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.'"