Suburban Socialists

Back in the late 80's when I was young and fancy free, I subscribed to a dozen magazines and papers running across the political spectrum. From the American Spectator to Mother Jones. I subscribed to the Utne Reader for several years, but one year I decided I had had enough. Indeed all of them exect the New Republic have been abandoned at one time or another. I had conducted a long thought experiment socialism and decided that whatever its virtues, it was a brake on progress, and tended to keep things in place on a large scale while producing substantial equity on a small scale. At some point after this I realized that the Utne Reader was the magazine of Suburban Socialists. People wealthy enough to turn their back on prosperity and indulge in expensive alternative lifestyles (like organic food). The magazine was frequently a haven for European style work habits (short work days, long vacations, leave for nearly anything) and an attraction to "simple living" that could only be supported on a substantial income (craft manufacture, organic food, expensive outdoor hobbies).

Micheal Barone has a new article up about this same group of people, but he is calling them the trustfunder left. That sounds about right, but I still prefer suburban socialists.

The Tulip Revolution

So, it appears that a revolution has ousted Askar Akayev in Kyrgyzstan. Whether you regard this as an old Soviet successor state moving toward democracy or another Islamic people who have cast off despotism for democracy, its good news. This one sounds to me like a two-fer.

Sensible Talker

Kudos to Hugh Hewitt, who has taken a rare sensible stance with regard to the Schiavo affair. Hugh as refused to traffic in rumors, reminding listeners that anyone can say anything in an interview. Further, Hugh has recognized that in a system of laws it is better to live with bad laws than it is to abandon law. At the end of this week's broadcast on the Schiavo affair (his final hour being on tort reform) he refered to the movie about Thomas More, a Man for All Seasons, and to Socrates comment at his death, that having lived well and benefited from the law thus far, he could not turn against the law now that it was to harm him.

Avoid the Bates Statistics Graduates

Illuminaria's Voice and Number 2 Pencil find a study about Bates College students doing equally well whether or not they submitted their SAT scores. However, as Illuminaria points out, "91% of the submitters participated, but only 68% of the non-submitters participated." This creates all kinds of self-selection problems which basically leaves the study meaningless, because the sample doesn't neccesarily represent the popultion it is purported to.

The Ethics of Self-Selecting Positions in Teaching

When I came across this dialogue between a union official and a superintendent, I expected I would side with the superintendent. I dislike unions, and I think the fact that the teachers in the hardest districts tend to be starting teachers with the least leverage is a misallocation of skill. But, this superintendent comes across as a technocratic dictator. By contrast, the local union official sounds quite reasonable. Of course its always easy to sound reasonable when your opponent is unreasonable. The union official confined himself to the obvious facts that teachers are not compelled to teach. There is a much freer flow out of teaching (the ability to find other jobs) than there is into teaching (where arbitrary liscensure and too many hurdles keep out qualified people) so any threat to teachers will tend to create a brain drain. A proper solution to this problem must be market based. The problem is, there is very little market in the public school system. If poor schools have the most undisciplined students, the poorest physical plant, the fewest resources, and mariginal or negative pay incentives, why would any rational person choose to do it? What makes this problem so intractable is that these schools have the quality of being resource sinks. This means that the only controllable aspect is teacher pay.

I hold a principle that any challenging job requires rotation off the front. This is effective for soldiers, desirable for surgeons, police, and teachers. Hard duty should not be a life sentence or a punishment for being successful.

Appologies

Applogies for not posting so very often, I've been devoting my cognative energy to a very close reading of Marc Sageman's Understanding Terror Networks. I'm on my second reading, and this time I'm taking copious notes. I'm very taken by the history of the ideology of the global salafi jihad, being a historian of ideas. This is the thing I am making the close study of, including googling names, dates, and combinations of keywords to read articles and news stories to check Sageman's facts and to get extra explanations of things of interest.

Juvenile Death Penalty Abolished

There has been some concern on the right about the recent Supreme Court ruling. Sean Hannity complained on his radio show that the justices just pulled this ruling from nowhere, going well beyond interpreting the Constitution. He remarked that the Constitution does not prohibit juvenile death sentences. "It doesn't say or do anything like that." Indeed, but it doesn't say or do much. It establishes a basic framework of government, and beyond that it makes a few value statements. The Eighth Amendment states, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." If we expect the Constitution to do or say something specific about juvenile death cases, we will be greatly disappointed. And yet, what happens when someone regards such a sentence as cruel? Who decides? We might prefer to suppose that the legislature be given the presumption here, but the practice has been to allow the courts the final say. Yet neither Hannity, nor other commentators address the core problem here, the usurpation of power by the judiciary. Instead they attack straw men, going on about how justices draw conclusions, or they speak upon the neccesity of getting their men on the court.

While I think these conservative commentators would be satisfied with a limited court, so much of what they say suggests to me they would prefer a conservative court.

Update
Hugh Hewitt presented a very nice explanation of the core problem, judicial excess and the usurpation of legislative power, and occasionally expressed a sensible reform principle. He has a brief mention on his blog, with a Scalia quote. He started his show with 12 minutes on this subject (and a brief summary of the situation in Lebanon) and is following up with John Eastman. I expect the show will continue to concentrate on this issue.