Saturday, November 16, 2002
IOWA IS BIG TEN CHAMPS!
Iowa beats Minnesota 45-21 to go 8-0 in the Big Ten and guarantee a share of the Big Ten title!
. . .
THE NY TIMES IS GLOWING WITH PRAISE FOR....
....Mayor Bloomberg for proposing to raise taxes:
Mr. Bloomberg was performing a rare profile in courage by proposing such stunning tax hikes and inviting everyone to blame him for the pain.
Funny how words like "courage" come pouring out from the liberal press when a politician proposes tax hikes. I wonder if the Times would have said the same thing if the Mayor had only proposed spending cuts. For some strange reason, I rather doubt it.
. . .
THE NEW CLCIC
Croooow thinks Representative Marcy Kaptur is vying to be the next Cynthia McKinney. Word of advice to Ms. Kaptur: Look at what happened to Cynthia in her primary.
. . .
RULES FOR REPUBLICANS
Acidman has some advice for the GOP. I'd probably disagree with some of the stuff about the drug war, and definitely disagree if the abortion stuff applied to partial birth abortion. But it's a good read nonetheless.
(Thanks to VodkaPundit.)
. . .
TWO INNOCENT BABES
This will make you very sad and very angry.
. . .
OUCH!
How do you spell "bishops get a spanking"? H-O-Y.
. . .
Friday, November 15, 2002
DAILY DIATRIBE: MORE THOUGHTS ON WHAT IS INAPPROPRIATE, ETC.
On Wednesday I posted a response to a comment from Chloe of Watermelon Punch. Her comment dealt with my post about a photograph of Bill Clinton and Walter Mondale laughing it up at the Wellstone Memorial/Rally. My post prompted her to post another comment, which in turn inspired me to think again. Below is her comment in parts, followed by my response. (Also see some of the comments in response to Chloe’s comment; they make some interesting points.)
Sorry, I don’t believe feelings can be good or bad. What you do with them, and the results of those behaviours, MIGHT be in some cases.
One of the comments already addressed part of this: “If Mr. X feels joy because Ms. Y was beaten and killed because she was homosexual, I'm willing to bet that Chloe would conclude that his feeling of JOY was wrong EVEN if he did NOTHING to act upon his feeling.”
As for the second sentence your statement, I would restate the last clause to say “are in almost all cases.” Behavior is seldom neutral as it has consequences. The consequences are either good or bad, or some mix of both.
But in some family traditions, a whoop it up party is in order for a funeral - complete with dancing (& sometimes even debauchery). And this goes on even in the U.S. Aren't we a nation of diversity in tradition, culture, and lifestyle?
The term “diversity” is used to excuse way too many practices these days. Certain cultures in our world practice a gruesome procedure known as “female circumcision.” Should we just dismiss that as “diversity”? And before you think that I’m exempting American culture from my withering gaze, there are still pockets of this nation where whites think blacks are inferior. Surely, that has long been their “tradition, culture, and lifestyle,” but somehow I doubt that makes it okay.
As for funeral practices, I’d have to know what the specific practice was. But my larger point is that the notion of practices being good and bad does not disappear because it is another culture engaging in the practice.
There are probably things you do that I feel are embarrassingly inappropriate. Ahem. But you know, I'll say, from my perspective, this is inappropriate. You are saying “THIS IS SIMPLY INAPPROPRIATE & WRONG” and casting judgment.
In that last sentence you are in effect saying that my “casting judgment” is inappropriate. Are you saying that my casting judgments in wrong, or that it is just your “perspective”? If it’s the latter, then there was really no reason fro you to post your comment in the first place. The principle of relativism should still apply—i.e., it’s just my “practice” to cast judgments.
But what I think you are really arguing is that casting judgments is wrong—and that in itself is a judgment. That is the contradiction that relativists are often unwilling to acknowledge. By embracing relativism, they’ve judged moral codes to be wrong.
What you’re bouncing up against here is the human condition. We simply can’t go through our lives without making judgments. Human survival depends on it.
For heaven’s sake, it’s not like they killed anyone at Wellstone’s memorial.
I think (and this is my perspective), judging someone else's behaviour at a funeral is just as bad, if not more inappropriate than someone's inappropriate behaviour at a funeral. After all, it's not like you were at Wellstone's memorial, and you're a Wellstone family member - if you were, then I think you'd have a right to complain.
Again, you’re being a bit slippery with “this is my perspective.” The principle of relativism applies to make decision to cast a judgment. Yet it doesn’t seem to apply. You suggest that it would be wrong had they killed someone at the memorial. Doesn’t that imply a judgment on your part?
As for the Wellstone Memorial/Rally, let me use a hypothetical. If Trent Lott had punched out Bill Clinton at the Memorial/Rally, would I need to be a Wellstone family member to complain that Lott was in the wrong?
Ultimately, I suspect it was relativist thinking that caused the debacle at the Wellstone Memorial/Rally. I don’t know Rick Kahn, but I’ll be that it never occurred to him that his remarks would be inappropriate. Rather, he probably figured “it was all relative.”
. . .
LET'S PRIVATIZE
Jay Caruso has a few thoughts on Bush's desire to privatize parts of the federal government.
. . .
WHAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT MEANS
Croooow Blog has an interesting exchange between Paul Begala and G. Gordon Liddy.
. . .
OH MY GOD, THERE IS HOPE!
At William Penn University in Oskaloosa, Iowa, a small group of students held a demonstration, a demonstration in favor of a war with Iraq:
Pro-war demonstrations are rare occurrences on college campuses [No kidding?!], especially at William Penn University, a school founded on Quaker traditions of simplicity and pacifism.
But William Penn junior James Light was tired of hearing anti-war rhetoric from his fellow students, so he organized a rally supporting U.S. military action against Iraq.
"I just hope this demonstration will let people know that college students aren't just hippie-type people who are all anti-war," Light said Thursday.
Thank you, Mr. Light. I will do my part to let others know that.
Of course, no article would be complete without the obligatory quote from the student lefty:
Light, a communications major from Arizona, told the small crowd that he didn't want a "blood bath." But, he said, he didn't want the United States to passively watch Saddam Hussein finance terrorist groups and build weapons of mass destruction.
Brandon Ermels disagreed. "I think they want a resolution through violence," said Ermels, a junior business major from Des Moines.
Got that? It’s not that Light and the others support the wrong approach. No, no. In Mr. Ermels mind they all have sinister motives. And, as we all know, in the leftists' world what matters are motives.
And there is also the quote from the concerned university administrator:
Diane Ottosson, director of media relations at the school, pointed out that another tradition is tolerance.
"As long as they're not disrupting anything or causing any problems, they have the right to voice their opinion, too," she said.
Now, I wonder, when was the last time an administrator voiced concerns about disruption or causing problems when a left-wing group held a protest? I’m sure one or two have, but I’ll bet you’ll have to search long and hard before you find them.
Nevertheless, it's nice to see some students willing to incur the wrath of the anti-war establishment. Now if only some students would do the same at Berkeley....
. . .
Thursday, November 14, 2002
GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE....
The Acidman has an, uh, interesting take on a recent Florida jury verdict.
. . .
PATTON VS. PATTEN
A good one from the Rottweiler.
. . .
WHAT DOES PELOSI SIGNIFY?
Now there’s a word I never thought I’d use on my blog. Damn postmoderns!
Anyway, Josh Marshall thinks we’re reading too much into Nancy Pelosi becoming minority leader. Not sure I agree, but he has a point.
. . .
OSAMA IS ALIVE—SO WHAT?
Damian Penny asks the essential question.
And he also links to Kathleen Kinsley who takes down the bin Laden rant. (I think she might need to go on the blogroll.)
. . .
PEACE DUDE!
Caleb Brown shares an email from a peace group.
. . .
WE STILL HAVEN’T GOTTEN BIN LADEN
Apparently Tom Dachle has found the issue to beat President Bush with:
The Senate's top Democrat said Thursday that the failure of U.S. authorities to capture Osama bin Laden raises questions about “whether or not we are winning the war on terror.”
Good thing he didn’t find it until after the election. Otherwise I’d be very worried.
. . .
IF IN VIRGINIA, WHY NOT IOWA?
The Washington Post has this editorial calling for tax increases to shore up Virginia’s budget deficit:
Lawmakers may like bragging that Virginia ranks 49th in tax burden and has some of the lowest corporate income and sales taxes in the country. The gross centerpiece is the cigarette tax -- the lowest in the country at 2.5 cents a pack. But how fine is all this when the state's universities are raising tuitions to take an edge off the deep budget cuts they are undergoing, when community mental health and substance abuse services are suffering cutbacks?
Gov. Mark R. Warner (D) said this week that the state's budget crisis will force a debate about what Virginia really wants from its government. He was aiming his comments in part at local leaders, who he thinks haven't begun to face up to the kinds of hard cuts the state is already making in response to budget shortfalls. But that broader discussion is bound to disclose that Virginia has fallen far short in providing, or even acknowledging, the resources that it takes to meet the state's needs in transportation, education and a host of other areas. What's needed now is action, before the hole gets deeper.
I suspect it’s only a matter of time before we see a similar editorial in the Des Moines Register—and our state officials talking like Mark Warner.
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE: WOULD MONDALE HAVE WON PRE-9/11?
It is so widely accepted that it has all but morphed into gospel truth: the Wellstone Memorial/Rally resulted in Walter Mondale losing the Minnesota Senate race. What I wonder is, would Mondale have lost had it occurred pre-9/11?
Indeed, he probably would have won because turning a memorial into a political rally would not have been an occasion for shame. During the Clinton-era, death became an occasion to be manipulated for political gain. Click here to go to a site that has the clip of Clinton smiling and laughing upon leaving the Ron Brown’s funeral—until he realized a camera was on him. (It’s the third link under “Hear and See Bill…”) Also recall that in the wake of the Filegate scandal, the Clinton Administration blamed the hiring of Craig Livingstone on the then-deceased Vince Foster.
Both were outrageous, but neither had much staying power in the media. The media, and much of the American public, seemed to accept the Clinton was a shameless political operator. Thus, his using “death” for political gain was no big deal. Furthermore, the media was enamored of the Clinton Administration’s ability to spin. The Clintonites could insist that a turd pile was really gold, and the media would collectively exclaim, “Look at how well they spinning that it really is gold.” Thus, the outrage over Clinton’s actions quickly got lost in the din of the press’s heavy breathing.
Had the Wellstone saga occurred before the 2000 election, we would have been treated to an super-size helping of spin. The Democrats would have insisted that it was just Rick Kahn’s way of honoring his boss. Then they would have quickly changed the subject about how it was the Republicans who were the ones really exploiting Wellstone’s memorial service. That it was the likes of Norm Coleman and Vin Weber who were trying to score political points by making Kahn’s comments an issue. The likely result: a demoralized Republican base, and energized Democratic one, a Mondale win.
The simple reason why that didn’t happen this time is that we take death far more seriously in the post-9/11 world. The death of a Commerce Secretary or the suicide of a White House aide did not upset America’s acceptance of death as an everyday event. But when 3,000 plus people are snuffed out in the blink of an eye, a nationwide reckoning is inevitable. Suddenly we realized how very temporary, and thus precious, is our mortal coil.
That is what redounded in the wake of the Wellstone Memorial/Rally. When Rick Kahn turned used the memorial to campaign for Democrats, he crossed a line that can no longer be crossed without consequences in the post-9/11 world. Apparently the Democrats realized not long after the event. The reason they didn't spin it was that they likely knew that to do so was to take more steps further away from that line. Had they done so, even more Minnesotans would have been repulsed, leading to an even worse defeat for Mondale.
In the week leading up to the election, I didn’t take very seriously the commentary that the Wellstone Memorial/Rally would backfire. I assumed that the Clinton era had inured us to such shenanigans. Clearly, I underestimated the effect of 9/11.
. . .
MOORE AMMO, PLEASE
Jay Caruso notes that Michael Moore may have pulled a fast one is his movie "Bowling for Columbine."
Michael Moore being misleading? I’m shocked.
. . .
AN ELECTION POST-MORTEM
R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. has his interpretation of the election results. I sure hope he is right.
. . .
THE NEXT GOP GHOUL
Guess who the Democrats are getting ready to demonize? Here’s a hint: he’s from Texas, and I don’t mean the President. Croooow Blog has the run down.
While you're there, take a look at this post about a spat between Andrew Sullivan and Michale Niman.
This takedown of Garrison Keillor is pretty good too.
. . .
FIRST DES MOINES, NEXT….
Well, the Des Moines City Council has decided to raise various "fees" to fill a hole in its budget:
Des Moines residents could pay more for pet licenses, parking fines and wide range of city services to help close a nearly $6.5 million deficit in this year's budget.
The red ink also would splash onto out-of-town visitors, who would be charged extra for admission to capital city attractions such as Blank Park Zoo and the Botanical Center, a move some suburbanites say would only alienate them from Des Moines.
Any cuts to the budget? Oh yeah:
In addition to fees and fines going up, about 20 of the city's nearly 100 unfilled jobs will be eliminated.
Whoopee.
If Des Moines is raising "fees" to cover it’s budget deficit, any bets on what the Iowa Legislature and the Governor will do come January?
. . .
LOOKING AHEAD
David Yepsen looks ahead to 2004.
. . .
WE HAVEN’T GOTTEN BIN LADEN, SO WE SHOULDN’T INVADE IRAQ
The Des Moines Register editorialists, thinking they’re being clever, has used the new bin Laden tape to criticize the coming war against Iraq:
Rather than being brought to justice, bin Laden has become the outlaw who got away. Meanwhile, the American focus has shifted to Iraq, even though that country had no known role in the events of Sept. 11….
This tape should have Americans asking why the United States has shifted primary focus away from the man with an acknowledged direct link to the atrocity of Sept. 11.
The Register is rather vague with the phrase "primary focus." Are they suggesting that because the military is preparing for Iraq, other parts of the government aren’t trying to track down bin Laden? Or are they suggesting that we need to employ 250,000 ground troops to hunt down Mr. Osama? Surely they aren’t that foolish.
As for why the U.S. is preparing to go after Saddam, it’s quite simple. He has weapons of mass destruction, is developing nuclear capabilities, and has links to terrorism. (The Register is quite slippery with the "no known role in the events of Sept. 11" line.) We need to take out Saddam before he develops nuclear weapons. Otherwise, it will be that much more difficult to fight the war on terrorism.
. . .
Wednesday, November 13, 2002
DAILY DIATRIBE: WHAT IS 'INAPPROPRIATE LAUGHTER'?
About two weeks ago, I posted a link to a photograph of Bill Clinton and Walter Mondale laughing at the Paul Wellstone Memorial/Rally. I titled the post “Inappropriate Laughter?” A woman named “Chloe” posted the following comment:
People laugh at funerals in my family. Are you trying to say something about it? Do you think we don’t have feelings about out loved ones? Just what are you getting at? Who are you to say what’s appropriate emotional behavior? Do you have a degree in psychology? Are you an anthropologist? Are you Emily Poste?
This has induced me to think a lot (probably too much) of what I meant by “inappropriate laughter.” So, let me address this comment one piece at a time:
People laugh at funerals in my family. Are you trying to say something about it? Do you think we don’t have feelings about out loved ones? Just what are you getting at?
What I’m getting at is that different emotions, and different variants of those emotions, are appropriate for different situations. In the case of a funeral, generally laughter is less appropriate than crying. That’s obvious, since it is a somber occasion.
However, a few types of laughter are appropriate at a funeral. For example, when my grandfather passed away a few years ago, some members of my family related funny stories about him in their remembrances. The laughter that followed is entirely appropriate—it’s part of the celebration of his life. I suspect that is the sort of laughter that occurs in the funerals in your family. Far from suggesting that you have no feelings for your loved ones, such laughter conveys some of the deepest of feelings.
Inappropriate laughter is the sort of “Hey, buddy! Ain’t it great to be here? Were having a party!” laughter that is conveyed in the photograph of Bill Clinton and Walter Mondale. The occasion was Senator Paul Wellstone’s memorial. The photograph of Clinton and Mondale strongly suggests they were having a real good time, like they might have at a party convention. Indeed, that is why the photo is so indicative of the event: it morphed into a political rally, which is inappropriate for a memorial service.
Who are you to say what’s appropriate emotional behavior?
Well, I’m a human being, that's who. Deciding what is and isn’t appropriate is part of being human. We all make judgments about right and wrong. I’m sure if you looked hard enough at your own website you’d find plenty of instances where you deemed something to be inappropriate. We can certainly disagree on what constitutes the “inappropriate,” but just because we disagree doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make such judgments.
Do you have a degree in psychology? Are you an anthropologist? Are you Emily Poste?
I’m none of those. (Who is Emily Poste?) Why do I have to be an expert to determine when laughter is inappropriate? If I tell a friend that I’m ill and he laughs, I don’t need a Ph.D. in psychology to know that what he did is wrong. (In fact, I’d probably be better off without such a degree.)
Ultimately, there are appropriate and inappropriate emotions given the situation. Many of those on display at the Wellstone Memorial/Rally were inappropriate. And it's not just me who thinks so. So did a lot of Minnesota voters.
. . .
NEW LEADERS IN THE IOWA HOUSE
Republicans in the House elected new leaders yesterday. Christopher Rants became the Speaker, and Chuck Gipp became Majority Leader.
The good news:
In their first news conference together, Gipp and Rants said they would make fiscal responsibility and improving Iowa's economy a priority. They said they would spend $4.5 million to reimburse counties the full amount for homestead, military, elderly and disabled property-tax credits. Earlier this year, the money was cut because of the state's budget shortfall.
The not-so-good news:
During this fall's election, the two political parties differed in their approaches to economic development. Republicans wanted targeted tax credits for businesses, while Vilsack called for using money from the tobacco settlement account to increase high-speed Internet access, develop sources of renewable energy such as wind farms, create a biotechnology park and help businesses become more productive.
"Obviously, with a divided government, a Democratic governor and a Republican Legislature, we're going to have to sit down and try to blend those two plans together," Rants said.
Looks like the GOP leadership has already met Vilsack halfway. Given that Vilsack has yet to move in their direction, it appears the Governor could get most of what he wants (lots of new government spending) while the GOP will get very little of what it wants.
Word of advice to the GOP leadership: you offer to compromise after you start negotiating, not before.
. . .
REICH ON VILSACK
Darn it! The one night I don't watch the O'Reilly Factor, and Bob Reich is on there saying that Tom Vilsack is an "up and coming" Democrat. (Thanks to Croooow Blog.)
Will Vilsack get the V.P. nod in '04? Maybe. I think a more likely scenario is that he runs for Senate in '08, assuming, of course, that Tom Harkin retires. We shall see.
. . .
DAZED AND CONFUSED
The Des Moines Register appears to be stumped:
Iowa was ranked 7th in a study by The United Health Foundation that rates U.S. states on 17 health measures. That's good news.
Then there's the anomaly. Iowa ranks 43rd in a category called "Support for Public Health Care" that figures the total expenditures for public welfare, health and hospitals and divides it by total general expenditures.
Iowa spends fewer public dollars for health, yet still receives a high score.
That might mean the quality of public health has less to do with the amount of public money spent and more to do with those things like the "Iowa values" reflected by both policy-makers and average Iowans.
Or, it might mean that Iowa’s public health is so good because we spend less public money on it. Government-run health-care systems like those in Canada and Great Britain are notoriously inefficient. Perhaps one of the reasons Iowa does so well is that we rely more on the market.
But that possibility wouldn’t occur to those who think that government funding is the source of all good in the world.
. . .
Tuesday, November 12, 2002
DAILY DIATRIBE: HOW NOT TO HELP IOWA
I'm really beginning to worry that too many Iowans think the way to grow the Iowa economy is by growing government. Or perhaps I'm just reading too many editorials like this one in the Des Moines Register. Yeah, that's it. I hope.
Anyway, the Register is lining up right behind all of Governor Vilsacks new spending proposals:
Voters chose Vilsack. Perhaps that is because of his clearer vision of how to make the state a better place for all Iowans.
That is likely true, in which case Iowa is going to get a lot of government spending that won’t do a thing for economic development.
He is determined to see Iowa excel in biotechnology and become energy independent. He has concrete plans to make both goals a reality.
Government can’t "make" new industries grow. That is up to the market. There is no way Governor Vilsack can know that bio-tech and alternative energy will be a success in the future. If they aren’t, then Iowa has flushed a lot of money down the toilet.
He wants to raise the minimum wage to $6.15 an hour over the next two years.
How will that help the Iowa economy? Raising the minimum wage forces up the cost of labor, making it less attractive for businesses to hire new people, and less attractive for new businesses to start up. Raising the minimum wage will only slow Iowa’s economic recovery.
He has proposed offering each of the 99 counties $1 million in matching funds for local projects, an expansion of the Vision Iowa program in which the state helps pay for community attractions.
Again, how will that help the Iowa economy? Vision Iowa provides development grants to Iowa cities for "beautifying" things like a waterfront or a park. The theory behind this is that supposedly businesses are more willing to locate to an area if it is more appealing to the eye. Oh boy. Businesses are generally concerned with taxes, labor costs, skill of the workforce, etc. The ‘beauty" of a place may be a consideration, but it not a very important one. "Beautifying" Iowa isn’t going to attract many new businesses.
He wants to provide incentives for developing high-speed, affordable Internet access everywhere in Iowa, a key to creating rural jobs.
I’m a little confused. How does providing internet access create jobs for rural Iowa? If rural Iowa was such a great place to build new businesses, wouldn’t private industry build internet access? Oh well, no need to consider such questions when there is a new, exciting government program that will provide access to the wolrdwide web!
It's also important that he keep a sharp eye on the jobs Iowa has now. Iowa's entire tax structure, including corporate taxes, should be re-examined toward making Iowa more competitive.
Yes, it is important to keep a sharp eye on taxes. It is more important to actually do something about them, like reducing them. That will make Iowa more attractive to business. But the Register editorialists would rather let people know that they're concerned about taxes without actually advocating cutting them.
Indeed, the Register, and perhaps too many Iowans, think that more government involvement is the key to producing economic growth. The opposite is true. Unfortunately, if Vilsack gets even half of what he wants, Iowa will find that out the hard way.
. . .
SCORE ONE FOR POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
According to this article in the Des Moines Register, the Iowa Department of Transportation will remove a "red-letter warning" on the driver's licenses of foreign nationals. In addition, it will issue new licenses for free:
Letters were sent to noncitizens advising them of their eligibility for duplicate licenses, said Terry Dillinger, the department's director of driver services. The state agency began placing the warnings on drivers' licenses of foreign nationals in July, part of an effort to prevent terrorism and curb identity theft.
The department suspended the practice two months ago, pending the completion of a formal legal opinion on whether the state agency overstepped its authority, Dillinger said Monday. The Iowa Civil Liberties Union had asked Gov. Tom Vilsack to halt the practice, contending the state agency acted improperly.
The reason for the change in policy?
"We still believe that what we did was within the scope of what the law intended, but we figured the best thing to do was to request an attorney general's opinion on it," Dillinger said. The red-letter warning, printed across the tops of licenses, could be reinstated if the attorney general's office concludes that it has a legal basis, he said.
Civil libertarians and immigrant rights advocates criticized the warning as inappropriate.
Translation: The policy is porbably legal, but we just got so much crap from lefty groups that our spines have turned to jelly.
I guess preventing hurt feelings is more important than preventing terrorism.
. . .
IOWA STATE GETS A NEW POLICY
You might remember the story about a minority journalism professor at Iowa State University who gave the boot to a white graduate student who supposedly disrupted her class. Well, the story is back because ISU is now adopting guidelines for removing disruptive students. I found this passage interesting:
The journalism professor, Tracey Owens-Patton, complained that a student dominated her class and said he might be part of a white supremacist group, records show. The student, Jay Gardner, said Owens-Patton used the class on ethnicity and gender in the media as a forum to blame white people.
Owens-Patton received approval from ISU administrators to remove Gardner from her class in February. The journalism school chairman, two deans, the provost and Geoffroy turned down Gardner's written appeals.
And Gardner's side of the story is....well, it's not presented in the article. Another case of sloppy journalism.
. . .
ARE THEY GETTING IT?
In the Des Moines Register this morning there are two editorials that deal with state education, specifically the "achievement gap" among minorities. It appears that the Register editorialists are beginning to realize that spending more money isn't the answer. The first one has this quote:
[Director of the Iowa Department of EducationTed] Stilwill advises local school districts to look at the relatively few schools that have closed the gap substantially. It can be done, he said. "It isn't just spending more money, but spending it in the right way."
Futhermore, the editorial notes that schools already get a fair amount of money:
It's not that schools do nothing to close the gap. Elementary schools with many low-income children get federal money to provide extra help with reading and math. Schools get state money to reduce class size. They also get state dollars for dropout prevention.
The second one examines an innovative approach at the Everett Accelerated School:
The plan, in brief, involves concentrating on reading by integrating it into all other subjects, such as science and music. Assessment is constant, to see if students are on track. Each child's needs are addressed individually.
But before we get too excited, we shouldn't overlook this line in the first editorial:
And there are other sources of money for schools - such as state and federal grants for early literacy intervention - though there's never enough assistance to go around.
Oh well, don't expect miracles. But it's a start.
. . .
GUESS GROSS WAS RIGHT
David Yepsen has an interesting column on the state budget. It looks like the state has about $700 million in various payments it hasn't collected. Add in the $400 million of "built-in" expenditures, and it seems that Doug Gross's figure of a $1 billion deficit wasn't so far off the mark. Are you listening Governor Vilsack? Never mind.
Anyway, parts of Yepsnes' column raised an eyebrow. For example:
Now that the campaign is over, some hard fiscal realities can set in.
Shouldn't they have set in during the campaign? Shouldn't the media have done a better job of making Iowans aware of the fiscal difficulities ahead? instead, they primarliy covered the squable over whether Gross's $1 billion deficit figure was accurate.
Also:
Tax increases are off the table. Democratic Gov. Tom Vilsack and the Republican-controlled Legislature have agreed on that. If anything, a few more tax cuts are likely to be considered as Iowa tries to make itself more competitive for economic growth.
I'm surprised that Yepsen states that with such certainty. It would have been easier to swallow if he had written "probably off the table." But if push comes to shove, don't bet against state lawmakers dumping this mess onto the backs of the taxpayers. You can bank on that.
. . .
I'M ALL FOR IT!
Geitner Simmons notes that Nebraska has some innovations for the death penalty.
. . .
Monday, November 11, 2002
WOLRD COMING TO AN END, AGAIN!
Thanks to Jason Steffans and Henry Hanks who pointed out this piece by Bill Moyers. Yep, the cheese is slipping off the cracker on that one.
Oh, and here's a good parody.
. . .
IN HONOR OF VETERANS DAY
Geitner Simmons has an excellent Veterans Day wrap up. Look for the post titled "the 11th hour of the 11th Day."
And my thanks to all the veterans who have served this nation. We owe our freedom to you.
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE: WORLD STILL COMING TO AN END!
Over in the New York Times, Bob Herbert displays more post-election liberal panic. Get a load of this first paragraph:
One of the definitions of slick is "deftly executed; adroit." Synonyms include "sly, shrewd, slippery, wily." These words came to mind as I watched the Republican Party's remarkable off-year election triumph last week. Give credit where it's due. Bill Clinton at his most devious was never as sly or as cunning (or as politically effective) as the Republican Party has become.
Boy, Herbert’s indigestion must be achieving titanic proportions if he thinks the Republicans are more “sly and cunning” than Clinton. Convincing America that it was just about sex and not about lying under oath is about as “sly and cunning” as it gets. No, Mr. Herbert, the GOP has light years to travel before it even comes close to that level of deception.
There is a method to the G.O.P.'s tax cut madness, beyond the obvious benefits to the very rich. Conservatives have long reasoned that the only way to destroy popular programs that actually help ordinary Americans (Social Security, Medicare and so on) is to starve the government of the money needed to pay for them.
Yep, it’s all an insidious plot. Give me a break! First of all, the Bush tax cuts are largely income tax-cuts, which don’t fund Social Security and Medicare. Those are funded by payroll taxes, which no one is suggesting we cut (except for certain liberal pundits who hoped to entice Republicans into a trap.) Next, conservatives are smart enough to know that they won’t ever destroy those programs. One because they’re too popular, and two, they remember what happened to Newt Gingrich when he simply wanted to reduce the rate of growth of Medicare.
Speaking of Mr. Gingrich:
During a budget fight in the mid-90's, Newt Gingrich, apparently referring to the original fee-for-service version of Medicare, which had become cherished by the elderly, wisecracked: "We don't get rid of it in Round One because we don't think it's politically smart."
Herbert is repeating a bit of liberal propaganda. Gingrich never made that remark in regard to Medicare. He made it in reference to a bureaucracy called the “Health-Care Finance Administration.” You can look it up, Mr. Herbert.
And while you’re looking things up:
The way to cripple such programs without openly opposing them is to bleed the government of the money to pay for them. With the prospect of budget deficits stretching far into the future, and with the first wave of baby boomers already well into their 50's, the day of reckoning for Social Security and Medicare is not far off.
Those programs were heading for trouble whether or not the federal government ran deficits.
The right wing of the G.O.P. has also proved itself hostile to environmental protection, and to the myriad health and safety regulations that protect Americans against poisonous foods and other dangerous products and practices.
There gonna poison the air and water! They’re gonna starve the children! They're coming for the sick, the poor, the elderly. Yes, we know, because we’ve heard this all before.
With two more justices like that, progressive government would be caught in the devastating trap of a right-wing assault from all sides — the White House, the Congress and the courts — with the Treasury drained of all money for new initiatives.
Oh, did I mention that they’re going to do away with civil and abortion rights too? Sorry, forgot that one. As for less money in the Treasury, you mean less money for lots of new, wasteful, ineffective government program? Ohmigod—That would be horrible!
Finally:
Slick? Adroit? Any number of adjectives will do. How about dangerous?
How about Nazis?
On the one had, I take a great deal of glee seeing liberals lose it. On the other, I find it unfortunate that folks like Herbert truly believe that everyone to the right of Tom Daschle is possessed of sinister motives and wants to visit serious harm on many Americans. We saw all of this when the GOP took over Congress in 1994. Apparently, some things never change.
. . .
IN FAVOR OF CORPORATE INTERESTS
Jason Steffans has this very interesting post about "corporate interests." (Also take a look at the comments.) He argues that Republicans should say they are for corporate interests in the sense they want corporations to grow the economy.
While it’s an interesting idea, I’m skeptical. The problem is that too many people think that corporations are opposed to the interest of the average American. Consider the following passage from an editorial by the Des Moines Register about the pharmaceutical industry’s participation in the recent election:
They've said that one plan is favored by the industry. That doesn't mean, however, that is the best plan for the American people. It most likely isn't.
I imagine that seemed non-controversial to many of the people who read it. The reason, I suspect, is that the word "corporate" evokes images of men in thousand dollar suits arriving at a large office high-rise in their limos. That makes it very easy for Democrats to demagogue the "corporate interest" issue.
It would be nice for a Republican to try what Jason has suggested. I’m just doubtful it would work.
. . .
GOP WINS! WORLD COMING TO AN END!
One of the things that I love when Republicans win elections is the hysterical responses that spew forth from liberal pundits.
There’s this bit from Derrick Jackson in the Boston Globe:
Give the Republicans credit. They know what they stand for. Tax cuts. Guns. Bombs. Oil. Big business. Old boy networks. Privatization. Plundering the earth. Pillorying and padlocking the poor. Party-line votes.
(Thanks to Andrew Sullivan.)
Then there is this from pathological Bush-hater Paul Krugman:
Clearly, we're going to have an extended sojourn in the political wilderness. Even criticizing the Bush administration's policies will become far more difficult. It will be hard even to find out what it's up to; the most secretive administration in the nation's history will now be even less forthcoming. And anyone who criticizes the administration, even on purely domestic issues, will be accused of lacking patriotism.
And the Des Moines Register’s Rekha Basu jumped right in yesterday:
Tuesday's elections make it likelier that President Bush will get support from Congress to make war on Iraq or on any other point on his axis of evil, and that Attorney General John Ashcroft will get to step up wiretapping of citizens and detentions without trials. And some of us complained when they were giving tax rebates and covering bare-breasted statues.
I’m going to keep an eye out for this sort of thing the next few days. If any of my readers see similar examples of hysteria, please point them out to me. If I like it, I’ll post it and give you credit.
Ah….Tuesday was a great day!
. . .
|
. . .
|
