Iraqi Progress or Quagmire?

Powerline has offered their criteria for measuring success in Iraq. They identify reconstruction, casualties, and popularity among Iraqis as the relevant measures. Deacon's conclusion is that things are going reasonably well.

They point to Max Boot's similarly constructed argument in the LAT. Boot's criteria are nation-building, casualties, and abuses. These are in fact the same criteria, since only abuses will seriously undermine American popularity among Iraqis.

Both Powerline and Boot argue that things are going very well when compared to past examples of similar nature. I've been reading Boot's Savage Wars of Peace, and when one compares the criteria identified here with the examples of the past, I too agree.

Delusions of Grandeur

While reading Laurie Spivak's analysis of how to build a countermovement to the right, I was struck by this "obervation": "Polls consistently show that the majority of Americans are more closely aligned with the Democratic Party on the issues than they are with the Republican Party. Yet today twice as many Americans identify themselves as conservatives than as progressives."

First off, the poll cited had a lot of interesting information, but none of the 25 polls on that page discussed party affiliation or ideological identification. The poll up front when I went there was on John McCain as a Kerry running mate.

Second, conservative is the broad description for people right of center. Progressive describes as specific wing of the left. Conservative identification is a reasonable (though imperfect) barometer of Republican affiliation. Progressive is not a reasonable description of Democratic affiliation. While progressives may be democratic, democrats are not progressive. Immeditaly, I find myself questioning the assumption upon which the article proceeds: that conservative success is based on marketing, not on genuine belief. For those who didn't pay attention in Marx 101, this is false conciousness.

Spivak writes, "How to explain this seeming paradox? Usually the preferred, or superior, product wins out in the marketplace, but not always. An inferior product can dominate with superior marketing. And this is precisely what has happened in American politics: Conservatives offer less desirable, inferior policies, but dominate through superior marketing."

Putting aside the axiological question of whether conservative policies are inferior, because beauty is in the eye of the beholder, this seeming paradox can more easily be resolved by abandoning the notion that people have been duped into thinking they are something that they are not. This contempt for the intelligence of regular people is one of the reasons the Progressives do as poorly in the public arena as they do. I'll generously attribute it to the defense mechanism denial.

The same argument in made by the right. They point to the conservative social stands by Blacks, Hispanics, and Jews, and argue that they belong more naturally in the Republican Party. I'd suggest that perhaps both sides see some natural allies across the fence, I know I do, but that's not the same thing as saying that they are mistaken to have chosen the party affiliation they have.

Spivak rather uncritically assumes there is a demographic shift favoring the democrats, but there are people claiming a demographic shift for everything. Thomas Riehle claims to have found a strong Republican surge among the young. Routine election watching shows the Republicans taking the House away from the Democrats in the 90's and increasing their influence there over time, gaining in the 2002 midterm elections, and holding on to their electoral advantages in the presidency. Again, I think both sides can see some favorable trends, but I also think that there is strong evidence in history that parties adapt to prevent an otherwise winning party to become a dominant party. Of course the self delusion represented by Spivak's article does present the possibility that committed progressives will force such leftist candidates and policies on the Democrats that they find it difficult to hold on to moderate voters. No doubt more sensible individuals within the party will eventually step up to thwart these actions.

Spivak goes on to write:
"At least in part, conservatives' monetary advantage can be offset by the vast, and largely untapped, progressive creative community, which includes a line-up of potential celebrity spokespeople for progressive issues that would literally make Madison Avenue weak at the knees. While at once building Air America, News World International and other dedicated distribution channels, progressives should use their wits and their wit and aim for the networks, primetime, and mainstream entertainment and media."

Wait, who has George Soros and who has Hugh Hewitt? I'll put the conservative creative community up against the left any day. Not only are more Hollywood types revealing that the days of silence are over and that there are conservatives among them, but Air America is a terrible failure that will vanish after November. Air America, it should be remembered is not supported by its popularity, but by the deep pockets of certain powerful lefties. Once again, Spivak has it exactly reversed.

"Consider the implications of the progressive frame on the war on terror. Conservatives missed the 9-11 threat because they were "preserved in amber," as Richard Clark put it, obsessed with Cold War thinking. The terrorist threat that America faces post-9-11 requires a modern foreign policy paradigm. The solution to a network of global terrorists that reaches across international borders lies in transnational networks and cooperation, not in regional Cold War models, alienating allies, and inflaming antagonisms."

This argument is so stretched and tortured one imagines the author laughing out loud while writing it. Cold war thinking was the kind where we backed dictators because we were anti-communist, stayed close to our allies and coordinated policy. Its the very awareness that all of that is behind us that has lead to the current administration ignoring the concerns of Germany, France, and Belgium, and pursuing a new policy vigorous engagement with the terror networks, including their state sponsors. The kinds of cooperative ventures that don't alienate anyone will be about as effective as the Clinton polcy of confronting terror, which is to say it will encourage terror.

There is a responsible left out there, but this ain't it.

Charles Krauthammer: Gas Tax Advocate

See his take on gasoline consumption here. His plan is a bit bolder than mine, and he doesn't specify what the tax would do, other than feed the U.S. Treasury. My plan, posted a few days ago, would take the money and spend it on automobile alternatives. Both municipal public transit and medium distance rail. Frankly, I there is a lot to like about Krauthammer's plan. It creates a price floor for gasoline, using a floating tax to keep the price at $3 a gallon. As consumption fell, both through lower consumption, and through consumer pressure for efficiency, the outside effects of high gas prices (feeding the Saudis, for example) would decline toward zero as we fell back toward domestic supplies.

Greg Easterbrook also advocates a gas tax. His NYT article makes most mention of a revenue neutral gas tax plan which raises the gas tax fifty cents, with a coresponding tax cut elsewhere. He makes other useful observations about the effect, including fewer highway deaths, lower demand, hence lower world oil price, less influence of Persian Gulf oil states on US policy, fewer dollars to oil sheiks, smaller trade deficit, and few greenhouse-gases. Easterbrooks plan is more likely, given political constraints, because its just a tax shift, rather than a tax increase, but its also less substantial. Also, it reduces demand by creating a higher price, but it does nothing to satisfy alternatives. As a good neo-liberal, Easterbrooke woudl expect the market to solve that problem on its own, and there is merit to that possition, but I would still prefer to divert the additional tax revenues to investment in automobile alternatives.

The Detroit News had an article on March 3 about how US automakers make fuel effecient cars for foriegn markets, but sell Americans cars with more power, a trade off for effeciency. So while Easterbrooke suggests a phased in approach to let Detroit adjust, this article informs us that the adjustment wouldn't be substantial, and would be more a shift in expectations, not in design philosophy. The article mentions the English version of the Ford Focus gets 37 miles to the gallon, while the Ford Focus homepage for Americans will get you 32-35 miles to the gallon depending on which configuration you select.

Supreme Irony

Roger Simon sets up some of Kerry's recent comments in a very revealing way.

"Kerry said. "I will get our troops home from Iraq with honor and with the interests of our country properly protected." How soon? "It will not take long to do what is necessary. I'm not going to give you a specific date, but I'll tell you that I have a plan and I will put that plan in place."

Why its Nixon's secret plan to end the Vietnam war! Dusted off and ready for use by someone who clearly loathes Nixon, and refered to Vietnam as Nixon's war, even though Johnson took us from a couple thousand to five hundred thousand men between '64 and '68. Kerry doesn't seem to recognize the parallel.

Star Wars: Episode III

I read this entry on MSNBC today and mostly walked away thinking that Christopher Bahn doesn't get it. I called my brother to find out that he's already blogged on it. Here's my take.

Most of the criticisms Bahn makes just make no sense. Complaining about special effects being overwhelming in a Star Wars film is like complining about all the violence in a slasher film. Its what wow'd us the first time and what keeps us comming back. Complaining that Greg McEwan (sic) doesn't emote is just a failure to make sense of his serenity and centeredness. It may make it harder to punch the emotions of an audience, but the same could be said about Buddhists or Stoics. Maybe that's why movies aren't made about those guys either. Either way, its part of the intellectual content of the picture, the jedi embrace ataraxia.

There were however, a few good ideas. The key paragraph is this:
"It’s no slur on the genuinely great first “Star Wars” that much of the plotline and characterization was lifted straight out of Akira Kurosawa’s “The Hidden Fortress.” Reusing older plotlines is a terrific way to shore up the fact that you have no interesting plots of your own. And after all, the extremely talented Kurosawa dipped into Shakespeare’s well of ideas more than once — and Shakespeare himself lifted many of his plots from earlier plays. For Episode III, rip off Kurosawa’s ripoff of Shakespeare’s “Macbeth,” and retell the “Throne of Blood” storyline as Darth Vader’s journey into evil."

That's really the only good idea in the peice, but its a heck of a good idea.

Fix Bayonet

The Sun reports, "The fearless Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders stormed rebel positions after being ambushed and pinned down." Fearless, I'll say. "They fixed bayonets and charged at 100 rebels using tactics learned in drills."

A salute to the fearless Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders.

I'm an advocate for trains

I think that in the mix of transportation, trains are under-utilized and cars and planes are over-utilized. I have no opinion at the moment on buses, ferries, or other boats. My sense comes from the costs to move a ton. We have confused the issue in two ways. First, we have built automobile cities, especially in the Western US, and then throw up our collective hands and say, we can't get around by any means but car. Second, we calculate the full costs of trains but ignore costs of air travel or highways.

According to Virginia Postrel,
"The White House proposed a $256 billion budget for roads, bridges and transit over the next six years. (The previous six-year measure, which expired last year, cost $218 billion.) The House passed a $284 billion version, while the Senate further upped the ante to $318 billion."

Postrel winds up her artical with a quote from Winston and Langer (read the whole thing) On average, they write, "one dollar of annual highway spending reduces the annual congestion costs to road users only 8 cents." This is not a return on a one-time investment but a continuing expense; we have to keep spending that dollar to get the 8 cents."

Google Missouri highway spending and the name Kit Bond comes up. I'm sure this is exactly as Senator Bond would have it. His job is at least in part to maximize Federal dollars comming to Missouri.

Two months ago, the Springfield News-Leader reported that "Missouri has seen a drop from $280 million in the budget year that ended June 30 to a projected $150 million during the current 12-month period." Add county and municipal spending, and that's quite a lot of money on roads. Add policing the roads, the cost of accidents, the cost to own and operate a vehicle, and other driving related costs, and its getting expensive.

Compare that to the data reported on the Missouri Public Transit Assoc website. "The State of Missouri provides $11.3 million annually for public transit." Busses obviously travel on the afore mentioned roads, so reclaim some of those costs, but my guess is that the cost per traveler is far lower. Consider light rail and inter-city high speed rail. "In fiscal year 2001 Missouri received nearly $60 million in federal capital funds, with an additional $9 million in operating assistance to small cities and rural areas." And, "Local funding sources provide the majority of transit financing, about $175 million." 175+69+11=255 million

Canada has already begun installing wifi in public transport. As this snipet in Converge! reveals. "The pilot program will provide free Wi-Fi for VIA 1 passengers traveling between Montreal and Toronto."

If more people were to use mass transit or alternatives to cars and planes, the benefits of economies of scale would begin to make financial costs and convenience costs even better.

As a final note, I have nothing against cars, I just don't think they are the most effecient way to move large numbers of people.

Who visits?

According to Site Meter, most visitors to this site in the past several months have been searching for free trade, educational theory, or church-state issues. Odd, that's what I've been writing about too.

More on the Socratic Method

Given a bit more thought, one observation that occured to me was a kind of inverse of a rule I stated yesterday. This inverse would be stated something like, "no matter who good a teaching method is, it can be screwed up by poor execution." One of the complaints about Socratic Teaching is that professors "hide the ball". My own parlance for this is "I'm thinking of a number". Good questioning, Socratic or otherwise, does not fall into this pattern. The question has a clear answer to anyone who is familiar with the material, or if the question is open ended, is stated clearly to be so. Just because I as the instructor can envision the answer I am already looking for does not mean its an obvious question. I was thinking of eight, by the way.

"What was Columbus looking for when he sailed west from Spain?" is a good question.
"Why did Columbus sail west from Spain" is a bad lead off question, but can be a good follow up question once particulars have been entered into the dialogue.

Good questions take baby steps. They ask one thing at a time. They don't have a large number of possible answers that are factually true but not accepted as correct.

To Lecture or not to Lecture

I fully believe I know more than my students do. While the set of things I know my not fully overlap with the set of things any given student knows (limiting outselves to academic subjects) its certainly a lot bigger. As a result, I am very comfortable lecturing. I'm good at it. Students tell me they learn a lot from my lectures and told me that they wished other teachers taught like I do.

Educational theory would argue that I am noticing students with a particular learning style. It would hold that students of other learning styles are ill-served. It is my general contention that overall, it is possible to do some things so well that they "cross over". In entertainment, we know of country artists who attract a popular or rock audience while performing in the country style. Without playing country-rock or country pop, and without the audience abandoning its taste, the artist has cross-over appeal. This is usually because they are very good, and quality is recognized even by those who otherwise don't value the genre. Likewise, I think that any teaching style can be done at a level of excellence that reaches most students regardless of their prefered learning style. (This raises another question, that teachers are optimizers, which I will get around to at a later date.) This is why advocates for anything in teaching can find some exemplar and point to real results. The problem with such anecdotal evidence is that, in my contention, anything done by someone who is really good will yield results, hence the practice may not be generalizable.

Professor Baimbridge has questioned the utility of the Socratic Method and refered to Brian Leiter’s attack upon the practice. Educational thoery likes things such as the Socratic Method because it requires active thinking. It opposes lecture because its easy to tune out and ignore the speaker. Of course in law school, one hopes that after paying all of that tuition, one desires to aquire the knowledge of the professor, something that cannot be assumed for all students in public school. In fact, I don't consider it exageration to say that some educational theorists go so far as being willing to abandon content all together in favor of active thinking about anything. The hope is that thinking skills, once developed will be transferable to life problems.

I have no problem with the Socratic Method, and use it in short bursts during lecture when students ask questions that I want then to reason through rather than provide an answer for. I don't and wouldn't conduct whole classes Socratically unless I was addressing a values question. Generally, students don't know enough to reason well about things, because their knowledge base is so incomplete. My own suspicion is that Plato's Dialogues are most analogous to graduate seminars, not high school classes. For reasoning excercises, I prefer simulations, (what law students would recognize as a hypothetical) not socractic reasoning.

Certainly, when you can assume that students want knowledge, giving it to them in the densest form, lecture, is best. If, and I think this is what I do, you can motivate students to want to know, lecture works well.

One of the things I see, is students who expect to be given the specific answers to the questions that they will be tested on. Leaning for learning's sake does not occur to them. When we know why something happened, I feel we understand it better and retain memory of it longer. Socratic questioning can solve that problem, both pushing studets who are used to being handed answers (often the brighter students) and getting students to understand the why questions and answers.

One of the weaknesses of Socratic Questioning, and I have alluded to this a few lines up, is that student knowledge is weak, and used poorly, you just provide a platform for ignorance. One also finds this in the so-called persuasive essay, which are almost always not.

Popular Baby Names of 2003

MSN reports the most popular baby names of 2003 and the results are interesting. Gone are the names derived from place names, and the new names are old-school biblical names. Most telling on this list is the appearance of Zachary on the boy's list. Anglicized versions and names more associated with the dominant culture than the Bible (Joe, John, Jim) are gone, but Joshua, Jacob, Ethan are there. More familiar, Matthew and Micheal are still on the list. There are three British names there. Tyler is English (one who tiles). Aidan and Ryan are Gaelic. Nicholas is there as well, a Greek name.

The girl's names reveals similar trends, but not so clearly as the boys.

Abandoning Vaccines

Glenn Reynolds has a good piece at TCS on the costs of abandoning vaccines because of unscrupulous media scares.

Finals End

Classes are over, so blogging should resume at its pre-finals intensity.