Ladies and Gentlemen

Dennis Prager discussed the dicotomy between male nature and being a man today. Along the way, Dennis and callers raised the question of female nature and being ladylike as well as the term ladies and gentlemen. Ladies and gentlemen refers to an aristocratic code for behavior, which Americans had largely but not completely abandon in the Jacksonian era. There are reasons for class distinction to reinforce the presence of aristocratic behavior, and there was the continuing European influence on American society. Nevertheless, Americans had come to understand the proper conduct of their own elite without having to create new words for all of this.

During the 60's, the kind of artificial behavior which had survived the Jacksonians, was condemned in favor of authentic behavior. The reformers of the 60's, who did like to engage in Orwellian re-naming, are the one's responsible for abolishing "ladies and gentlemen". Feminists may have had a grudge against "ladies" because they needed to both destroy the alternate model of aristocratic women's power as well as the boundaries the aristocratic model created between men and women, but it is the conjunction of feminists and the push for informality in society that is responsible here.

Thoughts on Realism

Saw Kissenger on one of the Fox shows arguing that security and stability should be the priority of all wise statesmen. He was asked about Iraq, and just applied his old formula. I contend that Realism made more sense during the Cold War than it makes today. During the Cold War, where the Soviets were eager to exploit insecurity and instability in places like Greece, Turkey, Korea, and Iran from the very begining, to their development of a policy of fomenting communist revolution throughout the third world, it was critical to keep anti-communist governments stable and secure, lest the state be lost like China, Cuba, or Mozambique.

Today, there is no Soviet Union pushing communist insurgencies. While it can be argued that Islamofascism is a threat in Jordan, Moracco, and Turkey, some realism might be called for. This is why the Russians were given a pass in Chechnya, and why Pakistan's government was brought back into the fold. But the more potent force in the long term is democracy. So Kissenger is wrong to prioritize security and stability in all times and places. Some instability is neccesary to bring about democracy. Whether its American intervention in Iraq or covert support for democrats in Iran, a certain amount of instability can yield much greater dividends. We need to have a set of conflicting values, embracing democracy and stability. Where democracy isn't likely, and where the democracies of the world are unlikely to stay involved for the long term, like Sudan, then stability and security means stopping the genocide. Where it is possible and/or where the democracies will commit for the long term, the status quo is a problem.

The Heroic view of Politicians

Richard Engel, writing an essay at MSNBC, starts off with this:

"A Iraqi friend recently asked, "Are the Americans so smart that they have a plan for Iraq that's so complicated that I don't understand it, or are they so stupid that they have no plan at all?" After a paragraph of explanation, the iraqi replied, "My Iraqi friend refused to believe it, insisting that the United States must have a secret, genius plan to serve its long-term interests in the Middle East. "If America weren't clever, how could it be a great power?" he asked rhetorically."

This is the heroic view of politicians. They are bigger, stronger, smarter, better looking, and in all other regards better than regular people. That is why they rule. The alternative, democratic theory of government, is that politicians govern because regular folks selected them. The two theories are not entirely mutually exclusive. There is plenty of evidence that its an electoral advantage to be better looking, taller, appear more fit, and there is substantial evidence that voters need to believe their elected leaders are healthy. This is the remaining heroicism of our electoral politics. TV appeals to the heroic, and so undermines the final squashing of heroic values in politics. In a democracy, there is no reason to assume that politicians are bigger, better, stronger, smarter, or like Achilles and Herakles, close to the gods than we common men. The fact that so many people actually continue to hope that our leaders will be heroes (supermen) may explain some of the hatred for Bush, who appears (other than his remarkable fitness) to be the very opposite of the heroic figure. If one's complaints about Bush focus on his inability to garner the popular vote, one is making a democratic argument. If one's complaints about Bush focus on his speech, his intelligence, his appearance, one is making a heroic argument.

I say all this about our own society, and we have had democracy in one form or another in America since Jamestown and Plymouth. Iraq has been under the rule or monarchs or dictators that explicitly made heroic claims to governance since the mudbricks were piled into cities at Ur and Uruk. I am not saying that bringing democracy is impossible in Iraq, I am just pointing out an obstacle that needs to be overcome.

Growing up Tory

Interesting book excerpt or summary of the work by Jo-Anne Nadler, Too Nice to be a Tory: It's My Party and I'll Cry If I Want To. Its hard to tell what it is, but its written in the first person.

Tories full ahead for School Choice!

"Parents will be able to send their children to any school - state or independent - under a Conservative government, Michael Howard has said." So reports the Independent today. "By giving parents real choice and teachers real freedom success should flourish and failure should wither away." Let's hear it for Michael Howard. As the line goes, read the whole thing.

Keegen critiques Neocons

In the Telegraph this morning, John Keegan offers a solid Realist crtique of the Neoconservatives. I would quibble with his division of the ideological sphere into the religious and the political, but I'll leave it at that.

The Rostra

I bumped into a new blog, the Rostra. Its full of all kinds of classical goodness, and so warms my heart. It does seem a bit tilted to the Platonic, but I'll forgive that as any classicism in this modern world is better than no classicism. I'll certainly be checking in from time to time.

Canadian Elections

Following the link on Instapundit, the Grand Forks Herlad is running this AP story on the Canadian elections. Its a dissapointment that the Liberals have hung on to power, even if it is a minority government. I'll be looking for maps of the voting results as well as statements about and changes in the approach to America.

If I were Emperor of Education...

Jay Mathews of the Washington Post ran an essay by Richard Chapleau on the subject, "If I Were Emperor of Education." I came across links to it at Highered Intelligence, where I also learned that Chris O'Donnell was challenging his readers to offer their own answers to the question.

And so I go, If I were Emperor of Education

I would let the market reign. Rather than a government solution of mass proportions (like mass transit, mass media, mass production, and weapons of mass destruction all products of the modern age) involving standardized curricula, standardized testing, standardized teacher preperation, and stadard textbooks (another feature of the modern age) I would embrace the post-modern possibilities of markets to liberate individual choice. Away with the model of schools designed to suit the age of coal and iron.

Anyone should be able to start a school and see who sends their children. People could form schools to any purpose using any methods, parents will choose to send their children to the school that appeals to them the most. I have no doubt that the best possible results will be achieved when competative pressures are applied to education as they are to the sale of other goods and services.

Canadian Elections

There are elections comming up in the great white north on Monday, the 28th. There is a nice roundup on the subject at the Spectator.

Recenty, I observed that the future of many elections in the world will involve one party tacking pro-American (as in United States of) and the other party tacking against. To a certain degree it has always been so. But where in the past, the less American party premiced itself on "where with America, but..." now in the absence of the Soviet threat, there is no need for this prepratory clause. As I refer to earlier, I disgaree somewhat with VDH on his assessment that Europe is no longer an ally. I look back and see resistance in Europe during the Cold War by parties of the left, and by France on a range of issues. Without the Cold War, this division will become more obvious and more serious. For that reason alone, keeping an eye on foriegn elections will be an important duty for the aware citizen.

The Spectator article mentions a website Canadian Ally dot com which makes the case that Canada is not France. In many ways, this is part of the divide between Quebec and Western Canada as much as it is between left and right. Its easy to look at the government of countries like Canada and Germany and see problems, just as it appeared that Spain was with us before the Madrid attacks. But the Candian right and Western Canada in general are always more sympathetic to notions of "free trade, individual liberty, and military might" and they always are, even when governments of the left get to do the talking.

What's up with the beheadings?

I continue to hear talking heads on the tube suggest that the purpose of the beheadings is to intimidate the West. Its certainly possible that the terrorists might hope for a collapse of western resolve as happened in Spain. But I think they are aware that for the most part, these acts will stiffen resolve. Rather, like Belmont Club, I think that these beheadings are aimed at a different audience: the Islamic world. This makes these attacks more insidious.

What is the deal with détente?

I've seen a lot of slamming of détente going on in the reflections on the Reagan presidency. Most of these commit the error of lumping Nixonian and Carterian détente together. For Nixon, détente was a strategy to ease tensions, to send both boxers back to their corners for a drink of water and removal of blood about the face. In the declining days of Vietnam, America needed a return to the corner in order to come back out into the ring refreshed.

For Carter, détente was an abidcation of the ring, an attempt to abandon the match, hopefull that a draw could be arranged.

But imagine, if you will, along with me. We know that Ford was staging a strong comeback at the end of the 1976 election, and some speculate that if the campaign lasted another two weeks he could have won. So let's suppose that he did. Let's look at his foriegn policy cabinet for his first full term. Let's assume that At some point, Kissenger is replaced by Haig in the new administration. Its unlikely that the old hand of Kissenger would be disirable in a Ford administration elected in its own right. Haig had been made NATO Commander by Ford, so appointment to State is reasonable. This allows us to draw on Haig's subsequent tenure from 1980-82 as a guide to his action. Donald Rumsfeld was made Secretary of Defence in 1975. Let's keep him on. Now the question is, would a Ford, Haig, Rumsfeld team have given away the arms control store, responded to by Afghanistan by quitting the Olympics, and failed to back the modernist Shah against the Islamic fundamentalists?

A Ford, Haig, Rumsfeld team would certainly have made mistakes (being falible humans) but its hard to imagine that one of two outcomes would have been achived. 1) The Soviets would have been contained by the certainty that the Americans would respond forcefully or 2) the more probable case, the Americans would have argued that the Soviets cast aside détente and would not have been constrained by it in their reactions to Soviet support for terrorism, its arms control violations, and the invasion of Afghanistan.

The purpose of this little experiment is to suggest that détente didn't have to mean a Carter foriegn policy. While its certainly true that once we assume a Carter foriegn polciy, Reagan is the solution, that is not the same thing as a blanket condemnation of détente. Indeed in many regards, Reagan's actions were based on restoring the earlier détente, as reflected in his arms control agreements and many meetings with Gorbachov.

Trouble for the Social Democrats?

Two items struck me in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung this morning. Both represent trouble for the Social Democrats. One item is the discontent on the Left with Schröder's Agenda 2010 reforms. These reforms, like those of Blair and Clinton, have attempted to use market solutions and some withdrawal from the nanny state with the purpose of making the remaining social programs, stronger, more robust, and more effective. Rather that seeking to reduce these programs because they are bad, Agenda 2010 seeks to improve their viability in the face of climbing costs. The left rejects this position and advocates higher taxes and more programs. A splinter group has been talking about the possibility of an alternative party since March. The recently met at Berlin's Humboldt University, and plan to assemble a platform in the next month. By the end of the year they plan to have some plans about whether to go ahead with the formation of a new party. This opinion piece on the problem is not optimistic.

The second item is the rise of the Green Party at the expence of the Social Democrats. The support for the Greens has nearly doubled in the past five years, and in Berlin, the Greens outpolled the SDP. The Greens themselves think they have become mainstream, and that may be true, but in light of the above article, its also just as likely that the Social Democrats are hemoraging leftist voters to the Greens. In America's winner take all system, a third way politician could succeed by holding on to their base on the left while attracting swing and centrist voters by moving to the right. In a multiparty parliamentary system, voters can more easily shift to the party next over to the left. In the American system, the appearance of a party even more leftist than the Democrats, such as Nader in 2000, siphons off voters handing the election to the Right. In a parliamentary system the SDP could still govern through a coallition government of the left, but would be forced to make concessions to the allied parties, effectively pulling the center of gravity of the Chancellor's policy closer to the majority of voters. One way to accomplish this is to reorganize the cabinet.

An interesting side note, is that the FAZ reports that one alternative explanation for the Greens success at the expence of the SDP is that the Green's cabinet possitions, the foreign, consumer, and enviromental portfolios, have nothing to do with the domestic cuts involved in Agenda 2010.

In American politics, the political cost of such reforms as welfare and social security reform typically require the appearance of bipartisanship to avoid these effects. With two parties its possible to arrange the crossover votes, the photo ops, and the other trappings of bipartisanship. With a dozen parties, there will always be someone willing to attack the government and collect the votes againts any unpopular reforms, no matter how neccesary. Social Security reform, traditionally the third rail of American politics, has been known to occupy this place. The Agenda 2010 involves Germans in many of the same problems in allocating benefits and costs of its generous social welfare programs.

Travel Safety

There was a nice Explainer in Slate last April on fatality risk of air and rail travel. As any regular readers might have guessed, I am doing some analysis of transportation on a variety of criteria this summer. More will be forthcomming.

What is Iran up to?

John Keegan has a nice piece in the Telegraph on the causes of the current spat (the British patrol boat incident) and the more general problems Iran poses. This line may well be telling:

"An optimistic Western assessment is that its young people reject its religious government and would welcome liberation from the ayatollahs. A more realistic judgment is that, while Iranian youth seeks liberation, it does so within an Islamic context." And, "National pride will encourage the Iranians to become a nuclear power. Western efforts to prevent it doing so risk being counterproductive."

The Telegraph also has an editorial in which they urge Blair to abandon the policy of rapprochement, coordinated with France and Germany, and shift toward the American position.

Finding the Telegraph a much better review of Iranian affairs, I continue. Granted their men are being held there, but this next story is about the Iranian bomb. I will add here that when a country has this kind of an experience as the British have just had with their soldiers, its revealing of how things really are. Unlike the nice words which the diplomats pour so sweetly, these kinds of incidents are telling. Boris Johnson relates some of his experiences with the Iranian ambassador to Britain. He observes, "In deciding whether a country is suitable to wield nuclear weapons, you may think that its promotion of suicide bombers is not an encouraging sign." So when he asks, "on what grounds, exactly, should one country - no matter how powerful - be able to prohibit another sovereign state from acquiring a weapon that the government of that country may desire?" His answer is, " as soon as they have a full and functioning democracy, they can have the bomb that goes with it."

The Guardian, on the other hand, suggests the possibility of, "a grovelling apology from Britain."

More of its not quite democracy in Europe

In March, I mentioned that Europe would be governed in practice by the big states, not by a democratic principle of one man one vote. French finance minister Nicolas Sarkozy has come out saying that this should be done. He identifies six states: France, Germany, the UK, Spain, Italy and Poland. Interestingly, he's the inclusive fellow on this issue. Jacques Chirac would prefer to do things by having France and Germany bully the rest of Europe. Yesterday, Mark Steyn took up the issue of European federalism in his Telegraph article, "Vote No". And why not. Also in the Telegraph was news that Germany, though their spokesman, Bela Anda, "joined France to insist that Britain and other "non-core" countries should be barred from proposing candidates for president of the European Commission."

Its clear that part of this was aimed at torpedoing the candidacy of Chris Patten, who is reported to have said, "Even though I had a lot of support, a couple of the bigger member states said 'nul points'." But still more, France and Germany seek to "control the EU machinery despite being part of a minority group within the enlarged bloc of 25 states." [again quoting from the Telegraph]

Britain is not pleased, and Jack Straw certainly seems less than thrilled. He pointed out that the reading of the constitution allows the president of the commission to come from any member states. But, as they say, some animals are more equal than others. France and Germany would prefer to impose Belgium's federalist prime minister, Guy Verhofstadt on the EU. He was an advocate of building an extra-NATO European army, which is the kind of instrument that Euro-nationalists could use to posit Europe as a rival of America on the world stage.

I'll offer an aside here, because often George Bush is accused of taking needless steps which have antagonized allies, friendly neutrals, and fair weather friends. What kind of step is it to talk seriously about creating such an army? Or supporting someone who does for a top Euro position? Europe is not about to start cutting into its generous social benefits to provide the kind of military spending necessary to pose a real challenge to America. So such a move carries all the downsides of antagonism without any of the upsides of independent policy. Those who are dubious about American policy might wish that Europe could act as a check on American "excess", but such a policy is both costly in terms of political relations with America as well as costing money which European voters would rather spend on their army of bureaucrats. So rather than being a serious challenge, its just a pointless annoyance. Do not believe those who claim that it is Bush who has breached the relationship with "friends". While Bush has done provocative things, he has backed up his policies. For all the disruption, Saddam is gone and Iraq has an opportunity to lead the Arab world into modernity. Whether you think that advances the War on Terror or was a distraction from it, its a real accomplishment. Guy Verhofstadt and his Euro-Army are just provocative disruption without anything to show for it.

France and Germany want the rest of Europe to "keep quiet". The debate is one of whether France and Germany have the ability to govern Europe alone, or, as Nicolas Sarkozy suggests, France and Germany don't have the power to do it. He has pointed to the failure of the Franco-Germans to push through Verhofstadt. But a "big six" is the same game of big state domination over small states. It may be more diverse, and so more capable of imposing its will on Europe, but its still fundamentally at odds with democratic principles.

As I wrote in March, American federalism used a bicameral system to prevent the large states from becoming dominant. The Senate gives equal weight to all states, and thereby prevents the large states from being able to manage policy for the whole country. Europe ought really to regard America as a model in this regard, among others.

Steyn makes the point that this attempt to hold all the power is doomed to fail. "America is the exception that proves the rule, because it's a highly decentralised federation. [...] If America were as centrally governed as France, it would break up. Yet that, in a nutshell, is what the new Europe will be: a jurisdiction the size of America, but as centralised as France." What's ultimately compelling about Steyn's piece (other than the prose, which is always a delight) is that he crafts an argument for both friends of the individual nation states and for a federal Europe. Its rather obvious that the friends of the nation state would oppose the new forms, but given that "the only pan-European state on offer is doomed to fail," friends of the very idea of pan-Europeanism are well advised to nix this offer and hold out for something better.

Iraq/Al Queda Connection

I haven't blogged on this because such nice work was being done elsewhere. Here is an excellent example at Evangelical Outpost.

Fatah bears full responsibility

Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, David Bernstein, quotes the following from Palastinian Authority prime minister Qurei: "We have clearly declared that the Aksa Martyrs Brigades are part of Fatah." "We are committed to them and Fatah bears full responsibility for the group."

Qurei gets no disagreement here.

We realized that we had all been duped

Prof Baimbridge has the corporate law analysis of Air America's implosion. See the WSJ/AP article here. There were apparently sales of assets while debt was being contracted, and now default looms. That sets up credit fraud. Investors were defrauded as well, who had been told that the amount already raised was closer to $30 million, and now it appears to be $6 million.

Euro Center Right looks to Patton

As the EUObserver reports, Jean-Claude Juncker, the favorite of the center right has opted not to leave the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg, so The UK's Chris Patten will carry the mantle of the European People's Party. Silvio Berlusconi nominated Patton. Elmar Brok, a German Christian Democrat MEP, says Patten, "enjoys great popularity in the Parliament". Patton is currently the EU's external relations commissioner. It will be interesting so see how he fairs.

German Opposition eyes 2/3's majority

Christian Social Democrats, the Christian Social Union, and the Free Democrats are looking forward to a 46 seat hold on the upper house. As Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung says, "With this majority, it could block every legislative proposal made by the coalition that passes through the Bundesrat." They need to win in the upcoming Saar elections in the first week of September, then follow up two weeks later with wins in Saxony as well as achieve an upset win in Brandenburg. This will set them up to steal a seat in either the Schleswig-Holstein or North Rhine-Westphalia elections. Should the Christian Democrats and their allies get two thirds of the seats in the Bundesrat by 2005, it will certainly suggest a change in the top spot in 2006 when Schröder's term is up.

Mark Steyn on the new Clinton week of hype

While making my way through the Telegraph, there is this gem by the singular Mark Steyn. Most observers agree that Clinton overshadows Kerry, the question is, does Clinton intend to.

Cars are more fuel-efficient than trains?

So claims a study reported in the Telegraph. The Telegraph article claims that trains have increased in weight: "Virgin's SuperVoyager rolling-stock is estimated to be 40 per cent heavier per seat than the ageing 125s it replaced." Further, "Engineers at Lancaster University said trains had failed to keep up with the motor and aviation industries in reducing fuel needs." This is entirely believable. It reflects the constant effect of the market operating on automobile design and the much more statist approach to railroad procurement. Also in that vein, "Roger Ford, of Modern Railways magazine, said one reason for declining energy efficiency was the impact of health and safety and disability access regulations."

The report continues, "I know this will generate howls of protest, but at present a family of four going by car is about as environmentally friendly as you can get." They include a nice chart worth a look. I would like to look at the numbers, but I would not be surprised if the constant application of engineering effort has improved automobile effeciency substantially while regulations have reduced the effeciency of trains.

Despite this there are questions that the Telegraph didn't explore. Paul Marston, their transport correspondent, gets some criticism from other sources, but most of it is not on point. "Friends of The Earth expressed surprise at the findings, which it said were not in line with previous studies." This may or may not be true, but the notion that studies are not in lock step agreement tells us nothing about which to find credible. Tony Bosworth, of FoE, is quoted as saying, "The main problem is not long-distance travel but the 25 per cent of car journeys which are less than two miles. Those are the least efficient and often the most polluting." I don't know how transportable these statistics are, but the Edinburgh to London trip is not a typical automobile trip, both in terms of its distance or in terms of the number of likely passengers. Bosworth wants to compare apples as well as oranges, and clearly a thorough analysis, of which this Lancaster University study is only a part, would consider not just a sample drive, but would analyze various kinds of drives in terms of their alternatives. The article has nothing to say on intra-city rail. Finally they quote Bosworth as saying, "Cars cause congestion, disrupt communities and are much less safe than trains." All of which would be part of a total analysis of transport alternatives, but does nothing to challenge the claims made by this study that trains cease to be fuel effecient. Not mentioned in the article is the question of how many people actually are riding in cars. I get the impression that the study is presuming more riders in cars than I would have expected, but that might be accurate for the British experience. Some examination, or a nice chart, on the number of riders per mile of travel at least, would be useful. They also seem to assume that the VW Passat is a typical vehcile. Is it? I'd like a variety of vehicles compared based on their prevelence on the road.

What is inescapable is that the study's claims that automobile effeciency increases and railroad effecincy descreases may have made automobiles a much better option than car alternative advocates might have expected. This includes me. I will be interested to see just how widely this analysis can be applied beyond a Passat traveling lengthwise across England. Most notably, the average commute will be my key interest in any analysis I attempt. See my two posts on rail here and here.

The Telegraph also includes an editorial on the subject with this final line, "the environmentalist lobby, traditionally as rigid in its thinking as Victorian missionaries, will have to come up with some new slogans. May we make a modest suggestion? "Save the planet. Jump into your car."

German Revolution?

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung is reporting substantial electoral defeat by Schröder's Social Democrats, the German party of the left. The FAZ's own word for it is "debacle". They report, "The two dominant opposition parties - the Christian Democratic Union and its Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union - are not really interested in a quick change in government." They provide one key reason, that the opposition parties don't want to be saddled with Schröder's “Agenda 2010" in mid course of reform. I suspect they also would prefer to wait out the Iraqi situation a bit longer. Traditionally the Social Dems have been cool on America and the Christian Dems have been the America friedly party. That will be politically easier to pull off after soveriegnty is transfered in Iraq and things have been going well there. Just how Americophillic they will be will be an interesting thing to witness.

In fact, I would not be surprised if the future of politics in many parts of the world is that part of the differences in party result in a pro-America party or parties, and an anti-America party or parties. Its not unprecidented, but I suspect it will be the dominant paradigm, rather than Victor Davis Hanson's prediction that Europe is a lost cause.

How Timely

Recently, I argued that while many of us regarded the War on Terror to be the most important issue, I invented a conjectoral social conservative who was unhappy with the President, based on a caller to the Hugh Hewitt show. My point was, that just because we knew plenty of folks from the far right to the responsible center left (a catagory that includes Joe Lieberman and Bill Clinton) and on to a few like Christopher Hitchens who back the President because of the war on terror, doesn't mean there aren't folks who are unhappy because they prioritize differently.

Andrew Sullivan has added himself to those ranks. Glenn Reynolds mentioned his disagreements with the President, but supports him because the War on Terror is his priority. Arthur Chreknoff has done the same. But, for Sullivan, the priorities are different. I'm not going to attempt to arrange the three areas in priorty as Sullivan sees them, since I am not aware of a systematic approach to these iisues on his part. What I can say, based on his blog and and other statements, is that the domestic issues are very important to Sullivan, namely normalizing the the status of homosexuals in our society, and that this puts Sullivan squarely in opposition to Bush. In economic matters, Sullivan was not crazy about the tax cut and does lament the deficit. Sullivan clearly supports the War on Terror. Whatever support for the War Sullivan has, and on whatever economic issues he may find the President on solid ground, these are not sufficient to sustain his support for Bush. His priorities lead him to withdraw support for a president who he shares agreement with on other issues.

What's Wrong with Forks?

All silverware, but forks especially, suffer from a problem of balance. Too often the busy diner wants to move from here to there and so picks up their plate and the fork falls off. Especially bad are forks weighted in the handle. Too me this seems entirely backwards. When the time comes to utensilize some future kitchen, I will need to seek out a set of tableware which has addressed the problem.

separation of Powers

Those who have a strong commitment to a separation of powers in our society are often liable to support the principle broadly, favorite a divert of power centers in society, and so being suspicious of trusts or other combinations of power which would undermine the defense of liberty. My friends on the right would have no problem recognizing the problems inherent in the alliance of big media with one political party. For similar reasons, its troubling that some accomodationists would happily blur the line between church and state, or deny that the separation of church and state is intended by the 1st Amendment.

Its one thing to be even-handed but separate, its quite another to either attempt to purge religion or to ask the state to endorse religion. Purging religion is to arm the state with an ideological purpose, as is endorsing religion.

One the one hand there should be a concern about allowing the state to acquire power over the operation of churches or the ideas which they promulgate. If you want to see religion remain ideologically independent of the state position on controversial issues, separation benefits religion. Are cultural conservatives normally people who look at the state and say, I want more of that, and give me a double helping of bureaucratic inefficiency and multiple constituency inertia?

Religion, just like markets, flourish when the state gets out of the way. I don't want the state subsidizing steel or Catholicism, and I don't want burdensome regulations or interference which would deny us cherry tomatoes or evangelical outreach.

People are Short Term Optimizers

Professor Bainbridge has an interesting post on setting the economic sliders. I view the economy as governed by four sliders, much like the one that controls your computer's sound volume. As you move any slider the other three are affected. The sliders are productivity, equity, stability, and sustainability. At any given moment, a shift towards greater equity will tend to reduce the other sliders. Over the long term economists have learned how to increase the stability slider a bit while keeping the productivity slider pretty high. We call these Keynesianism and Monatarism.

Specifically, Bainbridge is talking about these choices in terms of corporate governance. In terms of my metaphore, he asks what effect on productivity is had when we try to slide the equity slider toward greater equity as a result of greater labor influence in corporate governance.

My own extended thought experiment in the effects of socialism, but more importantly the long term evidence suggests that a shift which increases equity and lowers productivity has long term consequences for sustainability and stability.

This reinforces the notion that humans are good short term optimizers (and sometimes they prefer to maximize) but that they are poor long term optimizers. They tend to be especially bad when the consequences of action is both temporally distant and indeterminate. Eating a proper diet involves certain short term costs (mostly of a transitional nature) but provides long term benefits. Since the benifit is deferred and the costs are front loaded, eating well (or quitting smoking, or wearing seatbelts) are difficult for humans to sustain. When the consequences are not only deffered but uncertain, they are especially hard to sustain.

So, given a choice between guiding a corporation towards shareholder wealth maximization or improving worker advantages now, workers tend to benefit their immediate selves, even at the cost of their long term selves.

As Jane Galt discusses (here and here) attempts to do both simultaneously. As Bainbridge noted, "my article presents a clear explanation of why some firms find employee involvement enhances productivity and, perhaps even more important, why it fails to do so in some firms." Putting aside the question of those who fail to navigate an increase to equity and productivity, just how real are the achievements of those who appear to achieve both. Galt asks, to what extent are these successes there result of a "stakeholder" model, and to what extent is the success based elsewhere, and the equity benefits are possible therefore?

This kind of situation is very complex and understudied, but I suspect it may well be possible to find combinations of equity benefits (broadly distributed rather than concentrated in stockholder an excecutive hands) and productivity benefits in our current (and future) enviroments.

In general, I would argue that there are minimum thresholds of stability, sustainability, and equity that are required at a given level of productivity, below which, productivity is harmed. Once they are met, any play left in the system can be allocated according to the values of the society setting the sliders. However, productivy has a tendency to produce benefits to the other catagories as it climbs.

This leads me to conclude that in general, the greatest benefits to the greatest number are realized when threshold levels of equity, stability, and sustainability are met and the rest of the play is put into productivity.

Airborne

My brother has caughed up four posts this month so far on his blog. He has, however, revealed that he plans to parachute for his 31st birthday.

Three factions in the Republican Party

I have long held that there are three factions in the Republican party, the social conservatives, the pro-business wing, and the hawks. Today, a few callers to the Hugh Hewitt show were complaining that Bush was spineless because he hadn't done much to advance a conservative social agenda. I called in and made the point that parties are collations, and that the president has opted to spend his efforts on the war on terror (foreign policy) and the recovery via the tax cut. As such, his domestic achievements had suffered. Aside from No Child Left Behind there have been no major policy initiatives.

Now I read in Power Line that the President is commanding a huge lead over Kerry on foreign policy and a substantial lead on the economy. Its as though where the President has made an effort, he has built a popular record. He has placed foreign policy as the top priority and has a huge lead. He has put the economy in second place, doing only enough to cut taxes substantially and release the productive power of the American people. As such, the deficit is left for later. Something of a compromise. People who are committed to some specific or to a broad conservative social agenda seem to be disappointed that the President hasn't been more active. I say the war on terror has crowded out initiatives the President would have taken otherwise.

Hugh responded that he has a forthcoming book on the subject and that he argues that we should measure success in terms of getting 75% for the reasons I have mentioned, rather that focusing on the lost 25% and lamenting failure.

I am interested in what Hugh will have to say on paper. If he means to say that 75% of the conservative agenda has been accomplished I demure and suggest that its more like half. If he means to include the idea that the liberal agenda has been halted at the Federal level during this administration, I will concur.

Let's take a domestic issue, one that the caller raised, gun rights. The President has done nothing to advance the cause of responsible gun ownership by repealing some of the silly Clinton era laws. He has however allowed some to lapse, and certainly not considered any new limitations. Is the glass half full - no move to the left on guns? Or is the glass half empty - no move to the right on guns?

For a guy like me, who considers foreign policy to be the most important issue for a president, who puts economic issues second, and who further more would probably have problems with Bush's social agenda, I feel like I am getting 90-95% of what I want. Aside from the deficit, I'm totally a happy camper.

For a fellow who puts social issues first, economics second, and like me in reverse is not happy with Bush's foreign policy agenda (lets call him a Buchananite in FP), he's getting very little indeed.

I can swallow the deficit and celebrate the tax cut because I'm getting what I want in foreign policy and can ignore Bush's stand on church-state issues, his gay amendment, and some other troubling policies because its mostly talk. For the other guy in my example, who just sees talk in the domestic arena, who doesn't like the President's FP, he cannot swallow the deficit, but rather ends up writing off the tax cut as the only good thing Bush has done.

All I can say to such a fellow, however, is that Bush was your man before 9-11, but he's mine now. Whether you can have him back in a second term is up for grabs.

Note: As anyone who has ever called a talk show might recognize, my phone comments were brief, and my description of them here are elaborated, a benefit of this forum.

Iraqi Trial of Saddam

The way some people are discussing what constitutes a fair trial for Saddam Hussain leaves something to be desired. The question is one of establishing what he really did, and finding a fair punishment. No fair trial would not find him guilty. Its guilty of what, that is the question, and what do we do about it.

Wolfowitz in the WSJ

He outlines policy nicely on Iraq, covering the President's five point plan.

The End is Nie

My brother has seen The Day After Tomorrow and has reviewed it. So, it turns out has Matt Welch. He writes, "Utter horseshit, but damned entertaining."

Which is the Progressive Party?

Reading Roger Simon's post on "Did I leave the left or did the left leave me?" and subsequent comments. A long back and forth takes place as the notion of possitive social change and an adhearance to the status quo is discussed. Most conclude that both parties have on various occassions taken both roles. As someone who worries about the influence of the South on Republican politics, I am heartened to read this comment: "One could argue (as my own Democrat Father does) that the South has become more progressive the more Republican it has become." This means that the old Dixiecrat preservation of the status quo is not a Southern quality which transends party, but something that is being shed just as hostility to the party of Lincoln has.

Highway Follies

Almost three weeks ago I linked to Virginia Postrel's NYT article on highway spending. There has been some back and forth over at the Dynamist on this topic. First, a reader suspects some highways statistics are inflated and unsupportable by methodology. A Senior Staff Economist in the FHWA Office of Policy replies and defends the figure that one billion dollars in spending creates 48,000 jobs. VP remains dubious: "It still doesn't pass the smell test." A few more thoughts by VP on how a great deal of this road spending is "low-value roads with porkbarrel appeal. It also subsidizes neighborhood amenities." Road spending isn't aimed to be effecient expenditure, economically stimulating, but rather is its about political spending to bring dollars back to the district. She continues in a sequential post on how the assumption behind the 48,000 per billion statistic assumes Keynesian disequilibrium of Great Depression proportions.

Are you in an echo chamber?

Too many people are, and here is more evidence. Daniel Drenzer links to a prose stylist who has gone over the Marxist academic cliff. Chun the Unavoidable has mixed feelings about his anthropological discovery of a rare specimen (or so it is supposed), an alleged supporter of, "the President without having an obvious financial interest at stake." As the specimen, Sissy Willis, responds, "We were reminded, of course, of Pauline Kael's reaction to Richard Nixon's landslide presidential victory over George McGovern in 1972: 'How can that be?' she supposedly said. 'No one I know voted for Nixon.'"

Chun the Unavoidable has seemed to avoid a large segment of the population, given the number of people who voted for W. And I wouldn't be surprised if they were avoiding him too. As Virginia Postrel pointed out some time ago, people like it that way. People are congregating more and more with the like-minded. She notes, "The danger, of course, is that people will believe the stereotypes of their political opposites, because they don't actually know anyone on the opposite side of the red-blue divide."

The most interesting people to talk to and to read are those who are dealing with engagement (not neccesarily agreement) across their own boundaries. If you don't talk to and read what other people have to say, people with different assumptions, values, and goals, you are wearing a set of blinders.

The Outsourcing Bogeyman

This is the title of Daniel Drezner's article in Foreign Affairs on this hot election year topic. The heart of the matter is here: "The benefits of such free trade -- to both consumers and producers -- are significant. Cushioning this process for displaced workers makes sense. Resorting to protectionism to halt the process, however, is a recipe for decline."

Condorcet voting method

I came across something interesting on the web this morning. A method of voting advocated during the late eighteenth century by the marquis de Condorcet, the enlightenment mathematician and economist. I am familiar with his economic theories (we slight Condorcet in favor of Adam Smith, but in fact, both are founders of capitalism). In 1785, Condorcet wrote the Essay on the Application of Analysis to the Probability of Majority Decisions, which I had seen refereced, but never described. Here is a nice website on the Condorcet Method. Here is the wikipedia version.

I had always had a soft spot for Condorcet because of his economic ideas, his social ideas, and because I am generally partial to enlightenment figures, but here is another thing to weigh in favor of him.

As someone who laments the way winner take all eliminates the possibility of any escape from the two-party system, as well as the seemingly unresolvable problems of campaign finance reform, the Condorcet method seems quite interesting.

Cosby chastizes those poor parents in the Black community

This story seems to be ignored for the most part by major media out of concern for the minefield that accompanies issues of race. Matt Rosenberg covers it in NRO.

Shattered Glass

The movie is out on home format now, so I rented the DVD, watched the 60 Minutes interview, watched the movie, and watched the movie again with the commentary provided by the screenwriter/director and Charles Lane, who was a writer then the editor during the period of Glass' ficturnalism. Afterwards I went to the web to read the original Forbes coverage. This is Kambiz Foroohar's analysis written at the time. The movie makes him the editor of Forbes Online (which may well be accurate, but movies take liberties). This is Adam L. Penenberg's article on the New Republic piece which brought Glass down. As portrayed in the movie, Forbes is irked that they were scooped, and sets out to write a companion piece with a bit more meat for their business oriented readers. When they look at the story it comes apart in their hands. This is Penenberg's article on the Forbes revelation that the TNR story was no good.

I ended up at the Daily Standard's take, written by Jonathan V. Last. Last is not a sympathetic reviewer, because, I suspect he differs with TNR politically. While he points to all manner of charges against Glass from the Correspondence pages, I'd need to go back and read more of the correspondence to draw form conclusions about how telling these Last prints are. For myself, I would not be surprised if TNR doesn't find charges made by the college RNC, the American Conservative Union, and other similar groups to be disinterested. My old TNR's are in a box and I'll have to get them out at some point and take a look. I have seen some articles in TNR and other places generate heated correspondence, but as Last points out, its not one or even a few pieces that raise eyebrows, some issues are controversial, its that Glass had an unusual amount.

Its a interesting story. The movie was well done, neither sensational nor tedious. The actors were well chosen and interesting choices. I particularly enjoyed seeing Hank Azaria and Steve Zahn playing dramatic roles.

Swingers at Slate

Slate has a new feature on swing states, and its first example is Missouri. Show me!

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.

What's going on with Kerry's medals?

There is a big cloud of dust being kicked up on the right regarding Kerry throwing his medals (or where they ribbons?) over the fence at the White House. This is getting a lot of attention and its obscuring the issue. The fact that Kerry is booting the issue is just drawing more attention to his clumsiness, rather leaving the substance of the contraversy in the self same dust.

The real issue, for those who have missed it or forgotten, is that Kerry's actions and the context in which he undertook them imply a rejection of what many Americans hold dear. Kerry wants to interpret his actions in a way that is more palatable to many Americans. So the contraversy involves an attempt by the right to highlight Kerry's early 70's understanding of his actions in order to argue he's not the right man for the job.

We hear a lot about the fact that he's changing his story. This turns Kerry's current actions into the center ring, which is less damaging I think than his orginal actions. This is because its far more plausable to argue that his understanding of the act is not the same as a reasonable witness might infer. This is also because changing your opinion of things over a distance of thirty years isn't really surprising. Finally, a bit of seeing yourself in a positive light doesn't strike anyone as a grave disability for office.

Recently there is the issue of "where they ribbons or medals?" Kerry booted this one so badly with Charlie Gibson on Good Morning America that his performace becomes the issue. I think some of this goes to communication style. Using Linda McCallister's model, there are three pure styles, the plain speaking noble, the intellectual socratic, and the relationship oriented reflective. George Bush is clearly a noble, so people who find that style acceptable find his communication tolerable or better. I find that a lot of people on the left really want to see some reflective and some socratic style. A figure who can manage both simultaneously (Clinton, a famous candidate style speaker) woos them. A figure like Bush who lacks either style is a real turn off. And yet, I don't see Kerry's media clumsiness and stiffness as a matter of style. I don't know who likes his style. Bush's style really appeals to those who respect the noble communication style. The president went on Russert's show and gave what struck me as a rather medicore performance and his poll numbers jumped. Kerry seems to have the effect that the more people see him, the less the like him. That's just communication, obviously his ideology will appeal to people.

While his revisionist history and his lackluster media performance are getting the talk, I think the key message, the intellectual content of Kerry's words and deeds, are getting overlooked, at least a bit.

Church & State, not exactly chocolate in your peanut butter

I've been reading a bit on Church and State, and its been pushing be towards an Augustinian possition. I have a bit more reading to do (including finishing up Stephen Monsma's Positive Neutrality) and will post at length shortly.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.