Friday, August 09, 2002
DAILY DIATRIBE: KUTTNER WATCH
Well, Bob Kuttner is at it again, dispensing all sorts of sage advice to the Democrats. I sure wish they’d take it. The current article in The American Prospect deals with corporate reform and how Democrats can use it to get the edge on Bush. As usual, it’s filled with plenty of holes:
So President Bush -- Mr. Education, Mr. Drug Benefit -- is now Mr. Corporate Reform. Is the latter any more believable than the former?
Well, it’s more believable than most of Kuttner’s articles.
At this writing, despite the market comeback, a lot of real damage has been done to the real economy by the same abuses that caused the market slide.
Actually, the market slide doesn’t correlate very well with the revelation of corporate abuses. As Alan Reynolds notes in a piece at NRO, the Brookings Institution recently released a study trying to show that, and came up way short. Reynolds argues that anemic sales growth has more to do with the recent losses on the stock market.
However, despite their exemplary leadership on corporate reform, it is difficult for the Democrats to define the corporate scandals in purely partisan terms. Just enough Democrats were complicit in the financial and corporate deregulation of the 1980s and 1990s that caused the scandals. Nor can the shackling of the Securities and Exchange Commission be laid squarely at the feet of the Republicans. However, it is possible to pin the blame squarely on conservative ideology. So any partisan gains by the Democrats would need to be ideological gains -- faulting the ideology of market worship whose main vehicle is the Republican Party.
Is the “ideology of market worship” a synonym for one of Kuttner’s other favorite terms, “market fundamentalism”? My friends, I think you may be witnessing the rise of another deceptive piece of liberal rhetoric, much like referring to a tax cut as a “cost.” Kuttner is trying to equate belief in the free market with religious fundamentalism. Indeed, belief in the free market is like a religion, based entirely on faith. And that would stand to reason, after all, because it’s not like there is any evidence that markets work very well, is there?
The fact is, it's possible to reward corporate executives for performance in a variety of ways that neither compromise balance sheets nor invite manipulation the way options do. It is possible to base executive pay on performance so that bonuses vary with bona fide earnings or market share. It's also possible to compensate executives with ordinary grants of stock rather than options to purchase stock that have value only at a certain price. The fact that many Democrats have flinched from embracing even the Levin reforms suggests how compromised the party still is.
Another case of liberal infatuation with regulations. Apparently it does not occur to Kuttner to ask if options have resulted in an increase in stock manipulation. Before we decide that options are a problem, shouldn't we first have some data showing that (1) there really is a rise in stock manipulations, and (2) such a rise coincides with an increased use of options?
And even if 1 and 2 are true, we next should ask if treating options as expenses (or, as Kuttner would probably like, banning them altogether) would create more problems than it solves. For those of you who don’t know, an option is an incentive that companies give to potential employees they wish to hire. It is a contract in which the employee has a limited amount of time (usually 6 months) to buy the company's stock at a set price. So, for example, let’s say Joe CEO has an option to buy his companies stock at $2 that is good for six months. Let’s say at the end of his first five months, the stock has risen to $5, and Joe thinks the stock will rise even further because he thinks he has the company moving in the right direction. He can now exercise his option and buy the stock for $2. He can then turn around and sell the stock and make a profit, or he can hang onto it for the price to rise even higher. (Thanks to my colleague Steve Garrison for explaining this to me.)
Using options is a way for start-up companies to attract talented people. If Kuttner has his way, he would only make it more difficult for new businesses to get off the ground, especially those in the tech sector. Thus, an unintended consequence would be slowing economic growth. No surprise that Kuttner didn’t consider this.
There also remains the issue of George W. Bush's own personal vulnerability (not to mention Vice President Cheney's). The Harken Energy abuses, like Cheney's reign at Halliburton, cry out for further investigation. They are certainly a far bigger deal, on the merits, than Whitewater. Whether they turn into serious political liabilities for the White House depends on whether the opposition party has the stomach to demand a full investigation.
We’ve had Paul “Enron Bigger than 9/11” Krugman, and now we’ve got Bob “Harken Energy Bigger than Whitewater” Kuttner. Sorry, Bob, but the SEC long ago cleared Bush of any wrong doing in Harken Energy. And Bob ought to read Byron York on Cheney and Haliburton. (Like I suggested last time, Bob, expand the reading list.)
One last thing. Neither Bush’s nor Cheney’s business dealings occurred while they held elected office, unlike a certain—ahem—gentleman form Arkansas.
. . .
BILL THE ISRAELI SOLDIER
What follows is hilarious. As best I can tell, it was written by Richard A. Galen. Enjoy.
Bill Clinton says he would 'fight and die' for Israel
Sat Aug 3, 2002, 1:22 AM ET
NEW YORK (AP) - Former President Clinton, who avoided the Vietnam War, told Jewish supporters in Toronto that he would fight and die to protect Israel if Iraq or Iran ever invaded. "The Israelis know that if the Iraqi or the Iranian army came across the Jordan River, I would personally grab a rifle, get in a ditch, and fight and die," Clinton said to cheers at a Hadassah children's charity fund-raising dinner this week.
This is a parody ...
What follows is a double-secret transcript of the induction interview between Bill Clinton and a recruiting sergeant of the Israeli army:
SGT: Name?
RECRUIT: William Jefferson Clinton.
SGT: Clinton? Is that a Jewish name?
CLINTON: No, sir. It's not. But some people say I was the first Jewish president.
SGT: President of what?
CLINTON: President of the United States. I was also the first Black president.
SGT: Ok. You have to answer a few simple questions. First: Do you have any military experience?
CLINTON: Yes.
SGT: Describe your military experience.
CLINTON: Well, I learned how to salute during the Transition back in 1992. I thought you were supposed to bend your thumb underneath when you saluted; but they taught me to keep my thumb next to my index finger. I got pretty good. I could really snap one off when I stepped off Marine One.
SGT: You never served in the United States military?
CLINTON: Oh! That! Hell, I was the Commander-in-Chief! Of course I served. I saluted and everything.
SGT: Have you ever been indicted?
CLINTON: Well, that depends on your definition of "indicted." I was never indicted by a grand jury.
SGT: Let me ask another way. Have you ever had to testify at your own trial?
CLINTON: No. Absolutely not. Never had to testify. Nope.
SGT: Have you ever had your license revoked or suspended?
CLINTON: Like, driver's license? No. Absolutely not. Nope.
SGT: Any other kind of license?
CLINTON: Suspended? No. Now, a fair-minded person would not consider having SURRENDERED a license - like a, um, I don't know, like, say, a license to practice law - for a brief period of time - a suspension, so, no. Absolutely not. Nope.
SGT: You said that you wanted to die for Israel?
CLINTON: That's not exactly what I said. What I said was "if the Iraqi or the Iranian army came across the Jordan River, I would personally grab a rifle, get in a ditch, and fight and die."
SGT: Did you know that neither Iraq nor Iran border the Jordan River?
CLINTON: Imagine that.
SGT: Did you know that Iraq would have to march all the way across Syria or Jordan before they got to Israel?
CLINTON: Hmm. Really?
SGT: And that Iran would have to cross Iraq AND Syria or Jordan before they got to Israel?
CLINTON: That far. Who knew?
SGT: Mr. Clinton what about the notion of Iraq launching missiles against Israel?
CLINTON: That would be bad.
SGT: But would that qualify as "coming across the Jordan River?"
CLINTON: No. I would have to say not. That would not qualify.
SGT: So it would take an actual soldier crossing the River for you to "grab a rifle, get in a ditch, and fight and die?"
CLINTON: I believe I said "army" the Iraqi or Iranian ARMY.
SGT: So, not a company?
CLINTON: Oh, no.
SGT: Battalion?
CLINTON: I don't think so.
SGT: A brigade? A division? A corps?
CLINTON: You know, I always wanted to ask the difference between a brigade and a division, but I had to practice that saluting.
SGT: Next -
CLINTON: And, there would have to be a ditch. An actual ditch. I said I would "get in a ditch." If there were no ditch, I believe a fair-minded person would agree that Israel had not kept its part of the bargain.
SGT: This is a desert. We don't have that many ditches.
CLINTON: Well, then ...
SGT: These men standing behind you. Are they willing to fight also?
CLINTON: I can't speak for them. They're my security detail.
SGT: (To a Secret Service Agent) Would you be willing to watch this man "get in a ditch, and fight and die?"
AGENT: (Not smiling) We've watched him do worse.
CLINTON: Say, on that point. In the Israeli army, female soldiers get into ditches, too, right?
SGT: (Stamping a form) Mr. Clinton. We'll get back to you.
CLINTON: Does this mean you won't accept me in the Israeli army?
SGT: Yes. That's what it means.
CLINTON: Whew.
-- END OF TRANSCRIPT --
. . .
REGISTER HITS A TRI-FECTA
I was hoping I’d get off easy this morning. But then the Des Moines Register saved the day. If you want to see the quintessential example of liberal ignorance, prejudice, and hypocrisy, look no further than today’s two editorials on Vilsack’s and Gross’s prescription drug proposals.
Let’s start with the one on Vilsack
On Monday, [Vilsack] proposed legislation that would force pharmaceutical companies to give the same discounts to Medicare-eligible seniors that companies give Medicaid patients.
Currently, the government leverages cheaper prices for drugs for the indigent under Medicaid. Vilsack's plan would use that same government power to get cheaper drugs for seniors generally. And it would use no state dollars.
State health director Steve Gleason said the state should be able to negotiate pharmaceuticals for seniors the same way it does all other products. "With any other vendor, states can negotiate prices. In reality, the pharmaceutical manufacturers are the last entity to be shielded from any kind of cost containment." Vilsack is right in trying to use government bargaining power to realize cheaper prices from the industry.
Excuse me, but what kind of bargaining will be taking place if the state forces drug companies to provide discounts? Am I missing something here? Generally speaking you don’t get to bargain with a "state law."
Now get a load of this passage:
"The program would hold Medicaid patients hostage in order to provide discounts for non-Medicaid patients," said Bruce Lott, spokesman for Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. He's disappointed Vilsack is pursuing this plan.
Good.
If the pharmaceutical industry is disappointed in a plan, that's probably a pretty good indicator the people of Iowa should support it.
Ah yes, if the drug companies are opposed to a plan, it must be a good plan. After all, drug companies—like most companies—are evil and greedy. Therefore, they are usually wrong.
Never mind the possibility that if drug companies are forced to give a discount to seniors—a much larger population than Medicaid recipients—they might think twice about doing business in Iowa. No, the Register sees a "progressive" plan, and that’s all that matters. But, if fewer drug companies do business here, that means fewer choices for the consumer. The Register editorialists would probably rather not see that outcome; the fact that they didn’t consider it is typical.
And the last line is classic:
It's great to see Vilsack is willing to take the heat in adopting a progressive idea.
Oh, that Tom Vilsack! He sure is brave to demand lower drug prices for seniors! Before you know it, he’ll take the courageous step of saying "All babies should eat!"
Now let’s look at the editorial on Gross’s plan:
[Gross] said Vilsack has a "single solution of spending more money than the state can afford," in reference to Vilsack's recent proposal to leverage lower prices for Medicare beneficiaries the way lower prices are leveraged for the indigent.
So Gross must have a better idea, right?
Well, a simpler one anyway.
"By combining the prescription buying power of thousands of state employees, private health insurers and Iowa seniors, we would have a greater opportunity to reduce costs for the people who most need that help," he said.
Polling the resources together when you negotiate. Gee, now that sounds like bargaining. But the Register overlooks that and instead demands details:
When asked for additional details on how the idea would work, Gross' campaign staff provided none. No sheets estimating cost. No comments from any group supportive of the plan. No explanation of why the parties would even agree to a "partnership."
Why would state employees who already have prescription-drug coverage pair up with the elderly who don't? And what role are the private health insurers going to play? It's not clear that Iowa Priority, which received a federal grant as a pilot program, even has the authority to expand beyond those who are Medicare-eligible.
So many questions and no answers.
Fair enough. Gross should provide more details.
But did you see the Register ask Vilsack for details about his "Iowa Works" program? I don't remember that editorial. There are plenty of details that need to be "fleshed out" in that boondoggle. For example, Vilsack wants to use all sorts of state government funds, like the Road Use Fund, for economic development projects. But it’s not clear that it is legal to use these funds for such purposes. He may have to persuade the state legislature to change the law. The point here is that the Register demands details on Gross’s prescription drug plan, but has never demanded details about Vilsack’s Iowa works plan. A bit of a double standard, wouldn’t you say?
Ignorance, prejudice, hypocrisy. The Register hit the tri-fecta today.
. . .
Thursday, August 08, 2002
REGISTER AND EMISSIONS BLOG PUT ON HOLD
I’ve been looking over the Environmental Defense report cited by the editorial in the Register this morning. There is plenty of material in the report, enough to do a Daily Diatribe. I’ll do one next week on the report and the editorial. Stay tuned.
. . .
LET’S HAVE A DEBATE
George Vest in the Iowa Falls Times-Citizen weighs in on the need to declare war before the U.S. invades Iraq. He then makes a detour into the need for debate:
....for the first time in a long time there is a real debate going on in Congress as to the ramifications of actually considering a declaration of war against another country. The cost in men, women, money and weaponry would be horrific.
Would the shooting battle be long or short? Who would be in charge after Saddam is gone? How long would we have to stay in Iraq? And think about this one. Is Iraq actually more dangerous than Pakistan?
So, finally, there is a real debate in Washington with some common sense starting to emerge. Debate. That's why the founding fathers gave Congress the power and authority to declare war.
Funny how it is only questions about the cost of going to war with Iraq that, for so many pundits, constitute “debate.” Why not some questions about the cost of not going to war with Iraq? For example, how soon before Hussein has nuclear weapons? What is the likelihood of Hussein giving either biological or chemical weapons to a terrorist group? How soon before he has the technology to build intercontinental missiles that can deliver any weapon of mass destruction, be it nuclear, biological , or chemical? And what will be the human cost of any of those scenarios?
We should have a debate about the merits of a war with Iraq. It just shouldn’t be one-sided.
. . .
PATRIOTISM QUESTIONED, AGAIN
And guess who’s on the receiving end? Yep, corporations again. Discussing about the decision by Stanley Works to not seek a tax haven in Bermuda, this editorial in the Hawkeye states “In the midst of a painful economic downturn and a war on terrorists, fleeing the country — on paper, not physically — seemed downright unpatriotic.” Like I said earlier this week, it’s okay to question the patriotism of a business that wants to avoid paying taxes. But question the patriotism of those who oppose the War on Terrorism….
. . .
VISION IOWA IS REJECTED
Looks like the voters in Clinton County have a fair amount of good sense.
. . .
GOVERNMENT DOES EVERY DAY WHAT ENRON DID ONCE
Another good one by Dennis Clayson in the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier.
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE: BARLOW AND SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM
One of the liberal bloggers that I enjoy is Ted Barlow. He has some recent posts about Social Security reform that are worth discussing.
First, he posts an email from a reader named Rob Lyman. Lyman writes:
I've been saying for a long time we shouldn't privatize Social Security. Privatization has all the problems you and Krugman and others describe.
We should eliminate it instead.
Look, does the government confiscate part of your income and pay you a "food allowance?" Does it decide for you that a certain amount of your income MUST be allotted to clothes? Does it provide housing to every American, paying for it with housing taxes? No, No, and No. So why should the government forcibly confiscate part of your income and return it to you later as a retirement allowance? What are we, children?
…. I can see no reason why the principle of freedom + responsibility should not apply to retirement.
…. Anyway, my plan will never, ever, happen, at least not before I'm dead, which should be a number of decades yet. But I'd love to see someone tell me why I'm wrong.
Well, Rob is not wrong. The problem isn’t the principle, it’s the practicality. It’s apparent from his email that Rob is well aware of this. In the case of Social Security it’s a conflict between principle and self-interest. Most seniors would likely agree with the idea of “freedom plus responsibility,” but they’re not going to give up their monthly Social Security check for it. They’ll mouth complaints about how it’s not fair that they paid into the system, that they should get what is theirs—complaints that are not entirely without merit. The point is that it is a matter of principle vs. self-interest, and in such cases self-interest usually wins. What this means for Social Security is that it's not a matter of deciding between having a government program and having no program. It's a matter of having a government program, and reforming a government program so that it is more market-based.
Okay, now on to some of Barlow’s points. In an earlier blog, Barlow criticizes privatization by saying “even if we still had a surplus to fund our Social Security obligations while money is siphoned off into private accounts, the whole scheme would still be extremely problematic.”
First, Social Security obligations are not funded by any surplus. Present benefits are paid with the payroll taxes that go into the Social Security Trust Fund (SSTF). What the SSTF has left over each year after paying out benefits is the Social Security surplus. The government—more specifically, the Treasury Deparment—“borrows” the Social Security surplus and spends it on other government functions. In return for the surplus, the government puts bonds equal to the amount of the surplus into the SSTF. When the SSTF starts paying out more in benefits than it collects in payroll taxes—sometime around 2018—it will redeem the bonds to make up the difference. Then problem is the bonds in the SSTF are just claims on government revenue, i.e. tax money. The government is going to have to come up with the money to pay those bonds—and it won’t be cheap. One rough estimate I did showed that it will amount to an average of $227 billion per year to pay off the bonds. One advantage of switching to private accounts is that the Social Security surplus will be put into those accounts, instead of being used to accrue a huge liability in the SSTF.
In a response to Rob’s email, Barlow raises this interesting possibility:
I could see Social Security working more like (gasp) welfare. Means-testing could ensure that most elderly people aren’t receiving public funds. The cost of providing Social Security benefits plummets, and we still leave no elderly person behind. Yeah, it sucks that most people would pay SS taxes and don’t receive the benefits, but that’s the way our system works. (Side benefit—we’d all get to read amusing posts by Mickey Kaus with titles like “Does Social Security cause slow driving?”)
Unfortunately, the devil is in the details. Obviously, means testing introduces a strong, perverse incentive not to save up for retirement. This is a common criticism of all social welfare policies, but it’s a real problem here. Right now, at least SS doesn’t care if you saved. Under means testing, it actively rewards not saving. I can’t think of a way past this. Also, unlike welfare, we couldn’t chase the recipients back into work.
Frankly, I’d like to see those Mickey Kaus posts too. But I’ll forego that in favor of private accounts over means testing. There are two problems with means testing. First, it brings us back to the whole principle vs. self-interest conflict. Those seniors who are wealthy enough to have their Social Security reduced, or perhaps even eliminated, are going to go back to all the complaints I listed above. In short, they aren’t going to go for it (remember how the senior citizens’ lobbies howled when Clinton merely taxed the Social Security benefits of wealthy seniors?) Sorry, but means testing will meet with only slightly less resistance than eliminating the entire system.
The second problem is the one Barlow lays out in that second paragraph. A system of means testing might discourage retirement savings. A system of private accounts, on the other hand, might actually encourage it. First, when a system of private accounts is set up, people who (1) take the option of a private account, and (2) otherwise might not save for retirement, will slowly begin to see how much the private account grows as interest accrues. As they realize that savings can grow into wealth, they will be encouraged to set aside even more money for retirement—perhaps in a 401(k) or Roth IRA.
In short, a system of private accounts offers advantages that other reforms do not. It would keep the SSTF from amassing a huge liability that has to paid by future generations. It would avoid future benefit cuts. And it would encourage more people to save for retirement.
. . .
SPENDING MONEY AND WINNING IN BASEBALL
Over at the Daily Rant, Caruso is tired of hearing how the Yankees buy championships. He has a point.
. . .
DECLARE WAR FIRST?
Both Doug Bandow and George Will think we should declare war on Iraq before actually making war on Iraq. This makes me think my position that it isn’t necessary isn’t bvery well thought out. Hmmm…got some thinking to do.
. . .
BUSH OR CLINTON?
Over at NRO, Veronique de Rugy takes a look at who is more fiscally conservative, W. or the Big He. The answer might surprise you.
. . .
GORE SHOULD KEEP TALKING
Dick Morris thinks Al Gore’s class-warfare rhetoric will do long-term damage to Democrats. One can hope.
. . .
HAPPY ANNIVERSARY
Instapundit turns one year old. Congratualtions, Professor Reynolds!
. . .
RAISE TAXES IN CALIFORNIA?
Bill Quick reports on some wealthy citizens in the Golden State who are urging tax increases to deal with the state’s deficit problems. Quick has some good suggestions for them, too.
. . .
CROOOOW AND THE GRAY LADY
Croooow Blog has some comments and a link to some comments on bias at the New York Times.
. . .
VILSACK PEOPLE ARE NICER THAN GROSS PEOPLE
If Des Moines Register columnist Rob Borsellino was attempting to present an objective view of the campaign headquarters of both Doug Gross and Tom Vilsack (which I doubt) he came up way short.
Compare Borsellino’s first impressions:
Start with Doug Gross. This takes you out west, out to Urbandale. His office is in the shadow of the Lease Consultant Corp., next to an investment house and a real estate company. Inside, it's a clean and quiet maze of powder-blue pods. At the front desk, you're greeted by Ruth, a pleasant, gray-haired woman with a sweet smile, a spotless work area. She's got a few red, white and blue balloons behind her, and in front of her she's got that picture of Tom Vilsack in his Winnie the Pooh outfit. Talk about cruel.
Ah yes, Gross’ office is located next to businesses—helps reaffirm the image of Gross as a corporate shill. And what is so cruel about keeping a picture of your opponent in a silly costume? I guess that’s the best Borsellino could do given that the folks at the Gross campaign had hidden away their "Let’s Starve Children and Seniors" posters.
Now for the first impression of the Vilsack headquarters:
It's time to go find Vilsack's operation. This takes you to the east side of Des Moines, past the Thai Market and the used-book shop. Turn left at the abandoned car dealership, and a few blocks down you see the office.
Jan is out front dragging on a Marlboro. She's wearing shorts, rainbow earrings and a flowery blouse with a button that says, "Heterosexuality isn't normal, it's just more common." She's the office manager for Vilsack and the other Democrats on the ballot.
Go through that door, go past the photos of Martin Van Buren, Grover Cleveland, John Kennedy, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, and you come to an open area where about a dozen 20-somethings in various shapes and colors are chatting it up, pounding away at keyboards, hanging on the couches, working the phones. They're decked out in jeans and khakis, halter tops and ISU T-shirts.
Notice that Borsellino mentions what buildings he passes on the way to Vilsack’s headquarters, not what buildings it is actually located next to. That helps him portray the Vilsack campaign as he would like: Filled with diversity and authenticity. None of those stuffed-shirt phonies who actually keep their office clean down at the Vilsack campaign!
Now for Gross’s spokesman:
[Eric] Woolson can sit and schmooze about baseball, raising kids, his father's Navy career, his years as a reporter. But get him focused on the campaign, and it gets intense. There's a lot of vitriol about Vilsack, his "total mishandling of the budget" and how "he's just ill-suited for the job."
When there's a break, you ask Woolson if he can think of anything positive to say about the governor.
He takes a moment and then says: "As a human being he's a decent fellow, a good man." Pause. "But he's in over his head."
And now, Vilsack’s spokesman:
Joe Householder does the talking for Vilsack, and he's mildly embarrassed by the dorm-like atmosphere, the condition of the place. He makes some crack about getting a Lava lamp for the desk and says, "If I knew you were coming, I'd have at least vacuumed."
He talks about the energy level these folks bring to the campaign. He sprinkles his rap with little digs at Gross, his reluctance to release his tax returns, the goofy TV ads. You listen for a while, and then you ask Householder if he can think of one nice thing to say about the Republican candidate for governor.
No problem. He's all over that one. "Yeah. Doug Gross is an extremely successful corporate lobbyist."
Good line. A good way to close out a day where you're left thinking that a Gross administration would be more like fat-free pretzels than pizza. And you're left wondering if that Winnie the Pooh picture will be the one memorable moment of the Vilsack era.
Gross’s spokesman is a "mouthpiece" who " can schmooze" and has a "lot of vitriol" in his remarks about Vilsack. Vilsack’s spokesman, on the other hand "does the talking for Vilsack," and "sprinkles his rap with little digs at Gross."
Notice also how Borsellino reacts to each spokesman’s attempt to say something nice about the opponent. When Woolson actually tries to say something nice about Vilsack, Borsellino has no comment about it. But when Householder uses the opportunity to say something that is critical disguised as a compliment, Borsellino remarks "Good line." Guess only Republicans can be vitriolic, huh?
This leaves me wondering, who do you think Borsellino is voting for in November?
. . .
FORGET FATHER’S RIGHTS
At least that’s what the Des Moines Register wants. In one of yesterday’s editorials, the Register applauds a decision by a Pennsylvania judge to dissolve the order of another judge who barred a young woman from getting an abortion after her boyfriend filed suit requesting her to take the pregnancy to term.
According to the Register:
So the argument goes: A father has no say in whether a fetus is aborted or carried to term, but he's held responsible financially if the mother chooses to give birth.
Well, yes. That's how it is. That's how it has to be. In an ideal world, men and women conceiving children would have good relationships. Partners would discuss reproductive decisions. If that doesn't happen, however, courts should not attempt to prevent women from obtaining abortions.
Let’s rewrite that last passage to read "The government should have no say in what cars we drive. That’s how it is. That’s how it has to be. In an ideal world, we’d all drive cars that were pollution free. If that doesn’t happen, however, legislatures should not attempt to prevent consumers from obtaining the vehicles—even SUVs—that consumers want." Think that Register would go for that? To see the answer, just read one of today’s editorials. A decision over what piece of metal and plastic to buy—regulate away! A life and death decision over an unborn child—that’s an individual’s private decision.
Legally barring a woman from making the choice reduces her to an incubator, forcing her to carry a child because someone else demands it.
And leaving men out of the equation reduces them to sperm donors and bank accounts. There are many reasons why so many men have abandoned their role as fathers in this country. The disrespect toward fatherhood that is inherent in our abortion laws is likely one of them.
Allowing fathers any legal authority on abortion decisions opens up the gates for all kinds of problems.
So did the Roe vs. Wade decision of 1973. But I doubt will see the Register encouraging the Supreme Court to overturn it anytime soon.
And if a purported father has the legal right to prevent a woman from having an abortion, would he also have the right to force her to abort a pregnancy he didn't want?
Uh no, they only force women to have abortion in China. Fortunately the Bush Administration has cut off funding to the United Nations program that enables that practice in China—no thanks to the Register’s editorial page.
(Note: I’m going to take on the Register’s editorial on emission standards later today. There are a lot of "facts" in editorial that I need to check first.)
. . .
Wednesday, August 07, 2002
DAILY DIATRIBE: WHY NO ONE IN THE ISU ADMINISTRATION BACKED GARDNER
Yesterday’s Daily Diatribe further explored the case of Jay Gardner, a white graduate student at Iowa State University, who was expelled from a class by Professor Tracey Owens Patton, a black journalism professor. It found Professor Patton’s credibility to be wanting.
Today I answer the question posed at the end of yesterday’s Diatribe: If Patton did unfairly expel Gardner from her class, why didn’t someone along the appeals process ever rule in favor of Gardner?
There are many possible answers to this question, including the standard ones involving campus race relations. But in this particular case, a good deal of the answer appears to be rather mundane.
The problem began when ISU Provost Rollin Richmond began investigating why three of the Journalism School’s junior faculty members, Linus Abraham, Osei Appiah, and Spiro Kiousis, had resigned effective August 2002. Richmond discovered that they were leaving because of what they felt was a hostile environment that included racial tension. (Abraham and Appiah are black.)
At issue was a department evaluation written by a senior faculty member:
In one written evaluation, a professor complained about "new, privileged minority hires" and "the unabated and unrelieved discriminatory backlash against established faculty." Another wrote the six junior professors were given "all kinds of special privileges."
After the investigation, Richmond removed Journalism Professors John Eighmy and Joel Geske from their positions as chair and associate chair, respectively, of the Journalism School on May 3, holding them responsible for the “hostile environment.” ISU President Gregory Geoffroy reinstated Eighmey and Geske two weeks later, but in mid July Eighmy “voluntarily” resigned his position as chair.
In one article, Provost Richmond publicly worried that “another minority faculty member could leave as well.”
Are we connecting the dots yet?
The administration finds itself having to decide a dispute between a white graduate student and a minority journalism professor. This occurs while charges of racism are flying about the journalism school, and after two minority journalism professors have already resigned. Given the pressure on university administrators to recruit and keep minority faculty, would the ISU administrators dare to risk losing a third minority professor from the same department in the same semester? That would be a blot on their records that would follow them every time they applied for a better position and a different university. Surely it was much less risky to simply railroad Gardner.
Likely adding fuel to the administration anxiety fire was this comment in the Ames Tribune from Professor Patton on the controversy at the Journal School:
Tracey Owens Patton, an assistant professor of journalism and a black faculty member, said she couldn't comment about what was happening in the school but said she's "not going anywhere."
Was she serious? Or was this her way of sending a subtle message to the administration? Back me on the Gardner matter or I’m outta here.
Either way, concern over losing Professor Patton was likely weighing heavily on many administrators. Under such conditions, there was a snowflake’s chance in Hell that they would rule against her and in favor of a white graduate student.
. . .
NAZI ALERT!
Thanks to Croooow Blog who sent me a note about a little gem found in Best of the Web. Seems that a certain attorney in Des Moines is very upset the Iowa Driver’s Licenses now require a special label if the holder is a foreign national who is here on a temporary basis. The article is in the Des Moines City View, an “alternative newspaper.” I didn’t even know that paper existed, although a perma-link is now provided under the Iowa Newspapers heading.
Anyway, here is the post as it appeared in Best of the Web (get some links, fellas):
STUPIDITY WATCH
The state of Iowa, Michael Said tells Cityview, a Des Moines weekly, is indistinguishable from Nazi Germany. Already the Iowa army has invaded and occupied Montana, South Dakota and part of Nebraska. It has set up forced labor camps and is bombing Chicago in a latter-day Blitz.
Well, OK, we just made that stuff up. Here's what Said actually said:
"I'm waiting for them to tell me that from now on I have to wear one of those yellow stars on my shirt," says Michael Said, who is also an immigrant. "There is very little difference between this and what happened in Germany, my country of origin, in the 1930s. Jewish people had yellow stars; gays, pink; Commies, red--all to show your status in society."
So what's he referring to? A special designation on immigrants' drivers licenses that says when their visas expire. Sorry, Mike, but Auschwitz this ain't.
. . .
SPEAKING OF CROOOOW BLOG
Croooow has this interesting post about how, after reading Neal Boortz today, he is starting to change his mind on the September 11 advertising ban various TV and radio stations are self-imposing. He provides the link to Boortz who has lots of other interesting comments today, including one about Ms. Mc…..McKin….McK…..M-c-K-i-n-n-e-y….there, I said it.
. . .
LIGHT BLOGGING TODAY
Sorry my friends, but I have a very busy day ahead, so blogging will be minimal today. There are some things over at the Des Moines Register editorial page (where else?) that need some attention, and I will get to them tomorrow. I'll post the Daily Diatribe around noon, but that may be about it for today. Be back at full force tomorrow.
. . .
Tuesday, August 06, 2002
MCKINNEY LOVES MUGABE?
Indepundit has this on Cynthia McKinney praising Zimbabwe the thuggish rule of dictator of Robert Mugabwe. Oh man, I can hardly wait until the Georgia’s August 20 primary. (Thanks to Daily Pundit.)
. . .
IN DEFENSE OF THE WAR ON IRAQ
Bill Quick, aka Daily Pundit, makes the case for war with Iraq. All writers for the editorial pages of the New York Times and Des Moines Register should be forced to read it.
. . .
CARUSO ON KRUGMAN?
Over at the Daily Rant, Jay Caruso writes:
KRUGMAN TAKEDOWN..
...will come later. I have to travel to Tampa so I won't be back until around 7:pm.
But his column today is filled with such crap, that it deserves to be slammed for the sloppy dreck that it is.
“Crap”? “Sloppy dreck”? Jay, I’ve read the Krugman column. You are being too kind.
By the way, hurry up with that takedown. I can hardly wait.
. . .
VILSACK VS. THE EEEEEVIL DRUG COMPANIES
The Sioux City Journal is reporting that Gov. Vilsack is proposing a plan to force pharmaceutical companies to offer discounts to Iowa seniors on prescription drugs. According to the article:
It's time for senior citizens -- not big drug companies -- to come first," Vilsack said.
Way to ring that populist bell, Governor!
Under the proposal, any drug manufacturer that sells prescription drugs in Iowa would be forced to enter into a rebate agreement. That agreement requires to provide discounts to seniors that are the same or greater than the government provides to Medicaid patients.
Under his proposal, seniors would present identification to a pharmacist showing they are eligible and the pharmacy would provide the discount, which the state would reimburse. The state, in turn, would be reimbursed by the pharmaceutical company.
The governor said his plan would neither cost the state money nor force pharmacists to bear the brunt of the reimbursement.
He said pharmaceutical companies would go along because they are already selling huge amounts of prescription drugs to Medicaid patients and don't want to forego that market.
Don’t be too hasty. Drug companies will only go along if they can cover costs and make some profit. If the forced discount requires them to take a loss, you’ll see lots of companies abandoning Iowa. This amounts to a back door price control, and history has shown what a disaster those are.
It also amounts to a desperate election year pander by a Governor who is running for his political life.
. . .
SANDRA BUTTHEAD
Croooow Blog has the low down on Sandra Bernhard’s big mouth.
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE: ISU MINORITY PROFESSOR NOT CREDIBLE
There are some more developments in the case of a graduate student who was removed from a minority professor’s class at Iowa State University.
To briefly recount what I have blogged before: Journalism Professor Tracey Owens-Patton expelled a graduate student, Jay Gardner, from her class, "Ethnicity, Gender, and the Media." She claims that he was being disruptive. He claims that she suppressed his free speech and unfairly removed him from class. Professor Patton claims she has a tape recording of some of Gardner's remarks. She has yet to produce such a tape, despite Gardner's insistence that she do so.
Professor Patton has also leveled charges of racism, claiming that the chief of campus police warned her that a white-supremacist group was organizing on campus and that Gardner could have been a third person in that group. Campus Police Captain Gene Deisinger, while not denying Patton’s claim directly, has said that he was unaware of any white supremacists at Iowa State.
Gardner appealed his case all the way to the ISU President, Greg Geoffroy. Late last month, Geoffroy turned down Gardner’s appeal. According to the Ames Tribune article:
Geoffroy's letter to Gardner denies all of Gardner's requests.
"At the outset," Geoffroy wrote, "I must indicate that your beliefs and statements, in and of themselves, whatever they are should not and cannot be the basis for university action, including your removal from class."
Geoffroy's letter said he found evidence that several students in the journalism class found Gardner's views disruptive and dominating. Geoffroy's letter also said evidence suggested Gardner would "badger" Patton for "significant portions of the class."
Gardner’s last option is an appeal to the ISU Regents. He is contemplating such action.
Still, this leaves some problems unresolved, as this editorial in the Iowa State Daily notes:
This is a problem because this university is either employing a professor who would make up dire police warnings to put the screws on a student whose opinions she dislikes or a police sergeant who will lie through his teeth about matters of public interest and safety. That fact will not go away. It has to be one or the other and neither is appealing.
(It also leaves unresolved the matter of the tape recording. But I think it is safe to say that the chances of ever seeing that tape are about as good as ever finding Jimmy Hoffa's body.)
Nevertheless, the question of who is lying is crucial, because if Professor Patton is, then it would not only prove her racism charge to be bogus, it would cast doubt on her entire side of the story. Since my last blog, I have obtained more credence to the charge that Professor Patton is dissembling.
First is an article in the Ames Tribune that detailed the comments that Professor Patton has alleged that Gardner made. Unfortunately, the Tribune did not post this article on its web page. I have posted it here. Here are a few examples:
"White theories are the only theories that are not flawed. Theories that address the ethnic minority perspective are flawed."
"Martin Luther King Day is terrible. I mean, we don’t have any holidays that honor a named president."
"When are you going to start talking about the fact that we need stereotypes so we know how to control ethnic minorities."
I have a hard time imagining even the most hayseed undergraduate saying such things, let a lone a 38-year-old graduate student. It would seem that Professor Patton’s ability to invent racism is not limited to remarks from the police.
To understand why Professor Patton would invent such charges, it is helpful to examine the contribution she made to a forum in the Fall 2001 issue of the journal Transformations: A Journal of Inclusive Scholarship and Pedagogy. The irony extends beyond the title of the journal: the name of the forum to which Professor Patton contributed is "How do you teach controversy?" Transformations is also not on-line; I’ve posted Professor Patton’s contribution here.
The opening paragraph is very revealing:
One of the more divisive courses I teach is Intercultural Communication. The class focuses on class, ethnicity, gender, race, racism, sexuality, and white supremacy both from a domestic and international perspective. One of the greatest challenges I have faced is not only teaching this subject matter to a largely Euro-American dominated universities, but to students who believe that marginalization does not exist because we are a "Politically Correct" culture. As a result, I have encountered two main strategies of student oppositions: resistance and racism.
Professor Patton views our society as a fundamentally racist one. In her mind, apparently, there can be no legitimate criticisms of this view. Students who disagree are either resisting, or racist, or both.
The journal article also displays Professor Patton’s trademark inventiveness:
....some examples of verbal overt racism include these statements: "Black people are the worst. They are so awful, especially the women—they are so mean." "So we bring these Africans and blacks over here, free them, educate them, and some go back to Africa and live in huts?" and finally, "Too bad slavery still doesn’t exist, I would own you." Of these racist comments, all were orally given except the last one, which was a written comment, by a student.
It is likely Professor Patton seldom encounters a serious challenge to her worldview. Most undergraduates are not knowledgeable enough (or are too intimidated) to counter her claims. What feeble objections they may raise are easily dismissed. But last semester she found in her class a near middle-aged graduate student who was conservative to boot. After hearing a few of his comments, she probably realized that Gardner was someone who was well-read and knowledgeable enough to seriously challenge the view she presented in class. This presented a major threat to her, because it would make her job of indoctrinating her students in her worldview much more difficult. And, yes, it is fair to say she wants to indoctrinate:
In using [a learning-centered] strategy, I have not only shifted the outcome from teaching to learning, but also I have empowered the students and myself. In using this strategy, lively discussions ensue and often students who acted in a resistant or racist manner see their peers and contemporaries deconstructing and critiquing their marginalizing beliefs and perspectives. By allowing the students to analyze the anonymous statements and/or behavior of their peers, three things happen: 1) the racists or resistance student becomes enlightened as to how their peers feel about a certain issue and often their behavior, beliefs, and attitude change and move in amore positive direction; 2) the students feel empowered because they have a voice and were able to exercise their agency; and 3) I feel empowered and renewed to see such positive change ensue.
For further evidence that it is important that Patton imparts the correct views to her students, I return your attention to the Ames Tribune article I quoted above. What is striking about that passage is this particular sentence: "Geoffroy's letter said he found evidence that several students in the journalism class found Gardner's views disruptive and dominating." Note, it isn’t so much that the problem was Gardner’s behavior, as it was his "views". Apparently, enough students in Patton’s class got the message that certain views were unacceptable.
However, it is important to understand that made up the lies about Gardner’s racism not simply because she found his views threatening. She also truly believed that he was part of a racist agenda. This quote from another Ames Tribune article (also not posted on the Tribune website, but posted here) bears this out:
Patton further wrote in that complaint, “I do not mind alternative viewpoints in class. That makes class exciting. What I do mind are people who come in with agendas that many in the class deem white supremacist, people who don’t read, people who attempt to challenge my authority in the classroom and what the class is learning for their own agenda.”
Note the doublethink. She “doesn’t mind alternative viewpoints,” but she does mind “people who come in with agendas that [are] white supremacist.” But how does she know someone has an agenda unless he first expresses a viewpoint? It seems likely that Professor Patton sees all conservative views as part of a racist agenda. Thus, she likely thought it was no big deal to make up a story about Gardner being part of a white supremacist group. To her, it was probably true anyway.
This leaves only one major question unresolved. If Patton did unfairly expel Gardner from her class, why didn’t someone along the appeals process ever rule in favor of Gardner? I’ll address that question tomorrow.
. . .
MORE KRUGMAN TAKEDOWNS
What’s the saying? Messing with the bull, and you get the horns! Krugman recently did a hit piece on President Bush that was filled with factual errors. Kaus, Hoystory, and Minuteman (not once, but twice) are letting Krugman have it. As if you needed any more evidence as to why I call him the Mike Tyson of the Blogosphere. (Thanks to Croooow Blog.)
. . .
INSTAPUNDIT AND GUN RIGHTS
I meant to blog this yesterday, but other business intruded. Glenn Reynolds has this excellent takedown of the Washington Post’s rather bad editorial on gun rights from yesterday. And Reynolds also links to three related pieces (1, 2, 3) by the brothers Volokh that are superb.
. . .
A SMALL BOOST FOR FOR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY
The Quad City Times has this editorial attacking the stupid lawsuit filed by the obese man who claims fast food restaurants caused his health problems. Of note is this passage:
And certainly, many of us eat too much fast food.
But that’s an individual choice. No one forces us to swallow that McDonald’s Big Mac or that KFC Triple Crunch Zinger chicken sandwich, each laden with about 570 calories, half the recommended daily amount of fat and a hefty 85 milligrams of cholesterol. There is no compelling evidence that such fast food is addictive. And it can be part of a balanced diet when eaten in moderation.
Exactly right. Too bad enough of our society didn’t take a similar attitude with the lawsuits against tobacco companies, which set the precedent for stupid lawsuits.
. . .
IT’S OKAY TO QUESTION SOME FOLKS' PATRIOTISM
This editorial in the Des Moines Register praises Senator Chuck Grassley for criticizing Stanley Tools for wanting to reincorporate in Bermuda. Stanley Tools has decided to stay in the U.S. What is most interesting about this editorial is these passages:
Although the legality of offshore incorporation hasn't been challenged, its patriotism has….
Nothing is more American than tools, and the thought of the Connecticut toolmaker opening a shell office offshore to avoid U.S. taxes seemed flat-out wrong.
Funny, isn’t it, that it’s okay to question the patriotism of those who run a corporation for simply wanting to avoid high taxes? But don’t you dare question the patriotism of someone who, say, opposes the war on terrorism.
. . .
ANOTHER GOOD YEPSEN COLUMN
David Yepsen has an excellent piece in the Des Moines Register today. Although I think his economic analysis is a bit too pessimistic, he is dead on with paragraphs like these:
It seems like once a day there's a "boo-hoo" story about how some state agency or program is suffering from budget cuts. These are largely generated by tax-paid, public-relations officers or agency heads and are primarily designed to make us all shed a tear - and press political candidates to promise to spend more.
Yes, and unfortunately it is the paper you write for, Mr. Yepsen, that does so much to spread these stories.
Anyway, it is a column well worth a read.
. . .
Monday, August 05, 2002
DEAD-BEAT DADS, AGAIN
This editorial in the Daily Nonpareil praises the recent effort by the federal government to arrest men who were in arrears on their child-support payments. I also applaud the effort.
While I do think the government should go after dead-beat dads, there is a whole other side to the divorce/child custody issue which does not receive enough attention. I’ve blogged about it before here, and this is an article from the Philadelphia Inquirer from a while back about the matter.
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE: DES MOINES REGISTER REALLY GETTING READY TO OPPOSE WAR WITH IRAQ
Any doubt that the editorialists at the Des Moines Register were going to oppose the war with Iraq were put to rest in Saturday’s editorial. To demonstrate the dangers of such a war, the Register refers us to the recent hearing in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:
Experts warn that invading Iraq increases the risk of more terrorist attacks in the United States. It will likely result in more expensive oil. Tens of thousands of ground troops must plan on staying in Iraq for many years. Scott Feil, a retired Army colonel, demonstrated with a detailed analysis the need for 75,000 troops to stabilize Iraq. He said the effort would cost the United States more than $16 billion a year.
The editorialists call this the "voice of reason." I suppose that those who support a war are the voices of irrationality.
The editorial concludes by scolding America:
So the American public shouldn't just blindly support a U.S. invasion of Iraq. Rather, people should be listening to the projections and estimates of those experts briefing the Senate. They offer a startling reminder of the risks and costs of war. A war that may not even be necessary.
How is it that when Americans are "blind" when they support a policy that liberals like those at the Register disapprove of? Perhaps I’m going out on a limb here, but I suspect that most Americans have their eyes wide open in the wake of 9/11. Americans are well aware of the costs of war with Iraq. The reason a majority of them support a war with Iraq is that they are also well aware of what can happen to the U.S. if we don’t take out a enemy like Hussein.
For an appraisal of the costs of inaction, it is well worth reading this column by David Yepsen in the Register the following day. Consider this paragraph:
Expensive as this war will be, the human cost to the United States will be cheaper than the alternative—more terrorist attacks around the world and against U.S. citizens. (If you liked those pictures of the World Trade Center, you'll love watching Los Angeles after a terrorist opens a suitcase full of smallpox. And remember this: for all the whining about civilian casualties in the current War on Terror, the United States has sustained most of the confirmed ones.)
Let me add that if we wait to topple Hussein until he has full use of weapons of mass destruction, the military cost of deposing him will only be that much greater. And so will the price of oil.
For evidence that the war is necessary, Yepsen writes
It seems pretty obvious after Biden's hearings that we'll have to get rid of Saddam with the force of arms. After a decade of sanctions, embargoes and no-fly zones, he's still in power developing weapons of mass destruction. And as Richard Butler, the Australian diplomat who headed the U.N. weapons-inspection program, told the committee: "If you defer, put off to another day, the solution to a serious problem, it will only be harder and costlier in the end."
So do we wait for another World Trade Center before we act in our own self-defense? Of course not. During the hearings, we learned Saddam has trained terrorists and is developing chemical weapons of mass destruction. Butler told the committee Saddam could have three nuclear bombs built by 2005. The New Yorker magazine and the Public Broadcasting System, not exactly tools of the vast right-wing conspiracy, have connected the dots between Saddam and al-Qaida. What more evidence do we need?
I wonder if the Register editorialists watched the same hearings that Yepsen did?
It is clear that Hussein is building weapons of mass destruction. It is clear that he is linked to al Qaeda, if not 9/11. The time to topple him is now, while the cost of doing so will be the smallest.
. . .
GOP IN DANGER OF LOSING THE INVESTOR CLASS?
Over at NRO, Ramesh Ponnuru warns that the investor class may abandon the Republican Party. He also has some good ideas on how the GOP can win them back.
. . .
THE LAMENT OF AN "INTERNATIONALIST"
For a look at the reasoning of someone who thinks America’ international problems could be solved by more participation in the "international community," read Rehka Basu’s column in the Des Moines Register. For example, Basu thinks that our moral authority to criticize other nations is dependent on our signing various treaties.
Look at our attitude toward CEDAW, the global women's rights treaty that 170 countries, including every other industrialized one, have already ratified. Our Senate's refusal to ratify it puts us in a league with Sudan, Afghanistan, Iran and Somalia. Bush had told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to support the treaty, then backed off saying it needed further review. It cleared the committee anyway last week. Until we ratify it, we forfeit our right to demand that other countries honor women's rights.
Huh? Shouldn’t our "right to demand that other countries honor women’s rights" be based on how women are actually treated in this country? If such a right is based on signing a treaty, then places that treat women as second-class citizens, like many Middle Eastern nations, would be free to criticize the treatment of women in other nations as long as they signed the treaty. The U.S., meanwhile, would have to keep its collective mouth shut.
In what is probably her biggest breakdown in logic, she argues that the best way to respond to 9/11 is to become more involved in the international community:
We took an awful pummeling last Sept. 11. We discovered that building security isn't as easy as a game of "Gotcha." Now let's scrap the antiquated notion that world domination is the route to world peace. Only being a team player is.
Excuse me, but the foreign policy of eight years preceding the Bush Administration was all about being a "team player.’ President Clinton was enamored of things like taking action through the auspices of the United Nations. If being so involved in the international community is so effective at achieving peace, why did al Qaeda grow bolder and bolder during that time? Sorry Ms. Basu, but peace is achieved through strength, not a bunch of nice signing ceremonies.
. . .
Sunday, August 04, 2002
BIG BOUNCING BOOB WATCH, PART 1
The first thing you notice in the Anna Nicoole Smith show is that Anna needs to go on a diet. A refrigerator full of SlimFast diet.
The next thing you notice, of course, are the endowments. Those are given a lot of attention in the show. They seem to be the stars of the show.
Then there is her butt. You could land a C4 cargo plane on that thing!
The show features Anna whining and pouting. At one point she scolds her dog for passing gas. Real exciting stuff.
During a house shopping trip she refers to one house as "Canabana." One gentleman corrects her, "Cabana."
At the end of the shopping trip, she looks at the camera and says "I have to really go home and masturbate!" Yeah, baby! Then, much to my disappointment they show her getting ready to go to a party for "Guess Jeans."
On the way to the party, Anna’s lawyer tries to explain to her what is happening in the Middle East and suicide bombers. She demonstrates her intellect by saying, "Don’t they think it’s kind of painful?" Then she reveals that she may be a bit smarter than you think (just a bit.) Her lawyer suggests she should come out in support of Israel. She replies, "I’m just gonna shut up." Good idea.
Final thought. One of the commercials for the show states "Entertaining? Yes. Educational? No." They’ve got that second part right.
. . .
|
. . .
|
