"Mythical Bunk", my a$$!

Another problem with education and society's leniency when it comes to raising kids and challenging them (WSJ.com - Kids & Money):

"The biggest problem, of course, is that a job interferes with school. Dr. Steinberg says his research shows that grades don't usually suffer when kids work -- but that's only because they take easier courses or cheat in order to protect their grades. As it is, only one in 11 high-school graduates has taken trigonometry. Only one in four has taken physics. And 44% graduate without the courses they need to get into college."

"Kids" will have a job for many more years than they will be in school and the sooner they see what is expected of them in the "real" world, the better.

Still more evidence that Bush has been President longer than we think...

Here's more evidence that the press believes George Bush has been President longer than he actually has served. As I mentioned in an earlier post "W" Breaks FDR's Record, certain mainstream media personnel operate with different facts than the rest of us:

"That Blair and Bush should have discussed bombing the Al-Jazeera building in Qatar is hardly surprising. They agreed to bomb the headquarters of Serbian television during the Kosovo war."

Since the war in Kosovo occurred in 1999, either the 2000 election that Al Gore still claims was stolen from him, was actually a RE-election of President Bush, or Governor Bush was executing foreign policy from Texas!

So what are you doing NOW to build support across the aisle?

Apparently former President Clinton only sees "simple truths" in his administration:

"Bosnia's 10-year path since Dayton reminds all of us privileged to lead U.S. foreign policy of a simple truth: Every one of us who starts a large initiative will be out of office before America's job is done. Progress takes time, and speed is often the enemy of progress. Therefore, we cannot undertake an initiative without preparing to hand it off -- by building support across the
aisle at home, and by finding international partners who will pick up the job when America is occupied by new challenges. To this end, my administration built our policy around gaining allied support and adding international help over time."

Given his rhetoric these days regarding the war on terrorism and the failings of the Bush administration, I think this Op-ed piece should be viewed rather skeptically - not because of it's content (which I agree with) but because of the messenger.

EU teaches children treaty is still alive

Typical propaganda from those "who care":

"Children as young as eight are being taught that the controversial European Constitution is up and running - even though it has been rejected by voters."

Forget the facts. If we "teach it", it "will be"!

Happy (Blessed) Thanksgiving

From George Washington's first Thanksgiving Proclamation:

"Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me 'to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.'"

Amen.

"W" breaks FDR's record!

Apparently, according to Dave Zweifel at The Capital Times, George Bush has been President for 34 years, making this the mid-term of his 9th consecutive 4-year term!:

"If these press reports were truly objective, they'd go on to explain why the national railroad hasn't made money. It's because throughout those 34 years it has been starved to a mere shadow of what it could be by an uncaring Congress and officials in the executive branch who can't see beyond paving the land with more concrete.

Those officials, in the form of the George Bush-appointed Amtrak board of directors, fired the railroad's president last week. David Gunn had resisted the half-baked plan to split the passenger rail service into several regional segments, cutting off service to a vast expanse of the United States."

I suppose for those on the left, 6 years probably feels like 34!

Talk about "Price Gouging"?

Where's the outrage over this? The WSJ Online reports:

"U.S. producers can't meet American demand and some are even rationing their existing customers. But they can charge more if low-cost Mexican competitors are excluded from the market. The producer price index for cement rose 11.6% in September from the previous year, according to the Associated General Contractors, and the index for concrete products rose 10%. The contractors' group adds that shortages, duties on Mexican cement and high shipping costs 'contributed to a 14.3% increase in the price index for nonresidential
structures last quarter.' Washington politicians who purport to be worried about 'price gouging' in other industries might notice that it is really taking place in cement, thanks to official government policy."

Of course, there are SO many industries where our government (and other governments) have intruded into the market with regulations, subsidies, taxes/tariffs, etc., all with the noble intention of "making things fair" for their constituents, which end with the exact opposite effect. Can you say it with me: "The Law of Unintended Consequences"?

On the other hand, there are just as many instances where the 'constituents' are very happy with the results and are willing to "pay" for it!

Let kids sell their own fund-raising food

Mike Nichols nails it:

"It used to be that parents announced their kids were trying to raise money for the chess club or debate, and they sheepishly felt obliged to help. Now, you get messages that barely even mention their kids - or, sometimes, what the money is even for."

But he may not have hammered hard enough! At what point does the "community" stop subsidizing everything, and let the participants fund it?

This subject goes deeper - as most things do. It is related to two other widely expanding notions: 1) everything for the kids and; 2) my kids 'need' this to: get ahead in life; get a scholarship; etc. - and we want you to help pay for it!

Why does a community "need" a soccer/basketball/volleyball/etc club? These 'clubs' do little more than suck the community dry of money and enthusiasm - all in the name of "it's for the kids". Some parents convince themselves (or are convinced by others) that the kids need these clubs if they ever hope to compete. Not only that, but they better start them young - 4-5 years old, and quickly decide on a single sport. If they wait past age 8 to pick a sport, the kid will be a failure!

For the record, my kids participate in these activities and more. But I would also say they do so with a reluctant father. They like the 'fun' part of playing with their friends and have, so far, been unaware of the 'seedy' underside of parent/organizer intervention. I like the team aspects (albeit, not widely taught) and the recreational aspect of sport and other activities, but I also recognize that my kids will not be making a living - let alone helping mom & dad retire early - with a career in sports. The problems is, the pendulum has swung to the point of eliminating any 'kid run' aspect of this recreation (you know the old days: my Little League manager was the friend on the team who knew how to fill out a roster and score card!).

If we truly want to do something "for the kids", maybe we should just let them be kids!

Idealist & Naivety

Idealist
Noun
S: (n) idealist, dreamer (someone guided more by ideals than by practical considerations)

Naivety
Noun
S: (n) naivete, naivety, naiveness (lack of sophistication or worldliness)

I've been called worse!

Bare breasts for peace!

One can only imagine the reaction the Islamic fundamentalists would have, if what happened here, were to take place say, in Kabul, or Mosul, or any other Muslim city:

"Even before they bared their breasts, a crowd of mostly men gathered on the Capitol's West steps to watch the spectacle. Soon, members of the group 'Breasts Not Bombs' began promoting peace, not war, in a demonstration reminiscent of the late 60's."

Given the self-important posture of this group, I'm not sure they even recognize that if it weren't for the war they condemn, they would never have the ability to make a "political statement" like this. Given the demands of fundamental Islam, they'd have a difficult time demonstrating with a "Foreheads, not Fascism" mantra - before they were summarily stoned to death!

Lautenschlager on the war path!

This is the first thing that came to my mind when I read the headline:

"'This really wasn't about helping out the uninsured,' George Quinn, senior vice president of the Wisconsin Hospital Association, said after the news conference. 'This was about helping out a desperate politician. It basically was a stunt.'"

Now that Lautenschlager is being challenged within her own party, expect more of these lawsuits designed to protect the "little guy" and gain support from the Democratic base.

"It can swiftly push a family over the financial cliff," Lautenschlager said at a news conference at the Italian Community Center in Milwaukee. "We are seeking fairness."

How much it will hurt business in Wisconsin and create an unwelcome environment, is yet to be seen.

Riots in Paris offer lessons at home ~ According to Kane

Eugene Kane always has a way to point out what's wrong with America...:

"Most times, Milwaukee has little to do with France; our annual Bastille Days celebration has about as much to do with French culture as Juneteenth Day. But we're all susceptible to this kind of violence as long as some members of our community feel ignored and neglected until it's too late."

...but he seldom has an answer.

Strange Bed Fellows?

In this NYT's piece, a case is being made to link two dissimilar groups - or so it seems:

"On the other hand, he added, 'they don't like environmentalists. They associate environmentalists with the Sierra Club and with people who have nontraditional religiosity. Alliance leaders have a real opportunity here, but the impediment is getting over the image of environmentalists.'"

The problem is, MOST people are not black & white or single-issue driven - and that includes those of us who are comfortable with religion. As with most groups, the "Evangelicals" and "Environmentalists" attract the extreme minorities while the rest of us live with a healthy, moderate perspective.

Population Politics

You can't use the phrase "one would think" when referring to a position of the left (WSJ.com - Population Politics):

"One would think that women's organizations would applaud this decision -- and the appointment of an American woman who champions it. Mandatory limitations on family size and involuntary sterilizations hardly represent 'reproductive freedom' or 'a woman's right to choose.' Instead, groups such as Planned Parenthood have protested that Mr. Bush is denying women access to reproductive health and family planning services. Planned Parenthood is also attacking Ms. Sauerbrey."

Bonfire of the Vanities - Life goes on

Europe isn't "all that". We need to remember this when certain elites in this country point to the sophisticated nuance of Europe - especially France - as something to aspire to and model (WSJ.com - Bonfire of the Vanities):

"Of course, apocalypses have a habit of not happening. The present riots are only a temporary exacerbation of 'normal' life in French lower-class and immigrant suburbs. (In all of Western society, not just France, social housing means antisocial behavior.) Even when there are no riots, such suburbs are strewn with the carcasses of burnt-out cars, like skeletons in a desert, and one can see the blackened remains of shops that have been put to the torch. Drug-trafficking goes on openly, and the hostility to outsiders is palpable."

Government vs. Real World

This is just one more "practice" that illustrates the disconnect between state government and the real world:

"'It's like a golden parachute in case Doyle loses' re-election, he said. 'This is supposed to be a civil service system, but they're making it a political patronage system. It's like working down South in the 1930s, if you ask me.'"

Too many "civil servants" spend their time 'playing' the system, rather than doing the job. In what other environment - other than government/public - can you have this kind of job security?

In the real world, if you choose to change jobs, one of the risks you take is that your 'old' job will be filled by someone else. Companies can't wait for you to decide if you like the new one or if you fail.

In addition, companies predominately hire people based on skills and experience, not for personal relationships. People earn promotions and bonuses based on results, not tenure.

I almost forgot how much I enjoy Thomas Sowell...

Thomas Sowell:

"Many crusades of the political left have been misunderstood by people who do not understand that these crusades are about establishing the identity and the superiority of the crusaders.

T.S. Eliot understood this more than half a century ago when he wrote: 'Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm -- but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.'"

Random Thoughts by Thomas Sowell

My favorite, regular column from Thomas Sowell is his "Random Thoughts". Here's a recent submission:

"Senator Dianne Feinstein asked Judge John Roberts whether his being Catholic would interfere with carrying out his duties on the Supreme Court but she would undoubtedly have felt insulted if anyone had asked her whether being Jewish would interfere with her carrying out her duties as a Senator."

Well worth reading them all.

Civil Rights Rites by Thomas Sowell

Again, a common sense perspective by Thomas Sowell:

"Civil rights cannot include everything that is done by government which benefits particular groups, individually or collectively. The whole case for civil rights is that every American is entitled to them. Civil rights are not about doing special things for special groups."

Political discourse in 2005

The rhetoric in this story is a great example of how we interact these days - especially politically:

"'There's free speech, but this isn't free,' said Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation. 'This amounts to taxpayer subsidy of worship.'"

Both sides of the argument use extreme positions to state their case:

(US Rep Mark) Green wrote a letter to UW System president Kevin Reilly urging him to investigate policies at other University of Wisconsin campuses and to "rid the UW system of this deplorable mandate."

I believe the majority of people in the state see this not as a "taxpayer subsidy of worship" nor as a "deplorable mandate". The university does not have a policy that requires RA's to teach Bible studies (which would make it a "taxpayer sudsidy"), and it is not saying that the RA cannot teach Bible studies (a "deplorable mandate") - just not in the dorm. It's a close call for me whether or not the RA should be allowed to use a room in the dorm for this group, but as long as the university doesn't make it so onerous that the group would need to relocate completely off-campus, I think they are being fair.

Breaking tradition, Carter rips Bush's policies

USATODAY.com:

"At a breakfast with reporters sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, Carter, 81, diverged from a time-honored practice in which ex-presidents refrain from criticizing those currently holding the office. He acknowledged making mistakes when he was president from 1977-81, and at one point declared: 'I can't deny that I am a better ex-president than I was a president.'"

Has Jimmy Carter become completely irrelevant? I heard an out-take of an interview with a local radio station the other morning where Carter was asked to comment on Judge Alito. After a monologue about how he "hopes Alito will rule against torture in US prisons", Carter turned to self promotion for his new book by mentioning that he will be making a book signing appearance in the Milwaukee area - at Wal-Mart in West Bend! C'mon. An ex-President - and Nobel Peace Prize recipient - reduced to signing books at Wal-Mart? Besides that, isn't the 'left' opposed to the evil Wal-Mart?

Ahh, the French

Let's not forget how 'diplomatic and civilized' France is when they lecture the US on how to conduct our affairs. No country is exempt from thugs who think violence is a means to an end. (And before anyone from the Left comments that US is using violence as a means to an ends, get real. When a bully is allowed to bully the weak without consequence, he'll never stop. The US stands up to the bully for those that cannot - not for the purpose being a bully themselves.)CNN.com:

"But the original cause has been all but forgotten as residents of other communities -- weary of poverty, unemployment and discrimination against the large immigrant and Muslim populations -- have vented their frustration.

In some areas, unemployment runs as high as 20 percent -- more than twice the national average, de Villepin told lawmakers."

It'll never happen...

Victoria Toensing has a suggestion for the democrats looking to investigate the pre-war "lies":

"Assess the validity of the claim that Valerie Plame's status was 'covert,' or even properly classified, given the wretched tradecraft by the Central Intelligence Agency throughout the entire episode."

U.S. Court: Public Schools responsible for Reading, Writing, Arithmetic and Sex

Court to parents: " Move aside, the government knows how to raise your children better than you!":

"Parents have no constitutional right to prevent public schools from exposing children to sexual topics, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Wednesday."

Parent do have a right to choose to send their children to Catholic, other religious, and/or private schools, however. (At least for now!)

History repeats itself, like bell-bottoms (only worse)

"What Mr. Reid's pose is 'really all about' is the emergence of the Clare Boothe Luce Democrats. We're referring to the 20th-century playwright, and wife of Time magazine founder Henry Luce, who was most famous for declaring that Franklin D. Roosevelt had 'lied us into war' with the Nazis and Tojo. So intense was the hatred of FDR among some Republicans that they held fast to this slander for years, with many taking their paranoia to their graves."

WSJ (subscription required?)

Scandal

The problem with independent prosecutors is that, given the mount of time they have to investigate an alleged crime, more often than not they end up "creating" a crime which they then feel obligated to charge to justify their effort. This was the case not only in "Plame-gate" but also with "Whitewater". Clinton was "impeached" after being charged with perjury on an un-related matter, not for the original investigation of a real-estate fraud.

"At the end of this process the prosecutor announces that he cannot produce evidence that the conduct he has investigated constituted a crime after all. But all is not lost! Inconsistent testimony is abundant. Hence there have been crimes uncovered: perjury, false statements and obstruction of justice. Serious crimes, to be sure, but usually accompanied by underlying criminal behavior. Thus the elaborate process has been worth it: Bad guys have been unearthed. The special prosecutor can sit tall on his white horse." WSJ (subscription)

Peggy Noonan- What a downer!

Peggy Noonan seems a bit over the top here:

"But this recounting doesn't quite get me to what I mean. I mean I believe there's a general and amorphous sense that things are broken and tough history is coming."

I like to be a little more optimistic and am a bit perplexed by Noonan's take on things. She has always had a larger view of issues than this. Taken in the perspective of history (WW's, Great Depression, Civil War, plagues, famines, Spanish inquisition, etc), are we really facing the end of the world?

You can HAVE religion classes, you just can't TEACH religion

"The university's rules aren't affecting a lot of students right now because they apply only if a high school submits new courses to the university for approval. But it is easy to imagine, at some point, university officials reviewing the 150 or so religious schools whose current classes would be regarded as unacceptable if new. 'If California prevails,' Mr. Carney says, 'the only way for students to go from our schools to university would be to strip out the religious elements of their education.'

Indeed, a list of 'helpful hints' from the university -- offered to high schools as part of the curricular review process -- suggests stripping religion even out of the religion classes: 'Religion and ethics courses are acceptable...as long as they do not include
among its [sic] primary goals the personal religious growth of the student.'"

WSJ.com - These Courses Are Condemned

Defining Capitalism Up

I'm not sure this book should be restricted to former communist/socialist countries:

"The book notes, for example, that 'social 'justice' is always related to the unjust redistribution of wealth, and 'fair competition' is almost always related to unfair government intervention in the economy.'

In other words, Ms. Vainiene is trying to educate but also to eradicate the misleading and contradictory doublespeak that infects much economic language, especially as it is used in Europe."

There are plenty of people in this democracy that could benefit from it's message.

Editorial: Keep Arctic refuge off limits

JS Online: Editorial: Keep Arctic refuge off limits:

"And even when oil starts coming out of the ground 10 years from now (if drilling were approved tomorrow), that oil will have only a marginal effect on gas prices. Citizens could have a much bigger effect - and much more quickly - simply by driving less and by demanding more fuel-efficient vehicles."

The editorial doesn't even bother to mention the whole "dependence on foreign oil" issue. That will come next.

UPDATE 5/3/2006: Gas prices now over $3.00/gal, the Journal Sentinel is crying about the pain and burden on the middle class of high prices! Hypocrisy.

Can't argue against the results, but we can question methods...

WSJ.com - Novel Way to Assess School Competition Stirs Academic Row:

"When she found that metro areas with more streams tended to have more districts, and also higher student achievement, many academics thought she had come up with an ingenious way of testing Dr. Friedman's competition thesis. 'Caroline had a great idea with that paper,' says David Figlio, an education economist at the University of Florida. 'It is incontrovertible that it was a brilliant insight.'

Dr. Rothstein says it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. He makes several technical challenges, but his main attack is on the way the author counted streams."

How about worrying about the results of the study? Some schools are better than others and many parents are not allowed to choose where their kids go. That's wrong!

Finally- A Legacy for President Clinton!

As a father of three (two girls), this is a disturbing trend. USATODAY.com - Teens define sex in new ways:

"Among teens, oral sex is often viewed so casually that it needn't even occur within the confines of a relationship. Some teens say it can take place at parties, possibly with multiple partners. But they say the more likely scenario is oral sex within an existing relationship. "

UN wants control of internet - Just say "NO"!

WSJ.com - e-Meddling:

"The working group's report says the governing body would respect freedom of expression. At the same time, it holds as one of its 'key principles' the 'respect for cultural and linguistic diversity as well as tradition [and] religion.' On the Internet, it says, 'that translates to multilingual, diverse and culturally appropriate content' (our emphasis). And who decides whether content is culturally, or otherwise, 'appropriate'? Today, no one. Tomorrow, Tehran, Beijing or Brussels."

'Baby mamas' await right daddies

JS Online:

"'That's why they hold off marriage until they are economically stable and emotionally mature.'"

Waiting to have children, however, would be unacceptable!

Transit in Emergency Evacuation Situations

An intelligent discussion of the problems with mass transit solutions for emergency evacuation purposes.

"The problem with all the transit suggestions for evacuation is their inflexibility. They require people to have reached certain destinations at certain times. The need to retain capacity for humans means officials take a stern line on pets taking up space, which discourages many from taking up the option. And there is the significant question of what to do with the thousands evacuated at the end of the journey. While bus transit can help, it is by no means the solution to complete evacuation." TCS: Tech Central Station - Sic Transit Maria Landrieu

Later in the article, the author discusses the dilemma with cars as well - lack of them by the poor and gridlock like in Houston.

While there are no easy answers for evacuating large, urban centers, knee-jerk suggestions like mass transit should be scrutinized.

Those wacky Danes!

Here they go again!

"'It's unfair to deny people with disabilities the right to a sex life,' he added."BBC NEWS / Dane fights for state-funded sex

"Unfair"? Since when is it the 'responsibility' of the government to ensure that your libido is properly addressed? I have nothing against sex. In fact, I'm all for it. I just don't believe that it is the role of ANY government to provide it as a right to it's citizens.

We always hear about the slippery slope - from both the left and right. Here's an example where the consequences of government policy has slid to new extremes.

"In Denmark, prostitution and other forms of sex work are not illegal so long as it is not a woman's sole means of income."

So Denmark officially condones prostitution on the one hand...

"We also spend tax money on trying to prevent prostitution, helping women out of prostitution - and we have a clear policy that this is a social problem that we want to solve.

"So I think that's very much in contradiction with spending tax money on requiring prostitutes."

...while spending tax dollars to help those choose to follow the sanctioned practice? How does that make sense? It doesn't!

Restoring Conservatism?

President Bush could take a few steps out of the hole he's dug himself with his conservative base, by holding congress to this task.

"If Mr. Bush is really serious, he'll now take Mr. Frist at his word and send his own White House rescission request to Congress. True, Congress would have to vote affirmatively to approve any rescission, but the showdown would be an ideal fiscal responsibility litmus test. Emergencies like a hurricane require emergency changes in spending priorities, not a blank check." WSJ.com - Spending Revelation

Since his second term began with the bold announcement of Social Security reform, George Bush has lost battle after battle and with the appointment of Harriet Miers, appeared to be a beaten man. Hopefully this call for spending constraint is more than one last gasp from a boxer on one knee.

In addition, he needs help from his majority, fellow Republican-led Congress. The president has not done the best job pressing for his initiatives, but he sure deserves better from his own party!

UPDATE: Thomas Sowell echoes my thoughts on Congress:

President Bush has taken on too many tough fights -- Social Security being a classic example -- to be regarded as a man who is personally weak. What is weak is the Republican majority in the Senate.

Federalist #76

"'To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity... He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.'"

As the author in this WSJ.com commentary presents, the questioning of this nomination is not so much on Harriet Miers the person or attorney, but on George Bush himself and the obvious cronyism demonstrated by this action. This is not the legacy that George Bush wants, but he is doing little to change it.

Whose afraid of bears?

My son and I were on an annual scout outing this weekend. Each year the pack has a sleep over and haunted trail at a nearby youth camp. This year, the 'story' about why the woods are haunted centered around a bear attacking six boy scouts.

After the trek through the haunted trail, a few kids - including mine - were still pretty shook up. The campfire and s'mores helped take their minds off what they 'witnessed' in the woods.

As we walked back to the tent area, one of the boys said he wasn't sure he wanted to stay. He told his dad that he was worried about the bears. His dad told him there weren't any bears in these woods and that it was just a story. This did little to calm the boys fears.

I volunteered another take on the bear story. I said that they used to tell Packer stories, but no one's afraid of the Packers anymore, so they had to change it to the Bears!

They ended up staying the night.

An Answer: The Matter with Kansas Can Be Understood at Woolworth's

This statement is worth considering...:

"Perhaps one day the critics of Middle America will begin to recognize the humanity they share with people they so quickly label as culturally backwards. Perhaps one day they might even begin to listen to them, and to learn from them, the way I did so many years ago, while eavesdropping on the waitresses at Woolworth's."

...but unlikely to be thought on either coast. That's okay, we'll be just fine here in the ol' midwest.

ABC News: Bush Expected to Name High Court Nominee

Really? No kidding? I thought he wanted to leave it open for the next President

.ABC News headline

A Wake Up Call?

What Color Is Your Collar?:

"We are in a global race for IQ points. Not useless Mensa meeting points but applied IQ points. Brains put to work. Those countries that best harness IQ will prosper most. The U.S. produces about half the annual patent filings in the world. That's an outstanding number. But new ideas are not enough if we do not have a motivated, educated work force to exploit them. Despite improved high-school graduation rates, our kids are the Jamaican bobsled team of education, to judge by international test scores. They lose to the Slovenians. If we don't buck up our schools, the next generation could end up with white collars and pink slips."

"Whose Fault Was It?"

This story has been making the rounds and rightly so. It talks to the left, whose fascination with examining what's wrong with everything, is unparalleled:

"Years passed. I'd sit around with friends at dinner talking about How We Got Here and Whose Fault Was It? Was it Nader's fault? Or Gore's? Or Scalia's? Even Monica got onto the list, because after all, she delivered the pizza, and that pizza was truly the beginning of the end. Most of my friends had a hard time narrowing it down to a choice, but not me: only one person was at fault, and it was Bill. I drew a straight line from that pizza to the war. The way I saw it, if Bill had behaved, Al would have been elected, and thousands and thousands of people would be alive today who are instead dead"

I can imagine these dinners. Everyone agreeing how bad things are. Discussing at great length the demise of the US in the eyes of the world. How troubling it is to be an American these days. The desperation of being lied to. And the focus of all this angst: George Bush (not really Bill Clinton).

Compare this piece with the previous post from Peggy Noonan. In this piece, by Nora Ephron, there is no optimism, no sense of history, no sense of vision. Just more of the same. Complaints and finger pointing. Find SOMEONE to blame!

This reveals the disconnect between the right and the left, conservatives and liberals. Liberals live in the moment. Look to others for validation. Worry more about how things look, than what works.

This disconnect will always exist. In fact, one could argue it must exist. Like good and evil, without one, the other has no relevance. The key is how each side accepts that the other exists. Today, many on the left would prefer that those on the right would all, fall off the face of the earth. And that's putting it kindly.

The State We Are In

Peggy Noonan has a great op-ed piece that eloquently describes how many Americans feel right now:

"Governments always start out saying they're going to help, and always wind up pushing you around. They cannot help it. They say they want to help us live healthily and they mean it, but it ends with a guy in Queens getting arrested for trying to have a Marlboro Light with his Bud at the neighborhood bar. We're hauling the parents of obese children into court. The government has increasing authority over our health, and these children are not healthy. Smokers, the fat, drinkers of more than two drinks per night, insane swimmers in high seas . . .

We are losing the balance between the rights of the individual and the needs and demands of the state. Again, this is not new. It's a long slide that's been going on for a long time. But Katrina and Rita seemed to make the slide deeper."

Noonan offers no quick fixes or even long-term solutions. She just accurately (in my opinion) describes our national culture at this time in our country's history. Is this where we really want to be?

Mass grave found in Afghanistan

Aljazeera.Net - Mass grave found in Afghanistan:

"A mass grave discovered in eastern Afghanistan is thought to contain the bodies of more than 500 soldiers of the communist government that was toppled in 1992, officials said."

"Similar mass graves have been found in the minority Hazara-dominated central province of Bamiyan. Taliban forces were blamed for those killings."

I'm sure that last sentence is a mis-print. The blame clearly must fall on the United States and George Bush of course! We're the ONLY evil in this world!

UPDATE: The Aljazeera link above doesn't work anymore so try this one for the full story - same feed.

Kudos: Feingold does the right thing

I'm not a huge fan of "my" Senator, but he does do the right thing every now and then. This is the "right thing" not because he's voting for Roberts, but because he's voting his conscience.
Money quote:

"'I think the idea of Democratic 'unity' on appointments like this in general is not the right approach. . . . Senators should vote their own conscience,' Feingold said."

The "Law of Unintended Consequences" Strikes Again!

Bugs!:

"The multicolored Asian ladybeetle was discovered in Wisconsin in 1994. It got here after working its way west and north from the southeast. The bugs were introduced to the United States in 1916 as a biological control for pecan aphids."

Having grown up in Oshkosh, WI on beautiful Lake Winnebago, I learned to live with another "unintended consequence" - the lake fly! Meant to feed the fish - especially sturgeon - in the early 20th century, a professor at the university introduced these USELESS insects to the lake in 'small' amounts. Now they turn homes black during the two separate, week-long invasions!

DeLay - Just go away

I think this is pretty accurate:

"'This indictment is nothing more than prosecutorial retribution by a partisan Democrat,' Madden said, citing prosecutor Ronnie Earle, a Democrat."

But, for me, Tom Delay doesn't do much. In fact, he and a few others are one reason I am hesitant to call myself a Republican. Delay and his ilk - on both sides of the aisle - are little more than power-hungry politicians looking to move a personal agenda, rather than what's in the best interests of the country.

The REAL cause for high gas prices

The WSJ has it right:

"In 1981, there were 325 refineries in the U.S. with a capacity of 18.6 million barrels per day. Today, there are 148, with a capacity of about 17 million barrels -- though U.S. demand for gasoline has increased more than 20%. From 1993 to 2002, the average return on investment in the refining industry was 5.5%, or less than half the S&P industrials average of 12.7%."

But we're not listening.

As a colleague of mine reminds us: "We didn't move out of the Stone Age, because we ran out of stones. We developed something better to replace them!"

This, too, will happen with fossil fuels. We have plenty of fossil fuels - oil, natural gas, coal, etc - and they will still be around (like stones) when we move on to "something better". Scaring people with unfounded science (global warming) and predictions of gloom (running out of oil in 30 years) benefits the few, more than the masses.

In the meantime, let the market work and we'll all be fine.

A Memorial Outrage

Today, at the start of this year's Memorial Day weekend, the WSJ has a story discussing a case brought forth by the ACLU regarding, once again, the "offensive cross". Besides the normal "separation of church and state" discussion and the obligatory "individual" who's offended, the story sheds light on an additional catalyst for such cases: money. The Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976 allows plaintiffs the ability to recoup legal fees from defendants who lose the case in discretionary awards. In this case alone, at various levels of appellate courts, the ACLU has managed to pocket $63,000 paid by the defendant - in this case, the federal government.

Back to the argument of the case, there's this troubling potential consequence:

"If Buono v. Norton stands, the distance between the cross at Sunrise Rock and the headstones at Arlington National Cemetery will have effectively disappeared. It is only a matter of time until someone visits that field of heroes and takes offense at all the religious symbols inscribed in marble. Then the courts will have a hard time devising a principle by which those thousands of crosses on federal land are not as unconstitutional as the one in the desert."

Buono is Frank Buono, a retired park ranger who, according to the story, "...insists that his seeing the monument ("two to four times a year") violates his civil rights." What about those of us who feel our civil rights are violated by current and former federal employees like Buono and others, who make frivolous arguments about things like this that cause them no physical harm whatsoever. Those of us who are offended by these cases are exposed to far more of them than the "two to four times a year" he's arguing!

The Law of Unintended Consequences - An Example Averted!

The Wisconsin State Journal has an opinion piece discussing the near adoption of a law banning "mobile billboards". The story doesn't mention how prevalent the "problem" is in Madison, but does applaud the fact that common sense prevailed before a Madison icon was deemed illegal:

"Apparently, no one had thought the proposal through enough to consider such an impact. The city attorney wasn't sure how the Wienermobile might be affected."

The most telling comment is true of most government bodies:

"This whole flap seems to be symbolic of the City Council's biggest flaw. Some members try to solve problems that haven't been clearly defined, hardly exist or have little to do with city government and the concerns of ordinary citizens."

In places like Madison, this is seen as something "positive".

I'm OK, You're 'Who cares'

Steve Salerno has an insightful column in the National review as it relates to the self-esteem movement. It's probably a little late to be asking these questions about the long-term ramifications of this approach, but it will eventually show itself to have created more problems for those that enthusiastically embrace it than the problems it fixes. As Salerno queries:

"One wonders how a nation comprising 295 million individuals, each vowing not to let anyone take away his dreams, could arrive at a true sense of collective purpose, especially with humility now in such short supply."

We, as typical Americans, tend to overdo everything. Therefore, the immutable Law of Unintended Consequences will surely have it's natural impact on this practice. Further, because Newton's Third Law (for every action there is a equal and opposite reaction), this too will pass. But, since we are Americans (see above), we will probably over react and exaggerate this natural reaction making it far greater - and potentially more negative - than it otherwise would be.

As our less 'enlightened' ancestors advised: "Everything in moderation"! But nah! That's so yesterday. Besides, where's the money in that?!

A glimmer of sanity

Marquette to start over on nickname:

"'We were not winning hearts and minds,' Father Robert A. Wild, Marquette's president, said of the decision. "

Duh!

JS Online: Editorial: What's the fraud threshold?

Now that it's official - there was fraud and illegal voting in Wisconsin - the editors at the Journal-Sentinel feel compelled to ask, "So what?":

"The task force has developed evidence of more than 100 instances in which residents are suspected of voting twice or of using somebody else's name or a fake name to vote. It also found more than 200 felons who voted despite being barred from doing so.

The investigation is painstaking work, but the perpetrators of fraud deserve to be found, tried and punished, to safeguard the franchise. Still, making the case against felons is tough because prosecutors have to show that the ex-cons knew they were breaking the law."

It's apparent that the editors, and others in their camp, want the system to continue as is so that "no individual is disenfranchised from their right to vote". The fact that it's "painstaking work" to track down each perpetrator is irrelevant to them. I'd argue that it's just what they want. Have our prosecutors so tied up with the little things that it's nearly impossible to see the big picture. Since when is ignorance of the law - "making the case against felons is tough because prosecutors have to show that the ex-cons knew they were breaking the law" - a defense?

A democracy is not only about individual freedoms. For a democracy to endure, we as the people, have a responsibility to participate and be accountable to it's success. If that responsibility now includes validating who we are when we exercise our most important democratic action - voting - so be it. If some choose to ignore or fraudulently usurp that requirement, they - not the law abiding - should have more difficulty accomplishing their designed plans of fraud.

As for the potentially "disenfranchised", please?! Who can rent a movie without and ID? Who can buy alcohol without an ID? Who can soon buy cold medicine without an ID? Who can go to a Bruce Springsteen concert without an ID?

I guess all of these actions are more important than our right to vote. Of course we should have an ID to attend a Springsteen concert! You don't want the wrong person getting in there!

The other fact that isn't lost on me is the left's inability - or desire to hide - the big picture. Not only with voter fraud but other areas. This is most noticeable in our current war on terrorism. The left continues to point out that Osama Bin Laden has yet to be brought to justice for 9-11. As if Bin Laden is the ONLY terrorist in the world. If only we had him, all terrorist activity would cease.

We will bring Bin Laden to justice, but the big picture success of our war on terror include two democracies in the Middle East. Two fewer radical regimes that aided and abetted terrorism and oppressed their citizens. These are huge accomplishments that the left is terrified of - because they are results that they didn't accomplish. In fact, they couldn't accomplish.

In other words, no accountability!

Here's what Father DiUlio, former Marquette president and person who originally changed the Warrior nickname, had to say about the current fiasco:

"'It goes along with my own philosophy. When you leave, you leave it in other people's hands.'"

How convenient. No wonder Marquette is facing national humiliation regarding the name and decision process when the leaders of the institution have little to worry about. Fr. DiUlio has little concern about the negative impact his decision had on the university and neither will Fr. Wild. They're just passing through.

Newsweek's List of the 1,000 Top U.S. Schools

Is there a Wisconsin school on page 1 (Rankings 1-100)? No.

How about the second page (101-200)? Not there either.

You have to get to the third page before you find Rufus King at #213!

New Berlin (350) and Whitefish Bay (469- congratulations Bill) also make the top 500, but that's it!

We have one of the highest per-pupil costs in the country and some of the highest property tax rates and a personal income tax. Most of that tax money goes to education. And this is the result?

UPDATE: 5/2/2006 We fell even further. This year's report has Rufus King falling to 308 - still tops in the state!

GOLD

As a proud BADGER, I can only say YES! This should put Marquette back in the dark ages. Who wants to go to a university with no identity? The following is an e-mail rant by an office colleague and MU alum - needless to say, he was not pleased with the decision. I think it says it all:

DATE: 5/5/2005
SUBJECT: it is not a golden day

To Whom it May Concern (or if you just feel like picking on us MU alumni):

Marquette Gold. WTF?

This has got to be some sort of a sick joke. No clear thinking person would consciously think this is acceptable. 38-0 vote by the trustees? Let me be the first to scream BULLSHIT! from the top of the mountain. I cannot believe the vote went that way. Unless they drugged all of the trustees or have each of them in compromising photos with farm animals.

Yesterday afternnon I had this sick feeling in the pit of my stomach that they were going to figure out a way to screw this up even worse. What could be worse than Golden Eagles you say? Gold. That's worse. I can't even think of anything worse than that. Even Marquette Shit would be a step up. At least it would be funny, in a corprophagic way.

Holy crap. Gold. It swirls through my head like a bad gin hangover.

Ok, I understand the politically correct, spineless, gutless, nutless wonders that are in charge of way too much at that fine institution of learning on Wisconsin Ave. couldn't bring themselves to reinstate Warriors. A proud name. With a proud tradition. And supposedly offensive to some hypersensitive types. Whatever.

But Gold? Oh, for Christ's sake. If you couldn't use Warriors, let's go all the way back. Bring back Hilltoppers. Bring back the damn goat. Everybody loves retro anyway. At least that name means something. People can connect with it. But Gold? What the hell does that connect with? The Great Milwaukee Gold Rush of 1856? Ranks right upthere with California Gold Rush of '49, or the Klondike. What stupidity.

Gold. I think I'm gonna puke.

If you had to find a "third way" let's really be creative - let's go with Avalanche. Pay homage to one of the finest drinking establishments that ever graced the Marquette campus and succumbed way too early to the wrecking ball in the mid-'90's. That has history. That IS tradition. 50¢ Red, White, & Blues. Throw your empty bottles against the wall. Da 'Lanche Mug Club. Naked beer slides. Couldn't you just picture next year's cagers wearing uniforms that proudly say "Da 'Lanche"? We could have a bum for the mascot. Who can forget the Avalanche's advertising - "You get your degree at Marquette, but you get your education at Da 'Lanche". Almost Shakespearean. Mitch and Steve - the brothers Lechter - would be proud. Once again they'd see the name of their famous institution in lights. Preferably neon, of course.

But Gold? I'm starting to feel homicidal.

Screw the administration. Boycott any Gold merchandise. Buy, beg or steal anything that says Warriors. Perhaps some enterprising soul can start printing T-shirts and sweatshirts and hats with the Warriors logo. Trademark or copyright infringement be damned. Bring back the old Warriors chants and shout them at the games. Have some students dress up like Willy Wampum and dance in the seats. They can give us Gold, but we don't have to take it. We're Warriors, dammit.

Unbelieveable. Gold.

Later,

Nels
I used to be a proud MU alumnus...

Unnatural Gas Prices

The WSJ has an opinion piece discussing the issue of high energy costs. It does a great job of explaining the impact that the "enviros" continue to have on the entire energy distribution channel - from production to distribution:

"The larger political problem here is that the public hasn't been told about the connection between high prices and political opposition to energy production. President Bush used his press conference again last week to push the 'energy independence' argument, which does well in opinion polls but is a pipe dream in the real world. Short of a breakthrough in hydrogen technology, we are fated to import large amounts of energy. The real issue is whether we maintain enough energy production, and import capacity, to allow adequate supplies and
reasonable prices."

One area that the piece doesn't address is the underlying desire of most in the "enviros" groups to have us all make changes in our lifestyle to reduce our consumption. Since many of us "can't see the light" and make those changes on our own, their hopes are that higher costs will force us to adopt those practices they deem acceptable. I 've been asked, "At what point will I change my driving habits as gas prices rise?" to which I can only respond, "Never. I make 'changes' every day based on many "choices" I make given what I need and what I want." Artificially raising prices (through taxation or regulation) to forward an agenda some think is preferable, will only enrage those of us that believe in the free market.

Althouse: "There are some who are stuck back there."

Ann Althouse has an amusing - yet troubling - post about Jane Fonda's appearance on Bill Maher's HBO show. I, fortunately, do not have HBO so I don't have the ability to even accidentally watch the show. I normally like to watch other points of view to remind me why I don't agree! The few times I've 'surfed' to Maher's show while killing time in a hotel room, I just get frustrated. The following is a quote from Maher, that Althouse pulled from the show:

"Yeah, it really is on them at this point, isn't it? If somebody can't get over something in 35 years."

Read the rest of her post. There's a comment about the "doorways in her house" that Fonda makes, that just about says it all.

ID rule wouldn't faze these voters

I agree with Mike Nichols' comments here...:

"Personally, I think there's a much better chance there's massive sloppiness in our system than massive fraud. But even sloppiness is enough to rob an archaic system of its integrity, and rob voters of their faith.

The vast majority of voters not only have IDs, they want to show them.

And they want others to show them as well."

...but I agree with the 83 year-old woman he spoke with more. She represents more of the seniors that I know.

Being an adult in the world today is hard...

And they say being a kid today is hard, Peggy Noonan brings it home for adults as well:

"'Being an 'adult' means having a faith which does not follow the waves of today's fashions or the latest novelties.' Being an adult is loving what is true and standing with it."

The fact that many "adults" don't want to face up to this reality is apparent in what our culture now presents as "true". Having not lived in any other era, I can still surmise that this conflict has always been present. One part of the culture rebelling against morality, while the other side looks on and says "it's never been this bad".

Hmmm? Perhaps it's as it's meant to be. Two sides that give each other perspective. That need each other to survive and sustain. Choices to be made that have future influence. But who could have designed such a world?

What's the trouble with Katie?

Let me count ...

For those that love Katie Couric, let me give you an example from those on the other side of the spectrum.

This morning, on Today, a friend of Martha Stewart was being interviewed by Couric about Stewart's release and her five month ordeal in 'prison'. In the course of this insightful conversation, Couric points out that she heard Martha formed some pretty strong relationships with some of her 'prison'-mates. In one case, going so far as helping the mate to mend a family rift. (wow, the miracle of potpourri?)

After building this picture of Martha, as a changed woman who has bonded with these 'criminals', Katie asked the friend a loaded question. It went something like this: "Do you think this experience will move Martha to embrace or continue advocating for prison reform?"

What? Prison reform? First, Martha was not in a real prison. She was basically under house arrest away from her penthouse and estate. I could almost see Katie's thought-bubble picturing Martha at the bottom of some human pyramid, ala Abhu Ghraib!

Second, Katie needs to get out of her ivory tower atop the liberal castle and realize that REAL prisons are needed to keep REAL criminals away from the society that the criminal CHOSE to assault. To equate Martha's 'prison' experience with anything remotely close to a real prison is completely disingenuous. No, it's a lie. Further, for Katie and others in the MSM to equate the actions of a few idiots at Abhu Ghraib to real prisons is also a lie.

Every person in prison has a mother and a sob-story. Too bad. There's an easy way to stay out of these terrible places. Don't commit the crime.

As for Martha, she didn't go to a real prison primarily because she isn't a real criminal. A few people feel good because "a big-wig got hers" and Elliot Spitzer feels good because we know his name now.

But what if it's working?

Here's a transcript of the Daily Show from James Tarranto and Best of the Web (lengthy cut, but there's more. Read it.) The interview is with a former Clinton aid and admitted big "D" Democrat:

Soderberg: The truth always helps in these things, I have to say. But I think that there is also going on in the Middle East peace process--they may well have a chance to do a historic deal with the Palestinians and the Israelis. These guys could really pull off a whole--
Stewart: This could be unbelievable!
Soderberg:---series of Nobel Peace Prizes here, which--it may well work. I think that, um, it's--
Stewart: [buries head in hands] Oh my God! [audience laughter] He's got, you know, here's--
Soderberg: It's scary for Democrats, I have to say.
Stewart: He's gonna be a great--pretty soon, Republicans are gonna be like, 'Reagan was nothing compared to this guy.' Like, my kid's gonna go to a high school named after him, I just know it.
Soderberg: Well, there's still Iran and North Korea, don't forget. There's hope for the rest of us. {Is she serious?! Is she hoping that NK and/or Iran nuke us?}
Stewart: [crossing fingers] Iran and North Korea, that's true, that is true [audience laughter]. No, it's--it is--I absolutely agree with you, this is--this is the most difficult thing for me to--because, I think, I don't care for the tactics, I don't care for this, the weird arrogance, the setting up. But I gotta say, I haven't seen results like this ever in that region.
Soderberg: Well wait. It hasn't actually gotten very far. I mean, we've had--
Stewart: Oh, I'm shallow! I'm very shallow!
Soderberg: There's always hope that this might not work. No, but I think, um, it's--you know, you have changes going on in Egypt; Saudi Arabia finally had a few votes, although women couldn't participate. What's going on here in--you know, Syria's been living in the 1960s since the 1960s--it's, part of this is--"

This is vaguely familiar. Didn't they minimize Reagan's influence on the fall of the Soviet Union by suggesting that "other" factors and people had influence? We all know that Ronald Reagan didn't topple the USSR by himself. It took many years and countless people to win the cold war. But Ronald Reagan 'closed the deal'. We'll have to wait and see about peace and democracy in the middle east and George Bush's place in history.

Bush is what he is, and that's the problem

Apparently Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald is willing to admit that there are two world views when it comes to politics and leadership. One is 'nuanced': say one thing, but mean another; have a 'public' persona, but live a divergent private life, etc and one is direct: what you see is what you get (WYSIWYG). I prefer direct - which in my mind is open and honest. Pitts, and I assume others, seems to prefer the nuanced:

"Where famous people are concerned -- and few people are more famous than a president -- we are all armchair shrinks, peeling away layers of public artifice to reach private truth. But the Wead tapes suggest that, where this famous person is concerned, you can peel to your heart's content: For better or for worse, you will find only more of the same.

What you see is what you get. He is what he is.

With apologies to a certain sailor man, some of us don't find that comforting at all."

Perhaps (besides the premise of integrity) what Pitts finds uncomfortable, is the vision of Bush's policy. Ownership versus dependency. And even scarier to Pitts, Bush actually means it!

UN Double Standard?

Is this a statement about the 'insurgents' in Iraq?:

"'This group continues to loot, kill and rape these people, making life miserable,' said Nabaa. It's time to put an end to this militia.'"

No. It's a UN statement about their effort to eliminate the threat caused by the militia in the Congo.

This action is not coming under fire from the traditional 'peace' crowd. What makes it so different than the action the US and our Allies are taking in Iraq (besides size and scope) with regard to the terrorist insurgents who are "...killing, ...making life miserable, ..." for the people of Iraq? Apparently the Congo couldn't cough up enough cash to keep the UN out of their affairs.

I applaud this action and encourage similar action in Sudan. This is one of the functions the UN, and specifically the Security Council, was established for - controlling renegade terrorists, thugs and dictators from terrorizing innocent people.

A new record @ UW ~ barely!

JS Online: Tucker seizes the moment:

"The victory was Wisconsin's 87th in four years, a record for the program, but it nearly was a bitter defeat. The Badgers, who had just one basket during the final 10 minutes, staved off defeat because of Indiana's struggles from the line and some well-timed free throws from Wilkinson."

I caught the last 6 minutes on ESPN. We sure tried to give this one away! It's obvious we miss Devon Harris. Wilkinson is a nice player, but he isn't a go-to guy that can create a play when you need it, like Harris was. It could be a couple of short tournaments. GO Bucky!

One of the "little Eichmanns" remembered...

Ward Churchill speaks tonight at a University of Wisconsin campus in Whitewater. The following is an article remembering a local woman who was killed in the 9/11 attacks in New York. Read the whole thing and, please, do not validate Churchill's existence by attending his speech:

"A 25-year-old graduate of Kewaskum High School and St. Norbert College, she had moved to Chicago, was engaged to be married, had a great and productive job working for a futures brokerage and was spending the very first day of her very first business trip in New York when the terrorists attacked.

Nobody who knew her has forgotten."

For a 'professor' to refer to the victims of the attacks as "little Eichmanns" is beyond belief and completely irresponsible. For someone to attend his speech, and consider his opinion valid, is sickening.

TABOR - In Colorado

We here in Wisconsin are debating our own Tax Payer Bill Of Rights (TABOR) amendment. The Colorado experience has been used most vocally by the opponents. This editorial from the WSJ seems to make a pretty strong case for TABOR measures and hits on a number of issues we find ourselves facing with our own RINOs (Republicans In Name Only):

"One measure of how far Mr. Owens has shifted fiscally is the local media coverage, which was quick to note that his proposals are very similar to what tax-and-spend Democratic Legislators have been pushing for years. Mr. Owens has been at politics long enough to know that if you're a Republican being praised in the press for having grown in office, then you've probably surrendered some principle."

Twenty seven states have some spending cap measures. Wisconsin is not one of them. I have said in the past that Wisconsin's problem is not high taxes - it is high spending.

"Not that we think Tabor needs tinkering; the dread ratchet effect is its most important feature and one of the reasons that states like California, Maine, Kansas and Ohio are considering their own version of Tabor. By forcing lawmakers to put the brakes on spending, even after a downturn in the economy, Tabor gives government an incentive to take on self-correcting tasks that aren't in its nature. Selling off excess assets and reforming procedures for procurement and competitive contracting aren't high on a state's list of priorities unless there's a fiscal squeeze. Tabor helps state governments find these efficiencies. Bill Owens used to know that."

Another impact of declining birthrates...

At some point, we must face facts. As is the case with Social Security, a smaller population than previous generations, has future impacts and requires less infrastructure, as illustrated in this statement:

"But he was a solo voice among the couple hundred people at Tuesday's meeting talking about how to deal with a school system that has about 90,000 students (depending on whom you count) and capacity for about 122,000. He says MPS has $20 million a year tied up in excess building space."

No one wants to give up what they already have (and, in some cases, feel they are entitled to). But the reality is, nothing is free. I have addressed the choice of reduced birthrates here and here. In addition, population trends and shifts occur all the time. We need a public infrastructure that is capable of responding far faster that our current practices allow.

Illegitimate use of statistics

I am always amazed and troubled by the use of impossible statistical references by some organizations to make their point. While driving back to the office from a meeting today, I noticed a billboard with this startling "fact":

Every 14 seconds...Another child is orphaned due to AIDS. (Google search identified this site, among others, as a source for this "factoid")

A quick math check [60 seconds in a minute X 60 minutes in an hour X 24 hours in a day = 86,400 seconds in a day] tells you that 6,171 [86,400 / 14] parents are dying each day and leaving behind at least one orphaned child. More math reveals that nearly 2.25 million parents are dying on an annual basis - based on this "factoid".

Wow. Those are seriously troubling numbers. Since this "fact" refers to orphaned children, the "actual" number of deaths caused by HIV/AIDS must be much higher since people without children - and even children themselves - die from this disease as well - right.

When I returned to the office, I quickly checked, to verify these "facts", and found this from the CDC and the National Center for Health Statistics:

"Mortality Number of deaths: 14,095 (2002)
Deaths per 100,000 population: 4.9 (2002)
Source: Deaths: Final Data for 2002"

Wait a minute. That can't be right. The billboard said "Every 14 seconds..." and I did the math. It's over 2 million people. Oh, the numbers on the CDC were only in the US. That explains it. Here in the US we have only 14,095 of the 2 million deaths. The rest of the world has the 2,211,000 incidents of death, caused by HIV/AIDS, to parents (assuming all US deaths were to parents) of at least one child that makes the "fact" true.

My point isn't to diminish the impact of HIV/AIDS. It is a devastating disease that we need to find a cure for. Just like heart disease, cancer, Alzheimers, diabetes, etc. The problem is, when you use completely misleading statistics as facts, you run the risk of alienating a great many people who are offended by message on principle.

You, as the messenger, may think that the ad was a success because it made me do the research and think about the impact of HIV/AIDS. Not entirely true. My quick research showed me that HIV/AIDS isn't even in the top 15 of leading causes of death in the US behind those mentioned above as well as accidents, suicides and homicides. Those are the diseases that will impact my life and those I know based purely on actual statistical facts. That's where my efforts and dollars will be invested first.

The bottom line? Tell people the actual facts. As soon as you over-hype a problem, you lose a portion of your audience. The more you do it and the greater the hype - the less credibility you have. Unfortunately, that has the opposite affect you desire - even when the actual facts are still troubling.

George seeks early release

To use a phrase from James Tarranto's "Best of the Web" this qualifies for the "Smallest Violin" category (JS Online):

"In his letter to Randa, George says his family needs him for financial and emotional support. He is missing important events in the lives of his four children, who need a father present 'to keep them out of trouble,' George wrote.

'I plead with you to help me return to them,' he said."

Excuse me, former Senator George. I'm not sure your past actions demonstrate a stellar track record of providing a good example of how to mange your life and stay out of trouble! Sorry.

Thomas Sowell: 'Academic freedom'?

As per usual with Sowell, read the whole thing. He frames the Ward Churchill controversy within the bigger picture as well as anyone:

"Too many people -- some of them judges -- seem to think that freedom of speech means freedom from consequences for what you have said. If you believe that, try insulting your boss when you go to work tomorrow. Better yet, try insulting your spouse before going to bed tonight."

Lawyer Is Guilty of Aiding Terror

This story in the NYT's contains the typical slant they are famous for. It's evident here, in this out take:

"In a startlingly sweeping verdict, Ms. Stewart was convicted on all five counts of providing material aid to terrorism and of lying to the government when she pledged to obey federal rules that barred her client, Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, from communicating with his followers. Her co-defendants, Ahmed Abdel Sattar and Mohamed Yousry, were also convicted of all the charges against them."

"Startlingly sweeping verdict...?" Come on. The trial lasted seven months with twelve days over four weeks of jury deliberation. Do you really think they got it wrong? (I suppose there is precedent - since the OJ jurors blew it.)

Ms. Stewart goes on to make her case in public opinion after the verdict:

"'I see myself as being a symbol of what people rail against when they say our civil liberties are eroded,' she said to a small cluster of her supporters outside the federal district courthouse. 'I hope this will be a wake-up call to all the citizens of this country, that you can't lock up the lawyers, you can't tell the lawyers how to do their jobs.'"

Since when? Why is a lawyer any different than any other citizen who breaks the law? If they break the law while doing their job, they deserve to be punished for it. The law is the law. A lawyer should understand that fact. If they disagree with the law, work to change it - don't break it and claim professional immunity.

This woman seems to deserve what she got. By the following statement, she admits her actions were intentional:

"Testifying on her own behalf, Ms. Stewart said the press release was part of a legal strategy that involved provoking the government if necessary in order to keep the sheik in the public eye. Ms. Stewart said she was acting within an unwritten lawyer's "bubble" in the prison rules that allowed her to defend her client as she thought best."

She is not above the law - especially when her premeditated actions directly impacted the lives of others that she helped place in jeopardy! For the entire time she represented these clients, her goal was to stay "in the public eye". Was this for publicity for herself, or her client? Was it to raise awareness of the cause her clients believed in and she supported? The killing of innocent people. Good riddance!

FAA Warned about increased hi-jacking - but not about specific threat

Monday Morning Quarterbacking meets Chicken Little in this Newsday report:

"If they knew about it, why the hell didn't they do something?" said Elaine Moccia of Hauppauge, whose husband, Frank, died in Tower Two.

The problem is, they didn't know about the specific threat! Had there been a precedent, I'd have a different opinion. The WTC bombing in 1993 is not relevant to hi-jacking planes and using them as weapons. In fact, the story reports:

"The commission was clear on one point: It found no evidence that the FAA had any information that terrorists planned to hijack airplanes in the United States and use them as weapons."

The report's main findings (listed below) give clarity to what went wrong - but don't suggest that anything more could have been done in the environment this tragedy took place. If you think civil libertarians are upset about the Patriot Act, think about how loud they'd have screamed if the FAA had tried to impose higher screening practices based on unsupported evidence. Were we complacent? Yes. Was it intentional or criminal? No. That's how tragedies occur.

Red flags in the report:

• In the months before Sept. 11, the FAA issued 52 intelligence reports that mentioned Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. Five mentioned hijacking.
• "False sense of security." After a decade without a hijacking, officials were more concerned with congestion, delays and airline financial woes.
• It was unthinkable. Officials largely assumed that a terror attack would take place overseas.
• Communication breakdown. Two Sept. 11 hijackers were on a government terrorist watchlist, but the FAA was not privy to that information.
• Loose rules. Small knives, such as ones used by the hijackers, were not explicitly banned aboard aircraft.
• Spotty security. Airport screeners often failed to hand-search carry-on luggage, reducing the chance of finding a well-hidden banned item.
  

Churchill can speak at UW-Whitewater

But should anyone listen? While his comments regarding the victims at the WTC are absolutely unfathomable, what would be more disheartening is if he found an audience that agrees with him. The talk he's scheduled to deliver is not focused on his WTC remarks (the topic is aimed at Native Pride Week) but it will be difficult for him and those in the audience to distance themselves from his opinion. I find it hard to believe that Ward Churchill is the only speaker capable of delivering a message focused on Native American pride. I agree with the regent quoted here at JS Online:

"And regent Gerard Randall said, 'I'm hopeful that while he's allowed to speak, he may be speaking to empty chairs.'"

WI Budget: Begging and borrowing

The office chatter today included our satisfaction that the JS Online is finally starting to act like a newspaper. They have handled the news in a much more balanced manner over the last few weeks, especially as it relates to programs and politicians they have traditionally been blinded by:

"In his budget address Tuesday, Doyle said he planned to move $250 million in gas tax and license fee dollars from transportation to the state's deficit-plagued general fund, then borrow $250 million to replenish the transportation fund."

I'm not a math major, but it sure sounds like all that's being proposed in this plan is spending an additional $250 million dollars ~ with interest!

"Doyle could not wipe out the structural deficit without cutting funds for top priorities such as education, health care and transportation or raising taxes - something the governor was never going to do, Marotta said.

'We'd love to eliminate the structural balance, but we've got a lot of competing factors,' Marotta said. 'The key for us is to keep going in the right direction. I think we're going in the right direction."

The "competing factors" are what will keep our taxes higher than they need to be. Everyone has their pet programs and constituency they need to take care of.

Fix Social Security?

I'm not sure if I read this comment or heard it on the news or radio. It came from a younger person (younger is relative when you're in your early 40's!).

For the most part, this person was happy with the Bush proposal to allow workers to opt in to a plan similar to the Federal employee's Thrift Savings Plan and contribute up to 4% of their pre-tax income, normally withheld for social security, to other investment funds. The comment I found interesting was something like this: "How does this save Social Security?"

The simple answer is, it doesn't. It should not be designed to save a failing program - it should be, and is, designed to replace it with a better plan, where we as individual citizens have better control of our personal retirements without the need to rely on future generations to fund it for us.

An interesting tangent in this discussion needs to focus on the child bearing practices of those on the "Social Security must stay" left. There are a number of articles and studies done that show that more liberal couples tend to have fewer, if any, children because of certain liberal beliefs: over-population, scarce resources, impact on the environment, fairness to the child, etc. In addition, the number of abortions tends to be higher in this group as well.

This group then demands that Social Security - as it now operates - must not be tampered with. (With the exception of some now suggesting that the "wealthy" should pay more - typical 'transfer of wealth' ideology)

The problem is actuarial. As the program currently operates, workers today are not paying into a personal account for the future. They are paying the benefits of those who are retired today (and a multitude of other recipients who the Democrats have added over the years). As the baby-boom retires, there will not be enough workers to pay for the benefits the boomers expect without large increase in withholding (You know, that FICA guy who keeps taking money from your paycheck).

So, I'll wait for someone on the left to propose more children. But rather than hold my breath, I'll support the better option: Bush's plan.

More on the WI budget from WI State Journal

This story from the Madison paper: Wisconsin State Journal, continues to question the Governor's budget:

"Added Fitzgerald, 'It would be a refreshing change of pace if just once Governor Doyle would propose a real solution to our state's budget woes,' said Fitzgerald. 'Instead he continues to take money from other programs to pay his bills. Continuing to rob Peter to pay Paul is not a good way to spend the taxpayers money.'"

I'll ask the Republican legislature to do the same when it's their turn. I seem to recall their own shift in the last budget (about $17M from energy conservation to patients compensation fund? Remember?)

Ruth Conniff's Blog: Bush should help the poor...

From The Progressive magazine:

"Surely there are conservative, pro-lifer Christians who respond to Bush's Biblical allusions, and who honestly believe in helping the poor.

Bush's budget should turn their stomachs."

Excuse me! Where's the separation of church and state crowd heading now? Shouldn't these Biblical teachings be handled by the private and religious sectors, rather than a secular government?

More seriously, who are they on the left who believe that only government can help the poor? Who are they that require the government tax them, so they can help the poor? It's pretty easy. Find a poor person or a charity you like, open your checkbook, and write a check!!!

Oil for Food Facts

Ultimately, the Oil for Food Facts presented in the WSJ Opinion page paint the bigger picture. Most bureaucratic organizations established for the greater good of mankind - including most government bodies - usually descend to 'self-preservation' mode. Once there, the participants begin taking care of each other and those that support them (i.e. lobbyists, etc). Budgets become bloated, as a defense mechanism. They become ineffective and vulnerable to others who have ulterior motives:

"But the larger scandal is that Saddam was able to use every legitimate dollar of the program to reward friends and allies and undermine support for sanctions. The total value of contracts under Oil for Food was more than $100 billion -- or $64.2 billion in oil sales and $38.7 billion in humanitarian purchases. Subtract a few billion dollars the U.N. spent in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, and you have some $100 billion worth of business that Saddam was able to steer wherever he wanted."

Term limits for representatives are a good thing to reduce this effect. Perhaps we should also consider term limits for bureaucrats and diplomats.

WSJ.com - 'Easongate'

Here's a defense of Eason Jordan by someone who attended the World Economic Forum's panel discussion where Mr. Jordan spoke. He believes the comments have been taken out of context and flames of an awkward statement were fanned by others in attendance:

"By this point, one could almost see the wheels of Mr. Jordan's mind spinning, slowly: 'How am I going to get out of this one?' But Mr. Frank and others kept demanding specifics. Mr. Jordan replied that 'there are people who believe there are people in the military' who have it out for journalists. He also recounted a story of a reporter who'd been sent to the back of the line at a checkpoint outside of Baghdad's Green Zone, apparently because the soldier had been unhappy with the reporter's dispatches."

I guess my only comment is, perhaps 'there are people in journalism' who have it out for the military as well.

A little perspective...

...Varifrank has done a good job (simple task by his own admission) of collecting historical quotes from General Mattis' peers. My two-cents for the offended: get over it and grow up!

Not quite solid 'freezes'

This story from JS Online calls the Governor out on his claim that his budget plan includes a tax freeze:

"'The numbers of this freeze meet all of the Republican standards,' Doyle told Journal Sentinel editors Wednesday, a day after he presented his budget to the Republican-controlled Legislature. 'It will reduce property taxes even more' than the Republican version."

While he's technically correct - the first year of his budget does lower local taxes by $11 more than the Republican plan - the second year his plan is higher and his plan has no provisions for future years. The Republican plan is not that much better, but it does extend to three years which would make it difficult to adjust in the next budget biennium.

Once again folks - we don't have a tax problem in Wisconsin, we have a spending problem. Let's fix that!

You're Biased, I'm Not

I agree with this story from CBS News:

"In everyday life in schools, companies and bars, meaningful, two-way conversation is constricted by the trump card of bias: gender bias, race bias, political bias, class bias, religious bias or cultural bias. Bias is not the same as prejudice. Prejudice should be argued with and outed. But next time you're about to accuse someone of being biased, try to come up with a more clever retort. Or better yet, try to understand their point of view. "

As a white male, there is little audience for anything we have to say. I can honestly say though, I'm more than willing to hear all sides and opinions. Just don't expect me to change my mind ALL the time and agree with everything you do. I'll expect the same of you.

Doyle would dip into energy funds again

As someone familiar with the Focus on Energy program, this is now the second time in two budget periods that Governor Doyle has chosen to turn ratepayer public benefits dollars into general taxes. In the last biennium, the Governor shifted $47M. Since he didn't pay a price, I guess he feels he can take more. This budget, he plans on taking $53M.

"This is bad energy policy and bad fiscal policy," said Nino Amato, president of Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group, a coalition of manufacturers concerned about rising energy prices. "It's clearly a double tax on industry and on residential customers who are paying for this, and the money is being diverted in a shell game to the general fund."

In addition, the combined Focus on Energy program (Residential and Business Programs) delivers results and is cost effective. In the latest evaluation report, the program's cost benefit ratio is above 5:1. This is since the program began in 2001. That means for every dollar the program spends, the state receives five dollars in energy savings. These savings help residents and business' reduce their utility bills and add to their bottom-line. This helps make Wisconsin business more competitive.

WI State Budget: Here we go again!

Once again, we get a budget proposal from our Governor that lacks any semblance of a backbone. He touts what he calls a 'freeze' in property taxes, but turns around and robs from non-related programs to make up the differences. The problem in this state is not that our taxes are too high. The problem is our SPENDING is too high!

There are a number of programs besides transportation that the Governor is planning to raid - again. Some of these programs are funded through other means than taxes. These programs are often funded through fees by participants or mandated collections by public utilities for specific purposes:

"But Doyle's plan would continue the controversial shift of hundreds of millions of gas tax and license fee dollars to pay for schools and other programs, a move guaranteed to touch off fireworks in the Legislature."

Shifting and borrowing is NOT balancing. It is a shell game to "hide" the problem for another two-years. Rather than actually making difficult choices, the Governor (and I presume the legislature, based on last budget process) will play the game, boast about how well they did and hope we all forget when we have to do it again in another two years.

Art for Art's sake?

Never having been an artist myself, I can't thoroughly relate to this from Althouse. I do, however, agree with her conclusions.

The left reacts to the elections in Iraq:

The following is a list of op-ed pieces from traditionally left-leaning columnists. I will add too as needed:

• EJ Dionne in the Houston Chronicle, January 31, 2005: "But not all Iraqis, and here is why euphoria should be held in check. The Sunni Muslim minority that has ruled over the Shiite majority and the Kurds concentrated in the north did not, on the whole, take to these elections."
• Arianna Huffington in the LA Times, February 2, 2005: "But this moment, however moving, should not be allowed to erase all that came before it, leaving us unprepared for all that may come after it. The triumphalist fog rolling across the land has all the makings of another "Mission Accomplished" moment."
• Thomas Friedman in the NY Times, February 3, 2005 (actually gets it right!): "It's about time, because whatever you thought about this war, it's not about Mr. Bush any more. It's about the aspirations of the Iraqi majority to build an alternative to Saddamism. By voting the way they did, in the face of real danger, Iraqis have earned the right to ask everyone now to put aside their squabbles and focus on what is no longer just a pipe dream but a real opportunity to implant decent, consensual government in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world."

Update: Thomas Friedman continues to impress me with his acknowledgement that the elections and a democracy in Iraq are good things. Of course his last comment is debatable:

"Here's the truth: There is no single action we could undertake anywhere in the world to reduce the threat of terrorism that would have a bigger impact today than a decent outcome in Iraq. It is that important. And precisely because it is so important, it should not be left to Donald Rumsfeld."

Self-indulgence: Why the Left Protests

Once again, Thomas Sowell calls it like he sees it - and gets it right:

"The media dignify these outbursts by calling them 'protests' but what are they protesting?

That they lost the election? Doesn't somebody always lose an election? Did the Republicans take to the streets when Bill Clinton was elected?

Are the shouters and the rioters protesting that they disagree with President Bush's policies? Isn't that why we hold elections in the first place -- because people disagree? "

I have seen too many scowl faced citizens emerge from their cars, mini-vans and, yes, even SUV's that still carry the Kerry/Edwards bumber stickers. These people not only look sad, they look angry. They look mad.

In addition, we have one citizen who has taken to protesting the Bush administration and, more specifically, the war on terror, with '60's type banners and symbolic signs in her front yard. This started with the "Defend America, Defeat Bush!" hand painted banner draped across the 2nd story porch rail prior to the election and has evolved to a banner(s) representing the number of dead American soldiers in Iraq. This unilateral representation of the struggle echoes another Sowell piece about the media - but more about the other battle we face: ourselves.

I've often thought about knocking on the door of this person to ask if we could have a discussion about each other's views. I've never acted on this thought and, given the description of the others I've seen noted above - the "scowlers" - I don't think it wise. I see little if any opportunity to have a calm, reasonable discussion with these people. I fear that it would too quickly descend to a yelling match with little accomplished.

I don't see these people as being willing to hear another's point of view - exactly what they claim is THE PROBLEM with the Bush Administration. I can empathize with them. I wasn't exactly thrilled with our country's previous administration. I was worried about the damaging effects that policy and appointments made during that time were having and would have in the future. But I, as well as many others, chose a different path - not one of public protest or civil disobedience.

Therefore, we do have differences. There is a right and a left. There are red states and blue states, conservative and liberal perspectives. But there is also a broad middle area where some of us can agree to disagree and be okay with it.

So, come on everyone. Take off the Kerry/Edwards stickers (I had my Bush/Quayle and Dole/Kemp signs and stickers gone in a week!) Open your minds - not change them. And let's get back to being civil.

This Just In: The Progressive magazine

Well, it's been a while since I've posted anything and I was beginning to think I may not have the desire anymore. Maybe I was just caught up in the election frenzy and rhetoric. Then I clicked on my link to The Progressive and found this:

"Bush's Inaugural Address contained many explicit references to God, but there were even more hidden allusions to the Bible that may have been lost to many in his audience, as they were to me, before I did some research.

The subtle subtext of his speech carries with it a profoundly disturbing message about the separation of church and state in this country."

Now, if I had the time - and the paranoia of Matthew Rothschild - I would research ALL the inaugural speeches from the past looking for biblical references. My guess is that we'd all be surprised by the frequency. I probably would have to look no further than Bill Clinton's efforts in this research to find multiple references.

We are, and always have been, a nation formed by Christian values. We also - or I should say our forefathers - had the foresight to write a Constitution that forbids the government from establishing a national religion, or preventing anyone from freely practicing their own religion. That doesn't mean we can't openly refer to, cite or talk about religion. They are beliefs. Just like certain liberal beliefs that I personally don't believe in, but I don't demand that they be censored!