. Kerry and Edwards both got about fifty percent more than I thought they would. Dean, I got him about right, just one percentage point off.
So, where does that leave us.....One word: Happy!
The annoying ads will be gone. Yea!
The annoying phone calls will be gone. Yea!
The imported volunteers knocking on your door will be gone. Yea!
Handicapping of the race to follow potentially coming soon.
That is all.
So, where does that leave us.....One word: Happy!
The annoying ads will be gone. Yea!
The annoying phone calls will be gone. Yea!
The imported volunteers knocking on your door will be gone. Yea!
Handicapping of the race to follow potentially coming soon.
That is all.
Monday, January 19, 2004
Twas the Night 'Fore the Caucus
‘Twas the night ‘fore the caucus and all through the state,
Our Democrat brethren were considering their fate
The candidates were filling up ads with hot air
With hopes that a victory soon would be theirs
The voters were tossing and turning in their beds
While visions of losing in November danced in their heads
And I with my remote pressed firm in my hand
Was just tuning in Fox to watch Carl Cameron
When just off the camera, their arose sounds so abusive
That the newsman thought, “I smell an exclusive.”
Away round the corner he ran at great speed
Positioned the camera and turned on the feed
The streetlights refracting through the haze and the snow
Cast a glow on the yard signs lining sidewalks below
And then as I saw it, my dread became great
‘Twas a Senator’s limo with a New York state plate
With a little blond woman, sanctimonious and surly
I new in an instant that it had to be Hillary
More rapid than bullets, her curses they came
And she turned on the eight and belittled them by name
Now Howard and Gephardt, Both Johns and Kucinich
Joe, Sharpton and Wesley, you will soon be finished
I’ve looked at the numbers. Bush could lose in the fall.
So at the convention, I will crush you all
As lemmings that follow their kin to their doom
Liberals poured into the streets and started to swoon
And up to a podium, they urged to go.
Led by a security phalanx, it was Hillary’s show
And then in an instant she appeared by the stage
With her security pushing back those in the way
I thought about changing the channel and praying
But watching this crack up was quite entertaining
She was dressed in a suit that her focus groups adored
And her “off the cuff” speech had been poll-tested before
This was her chance to grab politic’s holy grail
And she looked like a huckster going in for the sale
Her eyes how they sparkled, her smile oh so smarmy
And she began with a promise to get rid of the army
Free college and doctors, they’d be ours in a trice
And the terrorists would stop ‘cause she’d treat them so nice
The grip of the mic, she held tight in her grasp
“I’ll raise taxes on everyone, except maybe your class.”
You always loved Billy, that mischievious scamp
But his “New Democrat” ways need to be buried out back
Her economics were nutty, her proposals so spurious
That I laughed when I heard them, though I’m sure she was serious
A call for the U.N. to run Afghanistan
Soon left us no doubt, she was to the left of her man.
She spoke lots of words, and when she got weary
She finished it off with some neo-Marxist theory
And calling her driver to warm up the car
The crowd carried her on shoulders, though not very far.
She jumped to the limo, to her staff gave a shout
And away they all drove, from Des Moines headed out
But she was overheard saying to those in the wool dyed
I can make socialism work, though it’s failed everywhere tried
Our Democrat brethren were considering their fate
The candidates were filling up ads with hot air
With hopes that a victory soon would be theirs
The voters were tossing and turning in their beds
While visions of losing in November danced in their heads
And I with my remote pressed firm in my hand
Was just tuning in Fox to watch Carl Cameron
When just off the camera, their arose sounds so abusive
That the newsman thought, “I smell an exclusive.”
Away round the corner he ran at great speed
Positioned the camera and turned on the feed
The streetlights refracting through the haze and the snow
Cast a glow on the yard signs lining sidewalks below
And then as I saw it, my dread became great
‘Twas a Senator’s limo with a New York state plate
With a little blond woman, sanctimonious and surly
I new in an instant that it had to be Hillary
More rapid than bullets, her curses they came
And she turned on the eight and belittled them by name
Now Howard and Gephardt, Both Johns and Kucinich
Joe, Sharpton and Wesley, you will soon be finished
I’ve looked at the numbers. Bush could lose in the fall.
So at the convention, I will crush you all
As lemmings that follow their kin to their doom
Liberals poured into the streets and started to swoon
And up to a podium, they urged to go.
Led by a security phalanx, it was Hillary’s show
And then in an instant she appeared by the stage
With her security pushing back those in the way
I thought about changing the channel and praying
But watching this crack up was quite entertaining
She was dressed in a suit that her focus groups adored
And her “off the cuff” speech had been poll-tested before
This was her chance to grab politic’s holy grail
And she looked like a huckster going in for the sale
Her eyes how they sparkled, her smile oh so smarmy
And she began with a promise to get rid of the army
Free college and doctors, they’d be ours in a trice
And the terrorists would stop ‘cause she’d treat them so nice
The grip of the mic, she held tight in her grasp
“I’ll raise taxes on everyone, except maybe your class.”
You always loved Billy, that mischievious scamp
But his “New Democrat” ways need to be buried out back
Her economics were nutty, her proposals so spurious
That I laughed when I heard them, though I’m sure she was serious
A call for the U.N. to run Afghanistan
Soon left us no doubt, she was to the left of her man.
She spoke lots of words, and when she got weary
She finished it off with some neo-Marxist theory
And calling her driver to warm up the car
The crowd carried her on shoulders, though not very far.
She jumped to the limo, to her staff gave a shout
And away they all drove, from Des Moines headed out
But she was overheard saying to those in the wool dyed
I can make socialism work, though it’s failed everywhere tried
Caucus Winners Projected
The big winners of today's Iowa Democrat Caucus will be the frozen citizens of New England, who have been suffering through a frigid January, wondering when relief will come. Well, fear not, cold citizens! Relief is on te way in the form of tons of hot air that will be leaving Iowa and heading your way within 24 hours. This will no doubt bring relief to us as well, but... what? You say you want to know which of the four candidates will win? That's a little harder to say. The most astute political prognosticator I know says not to sell the Gephardt union support short. Their tenacity in Get-out-the-vote efforts are legendary. So even though Gephardt looks down in the polls, I see a better result likely for him.
I think it may go something like this: Kerry - 23%, Gephardt - 22%, Edwards - 20%, and Dean fading to 19%. I know, the Dean people are fanatical, but I think they will have a tough time holding support in view of Dean's never-ending tendency to speak without thinking. This morning, in a Fox & Friends interview with Steve Doocy (Fox News Channel), he said if he had cable tv, he would be watching CNN all the time. Was this a calculated insult to Fox, or was he just not thinking? In any event, he's just not presidential. The Iowa Caucus may have made this clear.
I think it may go something like this: Kerry - 23%, Gephardt - 22%, Edwards - 20%, and Dean fading to 19%. I know, the Dean people are fanatical, but I think they will have a tough time holding support in view of Dean's never-ending tendency to speak without thinking. This morning, in a Fox & Friends interview with Steve Doocy (Fox News Channel), he said if he had cable tv, he would be watching CNN all the time. Was this a calculated insult to Fox, or was he just not thinking? In any event, he's just not presidential. The Iowa Caucus may have made this clear.
Chad's Democrat Caucus Predictions
Maybe it's just the military industrial complex implanting Zionist conspiracies in my brain through the use of space based mind control but my predictions differ radically from Jeff's. I'm predicting a strong second place finish for Dennis Kucinich (in Iowa City precinct 3). As for the state-wide caucuses I haven't a clue. The last Des Moines Register tracking poll has it as Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Gephardt. Keeping with my general theory that everything the Register prints, including the page numbers, is a lie, here is my wild conjecture....
Dean--25%
Gephardt--23%
Kerry--18%
Edwards--15%
Why? First, I have seen Deaniacs or Deanie Babies or Deanathoners or Deanocrats or whatever they are literally everywhere. I even had the pleasure of explaining to one of them why Mrs. Talon would not be caucusing for Dean. (She'll be watching the kids while I'm at the Republican caucus explaining to the tin-foil hat crowd why we shouldn't approve their plank to get rid of a standing army.) Now perhaps their perceived prevalence is just a function of the stupid safety orange hats they all wear. But seriously, the caucuses are all about organization. Dean has been here longer and has more volunteers to ensure people get to the polls than I have ever seen. Most of the people who have "switched" from undecided to Kerry or Edwards just aren't going to have the passion or the constant reminders or the nice warm 15 passenger van to take them to the caucuses like the Gephardt and Dean folks. Also, it is clear that Dean possesses the hearts of liberal academia in a state where Democratic politics are driven as much by the teachers union and the University of Iowa faculty as they are by the UAW, Steelworkers, Teamsters, Tireworkers, etc.
It is the latter groups that will ensure that Gephardt takes second place regardless whether the national union endorsed someone else. Little Dick Gephardt owns blue collar labor in Iowa. They will show up for him as many times and in as many precincts as necessary to win, if you catch my drift.
Kerry and Edwards are showing late surges but I just don't think that those "voters" will translate to votes. Hence my prior post on the near impossibility of coming up with a reliable likely caucus goer model. Don't worry for John & John, Argentina. Kerry can continue to fritter away the Heinz fortune as the late HJ Heinz spins in his grave wondering why he didn't set up a nice conservative foundation, a la the Mellon-Scaife Foundation. Edwards is still young and should be able to make a nice living chasing ambulances. Regardless the outcome it will be interesting.
Dean--25%
Gephardt--23%
Kerry--18%
Edwards--15%
Why? First, I have seen Deaniacs or Deanie Babies or Deanathoners or Deanocrats or whatever they are literally everywhere. I even had the pleasure of explaining to one of them why Mrs. Talon would not be caucusing for Dean. (She'll be watching the kids while I'm at the Republican caucus explaining to the tin-foil hat crowd why we shouldn't approve their plank to get rid of a standing army.) Now perhaps their perceived prevalence is just a function of the stupid safety orange hats they all wear. But seriously, the caucuses are all about organization. Dean has been here longer and has more volunteers to ensure people get to the polls than I have ever seen. Most of the people who have "switched" from undecided to Kerry or Edwards just aren't going to have the passion or the constant reminders or the nice warm 15 passenger van to take them to the caucuses like the Gephardt and Dean folks. Also, it is clear that Dean possesses the hearts of liberal academia in a state where Democratic politics are driven as much by the teachers union and the University of Iowa faculty as they are by the UAW, Steelworkers, Teamsters, Tireworkers, etc.
It is the latter groups that will ensure that Gephardt takes second place regardless whether the national union endorsed someone else. Little Dick Gephardt owns blue collar labor in Iowa. They will show up for him as many times and in as many precincts as necessary to win, if you catch my drift.
Kerry and Edwards are showing late surges but I just don't think that those "voters" will translate to votes. Hence my prior post on the near impossibility of coming up with a reliable likely caucus goer model. Don't worry for John & John, Argentina. Kerry can continue to fritter away the Heinz fortune as the late HJ Heinz spins in his grave wondering why he didn't set up a nice conservative foundation, a la the Mellon-Scaife Foundation. Edwards is still young and should be able to make a nice living chasing ambulances. Regardless the outcome it will be interesting.
Sunday, January 18, 2004
Jeff's Democrat Caucus Predictions
Gephardt: 24%
Kerry: 22%
Dean: 19%
Edwards: 19%
I think that Gephardt's organization is the best of any of the group in Iowa. His support may not show up realy well in polls, but he's within the margin of error on the most recent Zogby poll. So, he's within striking distance. With the structure of the caucuses being what it is, organization counts. I think that while many unions have endorsed Dean, the rank and file still trust Gephardt more than Dean. Union members are often true blue Democrat at home, but they aren't necessarily enamored with the U.N. or turning U.S. foreign policy over to France, as Dean has been hinting. Accordingly, I believe that rank and file union support will put Gephardt over the top in a close race.
Kerry is strengthening. His campaign finally found it's voice. Rumor has it that his organization is stronger than you might think. But, honestly, I just don't get this guy. Therefore, I'm not even going to try to analyze him.
With regard to Dean, the angry man routine has worn thin. I think the point at which it finally wore out it's welcome was when he told the guy at the last debate to sit down and shut up. He didn't even attempt to be cordial about it. I think a lot of people said, "Hmmmm....is he going to tell Tony Blair to sit down and shut up? Perhaps this guy doesn't have a real good handle on diplomacy."
Edwards has truly surged in the last few days. His campaign was on life support prior to the Des Moines Register endorsement. He is also benefiting from being sort of the odd man out in the negative attack wars that Kerry, Dean, and Gephardt have been engaging in. For all the fresh face, telegenic, good speaker, analysis you hear about this guy, it says something that he isn't running for reelection to the Senate from North Carolina. I suspect that in the long run, people end up thinking that he is a bit of an empty suit. But, sometimes it's best to be ignored until the closing moment, sliding in on other's weaknesses rather than your own strengths. The caucuses are happening at the right time for him.
Of course, these predictions are really just a crap shoot. The real winner, as Momma Tusk has said, will be the citizens of Iowa and the citizens of New Hapshire. We get rid of all the ads. And all the hot air necessary to lift New England out of it's record deep freeze is on its way to you.
Kerry: 22%
Dean: 19%
Edwards: 19%
I think that Gephardt's organization is the best of any of the group in Iowa. His support may not show up realy well in polls, but he's within the margin of error on the most recent Zogby poll. So, he's within striking distance. With the structure of the caucuses being what it is, organization counts. I think that while many unions have endorsed Dean, the rank and file still trust Gephardt more than Dean. Union members are often true blue Democrat at home, but they aren't necessarily enamored with the U.N. or turning U.S. foreign policy over to France, as Dean has been hinting. Accordingly, I believe that rank and file union support will put Gephardt over the top in a close race.
Kerry is strengthening. His campaign finally found it's voice. Rumor has it that his organization is stronger than you might think. But, honestly, I just don't get this guy. Therefore, I'm not even going to try to analyze him.
With regard to Dean, the angry man routine has worn thin. I think the point at which it finally wore out it's welcome was when he told the guy at the last debate to sit down and shut up. He didn't even attempt to be cordial about it. I think a lot of people said, "Hmmmm....is he going to tell Tony Blair to sit down and shut up? Perhaps this guy doesn't have a real good handle on diplomacy."
Edwards has truly surged in the last few days. His campaign was on life support prior to the Des Moines Register endorsement. He is also benefiting from being sort of the odd man out in the negative attack wars that Kerry, Dean, and Gephardt have been engaging in. For all the fresh face, telegenic, good speaker, analysis you hear about this guy, it says something that he isn't running for reelection to the Senate from North Carolina. I suspect that in the long run, people end up thinking that he is a bit of an empty suit. But, sometimes it's best to be ignored until the closing moment, sliding in on other's weaknesses rather than your own strengths. The caucuses are happening at the right time for him.
Of course, these predictions are really just a crap shoot. The real winner, as Momma Tusk has said, will be the citizens of Iowa and the citizens of New Hapshire. We get rid of all the ads. And all the hot air necessary to lift New England out of it's record deep freeze is on its way to you.
Great Minds Think Alike
The worldwide staff of the Tusk & Talon was recalled to Des Moines last night to meet the Cornfield Commentator himself, Mr. David Hogberg. Insightful. Funny. Just like you'd expect from his writing. And, as I had suspected from his posts, he is about a thousand times smarter and than me.
Though we were surrounded by a full toy store bin of Deanie Babies, I think a great time was had by all of us. I'd like to think that a little of our combined conservative aura washed over the surrounding Dean supporters, planting a seed that will bloom into full-grown conservatives.
We even had an actual reader stop by (Hi, Joe!). Seriously, that was cool.
We are gonna have to do this again sometime.
Though we were surrounded by a full toy store bin of Deanie Babies, I think a great time was had by all of us. I'd like to think that a little of our combined conservative aura washed over the surrounding Dean supporters, planting a seed that will bloom into full-grown conservatives.
We even had an actual reader stop by (Hi, Joe!). Seriously, that was cool.
We are gonna have to do this again sometime.
Friday, January 16, 2004
Re: Re: Caucuses & Tin-Foil
Nothing is wrong with privatizing the sidewalks. I take a pragmatic view that, though I would be more than happy to see the sidewalks privatized, at least 51% of the members of the Republican Party couldn't give two strokes and crap about it. Accordingly, rather than muck up the platform with legislative proposals about private sidewalks, bottle deposit, or the new design of the $20 bill, we should strive for broad ideological statements that define what connects us as conservatives and Republicans or at least sets us in opposition to liberals or Democrats. I realize there is a lot of gray area in between but, much like Potter Stewart, I know tedious and mundane platform planks when I see them.
Caucuses & the Tin-Foil Hat Crowd
Perhaps the good Dr. Hogberg can assist with this post on his blog. I'm not aware of any statistical analysis which supports the various and sundry "likely caucus goer" models being used to predict the outcome of Monday's Political Midget Battle Royal.
After all, likely voter modeling not only asks voters how likely they are to vote (extrememly, very, somewhat, not very, no chance) but also cross tabs those categories with whether a voter voted in a previous primary, local election, statewide election, national election, etc.
Caucuses are a little different. Many first timers are extremely likely to respond that they would go to the caucus and truthfully so. Second timers may say they are very or somewhat likely to go because they are committed partisans. However, second timers, be they Democrats or Republicans, are also aware that the caucuses can be a collosal waste of time and energy. For non-Iowans, they view the caucus a slightly less formal primary election vote. Go in, listen to a couple candidate reps speak, vote. In fact, caucuses are a cause celebre for the nut jobs on both sides of the aisle and, unlike a primary, more moderate voters tend to avoid the caucuses thus concentrating the power of the paranoid lunatics.
I'm as conservative as they come and I caucus despite the nature of them. I don't go around wearing a stovepipe hat and a chin beard, I'm not trying to privatize the sidewalks and charge tolls, I don't want a platform plank that demands the immediate deportation of all legal and non-legal immigrants and denies them constitutional protections. Accordingly, I caucus and vote these ideas down. The problem is that those committed to these ideas and fringe candidates either have no understanding of parlaimentary procedure or understand it all too well. Thus we end up caucusing for hours on end taking recorded votes and floor votes on whether a motion to table the previous motion was germane the prior motion.
What I'm saying is no poll can predict who will suffer the indignity of a caucus for the good of their party. Don't get me wrong. I think caucuses are infinitely more interesting than primaries. Caucuses just take a level of dedication that is not easily measured or correlated to the traditional likely voter models.
After all, likely voter modeling not only asks voters how likely they are to vote (extrememly, very, somewhat, not very, no chance) but also cross tabs those categories with whether a voter voted in a previous primary, local election, statewide election, national election, etc.
Caucuses are a little different. Many first timers are extremely likely to respond that they would go to the caucus and truthfully so. Second timers may say they are very or somewhat likely to go because they are committed partisans. However, second timers, be they Democrats or Republicans, are also aware that the caucuses can be a collosal waste of time and energy. For non-Iowans, they view the caucus a slightly less formal primary election vote. Go in, listen to a couple candidate reps speak, vote. In fact, caucuses are a cause celebre for the nut jobs on both sides of the aisle and, unlike a primary, more moderate voters tend to avoid the caucuses thus concentrating the power of the paranoid lunatics.
I'm as conservative as they come and I caucus despite the nature of them. I don't go around wearing a stovepipe hat and a chin beard, I'm not trying to privatize the sidewalks and charge tolls, I don't want a platform plank that demands the immediate deportation of all legal and non-legal immigrants and denies them constitutional protections. Accordingly, I caucus and vote these ideas down. The problem is that those committed to these ideas and fringe candidates either have no understanding of parlaimentary procedure or understand it all too well. Thus we end up caucusing for hours on end taking recorded votes and floor votes on whether a motion to table the previous motion was germane the prior motion.
What I'm saying is no poll can predict who will suffer the indignity of a caucus for the good of their party. Don't get me wrong. I think caucuses are infinitely more interesting than primaries. Caucuses just take a level of dedication that is not easily measured or correlated to the traditional likely voter models.
Impoverished Schools
The Governor’s State of the State address as reported in yesterday’s Cornfield Commentary whined about how our poor schools are so under funded that they must make do with such meager supplies that they have less than one crayon per child (ten boxes of crayons, 16 to a box for 176 third-graders, etc.). This brought to mind a situation I know of back in the early 1970’s. Bethel Township, near Tipp City, Ohio operated its school system, grades K through 12 out of a single building. This small, rural/suburban school district was so impoverished (no industry) that the supplies it issued its teachers at the beginning of the year included, for example, a single strip – not one box, one strip - of staples to last the year.
Despite the “seemingly impossible” handicap of trying to educate students under such conditions, the high school graduation class from Bethel one year included among its 62* seniors three* service academy appointments and more than one National Merit Scholarship winner – I think there were also three* of them. This is anecdotal evidence of course, and I’m not saying we should starve our schools for funds, but it does tend to indicate there is some factor more important in educating young people than how many crayons they have.
*I’m going from memory here. If I am able to refine my numbers I will update later.
Despite the “seemingly impossible” handicap of trying to educate students under such conditions, the high school graduation class from Bethel one year included among its 62* seniors three* service academy appointments and more than one National Merit Scholarship winner – I think there were also three* of them. This is anecdotal evidence of course, and I’m not saying we should starve our schools for funds, but it does tend to indicate there is some factor more important in educating young people than how many crayons they have.
*I’m going from memory here. If I am able to refine my numbers I will update later.
Update on Descriptive Signs for Democrat Candidates
Chad has responded to me that rather than signs saying when a particular Democrat candidate adopted a position, they should have little signs that say how long it's been since they flip-flopped on an issue. It'd be sort of like the signs hanging in a factory that say, "Consecutive Days Without An Injury Accident : 23." Whenever one of the guys flips, like when Dean says that wants to reverse ALL of the tax cuts and then two days later says he wants to cut middle class taxes, we'd have somebody run up out of the crowd to flip the sign back to zero.
These signs wouldn't be all that big or expensive. Most of these guys would only need space for a single digit.
These signs wouldn't be all that big or expensive. Most of these guys would only need space for a single digit.
Thursday, January 15, 2004
I'm for the war. (Stick Finger in the Democrat Primary Wind) Er, I mean, I'm against the war....always have been."
Yesterday it was revealed that plain-speaking, always honest, non-calculating, Howard Dean had eagerly supported unilateral military action in Bosnia.
Today, it's Wesley Clark's turn to wear the egg on his face.
Back in the fall of 2002, September 26, 2002, to be precise, Wesley made the case before the U.S. House of Representatives' Armed Services Committee that the U.S. should take out Saddam.
Here are quotes from Mr. Clark's testimony to the committee(via Matt Drudge):
There's no requirement to have any doctrine here. I mean this is simply a longstanding right of the United States and other nations to take the actions they deem necessary in their self defense.
So, hmm...you don't think that this U.S. is creating a new doctrine of "preemtive" action?
And, I want to underscore that I think the United States should not categorize this action as preemptive. Preemptive and that doctrine has nothing whatsoever to do with this problem. As Richard Perle so eloquently pointed out, this is a problem that's longstanding. It's been a decade in the making. It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this.
Hey Clark, what about links between Al-Qaeda and Saddam?
I think there's no question that, even though we may not have the evidence as Richard [Perle] says, that there have been such contacts [between Iraq and al Qaeda]. It' s normal. It's natural. These are a lot of bad actors in the same region together. They are going to bump into each other. They are going to exchange information. They're going to feel each other out and see whether there are opportunities to cooperate. That's inevitable in this region, and I think it's clear that regardless of whether or not such evidence is produced of these connections that Saddam Hussein is a threat.
So, what about the U.N., or NATO, shouldn't we be working with them, or waiting for their approval?
Every president has deployed forces as necessary to take action. He's done so without multilateral support if necessary. He's done so in advance of conflict if necessary. In my experience, I was the commander of the European forces in NATO. When we took action in Kosovo, we did not have United Nations approval to do this and we did so in a way that was designed to preempt Serb ethnic cleansing and regional destabilization there. There were some people who didn' t agree with that decision. The United Nations was not able to agree to support it with a resolution.
Seriously, go read the whole Drudge Report article on this. And then marvel at the stones it takes to say, as Clark has been recently, that he has always been against liberating Iraq.
The candidates in the Democrat primary should have to wear a sign that tells us the date that they came (or did not come) to their position on the war.
Howard Dean, "Against Wars to Stop Ethnic Cleansing, Since January 2001."
Wesley Clark, "Against Unilateral, Non-U.N.-Approved Wars, Since August 2003."
John Kerry, "Against Wars I Voted in Support Of, Since the Moment Howard Dean Jumped Ahead of Me With His Anti-War Schtick."
Dick Gephardt, "Not Really for the War but Not Really Against It Since I'm Trying to Shimmy My Way Through the Primary Without Destroying My Chances in a General Election."
UPDATE: The Corner at NRO has provided a link to Wesley Clark's prepared opening statement to the House Armed Service Committee. Veeeeerrrrry Nice! I can't imagine what he's going to have to do to spin this away.
Today, it's Wesley Clark's turn to wear the egg on his face.
Back in the fall of 2002, September 26, 2002, to be precise, Wesley made the case before the U.S. House of Representatives' Armed Services Committee that the U.S. should take out Saddam.
Here are quotes from Mr. Clark's testimony to the committee(via Matt Drudge):
There's no requirement to have any doctrine here. I mean this is simply a longstanding right of the United States and other nations to take the actions they deem necessary in their self defense.
So, hmm...you don't think that this U.S. is creating a new doctrine of "preemtive" action?
And, I want to underscore that I think the United States should not categorize this action as preemptive. Preemptive and that doctrine has nothing whatsoever to do with this problem. As Richard Perle so eloquently pointed out, this is a problem that's longstanding. It's been a decade in the making. It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this.
Hey Clark, what about links between Al-Qaeda and Saddam?
I think there's no question that, even though we may not have the evidence as Richard [Perle] says, that there have been such contacts [between Iraq and al Qaeda]. It' s normal. It's natural. These are a lot of bad actors in the same region together. They are going to bump into each other. They are going to exchange information. They're going to feel each other out and see whether there are opportunities to cooperate. That's inevitable in this region, and I think it's clear that regardless of whether or not such evidence is produced of these connections that Saddam Hussein is a threat.
So, what about the U.N., or NATO, shouldn't we be working with them, or waiting for their approval?
Every president has deployed forces as necessary to take action. He's done so without multilateral support if necessary. He's done so in advance of conflict if necessary. In my experience, I was the commander of the European forces in NATO. When we took action in Kosovo, we did not have United Nations approval to do this and we did so in a way that was designed to preempt Serb ethnic cleansing and regional destabilization there. There were some people who didn' t agree with that decision. The United Nations was not able to agree to support it with a resolution.
Seriously, go read the whole Drudge Report article on this. And then marvel at the stones it takes to say, as Clark has been recently, that he has always been against liberating Iraq.
The candidates in the Democrat primary should have to wear a sign that tells us the date that they came (or did not come) to their position on the war.
Howard Dean, "Against Wars to Stop Ethnic Cleansing, Since January 2001."
Wesley Clark, "Against Unilateral, Non-U.N.-Approved Wars, Since August 2003."
John Kerry, "Against Wars I Voted in Support Of, Since the Moment Howard Dean Jumped Ahead of Me With His Anti-War Schtick."
Dick Gephardt, "Not Really for the War but Not Really Against It Since I'm Trying to Shimmy My Way Through the Primary Without Destroying My Chances in a General Election."
UPDATE: The Corner at NRO has provided a link to Wesley Clark's prepared opening statement to the House Armed Service Committee. Veeeeerrrrry Nice! I can't imagine what he's going to have to do to spin this away.
A Half Million Cars in 8 Months
If my theory linking the availability of cars to freedom is even remotely accurate, then this is great news.
With virtually no taxes in place, goods are remarkably cheap in Iraq. A half-million cars have been brought into the country in the past 8 months. Yea!
I also like the small loans for businesses. This is the kind of thing that we need to hear more about. This is the post-Saddam reality for hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of Iraqis. Yet the only thing we hear from our media is that things are in chaos.
Salaries are increasing rapidly. Check out the guy in the story who was making three or four dollars a month who is now making fifteen a day. (I don't want to hear it from any pinkos out there saying, "Oooooh. So what? Fifteen dollars a day is nothing. You can't live on that." The cost of living is radically lower in Iraq.)
With virtually no taxes in place, goods are remarkably cheap in Iraq. A half-million cars have been brought into the country in the past 8 months. Yea!
I also like the small loans for businesses. This is the kind of thing that we need to hear more about. This is the post-Saddam reality for hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of Iraqis. Yet the only thing we hear from our media is that things are in chaos.
Salaries are increasing rapidly. Check out the guy in the story who was making three or four dollars a month who is now making fifteen a day. (I don't want to hear it from any pinkos out there saying, "Oooooh. So what? Fifteen dollars a day is nothing. You can't live on that." The cost of living is radically lower in Iraq.)
Wednesday, January 14, 2004
Re: Back in the Saddle
It’s nice to be missed. I wish I could tell you that I have just returned from personally supervising an extensive research project involving West Coast vegetable worship cults, or some such story. The truth is far duller.
Anything happen while I was gone? Oh yeah, Iowa Caucus Night is approaching. Now, I thought about coming up with some clever insightful analysis of the Democratic field, but then I decided to heed the sage political advice, “When your enemy is bent on destroying himself, shut up and get out of the way.”
There are, as always, no shortage of other interesting topics. Just to name a few…
1) Mountain lions in Iowa – A 110 lb. mountain lion was shot to death in southern Iowa. QCTimes columnist Barb Ickes (link currently unavailable-sorry) thinks farmers and others should “shoot” lions with a camera rather than a deer rifle. My guess is that Ms. Ickes does not jog or bike on rural roads often.
2) Mad Cow disease – I see Jeff has written on this topic. It’s disappointing that the public has failed to panic over the threat. I had hoped that beef demand would drop enough to bring the price down so I could afford to fill my freezer. Meanwhile, John McCaslin’s Townhall column reports that PETA is doing their part to try to help me out.
PETA, a pro-vegeterian bunch never short on surprises, somehow has obtained the Internet site Beef.com - which is very similar to the cattlemen's popular online address, Beef.org.
In other words, rather than feasting eyes on a juicy New York Strip, Internet users who mistakenly surf into PETA's site get to see a foaming-at-the-mouth cow.
Washington PETA official Bruce Friedrich, who steered this columnist to Beef.com, is encouraging Americans from here to Walla Walla, Wash., to throw away all frozen meat for fear it's contaminated.
As for the domain name Beef.com, it's owned by Michael Fischer of Michigan, who has allowed PETA exclusive use of the address - free of charge - for one month. After that, it's for sale - $2.5 million its current price tag.
This is the cleverest marketing gimmick I’ve heard of in quite some time. Will the Beef Council really be willing to pay $2.5 million just to buy out PETA’s slavering slanders? Even if they only want to pay $1 million, this guy could make quite a return on his $15 investment.
3) State government policy initiatives - Governor Willtax is continuing on his quest to leave no revenue source unexploited. This shows a decided lack of imagination on his part. I mean, more taxes, more spending – borrrr-ing! For a real lesson in how to harass your constituents, consider the latest proposal from our nearby neighbor Governor Blagojevich of Illinois. He wants to make forty hours of community service an additional requirement of the high school curriculum. This is wrong on so many levels it probably deserves a separate posting all its own. For now, suffice it to say that it is insane to enlarge the job of an institution that cannot meet its current responsibilities.
I reserve the right to return to this topic if it doesn’t die quickly.
4) Immigration reform – I’m still researching this subject to determine exactly where I stand on it. I don’t expect any legislative action on it this year, so I hesitate to be too critical. By itself the Bush proposal is inadequate and possibly misdirected; nevertheless, he should be commended for getting a debate started. The immigration problem is complex, but I think Jeff Jacoby has put his finger on the crucial issue.
With the decline of assimilation has come an increase in ethnic militancy -- and a growing hostility to immigrants. Both were on display in the wake of President Bush's address: Hispanic activists condemned him for doing too little and anti-immigration groups blasted him for doing too much. As the immigration debate heats up, so will the acrimony and distrust that the decline of assimilation has engendered. That, more than any other, is the immigration issue we should be focused on.
Hopefully, by introducing it now, well in advance of any expected legislative action, the opportunity will be there to do it right.
Anything happen while I was gone? Oh yeah, Iowa Caucus Night is approaching. Now, I thought about coming up with some clever insightful analysis of the Democratic field, but then I decided to heed the sage political advice, “When your enemy is bent on destroying himself, shut up and get out of the way.”
There are, as always, no shortage of other interesting topics. Just to name a few…
1) Mountain lions in Iowa – A 110 lb. mountain lion was shot to death in southern Iowa. QCTimes columnist Barb Ickes (link currently unavailable-sorry) thinks farmers and others should “shoot” lions with a camera rather than a deer rifle. My guess is that Ms. Ickes does not jog or bike on rural roads often.
2) Mad Cow disease – I see Jeff has written on this topic. It’s disappointing that the public has failed to panic over the threat. I had hoped that beef demand would drop enough to bring the price down so I could afford to fill my freezer. Meanwhile, John McCaslin’s Townhall column reports that PETA is doing their part to try to help me out.
PETA, a pro-vegeterian bunch never short on surprises, somehow has obtained the Internet site Beef.com - which is very similar to the cattlemen's popular online address, Beef.org.
In other words, rather than feasting eyes on a juicy New York Strip, Internet users who mistakenly surf into PETA's site get to see a foaming-at-the-mouth cow.
Washington PETA official Bruce Friedrich, who steered this columnist to Beef.com, is encouraging Americans from here to Walla Walla, Wash., to throw away all frozen meat for fear it's contaminated.
As for the domain name Beef.com, it's owned by Michael Fischer of Michigan, who has allowed PETA exclusive use of the address - free of charge - for one month. After that, it's for sale - $2.5 million its current price tag.
This is the cleverest marketing gimmick I’ve heard of in quite some time. Will the Beef Council really be willing to pay $2.5 million just to buy out PETA’s slavering slanders? Even if they only want to pay $1 million, this guy could make quite a return on his $15 investment.
3) State government policy initiatives - Governor Willtax is continuing on his quest to leave no revenue source unexploited. This shows a decided lack of imagination on his part. I mean, more taxes, more spending – borrrr-ing! For a real lesson in how to harass your constituents, consider the latest proposal from our nearby neighbor Governor Blagojevich of Illinois. He wants to make forty hours of community service an additional requirement of the high school curriculum. This is wrong on so many levels it probably deserves a separate posting all its own. For now, suffice it to say that it is insane to enlarge the job of an institution that cannot meet its current responsibilities.
I reserve the right to return to this topic if it doesn’t die quickly.
4) Immigration reform – I’m still researching this subject to determine exactly where I stand on it. I don’t expect any legislative action on it this year, so I hesitate to be too critical. By itself the Bush proposal is inadequate and possibly misdirected; nevertheless, he should be commended for getting a debate started. The immigration problem is complex, but I think Jeff Jacoby has put his finger on the crucial issue.
With the decline of assimilation has come an increase in ethnic militancy -- and a growing hostility to immigrants. Both were on display in the wake of President Bush's address: Hispanic activists condemned him for doing too little and anti-immigration groups blasted him for doing too much. As the immigration debate heats up, so will the acrimony and distrust that the decline of assimilation has engendered. That, more than any other, is the immigration issue we should be focused on.
Hopefully, by introducing it now, well in advance of any expected legislative action, the opportunity will be there to do it right.
This Doesn't Have Anything to Do With Saddam Being Out of the Terrorism Supporting Business, Does It?
The Power Line has a link up pointing out that the Palestinian Authority doesn't have money to pay salaries. The PA blames donor fatigue.
Me? I "blame" George Bush.
Considering that Saddam was forwarding checks to the families of suicide bombers, I don't think it outside the realm of possibility that he was sending money to the PA as well. And, even if you don't believe Saddam was doing so, with the U.S. casting a more serious glance at terrorism's money trail, it may just be that other government supporters like Libya and Syria may be a little more reluctant to send funds now. Nobody wants to get the bullseye painted on them.
Me? I "blame" George Bush.
Considering that Saddam was forwarding checks to the families of suicide bombers, I don't think it outside the realm of possibility that he was sending money to the PA as well. And, even if you don't believe Saddam was doing so, with the U.S. casting a more serious glance at terrorism's money trail, it may just be that other government supporters like Libya and Syria may be a little more reluctant to send funds now. Nobody wants to get the bullseye painted on them.
Fundamentally Lacking in Core Principles
This is all over the internet today.
Howard Dean, it has now been revealed, sent a letter to President Bill Clinton expressing his belief that the U.S. military should act unilaterally in Bosnia because NATO and the U.N. were feckless and ineffective. If we failed to act unilaterally, it would cut straight to the heart of our moral fiber.
So, hmmmm.....Dr. Dean, if unilateral action was a moral imperative in Bosnia because of mass graves, why was it suddenly a moral anathema in Iraq? It isn't just because a Democrat was in the White House during Bosnia and a Republican was there during Iraq?
This guy shouldn't have any credibility left at all.
Howard Dean, it has now been revealed, sent a letter to President Bill Clinton expressing his belief that the U.S. military should act unilaterally in Bosnia because NATO and the U.N. were feckless and ineffective. If we failed to act unilaterally, it would cut straight to the heart of our moral fiber.
So, hmmmm.....Dr. Dean, if unilateral action was a moral imperative in Bosnia because of mass graves, why was it suddenly a moral anathema in Iraq? It isn't just because a Democrat was in the White House during Bosnia and a Republican was there during Iraq?
This guy shouldn't have any credibility left at all.
Guilt trip worked
Since Jeff has guilted me into posting I thought I would note this hysterical story in the Register (for once it's not a Basu or Borselinno column). Apparently flesh colored latex pasties are sufficient to satisfy West Des Moines nudity ordinance. Thank God we got that settled. Where is the line? What about nipple colored/shaped/textured latex? Frankly, if that's the law what's the point in having a law at all?
I also find it hard to believe that none of the WDM police officers (who I'm sure had to be forced to volunteer for the bar check at Beach Girls) we're themselves familiar with the product at issue. Perhaps the Register just meant in a "professional" capacity.
I also find it funny that the judge declined to have an in camera demonstration because the court could not recreate the lighting conditions inside the club. I presume the testimony at trial supports judicial notice of the neon lights, smoke, and other dance club lighting otherwise the Judge may have some 'splaining to do at home.
I'm personally disappointed that Polk county magistrate chambers are not equipped with such necessities.
I also find it hard to believe that none of the WDM police officers (who I'm sure had to be forced to volunteer for the bar check at Beach Girls) we're themselves familiar with the product at issue. Perhaps the Register just meant in a "professional" capacity.
I also find it funny that the judge declined to have an in camera demonstration because the court could not recreate the lighting conditions inside the club. I presume the testimony at trial supports judicial notice of the neon lights, smoke, and other dance club lighting otherwise the Judge may have some 'splaining to do at home.
I'm personally disappointed that Polk county magistrate chambers are not equipped with such necessities.
This Is Beyond Disturbing
Today, a Palestinian woman, age 22, walked up to a checkpoint, and blew herself up, killing four and leaving two children motherless....her own children, ages three and one.
This is depravity beyond all description.
This is depravity beyond all description.
Tuesday, January 13, 2004
Back in the Saddle
David Hogberg is posting again. And apparently he had a little pent up energy as he got four postings up in just over ten minutes this morning. Gracious!
Speaking of which, Chad....Don....haven't seen you guys in here in a while.
Speaking of which, Chad....Don....haven't seen you guys in here in a while.
Monday, January 12, 2004
Lobbyists
This commentary at Fox reminds me of a quote by P.J. O'Rourke:
When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first thing to be bought and sold are legislators.
The article above pretty much sums up my feelings in these matters. If you want to put lobbyists out of business, end influence peddling, and have real campaign finance reform, then you have to get the government to stop spending so darned much money.
And, just as an aside, I throw in a little tidbit I picked up from cable television's the Travel Channel. The term "lobbyist" comes from when Ulysses Grant was President. Grant would frequently walk over to the bar at the Williard Hotel early in the evening. People who wanted to bend his hear regarding government spending would hang out in the lobby of the hotel waiting for him. Hence the term, "lobbyist."
When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first thing to be bought and sold are legislators.
The article above pretty much sums up my feelings in these matters. If you want to put lobbyists out of business, end influence peddling, and have real campaign finance reform, then you have to get the government to stop spending so darned much money.
And, just as an aside, I throw in a little tidbit I picked up from cable television's the Travel Channel. The term "lobbyist" comes from when Ulysses Grant was President. Grant would frequently walk over to the bar at the Williard Hotel early in the evening. People who wanted to bend his hear regarding government spending would hang out in the lobby of the hotel waiting for him. Hence the term, "lobbyist."
Sunday, January 11, 2004
These Lies, er, I mean Public Service Announcements, Really Annoy Me
Royce Dunbar has a nice little post on the Just Eliminate Lies public service announcements harping on the tobacco industry.
I have never smoked a cigarette. Not one. But those ads just drive me right around the bend.
I have never smoked a cigarette. Not one. But those ads just drive me right around the bend.
Friday, January 09, 2004
More On Immigration
If you read through my previous post on immigration, you might be wondering just exactly what I believe should be done with immigration policy. Thankfully, rather than write a lengthy dissertation, I can simply point to Mr. James Lileks today. He sums it up, with much more style and pizazz than I could:
But let me be clear: I am not in favor of illegal immigration. I'm in favor of copious amounts of legal immigration, combined with Tupperware-tight borders and a newly remade INS whose official seal says “What the Hell Do You Think You’re Doing Here, Anyway? Oh Yeah? Prove it.” (Sounds nobler in Latin, I’m sure.)
And, in reply to the deport-them-all crowd, I will quote Mr. Lileks thus:
People who insist that all illegals be deported have an excellent point, and I think they’re right. And after we have deported all the illegals we can try something that’s only slightly more difficult, like walking to the moon.
And thus:
Those who argue for deportation usually note that they’re breaking the law – in which case shouldn’t we jail them and then deport them? No? So if not deporting them sends the wrong message, doesn’t failing to jail them send an equally bad message?
And thus:
Deportation is not an option – and those who think it’s necessary need only wonder what the national media would do with mass expulsions. Our paper will run a sad story when a guy who’s been here illegally for 10 years gets deported and leaves his family behind; imagine several million such stories, complete with lovely footage of the caravan of train cars leaving for the daily dump on the Mexican border. It’s not going to happen. If anything short of that disappoints you, that’s your right. But don’t expect to be included in the conversation, anymore than people who want a return to the gold standard NOW are going to be consulted on House subcommittee hearings on eliminating the sunset provisions of the estate tax.
Exactly.
And, to add another of my own thoughts, I have no problem with laws that encourage integration and assimilation. For example, I have no problem making English the official language.
I just don't get it. The argument given is that we can't allow illegal immigration. So, how about more legal immigration? Thing is, I suspect if you proffer that idea, most of the deportation proponents are going to say, "Oh no. We can't do that. We are overcrowded. Drives down wages. Too many get on welfare. Won't integrate into society. Loyal to Mexico over the U.S. Bad idea. A very bad idea."
At one time, we said that the Irish were going to drive down wages. We should keep them out. And we use to say that the Italians were going to drive down wages, wouldn't learn the language, and were loyal to the Pope over the U.S. We should keep them out. And we use to say that the Germans all stayed together in the same part of town, wouldn't learn the language, and weren't loyal to this country. We should really keep them out.
And we were wrong every time. When the U.S. maintains it confidence. When the U.S. says, "We are the light of the world. Bring me your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free." When the U.S. speaks to the hopes and dreams of the world. When the U.S. says, "You'll have to integrate, you'll have to learn the language, you'll have to work hard, but, here you'll have opportunity. You will be FREE." When we do those things, do you know what we get? We get hardworking, driven, loving, loyal immigrants.
Update: Here's another person at a blog titled The Captain's Quarters who basically agrees that while we've been digging a hole with immigration for a generation, we have to live in the real world now. Deportation isn't going to fly. This is at least a proposal from which we can start working.
And, Jonah Goldberg is bucking the trend over at National Review by not being outraged by the President.
But let me be clear: I am not in favor of illegal immigration. I'm in favor of copious amounts of legal immigration, combined with Tupperware-tight borders and a newly remade INS whose official seal says “What the Hell Do You Think You’re Doing Here, Anyway? Oh Yeah? Prove it.” (Sounds nobler in Latin, I’m sure.)
And, in reply to the deport-them-all crowd, I will quote Mr. Lileks thus:
People who insist that all illegals be deported have an excellent point, and I think they’re right. And after we have deported all the illegals we can try something that’s only slightly more difficult, like walking to the moon.
And thus:
Those who argue for deportation usually note that they’re breaking the law – in which case shouldn’t we jail them and then deport them? No? So if not deporting them sends the wrong message, doesn’t failing to jail them send an equally bad message?
And thus:
Deportation is not an option – and those who think it’s necessary need only wonder what the national media would do with mass expulsions. Our paper will run a sad story when a guy who’s been here illegally for 10 years gets deported and leaves his family behind; imagine several million such stories, complete with lovely footage of the caravan of train cars leaving for the daily dump on the Mexican border. It’s not going to happen. If anything short of that disappoints you, that’s your right. But don’t expect to be included in the conversation, anymore than people who want a return to the gold standard NOW are going to be consulted on House subcommittee hearings on eliminating the sunset provisions of the estate tax.
Exactly.
And, to add another of my own thoughts, I have no problem with laws that encourage integration and assimilation. For example, I have no problem making English the official language.
I just don't get it. The argument given is that we can't allow illegal immigration. So, how about more legal immigration? Thing is, I suspect if you proffer that idea, most of the deportation proponents are going to say, "Oh no. We can't do that. We are overcrowded. Drives down wages. Too many get on welfare. Won't integrate into society. Loyal to Mexico over the U.S. Bad idea. A very bad idea."
At one time, we said that the Irish were going to drive down wages. We should keep them out. And we use to say that the Italians were going to drive down wages, wouldn't learn the language, and were loyal to the Pope over the U.S. We should keep them out. And we use to say that the Germans all stayed together in the same part of town, wouldn't learn the language, and weren't loyal to this country. We should really keep them out.
And we were wrong every time. When the U.S. maintains it confidence. When the U.S. says, "We are the light of the world. Bring me your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free." When the U.S. speaks to the hopes and dreams of the world. When the U.S. says, "You'll have to integrate, you'll have to learn the language, you'll have to work hard, but, here you'll have opportunity. You will be FREE." When we do those things, do you know what we get? We get hardworking, driven, loving, loyal immigrants.
Update: Here's another person at a blog titled The Captain's Quarters who basically agrees that while we've been digging a hole with immigration for a generation, we have to live in the real world now. Deportation isn't going to fly. This is at least a proposal from which we can start working.
And, Jonah Goldberg is bucking the trend over at National Review by not being outraged by the President.
Thursday, January 08, 2004
Immigration
Many would probably accuse me of being short-sighted, but I just don't understand the "man the barricades" attitude many conservatives are exhibiting with regard to President Bush's proposed "amnesty" program for illegal immigrants.
First off, we aren't talking about millions of people suddenly appearing. They are already here. And I'm not inclined to think that millions of Mexicans woke up this morning and said, "Well, I was really scared to go to the U.S. before, but now that they've got amnesty, I'm there." The ones that wanted to come here were already doing so.
Secondly, I'd like to give a short response to this article by Mark Krikorian at National Review. Often, we here that immigrants do work that Americans won't do. Mr. Krikorian's thesis is that we don't need immigrants to do that work because American's would do it if paid better. Or, even if we still didn't want to do those jobs(like slitting throats at butchering plants, or picking vegetables in Califorina fields), the scarcity of workers would force employers to develop technology to cope with the employee shortage.
Hmmm....I will now assume that Mr. Krikorian is also in favor of government rationing of energy so as to force employers and consumers into being for efficient.
Okay, actually, I doubt he is in favor of rationing energy. But the point he is expousing utilizes the same rationale. He wants to use government authority to restrict a key commodity as a means of forcing people to develop technology. As I've pointed out in many posts, when the government intrudes in the market, in this case, the job market, it forces resources away from what is desired and moves it to what is decreed. That creates greater inefficiencies, not greater efficiencies.
As an aside, why stop with limiting future immigration? Why not deport a few people that are here now? That would really force greater technological development.
In a piece by David Limbaugh over at Townhall.com, the argument is put forth that the President's immigration proposal is bad because it degrades respect for the rule of law.
I am assuming that Mr. Limbaugh was against removing the national speed limit, allowing states to raise the limits to 65, 70, or even 75 miles per hour. I am assuming he doesn't want to lower tax burdens because doing so would reward the people cheating on their taxes.
Look, the immigration laws were not handed down from the Lord. Immigration laws are not on part with murder, or rape. They aren't Constitutionally enshrined like private property or freedome of speech and religion. The immigration laws are just that, laws. They may be changed at any time by Congress and the President. Throughout our history, they have been changed wholesale on a number of occassions, and receive minor tweakings between those major overhauls. What the President has done is make a proposal for new changes.
Yes, some rules should remain darned near inviolate: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, protection of private property, and prohibiting rape and murder. However, to announce, as many on the right are, that changing a law means destroying the rule of law, then we are doomed to stagnate, unable to cope with changes in the situation.
Moreover, everyone agrees that changes are necessary. The current situation of millions of illegals is untenable. However, many on the right seem to be saying that the ONLY ACCEPTABLE POSITION is to hire a million new INS agents and deport every illegal. That isn't going to happen. The media would have a field day with heart-wrenching stories of broken families. And the left would go crazy with charges of "racism." Is that the battle we really want to fight?
Accordingly, other options have to be explored. That is what the President has done here. He has put forth a proposal that seeks to bring the current illegals in from the cold. It attempts to bring employers of illegals in from the cold. If you are worried about illegals receiving services while not paying taxes, then this proposal helps because it gets those illegals and employers onto the rolls.
Also, I'd like to point out one other thing that hasn't received any attention with regard to this immigration proposal. As everyone is aware, we are involved in a worldwide War on Terrorism. Some recent efforts in thwarting terrorist attacks included canceling flights on AeroMexico to L.A. Perhaps one small part of this proposal is to shrink the pool of unknown people in the U.S. No, the terrorists aren't going to register with the government, but if a half, or a third, of the illegals here do register, that is millions of people who we can now track, or get some background information on. The War on Terrorism is primarily about recognizing our weaknesses and doing something about them. We can either divert gigantic resources to attempting to shrink the pool of unknowns in the U.S. through deportation. Or, we can have the unknowns help us by coming in and letting us know who and where they are. This seems like a no-brainer to me.
First off, we aren't talking about millions of people suddenly appearing. They are already here. And I'm not inclined to think that millions of Mexicans woke up this morning and said, "Well, I was really scared to go to the U.S. before, but now that they've got amnesty, I'm there." The ones that wanted to come here were already doing so.
Secondly, I'd like to give a short response to this article by Mark Krikorian at National Review. Often, we here that immigrants do work that Americans won't do. Mr. Krikorian's thesis is that we don't need immigrants to do that work because American's would do it if paid better. Or, even if we still didn't want to do those jobs(like slitting throats at butchering plants, or picking vegetables in Califorina fields), the scarcity of workers would force employers to develop technology to cope with the employee shortage.
Hmmm....I will now assume that Mr. Krikorian is also in favor of government rationing of energy so as to force employers and consumers into being for efficient.
Okay, actually, I doubt he is in favor of rationing energy. But the point he is expousing utilizes the same rationale. He wants to use government authority to restrict a key commodity as a means of forcing people to develop technology. As I've pointed out in many posts, when the government intrudes in the market, in this case, the job market, it forces resources away from what is desired and moves it to what is decreed. That creates greater inefficiencies, not greater efficiencies.
As an aside, why stop with limiting future immigration? Why not deport a few people that are here now? That would really force greater technological development.
In a piece by David Limbaugh over at Townhall.com, the argument is put forth that the President's immigration proposal is bad because it degrades respect for the rule of law.
I am assuming that Mr. Limbaugh was against removing the national speed limit, allowing states to raise the limits to 65, 70, or even 75 miles per hour. I am assuming he doesn't want to lower tax burdens because doing so would reward the people cheating on their taxes.
Look, the immigration laws were not handed down from the Lord. Immigration laws are not on part with murder, or rape. They aren't Constitutionally enshrined like private property or freedome of speech and religion. The immigration laws are just that, laws. They may be changed at any time by Congress and the President. Throughout our history, they have been changed wholesale on a number of occassions, and receive minor tweakings between those major overhauls. What the President has done is make a proposal for new changes.
Yes, some rules should remain darned near inviolate: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, protection of private property, and prohibiting rape and murder. However, to announce, as many on the right are, that changing a law means destroying the rule of law, then we are doomed to stagnate, unable to cope with changes in the situation.
Moreover, everyone agrees that changes are necessary. The current situation of millions of illegals is untenable. However, many on the right seem to be saying that the ONLY ACCEPTABLE POSITION is to hire a million new INS agents and deport every illegal. That isn't going to happen. The media would have a field day with heart-wrenching stories of broken families. And the left would go crazy with charges of "racism." Is that the battle we really want to fight?
Accordingly, other options have to be explored. That is what the President has done here. He has put forth a proposal that seeks to bring the current illegals in from the cold. It attempts to bring employers of illegals in from the cold. If you are worried about illegals receiving services while not paying taxes, then this proposal helps because it gets those illegals and employers onto the rolls.
Also, I'd like to point out one other thing that hasn't received any attention with regard to this immigration proposal. As everyone is aware, we are involved in a worldwide War on Terrorism. Some recent efforts in thwarting terrorist attacks included canceling flights on AeroMexico to L.A. Perhaps one small part of this proposal is to shrink the pool of unknown people in the U.S. No, the terrorists aren't going to register with the government, but if a half, or a third, of the illegals here do register, that is millions of people who we can now track, or get some background information on. The War on Terrorism is primarily about recognizing our weaknesses and doing something about them. We can either divert gigantic resources to attempting to shrink the pool of unknowns in the U.S. through deportation. Or, we can have the unknowns help us by coming in and letting us know who and where they are. This seems like a no-brainer to me.
Wednesday, January 07, 2004
I'd like to take a moment to give a little shout to the CedarPundit. While I've been taking many days off through the Christmas and New Year's period, CedarPundit has been hitting on all eight. Lot's of good coverage of the Cedar Rapids Gazette, Iowa City Press-Citizen, and the Quad City Times.
You Can't Even Parody This Stuff
To help illustrate one of his points during a recent candidates' forum, Dennis Kucinich held up a pie chart graph and started pointing to specific sections. It was a brilliant prop, except for one small detail. He was on radio. The host tried to help out by describing the pie chart, but then just announced
Dennis Kucinich is part of the tinfoil hat brigade. He proposes laws to ban mind control weapons in space. He will actually break into song, singing Kum Ba Yah, on the stump. I think he's proposed closing the Defense Department and replacing it with a Peace Department. He is a ready-made caricature of a left-wing candidate. You can't even parady him. It's like he just walked into the debate off the set of a television sketch comedy and forgot to turn off the character. He is the Saturday Night Live Candidate.
Dennis Kucinich is part of the tinfoil hat brigade. He proposes laws to ban mind control weapons in space. He will actually break into song, singing Kum Ba Yah, on the stump. I think he's proposed closing the Defense Department and replacing it with a Peace Department. He is a ready-made caricature of a left-wing candidate. You can't even parady him. It's like he just walked into the debate off the set of a television sketch comedy and forgot to turn off the character. He is the Saturday Night Live Candidate.
Monday, January 05, 2004
Mad Cow Disease: Is the Near Hysteria Warranted?
Over at FoxNews they have an interesting article posted discussing the weaknesses in the case for prions causing Mad Cow Disease.
Now, I had no idea that this sort of confirmin evidence was lacking. If the article is correct, then none of the cases of "Mad Cow" infecting humans in Europe was ever tied to the eating of infected beef. Apparently, they just said, "Some cows had Mad Cow. Some people had Mad Cow. Therefore, those people must have eaten those cows."
My belief that the scientific community is hopelessly political becomes stronger every passing day.
Now, I had no idea that this sort of confirmin evidence was lacking. If the article is correct, then none of the cases of "Mad Cow" infecting humans in Europe was ever tied to the eating of infected beef. Apparently, they just said, "Some cows had Mad Cow. Some people had Mad Cow. Therefore, those people must have eaten those cows."
My belief that the scientific community is hopelessly political becomes stronger every passing day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
