Saturday, May 25, 2002
THE GOP DEBATE
All three candidates put in good performances at the debate in the Quad Cities today. At times a bit feisty, the candidates focused most of their verbal ammo on Governor Vilsack. No mention of hog producer Jack DeCoster, however.
Some highlights:
-Most heartening development: All three candidates talked about the need to simplify the Iowa tax code and cut the capital gains tax.
-Biggest disappointment: None of the candidates mentioned cuts in personal or corporate income taxes. Given that all candidates talked about the need to attract more business to Iowa, the lack of a mention about the corporate income tax is particularly puzzling. Iowa has the highest top corporate income tax rate among all states in the nation, at 12%. Surely that would make a good sound-bite.
-No kidding: In response to a reporters question about how the primary winner could emerge without seeming like damaged goods, Doug Gross responded, "I’d prefer to spend all my time criticizing Governor Vilsack."
-Best comeback: When Gross questioned how effective Steve Sukup had been given that he’d missed 24% of House votes during this legislative session, Sukup replied that he’d been traveling around a lot the last 12 months campaigning for governor, "as opposed to those who had just come in lately." Ouch.
-Finally, it’s true that Bob Vander Plaats has improved considerably in the last few months. His performance is now very polished. Two things though. First, his answer to too many questions is "I’ll provide leadership." He needs to get more varied responses. Second, when he is talking about all the top people he’d appoint, he should stop referring to them as the "Best and Brightest."
. . .
HOW TO DEMAGOGUE 101
I’m not sure why Vilsack is caving into Republicans on the Iowa budget. If Vilsack wants to demagogue Republicans, the Des Moines Register is providing him with plenty of ideas, including this one.
CASTRO APOLOGISTS AT THE GAZETTE
Somehow I missed this eye-popper in the Cedar Rapids Gazette yesterday. According to the editorial,
[Bush] said the embargo won't be lifted until Fidel Castro releases political prisoners, conducts independently monitored elections and accepts a list of conditions for a "new government that is fully democratic."
Any acknowledgement by the Gazette editorial that, at least in principle, Bush is right? Any mention that Castro is a brutal tyrant who has oppressed the Cuban people for more than four decades?
Nope. The Gazette dismisses such remarks as "so much gibberish" and "an overt attempt to pander to the Cuban-American voters in southern Florida." I’m sure the political prisoners in Castro’s little island paradise will take a lot of comfort in that.
ANOTHER GEM FROM THE WRITERS GROUP
This one in the Iowa City Press-Citizen is by Carl Beyerhelm. Beyerhelm’s subject is the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Here is the relevant passage:
My prayer is for a just settlement of the issues that now divide them - hard ones indeed, like the re-entry of Palestinians who fled what is Israeli territory at that nation's beginning in the late 1940s. They must also settle the issue of the restoration of land to the Palestinians in the disputed areas where Israelis have established settlements and the emotional issue of Jerusalem, and which nation will control it.
Notice how Beyerhelm thinks the important issues are ones that seem to reflect poorly on Israelis. One might think that the major issue that divides them is an Arab culture that sends its children to blow themselves up to kill Israelis. But somehow that slips below Beyerhelm’s radar
Beyerhelm ends that passage by resorting to that old left-wing standby, moral equivalence:
Hard issues, all of them, and at the root of the problem is the intransigence of extreme views among both peoples.
Ah yes, that’s the problem: Too much extremist thinking on both sides. Never mind that one side engages in too much extremist action.
I wonder, by the way, what extreme views do Israelis have? That they’d appreciate it if certain Palestinians wouldn’t bring plastic explosives when visiting pizza parlors in Israel?
No, at the root of the problem are too many Palestinians who want to drive Israel into the sea and are willing to use terrorism to do it.
IT AIN'T PENCIL DUST
There is this opinion piece in the Des Moines Register from yesterday that is quite flattering of Greg Ganske. If this piece is any indication, Ganske is going to give Harkin a big run for his money.
I’ll just quote one small excerpt. Not long ago, Senator Harkin dismissed the extra $6.1 billion spending in the Senate version of the farm bill as "pencil dust." In response, Ganske is handing out "white pencils with a message printed in blue: ‘Small to Harkin, Big to Us, $6 billion ain't pencil dust.’"
MORE TO COME LATER
I'm off to the GOP gubernatorial debate in Davenport. I'll comment on it later on today.
. . .
Friday, May 24, 2002
LAST BLOG FOR TODAY
A few final things. Two very good pieces at the Daily Standard today. The first is by Chris Caldwell—he nails it on the "Phoenix Memo." The second is by William Kristrol and Robert Kagan. They have a great piece on the Bush Administration’s flirting with the idea of not invading Iraq.
And in Iowa, we have the Dubuque Telegraph Herald with this editorial. Guess they haven’t heard that the state has a budget crisis.
More to come this weekend. I don’t take the weekends off because my brain doesn’t.
. . .
LIES AND DISTORTIONS ABOUT GANSKE
A recent attack ad by the Iowa Democratic Party leaves the strong impression that Representative Greg Ganske (R) worked to weaken patients’ rights. The TV ad encourages viewers to visit www.ganskefacts.com. At the site, the account of Ganske’s actions on the Patients’ Bill of Rights falls under the heading “Protecting Patients.” Here are some key passages:
A Patients' Bill of Rights would give patients and doctors -- rather than insurance company buraucrats [sic] -- the right to determine medical treatments and hold insurance companies accountable when their actions harm their customers [i.e., give trial lawyers the ability to sue the pants off insurance companies.]. HMOs and insurance companies have been working to dilute the measure and pass a weaker version supported by Georgia Rep. Charlie Norwood.
On August 2, 2001, after speaking out against the weaker Patients’ Bill of Rights, Ganske voted for it anyway….
The final vote on the Norwood proposal came on August 2, 2001. Despite opposing the proposal earlier, Rep. Ganske voted for it. [[HR2653, 8/2/2001, House Vote #332]
The truth is that Ganske fought hard to enact a Patients’ Bill of Rights that gave patients an unlimited ability to sue. He had worked closely with Representative Charlie Norwood (R) to pass such a bill. But as the vote in the House of Representatives neared in late July of 2001, the Bush Administration exerted pressure on Norwood for a compromise. Eventually, Norwood compromised with Bush and offered an amendment to the Patient’s Bill of Rights that would limit the amount of medical damages—medical, not economic damages—a person could sue an insurance company for at $1.5 million. In other words, it put a cap on trial lawyers’ fees, something which displeased the Democrats considerably. Ultimately, the Norwood Amendment passed the House by a narrow margin.
However, Ganske actually voted against the Norwood Amendment. In fact, he was one of only six Republicans to do so. (If anything, Ganske should be criticized for not doing more to limit the fees of trial lawyers, not for weakening patient protections.)
It is true, as the Democrat ad points out, that Ganske did ultimately vote for the Patients’ Bill of Rights that contained the Norwood Amendment. Yet Ganske did this not because he favored the Norwood Amendment, but because the Patients’ Bill of Rights contained many things that he did favor, like guaranteeing emergency room treatment, and requiring insurance companies to offer clients an appeals process for when they deny them coverage for a particular ailment. Ganske also hoped that the House-Senate Conference Committee would be able to work out a better bill, as the website does mention. That would not have been possible if the Patients’ Bill of Rights was defeated in the House. And the final vote was close, 226-203. Ganske probably feared that if he voted against the bill, it might fail.
Thus, Ganske voted against an amendment that limited patients’ ability to sue, and voted for a bill that in many ways expanded patient protection. But Iowa Democrats suggest that Ganske voted to weaken patient protections—a blatant distortion. What makes this even more duplicitous is that Democrats almost surely know that Ganske acted this way. In the passage quoted from the Democrats’ website, you’ll notice that they have listed the vote on the Patients’ Bill of Rights as House Vote #332. They likely obtained that information from Congressional Quarterly. The vote on the Norwood Amendment (Vote #329) is on the same page of Congressional Quarterly as Vote #332. Unless the Democrats behind the website are incredibly lazy, they must surely know that Ganske voted against the Norwood Amendment.
Of course, none of this should come as a surprise. Leave it to Democrats to engage in distortions. They should consider giving the website a new address, www.liesaboutganske.com.
. . .
THE FIREMEN FIRST PRINCIPLE—IOWA STYLE
Are ya gonna git ‘em, Patty?
(Note: This was written by my colleague John Sandell. He and his lovely wife Judy were gracious enough to invite me over to their house for a barbeque Wednesday evening. John, the chicken was delicious! But, anyway, let’s get to your blog.)
Iowa Agriculture Secretary, Patty Judge, doesn’t like furloughs. In fact, she dislikes them so much she wants to show us all just how bad they are for “her” employees. First, she furloughs the meat inspectors on the Friday before Mother’s Day in hopes that mothers and grandmothers across the state will have a little less to eat at the local buffet on their special day. And now, she furloughs those same inspectors on the Friday before the kick-off of the Summer Barbeque season. Another furlough is announced for early June, also on a Friday.
Ms. Judge held a press conference before the Mothers Day hiatus in which she claimed her hands were tied and she could do nothing about the furloughs. Excuse me, when did the legislature instruct the furloughs to be on Fridays? The plan was ½ day per week or 2 days per month. The department heads were to manage how and when the plan was executed.
Secretary Judge had a number of options in managing this event. She chose the Firemen First Principle. This Principle holds that when a bureaucracy is faced with budget cuts, it threatens to cut the most essential services, like Firemen, first. This will anger the voters, who will in turn pressure their legislators to not make the budget cuts. In this particular case, Judge is furloughing the meat inspectors when they are needed most, before two of the biggest days of the year for the restaurant industry. Her timing is the epitome of cynicism.
Most Iowans like to think their elected officials operate in the best interest of the citizenry. We like living in Iowa where politics is not the main topic of conversation. If we wanted our elected officials to act like politicians, we’d all move to Illinois. But Patty Judge thinks we need a good dose of politics, especially now when many state services will be examined.
Iowans believe that our elected officials will try their best to keep us from spending ourselves into fiscal oblivion. Patty Judge knows that her department is far less significant than Education, Human Services, or others. Nice try, Patty, but the Firemen First Principle is really another way of rubbing our noses in it. Next November, let’s hope the voters remember which option Patty Judge chose. For the $85,429 we pay her, we deserve better.
. . .
ON THE BLOGOSPHERE
Some good ones out there in Blogistan today. Dr. Manhattan at Blissful Knowledge has some good advice for President Bush. The Daily Rant takes issue with those in the media now criticizing the Bush Administration for issuing terrorism warnings. This one in Coyote at the Dog Show appeared yesterday, but it still deserves a link. Seems New Orleans airport had its own mini-version of Flight 93.
Also on the internet, this editorial from the Ames Tribune about the Farm Bill is quite good. The second to last paragraph is especially pointed.
. . .
IOWA BUDGET CRISIS: TAX CUTS OR SPENDING?
It looks like Governor Vilsack has surrendered and, much to the chagrin of Iowa liberals, will sign into law Republican spending cuts.
No doubt this will greatly distress the Des Moines Register editorial board. On Sunday, May 12, they put the blame for the current state budget crisis on, well, you can guess. And if you can’t here’s the link, and here’s the relevant passage:
I's [sic] not only the sluggish economy that's to blame for Iowa's persistent budget problems. Or the higher-than-expected state income-tax refunds. Or the rising bill for Medicaid. Or the unnecessary and inefficient areas of government in the state. It's something else, too: All those tax cuts Iowa made in the 1990s.
No, it isn’t. Some research done by my colleague Steve Garrison and I (most of the credit goes to Steve) reveals some interesting findings.
First, we found that the cuts in personal income and inheritance taxes did not harm state revenues. The cuts were enacted in 1998, and revenue from personal income and inheritance taxes only dipped in 1999. However, in the year 2000, revenues from those taxes saw their biggest increase in close to a decade, a whopping 9.11% in one year! Score one for supply-side economics. Furthermore, total revenues to the state government have grown an average of 4.3% since 1998. Thus, the current budget crisis is not due to tax cuts.
It is due to over-spending. This graph shows the rate of growth in Iowa’s population, inflation, and state spending from 1998-2001. A reasonable argument can be made that increases in government spending should be related to increases in population or inflation. Increases in population would, theoretically, increase demand for government services. Inflation raises prices, thereby increasing the cost of running government. The average growth in population and inflation in Iowa for 1998-2001 was 0.3% and 2.5%, respectively. The average growth in state spending, by contrast, was 6.1%. This means that government spending grew at more than twice the rate of inflation, and more than twenty times the rate of population growth!
Clearly, the Iowa state government spent too much the last few years. Thus, the appropriate remedy to the current crisis is spending cuts, not tax increases.
One last point about the Register editorial. Toward the end, there is this interesting sentence:
Is it time to - despite our recent tax cuts - assess where we might restore some of the revenue we lost in the last decade?
There are many ways that liberals call for tax increases without calling them tax increases. Add “assess where we might restore some of the revenue” to the list.
. . .
PAY YOUR TAXES AND BE HAPPY
It looks like the editorial page of the Iowa City Press-Citizen committed a Freudian slip in its most recent lament over the budget crisis. Below is the relevant passage. Pay close attention to the last sentence:
Gov. Tom Vilsack toured eastern Iowa this week in anticipation of the Republican proposal. His message was clear: It's time to tap the Road Use Tax Fund.
We agree.
There is only so much a people can take before we wonder why we're paying taxes at all.
And we can’t have that now, can we? If more and more people start to think about what their taxes are really paying for, they might start to question whether some of the state government spending is all that necessary. That could result in calls for even more budget cuts. Better that folks just happily pay their taxes and not give it a second thought.
It appears that those at the Press-Citizen never wonder about why they’re paying taxes. Here’s a newsflash for the Press-Citizen: Many of us have been wondering about it for years!
IOWA’S VERSION OF DIALLO?
Here’s the headline to a story in the Des Moines Register this morning:
3 Officers in Face-Off Fired Guns 24 Times
Nothing suggestive about that headline, right? Right.
The synopsis is that three Iowa State Patrol officers pulled over a van of four bank robbers back on February 26. Two of the robbers, brothers Henry Simmons and Paul Simmons, were shot dead by the officers. Henry Simmons was killed after he got out of the van and pointed a handgun at the officers that turned out to be a BB gun. Paul Simmons was killed as he leaned over the front seat with another handgun, which also turned out to be a BB gun.
Here’s a few things the that writer of the article doesn’t understand:
First, the Lone Ranger may have been able to shoot the gun out of a bad guy’s hand with only one shot, but that was Hollywood. In the real world, officers faced with a suspect pointing a gun at them tend to feel a bit stressed. That often affects their aim, and so they must fire multiple times to stop the suspect.
Second, it is harmful to your health to point something that looks like a real gun at police officers.
SECOND THOUGHTS ABOUT COLEMAN’S SPEECH
On Monday I posted a blog critical of the University of Iowa President Mary Sue Coleman’s commencement address to the College of Liberal Arts. In her speech, President Coleman emphasized the importance of a "liberal" education in the wake of September 11. I remarked that while that was true, she was way off-base to suggest that UI actually provides such an education.
Lately I’ve been having some second thoughts. Perhaps I was too harsh on President Coleman. (No—scratch that last part. My judgements are always the paragons of fairness, right? Okay, okay. You can stop laughing now.)
What occurred to me was this: Would someone like President Coleman have even made a speech like that a year ago? Probably not—to praise a "traditional" idea at a university at that time would have seemed like heresy. A look at last year’s commencement address finds that it extolled the virtues of a public university and, naturally, how UI exemplified those virtues. Always a safe subject. But now with the West and its values under attack by a determined enemy, President Coleman feels compelled to promote the sort of education that fosters such values. Maybe she deserves some kudos for that.
This leads me to ponder whether the saying is true, that September 11 really has changed everything.
Nah.
If President Coleman would propose eliminating the current General Education program at UI and replacing it with a limited number of courses that focused on Western Civilization: That would be changing everything.
. . .
Thursday, May 23, 2002
NO BLOGS TODAY
Sorry my friends, but I need to finish a big project at work before the boss leaves town tonight. (To see where "work" is, click here.) I promise a lot of good stuff for tomorrow including some second thoughts on UI President Coleman's commencement address, comments on the Iowa budget crisis, and an analysis of the anti-Greg Ganske tv ads.
In the meantime, click on CORN CAM to the right and watch the corn grow. It's sprouting! Really! Exciting stuff.
. . .
Wednesday, May 22, 2002
E-MAIL LEADS TO A NEW LINK
I received the following e-mail yesterday:
As a fellow Iowan (I live in the People's Republic of Iowa City) and fellow blogger, I read your site just about every day. It's great having source to go to each day that discusses politics in Iowa from a conservative perspective (and also understands that we live in the Hawkeye state, not the Cyclone state). Keep up the great work!
Sincerely,
Jason Steffens
Thank you for the kind words, Jason. Looking at your site, “News for Christians,” I notice you have a link to my site. Well, one good turn deserves another!
UPDATE ON BROCK
Thanks to Croooow Blog, I was made aware of this news about David Brock. I certainly hope that Brock is doing better now. I should note that Croooow Blog has put up a number of blogs on Brock’s mental illness that are well worth reading.
. . .
BROCK, KIRKPATRICK, AND CALERO
Stanley Kurtz of National Review has now weighed in on Tim Noah’s recent dissection of David Brock. At issue is Brock’s account of a speech that Jeane Kirkpatrick gave at UC Berkeley in 1983. At the speech, Kirkpatrcik was shouted down by left-wing protestors.
Numerous aspects of Brock’s account are at issue including this one:
As an exasperated Kirkpatrick pivoted toward the law school dean for assistance, a protestor leaped from his seat just offstage and splashed simulated blood on the podium.
Both Noah and Kurtz dispute that any blood was splashed on the podium. Given that they rely on both firsthand accounts and newspaper articles of the events, why did Brock, even as fertile as his imagination is, include it in his account?
Perhaps he got the idea from a similar incident that occurred two years later at Northwestern University. In that case, Adolfo Calero, then leader of the Nicaraguan Contra Rebels, was scheduled to give a speech in Harris Hall at Northwestern. The notorious leftist student group InCAR (International Committee Against Racism) led a rambunctious protest in Harris Hall before Calero arrived. As Calero arrived to give his speech, a protestor rushed the stage and splashed him with a red liquid. The liquid was described as both paint and animal blood.
This incident received notoriety because it put the tenure chances of English faculty member Barbara Foley, who played a lead role in the protest, in jeopardy. In what was probably the last known display of courage by a university administrator, Northwestern President Arnold Weber ultimately denied Foley tenure. The story was chronicled by Joseph Epstein in Commentary and, most notably, by Charles Sykes in his book ProfScam. (I’ve put up a link to the relevant passage from ProfScam here.)
Was Brock aware of what happened at Northwestern? Well, Brock is a well-read, well-connected journalist. Thus it is by no means unreasonable to assume that he either read or heard about the incident. Since Brock often, er, embellishes, he probably slipped what happened to Calero into his account of what happened to Kirkpatrick.
This may cast even more doubt on whether Brock was actually present at the Kirkpatrick speech. But given Brock’s apparent proclivities, he’ll probably just say he was confused and was really at the events in Harris Hall.
ARE THEY STICKING TO THEIR GUNS?
The Republicans in the Iowa Legislature appear to be serious about budget cuts. The Des Moines Register actually has a pretty good article about it. Believe it or not, it doesn’t portray the proposed cuts as the first step in bringing the world to an end!
A few thoughts on two snippets:
Vilsack charged that Republican proposals to balance next year's budget "will harm children by not providing access to computers at school, reducing training for the work force and jeopardizing the quality and affordability of education."
Looks like Vilsack has finally gotten out the Clinton playbook. Now, Governor, if you can just work in some remarks about how the Republican budget plan will make Iowa air and water dirtier, and will force seniors to start eating Alpo, you’ll have a hat trick!
This is the best news in the article:
Attorney General Tom Miller said a proposed reduction of 24 percent, or $2.5 million, in his budget would undermine his staff's ability to fulfill its duties.
Here’s an enlightening bit on the increasing irresponsibility of State Attorney Generals around the nation. Tom Miller is definitely part of this group. If budget cuts would force him to give up some of his more frivolous lawsuits, then budget cuts are a very good thing indeed. Perhaps he could start by dropping his destructive case against Microsoft.
VILSACK A SHOO-IN?
Mike Deupree in the Cedar Rapids Gazette thinks that the current Gross-Sukup feud shows that Governor Vilsack will win reelection. It’s a interesting column, but lets’ hope he has to eat his words come November.
WARNING TO TERRORISTS
You might want to reconsider targeting the Statue of Liberty. If you think the American people were ticked about the World Trade Center, try knocking down the Lady with the Torch. We’ll make Afghanistan look like a tea party.
. . .
Tuesday, May 21, 2002
REVISIONIST HISTORY?
This column was in today’s Omaha World-Herald. David Grimes thinks that since high school seniors do so poorly on history tests, schools should change the tests. His suggestions are hilarious. My only concern is that educators will take him seriously.
. . .
EGO BOOSTING TIME
The Site Meter says that Cornfield Commentary gets an average of 42 visits and 62 views per day. Not too bad for being a citizen of Blogistan for under two weeks. The way I understand it, the “visit” statistic tracks the number of individual computers (and, of course, the web-browsers in those computers) that actually visit my site, and the “view” statistic tracks the number of times those computers actually visit the site. In other words, some people use their computers to view my site more than once a day. Probably means that my mom is logging on numerous times. Thanks Mom!
Furthermore, a few other bloggers have taken notice. This one was posted on Cut on the Bias:
THE MINNEBOMBER ISN'T CRAZY, just a product of modern education, according to Thomas Sowell. He sounds like a grumpy old man here, but makes good points nonetheless.
Link via Cornfield Commentary.
posted by susanna cornett
Thank you, Susanna. And Thomas Sowell usually sounds that way. That is one reason I like him so much.
And this one appeared on Craig Schamp’s website:
CORN FED BLOG
When I checked email before turning in for the night, what do I find, but a tip to check out Cornfield Commentary by David Hogberg. He writes from Iowa, and although my home state of Ohio is a long way from Iowa, the two states are closer in many ways than the map would lead you to believe. I'll add David's blog to my list of links. Take a look at it when you get a chance. I think you'll like it. He's apparently not sponsored by the Supermarket to the World.
Thank you, Craig. And no, I’m not supported by ADM. If I was, I would be unable to rip the ethanol program, which I promise I will do at some point in the future.
Anyway, I’d love to see some e-mails from all of you who visit my site. Comments, and especially criticism, are welcome.
Here’s hoping that CC keeps growing.
P.S. Earlier I griped about the Bush Administration decision to not allow pilots to carry firearms. Mr. Schamp has an interesting blog about this on his website (link above or to the right.)
. . .
MAKING IOWANS PROUD
Who was that on Fox and Friends this morning defending President Bush and smacking the Democrats for their cowardice? Why, it was Iowa’s own Senator Charles Grassley! Unfortunately, I can’t find the interview on the FoxNews website. I’ll keep looking though. It is a classic example of why Grassley is easily Iowa’s finest politician.
COULD MAKE IOWANS PROUD
While I’m currently praising politicians, I should note this piece in the Cedar Rapids Gazette on GOP Senatorial candidate Bill Salier. I’ve met Salier only once, last year. He seemed like a very affable man. The article indicated that he continues to improve as a campaigner. I’ll repeat what I wrote in an earlier blog: I hope he uses this race as a springboard to run for office down the road.
COULD ALSO MAKE IOWANS PROUD
Boy, three in a row! I must be in a nice mood, even though the website was down this morning. Anyway, lost in the Gross-Sukup feud is a very good candidate for the GOP nomination for Governor, Bob Vander Plaats. I met him twice last year. He was friendly and easy-going, although a little awkward on the stump. I’ve heard that he has improved tremendously in recent months. Listening to his recent radio interviews seems to confirm it. Unfortunately, he trails both Gross and Sukup in the polls by a considerable amount. Nevertheless, there is a good write-up about him in the Quad City Times. What I recommended for Salier goes double for Vander Plaats.
WHEN GUNS ARE OUTLAWED, ONLY TERRORISTS WILL HAVE GUNS
Okay, I’ve gotten all my “nice” out of me now: After all the liberal hand-wringing of the last few days over what the Bush Administration could have done pre-September 11 to prevent the terrorist attacks, you would think that the Administration would show a little moxy and stick it to their critics with a “You want preventive policies? Here’s your preventive policy!” Instead, it is rejecting the one policy that had a realistic chance of stopping the terrorists dead in the tracks. I’m sure the liberals are cheering.
MORRIS: WHAT CLINTON KNEW
Morris’ column in the NY Post is filled with memorable lines like: The party of Clinton and the wife of Clinton seem also to have forgotten the admonition that those who dwell in glass houses should not throw stones, let alone hurl boulders. This one has probably made its way around Blogistan already, but I’ll post a link to it here anyway since it is quite good.
SOME COMMON SENSE ON THE FARM BILL
A good letter-to-the-editor in the Washington Post trashing the farm bill. This is my favorite part: Butchers, bakers and candlestick makers are able to earn a living in the free market. Why not farmers?
. . .
POSTS ARE COMING
Sorry my friends, but there were some glitches in the system this morning. Hopefully they are all fixed now. Some posts will be up soon, probably within the hour.
. . .
Monday, May 20, 2002
NRO TODAY
Three good ones at the National Review Online today. The first is on the Bush tax cut, the second is on Bush’s plan to deal with Castro, the third on what Bush didn’t know. Is there a theme here?
. . .
U.S. AND AFGHANISTAN TREAT WOMEN THE SAME
I’ll say this about the Writers Group in the Iowa City Press-Citizen: It is seldom dull.
Today’s nifty little piece is by Reginald Williams. The crux of William’s argument is that America is the moral equivalent of Afghanistan when it comes to the treatment of women.
The first hint that this column is an exercise in sophistry comes in the title, “Rape: America’s ugly secret.” Given all the media attention that rape has received in the last fifteen or so years, one wonders how exactly it is a “secret” that women are raped in the United Stated. But for those on the left, a secret is anything that they think is important but we are not obsessing about every minute of the day.
Next, Williams spouts off highly controversial statistics as though they are carved in stone: In America, a woman will be raped every two minutes. One out of every three women in the United States will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. For a little on the controversy of these statistics, visit here and here.
These statistics form the foundation for William’s contention that America is no better that Afghanistan. He then writes:
Rape is not a crime of passion. Consider the disregard you must have for another human being to perpetrate this crime. How is this any different from the Taliban, except that they were overt about it?
Williams apparently sees no difference between Afghanistan, where the government made a concerted effort to oppress women, and America, where the government is actively involved in protecting women from rape. But for those who don’t care much for America, making such a distinction proves to be too difficult
Finally, Williams resorts to the typical left-wing posture of “America should throw no stones.”
Before we can talk about another country's atrocities, we need to look at our own. The Taliban and many countries have acted abominably toward women, but America is far from innocent in the way we continue to disregard half of our population….Before we criticize anyone else, we need to check and remember our own history.
According to this logic no one in America should criticize other countries until we have undergone a thorough accounting of our own problems. However, I don’t recall that logic stopping anti-apartheid protestors in the 1980s. I doubt too many of them said to themselves, “You know, South Africa treats its black population abysmally, but I really can’t criticize South Africa because we have a history of racism here in the U.S. So I’ll just shut-up until this country completely accounts for its past wrongs.”
Just because America is imperfect does not mean that we are in no position to criticize others around the world. In fact, we have every moral reason to do so when our nation is superior to others: In America, women are not denied access to health-care, education or careers as they were in Afghanistan and as they still are in other places in the world. One might even say that women are actively encouraged to pursue education and a career in this country. So as long as America remains superior in this respect, feel free to keep the criticism coming.
Alas, William’s screed is typical of the anti-Americanism that infects the Writers Group. They can’t see much difference between America and the worst elements in this world, so why should we expect them to see a difference between us and Afghanistan?
. . .
TRADITONAL 'LIBERAL EDUCATION'? NOT AT UNIVERSITY OF IOWA
In her Saturday, May 18, commencement speech to the College of Liberal Arts, University of Iowa President Mary Sue Coleman congratulated the graduates on their “liberally educated” minds. As she put it:
By exploring the mysteries and uncertainties of such a broad range of human thought and experience, you have become liberated from the shackles of intellectual narrowness and limitation–the prize goal of a mind educated in the liberal arts and sciences.
A liberal education is important, she claimed, because “at the beginning of the 21st century, we are experiencing, even right here on our home ground, tragic object lessons about the importance of the type of liberal intellect that I have been describing.”
Certainly, the events of September 11 showed the importance of Western values, values which are emphasized in a “liberal education.” But does the University of Iowa really provide students with a liberal education?
Traditionally, a liberal education meant that students were exposed to the best of what has been written and thought. It meant that students studied the great works of Western literature, or the “canon,” including authors such as Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Shakespeare and others. This literature forces students to confront complex ideas and helps them develop critical thinking skills.
Until about twenty years ago, a university’s “General Education” (G.E) program required students to take courses that exposed them to the canon. Does the G.E. program at UI expose students to the canon? Apparently President Coleman thinks so:
During those hot summer days four or more years ago, you sat in the IMU during orientation and probably felt overwhelmed by the long list of course requirements and the maze of available class options before you. Very likely, as you looked over that mysterious conglomeration called the General Education Program, you wondered, "What in the world do courses like ‘Literature of the African Peoples' and ‘Principles of Microeconomics' have to do with each other?" Well, I hope you've discovered over the last few years that they have everything to do with each other. I hope you've discovered that understanding the narrative structure of an ancient Greek drama helps you understand the course of World War II.
A study I did last year on the G.E. programs at Iowa’s public universities found that UI’s G.E. program is hopelessly fragmented. The key finding is on page four. In 1960, UI’s G.E. program consisted of 33 courses; in 2000, it consisted of 296. Some of the courses in the G.E. program have titles that suggest they do expose students to the canon. But the G.E. program does not requires students to attend those courses. Instead, they can fulfill them with the likes of “Dance and Society,” “Literature and Sexualities,” “Group Piano,” and “History of Electronic Media.” In short, the G.E. program does not require students to learn much about Western Civilization.
President Coleman is right to suggest that the events of September 11 have accentuated the need for students to acquire a liberal education. Unfortunately, the University of Iowa does very little to provide one.
WHILE I’M ON THE SUBJECT…
While I’m on the subject, I found this gem at the Independent Women’s Forum while doing some research for a later blog. Not only are universities failing at providing a traditional liberal education, some courses mimic communist re-education camps.
. . .
FOCUS, FOCUS
The Des Moines Register ends an editorial on the state budget crisis this way:
In the coming political season, the focus in Iowa should be about how to fix the problem, not who caused it.
Fair enough. Now let’s just get the focus right: It is spending cuts, not tax increases, that will solve the problem.
A NEW NATIONAL HOLDIAY!
I missed this opinion in the Iowa Falls Times-Citizen the other day.
Headline: It may be time to set aside a national holiday for nudity
As long as Britney Spears leads the parade, it works for me!
. . .
COMMENTARY ON COLEMAN'S SPEECH
Sorry, but I brought the wrong disk home from the office today. My comments on Coleman's speech will appear tomorrow, probably late morning.
. . .
Sunday, May 19, 2002
E-MAIL ABOUT CAMERON HELDER
I have received an e-mail regarding an earlier post I made about Luke Helder's father, Cameron. Here it is:
Helder's dad has been I think unfairly criticized for the comment you dismissed with an "ugh." The father made this statement at a time when everyone was trying to bring the boy in with no injuries to either the son or law officials. In those circumstances, I think the father was being reasonable, and I don't take it as anything other than an appropriate tactic for the moment.
Don
Here are the remarks that Don is referring to:
“I really want you to know that Luke is not a dangerous person,” Cameron Helder said. “I think he was trying to make a statement about the way our government is run. I think Luke wants people to listen to his ideas. Not enough people are hearing him, and he thinks this may help.”
Then the father, his voice choking, made a plea to his son: “Luke, you need to talk to someone. Please don't hurt anyone else. It's time to talk. You have the attention you wanted. We love you very much. We want you home safe. Please call Mom, Jenna and I.”
They appeared in this Des Moines Register article.
First, looking back on my previous posts, I’m concerned that I may have appeared to trivialize the emotional pain Cameron Helder was obviously in at the time. I intended no such thing. Mr. Helder must have been going through—and surely still is—incredible agony.
What does concern me is that Mr. Helders’ remarks in the first paragraph seem to trivialize what Luke did. I can understand that Mr. Helder was trying to help the authorities bring Luke in without harm. But why were remarks in the first paragraph necessary to do that? Wouldn’t the remarks in the second paragraph have done the job? Perhaps my very limited knowledge of police and FBI tactics undermines my argument here.
Anyway, I appreciate the e-mail, and would like to hear from more of you. Note: I am more likely to post critical e-mails.
. . .
LOTS OF GOOD STUFF IN HAWKEYE LAND TODAY
And I mean good stuff.
Bill Mertens has this in the Burlington Hawkeye about a local Democrat feuding—no wait, sucking up—with a local union.
A couple of things on one of my favorite subjects, taxes:
-An editorial in the Cedar Rapids Gazette agreeing with Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill about the need for tax simplification.
-An outstanding column in the Des Moines Register taking to task those people calling for Iowa to raise taxes to deal with the state budget crisis. The opening paragraph is fabulous:
The liberal percussionists beating the gong for tax increases in Iowa have stepped up their pace. It's at a brisk, allegro tempo these days. We're hearing it from the labor unions, left-of-center editorial writers, college-town politicians and academics along with just about anyone else who suckles from a state government spigot.
I can’t determine who wrote it. The headline suggests David Yepsen, the by-line suggests David Elbert. Whoever it is, nice work!
-Good column by Rob Borsellino in the Register about last night’s GOP gubernatorial debate. Yesterday I wrote it was getting interesting and nasty. And it is.
-There is this one on the front page of the Register: 25% of school seniors read poorly. This is no surprise to me. Up until last year, I taught college students here in Iowa. They’re coming to college increasingly unprepared.
-And finally, University of Iowa President Mary Sue Coleman gave her commencement address yesterday. I’ll have comments later in the evening.
. . .
|
. . .
|
