Saturday, July 13, 2002
WE NEED REGULATIONS, CONSEQUENCES BE DAMNED
This editorial in the Des Moines Register is a textbook case of what happens when liberals start contemplating government regulations. They end up loving them so much that (1) they don’t consider the consequences of such regulations, and (2) they propose ones that are superfluous to the problem.
In the case of corporate corruption, the Register proposes that
it might be wise to ban stock options altogether as a form of executive compensation, because they create temptations to manipulate the stock price so the options can be exercised for huge personal gain.
In fact, it would be very unwise. First, as I’ve argued before, it’s not clear that manipulating stock prices is a widespread problem or simply a matter of a few bad apples. Second, and more importantly, banning stock options would make it very difficult for new business start-ups to attract quality CEOs. New start-ups generally don’t have the funds to offer generous salaries to talented CEOs. To attract them, they offer large stock options. Banning such options will make it more difficult for new businesses to succeed. I’ll assume that is not what the Register wants.
On the superfluous score, the Register suggests that we
Penalize companies that nominally move offshore to avoid paying taxes. Being a responsible U.S. citizen should be expected of a corporation enjoying the benefits of U.S. laws.
What on earth does that have to do with corporate malfeasance? Nothing. Corporations trying to avoid taxes really puts a bug up the Register’s butt, so they try to slip this one hoping that no one will notice. If the Register is really concerned about corporation trying to avoid taxes, they ought to suggest cutting the corporate income tax. Oh wait, we’re talking about the Register editorial page.
. . .
JOHN STOSSEL—NOT HIS BEST
Henry Hanks at Croooow Blog thinks that Stossel delivered last night. As much as I really like Croooow Blog, I respectfully disagree. In my opinion, Stossel missed the mark. His program last night was missing the key ingredient that makes his specials so effective; namely, he didn’t really puncture any cherished myths or sacred cows. For example, in his last special, "Tampering with Nature," he went after prevalent beliefs like the environment is getting worse, and that humans only despoil nature. Last night’s special challenged the belief that the media is usually accurate. Sorry, but that’s not longer a prevalent belief among Americans. More and more Americans distrust the media all the time. Ultimately, it seems as if Stossel’s program aired about ten to fifteen years too late.
Here’s the link to Croooow Blog’s blog on the subject. His website is still having problems, so it is likely to lead to nothing but "Page Not Found."
. . .
Friday, July 12, 2002
THE VOTE WAS LOADED
The Daily Nonpareil didn’t care for the House approval of guns in the cockpit. The Nonpareil cited the lopsided vote, 310-113, as evidence of something that is wrong with the mentality of Congress. Perhaps it’s simply evidence of how much sense the policy makes.
. . .
HOW WILL THE HAWKEYE BASKETBALL TEAM DO?
I predict the team will go 12-3-9, as in 12 indictments, 3 convictions, and 9 acquittals. They're off to a good start. Junior center Sean Sonderleiter has already been busted with marijuana. Now last season’s red-shirt freshman, Erek Hansen, a 6 foot 11 up and coming center, is what they euphemistically call "academically ineligible." That is, he flunked too many damn classes. Oh, it could be a long season—and it hasn’t even begun yet.
. . .
TECH CENTRAL BABE IS BACK—AND SHE APPEARS IN IOWA!
Sonia Arrison has this piece at Tech Central Station suggesting what the market can do about Spam. She had a slightly different version that appeared in the Los Angeles Times and has found its way to the editorial page of the Daily Iowan.
. . .
TAKING A PRO-PALESTINIAN GROUP TO TASK
The Daily Iowan has this good editorial by Raymond Tinnian in response to an Orwellian editorial by the People for Justice in Palestine.
. . .
NO KIDDING
The reward for understatement of the year should go to the author of this editorial in the Quad City Times. The writer deplores the state of Major League Baseball, and ends with this sentence: “It’s only appropriate now that, through reform, baseball must mend its relationship with the customers who love the game.”
. . .
RELIGION IN IOWA PUBLIC SCHOOLS: YES OR NO?
This article in the Des Moines Register by Shirley Ragsdale examines a lawsuit by two teens who were barred from distributing religious material in a Davenport area public school. Interestingly enough, the Iowa Civil Liberties Union has joined the suit on behalf of the students. This puts the ICLU in a bit of a tricky situation because, as noted by the article, it earlier sued to block “Woodbine High School's 74-member choir from singing ‘The Lord's Prayer’ at graduation ceremonies.”
Thanks to reader John Ferguson for the heads up on this.
. . .
BASEBALL AND 9/11
Jonathan Last has this really good piece in the Weekly Standard about what would happen to baseball if the players decided to strike just before the one year anniversary of September 11.
. . .
Thursday, July 11, 2002
WHO'S RUNNING YOUR LAW FIRM?
This one in the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier is a bit dated, but it gives insight into how Doug Gross could lose the election. Primarily, he seems to be his own worst enemy.
. . .
THE SOCIAL SECURITY SCARE-TACTICS HAVE BEGUN
According to this letter to the editor in the Sioux City Journal, South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson is busy scaring seniors about how John Thune will take away their Social Security if elected. I’m sure Johnson won’t be the last Democrat to do so.
. . .
MORE COLLEGE PAPER IGNORANCE
While I’m in a mood to beat up on college newspapers this week, let me turn some of my ire toward the Iowa State Daily. This one by Tim Kearns criticizes vouchers for being a “slap in the face” to the poor. There is this notable paragraph:
Of course, I should point out that my love for school vouchers is not so much in the belief that they will help education, but only that I will no longer have to purchase toilet paper for any children that I may spawn, because the government will basically be sending it to me in the mail in voucher form.
Isn’t that clever?
He displays more cleverness, this time about conservatives:
The fact that many conservatives support vouchers merely so they can push people into conservative religious schools could be considered a negative, since it eliminates exposing students to other curricula.
Why, he’s even clever about economics!
….most conservatives rely on market-based analogies to justify voucher programs and education overhauls. There’s only one problem. Education is not a true market, so long as we make it available to everyone. Markets are based on supply and demand, not a supply that will be increased by default every time a school gets overcrowded and a demand that increases in perpetuity.
Scrolling down the column, you find out Mr. Kearns is a major in political science, not economics. That might explain the fact that neither making something available to everyone, nor a demand that increases in perpetuity means that something isn’t a market. First, whether or not something like public education is a market depends on the “form” in which you make it available to everyone. If government makes it available by setting it up and deciding from whom you can receive it, as it does in education, then you don’t have much of a market. But if government makes it available in the form of a coupon or voucher that allows people to decide from whom they will receive it—as it does with food stamps—then you have a market. As for demand in perpetuity, I can think of numerous products, like cars, computers, clothing, etc., that will have a perpetual demand. That doesn’t seem to prevent there from being a market for those goods.
Kearns displays his last bit of cleverness with this line:
Public schools, therefore, are simply not designed to compete. Why should they be? Schools ought to be designed to educate, not to drive their competitors into the ground.
If he doesn’t understand markets, then no doubt he doesn’t understand that competition is the best way to educating students. Competition fosters excellence. If you don’t provide customers with a good product or service, someone else will, thereby driving you out of business. Hence, schools would provide a better service—education—if they were forced to compete. Competition and quality education are not mutually exclusive; they go hand in hand.
Finally, here is some advice to Mr. Kearns. Stop listening to the liberal claptrap spewed by your professors at Iowa State University for a little bit. Instead, go to this page at School Choice Info that has all sorts of research showing the positive effect vouchers are having on poor school children. You might learn a thing or two.
. . .
VERY GOOD POINT
Croooow Blog has this very insightful remark today:
Funny, but I haven't heard anyone use the term "greatest economy in history" in quite a while. Wonder why.
Here’s the link, although Blogger’s links are acting up, so this might lead you to nowhere but “Page Not Found.”
. . .
ANDREW SULLIVAN ON BOB HERBERT
Andrew Sullivan has this good takedown of Bob Herbert’s silly column in the New York Times today. Herbert’s columns are usually sily, but today’s is especially so.
. . .
ONE MORE THING ABOUT THE NRO ARTICLE
In that same NRO article, I found this line remarkable, “Harvey Pitt, the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, has been under heavy fire from Democrats and John McCain for his ties to the accounting industry.” (Italics added.) What I found remarkable about it was that at first I didn’t find anything remarkable about it. I mean, “Democrats and John McCain” is becoming like “night and day,” “milk and cookies,” fill in your favorite two words commonly connected by the word “and” here. It seems that phrase “Democrats and John McCain” has become so common that it no longer stands out when you read it. In fact, it seems that you almost expect the word “Democrats” to be followed by “and John McCain” these days. Well, at least it seems that way to me. How about you?
. . .
THE IMPORTANCE OF STOCK OPTIONS
Yesterday I chided the Des Moines Register for suggesting that we should do away with stock options as incentives for CEOs. This piece in National Review Online goes into more detail on the legislation currently before Congress. On stock options, it states the raising taxes “on options would be a real blow to start-up companies, which cannot afford to pay high salaries today and therefore must use options to promise rewards tomorrow.” Good point.
. . .
DAILY IOWAN GETS ANOTHER ONE WRONG….
The Daily Iowan has hyped up the overpopulation scare in this editorial. Most notably:
The problems caused by overpopulation are already somewhat visible. Ecologically, our planet is suffering. Forests have been burned in order to create farmland. Rivers have been poisoned and polluted as haphazardly planned cities have metastasized across the landscape. Entire species and ecosystems have disappeared as their habitats were destroyed to make room for the burgeoning population.
Everyone of these claims is dubious, if not flat out wrong. Go see this article at Tech Central Station for more details.
….AND GETS ONE RIGHT
This column in the Daily Iowan extols the role of guns in warding off crime. It actually cites evidence, including the author of More Guns, Less Crime, John Lott. Go read this good piece by James Eaves-Johnson
. . .
Wednesday, July 10, 2002
COME ON BABY, DO THE TWIST!
This is a case of truth being stranger than fiction. Just click on the link. Trust me.
UPDATE: Click on this link too. Thanks to Croooow Blog for emailing it to me.
. . .
WE’RE SAVING THE WORLD!!
The Daily Iowan has an editorial that favors the proposal in the California Legislature that imposes stricter emission standards on automobiles sold in the Golden State. Favors? Heck, the DI is downright enamored of the thing:
As these words are printed, California stands on the brink of passing a truly monumental piece of environmental legislation, after which automobile emissions may never be the same -- in California or nationwide. "Assembly Bill 1493" could at last rein in the emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide as well as mark the triumph of environmental concerns over those of the automobile industry. California should be hailed for taking a precedent-setting measure against global warming and setting a standard toward which the rest of the nation might aspire.
Note how the DI simply assumes that global warming is a real phenomenon, ignoring all the controversy surrounding it. But this isn’t the only lapse of skepticism induced by the love-fest with California’s proposed regulations:
The measure directs the California Air Resources Board to develop a plan for the "maximum feasible reduction" in greenhouse-gas emissions from automobiles in the state. The bill gives the board latitude to set reduction guidelines for car models produced in 2009 and afterward. To allay concerns over excessive control, the panel is forbidden to set vehicle weights or to impose taxes on such items as fuel, specific vehicle types (for example, SUVs), or miles driven. Thus, the bill leaves car producers room for creative solutions and does not constrain consumers' choices.
If the college students on the DI editorial board really think that new emission standards won’t affect the choices automobile consumers have, then they are exhibiting the idealistic thinking so typical of, well, college students. My college age friends, they are called “unintended consequences.” Most legislation has them. In this particular case, the new emission standards will likely require automobile manufacturers to build lighter autos, thereby limiting consumers ability to buy heavier vehicles—i.e., SUVs—that do so much to enhance passenger safety. That, in turn, will result in a higher number of automobile fatalities.
One can hope that the students at the DI will some day outgrow this type of naïve idealism. Unfortunately, as the editorial pages of papers like the New York Times and Des Moines Register demonstrate, there is a good chance that they won’t
. . .
IF IT AIN’T BROKE….
In applauding the reforms laid out by President Bush yesterday, the Des Moines Register editorial page lays out some ideas of its own as to what ails the corporate culture:
….it's going to take more than prison terms to fix what's wrong with American corporations. It's going to take a change in the system of rewards….
High ethical standards are easier to maintain, however, if the system of rewards reinforces them. It's just the opposite in corporate America today. The system provides enormous temptations to cheat.
With a lavish package of stock options, for instance, a top corporate executive can pocket tens of millions of dollars by manipulating the numbers to create an artificial rise in the stock price, or prevent a fall. With so much money on the line, the temptations to fudge the numbers are huge. No wonder accounting scandals are being revealed in company after company.
Stock options became popular as a means to compensate executives because it was thought they would align the interests of the executives with those of the shareholders (and also because the accounting rules allowed options not to be counted as expenses on the corporations' books). In practice, lavish options packages turned out to provide executives an incentive to deceive shareholders about the real worth of their companies.
Hold on a minute! Is the problem of stock options an industry wide phenomenon? Or is it limited to a few companies? Before we change the incentive structure in corporate America, we need to know if stock options as part of incentive packages are really a widespread problem. Certainly, the Des Moines Register’s rhetoric makes it out to be that way: “enormous temptations to cheat”, “company after company.” But what is their evidence? Are numerous companies about to go under because corporate executives are inflating stock prices? Or is it just a few bad apples?
Furthermore, we need to know if changing the incentive structure amounts to “throwing the baby out with the bathwater.” In other words, do stock options work well in most instances? Do such options induce most corporate executives to do a good and honest job? If so, changing the incentive structure could do more harm than good.
We don’t yet have answers to those questions. Comprehensive studies need to be done to get such answers. And we need such answers before we change the incentive structure for corporate executives. The Des Moines Register would have us rely on sensational stories and headlines. Such sensationalism may indeed point to a problem that is widespread. But by themselves they do not constitute evidence that such a problem is in fact widespread.
. . .
YUCCA MOUNTAIN APPROVED
The vote in the Senate on Yucca Mountain vote wasn’t even close. Although you have to dig for it in this story in the Quad City Times, and then do a little math, it appears the final vote was 60-39.
. . .
Tuesday, July 09, 2002
WILL REDISTRICTING HURT IOWA GOP?
The always interesting Mike Glover has this piece, reprinted in the Fort Madison Daily Democrat, which suggests that State Republican lawmakwers goofed when restructuring Iowa's House Districts.
. . .
WHAT AN EXCITING GOVERNOR’S RACE—NOT!
The Dubuque Telegraph Herald has this article that notes that Governor Vilsack and GOP nominee Doug Gross are in a spat about “how much to spend on private social service agencies that contract with the state.” How exciting!
So far, Doug Gross is really blowing it. Recent polls show that Vilsack is on the ropes. So what is Gross doing? Engaging in niggling debates about who is the true Iowan and state contracts. Gross still has no agenda for Iowa, if his website is any indication. If Gross thinks he can waltz into Terrace Hill with no other issue than Vilsack’s fiscal incompetence, he is sorely mistaken. At some point in the not too distant future, Iowa voters will be thinking, “Okay, fine Mr. Gross. Vilsack is incompetent. What are you going to do different?” He’d better have an answer.
. . .
VOTING SCORECARDS
The Ames Tribune has this editorial casting a skeptical eye toward interest groups’ voting scorecards in general, and Iowa PIRG’s voting scorecard in particular.
. . .
MORE DEBATE ON THE ESTATE TAX
There is an interesting debate on the estate tax on the opinion page of the Burlington Hawkeye. In favor of repeal is Pete Sepp of the National Taxpayers Unions; opposed is Amy Isaacs of Americans for Democratic Action.
A bit of advice to Ms. Isaacs. Your commentary would be more convincing if you excluded paragraphs like this:
For all of these reasons, then, our nation is much better off with an intact estate tax. Thankfully, 44 brave senators realized this, and on June 12 cast a vote that was truly in the public interest.
“Brave”? What is so brave about voting against repeal of a tax that Democrats dismissed as applying only to the richest 2%? If that’s her idea of bravery, one wonders what she thinks cowardice is.
. . .
DEAD-BEAT DADS: THE FLIP SIDE OF THE COIN
A while back, I blogged an article in the Iowa Falls Times-Citizens about a woman who has started an organization to go after “Dead-Beat Dads.” One of my readers has pointed out that there is a whole other side to the issue, one in which mothers use visitation rights against the fathers. This article in the Philadelphia Inquirer explores the male side of the question, and shows that numerous men are shying away from marriage for fear of getting shafted in a potential divorce. Well worth a read. (Thanks to El Rushbo.)
. . .
WILLIAMS ON PROFITS AND GOVERNMENT
Columnist Walter Williams has one of his excellent columns on the beneficial role of profits in society. A more recent column examines accounting fraud in the private sector, and accounting fraud in the government. Hmm….didn’t someone do something similar just yesterday?
. . .
INVEST WITH CAUTION
Rush Limbaugh is playing a sound bite from Congresswoman Maxine Waters in which she referred to “Solomon Smith Barney” as “Solomon Barney Frank.” I wonder what kind of investment strategies that firm offers?
UPDATE: Here is the link to Rush Limbaugh's site that has the Maxine Water's remark.
UPDATE 2: It is "Salomon", not "Solomon." Sorry.
. . .
THE PLEDGE AND REPUBLICANS
While I’m on the subject of the Pledge, it is worth noting this piece. Writing in yesterday’s National Review Online, Dov B. Fischer notes that there is a strong relationship between the recent Ninth Circuit ruling on the Pledge (officially called the Newdow case) and the judicial appointment process. Of particular note is this paragraph:
It seems clear that the Democrats' hasty race to pledge allegiance under G-d — and note that these primarily were the Democrats of the Senate, not of the House — has been sparked by their fear that Newdow will cast greater light on their role in stonewalling President Bush's nominees to the United States appeals courts. Since entering office, President Bush has nominated at least 30 federal appeals-court judges, but the Senate has confirmed only 9. While rejecting one Bush nominee, the Judiciary Committee has bottlenecked 20 others, primarily for ideological reasons. Of the first 11 judges the President nominated on May 9, 2001 for the appeals courts, 8 remain unconfirmed. In Michigan, for example, Democratic senators Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow have refused to approve any Bush nominee to the Sixth Circuit. In California, Democrats Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein have bottlenecked the president's choices for the Ninth Circuit. Meanwhile, amid Senate stonewalling, older federal judges continue to reach semi-retirement ("senior status"). In the Sixth Circuit, which normally empanels sixteen active appeals-court judges, there are now seven vacancies.
Senate Republicans have for months complained about the Democrats’ stalling on Bush’s judicial nominees. Now that the political gods have rained manna from heaven, what are the Republicans doing with it? Zip, zero, nada. Nothing about it at the Republican National Committee, nor the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Are Republicans really so blind that they can’t see a golden opportunity to put Senate Democrats on the defensive? So far, it seems that way.
. . .
GOOD ONES FROM YEPSEN
David Yepsen has written two interesting columns in the Des Moines Register recently. The first one details Vilsack’s reelection troubles. The second one deals with the potential political fallout from the recent Ninth Circuit Court ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance. In particular, Yepsen discusses how it might affect Harkin’s reelection chances.
Most interesting is this paragraph:
The outrage most Americans felt at the ruling is also a wake-up call. Lots of Americans are getting fed up with the tyranny of the minority that seeks to constantly scrub religion and values out of our civic life in the name of political correctness. We just can't "offend" anyone, can we? Pardon me, but this country was founded "under God." Just read a history book. Or glance at the Declaration of Independence or the preamble to the Constitution. Liberals have been most closely identified with this scrubbing and with the judicial activists who administer the brush.
Actually, Mr. Yepsen, if you want to see liberals who want to scrub religion out of public life, you need look no further than your own editorial page.
. . .
HAWKS ON DOPE
This one happened while I was on vacation. I hope this isn’t indicative of things to come for the coming season for the Hawkeye basketball team. But I fear it is.
. . .
AT LEAST THEY’RE HONEST
The Des Moines Register editorial page has today admitted that someone is going to have to pay the cost for a prescription drug benefit:
In order to subsidize those who need a lot of medications, it is necessary to spread the cost to others who don't take many drugs. This can be done through taxes, through premiums or some combination of the two.
While such honesty is refreshing, it still begs the question of why those who don’t take prescription drugs should pay for those who do? Of course, addressing such a question might undermine support for such a government program, and the Register editorial board would hate to see that. No, what matters to the Register is the logistics of the funding:
Agreeing on the reasonable and equitable way to spread the cost is one of the prerequisites to achieving an acceptable prescription-drug benefit under Medicare.
Finally, the Register adds this cryptic and—from an economic viewpoint—creepy sentence:
The other prerequisite is to create downward pressure on drug prices.
Does this mean that the Register editorial board is in favor of price controls? If so, then the entire editorial board should be forced to read Thomas Sowell’s excellent book, Basic Economics, specifically Chapter 3.
. . .
FLESHY FLYERS
On my trip out to California, I was seated next to an obese gentleman on my SouthWest Airlines flight. I’ve been thinking about doing some commentary on the SouthWest policy of charging obese people for two seats. I may still do so, but this editorial in the Quad City Times makes many of the points that I would have. A good read.
. . .
THIS IS MY RIFLE, THIS IS MY GUN
The headline in the Quad City Times reads: “RI police join move to larger handguns.” The sub-headline reads “More take-down punch. Better penetration.” I wonder, what guns, exactly, are they talking about?
. . .
Monday, July 08, 2002
GOVERNMENT AS A BUSINESS? ABSOLUTELY
Ever hostile to the business community, the Des Moines Register editorial page today printed a screed against the idea that government should be run more like a business. It begins:
The next time a candidate for public office says government ought to be run like a business, it might invite some probing follow-up questions.
What follows isn’t probing questions so much as loaded ones:
Oh, you think it should be run for the personal enrichment of a few insiders?
So you favor betraying the trust of the common people?
And you plan to cook the books?
And you will lavishly reward yourself even if you fail in the job?
No, what the sentiment means is that government should be required to get results, and get them more efficiently. Business must learn to do more with less, or else they go out of business. Government usually works in reverse, getting lousy results, and then seeing their funding increased year after fiscal year.
(On a side note, this leads me to Hogberg’s 2nd Law of Government: Government is expert at doing less with more. For Hogberg’s 1st Law of Government, click here.)
It also means that when someone in government screws up, he or she should be held accountable. Consider the cases of Enron and WorldCom, which, presumably, inspired the Register editorial. The market had already imposed some accountability on these companies: their stocks have taken a major hit and the CEOs have joined the ranks of the unemployed. More accountability is surely in order, such as prison sentences, but the point is that some accountability has already occurred.
Compare that to government. When a government agency misplaces billions of dollars, as they often do, who is ever held accountable? Ever heard of a government employee being fired for such mismanagement? I haven’t. In government, there is seldom any accountability for screwing up. But the Register editorialist ignores this fact to the extent that he or she writes this line:
These days, the old bromide might be better advocated in reverse: Business should be run like the government - at least to the extent that officeholders are subject to checks and balances and are expected to honor the public trust.
Now that’s a scary thought.
. . .
EAGLES ON THE RISE
Some good news from the Ottumwa Courier. Bald Eagles in Iowa are in the midst of a remarkable comeback. If you need something uplifting today, go read the article.
. . .
ANOTHER REASON WHY MORE SCHOOL CHOICE IS NEEDED
This article in the Dubuque Telegraph Herald reports on a simulation conducted for Iowa’s public elementary schools based on the new federal standards contained in the recently enacted education bill. The simulation found that 56% of schools in Iowa would “likely face sanctions for inadequate progress.”
What was really eye-popping about the story was this quote from an Iowa education official:
"I don't think that's what most congressional representatives had in mind—identifying more than half of the schools in the nation as needing improvement," said Iowa Department of Education Director Ted Stilwill. "That certainly isn't an accurate picture of Iowa schools."
Actually, Mr. Stilwill, that is exactly what certain members of Congress had in mind. America’s public education system is abysmal. There is massive room for improvement. Now that there are finally some sanctions for failure—most importantly, loss of funding—educators might just find the incentives to improve.
Mr. Stilwill’s remarks are indicative of an education establishment that has for too long been insulated from competition and the accountability it imposes. The new education bill doesn’t do much for school competition, but it does a fair amount for imposing accountability. No wonder that the likes of Mr. Stilwill are in panic mode.
. . .
VOUCHERS WON’T SOLVE EVERYTHING, BUT….
This editorial in the Cedar Rapids Gazette claims that the recent Supreme Court decision on vouchers “may lead to more voucher experiments, but not necessarily to solutions to deep and disturbing problems, particularly in big cities.” The editorial cites a story from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal to underscore its point:
"In some central Milwaukee neighborhoods, more than 90 percent of births are to unmarried mothers; more than 6,000 Milwaukee children a year are born to single moms, and more than 800 of those moms are between 15 and 17 years old," the story reported. "If you want, you can avoid looking at this as a moral issue. But you cannot avoid the well-established, overall correlation between single parenthood . . . and poor long-term outcomes for children."
What outcomes? Half the students entering ninth grade in Milwaukee Public Schools don't graduate on schedule. More than 10,000 of the district's 100,000 students don't go to school on a typical day, "and probably no more than a third of those are actually ill," the Journal Sentinel continued. A central city fourth-grade teacher said that of the students in his class, no more than six of 26 live in a stable situation for the duration of a typical school year.
How do you teach students who do not attend class? How do you reach students who do not remain in the same classroom all year?
Certainly, dysfunctional families add much to the woes of inner-city schools. What editorials such as this overlook is that such schools fail children that come from intact families or from single-parent families where the parent takes the child’s education seriously. It is school competition, in the form of vouchers, open enrollment, and charter schools, that offer hope to children from good families and, perhaps, even some hope for children from the dysfunctional ones. More needs to be done to help dysfunctional families in the inner city. But that is no excuse to discontinue programs like vouchers that offer hope to students from stable families.
. . .
Sunday, July 07, 2002
SAME BAT TIME, SAME BAT STATION....
I will return to normal blogging duties on Monday, July 8. Tomorrow is travel back to Iowa day. See you soon.
. . .
POKER RESULTS
I played two other tournaments at the Casino San Pablo's San Francisco Open, the limit Seven Card Stud on Tuesday, and today's Limit Texas Hold'em. I had a lousy run of cards in both, limiting my ability to do well. I made a few mistakes in the 7 Stud tournament, so it is not fair to only blame the cards. Yet, even if I hadn't made those mistakes, the cards would have had to improve considerably for me to place in the money.
Today I received a free entry into the Hold'em event since I played three earlier events at the SF Open. I also received lousy cards today, but in all honesty my head just wasn't in the game. I felt fatigued, and didn't have much incentive to play well since my entry was free. I busted out, and decided not to re-buy, after the first hour.
I did play some regular poker up at South Lake Tahoe, where I spent Wednesday and Thursday with my folks, my brother Doug, and some of his friends. I played low limit Texas Hold'em at both the Horizon and Harvey's. I won $125.
Overall, it has been a successful poker trip. After expenses, I cleared about $1,900. Not too shabby.
. . .
SF GIANTS—WHAT TO DO?
Well, the San Francisco Giants almost blew one today. Their bullpen blew a 2-0 lead, and almost blew the 3-2 lead. None of this would have mattered had the Giants been able to score even 4 or 5 runs. But, as has so often happened this season, the starting pitching did well—Kirk Rueter went 5.2 scoreless innings—only to suffer from low run support. Same last night, when the Giants lost: Russ Ortiz put in an 8 inning, 2 run performance.
Of course, last night the Giants faced Curt Schilling and today they faced Randy Johnson, so the lack of runs was in part caused by the pitching. Still, Reuter, Ortiz and Jason Schmidt each have an ERA of 3.75 or lower. Yet their combined record is 17-14, a poor record for reasonable good ERAs. Thus, lack of offense has been a continuing problem for the Giants. It is what accounts or their being only ten games over .500, and 5½ games behind the first place Dodgers in the NL West.
So, what should SF do? Well, it depends on where they are at mid-August. If they are still in the race, then all that follows is moot. But if they are 7 or more games out of first, as I think they will be, then they need to look to the future. The moves that I think the Giants should make fall into three categories: “keepers,” “dumpers,” and “traders.”
KEEPERS
The “keepers,” are the players the Giants should definitely keep. The first three are the aforementioned pitchers, Ortiz, Schmidt and Rueter. They could form the core of a very solid starting staff for the next three to four seasons. None are very old—Rueter is oldest at 31, and he is a control pitcher. Ryan Jensen might be a fourth in the staff, although this is his first full season as a starter, so the jury is still out. In my opinion if he has an ERA near 4.00 and a winning record at the end of the season, he’s a keeper.
Do I need to even say his name? Barry Bonds, of course, is a keeper. Yes, he is getting older, but I think he probably has another season or two of good offensive production. Besides, the Giants aren’t getting rid of someone who has a shot at the all-time home run record, whether he is hitting .340 or .240.
The only other definite keeper is Rich Aurilia. A good-fielding shortstop who has led the National League in RBIs for shortstops the last three seasons. His numbers are off this year due to injury, but he is only 30, and if he can get healthy again he has a good three to four seasons left, easy.
DUMPERS
Okay, now for the dumpers, as in “dump him.” First up to receive the pink slip should be pitcher Livan Hernandez. Yes, he started the year 4-0. That will be the last time he is 4-0 in his career—ever. He has gone 2-10 since, and he pitches like he doesn’t care. Good riddance.
J.T. Snow also has to go. Snow never had impressive offensive numbers for a first-baseman. His numbers were good enough that when combined with his excellent glove work, he was an asset. But now he is struggling to hit .230. The Giants need offense, and first-base is a good place to start.
Those are the definite dumpers. Other possibilities include Reggie Sanders and Tsuyoshi Shinjo. They have not played up to expectations, and since they play in the outfield, and since the Giants need offense….
TRADERS
There is one player the Giants should put on the trading block above all others: Jeff Kent. He is hitting very well and can play the right side of the infield. I think, although don’t quote me on this, he is in the last year of his contract. He could easily net the Giants two to three young bats, and there are quite a few teams who could use him. The Minnesota Twins have no offense at second-base. Although they are unlikely to need much help getting to the post-season, they would find Kent useful in the playoffs. I include the Twins because they likely have the most talent in the minors among the teams that could be looking to make a trade for Kent.
Among teams that will need to make a stretch run that could use Kent are Oakland, Boston, and Anaheim. Oakland has no offense at 2B, so Kent could be a nice fit. Boston has Carlos Baerga and Anaheim has Adam Kennedy at 2B, but that doesn’t mean Kent couldn’t make a good trade. Both teams could DH Kent, and they’d have someone who could fill in on the right side of the infield when needed.
The only team in the NL that will likely need to make a stretch run that would have some interest in Kent is Cincinnati. But Cincy has Todd Walker—not a great hitter, but no slouch—at 2B so that might make a trade for Kent untenable. Regardless, there are quite a few teams in the AL that would find Kent very useful, enough to part with some up-and-coming talent to get him.
Other possible traders are set-up man Felix Rodriguez and closer Rob Nenn. Rodriguez has had a terrible year, but his problems appear to be mechanical and could be fixed. Thus, he might fetch one good young bat for the Giants. Nenn could fetch both a good young bat and something solid for the Giants’ bullpen. It would be tough to give up Nenn’s abilities as a closer—no one has had more saves in the last few years except Trevor Hoffman—but decent closers are not tough to come by right now. The Giants could sign one in the off season if need be. If trading Nenn could net the Giant’s a serious offensive first or third-baseman, it would be worth it.
That said, the primary trading concern should be Jeff Kent. If it is the last year of his contract, he almost certainly won’t resign with the Giants after his recent shoving match with Bonds. Thus, the Giants should get what they can out of him now. And that should be quite a lot.
However, knowing the Giants' luck, they'll be just close enough to first place in August to make trading Kent impossible. They'll then lose the division, Kent will be gone in the off season, and the Giants will be hard pressed to find new talent. Unfortunately, this puts me in the difficult position of saying that I'd prefer the Giants to not be in the penant race come next month. Yet for the Giants, the future is not now. If they keep the the rotation of Ortiz, Rueter and Schmidt, and get some young talent in the outfield and at the corners, the future is 2003, 2004 and 2005.
. . .
|
. . .
|
