Friday, March 07, 2003
HANOI HARKIN WAS FOOLED!
Senator Harkin must think that we are stupid enough to think that he’s pretty stupid. According to this article in the Des Moines Register (thanks, Joe) Harkin claims that he was fooled into voting for the Congressional authorization of force last October:
"I'm not going to be fooled twice," said Harkin, who backed President Bush on the resolution last year…
Harkin said that at the time, he believed Bush was trying to seek a peaceful solution in Iraq, but instead the administration has been "like the cowboy who rode out of Texas, all guns blazing" in pursuit of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
"As I look back, it sure looks like the administration was never serious about resolving the situation peacefully - I thought they were," said Harkin.
This is disingenuous to the core! Bush went to the United Nations on September 12 of last year. That was almost six months ago. If that’s not a “serious attempt to resolve the situation peacefully”, what is?
This also raises the question of what, exactly, did Harkin think he was voting for? A look at the resolution shows that it was written with the intent of supporting a military option. Did Harkin read it before he cast his vote?
In my column in the American Prowler yesterday I wrote “Harkin has a history of playing the 'moderate hawk' before election eve, and then reverting to peacenik after he's re-elected.” That looks all the more accurate today.
. . .
YES, THANK GOODNESS
Joe writes to say "Thank goodness airport security has been federalized.” Undoubtedly.
. . .
THE REGISTER LIKES RELIGION—SORT OF
Does anyone else find it a bit ironic that the Des Moines Register editorial page used the position of the Pope to disparage Bush’s Iraq policy? According to the editorial:
Pope John Paul II asked the world's billion Catholics to pray for peace, and he chose Ash Wednesday to send an emissary to tell President Bush a war with Iraq without United Nations approval would be illegal and unjust.
Do you suppose that the Register will at some future date point out that the Pope supports Bush’s position on cloning and abortion? Yes, I know, wishful thinking. But that’s about all you can do with the Register’s opinion page these days. I suppose I should also note that I’m Catholic and as far as I’m concerned the Pope is wrong.
Also of note from the editorial:
Nothing has deterred Bush from his apparent determination to remove Saddam by force - not opposition from allies, not worldwide peace demonstrations and, in all probability, not opposition from the Vatican.
And not the angst-ridden, hand-wringing, gutless carping from the Register either, I might add.
. . .
AREN’T WE JUST SOOOO CLEVER?
Apparently thinking they are being cute, the Register editorial board ran this smarmy editorial about the marriage counseling plan in the new federal welfare law.
For those lawmakers intent on pushing marriage on welfare recipients, some common sense should be employed.
Yep, we’re “pushing” marriage on them. We’re gonna hire men with shotguns to prod them to the altar.
Rather than paying for programs and seminars that tout the benefits of wedded bliss - in which the bulk of the money goes to pad the incomes of motivational speakers and faith-based groups - the government should spend the money more directly to achieve the desired result.
Why not simply pick up the tab for a marriage if the couple is low-income?
Well, because we don’t want the government picking up the tab for everything a poor person wants or needs. Doing that fosters dependence. That’s why we implemented welfare reform in the first place, to lessen dependence, remember? Oh wait, that’s right, the Register thought that Republicans did it just to be mean. My bad.
And then, by the logic of some lawmakers, poverty would disappear.
Uh, no. Poverty will always be with us. Promoting marriage will just make a sizeable dent in it.
. . .
HEALTH-CARE AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR
In their recent editorial disparaging Bush’s Medicare plan (I know your shocked) the Register editorialists claimed Medicare works better than the private sector because:
While traditional Medicare spends about 2 percent on administrative costs, HMOs spend an average of 15 percent on administration.
The Register neglected to mention how Medicare holds down costs:
One way Medicare controls costs is by contracting with private companies, which implement most of its claims processing, peer reviewing, and auditing activities. As of the spring of 2000, Medicare was contracting with fifty-six intermediaries and carriers, mostly private affiliates of the Blue Cross/Blue Shield Association, to help administer the program.
Still, I’m not entirely sold on the Bush plan. I’d prefer to see a plan that involved Medical Savings Accounts (MSA), where seniors pay for everything except catastrophic care out of a set amount in the MSA. What seniors don’t spend in a given year, they can roll over to the next. This would link the consumer (patient) directly to the supplier (doctor) and eliminate the inefficiency of having a “third-party” payer. It would hold down health-care expenses as seniors would have an incentive to hold down costs. In fact, it would be a good idea not just for seniors, but for all Americans.
Of course it would thwart the nationalized health-care system the Register editorialists so desperately want. All the more reason to do it.
. . .
Thursday, March 06, 2003
HIS MIND IS MADE UP
From Bush’s speech/press conference, it appears that Bush knows exactly what he wants. Unless Saddam Hussein disarms and goes into exile, probably within the next two weeks, Bush has decided that the U.S. is going to war.
Clearly Bush was focused, as though he cares only about the goal. How many times did he say the words “disarmament” and “regime change” or some variation? I lost count.
Bush’s resolve was also apparent in the way he answered the reporters’ questions. Specifically, it was clear in the way that he didn’t answer some of the questions. It was as though he found the concerns underlying certain questions to be distractions. For example, one reporter asked him if the operation in Iraq would be a failure if the U.S. didn’t capture Hussein. Bush never answered that; he only reiterated that there would be regime change in Iraq. It seems that Bush doesn’t care if Hussein hides out in Bora Bora for the next ten years. As long as he’s no longer running Iraq and we’ve taken away his weapons of mass destruction—that’s all that matters to Bush.
It was much the same for the question about why so many of our traditional allies disagree with us, why so many millions have protested recently, and why so many people in the world view America as arrogant. Again, Bush didn’t really answer the question. He stated that we have disagreements with other countries, but that he wanted us to maintain our relationships with those countries. It was as if Bush was saying “Look, we’ve made our case. It’s a convincing one. If other people aren’t convinced, well too bad. I’m through trying to persuade them. Worrying about those who disagree with us is merely a distraction from our objective, disarming Iraq and getting rid of Saddam.”
After tonight’s remarks from Bush, someone close to Hussein had better encourage him to get a move on. Otherwise, the missiles and bombs are coming.
. . .
HANOI HARKIN
My new column at the American Prowler.
. . .
Wednesday, March 05, 2003
TEACH TO THE TEST
Here’s a little quiz for you. In general, when you think of someone who has good critical-thinking skills, you assume that person is (A) literate, or (B) illiterate?
I raise that question because this editorial from the Des Moines Register suggests that testing in public schools will likely be at odds with things like critical thinking, history, and writing:
The No Child Left Behind Act, signed into law by President Bush in January 2002, means school districts across the nation must use standardized tests to measure whether students are making enough progress. It is the main way the federal government will hold them accountable….
That raises the concern that teachers will feel pressured to "teach to the tests." Who wouldn't? Their schools eventually will be labeled as needing improvement, or failing, if test scores don't steadily improve. The federal goal is for every student to be proficient, according to the standards set by their state, by the 2013-14 school year.
No Child Left Behind initially emphasizes scores in reading and math. Later, science will be included. But what about writing, social studies, history, music, art and other subjects that are part of a well-rounded education?….
Teaching to the tests won't serve students well in the long run. Obviously, students need to be able to read and work with numbers - although Iowa schools don't need the federal government to tell them how to accomplish that.
But a broad understanding of the world and of how to think critically are every bit as important to turning out good citizens - a point that seems to be completely ignored by the No Child Left Behind Act.
But I wonder, if someone can’t read or do math, how can he be expected to develop critical-thinking skills? Or learn history or how to write (after all, don’t you have to be able to read to do those things?) If the tests require students to know what a complete sentence looks like and what 2 + 2 equals, then I can’t see why “teaching to the test” is a problem.
Indeed, the charge of “teaching to the test” may be little more than a distraction from the real problem. This column by Thomas Sowell does a superb job of explaining why the education establishment is losing so much sleep over testing. Money quote:
Unfortunately, most of the people who call themselves educators have not been doing much educating over the past few decades, as shown by American students repeatedly coming in at or near the bottom on international tests. That is why some states are trying to force teachers to teach academic material by testing their students on such material, instead of relying on the inflated grades and high "self-esteem" that our schools have been producing, instead of knowledge and skills.
While our students spend about as much time in school as students in Europe or Asia, a higher percentage of other students' time is spent learning academic subjects, while our students' time is spent on all sorts of non-academic projects and activities.
Those who want to keep on indulging in popular educational fads that are failing to produce academic competence fight bitterly against having to "teach to the test." It will stifle "creativity," they complain. The author of a recent feature article in the New York Times Magazine declares that "genuinely great teaching -- the sort of thing that Socrates and his spiritual descendants have delivered" will be discouraged by having to "stuff our charges with information" in order to pass tests.
If there has actually been such "genuinely great teaching," then why has there been no speck of evidence of it during all these years of low test scores and employer complaints about semi-literate young people applying for jobs? Why do American students learn so much less math between the fourth and the eighth grade than do students in other countries? Could it be because so much more time has been wasted in American schools during those four years?
As I stated in another post recently, what really has members of the education establishment up in arms is that they are finally going to be held accountable. It's no wonder they're worried.
. . .
DID I GO OVERBOARD?
Michael Totten thinks I went too far in saying Harkin is a communist apologist. Here's his email:
Harkin is right about Vietnam. It is not half as bad a place as you might think it is. My wife and I are planning a trip there and, believe me, I've been reading and researching the place in detail.
Of course the government is bad, just as Harkin says. But it isn't Communist anymore (it is capitalist and authoritarian), and even if it were, it doesn't make Harkin a "communist apologist." He's is just being realistic about the state of Vietnam today. Any travel writer will tell you what Harkin said, and they are not commies either.
I have no idea what his point is. He is, apparently, clueless on Iraq. But a "communist apologist?" I think not. That's a pretty serious charge.
I'm supposed to have an American Prowler column about Harkin's remarks tomorrow, so we can continue this discussion then. I look forward to it.
. . .
Tuesday, March 04, 2003
TOM HARKIN, COMMUNIST APOLOGIST
Joe, one of my most loyal readers, emailed me this article in the Des Moines Register in which Senator Tom Harkin tries to undermine the effort against Iraq by comparing it to Vietnam. It’s notable not so much because it proves Harkin is a weasel (he voted for the resolution authorizing force) but for what he said about Vietnam:
"Go visit Vietnam, as I've done several years ago, and find out how the people are getting along there," said Harkin, who voted for the congressional resolution authorizing the president to take military action against Iraq, but has been increasingly critical since.
"They seem to be getting along fine," he said on the Senate floor. "I still may not approve of the kind of government they've got, but the people seem to be getting along fine. Saigon is bustling. Hanoi is bustling. Roads are being built. Tourist industry is going up. Manufacturing is going up.
"It might not be the mirror image of our government but they seem to be doing all right."
Joe writes “Yeah, this from a guy who thinks Ashcroft is a threat to civil rights. Other than the oppression and grinding poverty in one of the poorest countries in the world, things are just freaking ducky.”
I’d add that it also depends on what the meaning of the word “they” is. I’ll assume that Harkin wasn’t referring to Vietnam’s political prisoners. I also like the phrase “It might not be the mirror image of our government.” That’s like saying that Hulk Hogan might not be the mirror image of Shania Twain.
Ultimately, Harkin’s remarks are stupid for two reasons. First, they attempt to reduce the justification for invading Iraq to the nature of the regime in Baghdad. If I were to run into Harkin right now, I'd be inclined to ask him if he's ever heard of weapons of mass destruction or links to terrorism? Second, the underlying premise is the U.S. can’t do good anywhere if it isn’t going to do good everywhere. Because we aren’t trying to topple the dictatorship in Vietnam, we can’t topple the one in Iraq. Anyone for making the perfect the enemy of the good?
Joe also remarks “Can Tom Harkin be any more lamebrained?”
No, Joe, he can’t.
P.S. If you'd like to give the esteemed Senator a piece of your mind, here's his email.
. . .
Monday, March 03, 2003
FOR SOME IT'S STILL 1996
Rekha Basus doesn’t like the “new theory” about poverty and welfare:
The theory, in essence: Send them to work, make them marry, and until they marry, make sure they don't have (any more) sex. Behind it lies the assumption that most welfare recipients' behavior is to blame for their poverty status, that they have kids just to stay home on the government's dime. That thinking was at the heart of the welfare overhaul that began with Bill Clinton in 1996.
This is the theory she’d like to replace it with:
But what if the proposition is wrong? What if poor women are poor because the only jobs they're qualified for - or have a shot at getting - pay less than livable wages? What if they have children because they're poor?
And what if the welfare plan ensures they never move into middle-class status, but stay stuck in minimum-wage jobs?
The proposed reforms could thwart a welfare recipient's chances of getting an education and of eventually getting a better-paying job. Instead of focusing on how to increase her earning power, it focuses on having her employed, no matter what. Iowa's Republican congressmen all voted for it. The lone Democrat didn't.
This is called the “welfare recipient as helpless victim” theory. It was the theory that dominated welfare before the 1996 reform. It was the theory that helped to keep so many welfare recipients dependent.
But as we’ve found out since the reform, most are not helpless. When faced with the prospect of losing benefits, they take steps toward self-sufficiency. And most are better off.
Basu tries to put the worst face on the state of welfare recipients:
Half the women who have left welfare for work in the last few years earn an average of $7.15 an hour, according to Rickie Solinger, a historian and author who visited Drake last week. At that rate, a full-time job would gross $14,000 a year, hardly a self-sufficiency wage. Solinger's figures come from the Urban Institute. Little wonder, she says, that more than one in three women leaving welfare for such jobs don't last at them through the year.
While welfare reform has certainly reduced the welfare rolls, it hasn't eliminated poverty. The national poverty rate was up to 11.1 percent in 2001, says Solinger, and big cities are reporting new increases in hunger and homelessness. But welfare reform allows the government to wash its hands of those poor women and their children. It sets a five-year lifetime cap on collecting benefits.
However, stats on hourly wages always present an incomplete picture. See page 10 of this study that summarizes some findings of a Mathematic Policy Study. The stats show that earnings are only one part of income, and when the others are factored in, former recipients do reasonable well.
As for the poverty rate, nice try Ms. Basu. Yes, the poverty rate was up in 2001; but it was still well below the rate it was at in 1996. In fact the poverty rate had fallen every year from 1996 to 2001. The reason it jumped up in 2001 has nothing to do with the failure of welfare reform and everything to do with the recession.
Despite all the evidence that welfare reform was worked, Basu insists on thinking welfare reform will hurt the poor: “And what if the welfare plan ensures they never move into middle-class status, but stay stuck in minimum-wage jobs?” For some, it is still 1996.
. . .
|
. . .
|
