O'Reilly analysis lacks any comprehension of the real world
Bill O'Reilly thinks politicians should express regret, like regular people. That for some mysterious reason, politicians are weasals, and this appears to be the tradition that is handed down.
Perhaps Mr. O'Reilly has never heard of this thing called the media. Or, perhaps he just doesn't know how it works. Perhaps he lives in the rarified atmosphere of the Factor, no spin ever enters and so he has, trapped in his ivory tower, lost touch with those who live in the real world where media spin would take hosest expressions that more was not done into admissions of guilt and even incompetance.
I offer as evidence, the Rumsfeld Memo of October 2003. Rumsfeld is one of those leaders not satisfied with success, who wants to know how to improve on success. So the SecDef asked his immediate lieutenants, are we adapting, learning, and anticipating as fast as we can, or can we do better, if so how? The press writes things like this USA Today opener:
"The United States has no yardstick for measuring progress in the war on terrorism, has not "yet made truly bold moves" in fighting al-Qaeda and other terror groups, and is in for a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a memo that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sent to top-ranking Defense officials last week."
If everything you said got spun this way, you'd stop talking like a regualr person too. You'd think that someone who rails against the spin, would criticize the problem, not the victims of the spin. The administration has to speak to the whole contry, not just to friends who will appreciate what they has to say, never mind helping them with favorable spin. So, they have to be careful, cautious, and circumspect. But, O'Reilly is content to read this as a personality defect.
Ivory Towers will do that to you.
Thursday, April 15, 2004
Saturday, April 10, 2004
Lou Dobbs: Protectionist
Lou Dobbs has put a list of companies up on his CNN site who hire labor overseas. The only purpose of such a list is the encouragement of a subtle boycott. He has included a link to an article at a CNN:Money site that argues against free trade because those who take some part of their operations overseas benefit, while the harm tends to be located here, outside of the business. The author, Rory L. Terry, fails to compare the costs to the benefits outside of the business. Its pretty obvious that there is a benefit to business. They aren't stupid. The real question is whether the cost-benefit to the rest of us favors the practice or not, a question he doesn't address.
Lou Dobbs has put a list of companies up on his CNN site who hire labor overseas. The only purpose of such a list is the encouragement of a subtle boycott. He has included a link to an article at a CNN:Money site that argues against free trade because those who take some part of their operations overseas benefit, while the harm tends to be located here, outside of the business. The author, Rory L. Terry, fails to compare the costs to the benefits outside of the business. Its pretty obvious that there is a benefit to business. They aren't stupid. The real question is whether the cost-benefit to the rest of us favors the practice or not, a question he doesn't address.
Blame America pt 2: Late Cold War
In today's NYT, in the Arts pages, of all places, they popularize the theory of Mahmood Mamdani that the Americans created terrorism. See my post of March 14 on this topic. What Mamdani does not do is address the chronology of American use of non-state proxies compared to Soviet use of same. I think there is plenty of evidence that the Soviets were way ahead in this area and that America was playing catch-up. I also think that the Americans prefered to support guerrillas rather than terrorists. The Soviets don't seem to have had a perference. I continue to see this as a case where American responsibility is substantially less than Soviet responsibility. Looking at only the American side without taking the Soviet role into consideration thoroughly skews our understanding of how and why non-state terrorism is the problem it is today.
In today's NYT, in the Arts pages, of all places, they popularize the theory of Mahmood Mamdani that the Americans created terrorism. See my post of March 14 on this topic. What Mamdani does not do is address the chronology of American use of non-state proxies compared to Soviet use of same. I think there is plenty of evidence that the Soviets were way ahead in this area and that America was playing catch-up. I also think that the Americans prefered to support guerrillas rather than terrorists. The Soviets don't seem to have had a perference. I continue to see this as a case where American responsibility is substantially less than Soviet responsibility. Looking at only the American side without taking the Soviet role into consideration thoroughly skews our understanding of how and why non-state terrorism is the problem it is today.
Thursday, April 08, 2004
Rice before the Commission
I watched Rice speak to the 9-11 commission this morning, and I think she did pretty well. Aside from the usual suspects trying to get Rice to play gotcha with them, it was pretty routine. What is disappointing is the way this puts everyone on the defensive so that no one is willing to admit that they made mistakes.
There is a great scene in Pearl Harbor where Dan Ackroyd as Captain Thurman, a cryptographer, tells a senior naval officer that he doesn't know what the Japanese fleet is up to. He suspects an attack on Pearl, because its the worst thing that could happen. He has no evidence for it. He pays attention to every itch, goosebump, or spine tinge, as well as troop movements and more conventional analytical tools. There are two points here. One is that its hard to predict the future. The second is that there is plenty of noise out there. The senior admiral was unwilling to mobilize the fleet because of a spine tingle. If we acted like every peice of intelligence traffic suggested a Pearl Harbor or a 9-11 we'd be constantly on edge, and we'd ultimatly fall prey to the "boy who cried wolf".
Consider in the past two years how many complained about the up and down colored alerts. Now that we are privy as a public to the general anticipation of threat, certainly we must realize that every warning does not foretell another 9-11. So why assume that Condi Rice and the rest should have assumed otherwise prior to 9-11?
Further, lets assume that they did. Let's assume that they were especially vigilant in these regards. What would Main Street have thought when the administration's Leftist opponants claimed that these alerts were intended to scare the public, to create a rally around the flag effect, or if we had gone so far as some suggested in the commission to attack Afghanistan, that we invented a foriegn war to distract the public from the "stolen election".
So, not only is it unrealistic that we should have drawn the right conclusions from all the data available, ignored the dead ends and connected the dots between the data actually related to the 9-11 conspiracy, but that even if we had, it would have been impossible to do anything about it because without the planes actually striking the buildings, the country would not have accepted the actions neccesary to do much of anything to stop it, or would have regarded the capture of the conspirators as exagerated.
From IMDB's list of quotes:
Admiral Chester W. Nimitz: So, sir, you would have us mobilize the entire fleet, at the cost of millions of dollars, based on this 'spine-tingling' feeling of yours?
Captain Thurman: No, sir. I understand my job is to gather and interpret material. Making difficult decisions based on incomplete information from my limited decoding ability is your job, sir.
Preperations for 9-11 would have impacted the civilian world much more than mobilizing the fleet. So the costs would have been more than just financial, they would have been far more broad.
I watched Rice speak to the 9-11 commission this morning, and I think she did pretty well. Aside from the usual suspects trying to get Rice to play gotcha with them, it was pretty routine. What is disappointing is the way this puts everyone on the defensive so that no one is willing to admit that they made mistakes.
There is a great scene in Pearl Harbor where Dan Ackroyd as Captain Thurman, a cryptographer, tells a senior naval officer that he doesn't know what the Japanese fleet is up to. He suspects an attack on Pearl, because its the worst thing that could happen. He has no evidence for it. He pays attention to every itch, goosebump, or spine tinge, as well as troop movements and more conventional analytical tools. There are two points here. One is that its hard to predict the future. The second is that there is plenty of noise out there. The senior admiral was unwilling to mobilize the fleet because of a spine tingle. If we acted like every peice of intelligence traffic suggested a Pearl Harbor or a 9-11 we'd be constantly on edge, and we'd ultimatly fall prey to the "boy who cried wolf".
Consider in the past two years how many complained about the up and down colored alerts. Now that we are privy as a public to the general anticipation of threat, certainly we must realize that every warning does not foretell another 9-11. So why assume that Condi Rice and the rest should have assumed otherwise prior to 9-11?
Further, lets assume that they did. Let's assume that they were especially vigilant in these regards. What would Main Street have thought when the administration's Leftist opponants claimed that these alerts were intended to scare the public, to create a rally around the flag effect, or if we had gone so far as some suggested in the commission to attack Afghanistan, that we invented a foriegn war to distract the public from the "stolen election".
So, not only is it unrealistic that we should have drawn the right conclusions from all the data available, ignored the dead ends and connected the dots between the data actually related to the 9-11 conspiracy, but that even if we had, it would have been impossible to do anything about it because without the planes actually striking the buildings, the country would not have accepted the actions neccesary to do much of anything to stop it, or would have regarded the capture of the conspirators as exagerated.
From IMDB's list of quotes:
Admiral Chester W. Nimitz: So, sir, you would have us mobilize the entire fleet, at the cost of millions of dollars, based on this 'spine-tingling' feeling of yours?
Captain Thurman: No, sir. I understand my job is to gather and interpret material. Making difficult decisions based on incomplete information from my limited decoding ability is your job, sir.
Preperations for 9-11 would have impacted the civilian world much more than mobilizing the fleet. So the costs would have been more than just financial, they would have been far more broad.
Wednesday, April 07, 2004
A last gasp?
Fallujah - an unravelling or a last gasp? Its too early to tell, but I strongly suspect its a last gasp, or perhaps one of several death throws.
Fallujah - an unravelling or a last gasp? Its too early to tell, but I strongly suspect its a last gasp, or perhaps one of several death throws.
John Adams and the Establishment Clause
Discussions of the Establishment Clause often focus on Jefferson or Madison, but Adams should not be ignored here. His concern was that religion prospered when unencumbered by state connection. Leon Wieseltier has an article in The New Republic in which he argues the Adamsian line. Here is the money quote, "I had come to witness a disputation between religion's enemies and religion's friends. What I saw instead, with the exception of a single comment by Justice Souter, was a disputation between religion's enemies, liberal and conservative. And this confirmed me in my conviction that the surest way to steal the meaning, and therefore the power, from religion is to deliver it to politics, to enslave it to public life."
Discussions of the Establishment Clause often focus on Jefferson or Madison, but Adams should not be ignored here. His concern was that religion prospered when unencumbered by state connection. Leon Wieseltier has an article in The New Republic in which he argues the Adamsian line. Here is the money quote, "I had come to witness a disputation between religion's enemies and religion's friends. What I saw instead, with the exception of a single comment by Justice Souter, was a disputation between religion's enemies, liberal and conservative. And this confirmed me in my conviction that the surest way to steal the meaning, and therefore the power, from religion is to deliver it to politics, to enslave it to public life."
O'Reilly ready to cut and run
Seeming every more cowardly, Bill O'Reilly has apparently reached his casualty budget. The tough-talker is a paper tiger. Since his main appeal has been his directness, his recoil from actual cost makes him look more like the bully who cowers when someone stands up to him. We had hints of this with Al Franken, but its an opinion that is becomming pretty well established, as far as I am concerned.
Seeming every more cowardly, Bill O'Reilly has apparently reached his casualty budget. The tough-talker is a paper tiger. Since his main appeal has been his directness, his recoil from actual cost makes him look more like the bully who cowers when someone stands up to him. We had hints of this with Al Franken, but its an opinion that is becomming pretty well established, as far as I am concerned.
Is Kennedy Ignorant or Cynical?
Cynical. His attacks on Bush could just as easily be leveled, word for word, against Jack Kennedy for the Bay of Pigs, Cuba Missile Crisis, involvement in Vietnam, his "bear any burden" approach, his tax cuts, ... why I could almost identify every part of President Kennedy's policy and action. Someone should ask Teddy why he so repudiates Jack's policies.
Cynical. His attacks on Bush could just as easily be leveled, word for word, against Jack Kennedy for the Bay of Pigs, Cuba Missile Crisis, involvement in Vietnam, his "bear any burden" approach, his tax cuts, ... why I could almost identify every part of President Kennedy's policy and action. Someone should ask Teddy why he so repudiates Jack's policies.
Monday, April 05, 2004
Is Kerry Ignorant or Cynical?
I ended my post 10 hours ago asking this question. Catching up on my Lileks, he addresses the same analysis to Iraq and France. "Kerry’s statement indicates that either he doesn’t know about the French government’s vested financial interests in Iraq, or he does know and thinks we don’t." Ignorant or cynical? Well, Mr Kerry, I think Goldfinger said it best, "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, the third time is enemy action." If I catch the candidate in this kind of situation again, I'm just going to assume that he's cynically manipulating the electorate, or trying to.
I ended my post 10 hours ago asking this question. Catching up on my Lileks, he addresses the same analysis to Iraq and France. "Kerry’s statement indicates that either he doesn’t know about the French government’s vested financial interests in Iraq, or he does know and thinks we don’t." Ignorant or cynical? Well, Mr Kerry, I think Goldfinger said it best, "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, the third time is enemy action." If I catch the candidate in this kind of situation again, I'm just going to assume that he's cynically manipulating the electorate, or trying to.
Why Kerry and Dems are clueless on trade
Instapundit linked to this article at ContraCostraTimes.com entitled 'U.S. receiving more 'outsourced' jobs than it's losing.' Indeed. But what illuminates is this quote from Kerry, "not if you talk to any worker that's out there." The American worker who loses a job because of Free Trade is here, is visible, and you can court his vote. But it ignores all the other beneficiaries, like the guy who gets a job directly because of free trade, the guy who gets a job indirectly, and the overall lower prices paid by consumers.
1) Direct Job Creation.
We have seen several cases, and I have posted on some of them regarding outsourcing creating more jobs than are being lost. See here, here, here and a related post on values in economics here. Generally, when a company outsources some jobs, two things happen, it lowers costs and so creates new high paying jobs with some of the money. The famous IBM case (discussed here by Kim du Toit, with my comments here.) involved IBM moving some jobs oversees to create new ones at higher rates of pay. See this by Clay Risen in The New Republic, where he points out, "IBM, for example, plans to offshore 3,000 programming jobs this year. But, at the same time, it will also create 5,000 jobs in the United States. Does that count as jobs lost, jobs gained, or both?" So this is direct job creation (net 2000 better jobs) via free markets and outsourcing.
2) Indirect Job Creation
Porphyrogenitus has a post on a recent Financial Times article on free trade. The FT requires subscription, so no link. When the economy as a whole benfits through low prices, low interest rates, and vigorous trade, jobs are created by someone other than the outsourcer. Going back to the IBM example, IBM customers, who saved money on IBM products can use that money instead to create jobs, while at the same time, those 5,000 engineers, project supervisors, and managers are spending more money on consumer goods than the 3,000 programers were last year, so more jobs are created through consumer expansion.
3) Lower Prices
Even if wages are held constant, we benefit from falling prices. When you can combine higher wages and lower prices, you really create benefits to Americans.
The problem John Kerry has is in finding people who are advantaged by cases #2 and #3. The Contra Costa Times finds a BMW employee who is in the Carolinas because of free trade, rather than say in Bavaria. As many commentators have observed, the Clinton-Gore administration knew this about free trade and pushed for NAFTA despite the fact that John Kerry can find people harmed by it. Show me a policy and I'll show you someone harmed by it. This is because no policy is ever a pareto optimum. What Kerry is either not aware of, or is cynically demagoging, is that people harmed by outsourcing are directly aware of it, and those who benefit are generally (our BMW worker aside) unaware, or only vaguely aware.
If Kerry and other Dems are aware that the policies they advocate are harmful, but advocate them anyway, they are unfit. So, here's hoping they are just ignorant.
Instapundit linked to this article at ContraCostraTimes.com entitled 'U.S. receiving more 'outsourced' jobs than it's losing.' Indeed. But what illuminates is this quote from Kerry, "not if you talk to any worker that's out there." The American worker who loses a job because of Free Trade is here, is visible, and you can court his vote. But it ignores all the other beneficiaries, like the guy who gets a job directly because of free trade, the guy who gets a job indirectly, and the overall lower prices paid by consumers.
1) Direct Job Creation.
We have seen several cases, and I have posted on some of them regarding outsourcing creating more jobs than are being lost. See here, here, here and a related post on values in economics here. Generally, when a company outsources some jobs, two things happen, it lowers costs and so creates new high paying jobs with some of the money. The famous IBM case (discussed here by Kim du Toit, with my comments here.) involved IBM moving some jobs oversees to create new ones at higher rates of pay. See this by Clay Risen in The New Republic, where he points out, "IBM, for example, plans to offshore 3,000 programming jobs this year. But, at the same time, it will also create 5,000 jobs in the United States. Does that count as jobs lost, jobs gained, or both?" So this is direct job creation (net 2000 better jobs) via free markets and outsourcing.
2) Indirect Job Creation
Porphyrogenitus has a post on a recent Financial Times article on free trade. The FT requires subscription, so no link. When the economy as a whole benfits through low prices, low interest rates, and vigorous trade, jobs are created by someone other than the outsourcer. Going back to the IBM example, IBM customers, who saved money on IBM products can use that money instead to create jobs, while at the same time, those 5,000 engineers, project supervisors, and managers are spending more money on consumer goods than the 3,000 programers were last year, so more jobs are created through consumer expansion.
3) Lower Prices
Even if wages are held constant, we benefit from falling prices. When you can combine higher wages and lower prices, you really create benefits to Americans.
The problem John Kerry has is in finding people who are advantaged by cases #2 and #3. The Contra Costa Times finds a BMW employee who is in the Carolinas because of free trade, rather than say in Bavaria. As many commentators have observed, the Clinton-Gore administration knew this about free trade and pushed for NAFTA despite the fact that John Kerry can find people harmed by it. Show me a policy and I'll show you someone harmed by it. This is because no policy is ever a pareto optimum. What Kerry is either not aware of, or is cynically demagoging, is that people harmed by outsourcing are directly aware of it, and those who benefit are generally (our BMW worker aside) unaware, or only vaguely aware.
If Kerry and other Dems are aware that the policies they advocate are harmful, but advocate them anyway, they are unfit. So, here's hoping they are just ignorant.
Hitch on the Street
Christopher Hitchens in the Wall Street Journal: what a world. He looks at the future without intervention in Iraq and posits seven questions for those who opposed intervention. Tim Blair has formated these seven questions in bullet points.
Christopher Hitchens in the Wall Street Journal: what a world. He looks at the future without intervention in Iraq and posits seven questions for those who opposed intervention. Tim Blair has formated these seven questions in bullet points.
Liberal Messages planted in Entertainment
There is a recent storm over the use of entertainment as a platform for expressly political speech, as discussed here in the NYT. Glenn Reynolds notes, "Unaccountable corporate money influencing politics?" Micheal Medved spent an hour on Friday on this subject, covering all of the Times examples.
I find myself unable to enjoy certain entertainments I did enjoy prior to 9-11 because the stakes have changed. When producers put these kinds of messages in their program I am very likely to turn off the show and not return. I'm not sure whether they are trying to get the word out or whether they think we all agree with them, but I get enough of this nonsense in real life and need not get worked up when winding down with entertainment. Since I watch so little television, this mostly applies to music and movies, but the point remains.
There is a recent storm over the use of entertainment as a platform for expressly political speech, as discussed here in the NYT. Glenn Reynolds notes, "Unaccountable corporate money influencing politics?" Micheal Medved spent an hour on Friday on this subject, covering all of the Times examples.
I find myself unable to enjoy certain entertainments I did enjoy prior to 9-11 because the stakes have changed. When producers put these kinds of messages in their program I am very likely to turn off the show and not return. I'm not sure whether they are trying to get the word out or whether they think we all agree with them, but I get enough of this nonsense in real life and need not get worked up when winding down with entertainment. Since I watch so little television, this mostly applies to music and movies, but the point remains.
Saturday, March 27, 2004
Comments on the Postrel Article on Teacher Quality
The dynamist herself is popularizing the academic work of Sean P. Corcoran, who is now a prof. at California State University, Sacramento. His paper is here. The article states, "Research over the last decade has demonstrated that teachers' aptitude test scores, particularly their verbal scores, are the best predictors of how their students will achieve." Its nice that research validates this intuitively obvious assumption. Teachers convey a lot of information verbally, and the most complex information is often passed on verbally. The better the teacher is verbally, is stands to reason, the better job of passing along information. The research confirms this.
The article conforms that teacher quality has declines as women have been liberated from narrow career choices in nursing and teaching. However, the slip is less pronounced than has been assumed, being largely confined to the best and brightest women, who have the most choices about where to sell their abilities in a much larger marketplace. However, while we attract fewer of the brightest women in the teaching profession, we also recruit fewer of the low aptitude women. Teaching demand has fallen since the 50's and 60's when the Baby Boom had to be schooled. It reached a nadir in the 80's in a gap between the children of boomers and the grandchildren. In fact my own research shows that the vast majority of teachers were certified in the 70's and 90's. Its hard to find a teacher certified in the 80's, because the large number of the 70's to teach my generation left plenty of teachers in the system even as enrollments fell. Not only did hiring fall off, but teacher salaries fell in real terms in the early 80's. Aside from this dip they are stable in real teams over the past 40 years.
So, as one would expect from a free market unencumbered by gender bias inefficiency, the best and brightest are finding better employment elsewhere, the smaller demand has eliminated the need to scrape the bottom of the barrel. So, the average is pretty stable, since the broad middle seems much less effected. The decline, I mentioned was very slight, being confined to the top, and compensated for at the bottom.
The second part of the article explains what specific market forces are at work here. After, all given a free market, teaching might still be better than the alternatives. Given the needs of childcare, for instance, teachers share a similar schedule as their children, often arriving home shortly after the children do if they ride the bus. Children close enough to walk can get home almost an hour earlier than teaching mothers. This is still and hour or more better than 9-5 moms. So, given the notion that teaching offers some advantages, we have to look to the overall balance of the opportunity, and as we should expect, the opportunities for the top in a free market exist at a greater range. A potential teacher with the best scores will tend to seek the most free markets because the reward for her relative advantage will be most accurate. However, just as the market for women's employment became more free, the market for the supply of teachers became less free as unionization and pay-equity laws regulated the market. This constraint at the top of potential incomes are the downside that caused the best women to avoid teaching. They were not getting rewarded for their superior ability in teaching as they were in other fields. Apparently the superior compensation outweighed the other advantages of teaching as a profession, and so the brain drain.
See the paper by Caroline M. Hoxby and Andrew Leighon on incomes and teacher recruitment here. They conclude that 80% of the cause for high performing women to avoid teaching has been the compression of wages in teaching that fail to compensate them as they are able to be in the free market.
Postrel concludes, "In hiring teachers, we get what we pay for: average quality at average wages."
The dynamist herself is popularizing the academic work of Sean P. Corcoran, who is now a prof. at California State University, Sacramento. His paper is here. The article states, "Research over the last decade has demonstrated that teachers' aptitude test scores, particularly their verbal scores, are the best predictors of how their students will achieve." Its nice that research validates this intuitively obvious assumption. Teachers convey a lot of information verbally, and the most complex information is often passed on verbally. The better the teacher is verbally, is stands to reason, the better job of passing along information. The research confirms this.
The article conforms that teacher quality has declines as women have been liberated from narrow career choices in nursing and teaching. However, the slip is less pronounced than has been assumed, being largely confined to the best and brightest women, who have the most choices about where to sell their abilities in a much larger marketplace. However, while we attract fewer of the brightest women in the teaching profession, we also recruit fewer of the low aptitude women. Teaching demand has fallen since the 50's and 60's when the Baby Boom had to be schooled. It reached a nadir in the 80's in a gap between the children of boomers and the grandchildren. In fact my own research shows that the vast majority of teachers were certified in the 70's and 90's. Its hard to find a teacher certified in the 80's, because the large number of the 70's to teach my generation left plenty of teachers in the system even as enrollments fell. Not only did hiring fall off, but teacher salaries fell in real terms in the early 80's. Aside from this dip they are stable in real teams over the past 40 years.
So, as one would expect from a free market unencumbered by gender bias inefficiency, the best and brightest are finding better employment elsewhere, the smaller demand has eliminated the need to scrape the bottom of the barrel. So, the average is pretty stable, since the broad middle seems much less effected. The decline, I mentioned was very slight, being confined to the top, and compensated for at the bottom.
The second part of the article explains what specific market forces are at work here. After, all given a free market, teaching might still be better than the alternatives. Given the needs of childcare, for instance, teachers share a similar schedule as their children, often arriving home shortly after the children do if they ride the bus. Children close enough to walk can get home almost an hour earlier than teaching mothers. This is still and hour or more better than 9-5 moms. So, given the notion that teaching offers some advantages, we have to look to the overall balance of the opportunity, and as we should expect, the opportunities for the top in a free market exist at a greater range. A potential teacher with the best scores will tend to seek the most free markets because the reward for her relative advantage will be most accurate. However, just as the market for women's employment became more free, the market for the supply of teachers became less free as unionization and pay-equity laws regulated the market. This constraint at the top of potential incomes are the downside that caused the best women to avoid teaching. They were not getting rewarded for their superior ability in teaching as they were in other fields. Apparently the superior compensation outweighed the other advantages of teaching as a profession, and so the brain drain.
See the paper by Caroline M. Hoxby and Andrew Leighon on incomes and teacher recruitment here. They conclude that 80% of the cause for high performing women to avoid teaching has been the compression of wages in teaching that fail to compensate them as they are able to be in the free market.
Postrel concludes, "In hiring teachers, we get what we pay for: average quality at average wages."
Friday, March 26, 2004
SMSU makes the Volokh Conspiracy
SMS (this is their prefered brand name), has been having a real problem with free speech of late. They have tried to create free speech zones. Now their Office of Thought Police (SMSU's Office of Equal Opportunity) is attacking the school newspaper for perfoming the function of a newspaper. Most outrageous, as far as I am concerned, is President Keiser's contention, "This is not a free speech issue. It's an education issue." I understand that running a large university means you will view the world through the lens of education, but there is this thing called the constitution, and it provides for this thing called Freedom of the Press. Further, this notion totally goes to reveal how much the university has abandoned the spirit of free enquiry in favor of extdending the high school model of in loco parentis by which students are regarded as children rather than citizens of the republic of letters.
SMS (this is their prefered brand name), has been having a real problem with free speech of late. They have tried to create free speech zones. Now their Office of Thought Police (SMSU's Office of Equal Opportunity) is attacking the school newspaper for perfoming the function of a newspaper. Most outrageous, as far as I am concerned, is President Keiser's contention, "This is not a free speech issue. It's an education issue." I understand that running a large university means you will view the world through the lens of education, but there is this thing called the constitution, and it provides for this thing called Freedom of the Press. Further, this notion totally goes to reveal how much the university has abandoned the spirit of free enquiry in favor of extdending the high school model of in loco parentis by which students are regarded as children rather than citizens of the republic of letters.
Values and Economic Policy
Listening to the last few minutes of yesterday's Hugh Hewitt as I wait for today's show streaming from KRLA's site. Hugh ran the newest Bush commercials and in them Bush talks about how his policies benefit small business. The notion that we want to benefit small business, is a social value. Seeking effeciency is a value. Seeking equity, stability, sustainability, are all values. Its only sensible for Americans to prioritize their values, and they may well pick priorities that conflict with effeciency. In terms of economies globaly, America is more concerned with effeciency than any other industrialized country. Americans may well decided that they will nibble at the edges of effeciency by prefering "mom and pop businesses" while generally favoring effeiency as our overal economic priority. In Bernetein's post referenced below, he observes that, "Much of American antitrust law for many years was based on no economic theory whatsoever." But it is based on social values, and there is no reason to prioritize economic over social interests if that is not the desire of the people.
Listening to the last few minutes of yesterday's Hugh Hewitt as I wait for today's show streaming from KRLA's site. Hugh ran the newest Bush commercials and in them Bush talks about how his policies benefit small business. The notion that we want to benefit small business, is a social value. Seeking effeciency is a value. Seeking equity, stability, sustainability, are all values. Its only sensible for Americans to prioritize their values, and they may well pick priorities that conflict with effeciency. In terms of economies globaly, America is more concerned with effeciency than any other industrialized country. Americans may well decided that they will nibble at the edges of effeciency by prefering "mom and pop businesses" while generally favoring effeiency as our overal economic priority. In Bernetein's post referenced below, he observes that, "Much of American antitrust law for many years was based on no economic theory whatsoever." But it is based on social values, and there is no reason to prioritize economic over social interests if that is not the desire of the people.
Anti-Trust critcism misplaced
David Bernstein makes what amounts to an aside, so this amounts to nothing more than a quibble. In a general criticism of anti-trust law, he attributes obe cause of anti-trust action to demogogery and cites Teddy Roosevelt. The achievement of Roosevelt is this: In a situation where the struggle was between unfettered capitalism and syndicalism, Roosevelt found a comprimise solution to eliminate the possibility of a syndicalist victory. His nephew later did much the same thing in so much as FDR's programs prevented worse. Its nice to criticize anti-trust legislation in the abstract, but given the observed fact that Democrats largely don't even bother to nod in the direction of free markets any more. If Republicans seriously started talking about ditching anti-trust legislation it would tend to "prove" the worst fears of the Left. The result would probabaly be sufficient to put anti-market forces in charge of the goverment. I argue that ineffeciencies like anti-trust, and I accept all of Bernstein's claims about them, are the price we pay to avoid the loss of control to those who would put a lower priority on market effeciency than they do for equity, enviromental impact, or other values that would substantially kill the goose. This means that Bernstein's post amounts to an "assume we have a can-opener" kind of speculation into ideal worlds that is utopian.
David Bernstein makes what amounts to an aside, so this amounts to nothing more than a quibble. In a general criticism of anti-trust law, he attributes obe cause of anti-trust action to demogogery and cites Teddy Roosevelt. The achievement of Roosevelt is this: In a situation where the struggle was between unfettered capitalism and syndicalism, Roosevelt found a comprimise solution to eliminate the possibility of a syndicalist victory. His nephew later did much the same thing in so much as FDR's programs prevented worse. Its nice to criticize anti-trust legislation in the abstract, but given the observed fact that Democrats largely don't even bother to nod in the direction of free markets any more. If Republicans seriously started talking about ditching anti-trust legislation it would tend to "prove" the worst fears of the Left. The result would probabaly be sufficient to put anti-market forces in charge of the goverment. I argue that ineffeciencies like anti-trust, and I accept all of Bernstein's claims about them, are the price we pay to avoid the loss of control to those who would put a lower priority on market effeciency than they do for equity, enviromental impact, or other values that would substantially kill the goose. This means that Bernstein's post amounts to an "assume we have a can-opener" kind of speculation into ideal worlds that is utopian.
Jabon Levy on the Peldge
Here is what he has to say, more Lockian goodness, I might add. In the aftermath of 9-11 when the Pledge suddenly appeared in schools from which it had been abandoned, its meaning has renewed importance.
Here is what he has to say, more Lockian goodness, I might add. In the aftermath of 9-11 when the Pledge suddenly appeared in schools from which it had been abandoned, its meaning has renewed importance.
Full Bush Slideshow: White House Election-Year Album at MSNBC Click the launch button.
Thursday, March 25, 2004
Local mother files suit over ten commandments plaque at school
The interesting issue here is that even in a small town in the Bible belt, there is no universal acceptance of public displays of religion in pubic institutions.
The interesting issue here is that even in a small town in the Bible belt, there is no universal acceptance of public displays of religion in pubic institutions.
The Smart Guys discuss the Pledge
The Smart Guys, Erwin Chemerinsky and John Eastman, discussed the Pledge case before the Supream Court today. Typically my sympathies are with Eastman, but today I found Chemerinsky's arguments persuasive and well argued. Eastman made three errors which undermined his argument.
1) Original Meaning: Lawyers tend to make bad historians, and this is certainly the case here. Eastman posed the idea that the solution to the current problem was to return to the original meaning of the Constitution. Under the original meaning, "Congress shall make no law" restricted only Congress, not the states. Jefferson's famous Danbury Letter involved the fact that Congregationalism was an established church in Connecticut and Baptists were looking for assistance from Jefferson. Despite the fact that Congregationalists were usually Federalists, and Baptists were much more likely to be supporters of Jefferson politically, Jefferson refused to help them gain religious freedom, because the 1st Amendment created a wall between Church and State. Last week, Eastman complained about Blain amendments in state constitutions like Washington's, which were upheld in Locke v Davey. Original meaning allows Blain Amendments. Original meaning allows sectarian discrimination as long as the states do it, and not the federal government.
2) Eastman correctly identified the purpose of the 1st Amendment as a principle to prevent sectarian conflict in America. What he fails to see is that athiests are just one more kind of sectarian. Chemerinsky correctly analogized that where "one nation under Jesus" is obviously inappropriate, so is "one nation under God". (See below for me to anticipate a disagreement with Chemerinsky, since I don't think this is sufficient alone to strike the two words.) Atheists, like other Americans, have deeply held views about cosmological questions. Their views are entitled to the same protections as every other variety of philosophical, cosmological set of beliefs. This is, I think the heart of Chemerinsky's example. My own would involve a state mandated Hail Mary. Catholics would find it unobjectionable if applied appropriately, but Protestants would find it a troubling affirmation, since they reject the special nature of Mary held by Catholics. As a result, it is wrong for the state to impose such an affirmation. Likewise it is wrong for the state to impose such an affirmation, especially of children in a school setting.
3) Eastman argues that the line "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights " means that God resides above the state as arbiter of a higher law and that our rights ultimatly come from God. President Bush has argued the same case. I had not heard this argument until moving to the Bible Belt. My understanding of this line is entirely different. I am troubled by this understanding, because of the kinds of things it allows, such as Roy Moore's antics. I also don't believe the author of this line intended this reading, since this kind of expression is at odds with Jefferson's other ideas. Instead, this line should be understood in terms of Locke. Locke, author of the Reasonableness of Christianity is hardly anti-Christian. His role here is several. First, we should look to his notions of toleration. Second, the notion of inalienable rights is one he worked with himself in the Second Treatise. For example, Jefferson's list of inalienable rights, the words follwoing the above phrase, are Locke's in meaning. Jefferson said Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness; Locke said Life, Liberty, and Property. I have seen it argued and agree that both men would have understood Property and the Pursuit of Happiness to mean the same thing. Consider Jefferson's view of the ideal America of yoeman farmers, individual property holders. He did not believe that we could pursue happiness as wage-earners in a Hamiltonian America. Why did Jefferson write Creator, rather than God? As an Enlightenment figure, and one with a certain hostility to religion, Jefferson prefered a rational creator diety which is often associated with Aristotle's First Cause. In fact the notion of inalienable rights is probabaly articulated first in a mature form by the Stoics, so this connection bears deeper resonance. The Stoics believed that all people had inalienable rights because all men posses reason. This argument would be far more satisfactory to Jefferson than the notion that a personal God interested in his salvation had crafted a specific social order for that purpose. A term like "Creator" should not be seen as an affirmation of the religiousity of the Founders, but rather of their desire to step as far away from a religious based politics in favor of a reason based politics as possible. Of course in there era, those making a religous based politics were monarchists and supported absolutist kings. Certainly its possible to assert that God created us and did not intend for men to have dominion over men. This is not what Jefferson was getting at, at least not the emphasis on God's intention. Chemerinsky argued that 10% of Americans would reject this possition (my guess is he is lumping all non-theists together here, because athiests are a smaller number) on the basis of no belief in God. BTW, Locke argued that athiests could not be trusted to hold office because they would not fear for their immortal souls. He also held that Catholics were not to be trusted because they followed a foriegn prince (the Pope). We have long held that one's American-ness, citizenship, or fitness for office is not basded on one's religious beliefs. While we have had no avowed athiests in high office, its is hardly prohibited. This notion of our rights comming from God is ultimatly not relevant, is not what Jefferson intended, and cannot be the basis of our collective political notions.
So, if we reject Eastman's possition do we adopt Chemerinsky's? No. Chemerinsky came very close the strict seperationist possition. Since the court had agreed with him and he could just defend the court against Eastman, he didn't have to articulate his ideas as completely as Eastman did. Nevertheless, I take Chemerinsky to be a strict seperationist on Establishment issues. For example, we can recall last week's discussion of Locke v Davey. I have no problem with citizens using a general government benefit for religious purposes. I have no problem with free religious expression. My only limitation is for the state. The state has great coercive power, and so it is the state that must be restrained where it can impinge on the happiness of citizens. I understand why people want the government to agree with them on matters of import. But the purpose of the state is limited. There are things it should not do. I don't want a state that looks out for my whole person. I want a state that provides a common defence and looks after the general prosperity. It need make no religious statements in order to achieve these goals.
Hugh Hewitt mentioned at least twice that he would like to see some prayer in schools, when taking callers. I have no problem with prayer in school in principle. But in practice, the state can't get involved, so the ideal solution is the abolution of the public school system in favor of public funding of children's education according to parent's wishes. See my recent post on school choice with a long discussion of the court's establishment cases. What I did not mention in that post was the competing views of what it means to be neutral.
One side says that neutrality means even-handedness. So that a neutral policy with regard to sectarian issues gives equal benefits and restrictions regardless of sect. So that neutrality means athiests, Buddhists, Lutherans, and Greek Orthodox belivers or organizations are treated the same. No favoritism, so special harm. Even for unpopular religious practicing animal sacrifice. I am refering here to Lukumi Babalu Aye Inc v. City of Hialeah, where the court held that this Santaria church could not have its animal sacrifice rituals banned just because people didn't like it.
The other side says that neutrality is impossible. The state will either err too much in one direction or another, so it should just be totally uninvolved in any religious thing. No funding, no cerimonial prayers, nothing. The unintended consequence is that this favors athiests, secular sentiments, and the non-religious in general. This possition strikes me as not being neutral, although I understand the impluse. I will provide an example. In WWI, Sec of State William Jennings Bryan took this notion of neutrality and believed that we could not trade with Britain and Germany because one side would, for whatever reason, trade more with us and we would be inclined to protect our recievables by making sure they won, and that's not neutral. He resigned when Wilson continued to support trade with the Allies. Byran wanted neutrality in thought, word, and deed. He wanted strict non-involvement with any beligerent. And that is the kind of neutrality that strict seperationists want in regards religion.
Since I prefer the even-handedness definition of neutrality, I tend to be an accomodationist, but I am a moderate accomodationist, since I do favor as much non-action by the state as the state can manage without becoming hostile to religion. So in the case of the Pledge, I look to its intentions. Eastman made three suggestions as to the purpose of the phrase "under God". It might be a religious statement, a historical statement, or a cerimonial statement. First off, I must say that anyone who favors religion has a hard time arguing this is not a religious statement. That is so convienient that its fails to pass muster. While Hugh Hewitt may derive social pleasure from fellowship at church, that not the main reason he attends Sunday services. Likewise, you don't see this kind of contraversy in matters only historical or cerimonial. Historical and cerimonial matters only become contraversial when they have implications for contraversial issues like race or religion. So the contraversy itself speaks to a religious meaning. If we look at the addition of these words, and they were added in 1954, we find that their addition was not to redress a historical lapse, it was part of our Red Scare responce to the Godless Communists. To deferentiate ourselves from the Athiest Marxists we established some religion. We added a specific reference to God to a patriotic pledge for no other purpose than to advertise our religiousity. Therefore, those words should be stricken from the pledge required of school children.
The Smart Guys, Erwin Chemerinsky and John Eastman, discussed the Pledge case before the Supream Court today. Typically my sympathies are with Eastman, but today I found Chemerinsky's arguments persuasive and well argued. Eastman made three errors which undermined his argument.
1) Original Meaning: Lawyers tend to make bad historians, and this is certainly the case here. Eastman posed the idea that the solution to the current problem was to return to the original meaning of the Constitution. Under the original meaning, "Congress shall make no law" restricted only Congress, not the states. Jefferson's famous Danbury Letter involved the fact that Congregationalism was an established church in Connecticut and Baptists were looking for assistance from Jefferson. Despite the fact that Congregationalists were usually Federalists, and Baptists were much more likely to be supporters of Jefferson politically, Jefferson refused to help them gain religious freedom, because the 1st Amendment created a wall between Church and State. Last week, Eastman complained about Blain amendments in state constitutions like Washington's, which were upheld in Locke v Davey. Original meaning allows Blain Amendments. Original meaning allows sectarian discrimination as long as the states do it, and not the federal government.
2) Eastman correctly identified the purpose of the 1st Amendment as a principle to prevent sectarian conflict in America. What he fails to see is that athiests are just one more kind of sectarian. Chemerinsky correctly analogized that where "one nation under Jesus" is obviously inappropriate, so is "one nation under God". (See below for me to anticipate a disagreement with Chemerinsky, since I don't think this is sufficient alone to strike the two words.) Atheists, like other Americans, have deeply held views about cosmological questions. Their views are entitled to the same protections as every other variety of philosophical, cosmological set of beliefs. This is, I think the heart of Chemerinsky's example. My own would involve a state mandated Hail Mary. Catholics would find it unobjectionable if applied appropriately, but Protestants would find it a troubling affirmation, since they reject the special nature of Mary held by Catholics. As a result, it is wrong for the state to impose such an affirmation. Likewise it is wrong for the state to impose such an affirmation, especially of children in a school setting.
3) Eastman argues that the line "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights " means that God resides above the state as arbiter of a higher law and that our rights ultimatly come from God. President Bush has argued the same case. I had not heard this argument until moving to the Bible Belt. My understanding of this line is entirely different. I am troubled by this understanding, because of the kinds of things it allows, such as Roy Moore's antics. I also don't believe the author of this line intended this reading, since this kind of expression is at odds with Jefferson's other ideas. Instead, this line should be understood in terms of Locke. Locke, author of the Reasonableness of Christianity is hardly anti-Christian. His role here is several. First, we should look to his notions of toleration. Second, the notion of inalienable rights is one he worked with himself in the Second Treatise. For example, Jefferson's list of inalienable rights, the words follwoing the above phrase, are Locke's in meaning. Jefferson said Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness; Locke said Life, Liberty, and Property. I have seen it argued and agree that both men would have understood Property and the Pursuit of Happiness to mean the same thing. Consider Jefferson's view of the ideal America of yoeman farmers, individual property holders. He did not believe that we could pursue happiness as wage-earners in a Hamiltonian America. Why did Jefferson write Creator, rather than God? As an Enlightenment figure, and one with a certain hostility to religion, Jefferson prefered a rational creator diety which is often associated with Aristotle's First Cause. In fact the notion of inalienable rights is probabaly articulated first in a mature form by the Stoics, so this connection bears deeper resonance. The Stoics believed that all people had inalienable rights because all men posses reason. This argument would be far more satisfactory to Jefferson than the notion that a personal God interested in his salvation had crafted a specific social order for that purpose. A term like "Creator" should not be seen as an affirmation of the religiousity of the Founders, but rather of their desire to step as far away from a religious based politics in favor of a reason based politics as possible. Of course in there era, those making a religous based politics were monarchists and supported absolutist kings. Certainly its possible to assert that God created us and did not intend for men to have dominion over men. This is not what Jefferson was getting at, at least not the emphasis on God's intention. Chemerinsky argued that 10% of Americans would reject this possition (my guess is he is lumping all non-theists together here, because athiests are a smaller number) on the basis of no belief in God. BTW, Locke argued that athiests could not be trusted to hold office because they would not fear for their immortal souls. He also held that Catholics were not to be trusted because they followed a foriegn prince (the Pope). We have long held that one's American-ness, citizenship, or fitness for office is not basded on one's religious beliefs. While we have had no avowed athiests in high office, its is hardly prohibited. This notion of our rights comming from God is ultimatly not relevant, is not what Jefferson intended, and cannot be the basis of our collective political notions.
So, if we reject Eastman's possition do we adopt Chemerinsky's? No. Chemerinsky came very close the strict seperationist possition. Since the court had agreed with him and he could just defend the court against Eastman, he didn't have to articulate his ideas as completely as Eastman did. Nevertheless, I take Chemerinsky to be a strict seperationist on Establishment issues. For example, we can recall last week's discussion of Locke v Davey. I have no problem with citizens using a general government benefit for religious purposes. I have no problem with free religious expression. My only limitation is for the state. The state has great coercive power, and so it is the state that must be restrained where it can impinge on the happiness of citizens. I understand why people want the government to agree with them on matters of import. But the purpose of the state is limited. There are things it should not do. I don't want a state that looks out for my whole person. I want a state that provides a common defence and looks after the general prosperity. It need make no religious statements in order to achieve these goals.
Hugh Hewitt mentioned at least twice that he would like to see some prayer in schools, when taking callers. I have no problem with prayer in school in principle. But in practice, the state can't get involved, so the ideal solution is the abolution of the public school system in favor of public funding of children's education according to parent's wishes. See my recent post on school choice with a long discussion of the court's establishment cases. What I did not mention in that post was the competing views of what it means to be neutral.
One side says that neutrality means even-handedness. So that a neutral policy with regard to sectarian issues gives equal benefits and restrictions regardless of sect. So that neutrality means athiests, Buddhists, Lutherans, and Greek Orthodox belivers or organizations are treated the same. No favoritism, so special harm. Even for unpopular religious practicing animal sacrifice. I am refering here to Lukumi Babalu Aye Inc v. City of Hialeah, where the court held that this Santaria church could not have its animal sacrifice rituals banned just because people didn't like it.
The other side says that neutrality is impossible. The state will either err too much in one direction or another, so it should just be totally uninvolved in any religious thing. No funding, no cerimonial prayers, nothing. The unintended consequence is that this favors athiests, secular sentiments, and the non-religious in general. This possition strikes me as not being neutral, although I understand the impluse. I will provide an example. In WWI, Sec of State William Jennings Bryan took this notion of neutrality and believed that we could not trade with Britain and Germany because one side would, for whatever reason, trade more with us and we would be inclined to protect our recievables by making sure they won, and that's not neutral. He resigned when Wilson continued to support trade with the Allies. Byran wanted neutrality in thought, word, and deed. He wanted strict non-involvement with any beligerent. And that is the kind of neutrality that strict seperationists want in regards religion.
Since I prefer the even-handedness definition of neutrality, I tend to be an accomodationist, but I am a moderate accomodationist, since I do favor as much non-action by the state as the state can manage without becoming hostile to religion. So in the case of the Pledge, I look to its intentions. Eastman made three suggestions as to the purpose of the phrase "under God". It might be a religious statement, a historical statement, or a cerimonial statement. First off, I must say that anyone who favors religion has a hard time arguing this is not a religious statement. That is so convienient that its fails to pass muster. While Hugh Hewitt may derive social pleasure from fellowship at church, that not the main reason he attends Sunday services. Likewise, you don't see this kind of contraversy in matters only historical or cerimonial. Historical and cerimonial matters only become contraversial when they have implications for contraversial issues like race or religion. So the contraversy itself speaks to a religious meaning. If we look at the addition of these words, and they were added in 1954, we find that their addition was not to redress a historical lapse, it was part of our Red Scare responce to the Godless Communists. To deferentiate ourselves from the Athiest Marxists we established some religion. We added a specific reference to God to a patriotic pledge for no other purpose than to advertise our religiousity. Therefore, those words should be stricken from the pledge required of school children.
Monday, March 22, 2004
How EU will work in practice
If you follow euobserver.com, you have noticed that whatever else the EU organization is doing, there is a meeting of the big 5. This is Brirain, France, Germany, Spain, and Italy. See the lastest story. I rather think this is how the EU will operate in practice. The big 5 had a long history of working together, they are the core of NATO in Europe and of the EU, they are the largest states, economies, and militaries, and most importantly, Europe has always been run by her leading powers. The rival system of states that emerged during the Renaissance, and later the Concert of Europe when the Great Powers formally governed through the Congress System all work this way. The big powers expect it, and the little powers seem resigned to it. Regardless of what the EU constitution says, I predict this is how problems will be solved.
Imagine the Governors of California, New York, Texas, Florida, and Illinois sitting down and deciding how their Congressional delegations will vote in order to create a unified policy, in effect to direct policy for the rest of the states. Of course it could not work here. Congressional delegations won't take instructions from governors, and the very structure of the Senate anticipated such a move by the big states, as represented by the New Jersey Plan in the founding debates. The American big 5 I mentioned only have 10 out of 50 Senators. The same influence as North Dakota, Alaska, Hawaii, Rhode Island, and West Virgina. Europe lacks a New Jersey Plan sensibility to restrain its Virginia Plan history and impulse.
If you follow euobserver.com, you have noticed that whatever else the EU organization is doing, there is a meeting of the big 5. This is Brirain, France, Germany, Spain, and Italy. See the lastest story. I rather think this is how the EU will operate in practice. The big 5 had a long history of working together, they are the core of NATO in Europe and of the EU, they are the largest states, economies, and militaries, and most importantly, Europe has always been run by her leading powers. The rival system of states that emerged during the Renaissance, and later the Concert of Europe when the Great Powers formally governed through the Congress System all work this way. The big powers expect it, and the little powers seem resigned to it. Regardless of what the EU constitution says, I predict this is how problems will be solved.
Imagine the Governors of California, New York, Texas, Florida, and Illinois sitting down and deciding how their Congressional delegations will vote in order to create a unified policy, in effect to direct policy for the rest of the states. Of course it could not work here. Congressional delegations won't take instructions from governors, and the very structure of the Senate anticipated such a move by the big states, as represented by the New Jersey Plan in the founding debates. The American big 5 I mentioned only have 10 out of 50 Senators. The same influence as North Dakota, Alaska, Hawaii, Rhode Island, and West Virgina. Europe lacks a New Jersey Plan sensibility to restrain its Virginia Plan history and impulse.
Saturday, March 20, 2004
How do you Print your Digital Pictures?
Registering a digital camera, the manufacturer asked me this question. There was no option to say I never print prictures. In fact, I can't figure out why I'd ever want printed pictures. Pictures are just a way to store the image on paper. Why not just store them digitally? Is this some kind of hard-copy thing? Make backups. While I can understand not wanting to read very long texts on computer (say, books), I can't think of any reason to print pictures. Alright, I can think of reasons (say, Christmas cards), but I've never done these things and I don't forsee it in the future. Since the manufacturer didn't have an expectation that I would answer "I don't" to the above question, how can they ideally serve me?
Registering a digital camera, the manufacturer asked me this question. There was no option to say I never print prictures. In fact, I can't figure out why I'd ever want printed pictures. Pictures are just a way to store the image on paper. Why not just store them digitally? Is this some kind of hard-copy thing? Make backups. While I can understand not wanting to read very long texts on computer (say, books), I can't think of any reason to print pictures. Alright, I can think of reasons (say, Christmas cards), but I've never done these things and I don't forsee it in the future. Since the manufacturer didn't have an expectation that I would answer "I don't" to the above question, how can they ideally serve me?
Friday, March 19, 2004
War on Terror Catagories
The relevant catagories are:
With us willingly
With us unwillingly because you're on the terrorist's list anyway
Against us
The President knows full well that in all the essentials, countries like Russia and France are with us, not because they want to be (they don't), but because they have no choice. They can refuse to participate, but they aren't neutral and more than Belgium was in 1940.
The relevant catagories are:
With us willingly
With us unwillingly because you're on the terrorist's list anyway
Against us
The President knows full well that in all the essentials, countries like Russia and France are with us, not because they want to be (they don't), but because they have no choice. They can refuse to participate, but they aren't neutral and more than Belgium was in 1940.
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
Remember Katie Roiphe pt II
Last August I brought of Katie Roiphe's book The Morning After: Sex, Fear, and Feminism. The question about remembrance was apt because I had not heard about Ms Roiphe after the buzz from her book died down. She appeared in annual reviews of thought and culture at the end of the year, but after that I don't recall hearing much. I was reading Slate this morning and came across her name at the bottom of the article: Katie Roiphe is the author of Still She Haunts Me. Stunned by the implications, I scrolled back to the top of the page and there was her byline. A search of her name on Slate reveals she wrote maybe a half dozen things in 2003 and several things in 2002. I'll be going back and catching up through the archive and look forward to more by Ms Roiphe.
Last August I brought of Katie Roiphe's book The Morning After: Sex, Fear, and Feminism. The question about remembrance was apt because I had not heard about Ms Roiphe after the buzz from her book died down. She appeared in annual reviews of thought and culture at the end of the year, but after that I don't recall hearing much. I was reading Slate this morning and came across her name at the bottom of the article: Katie Roiphe is the author of Still She Haunts Me. Stunned by the implications, I scrolled back to the top of the page and there was her byline. A search of her name on Slate reveals she wrote maybe a half dozen things in 2003 and several things in 2002. I'll be going back and catching up through the archive and look forward to more by Ms Roiphe.
Sunday, March 14, 2004
Blame America pt 1 Afghanistan
There are those who believe that it was American support for the Mujahideen is the cause for the creation fo the terrorists. Their thinking goes that because America is a bad thing, its actions will have pernicious consequences. But its not American support for the Mujahideen that created Osama or the Taliban, it was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that did. When the Soviets invaded, Islamists from the whole Muslim world took action to support resistance and coordinate their actions. Networks formed, leaders built organizations, and a lot of Islamists got quite a bit of combat, weapons, and munitions experience. Had America done nothing, all of this would have occured.
Instead, America did get involved and hoped for the best. But as happens so often, American assistance didn't purchase friends. Those who suppose that allegience is for sale think everyone is a mercenary. Our purpose there, after all was not to "buy" friends, but to stop Soviet agression. This explains America's sudden withdrawl after the withdrawl of the Soviets. The forces on the ground were Islamist, we had no friends there to protect or to stay engaged with.
Like the terrorist networks themselves, built by the Soviets as a way to combat the West by other means, the Islamist networks were formed by the Soviets as an unanticipated consequence of their invasion of Afghanistan. The merger of these two Soviet creations, the state sponsorship of international terrorism and the Islamist organizations devoted to establishing Islamic governments and purging Islamic societies of non-Islamic culture proved to be the challenge of our current era.
There are those who believe that it was American support for the Mujahideen is the cause for the creation fo the terrorists. Their thinking goes that because America is a bad thing, its actions will have pernicious consequences. But its not American support for the Mujahideen that created Osama or the Taliban, it was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that did. When the Soviets invaded, Islamists from the whole Muslim world took action to support resistance and coordinate their actions. Networks formed, leaders built organizations, and a lot of Islamists got quite a bit of combat, weapons, and munitions experience. Had America done nothing, all of this would have occured.
Instead, America did get involved and hoped for the best. But as happens so often, American assistance didn't purchase friends. Those who suppose that allegience is for sale think everyone is a mercenary. Our purpose there, after all was not to "buy" friends, but to stop Soviet agression. This explains America's sudden withdrawl after the withdrawl of the Soviets. The forces on the ground were Islamist, we had no friends there to protect or to stay engaged with.
Like the terrorist networks themselves, built by the Soviets as a way to combat the West by other means, the Islamist networks were formed by the Soviets as an unanticipated consequence of their invasion of Afghanistan. The merger of these two Soviet creations, the state sponsorship of international terrorism and the Islamist organizations devoted to establishing Islamic governments and purging Islamic societies of non-Islamic culture proved to be the challenge of our current era.
Strategy Page
James Dunnigan's Strategy Page had posts on ETA on March 6 and 10, and asked "What is Al Qaeda up to," on March 11. During the course of the day we appear to have found out, but in hindsight, these posts suggest that Strategy page is asking the right questions and is on top of what is going on. Keep an eye on Strategy Page.
James Dunnigan's Strategy Page had posts on ETA on March 6 and 10, and asked "What is Al Qaeda up to," on March 11. During the course of the day we appear to have found out, but in hindsight, these posts suggest that Strategy page is asking the right questions and is on top of what is going on. Keep an eye on Strategy Page.
Saturday, March 13, 2004
Students learning the traditional curriculum (mostly) in Social Studies
A press release by the Center for Information and Research on Civil Learning & Engagement (CIRCLE) suggests students are learning traditional approaches in the social studies. According to their website, "CIRCLE is based in the University of Maryland's School of Public Affairs and is funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts and Carnegie Corporation of New York." this study employed a democratic and a republican polster to ask students of middle school and high school, what did their classrooms emphisize in their social studies classes.
• 45% -- The Constitution or the US system of government and how it works
• 30% -- Great American heroes and the virtues of the American system of government
• 25% -- Wars and military battles
• 11% -- Problems facing the country today
• 9% -- Racism and other forms of injustice in the American system
• 5% -- Other, all of the above, or don’t know
Clearly the top three are part of the traditional curiculum, the report says very traditional as though we are teaching aristocracy, patriarchy, and theocracy. Nevertheless we see that 20% of students are getting a problems or a social reconstructionist curiculum. If students get the full range of courses as identified above, I really don't have a problem with them being exposed to the 20%. If they are given a good fact base and start off with some patriotic teaching, I see no problem complicating that understand with probems based teaching. What might well be the case, however is that at many schools, no one really represents the 20%, and at other schools the problems approach and social reconstructionism is the dominant theme, even creeping into the attitudes around the fact based approaches (how the Constitution works and the Wars). Now I doubt this in the case of wars. People who really don't like war coulnd't sustain a curruculum of military history and have students come away and think they learned military history rather than "the problems facing American leaders." As I have mentioned before, lots of social studies teachers are coaches, they embrace winning, competition, struggle, effort, and the rest of those ideas anathema to the social reconstrcutionists. Many times I see that a teacher known to his students as "coach" has no books besides those dedicated to the American Civil War and World War II. So my tendency is not to believe that the 20% is anything more than one fifth of classroom experiences. This poll tends to agree with my own experience and to quantify that experience. Not to worry, I'll be on my guard againt been uncritically accepting just because it confirms my own views.
A press release by the Center for Information and Research on Civil Learning & Engagement (CIRCLE) suggests students are learning traditional approaches in the social studies. According to their website, "CIRCLE is based in the University of Maryland's School of Public Affairs and is funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts and Carnegie Corporation of New York." this study employed a democratic and a republican polster to ask students of middle school and high school, what did their classrooms emphisize in their social studies classes.
• 45% -- The Constitution or the US system of government and how it works
• 30% -- Great American heroes and the virtues of the American system of government
• 25% -- Wars and military battles
• 11% -- Problems facing the country today
• 9% -- Racism and other forms of injustice in the American system
• 5% -- Other, all of the above, or don’t know
Clearly the top three are part of the traditional curiculum, the report says very traditional as though we are teaching aristocracy, patriarchy, and theocracy. Nevertheless we see that 20% of students are getting a problems or a social reconstructionist curiculum. If students get the full range of courses as identified above, I really don't have a problem with them being exposed to the 20%. If they are given a good fact base and start off with some patriotic teaching, I see no problem complicating that understand with probems based teaching. What might well be the case, however is that at many schools, no one really represents the 20%, and at other schools the problems approach and social reconstructionism is the dominant theme, even creeping into the attitudes around the fact based approaches (how the Constitution works and the Wars). Now I doubt this in the case of wars. People who really don't like war coulnd't sustain a curruculum of military history and have students come away and think they learned military history rather than "the problems facing American leaders." As I have mentioned before, lots of social studies teachers are coaches, they embrace winning, competition, struggle, effort, and the rest of those ideas anathema to the social reconstrcutionists. Many times I see that a teacher known to his students as "coach" has no books besides those dedicated to the American Civil War and World War II. So my tendency is not to believe that the 20% is anything more than one fifth of classroom experiences. This poll tends to agree with my own experience and to quantify that experience. Not to worry, I'll be on my guard againt been uncritically accepting just because it confirms my own views.
Thursday, March 11, 2004
Madrid
In one of Osama bin Laden's post-9/11 broadcasts, his voice on the tape refered to the "tragedy of al-Andalus." The fall of Grenada in 1492 lead directly to the intolerant Spanish repression of Jews and Moors. Spain demanded conversion. Those who didn't convert were expelled, and those who did were subject to the inquisition. But, for all this, perhaps more important was the end of any Islamic state in Iberia. What precisely constitutes the "tragedy of al-Andalus" I can't say for sure, but I am pretty sure that Spain was assessed for this 500 year old event.
One must wonder, once more, about an ideology that kills commuters and office workers in revenge for a 500 year old injustice. I will suggest that the back and forth between the Moors and Christians in Iberia is not a simple one-sided affair. To propose a "tragedy of al-Analus" is to ignore all of the reasons why Castile and Aragon desired a unified, Christian Spain. We can quibble with the policies of Ferdinand II and Isabella, but what is totally outrageous is planting bombs on commuter rail lines as some kind of revenge against what happened in Andalusia some five centuries ago.
The enemy is terror and let all free peoples stand together against it.
In one of Osama bin Laden's post-9/11 broadcasts, his voice on the tape refered to the "tragedy of al-Andalus." The fall of Grenada in 1492 lead directly to the intolerant Spanish repression of Jews and Moors. Spain demanded conversion. Those who didn't convert were expelled, and those who did were subject to the inquisition. But, for all this, perhaps more important was the end of any Islamic state in Iberia. What precisely constitutes the "tragedy of al-Andalus" I can't say for sure, but I am pretty sure that Spain was assessed for this 500 year old event.
One must wonder, once more, about an ideology that kills commuters and office workers in revenge for a 500 year old injustice. I will suggest that the back and forth between the Moors and Christians in Iberia is not a simple one-sided affair. To propose a "tragedy of al-Analus" is to ignore all of the reasons why Castile and Aragon desired a unified, Christian Spain. We can quibble with the policies of Ferdinand II and Isabella, but what is totally outrageous is planting bombs on commuter rail lines as some kind of revenge against what happened in Andalusia some five centuries ago.
The enemy is terror and let all free peoples stand together against it.
Two Candidates pt II
"I have no intention whatsoever to apologize for my remarks," Kerry said Thursday in front of a group of Democratic senators he just met with. "I think the Republicans need to start talking about the real issues before the country." (FoxNews)
By real issues Kerry means participation in his fantasy world. Apparently to disagree with Kerry is to be a liar and crooked. It would seem, Kerry has taken a page from the Ralph Nader playbook. Its a disappointment really. Solutions to America's problems will be found by the dialectical method of public debate between the two parties. When the Democrat mistakes ad hominem attacks, broad mischaracterizations, and wishful thinking as debate, he offers no benefit to his party, his country, or to the quality of debate. There is indeed someone who should start talking about real issues, and its John Kerry.
"I have no intention whatsoever to apologize for my remarks," Kerry said Thursday in front of a group of Democratic senators he just met with. "I think the Republicans need to start talking about the real issues before the country." (FoxNews)
By real issues Kerry means participation in his fantasy world. Apparently to disagree with Kerry is to be a liar and crooked. It would seem, Kerry has taken a page from the Ralph Nader playbook. Its a disappointment really. Solutions to America's problems will be found by the dialectical method of public debate between the two parties. When the Democrat mistakes ad hominem attacks, broad mischaracterizations, and wishful thinking as debate, he offers no benefit to his party, his country, or to the quality of debate. There is indeed someone who should start talking about real issues, and its John Kerry.
Free Markets or pseudo-Free Markets
Eliot Spitzer & Andrew G. Celli, Jr. write in the New Republic about free markets. They play fast an loose with the lables however. It undermines what would be a good DLC argument about the proper place of government regulation.
Eliot Spitzer & Andrew G. Celli, Jr. write in the New Republic about free markets. They play fast an loose with the lables however. It undermines what would be a good DLC argument about the proper place of government regulation.
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
Dennis Prager makes a mis-step
Prager takes intellectual honesty seriously and I think he does a pretty good job, but today's discussion of the story on virginity pledges fell short of that goal. Prager read the news he wanted to see and ignored the point of the study and the intent of the article. This is what is known as a tortured reading. The concern of the study was rates of STD's are part of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health funded by Centers for Disease Control. The article in the NYT spent most of its space on the rates of disease and closely related issues.
Prager is looking for social effects, not public health effects, so he is happy to see delayed sex, younger marriage, and fewer partners. However, since the question being asked was not about social effects but public health, these are extrernal issues. As a method of preventing STD's, pledges are not only worthless, since the rates are exactly the same, but actually pernicious, since pledge takers got the same number of STD's over a shorter period of time, having delayed sex, and with fewer partners. This is because they had a lower rate of preparation for sex, such as lower condom use, and engaged in less testing. Prager ignores this harm for the happy news he wanted to find from the beginning.
As I have argued earlier, the best policy is a true synthesis in which the practice of safe sex and the benefits of delayed sexual activity were both taught is superior. Unfortunately, no one wants both. Pro-chastity people might give lip service to safe sex but emphasize chastity, and the safe-sex people vise versa. Why is it impossible to say, don't have sex until you are married, and here is how as a married person you can prevent pregnancy until you are ready to have a child, and in the event that you give in to temptation, it prevents STD's too. Isn't two lines of defense better than one? Why is this idea so rejected by both sides?
I do know, its because neither side wants to admit the other has a point. Just as Prager refused to admit that the purpose of the NYT and AP articles were that despite the pledges, there is no better record on STD's than among other students. And all of this while patting himself on the back for looking at both sides.
Prager takes intellectual honesty seriously and I think he does a pretty good job, but today's discussion of the story on virginity pledges fell short of that goal. Prager read the news he wanted to see and ignored the point of the study and the intent of the article. This is what is known as a tortured reading. The concern of the study was rates of STD's are part of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health funded by Centers for Disease Control. The article in the NYT spent most of its space on the rates of disease and closely related issues.
Prager is looking for social effects, not public health effects, so he is happy to see delayed sex, younger marriage, and fewer partners. However, since the question being asked was not about social effects but public health, these are extrernal issues. As a method of preventing STD's, pledges are not only worthless, since the rates are exactly the same, but actually pernicious, since pledge takers got the same number of STD's over a shorter period of time, having delayed sex, and with fewer partners. This is because they had a lower rate of preparation for sex, such as lower condom use, and engaged in less testing. Prager ignores this harm for the happy news he wanted to find from the beginning.
As I have argued earlier, the best policy is a true synthesis in which the practice of safe sex and the benefits of delayed sexual activity were both taught is superior. Unfortunately, no one wants both. Pro-chastity people might give lip service to safe sex but emphasize chastity, and the safe-sex people vise versa. Why is it impossible to say, don't have sex until you are married, and here is how as a married person you can prevent pregnancy until you are ready to have a child, and in the event that you give in to temptation, it prevents STD's too. Isn't two lines of defense better than one? Why is this idea so rejected by both sides?
I do know, its because neither side wants to admit the other has a point. Just as Prager refused to admit that the purpose of the NYT and AP articles were that despite the pledges, there is no better record on STD's than among other students. And all of this while patting himself on the back for looking at both sides.
Iraq
Below I talk about the charge that the war in Iraq was dreamed up in Texas as a political product. This is pure fantasy. Clearly as the containment of Iraq dragged on there would be three positions on what to do next: 1) abandon the containment and leave Iraq, 2) continue the containment indefinitely and pursue UN solutions, and 3) the time for continued containment is over, we should overthrow Saddam. See the Summer 1996 article in foreign Affairs by Kristol and Kagan. They later put it together into a book, for 2000. We know that Perle and Wolfowitz had been advocating greater action in Iraq for similar reasons throughout the 90's. Clearly this was a policy position based on a political philosophy now well known under the label of Neo-Conservatism. To charge that the war was conducted for oil, that it was conducted for Halliburton, or that it was conducted as a "political product" ignores this history of this policy advocacy. You can debate the policy as a good one or a bad one, but to pretend that the cause for war is something other than what Perle, Kagan, Wolfowitz, or Kristol had been arguing for some time requires the presentation of some other policy at least as compelling as that argued by Perle and Wolfowitz, who are in the administration, and Kagan and Kristol who are prolific writers on policy in the circles which generates ideas for many Republicans.
Below I talk about the charge that the war in Iraq was dreamed up in Texas as a political product. This is pure fantasy. Clearly as the containment of Iraq dragged on there would be three positions on what to do next: 1) abandon the containment and leave Iraq, 2) continue the containment indefinitely and pursue UN solutions, and 3) the time for continued containment is over, we should overthrow Saddam. See the Summer 1996 article in foreign Affairs by Kristol and Kagan. They later put it together into a book, for 2000. We know that Perle and Wolfowitz had been advocating greater action in Iraq for similar reasons throughout the 90's. Clearly this was a policy position based on a political philosophy now well known under the label of Neo-Conservatism. To charge that the war was conducted for oil, that it was conducted for Halliburton, or that it was conducted as a "political product" ignores this history of this policy advocacy. You can debate the policy as a good one or a bad one, but to pretend that the cause for war is something other than what Perle, Kagan, Wolfowitz, or Kristol had been arguing for some time requires the presentation of some other policy at least as compelling as that argued by Perle and Wolfowitz, who are in the administration, and Kagan and Kristol who are prolific writers on policy in the circles which generates ideas for many Republicans.
Two candidates on the stump
Today in Cleveland Ohio, Bush spoke before a women's business group and defended his record speaking of the worthwhile cause in Iraq, the effect of tax cuts on the economy, and reminding his audience that unemployment remains quite low.
John Kerry accuses Bush and his people of being liars and the most corrupt group of (garbled) that he's seen. The quote at CNN, "Oh yeah, don't worry man. We're going to keep pounding, let me tell you -- we're just beginning to fight here. These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group of people I've ever seen."
There have been three explanations of this. #1 and most lame, Kerry was refering to talk radio, and aides have mentioned Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. Had either of these two said anything particularly scathing in the past couple of days, or had they been hitting him hard on questionable areas, this might have been convincing. I don't listen to Rush and I only listen to Hannity in the car (alas the inferiority of choice on radio), but I do know what Hannity is talking about every day the half hour to an hour I hear every day, and his theme is that Kerry has no core of beliefs because he flip-flops on issues. Today he played clips of Dean attacking Kerry on flip-flops. This constitutes lies and corruption? Its not even a dirty trick, the NYT on Saterday asked, "Kerry's Shifts: Nuanced Ideas or Flip-Flops?" And of course there are the Dean clips. This is a real charge. See also this in Slate by noted anti-Kerry Dem, Mickey Kaus. Frankly, conservatie talk radio hosts need to say something not being said by Democrats to warrent the charge liars and crooked.
#2 and somewhat less lame is the claim that the quote refers to GOP campaign figures. So, perhaps Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie. Crooked? You mean the way Terry McAuliffe has been connected to Global Crossing? If Rove or Gillespie had some scandle floating around, this might have legs, but as far as I have seen neither of these two have any taint of corruption or crookedness. If he had just said lies, well, we could put this down as a "stop lying about my record" type of comment.
#3 and most plausible, he means Bush and Cheney. The Left has been making the claims that both have lied and are crooked for some time. Here is David Corn's list. There are the Enron charges, the Halliburton charges, &c, &c. This is the only real plausible target of the quote. Kerry was talking to supporters at a partisan event and make a charge worthy of MoveOn.org. In this Boston Herald op/ed, Kennedy is taken to task for claiming that the war in Iraq was a political product dreamed up in Texas. Kennedy is saying such things as he campaigns for Kerry. Its all part of the campaign plan, its not a slip or a misinterpreted statement. It can be understood right at the center of the Democrats (Bush was AWOL!) campiagn against the president.
On the John Kerry for President blog, under the entry "the 'mother' of all house parties" we find a post that includes this:
"When Teresa Heinz-Kerry arrived, she handed me a pin that read in the center: ?Asses of Evil? with ?Bush?, ?Cheney?, ?Rumsfeld? and ?Ashcroft? surrounding it. She met, greeted and talked to a jam-packed room of Kerry supporters and others who came for the MoveOn documentary. Many were curious, others undecided, or belonging to other candidate camps."
Today in Cleveland Ohio, Bush spoke before a women's business group and defended his record speaking of the worthwhile cause in Iraq, the effect of tax cuts on the economy, and reminding his audience that unemployment remains quite low.
John Kerry accuses Bush and his people of being liars and the most corrupt group of (garbled) that he's seen. The quote at CNN, "Oh yeah, don't worry man. We're going to keep pounding, let me tell you -- we're just beginning to fight here. These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group of people I've ever seen."
There have been three explanations of this. #1 and most lame, Kerry was refering to talk radio, and aides have mentioned Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. Had either of these two said anything particularly scathing in the past couple of days, or had they been hitting him hard on questionable areas, this might have been convincing. I don't listen to Rush and I only listen to Hannity in the car (alas the inferiority of choice on radio), but I do know what Hannity is talking about every day the half hour to an hour I hear every day, and his theme is that Kerry has no core of beliefs because he flip-flops on issues. Today he played clips of Dean attacking Kerry on flip-flops. This constitutes lies and corruption? Its not even a dirty trick, the NYT on Saterday asked, "Kerry's Shifts: Nuanced Ideas or Flip-Flops?" And of course there are the Dean clips. This is a real charge. See also this in Slate by noted anti-Kerry Dem, Mickey Kaus. Frankly, conservatie talk radio hosts need to say something not being said by Democrats to warrent the charge liars and crooked.
#2 and somewhat less lame is the claim that the quote refers to GOP campaign figures. So, perhaps Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie. Crooked? You mean the way Terry McAuliffe has been connected to Global Crossing? If Rove or Gillespie had some scandle floating around, this might have legs, but as far as I have seen neither of these two have any taint of corruption or crookedness. If he had just said lies, well, we could put this down as a "stop lying about my record" type of comment.
#3 and most plausible, he means Bush and Cheney. The Left has been making the claims that both have lied and are crooked for some time. Here is David Corn's list. There are the Enron charges, the Halliburton charges, &c, &c. This is the only real plausible target of the quote. Kerry was talking to supporters at a partisan event and make a charge worthy of MoveOn.org. In this Boston Herald op/ed, Kennedy is taken to task for claiming that the war in Iraq was a political product dreamed up in Texas. Kennedy is saying such things as he campaigns for Kerry. Its all part of the campaign plan, its not a slip or a misinterpreted statement. It can be understood right at the center of the Democrats (Bush was AWOL!) campiagn against the president.
On the John Kerry for President blog, under the entry "the 'mother' of all house parties" we find a post that includes this:
"When Teresa Heinz-Kerry arrived, she handed me a pin that read in the center: ?Asses of Evil? with ?Bush?, ?Cheney?, ?Rumsfeld? and ?Ashcroft? surrounding it. She met, greeted and talked to a jam-packed room of Kerry supporters and others who came for the MoveOn documentary. Many were curious, others undecided, or belonging to other candidate camps."
Sunday, March 07, 2004
This is not your father's war
One of the themes of my military analysis since 1991 has been the difference between modern war and post-modern war. Modern war, just all other phenomena of modern society, are preceeded by the word "mass". So when we speak of mass media, mass production, mass transit, or mass conscription, we are talking modernism. There are no clear boundaries to this period, since it was not ushured in by some revolutionary act, like the atomic age was, nor has it been displaced by some single event. Rather we should understand its rise and fall by analogy to its favorite fuel, coal. Coal was in use for a long time, for limited purposes, before becomming the fuel of mass production. Likewise we still use it a lot, though its importance has been eclipsed by oil. So we should see a gradual rise and fall of modernism in terms of the importance and prevelance of mass institutions. For example, before the modern age, entertainment was found in the home, often around the family piano or in group reading. Modern entertainments were unifying and conforming. We all listened or watched a small number of networks. While we many of us didn't tune in exclusively to the small number of networks, they were dominant culturally. The rise of FM, cable, and home playback (first as VCR's, then as DVD's, now TiVo) gave more power to the consumer and less to the producer, and this shift signals a problem for the modern producer and often heralds a shift to post-modern niche consumption. The Internet is the ultimate post modern media. Its the opposite of a conformity producing and unifying institution in which we all view the same websites. Rather its a huge variety of disparate kinds of experiences, from e-mail to expository sites to blogs written from as many perspectives as their are content producers (and according to PEW that's 44% of us). Without a group of editors responding to the same pressures, trainined in the same fashion, and often reflecting the same background and attitudes, there are few conforming pressures on the internet. Those that do exist tend to be in the nature of format, not content. There are standards, but they are mostly in terms of code, so that my machine can read your video file.
In terms of the military, the Great War is the quintessential modern war. Large numbers of unskilled or semi-skilled soldiers, conscripted in mass, trained in mass, and deployed in mass. By WWII, we see more diversity in the kinds of jobs and the rise of highly trained specialists, like marines, paratroopers, tankers, special forces, and the normal jobs in the plain old infantry got more technical and complicated. Today, the doctrine of combat requires such highly trained soldiers that mass armies are obsolete. I posted on the draft specifically last August. Small highly trained forces are a smaller burden than large mass forces. The draft itself is only one example of this. The use of manpower no longer available to industry (because they are in uniform) is another.
The shift from sail to steam and then to dreadnaughts imposed two radical changes on seapower during the 19th century (which ends in 1914). Twice Britain was forced to rebuild her navy because new powers like Germany and America were able to build the new ships making the older ship's in Britain's fleet obsolete. Today, we have seen radical shifts in military practice, but one of the things that is most obvious is that no one but America is adapting to the new style of war. Where shifts in military technology not only helped challenge British sea power, and create powers who were willing to mobilize mass conscript armies, no one is poised to combine the high tech weapons with the tactical methods developed to produce the recently observed victories. There are no challengers to American military technique. This reinforces the notion that all future war will be asymetrical. The implications of this on American military planning are at least in part unforseen. As America takes the leading role in fighting asymetrical wars, this gap will grow.
One of the themes of my military analysis since 1991 has been the difference between modern war and post-modern war. Modern war, just all other phenomena of modern society, are preceeded by the word "mass". So when we speak of mass media, mass production, mass transit, or mass conscription, we are talking modernism. There are no clear boundaries to this period, since it was not ushured in by some revolutionary act, like the atomic age was, nor has it been displaced by some single event. Rather we should understand its rise and fall by analogy to its favorite fuel, coal. Coal was in use for a long time, for limited purposes, before becomming the fuel of mass production. Likewise we still use it a lot, though its importance has been eclipsed by oil. So we should see a gradual rise and fall of modernism in terms of the importance and prevelance of mass institutions. For example, before the modern age, entertainment was found in the home, often around the family piano or in group reading. Modern entertainments were unifying and conforming. We all listened or watched a small number of networks. While we many of us didn't tune in exclusively to the small number of networks, they were dominant culturally. The rise of FM, cable, and home playback (first as VCR's, then as DVD's, now TiVo) gave more power to the consumer and less to the producer, and this shift signals a problem for the modern producer and often heralds a shift to post-modern niche consumption. The Internet is the ultimate post modern media. Its the opposite of a conformity producing and unifying institution in which we all view the same websites. Rather its a huge variety of disparate kinds of experiences, from e-mail to expository sites to blogs written from as many perspectives as their are content producers (and according to PEW that's 44% of us). Without a group of editors responding to the same pressures, trainined in the same fashion, and often reflecting the same background and attitudes, there are few conforming pressures on the internet. Those that do exist tend to be in the nature of format, not content. There are standards, but they are mostly in terms of code, so that my machine can read your video file.
In terms of the military, the Great War is the quintessential modern war. Large numbers of unskilled or semi-skilled soldiers, conscripted in mass, trained in mass, and deployed in mass. By WWII, we see more diversity in the kinds of jobs and the rise of highly trained specialists, like marines, paratroopers, tankers, special forces, and the normal jobs in the plain old infantry got more technical and complicated. Today, the doctrine of combat requires such highly trained soldiers that mass armies are obsolete. I posted on the draft specifically last August. Small highly trained forces are a smaller burden than large mass forces. The draft itself is only one example of this. The use of manpower no longer available to industry (because they are in uniform) is another.
The shift from sail to steam and then to dreadnaughts imposed two radical changes on seapower during the 19th century (which ends in 1914). Twice Britain was forced to rebuild her navy because new powers like Germany and America were able to build the new ships making the older ship's in Britain's fleet obsolete. Today, we have seen radical shifts in military practice, but one of the things that is most obvious is that no one but America is adapting to the new style of war. Where shifts in military technology not only helped challenge British sea power, and create powers who were willing to mobilize mass conscript armies, no one is poised to combine the high tech weapons with the tactical methods developed to produce the recently observed victories. There are no challengers to American military technique. This reinforces the notion that all future war will be asymetrical. The implications of this on American military planning are at least in part unforseen. As America takes the leading role in fighting asymetrical wars, this gap will grow.
Friday, March 05, 2004
Education come full circle
According to a Wednesday NY Times article, New York City is scrapping many of its middle schools for a return to the K-8 grammer school. The add, "Many other districts across the nation have reinstituted kindergarten-to-eighth-grade schools."
The National Association of Middle Schools isn't sure this is a good idea. Perhaps they are just self-interested.
Another quote: "Since 1999, under New York State's tougher academic standards, fourth grade scores have risen sharply on the standardized English and math tests. But eighth grade scores have improved only modestly, reflecting what the state education commissioner, Richard P. Mills, has described as a lack of focus and mission at many middle schools."
This reflects a serious problem whose ultimate cause I suspect is peer socialization. If the new schools could be arranged to maintain adult authority in the school, those scores might be improved at the higher levels. The drawback is that longer childhood makes the shift to more adult behavior in high school harder. Dealing with the 10-15 year old is vexatious.
Interestingly, the remaining middle schools will be for gifted kids, which is probabaly a good move. By that age, its really counter productive to group them with the mainstream. Brighter kids just tune out and develop bad learning habits. They need more challenge and can handle more academic responsibility if handled right.
They are also experimenting with 6-12 high schools. I'm not sure what to make of that, I've heard nothing of it.
Schools used to be K-8 and then 9-12 at the beginning of the century. Then the junior high school movement came along and argued that upper elemntary kids would benefit from a more high school type of enviroment, the junior high. Organized like high schools by content area and including many of the same kinds of extra-curriculars, the junior highs were typically 6-8 or 7-9. They were replaced by the middle school movement which argued that there should be a school that transitions kids from elementary to high school and occupies a middle place between the central classroom of elementary and the content organized high school. So middle schools had less class movement because kids had a home room where they might spend almost half of the day.
This return to the original model sure casts doubt on the utility of experiment in the first place.
According to a Wednesday NY Times article, New York City is scrapping many of its middle schools for a return to the K-8 grammer school. The add, "Many other districts across the nation have reinstituted kindergarten-to-eighth-grade schools."
The National Association of Middle Schools isn't sure this is a good idea. Perhaps they are just self-interested.
Another quote: "Since 1999, under New York State's tougher academic standards, fourth grade scores have risen sharply on the standardized English and math tests. But eighth grade scores have improved only modestly, reflecting what the state education commissioner, Richard P. Mills, has described as a lack of focus and mission at many middle schools."
This reflects a serious problem whose ultimate cause I suspect is peer socialization. If the new schools could be arranged to maintain adult authority in the school, those scores might be improved at the higher levels. The drawback is that longer childhood makes the shift to more adult behavior in high school harder. Dealing with the 10-15 year old is vexatious.
Interestingly, the remaining middle schools will be for gifted kids, which is probabaly a good move. By that age, its really counter productive to group them with the mainstream. Brighter kids just tune out and develop bad learning habits. They need more challenge and can handle more academic responsibility if handled right.
They are also experimenting with 6-12 high schools. I'm not sure what to make of that, I've heard nothing of it.
Schools used to be K-8 and then 9-12 at the beginning of the century. Then the junior high school movement came along and argued that upper elemntary kids would benefit from a more high school type of enviroment, the junior high. Organized like high schools by content area and including many of the same kinds of extra-curriculars, the junior highs were typically 6-8 or 7-9. They were replaced by the middle school movement which argued that there should be a school that transitions kids from elementary to high school and occupies a middle place between the central classroom of elementary and the content organized high school. So middle schools had less class movement because kids had a home room where they might spend almost half of the day.
This return to the original model sure casts doubt on the utility of experiment in the first place.
Tuesday, March 02, 2004
Nader exposed
Jonathan Chait writes in The New Republic about the myth of the "good" Nader. The thesis: "Nader is not a heroic figure tragically overcome by his own flaws; he is a selfish, destructive maniac who, for a brief historical period, happened upon a useful role."
Damning.
Chait doesn't say so explicitlt, but it seems that Nader prefers Republicans because his hatred of them is purer. What should one expect, they are the party of business. Doing their evil is no hypocracy. Nader's hostility to Democrats is based on the notion that they sell out, they betray him, and they aren't worthy because they are tainted by comprimise or some other weakness.
Jonathan Chait writes in The New Republic about the myth of the "good" Nader. The thesis: "Nader is not a heroic figure tragically overcome by his own flaws; he is a selfish, destructive maniac who, for a brief historical period, happened upon a useful role."
Damning.
Chait doesn't say so explicitlt, but it seems that Nader prefers Republicans because his hatred of them is purer. What should one expect, they are the party of business. Doing their evil is no hypocracy. Nader's hostility to Democrats is based on the notion that they sell out, they betray him, and they aren't worthy because they are tainted by comprimise or some other weakness.
Thursday, February 26, 2004
More Free Trade Goodness
The editors of The New Republic extol the virtues of NAFTA for the American economy. It includes such quotes as, 'According to a Council of the Americas analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data, "Total employment in the U.S. motor vehicle industry has grown five times faster following NAFTA than in years prior to the agreement." ' They go on to criticize Bush for not funding job re-training programs that ease the adjustment for workers. A fair criticism. Skills are our advantage over other economies.
The editors of The New Republic extol the virtues of NAFTA for the American economy. It includes such quotes as, 'According to a Council of the Americas analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data, "Total employment in the U.S. motor vehicle industry has grown five times faster following NAFTA than in years prior to the agreement." ' They go on to criticize Bush for not funding job re-training programs that ease the adjustment for workers. A fair criticism. Skills are our advantage over other economies.
Friday, February 20, 2004
Edward's Rise Explained sort of
There are three possible causes for Edward's strong showing in Wisconsin and polling elsewhere.
1) Edwards has more cross-over appeal. See William Saletan's analysis here.
2) Republicans are voting strategically to draw out the democratic primary and force the dems to spend against one another for as long as possible.
3) Edwards remains sufficiently unknown that people can still fill him with there own hopes, but Kerry has become a real person unable to be all things to all people.
There is undoubtedly some of all of this at work. Which might be a dominant cause or what the proportions might be I can't say.
There are three possible causes for Edward's strong showing in Wisconsin and polling elsewhere.
1) Edwards has more cross-over appeal. See William Saletan's analysis here.
2) Republicans are voting strategically to draw out the democratic primary and force the dems to spend against one another for as long as possible.
3) Edwards remains sufficiently unknown that people can still fill him with there own hopes, but Kerry has become a real person unable to be all things to all people.
There is undoubtedly some of all of this at work. Which might be a dominant cause or what the proportions might be I can't say.
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
Free Markets and the Schools
We are talking about vouchers here. My own view is that the schools should be a totally free market, governed by the greatest extent possible by the market choices of parents. Because of the possibility of market failure (for example the information of what curriculum are needed for employment and college) the state will have some role, but ideally it will be informational and not regulatory. The state will have a funding role because there are two overwhelming benefits. First, state funding distributes the cost along the whole life of the tax-payers, rather than asking parents of school age children to produce five to seven thousand dollars per child per year of school. Second, the whole community benefits from a well educated populace, so our current tax collection scheme is fine, its the use of the money in a monopoly school system based on a Progressive ideology that is the problem.
Parents are most apt to abandon the schools when schools are failing, but a free market approach to schools should not rely on schools failing. Everywhere school choice should exist, although certainly where parents are mostly happy with schools, parent choice will largely continue to support the schools. Nevertheless, the model of the public schools is a factory model emphisizing a uniformity of inputs and outputs. Within the system, magnet schools and charter schools can provide much needed variety of teaching philosophy and curriculum, but currently this option is under utilized. Currently, there is a war between parents and the education establishment over control of the schools in which parents have the upper hand and can use the regulatory powers of the state to impose their will on a teaching staff who cannot be observed sufficiently to gain compliance and is shirking some portion of this regulatory burden anyway. All of which leads to high stakes testing to enforce compliance. This battle to win the public schools creates an adversarial situation where none need exist.
Rather, if schools were able to advertise themselves as best filling a market niche demanded by parents, most teachers could teach according their desired philosophy. Parents, aware of what was going on in the class room, because it was the attraction to send their children, would not demand burdensome restrictions, monitoring, and regulation. Much of this burden is a reflection of the fact that there is a presumption of bad faith by parents about teachers. As I have discussed earlier, this is because parents tend to be essentialists and teachers tend to be progressives. [ed. I'll be posting more on who they are a bit down the road.] With Progressive parents seeking out those teachers committed to Progressive education, and Essentialist parents seeking schools with teachers committed to or at least comfortable with Essentialist education. And so parents would be able to assume good faith by teachers. Barring problems of false advertising, which is grossly pervasive now (because Progressives want to placate Essentialists), teachers would be free to teach as they had promiced they would when they attracted parents to bring their students.
Most school districts would break down in philosophy into Progressive and Essentialist schools. Small schools would be divided into two programs. Large school districts would see further breakdown into various choices. One might imagine a large district with a classically oriented liberal arts high school, with much attention to the great books, to ancient philosophy, literature, and art, to the humanities in general with a strong does of history and literature built on a foundation of the ancients (How does Vietnam reflect the causes of war identified by Thucydides?), including Latin and Greek as language options, and which teaches math and science in order to fill out the knowledge of the educated person and in order to develope rigorous thinking skills. Another school might be more in tune with the moderns but still perennialist, concerned instead with impressionist art, Romanticism and Modernism, and so forth. Another school might be Progressive and even Social Reconstructionist in their approach, using the Humanities as a platform with which to end racism, teach social justice, save the enviroment, and all the rest of the Social Reconstructionist agenda.
Until the Supream Court decision Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, the courts had not spoken favorably on school choice. When the issue first comes up in cases like Lemon v. Kurtzman and Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty et al. v. Nyquist the state's approach to schools was far more statist, and its liberalism was of the New Deal/ Great Society model. So, efforts to encourage a variety of school options resulted in direct subsidies to already existing private schools, most of which were parochial. There was little attempt to balance the Church-State issues here with the rights to a free education established in most state constitutions, especially as it pertains to the disabled or the poor, who often lacked the means to avail themselves of private alternatived to public school. Between the early 70's of Lemon and Nyquist and the present (Zelman was decided in 2002), are three key changes.
First, there is the rise of Neo-Liberalism. (See two hostile definitions here and here) Neo-Liberalism is a reaction to the statism of the mid-century which regards the market as a better tool for social policy than the state. There are neo-liberals of the left, like Bill Clinton, Mickey Kaus, The New Republic, and any democrat who advocates free trade, privatization, means testing benefits, and the like. There are neo-liberals on the right as well, although to the extent that this program is anti-regulatory and pro-business, its a more natural fit for many (but certainly not all) on the right. The rise of neo-liberalism meant that when government aimed to support alterntaives to the monolithic public school, the market became a re-inventing goverment approach to an older problem. Rather than direct subsidies to schools as in Lemon, or even tuition rebates (along side building maintenence subsidies) as in Nyquist, neo-liberals devised magnet schools, charter schools, and devised a voucher program by which parents could take the tax subsidy owed their child (who has a right to a state provided education) and transfer it to a school of their own choosing. By this device, the state avoided direct subsidies (the benefit goes to the parent not the school) and the locus of choice resides with the parent and not the state. Even if one is inclined to look at Lemon and Nyquist and find them constituional, a voucher program as approved in Zelman is better. Parents have more choice on the one hand, but that choice creates a market opportunity for educators in the form of niche schools.
A second change since the early 70's has been the rise of competing goods. Early Church-State cases basically revolved around the test of Establishment violations. While there was some discussion over state interests or public policy effects, the cases hinged on the scrutiny applied to the Establishment issues involved. The famous Lemon Test was invented to determine whether a state action was an Establishment violation. [Note: ? 1 of the 14th Amendment says, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" which is understood to make the Bill of Rights applicable to the states] The Lemon Test is concerned with the intent of said action, the neutrality of said action, and any entanglements that result. No where are the Establishment issues balanced in this test by other compelling interests, such as the right of students to a free, appropriate education. The court was provided arguments on three grounds, but largely ignnored all three. These were the benefit to the state of a private school system to take up some of the burden of providing the public good, education. In the particulars of both Lemon and Nyquist, the states of Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and New York were experiencing a temporary growth of enrollments because of the demographic bubble that resulted from the baby boomers having babies some twenty years after their own births. School officials also anticipated the decline in enrollments that would take place during the 80's and so were reluctant to build new schools and hire new teachers. They prefered to subsidize the private schools to absorb as much of this burden as they could and spare the state. The fact that the courts rejected this plan is one of the reasons there was such a contraction of the school system in the 80's. A second argument made to the court was that it was unequitable for poor inner-city families to be denied access to alternatives because of expence. In Nyquist, for example, New York gave tuition reimbursements to poor families who enrolled their children in private schools. A third argument, was that disabled students could not make appropriate use of private schools without the special services increasingly being offered by the public school system. In the mid 60's the Congress imposed Title I obligations to meet the needs of all students in an appropriate fashion, and in the mid 70's the Congress added the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) as well as other legislation to mandate approriate education for all students. Cases in the later 70's, such as Meek v. Pittenger in 1975 and Wolman v. Walter in 1977. In Meek, the courts rejected the extension of special ed professionals because they feared the state professionals would be unable to resists the sectarian purpose of their sometime work enviroment. (See Section V, paragraph 8 of the Stewart opinion in the link). In Wolman, they reconsidered and while materials and field trips (because the trips were planned by sectarian teachers, despite being to secular locations) were prohibited, the special ed teachers where permissible because they operated in mobile classrooms or in public school facilities. Not only does the Court believe that teachers in parochial schools will act in bad faith, teaching religion with state resources despite prohibition, it believes that this bad faith is contageous.
The third major change that took place was the composition of the court. While Justice Burger was left to argue in dissent during Nyquist the primary purpose of the New York actions were educational and not religious, he was not in the majority. By the mid-eighties, it was possible to form majorities around accomodationist possitions regarding religion and the schools. In Meuller v. Allen in 1983, and Witters v. Wash. Dept. of Services For Blind the Court began to take a different view of Establishment. In Meuller, the court approved tex deductions in Minnasota for tuition, books, and transportation for students in private schools. Returning to older understandings, the court held that the benefits flow to the students (not the schools) and that choice in attendence lies with parents (not the state who pays). In Witters, a rare 9-0 case, the Court allowed a blind adult seeking funding for education intended for the blind to attend a seminary because the benefit was his and the choice was his. (The benefit was also generally available to the blind.) It is notable that it was in the area of disabled claims, rather than state interest or equity claims, that the court began to change it approach to Establishment, because Congress had been so vigorous in demanding accomodations. In time, the bad faith assumptions would give way as well. Aguilar v. Felton in 1985 is the last case in which the court argued,
"Similarly, in Meek v. Pittenger, we invalidated a state program that offered, inter alia, guidance, testing, and remedial and therapeutic services performed by public employees on the premises of the parochial schools. As in Lemon, we observed that though a comprehensive system of supervision might conceivably prevent teachers from having the primary effect of advancing religion, such a system would inevitably lead to an unconstitutional administrative entanglement between church and state."
After Aguilar, this kind of reasoning, assuming bad faith in parochial school educational professionals and public school special education teachers working along side them was not to be seen.
Since the mid 80's a series of cases have expanded the confirmed the more favorable approach to religion, at least as seen in the majorities. Its quite possible that a new member on the Court from the strict seperationist wing would bring us back to the 70s's (bad faith, benefits to the schools not students, choice by the state not the parents). However, as things are now, there is no presumption of bad faith, the court sees the benefits of school choice falling on students and that the choice to take these opportunities are being made by parents and students. Zelman was a 5-4 case and bitterly argued, so one can imagine how eager the strict seperationists would be to over-turn school choice descisions.
Anyone who has read over this weblog will find that I am not interested in propogating religious education. I am, however, not the least bit hostile to parents who want such an education being free to obtain it as easily as they might obtain a public school education for their childrem. Instead, I see the a great monoploly, the public schools, unwilling to reform itself, resistant to the demands of parents, taxpayers, and citizens, lacking any incentive improve quality, and founded on a philosophy rejected by the community (to the point of the community using its regulatory powers to demand compliance). While I want this monopoy of progressive education overturned, I do not want a monopoly of Essentialists put in its place. I say this for two reasons. One is that it is unfair to demand of others what I have found so objectionable, an educational orthodoxy. Second, I will not be satisfied with an Essentialist hegemony, since I want more classical studies, more reading and writing, more higher level thinking than Essentialists will settle for. I want a Perennialist school, indeed I go farther, I want an Realist school founded on Aristotelian principles. There is no classical school unless there is a market place of schools, because a classicist school is niche educational market.
We are talking about vouchers here. My own view is that the schools should be a totally free market, governed by the greatest extent possible by the market choices of parents. Because of the possibility of market failure (for example the information of what curriculum are needed for employment and college) the state will have some role, but ideally it will be informational and not regulatory. The state will have a funding role because there are two overwhelming benefits. First, state funding distributes the cost along the whole life of the tax-payers, rather than asking parents of school age children to produce five to seven thousand dollars per child per year of school. Second, the whole community benefits from a well educated populace, so our current tax collection scheme is fine, its the use of the money in a monopoly school system based on a Progressive ideology that is the problem.
Parents are most apt to abandon the schools when schools are failing, but a free market approach to schools should not rely on schools failing. Everywhere school choice should exist, although certainly where parents are mostly happy with schools, parent choice will largely continue to support the schools. Nevertheless, the model of the public schools is a factory model emphisizing a uniformity of inputs and outputs. Within the system, magnet schools and charter schools can provide much needed variety of teaching philosophy and curriculum, but currently this option is under utilized. Currently, there is a war between parents and the education establishment over control of the schools in which parents have the upper hand and can use the regulatory powers of the state to impose their will on a teaching staff who cannot be observed sufficiently to gain compliance and is shirking some portion of this regulatory burden anyway. All of which leads to high stakes testing to enforce compliance. This battle to win the public schools creates an adversarial situation where none need exist.
Rather, if schools were able to advertise themselves as best filling a market niche demanded by parents, most teachers could teach according their desired philosophy. Parents, aware of what was going on in the class room, because it was the attraction to send their children, would not demand burdensome restrictions, monitoring, and regulation. Much of this burden is a reflection of the fact that there is a presumption of bad faith by parents about teachers. As I have discussed earlier, this is because parents tend to be essentialists and teachers tend to be progressives. [ed. I'll be posting more on who they are a bit down the road.] With Progressive parents seeking out those teachers committed to Progressive education, and Essentialist parents seeking schools with teachers committed to or at least comfortable with Essentialist education. And so parents would be able to assume good faith by teachers. Barring problems of false advertising, which is grossly pervasive now (because Progressives want to placate Essentialists), teachers would be free to teach as they had promiced they would when they attracted parents to bring their students.
Most school districts would break down in philosophy into Progressive and Essentialist schools. Small schools would be divided into two programs. Large school districts would see further breakdown into various choices. One might imagine a large district with a classically oriented liberal arts high school, with much attention to the great books, to ancient philosophy, literature, and art, to the humanities in general with a strong does of history and literature built on a foundation of the ancients (How does Vietnam reflect the causes of war identified by Thucydides?), including Latin and Greek as language options, and which teaches math and science in order to fill out the knowledge of the educated person and in order to develope rigorous thinking skills. Another school might be more in tune with the moderns but still perennialist, concerned instead with impressionist art, Romanticism and Modernism, and so forth. Another school might be Progressive and even Social Reconstructionist in their approach, using the Humanities as a platform with which to end racism, teach social justice, save the enviroment, and all the rest of the Social Reconstructionist agenda.
Until the Supream Court decision Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, the courts had not spoken favorably on school choice. When the issue first comes up in cases like Lemon v. Kurtzman and Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty et al. v. Nyquist the state's approach to schools was far more statist, and its liberalism was of the New Deal/ Great Society model. So, efforts to encourage a variety of school options resulted in direct subsidies to already existing private schools, most of which were parochial. There was little attempt to balance the Church-State issues here with the rights to a free education established in most state constitutions, especially as it pertains to the disabled or the poor, who often lacked the means to avail themselves of private alternatived to public school. Between the early 70's of Lemon and Nyquist and the present (Zelman was decided in 2002), are three key changes.
First, there is the rise of Neo-Liberalism. (See two hostile definitions here and here) Neo-Liberalism is a reaction to the statism of the mid-century which regards the market as a better tool for social policy than the state. There are neo-liberals of the left, like Bill Clinton, Mickey Kaus, The New Republic, and any democrat who advocates free trade, privatization, means testing benefits, and the like. There are neo-liberals on the right as well, although to the extent that this program is anti-regulatory and pro-business, its a more natural fit for many (but certainly not all) on the right. The rise of neo-liberalism meant that when government aimed to support alterntaives to the monolithic public school, the market became a re-inventing goverment approach to an older problem. Rather than direct subsidies to schools as in Lemon, or even tuition rebates (along side building maintenence subsidies) as in Nyquist, neo-liberals devised magnet schools, charter schools, and devised a voucher program by which parents could take the tax subsidy owed their child (who has a right to a state provided education) and transfer it to a school of their own choosing. By this device, the state avoided direct subsidies (the benefit goes to the parent not the school) and the locus of choice resides with the parent and not the state. Even if one is inclined to look at Lemon and Nyquist and find them constituional, a voucher program as approved in Zelman is better. Parents have more choice on the one hand, but that choice creates a market opportunity for educators in the form of niche schools.
A second change since the early 70's has been the rise of competing goods. Early Church-State cases basically revolved around the test of Establishment violations. While there was some discussion over state interests or public policy effects, the cases hinged on the scrutiny applied to the Establishment issues involved. The famous Lemon Test was invented to determine whether a state action was an Establishment violation. [Note: ? 1 of the 14th Amendment says, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" which is understood to make the Bill of Rights applicable to the states] The Lemon Test is concerned with the intent of said action, the neutrality of said action, and any entanglements that result. No where are the Establishment issues balanced in this test by other compelling interests, such as the right of students to a free, appropriate education. The court was provided arguments on three grounds, but largely ignnored all three. These were the benefit to the state of a private school system to take up some of the burden of providing the public good, education. In the particulars of both Lemon and Nyquist, the states of Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and New York were experiencing a temporary growth of enrollments because of the demographic bubble that resulted from the baby boomers having babies some twenty years after their own births. School officials also anticipated the decline in enrollments that would take place during the 80's and so were reluctant to build new schools and hire new teachers. They prefered to subsidize the private schools to absorb as much of this burden as they could and spare the state. The fact that the courts rejected this plan is one of the reasons there was such a contraction of the school system in the 80's. A second argument made to the court was that it was unequitable for poor inner-city families to be denied access to alternatives because of expence. In Nyquist, for example, New York gave tuition reimbursements to poor families who enrolled their children in private schools. A third argument, was that disabled students could not make appropriate use of private schools without the special services increasingly being offered by the public school system. In the mid 60's the Congress imposed Title I obligations to meet the needs of all students in an appropriate fashion, and in the mid 70's the Congress added the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) as well as other legislation to mandate approriate education for all students. Cases in the later 70's, such as Meek v. Pittenger in 1975 and Wolman v. Walter in 1977. In Meek, the courts rejected the extension of special ed professionals because they feared the state professionals would be unable to resists the sectarian purpose of their sometime work enviroment. (See Section V, paragraph 8 of the Stewart opinion in the link). In Wolman, they reconsidered and while materials and field trips (because the trips were planned by sectarian teachers, despite being to secular locations) were prohibited, the special ed teachers where permissible because they operated in mobile classrooms or in public school facilities. Not only does the Court believe that teachers in parochial schools will act in bad faith, teaching religion with state resources despite prohibition, it believes that this bad faith is contageous.
The third major change that took place was the composition of the court. While Justice Burger was left to argue in dissent during Nyquist the primary purpose of the New York actions were educational and not religious, he was not in the majority. By the mid-eighties, it was possible to form majorities around accomodationist possitions regarding religion and the schools. In Meuller v. Allen in 1983, and Witters v. Wash. Dept. of Services For Blind the Court began to take a different view of Establishment. In Meuller, the court approved tex deductions in Minnasota for tuition, books, and transportation for students in private schools. Returning to older understandings, the court held that the benefits flow to the students (not the schools) and that choice in attendence lies with parents (not the state who pays). In Witters, a rare 9-0 case, the Court allowed a blind adult seeking funding for education intended for the blind to attend a seminary because the benefit was his and the choice was his. (The benefit was also generally available to the blind.) It is notable that it was in the area of disabled claims, rather than state interest or equity claims, that the court began to change it approach to Establishment, because Congress had been so vigorous in demanding accomodations. In time, the bad faith assumptions would give way as well. Aguilar v. Felton in 1985 is the last case in which the court argued,
"Similarly, in Meek v. Pittenger, we invalidated a state program that offered, inter alia, guidance, testing, and remedial and therapeutic services performed by public employees on the premises of the parochial schools. As in Lemon, we observed that though a comprehensive system of supervision might conceivably prevent teachers from having the primary effect of advancing religion, such a system would inevitably lead to an unconstitutional administrative entanglement between church and state."
After Aguilar, this kind of reasoning, assuming bad faith in parochial school educational professionals and public school special education teachers working along side them was not to be seen.
Since the mid 80's a series of cases have expanded the confirmed the more favorable approach to religion, at least as seen in the majorities. Its quite possible that a new member on the Court from the strict seperationist wing would bring us back to the 70s's (bad faith, benefits to the schools not students, choice by the state not the parents). However, as things are now, there is no presumption of bad faith, the court sees the benefits of school choice falling on students and that the choice to take these opportunities are being made by parents and students. Zelman was a 5-4 case and bitterly argued, so one can imagine how eager the strict seperationists would be to over-turn school choice descisions.
Anyone who has read over this weblog will find that I am not interested in propogating religious education. I am, however, not the least bit hostile to parents who want such an education being free to obtain it as easily as they might obtain a public school education for their childrem. Instead, I see the a great monoploly, the public schools, unwilling to reform itself, resistant to the demands of parents, taxpayers, and citizens, lacking any incentive improve quality, and founded on a philosophy rejected by the community (to the point of the community using its regulatory powers to demand compliance). While I want this monopoy of progressive education overturned, I do not want a monopoly of Essentialists put in its place. I say this for two reasons. One is that it is unfair to demand of others what I have found so objectionable, an educational orthodoxy. Second, I will not be satisfied with an Essentialist hegemony, since I want more classical studies, more reading and writing, more higher level thinking than Essentialists will settle for. I want a Perennialist school, indeed I go farther, I want an Realist school founded on Aristotelian principles. There is no classical school unless there is a market place of schools, because a classicist school is niche educational market.
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
Hmmm, a Trend
I've just advocated free markets, even when it produces job outsourcing, favorably linked to an article advocating choice in schools rather than a state monopoly, and here is an article from the Telegraph entitled, "Only competition will make the NHS treat patients better."
Could it be that the power to choose has profoundly liberating effects?
I've just advocated free markets, even when it produces job outsourcing, favorably linked to an article advocating choice in schools rather than a state monopoly, and here is an article from the Telegraph entitled, "Only competition will make the NHS treat patients better."
Could it be that the power to choose has profoundly liberating effects?
McWhorter on School Choice
John McWhorter, an author I look to on issues of race, has interesting things to say about vouchers and inner city schools. The whole article is about how Blacks should see in the Bush administration a golden opportunity to see real gains and captalize on them. As they say, read the whole thing.
John McWhorter, an author I look to on issues of race, has interesting things to say about vouchers and inner city schools. The whole article is about how Blacks should see in the Bush administration a golden opportunity to see real gains and captalize on them. As they say, read the whole thing.
Fear of innoculations
Some people still fear innoculations. But when innoculations first were introduced, a lot of people didn't want anything to do with them.
Today's Exite Poll is as follows: "The Bush administration announced Monday that sending U.S. factory and white-collar jobs to other countries is part of a positive transformation that will enrich the U.S. economy over time. (Los Angeles Times)
"Do you think that outsourcing American jobs to other countries will help the U.S. economy over time?"
As of right now, 73% => 12986 votes say "Heavens No, Good Sir, the corpuscules of innoculation shall spread disease, not contain it" Ooops, old poll, the 73% said, "No, it will hurt the economy." 12%, a mere 2294 votes said "Yes".
Last Week's New Republic had an article on outsourcing high tech jobs. A notable claim: "According to the McKinsey Global Institute, for every dollar a U.S. company spends on offshoring to India, the U.S. economy gains $1.14, thanks to a number of factors: savings from the increased operational efficiency, equipment sales to Indian outsourcers, the value of American labor reemployed to higher-wage jobs, and repatriated earnings by U.S. companies that own Indian outsourcing firms. "
I frequently encounter people on the right and left that think the sky is falling. Only my libertarian friends have faith in free markets that goes deep enough to defy anxiety over change. Conservatives fear for American economic power, and the benifits therefrom, Liberals fear the standard of living of working families. Considervative anxiety is heightened illegal immigration, though I don't hear any plans from them about how to solve the immigration problem. I should mention that many conservatives don't like the President's plan. Victor Davis Hanson, whose opinion I respect on this and many other issues writes against it, mostly on the basis of it being only part of what need to be a comprehensive program, and being based on some questionable assumptions. His plan:
"Reasonable advocates can set a realistic figure for legal immigration from Mexico. Then we must enforce our border controls; consider a one-time citizenship process for current residents who have been here for two or three decades; apply stiff employer sanctions; deport those who now break the law--and return to social and cultural protocols that promote national unity through assimilation and integration."
Some people still fear innoculations. But when innoculations first were introduced, a lot of people didn't want anything to do with them.
Today's Exite Poll is as follows: "The Bush administration announced Monday that sending U.S. factory and white-collar jobs to other countries is part of a positive transformation that will enrich the U.S. economy over time. (Los Angeles Times)
"Do you think that outsourcing American jobs to other countries will help the U.S. economy over time?"
As of right now, 73% => 12986 votes say "Heavens No, Good Sir, the corpuscules of innoculation shall spread disease, not contain it" Ooops, old poll, the 73% said, "No, it will hurt the economy." 12%, a mere 2294 votes said "Yes".
Last Week's New Republic had an article on outsourcing high tech jobs. A notable claim: "According to the McKinsey Global Institute, for every dollar a U.S. company spends on offshoring to India, the U.S. economy gains $1.14, thanks to a number of factors: savings from the increased operational efficiency, equipment sales to Indian outsourcers, the value of American labor reemployed to higher-wage jobs, and repatriated earnings by U.S. companies that own Indian outsourcing firms. "
I frequently encounter people on the right and left that think the sky is falling. Only my libertarian friends have faith in free markets that goes deep enough to defy anxiety over change. Conservatives fear for American economic power, and the benifits therefrom, Liberals fear the standard of living of working families. Considervative anxiety is heightened illegal immigration, though I don't hear any plans from them about how to solve the immigration problem. I should mention that many conservatives don't like the President's plan. Victor Davis Hanson, whose opinion I respect on this and many other issues writes against it, mostly on the basis of it being only part of what need to be a comprehensive program, and being based on some questionable assumptions. His plan:
"Reasonable advocates can set a realistic figure for legal immigration from Mexico. Then we must enforce our border controls; consider a one-time citizenship process for current residents who have been here for two or three decades; apply stiff employer sanctions; deport those who now break the law--and return to social and cultural protocols that promote national unity through assimilation and integration."
Much time in class
Taking two high level poli sci classes, and allied field to history, so I am in the neighbor's yard academically. Doing 1st Amendement law and public policy. Blogging will remain weak this semester unless I start rambling on about the subjects of my classes.
Taking two high level poli sci classes, and allied field to history, so I am in the neighbor's yard academically. Doing 1st Amendement law and public policy. Blogging will remain weak this semester unless I start rambling on about the subjects of my classes.
Sunday, February 01, 2004
Missouri legislates scientific truth
From www.scalzi.com (linked below) I came across this bill in the Missouri legislature. Here is a sample:
'(10) "Scientific theory", an inferred explanation of incompletely understood phenomena about the physical universe based on limited knowledge, whose components are data, logic, and faith-based philosophy. The inferred explanation may be proven, mostly proven, partially proven, unproven or false and may be based on data which is supportive, inconsistent, conflicting, incomplete, or inaccurate. The inferred explanation may be described as a scientific theoretical model;'
From www.scalzi.com (linked below) I came across this bill in the Missouri legislature. Here is a sample:
'(10) "Scientific theory", an inferred explanation of incompletely understood phenomena about the physical universe based on limited knowledge, whose components are data, logic, and faith-based philosophy. The inferred explanation may be proven, mostly proven, partially proven, unproven or false and may be based on data which is supportive, inconsistent, conflicting, incomplete, or inaccurate. The inferred explanation may be described as a scientific theoretical model;'
Education repackages old wine in new bottles
Two of the three most recent posts deal with education packaging old ideas with new lables. Its mostly a scheme to get things past parents. Here is an example.
Two of the three most recent posts deal with education packaging old ideas with new lables. Its mostly a scheme to get things past parents. Here is an example.
The Democrats, post start
Before Iowa I had posted several times about the break down of the Dems into labor (Gephardt), suburban socialists (Dean), and new democrats (Lieberman). Well, what's going on? Basically, and you have seen this elsewhere since its pretty commonly argued, but the Dems are putting aside questions of ideology and have embraced ABB - anybody but Bush.
Before Iowa I had posted several times about the break down of the Dems into labor (Gephardt), suburban socialists (Dean), and new democrats (Lieberman). Well, what's going on? Basically, and you have seen this elsewhere since its pretty commonly argued, but the Dems are putting aside questions of ideology and have embraced ABB - anybody but Bush.
Have I mentioned Education recently?
Glenn Reynolds has offered two columns at MSNBC on the situation facing smart kids and in the second, a criticism of the way school fails them. One of his links is to the Atlanta Journal Constitution peice by Marquis Harris on his being rejected to teach in high school because administrators thought he would, "serve as an unrealistic expectation as to what high school students could strive to achieve or become." They, "recommended that you seek employment at the collegiate level; there your intellectual comportment would be greatly appreciated."
I have lost count of the number of times people in the college of teacher education have suggested I consider "employment at the collegiate level." I had previously attributed these comments to someone's misguided sense that I might be happier surrounded with fellow smarties. Mr. Harris' situation puts a different spin on this comments.
Reynolds observes, "In other words, the school administrators don't want their students to aim high. We're not going to hold our own against the Indians, the Chinese, and the rest of the world that way." No, we don't want our students to aim high. This point comes up again and again on this blog. A few examples can be found here, here, and here. I have not gotten around to reviewing Diane Ravitch's book Left Back: A Century of Battles over school reform, but I will say that I have found no better explanation for why it is that we have embraced an anti-academic education for our kids. Educators are convinced that no one actually needs academic preperation. What we need is the ability to use our free time fulfillingly. Economic rivals, I might add, couldn't agree more.
I am not one to lament economic outsourcing, job flight, or the rise in new economies elsewhere in the world. As a free market advocate I would prefer to see competion motivate people to take their own competativeness seriously, rather than have protectionists lull people into a false sense of security about their economic potential and the educational attainment of our children. I do, however, make a point to students that between automation, self-service, and outsourcing, jobs that don't rely on a good education are in danger. Reynolds is right to ask wether our educational system is performing the task we have laid before it. Perhaps it is prudent to mention that the previous post here deals with the notion that schools ignore the task parents lay before it in favor of self-appointed tasks. Reynold's conclusion, that instead of worrying about outsourcing we should worry about the state of education and the efforts students make, is the right one. For Aristotle, success, happiness, and ultimatly the good life arises from habits that in turn can only be acquired by repeated action and correction. This should be the purpose of school - the cultivation of the habits which will allow every student to reach their own potential.
Glenn Reynolds has offered two columns at MSNBC on the situation facing smart kids and in the second, a criticism of the way school fails them. One of his links is to the Atlanta Journal Constitution peice by Marquis Harris on his being rejected to teach in high school because administrators thought he would, "serve as an unrealistic expectation as to what high school students could strive to achieve or become." They, "recommended that you seek employment at the collegiate level; there your intellectual comportment would be greatly appreciated."
I have lost count of the number of times people in the college of teacher education have suggested I consider "employment at the collegiate level." I had previously attributed these comments to someone's misguided sense that I might be happier surrounded with fellow smarties. Mr. Harris' situation puts a different spin on this comments.
Reynolds observes, "In other words, the school administrators don't want their students to aim high. We're not going to hold our own against the Indians, the Chinese, and the rest of the world that way." No, we don't want our students to aim high. This point comes up again and again on this blog. A few examples can be found here, here, and here. I have not gotten around to reviewing Diane Ravitch's book Left Back: A Century of Battles over school reform, but I will say that I have found no better explanation for why it is that we have embraced an anti-academic education for our kids. Educators are convinced that no one actually needs academic preperation. What we need is the ability to use our free time fulfillingly. Economic rivals, I might add, couldn't agree more.
I am not one to lament economic outsourcing, job flight, or the rise in new economies elsewhere in the world. As a free market advocate I would prefer to see competion motivate people to take their own competativeness seriously, rather than have protectionists lull people into a false sense of security about their economic potential and the educational attainment of our children. I do, however, make a point to students that between automation, self-service, and outsourcing, jobs that don't rely on a good education are in danger. Reynolds is right to ask wether our educational system is performing the task we have laid before it. Perhaps it is prudent to mention that the previous post here deals with the notion that schools ignore the task parents lay before it in favor of self-appointed tasks. Reynold's conclusion, that instead of worrying about outsourcing we should worry about the state of education and the efforts students make, is the right one. For Aristotle, success, happiness, and ultimatly the good life arises from habits that in turn can only be acquired by repeated action and correction. This should be the purpose of school - the cultivation of the habits which will allow every student to reach their own potential.
Saturday, January 31, 2004
Are Comprehensive Sex Ed curriculum actually comprehensive?
Heritage says no. They argue that so called programs are just re-packaged Safe Sex curricula. What is interesting in the article is a Zogby poll conducted with questions from Focus on the Family. They found, "Very few parents support the basic themes of comprehensive sex-ed courses." Parents have no idea what goes on in school. "Overall, the poll shows that parents are extremely supportive of the values and messages contained in abstinence programs."
I think that a prohibitionist program, be it regarding sex, alcohol, or whatever adult activity is considered, is a bad approach because at some point young people (including college students) experiment with the thing they were told not to. If no one ever communicates how adults behave responsibly, then responsible behavior is impossible, except by hard experience or happy accident. Everyone can use the reminder that alcohol, sex, gambling, and other adult behaviors burn adults, even when they act responsibly. That is the nature of a vice. Youth will explore vice. Our educational purpose should be to delay experimentation for as long as possible, to mitigate as much harm as possible resulting from experimentation, and to aid the transition away from experimentation to boring adulthood as easily (and quickly) as possible. Prohibitionists hope the experimentation step can be avoided for everyone (tell it to St Augustine). They focus on steps 1 and 3, youth who delays and adults who no longer are interested. The Safe Sex crowd by contrast focus only on step 2, mitigating the consequences of experimentation. We need all 3 steps. Steps 1 and 3, do as much if not more to mitigate harm in experimentation as condems, &c. Ignoring step 2 leaves young people totally vulnerable if they stray from the strairt and narrow. This has two ill consequences. First some people get badly harmed because they stray and could have avoided it by knowing how to partake more safely. Second some people avoid ill effects for a long time and come to believe that all the talk of harm is without a basis in reality. Neither case is good.
The Heritage interpretation of the polling does over reach a bit.
'Some 47 percent of parents want teens to be taught that "young people should not engage in sexual activity until they are married." Another 32 percent of parents want teens to be taught that "young people should not engage in sexual intercourse until they have, at least, finished high school and are in a relationship with someone they feel they would like to marry."
'When these two categories are combined, we see that 79 percent of parents want young people taught that sex should be reserved for marriage or for an adult relationship leading to marriage.'
Another question that asks this question directly: 'Some 68 percent of parents want schools to teach teens that "individuals who are not sexually active until marriage have the best chances of marital stability and happiness."'
So there are times when I thought the 68% figure was better applied in analysis than the 79%. This 11% difference isn't a big deal, but its something I took note of. Even the low figure is better than 2/3's. The analysis is right to point out that the schools favorite message is only approved by 7% of parents. How like the Progressive school to re-package the same unpopular policies rather than actually accomodate the will of parents, tax-payers, and citizens.
Heritage says no. They argue that so called programs are just re-packaged Safe Sex curricula. What is interesting in the article is a Zogby poll conducted with questions from Focus on the Family. They found, "Very few parents support the basic themes of comprehensive sex-ed courses." Parents have no idea what goes on in school. "Overall, the poll shows that parents are extremely supportive of the values and messages contained in abstinence programs."
I think that a prohibitionist program, be it regarding sex, alcohol, or whatever adult activity is considered, is a bad approach because at some point young people (including college students) experiment with the thing they were told not to. If no one ever communicates how adults behave responsibly, then responsible behavior is impossible, except by hard experience or happy accident. Everyone can use the reminder that alcohol, sex, gambling, and other adult behaviors burn adults, even when they act responsibly. That is the nature of a vice. Youth will explore vice. Our educational purpose should be to delay experimentation for as long as possible, to mitigate as much harm as possible resulting from experimentation, and to aid the transition away from experimentation to boring adulthood as easily (and quickly) as possible. Prohibitionists hope the experimentation step can be avoided for everyone (tell it to St Augustine). They focus on steps 1 and 3, youth who delays and adults who no longer are interested. The Safe Sex crowd by contrast focus only on step 2, mitigating the consequences of experimentation. We need all 3 steps. Steps 1 and 3, do as much if not more to mitigate harm in experimentation as condems, &c. Ignoring step 2 leaves young people totally vulnerable if they stray from the strairt and narrow. This has two ill consequences. First some people get badly harmed because they stray and could have avoided it by knowing how to partake more safely. Second some people avoid ill effects for a long time and come to believe that all the talk of harm is without a basis in reality. Neither case is good.
The Heritage interpretation of the polling does over reach a bit.
'Some 47 percent of parents want teens to be taught that "young people should not engage in sexual activity until they are married." Another 32 percent of parents want teens to be taught that "young people should not engage in sexual intercourse until they have, at least, finished high school and are in a relationship with someone they feel they would like to marry."
'When these two categories are combined, we see that 79 percent of parents want young people taught that sex should be reserved for marriage or for an adult relationship leading to marriage.'
Another question that asks this question directly: 'Some 68 percent of parents want schools to teach teens that "individuals who are not sexually active until marriage have the best chances of marital stability and happiness."'
So there are times when I thought the 68% figure was better applied in analysis than the 79%. This 11% difference isn't a big deal, but its something I took note of. Even the low figure is better than 2/3's. The analysis is right to point out that the schools favorite message is only approved by 7% of parents. How like the Progressive school to re-package the same unpopular policies rather than actually accomodate the will of parents, tax-payers, and citizens.
Edwards
Saw him on Wednesday at SMSU. I was surprised at how liberal he was. The coverage has spent so much time on his good looks, charisma, campaigning ability (yes, he is good on the stump), that they seem to have buried his positions. He is running and us vs them campaign, wants to focus on poverty and race as well as more sensible issues like education and the economy. I think he has taken the analogies to JFK so to heart that he thinks its 1964.
I talked to several other attendees, and eavesdropped on several conversations. Everyone I talked to or overheard went mad over one of two topics. There are the protectionists who think that somehow jobs and incomes can be preserved against foreign competition of we adopt anti-competitive policies, and there were those who thought the war on terror was a means to some ultimate ends (other than that of ending the scourge of terror). I am supposed to be attending a MeetUp deal for conservatives next week. We'll see if they are as crazy, albeit differently crazy, as their Dem peers. I have in my experience found other sensible people in the world, some of whom disagree with me, so I know they exist. I am perfectly happy to entertain not only other values for sake of argument, but also other assumptions (necessary for understanding), so its not a question of agreement with me on ends, means, or fundamentals. I just want people to organize the ideas they have in a way that they make sense in relation to one another.
Saw him on Wednesday at SMSU. I was surprised at how liberal he was. The coverage has spent so much time on his good looks, charisma, campaigning ability (yes, he is good on the stump), that they seem to have buried his positions. He is running and us vs them campaign, wants to focus on poverty and race as well as more sensible issues like education and the economy. I think he has taken the analogies to JFK so to heart that he thinks its 1964.
I talked to several other attendees, and eavesdropped on several conversations. Everyone I talked to or overheard went mad over one of two topics. There are the protectionists who think that somehow jobs and incomes can be preserved against foreign competition of we adopt anti-competitive policies, and there were those who thought the war on terror was a means to some ultimate ends (other than that of ending the scourge of terror). I am supposed to be attending a MeetUp deal for conservatives next week. We'll see if they are as crazy, albeit differently crazy, as their Dem peers. I have in my experience found other sensible people in the world, some of whom disagree with me, so I know they exist. I am perfectly happy to entertain not only other values for sake of argument, but also other assumptions (necessary for understanding), so its not a question of agreement with me on ends, means, or fundamentals. I just want people to organize the ideas they have in a way that they make sense in relation to one another.
Is there a lemon statute in electorial law?
KausFiles has been using the idea of buyer's remorse a lot in regards Kerry.
KausFiles has been using the idea of buyer's remorse a lot in regards Kerry.
Wednesday, January 28, 2004
Saturday, January 24, 2004
You make the call
Oak-Land Junior High is distributing laptop computers to students, according to the Pioneer Press at twincities.com. Drew Curtis' FARK website predicts "Junior high students get their own school laptops this week, porn downloads to increase" and rates it "obvious." Science teacher Todd Rau in the story says, "For these kids, it's really not just about getting the computers. They have them in my class every day," Rau said. "What they're excited about, I think, is the opportunity to do what they're doing in my class, and do it all day long." (last graph in the story)
Who is probabaly closer to reality in their prediction? You make the call.
Oak-Land Junior High is distributing laptop computers to students, according to the Pioneer Press at twincities.com. Drew Curtis' FARK website predicts "Junior high students get their own school laptops this week, porn downloads to increase" and rates it "obvious." Science teacher Todd Rau in the story says, "For these kids, it's really not just about getting the computers. They have them in my class every day," Rau said. "What they're excited about, I think, is the opportunity to do what they're doing in my class, and do it all day long." (last graph in the story)
Who is probabaly closer to reality in their prediction? You make the call.
Why CEO's Fail
I am linking to this in part, so I can find it again. As I think I may have blogged, this issue came up in Philosophy of Ed. The teachers think its all about greed. I regard greed as a constant (they just aren't tuned in because the potential for really making a killing in the 3rd grade isn't very large). Both successful and failed CEO's are after money. No, failure comes from some combination of the list at this link (usually 2-3 really stand out).
I am linking to this in part, so I can find it again. As I think I may have blogged, this issue came up in Philosophy of Ed. The teachers think its all about greed. I regard greed as a constant (they just aren't tuned in because the potential for really making a killing in the 3rd grade isn't very large). Both successful and failed CEO's are after money. No, failure comes from some combination of the list at this link (usually 2-3 really stand out).
A side effect of term limits
Dan at midagedwriter notes: "One would think that the Missouri General Assembly Republicans would chastise their Speaker Pro Tem for breaching decorum, good manners, and good judgment, but, instead, they joined him in interrupting the Governor and defended him afterward.
"Do they not understand that their actions set precedent? Or are they so immature and short-sighted that they don't care?"
When you have term limits, the world ceases to exist for you as a legislator after your last possible term ends. Who cares what precedent you set, what nonsense you pass as law, or what trouble you leave the state in. You will be elsewhere for sure, and the babes who are there to pick up the peices will have no idea what they are doing (much like you don't), so why worry?
Dan at midagedwriter notes: "One would think that the Missouri General Assembly Republicans would chastise their Speaker Pro Tem for breaching decorum, good manners, and good judgment, but, instead, they joined him in interrupting the Governor and defended him afterward.
"Do they not understand that their actions set precedent? Or are they so immature and short-sighted that they don't care?"
When you have term limits, the world ceases to exist for you as a legislator after your last possible term ends. Who cares what precedent you set, what nonsense you pass as law, or what trouble you leave the state in. You will be elsewhere for sure, and the babes who are there to pick up the peices will have no idea what they are doing (much like you don't), so why worry?
Europe. Quite Important
According to the EUObserver, this is the slogan for Europe in the second half of the comming year. Prosaic indeed.
According to the EUObserver, this is the slogan for Europe in the second half of the comming year. Prosaic indeed.
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
Why didn't we fight the terrorists sooner?
It has been my practice here not to just link to something and go on. I have preferred either an extensive commentary of my own or a pair of links that I think go well together. The most common single links without comment fall into two catagories, either they relate to something which I have posted in my prefered fashion earlier and they are yet another link in the conversation, or its an indulgence, for example links to my brother's site.
Two links came up on Instapundit this morning and last night. One, the more recent, on Clinton's speech before a group of Mideast thinkers in the Washington Post, the other an analysis of why, despite having anti-terrorist special forces, we did not use them before 9-11. Read them together. They inform one another. They both speak to Clinton's strengths and weaknesses, to the errors in American foriegn policy between Iran-Contra and 9-11, and to the supposed radicalism of George Bush.
On this last point, W's radicalism, I think what is based in is a rejection of the bad direction in policy that Richard H. Shultz describes in the Weekly Standard. He does cast aside a dozen years of thinking on terrorism. What is interesting is how Clinton did as well, but for a variety of reasons was unable and unwilling to do so himself. Shultz' final 'graph is telling: "For now, it appears that the most powerful defense secretary ever has failed in his attempt to do this." Rumsfeld knows what changes must take place, and unlike Clinton is willing to do it, but its hard. Shultz refers to the famous October 16, 2003, memo. If one such as Rummy is having difficulty changing and uprooting the bad policy, with W's support, after 9-11, imagine how hard it would have been for Clinton, prior to 9-11, hindered by his relationship with the military, and hindered by his own tendency to contemplate much and act little. He could see what needed to be done, but had a harder time acting. Now we have a presedent who can see what needs to be done, aided by Clinton's own work, by 9-11, and by people like Rumsfeld and Rice. Still the work meets resistance and hostility. There are no easy answers, even when you know what must be done.
It has been my practice here not to just link to something and go on. I have preferred either an extensive commentary of my own or a pair of links that I think go well together. The most common single links without comment fall into two catagories, either they relate to something which I have posted in my prefered fashion earlier and they are yet another link in the conversation, or its an indulgence, for example links to my brother's site.
Two links came up on Instapundit this morning and last night. One, the more recent, on Clinton's speech before a group of Mideast thinkers in the Washington Post, the other an analysis of why, despite having anti-terrorist special forces, we did not use them before 9-11. Read them together. They inform one another. They both speak to Clinton's strengths and weaknesses, to the errors in American foriegn policy between Iran-Contra and 9-11, and to the supposed radicalism of George Bush.
On this last point, W's radicalism, I think what is based in is a rejection of the bad direction in policy that Richard H. Shultz describes in the Weekly Standard. He does cast aside a dozen years of thinking on terrorism. What is interesting is how Clinton did as well, but for a variety of reasons was unable and unwilling to do so himself. Shultz' final 'graph is telling: "For now, it appears that the most powerful defense secretary ever has failed in his attempt to do this." Rumsfeld knows what changes must take place, and unlike Clinton is willing to do it, but its hard. Shultz refers to the famous October 16, 2003, memo. If one such as Rummy is having difficulty changing and uprooting the bad policy, with W's support, after 9-11, imagine how hard it would have been for Clinton, prior to 9-11, hindered by his relationship with the military, and hindered by his own tendency to contemplate much and act little. He could see what needed to be done, but had a harder time acting. Now we have a presedent who can see what needs to be done, aided by Clinton's own work, by 9-11, and by people like Rumsfeld and Rice. Still the work meets resistance and hostility. There are no easy answers, even when you know what must be done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)