Do you wonder what the average response rate for polls is? I did, and I looked one up.

For the Sept. Humphrey institute poll it was 17.25%.

Mystery Pollster says normal is 22%. Hmmm.

Wonder what my colleagues will find.

I am sure I'm not the first person to mention this, but I am rather annoyed that Memeorandum is no longer picking up posts here; they were not too long ago. It turns out that their model is that posts are peer-reviewed and they trim you off the list rather regularly if you don't keep up your referrals. That is, if you aren't getting links to specific stories, you're not getting onto Memeorandum. I'd've thought a blog with as many linking blogrolls and readers as this one wouldn't need constant referrals but there you are.

I had believed that the blogosphere was to be about diversity of thought and original ideas; their model is encouraging a feedback loop that I do not believe is healthy. In order to be considered "relevant" you must write about things other people think are "relevant" in a way that you can be "relevant" to the "relevant" ... and get the requisite link.

This reminds me of how academics in elite institutions pump up the citation index counts of their friends in elite institutions (only). Peer review is a fine institution, and I do believe in it in academia, but the difference is that peer review in academia -- at least at the journals I hold in high regard -- are double-blind. The Memeorandum model would work if your meme-ing bloggers had to look at twenty non meme-ing posts a day. They won't because the incentives are in the other direction: Give links to get links.

I get a number of emails from people saying to look at this or that post and write about it. Their model is encouraging that kind of email. I write about what strikes me as news of the day, from a viewpoint I think is different, and I don't bother people often about what I wrote today. I may send Instapundit two emails a year and maybe once a month to other NARNians about specific pieces.

So goodbye, Memeorandum. I ain't singing your tune any more.

Wretchard:

If Liberals as a whole truly believe that the central tenet of a religious belief is a bunch of absurd crap, then why wait until after the elections to say so? In naval warfare in the sailing age even pirates flew their true colors at the moment of engagement.

He should live up here, where we have alternatively people hiding their beliefs or deciding it matters so much that they're refighting the Reformation.* (Mitch takes up that cause today.)

We had Michele Bachmann on our show shortly after the taping of the debate in which Pat Kessler dropped the nativist question on her. Here's how she described it (about 20:40 mark on the podcast of the second hour of the Final Word on 10/28 from our Townhall podcast center):

I just completed a television debate that will be shown tonight at 10:30 on WCCO television tonight ... this morning in the Star Tribune on the editorial page there was a section from bloggers and it was printed as though it was fact that my church and myself believe that the Pope is the Antichrist. Now this is almost falling of the chair laughing it's so patently absurd it's just funny. But you know the StarTribune, they put this in as if it is just fact. well Guess what? Here wr are having a serious debate ... here's the bias of the media. Here's Pat Kessler, from WCCO TV, very first question out of the chute to State Senator Michele Bachmann, he says, "The StarTribune reported today that you and your church believe that you and your church believe that the Pope is the Antichrist. Could you please comment on the divisive nature of your political statements that are intertwined with religion. DO you think it's important for you to be speaking about religion and politics and your statements that the Pope is the Antichrist." This is the very first question out of his mouth.

Jeff Kouba relates this as well, who was on the air with us at the time (he transcribed from the broadcast of the debate, not Bachmann's recollection. And Bachmann tells us that Kessler asked the question of Wetterling, asking her to discuss it as if it was true.**

The biggest problem I have is the lack of seriousness with which religion is taken. The Reformation really did happen; the split between Luther and Rome was real and had serious consequences. (When you can breathe after the elections, watch Luther and see what he thought of the pope.) The Lutheran and Catholic churches have wrestled with its consequences ever since and will continue to do so; Kessler's question is jawdroppingly unserious in its failure to understand history.

Can one possibly ask that question without thinking that someone's religious belief is absurd crap? Let Kessler say so then, rather than sit on a set with Larry Jacobs afterwards wringing their hands wondering whether this will cost Bachmann the Catholic vote. Let the StarTribune say so then, rather than endorsing one candidate because she's not the "extremist". I mean, if you really cared about what Catholics think, would you so ignore them on social issues? Or is this reporting just another attempt to suppress values voters who might decide that Wetterling doesn't hold theirs?

Would that they had the courage of pirates, to say they are pirates! Instead they hide, for they can do no other.

*--I love the STrib finding some online group from Massachusetts called "Catholics for the Common Good" to come out demanding an apology from Bachmann for something she didn't say. The InquiSItion, let's begin...

** -- Listen to our whole broadcast, to hear how Wetterling stormed off the set of KSTP radio, where in an impromptu debate she made a rather embarrassing faux pas on property taxes and left abruptly during the following commercial break, breaking a set of studio headphones in the process. Jeff has details of this as well; I've heard the recording and it's accurate up to the point they go to commercial. According to my sources, Bachmann's description of Wetterling's departure underplays the tension of the moment and the interaction between Wetterling's handlers -- chiefly campaign manager Corey Day -- and the three candidates during the commercial break in which Wetterling departs. That's the story we were trying to get from Bachmann, before all this Reformation stuff broke out.

I love many things British, but their newspapers are not one of them. For example, this Independent article on the decision of the Bank of England to put Adam Smith on the 20-pound note says that including Smith is controversial, and not just because he's a Scot.

Why has he enjoyed such a resurgence now?

For two main reasons. First, because he was seen as the first economic thinker to explain and advocate the free market. As such, he was one of a constellation of economists co-opted by the British political right in the Seventies when they were looking for alternatives to what they regarded as the bankruptcy of Socialism. When Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister in 1979, the political right had the chance to put the theory into practice: lower taxes, smaller government and freer markets. Long dead, Adam Smith was resurrected as the economic guru for Thatcherism.

And for this he must suffer:

But he is quite a controversial figure today, isn't he?

Yes he is, and the association with Thatcherite economics is one of the main reasons. But it is not the only one. Tony Blair's New Labour accepted many of the free-market capitalist principles of the Thatcher years. But even New Labour found it hard to swallow the Thatcherite interpretation of Adam Smith whole, and it has looked for aspects of his thinking that fit more comfortably with New Labour. A global division of labour was fine, but selfishness was not - unless it was consciously understood to contribute to the common good.

This kind of thinking needs to meet the likes of Walter Williams, who explains in this wonderful interview at EconTalk the benefits to society that come from greed. He quotes the famous passage of Smith

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chuses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens. Even a beggar does not depend upon it entirely. The charity of well-disposed people, indeed, supplies him with the whole fund of his subsistence. But though this principle ultimately provides him with all the necessaries of life which he has occasion for, it neither does nor can provide him with them as he has occasion for them. The greater part of his occasional wants are supplied in the same manner as those of other people, by treaty, by barter, and by purchase. With the money which one man gives him he purchases food. The old cloaths which another bestows upon him he exchanges for other old cloaths which suit him better, or for lodging, or for food, or for money, with which he can buy either food, cloaths, or lodging, as he has occasion.

As I pointed out to my class yesterday, relying on a section of Heyne's Economic Way of Thinking, the difference between the market and the government is the difference between persuasion and coercion. By serving others and ministering to their self-interest, you advance your the common good. Motives are irrelevant; what matters are results.

Um Andy? You need to understand a couple of thing. First, it's SCBA, not SCAB. I realize you have some issues with us more ortographobic readers, but this isn't a spelling issue, it's a name. We are the St. Cloud Bloggers Association. Second, nobody is severing from the MOB; there's a separate NARN, so a separate SCBA is not to be seen as in any way a threat.

You get to hobnob at Keegans, using your mayoral powers to receive liquid tribute, and for what? You barely beat out an animal whose full name you couldn't spell if we spotted you the c, the h, the i, the m, the p, the a, the n, the z and the e. In order. Our representative Leo is forced to spend time away from his bride to attend these functions and end up on the next state senator's couch. What more do you expect.

We invite you to our own brewpub for refreshments, any time. Only has five letters; I'm sure you can do it.

At least not in New York City:

In a ruling this week that could jeopardise the fledgling field of long distance education, the NYC Department of Education has said in effect that U.S companies cannot use tutors from India because they cannot comply with laws that require teachers to undergo background checks.

Under current rules, teachers are required to furnish social security numbers and be fingerprinted as part of background checks.

The ruling came after NYC reviewed a case involving an Indian-American owned company that had won a contract to tutor 2000 school children under a federal "No Child Left Behind" program.

The Texas-based company, Socratic Learning Inc, was found to be using 250 teachers based in India, although it claimed they were in Plano, Texas, NYC’s Department of Education said. The city has since cancelled Socratic’s contract worth more than $2 million a year.

The education department required Social Security numbers as well, effectively eliminating any outsourcing of tutoring to offshore providers. Indian tutors cost a fraction of the $40 per hour that American tutors charge ... and more now, given the creation of this trade barrier.

(h/t: Joanne Jacobs.)

A blog announces a scholarship for students who blog:

Our requirements are

• Your blog must contain unique and interesting information about you and/or things you are passionate about. No spam bloggers please!!!
• You must be enrolled in a college in the United States;
• 3.0 minimum GPA;
• Enrolled full-time in post-secondary education; and
• If you win, you must be willing to allow us to list your name and blog on this page. We want to be able to say we knew you before you became a well educated, rich, and famous blogging legend.

Sounds legit to me, and a very nice prize if you can get it.

When people ask me now about the war in Iraq, I argue that the war itself was fine, it's the peace that sucks. Nation-building has at best been a mixed success everywhere it's been tried. One aspect of its failure is that it's almost impossible to do in countries that are ethnically diverse. Thomas Sowell points out today the problem. The analysis may not cheer conservatives, but the conclusions he draws will not give cheer to liberals either:

Free societies have prerequisites, and history has not given all peoples those prerequisites, which took centuries to evolve in the West.

However we got into Iraq, we cannot undo history--even recent history--by simply pulling out and leaving events to take their course in that strife-torn country. Whether or not we "stay the course," terrorists are certainly going to stay the course in Iraq and around the world.

Political spin may say that Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror, but the terrorists themselves quite obviously believe otherwise, as they converge on that country with lethal and suicidal resolve.

Whether we want to or not, we cannot unilaterally end the war with international terrorists. Giving the terrorists an epoch-making victory in Iraq would only shift the location where we must face them or succumb to them.

Which is exactly the message Mark Kennedy is giving voters.

One of my good DFL friends brought this down to me this morning (it was Toles' Sunday cartoon in the WaPo.) "This is exactly how I feel," he said. "I feel like we're so close and I'm just waiting for something to go wrong."

I have tried for weeks to get some pollsters in Minnesota on our radio show, but to no avail so far. One has been busy assisting WCCO with its Bachmann smear campaign (I have to wonder which editorial genius came up with the let's-refight-the-Reformation strategy), and another is no doubt preparing the last poll for the StarTribune. My friends at the SCSU Survey haven't released their poll yet either, though it seems they've been in the field a long, long time judging by the buzz of phone calls I've heard there the last two-plus weeks.

I'm not a pollster; I am not trained in sampling theory. I do use statistics extensively in my work, though, and I'm a forecaster. So when I read the best story on polling written this year, by no less an eminence than Michael Barone, I have to pay attention.

In 2004, the electorate that went to the polls or voted absentee was, according to the adjusted NEP exit poll, 37 percent Democratic and 37 percent Republican. In party identification, it was the most Republican electorate since George Gallup conducted his first random sample poll in October 1935.

But most recent national polls show Democrats with an advantage in party identification in the vicinity of 5 percent to 12 percent. Party identification usually changes slowly. Historically, voters have switched from candidates of one party to candidates of the other more readily than they have changed their party identification.

I have noted before that local polls have been heavily leaning turnout towards Democrats and women. Now, to be sure, the pollsters will respond that they didn't do that, these are the results of screens they run to determine who is a likely voter. I accept that explanation only to a point. Surely they know what Barone says in this last paragraph; do they really believe this shift is real? And if so, is it because they want to believe it, just as much as Charlie Brown both knows Lucy's history and yet wants to believe that this time the voters won't pull the ball back at the last second?

In any forecasting exercise, one step after you "run the model" is to do a consistency check. I make students tell me a story for how all the things the model says will happen can happen at the same time. As I tell them, your client will forgive a bad forecast if you have a story for why it went wrong. But you have to then fix the model. If you keep giving the same bad forecast and keep telling the same story and yet your client doesn't fire you it's not your problem any more. Sometimes we just have stupid clients.

You have to wonder if that's the problem with the Democrats. Certainly they also know what Barone says here:

Serious pollsters concede that there are some problems with polling. Americans have fewer landline phones than they used to, and the random digit dialing most pollsters use does not include cell-phone numbers. Larger and larger percentages of those called are declining to be interviewed.

Interviewers can inject bias in the results. The late Warren Mitofsky, who conducted the 2004 NEP exit poll, went back and found that the greatest difference between actual results in exit poll precincts and the reports phoned in to NEP came where the interviewers were female graduate students -- and almost all the discrepancies favored the Democrats.

But if you know that, don't you fix the problem? No, if the polls keep allowing you to engage in a fantasy you can't resist -- that this time the Republicans have really gone too far, that this time the voters have seen through the lies, that this time you shall be delivered to the promised land of majority and speakership. And that's no less a fantasy, no less wish-fulfillment, than the guy who looks at the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue each spring thinking this is the summer he will get a girl who looks like that. They don't study polls; they look at them as the dandy looks in the mirror in admiration and sure that this is the time all will recognize his beauty.

This behavior is part of what stands between America and a real two-party system of government.

This weekend has been spent grading midterms exams. I have standards and high demands of my students. Yet, again, I am reminded of a trend I've noticed for several years.

My classes have been comprised of students who went through school after the "feel good" crowd implemented its system of lower standards and inflated grades. These students were shortchanged. They were not taught basic grammar; they were rewarded with high marks for mediocre work; they weren't pushed; and they weren't taught to think. Hence, it is more difficult for them than their predecessors to get "outside the box", to apply concepts to situations versus regurgitating an answer.

I do push and by the end of the semester, the vast majority of my students are very appreciative. But I often wonder how much easier their lives would have been if they had not been shortchanged in their first 12 years of education. I know this statement will upset many teachers. However, I believe more educators need to set standards, demand excellence, and push students to do more than they think they can do. When we indirectly tell students they either are not as good as they can be or we are dishonest with them by telling them they are better than their work merits (note, not them, their work) we short change them.

Thus, some standard is better than none. Most students are quite capable of meeting standards but they must be taught. They must learn that "work" and "earn" are four letter words that mean success in life. For an education system to do less is unfair to the students, parents, taxpayers, and society. If we demand more - we will get it.

It's pretty bad. It's a rate that normally means unemployment will rise if labor force participation holds constant, as it has the last three years. I have been saying to anyone that will listen here in St. Cloud that housing was in trouble. (I notice I said two years ago that housing then was "on its last leg of a good run" -- damn! I should frame that one -- but a stopped clock is right twice a day.) The third quarter performance nationwide shaved 1.1% from the GDP estimate. And that's likely to continue into 2007. So yeah, housing is in pain.

But most of this was made up by good figures in consumption and business fixed investment. The other part of this GDP figure that should stand out at you is that inventories fell. That's right -- the run-up in consumption in the last quarter was not met by a concomitant increase in inventories. True, it was a small decrease, but nonetheless it indicates that firms generally are not holding on to more stocks than they planned on.

Indeed, I usually pay as much attention to final sales figures as the headline GDP, and final sales to domestic purchasers actually rose in the third quarter, as real dispoable personal income rose 3.7%. The money being spent is money from wages and salaries has kept final sales of domestic product at 3.5% year-over-year for the last two quarters. And durable goods production and orders are still moving smartly. And consumer confidence is rising.

So yes, it's pretty bad, and it might be bad news for the Republicans nationally. But I don't think it's nearly as bad as some people are going to make it out to be.

Yesterday I attended a program presented by IBM to a number of Fortune 500 companies located in the Twin Cities. Also in attendance were representatives from four universities, public and private. The purpose of the meeting was to address the shortage of large system (main frame) computer programmers for all functions of these systems. The average years of experience on this platform is 20+ years; for some companies, the average is closer to 30 years.

IBM has developed a program whereby they are working with interested universities to provide access to programs and systems for interested students. This session was to begin a dialogue between the universities and corporations.

What was disturbing to me were comments made by various university representatives. A sample of these comments follows.

1. The professor from the research institution kept telling people that students were not interested in mainframes, the jobs were boring. Yet he knew nothing of the current job opportunities, future potential, and the incredible capabilities and flexibility of today's MF computers.
2. A professor from a university that offers a number of computer related degrees stated that he reviews the papers to find jobs available to computer majors. There were no MF jobs listed so they didn't teach the topics. When another professor asked the companies where they searched for job candidates, they replied: through search companies and on-line sources. This showed a major disconnect between the university and the source of jobs in this market.
3. Another representative from a major university, said practically nothing.
4. One let the audience know that universities are to impart knowledge, not skills. They are to teach critical thinking, not job skills.

As a result, I have a few thoughts. There is an industry crying for talented people. Yet, the academic environment is oblivious to the need. Who loses? Students - I simply do not believe that there are no students who want to learn how to harness the capabilities of these powerful machines. Taxpayers - they believe universities are providing options for the future but in this high demand area, very, very little is being taught. This omission could have major impact at a national level. The universities - they have an opportunity to provide programs, experience, and futures to students in an area that will always be in demand, yet the are not teaching it.

When I asked about these jobs going overseas (a complaint of the left), the reason given was simply that companies cannot find enough people stateside who know of and/or can be trained to take up these careers.

What can be done? As with most things, those hurting (in this case, companies) will have to take the lead. They will need to go to universities, get on advisory boards, and continue to make their case. They may want to consider scholarships to encourage students to enter this field.

The academics are focused on their own silos and refuse to look at other possibilities because they are not sexy.

As someone who was in the field for close to 20 years, I can say it is NOT boring and the opportunity to make a difference within and without an organization exists. Not only can a student have a very rewarding career, he will make an excellent living. If someone reads this and would like more information, please feel free to contact me.

King adds: Funny enough, I've just finished reading Silos, Politics and Turf Wars. The application of these principles to academia are manifold and daunting (at least to one department chair.)

After her impressive tour reviewing an article in the New York Times about Michele Bachmann, Metro State professor Janet Beihoffer and I have decided that it is time for SCSU Scholars to have a co-blogger again. (Those of you who are longtime readers will know that this blog -- an offshoot of the SCSU Association of Scholars -- was a four-person group blog in 2002-03.) Please welcome Janet to the blog! She will be here indefinitely, and we hope for a long, long run.

The chancellor of the University of Arkansas' flagship campus got down on his knees Wednesday and begged state legislators to fully fund his budget request and those of the other state colleges and universities.

The UA-Fayetteville campus would be $36 million short of its funding needs even under state higher education funding formula, and state higher education institutions will still need more money for capital improvements if voters approve a $250 million bond issue on the Nov. 7 general election ballot, UA Chancellor John White said.

Source.
My dad would refer to this as "begging Uncle Sugar." (h/t: The Chronicle of Higher Ed News Blog

A small hornet's nest was stirred when Greg Mankiw posited in the WSJ that it was time for a gas tax of about $1 a gallon, citing seven reasons for it.

1. It would be a way to internalize the externality of carbon emissions;
2. It would be a way to internalize the externality of road congestion;
3. It would serve as a substitute for regulations that have perverse consequences, like fuel efficiency standards and the SUVs they spawned;
4. It would help balance the budget;
5. It would be borne at least in part by the Saudis, the Venezuelans and other oil producers, whose incomes we do not particularly want to expand;
6. It would be pro-growth to the extent that consumption taxes are better than income taxes in their drag on economic activity;
7. It is a national security issue.

I am less persuaded that Professor Mankiw, in particular by the plan for phasing in the tax in ten cent increments over ten years. Some of it is figuring out what the right size of the tax is; John Palmer has done a nice job laying out those arguments.

But how does he arrive at this precise amount for the tax? The simple answer is we don't know for sure. We have to guess. One would hope the guess is well-informed and documented by people who know what they are doing. And this is the heart of the criticism of Mankiw's Pigou club: it is easy to draw these things on the chalkboard, but measuring and identifying the externalities (not to mention the general equilibrium effects) precisely is probably not possible with today's knowledge and technology.

Let's just say it's tricky.

We know that the short-run elasticity of fuel use is quite small; probably 0.25 is a median estimate. Let's guess the long-run elasticity is about 0.75. (I've not looked at every study, but the ones I've seen would have those as the midpoints of the ranges offered.)

Key to this as well is the elasticity of supply -- how responsive are suppliers to a change in the price they receive for gas brought to market? See Professor James Hamilton's elucidation. In order for points 5 and 7 to be true, you have to assume supply is highly inelastic. In the short-run, perhaps this is true. But how long does it take for refiners to stop producing gasoline out of crude and instead produce something that is not taxed? Given the rapidity of adjustment between gasoline and diesel I observe driving by gas stations, I'd say not long at all. Crude oil is still going to flow to alternative uses.

Thus the burden of the gas tax in the short run is borne by both an inelastic demander and an inelastic supplier, but if supply can adjust quicker than demand, it will be the American consumer who bears the brunt of it. In the short run, there isn't much change in the quantity of gas sold -- it will swell the government's coffers, but if that was your plan along with getting more growth in tax policy, would you argue for Fair Tax or a VAT over the income tax rather than using an ad valorem tax on gasoline?

Last, the phasing part of this assumes, I think, that you can borrow the long-run demand elasticity to encourage the reduction of gasoline to come faster. If we know prices will rise a dollar in the long run, wouldn't we start finding ways to conserve now? Yes, if and only if you expect the phase in to continue for ten years. How many people will believe that government can commit credibly to a ten-year tax plan? The caterwauling over the estate tax should be instructive: a tax rise or fall expected some years from now must be discounted by the rational investor or household for the possibility that the government will renege.

I agree with Palmer -- Pigou taxes are a chalkboard exercise; most of tax policy is blunt force applied to shove things in one direction or the other at the desire of those who have power and think they know better. The fact that you would phase in the increase, however, indicates to me some uncertainty about whether or not the tax is the right amount. As a matter of policy advising, I follow the Hippocratic Oath of economics: First do no harm to market signals.

UPDATE: Aplia Blog has a nice analysis of Prop 87 in CA, which taxes oil production there to pay for alternative fuel research and development. It's not Pigovian; the blog asks "Would a Pigovian tax on gasoline consumption be a better way to fund research on and development of alternative fuels?" You'd first need to answer the question, What are the social costs of not using alt fuels?

The AAUP has released a report on faculty gender equity and finds that women are still a minority in tenured and tenure-track faculty, even though a majority of U.S. citizens who earn PhDs are female. It's a longish report and I am not terribly interested in disecting it, but the Chronicle of Higher Ed's report (subscriber link) indicates that the second-lowest ranking institution in terms of share of tenured faculty who are female is at North Dakota State.

At North Dakota State, R. Craig Schnell, the provost, said he did not have a good explanation for why so few of the university's tenured faculty members are women. But he said that "it seems as soon as somebody gets hired, they leave, not necessarily for higher salaries, but for family reasons." The university has applied for a federal grant to study why so many women leave North Dakota State after earning tenure.

You don't need a grant; just count up the number of MOB males that have left Fargo, and you can see that the smart women are following them down I-94.

Is there ever enough jobs, or enough of the "right kind" of jobs? If you read the New York Times, the answer is no. Discussing minimum wage laws and Social Security taxes, the author starts with this premise:

If the country cared only about creating jobs — rather than, say, lifting living standards — it would also be wise to get rid of Medicare and the payroll taxes that come with it. Workplace safety rules, with their costly requirements that workers not be injured on the job, should go, too.

As the old joke goes, who are you calling "the country", Kemosabe?

The country does not care about things; people do. People do not "care about" creating jobs; they care about hiring someone to help them produce something, or being hired to help someone else produce something. Nor does "the country care" about lifting living standards; people take up tasks, including employment, in order to better their own lives, not to raise median per capita GDP. They do this quite naturally, without need of direction from the New York Times.

People trying to further themselves by gaining experience in working may choose to accept lower wages now in return for higher wages later. Minor league baseball players do not lobby for higher wages even though their salaries may be more than ten times less than the major league minimum. Nor do they argue much over the residue of the old reserve clause that bound a player to a team from year to year (they are bound for six years, the latter three being at a salary that can be arbitrated.) Why do they accept this? In return for the opportunity to make more later.

It is not any great secret why the youth accept low-wage jobs. They have little experience and they want to gain it. They have not yet developed many job skills. Minimum wage laws, even if the worker manages to stay employed, discourage on-the-job training and the provision of other employee benefits. On net, raising the minimum wage may be a wash.

Felix Salmon notes this as well, which makes this statement by the NYT even more curious:

The American economy has done so well at creating jobs in recent decades that almost anybody who wants work can find it. The problem is that too many jobs still don’t pay a decent living. So even if a minimum wage increase does eliminate a small number of jobs, that may be an acceptable price for improving the lot of millions of low-wage workers.

And yet we still have black teen unemployment over 30%, and 20% of black wage earners make the minimum wage. Is it an acceptable price to them? So not only is increasing the minimum wage an extremely expensive way of helping a very few people out of poverty, but the cost falls on those least able to afford it.

A couple of unintentionally funny/scary lines in the email sent today from the union to encourage us to vote.

Minnesota has some of the easiest voting laws in the nation. See: Who is eligible to vote? . If you are not already registered to vote, you can register at the polls on Election Day--Tuesday, November 7, 2006.

From your mouth to John Fund's ear. Is "easiest voting laws" really something to be proud of?

...this is an election where faculty can influence the outcome!

And boy, do they ever!

Meanwhile, take a look at our union's review of the higher education proposals of the gubernatorial candidates. Do you think the coverage is even, and informative, or do you think the descriptions of the plans leans towards one or the other? And if so which?

The Pawlenty proposal would only affect about 16,000 of the approximately 250,000 students in higher education in Minnesota. Current students would not realize any benefit from the proposal, which would take effect starting fall of 2007. Even then, it would only apply to recent high school graduates and not benefit students previously enrolled or non-traditional students.

...Hatch proposes paying for his tuition roll-back by closing the foreign-owned corporate tax loophole created by a Supreme Court decision which allows corporations to shelter passive income from royalties, interest and dividends in overseas branches. Senate DFLers have proposed closing the loophole several times, and Pawlenty has vowed to veto it. The proposal would raise about $300 million per year.

Yup, looks really evenhanded to me. And note as well the fawning treatment of state legislators who bring home the pork. I'll repeat what I've said before -- we should be sending money back, asking for independence in setting tuition and graduation standards in return for taking fewer taxpayer dollars. We'd be better off, and so would the state of Minnesota.

It has long been that the St. Cloud Bloggers Association has been a three-man crew: Let Freedom Ring, Psycmeistr's Ice Palace, and the Scholars. During a recent gathering of the three of us, we decided to vote ourselves a new member.

SCBA is proud to extend a welcome to Larry Schumacher of the St. Cloud Times, whose blog we feel should be the model for those attempted at the StarTribune. We're not sure how this ranks with other awards Larry has received, but it's certainly putting him in elite company (the erstwhile Right Brothers of the PioneerPress, Mark Yost and Craig Westover, come closest to earning the distinction among MN journalist-and-bloggers.)

A troubling article in the City Journal (reprinted today in OpinionJournal) tells of a high school dean of boys.

More than 25 years ago, when I was dean of boys at a high school in northern Queens, we received a letter from a federal agency pointing out that we had suspended black students far out of proportion to their numbers in our student population. Though it carried no explicit or even implicit threats, the letter was enough to set the alarm bells ringing in all the first-floor administrative offices.

When my supervisor, the assistant principal, showed me the letter, she merely shook her head and looked downcast. She said nothing, but her body language told me that it was probably time to mend our errant ways.

...What this meant in practice was an unarticulated modification of our disciplinary standards. For example, obscenities directed at a teacher would mean, in cases involving minority students, a rebuke from the dean and a notation on the record or a letter home rather than a suspension. For cases in which white students had committed infractions, it meant zero tolerance. Unofficially, we began to enforce dual systems of justice. Inevitably, where the numbers ruled, some kids would wind up punished more severely than others for the same offense.

Welcome to the world of diminished expectations. Campuses keep records of admission and retention of students by protected class status. (Here are ours.) What is the message getting to faculty when these records are shown to them?

If your answer is, why not?, you should guess again. I pointed out last year that there has been a longstanding effort of social work programs to impose ideological litmus tests on their students, an issue that has been on the SCSU campus for at least fifteen years. Today FIRE sends a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services pointing out that its requirement that social workers employed by HHS have degrees from accredited programs in essence creates an ideological test for public employment.

FIRE is deeply concerned that CSWE is promoting vague standards that facilitate and encourage discrimination against students on the basis of their political viewpoints. Certainly, the Department of Health and Human Services does not want to put its imprimatur on viewpoint discrimination.

Specifically, CSWE’s Educational Policy—compliance with which is a requirement of accreditation—effectively requires social work programs to impose ideological litmus tests on their students as a condition of accreditation. Educational Policy Section 3.0 requires that “graduates [of CSWE-accredited programs] demonstrate the ability to…understand the forms and mechanisms of oppression and discrimination and apply strategies of advocacy and social change that advance social and economic justice.” CSWE’s requirement that graduates from its programs work to “advance social and economic justice” raises serious concerns. Because no objective consensus on the “correct” meaning of such terminology can reasonably exist in a diverse democratic society, these vague evaluative criteria too often become vehicles for pressuring students to alter or abandon their core political, philosophical, or moral beliefs. As the twentieth century well demonstrates, one man’s idea of “social justice” may be another man’s idea of totalitarian tyranny.

An announcement from the campus' GLBT student services office told the campus this afternoon that a GLBT flag -- the rainbow flag -- was cut down from the university's flagpole over the weekend. The flag and part of the rope were taken. The flag was raised for GLBTA History and Awareness Month and had flown since October 10.

Shortly after that, a faculty member used the announce list (because she did not wish "to start a discussion" -- curious, isn't that?) to tell the campus that some students had started a Facebook group called "Remove the GLBT Flag". She quotes their Facebook group description (I have not verified this as I do not have a Facebook account):

I believe the flag that has been raised, by GLBT, in front of the Administrative building misrepresents the people of this campus. I believe the flag pole should not be used to represent any individual organization. The flag poles have the US flag, MN flag, and POW/MIA flag flying now, which do not represent anybody's personal beliefs.

I'm not sure I follow the logic of their position; are we to say that the flagpole cannot be used to represent a specific group? But, I also found the faculty member's response quite curious,

I appreciate the willingness of the administration to allow the pride flag to be flown during LGBT history month and would hope that others would recognize the importance of supporting all members of our campus community.

Can one be supportive of the GLBT community while thinking the flagpole reserved for very general items? Who owns the flagpole? Who decides which symbolic gestures it will be permitted to make, and which it won't? You can see where this is going: We will have to have some damn committee -- only to include UNION members! -- come up with a 'policy' on what can go on the flagpole. Next thing you know, they'll start policing bulletin boards.

The GLBT student services press release concludes by saying they will have a "Speak Out" on the Atwood Mall, no doubt to protest that someone had a "Speak Out" on Facebook. Only one of these Speak Outs will be considered insensitive.

Every campaign gives you quotes that make you go "huh?", but this one from Keith Ellison is a doozy: "

Ellison said he wants imminent withdrawal from Iraq. 'The conflict is exacerbating terrorism, not diminishing it,' he said, adding that they key action is to decide to exit, then figure out how. 'It's a strategic position to put pressure on the Bush administration,' he said.

As opposed to putting pressure on Islamic terror?

And speaking of game theory, I am intrigued by the number of game theorists engaged in strategic voting by casting their lots with Independence Party candidate Tammy Lee. KvM's Gary and Jules have cast their lots; David Strom thinks it hard for GOP candidate Alan Fine to reach the 35% level needed to be able to get close to winning. If you want to play that game, guys, I would argue that Fine might be a Condorcet Loser: In a two-way race with either Lee or Ellison he would lose, but in a three-way race he could win because he only needs a plurality -- but only if he can hold his Republican base together.

I am puzzled that Fine has not understood this. In order to win as a Condorcet Loser -- a position I think he would agree with -- he should take positions as far away from Ellison and Lee as possible, while putting the two of them together in every ad possible as being two peas in a pod. (Lee, at least on the interview she had with David and Margaret, is trying hard for separation from Ellison on the issues spectra, as she should.) Instead he tacks towards them on the war against terror, leading Gary to declare him "dead to conservatives." And when you ask Fine about this, he says he is in the center of the district. In a two person race that is OK, but in a three person race where the other two would be pairwise winners, you have to get away from the other two to bring out your base voters.

As for Gary and Jules and David and Margaret, I offer a classic: Leonard Read, The Lesser of Two Evils.

Tyler Cowen with seven rules for being a referee of an academic article. I just had a book proposal reviewed by someone; I believe the proposal has been accepted, but the reviewer's comments made it a better book, thought about how someone would read the book rather than me thinking about how to write it.

That is less rare than those outside academia might guess. I have often wondered why busy people agree to referee journal articles for free. I suppose it could be some reciprocal agreement structure, but I suspect we do it to learn more. A paper we understand that is published gives us something to work with in our own writing; most bad referee reports are from people refereeing a manuscript they are not prepared to read or don't have time to read, rather than someone being malicious.

While I'm not the book's biggest fan, Freakonomics co-author Steven Dubner sounds like a good academic advisor, as one of John Whitehead's students reports:

He began to go into his experience that took over at Appalachian State University as his years as a student. Basically, he never knew he would be a common friend to the men’s soccer team, he never knew he would make any foreign friends, he never knew he would join a band, he never knew he would sign to Arista Records, he never knew he would live in New York and write great books. He did all these things by staying open. Being open to all experiences and being okay with coming across new things, and to not be limited.

I think my biggest frustration with SCSU students is their limited worldview and unwillingness to take a chance. I don't consider myself risk-loving, yet I move across the country twice and worked overseas for a year in a country I never saw before taking the job once. A friend of mine once answered the cliche "nothing ventured, nothing gained" with "nothing endeavored, nothing lost." And my brother-in-law proudly displays an old poster in his house with the slogan "bloom where you are planted." Sorry, but I'm a man, not a flower.

Too often students think they have to get responsible, get jobs, get their acts together, long before they know life. So here's my rule: If you make a mistake before you're thirty and realize you made one, life gives you a do-over. ("Thank God," I say in my case.) So endeavor.

...what to buy Lileks for Christmas.

Now I know!

Money. Or even better, the catalog of this money. Lileks with a Picks. Now that would be exciting to watch.

(I wonder if he knows what a B-Pengo is.)

According to Phi Beta Cons, it's alternatively platitudinous, sappy, disgusting, shallow, geeky or Forsterian. I can't say it was much better in my time. My journeys into reading included anything by Hunter Thompson or Carlos Castenada, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, and Mark Vonnegut's Eden Express, which I thought for one month was the most brilliant thing ever written. So I read books in which drugs and psychosis were a big part of things. You want to say it's worse now?

Luckily for me, somewhere in that period I also read "Conscience of a Conservative" and Ayn Rand. I have no idea why.

That appears to have been the decision between Professor Steven Jones and Brigham Young University. The physicist whose research into whether the two airliners flying into the World Trade Center on 9-11 really DID cause it to fall has taken early retirement to continue his research.

In an interview with The Chronicle on Sunday, Mr. Jones said he decided to leave the university because "I felt that I could do my research and speak out more freely this way." He said he was not pressured to leave and had already been offered a job at another institution, though he declined to identify it, saying nothing was definite yet.

He said, however, that his first priority would still be his research.

"I want to get to the bottom of this the best I can within the year," he said. "Whether I'm right or wrong, I think these issues on 9/11 need to be freely investigated."

He declined to comment on the details of his retirement package, saying only that he had been told that it was fairly standard.

It doesn't appear to be a force-out; the school says they were approached by Jones for the buyout last month. I find it interesting that BYU's reason for putting Jones on paid leave was that his research was not subject to professional peer review, so instead Jones places his article in a book which, according to the Chronicle was "reviewed before publication by two physicists and two other scholars." What are the chances the reviewers included any skeptics of Jones' claims?

It seems to me that if Jones fairly represents that he spoke for himself and not BYU, then his statements were protected under academic freedom. Rather than debating the merits of his charges, shouldn't Jones have had the right to speak for himself as long as he distanced BYU from his views whenever possible? If, on the other hand, he used his academic post as an appeal to authority, the university should have the right to sanction him ... but it shouldn't use the peer-review claim in this case.

I try not to pick on the St. Cloud Times editorial board, and particularly not their endorsement process. I know some of them -- Mrs. S has been the citizen rep on the board recently (though not now) -- and compared to the StarTribune (see Mitch's run of coverage of their endorsements, most particularly Mark Ritchie), the Times board is pretty good, albeit with a decidedly DFL bent. I should also note that I co-author a business report which is published in a magazine created by the Times.

But I can't let pass their endorsement in House 14A this morning. This is it in its entirety:

Voters in this district should support Beniek, a DFLer, over Republican incumbent Dan Severson.

Beniek is a moderate choice compared to Severson and his extremist mix of Christianity, politics and conservatism. Combined, those create a daunting vision of a state government intent on legislating morality, not championing equality and fairness.

Setting aside that he is chief author of the amendment to ban gay marriage — itself the most divisive political issue in decades — we cite his response when asked about special-education funding.

Severson said the state should consider "decoupling" from federal mandates. Sorry, but that sounds like he believes Minnesota should forego educating special-needs students because it's too expensive. Yikes.

As for Beniek, while she may be a little too focused on education, at least she's not touting solutions that will forever divide Minnesota voters or leave its most vulnerable children to fend for themselves.

I'm not sure how to read that in any other way than "toss out the Christian right wherever it is found." The second to last paragraph puts words in his mouth; decoupling could mean any number of things short of abandonment of special-needs education. And the best you can say about "too-focused" Beniek is that she's not Severson? I'd think you could find something better to say about a candidate you want to endorse, unless your express purpose is to go negative on Severson.

Combined with a rather vicious comment on another Christian right candidate at the end of yesterday's endorsement -- which, I am told by Mr. Johnson, is a misrepresentation of what he said at the Chamber of Commerce event -- gets a guy to wondering what the problem is with the Times board and candidates who espouse social conservatism based on their understanding of the Bible? Is the Times trying to endorse a particular view of religion? Which could that be?

"The window" is an expression I have for the period when I can drive on to campus without worrying about the herds of students crossing streets. The windows are quite small -- no more than ten minutes per hour, beginning five minutes after classes begin. I am sitting at a local coffee shop whiling my time right now waiting for the next window to open.

Why worry, you ask? Students are studious lately about only one thing -- do not make eye contact with a driver. This reminds me of the deer that cross roads this time of the year in Minnesota. The last look on a deer's face before it's hit by a car has that what is this thing coming towards me look that students share. Some of them, no doubt out of some environmental sensitivity course, tend to give me a dirty look for not riding a bicycle wearing hemp winter gear. I usually allow them some opportunity to get across the street, but the other day one stands in the street fishing his cellphone out of his waytootightpants, and I thought about tossing the car in neutral and hitting the accelerator just a little bit.

Mike Adams tells me what would happen in this situation.

The first story is of Ashley (not real name) – a girl I met the other day in the parking lot by the Cameron School of Business. When I first saw her, she was making out with her boyfriend in his Chevy Blazer right in front of the entrance to the parking lot. I waited until the line of cars behind me was eight deep before I even thought about tapping the horn lightly to let the young couple know they were holding up cars waiting to get in the rapidly filling lot.

Just before I hit the horn, she got out of the Blazer and started to walk away. After three steps, though, she decided to return to the Blazer for one last kiss. That’s when I tapped the horn as lightly as possible to let her know there were other people in the world besides her and her boyfriend.

But, apparently, Ashley didn’t like that little tap on the horn. After she slammed the door of the Blazer she shot me the middle finger and shouted “f—k you!” at the top of her lungs. But she wasn’t through. After taking a few steps, she stopped, turned around, and flipped me the bird again shouting “f—k you!” as loud as she could.

So, naturally, I did what any white heterosexual Christian male would do under the circumstances. I kept a close eye on her, parked as fast as possible, and chased her down before she got inside the Cameron School of Business. When I caught up to her, I thanked her for her contribution to diversity at UNCW. The cultural norms regarding consideration of others and use of profanity and crude hand gestures in public are all antiquated norms developed by an oppressive white Christian patriarchy. By rebelling against them, she was showing us that each individual must carve out her own way of doing things, regardless of the tradition of the dominant culture.

Other stories are in his article -- if you read this blog and are not a regular Mike Adams reader, you're missing the point. I notice he plans to speak at U. Minnesota -- Morris soon. Professor, the door remains wide open to you for a visit to our fair campus.

I'd write more, but the window just opened; if I don't leave now, I might hit Ashley.

A new report from a group called the Institute for Jewish & Community Research (I have never heard of them before) has a survey of faculty attitudes. Like other such studies, it finds that faculty are overwhelmingly liberal, including real hostility towards capitalism. Business faculty are the most conservative (about a third self-identify as such) while social science and humanities faculties are about 60% liberal and 80% Democrat.

The recommendations are much more in line of what I believe. Rather than support "affirmative action for conservatives",

Any and all solutions to a dominant faculty political culture must focus on enforcing the tenets of higher education, not on purging any one group from the campus. Efforts to strengthen the university must be pro-active rather than reactive and should view any imbalance, whether to the right or left, as evidence of a fundamental breakdown in the higher education system as a whole.

Both public agencies and private philanthropies should be more cognizant of political agendas on campus and not allow their funds to be used to support them.

The greatest danger is self-censorship, which the survey reports:

[M]ost faculty say that, to one degree or another, that their colleagues are reluctant to speak out against what they consider dominant or popular opinions at their institutions. When asked “How often, if at all, do you perceive that faculty at your institutions are reluctant to express their views because they might be contrary to the dominant or ‘popular’ position?” 25% said very/fairly often, and another 38% said occasionally, a total of 63%, in an institution where the answer should be zero, or as close to zero as possible. About 37% of business/management faculty said very/fairly often, compared to 22% of social science/humanities faculty. Younger faculty were also more likely to say very/fairly often, 32%, perhaps concerned about their promotion and tenure decisions. Conservatives, 32%, were more likely to say very/fairly often, compared to liberals, 22%. Minority faculty also feel more constrained: 36% say very/fairly often compared to 24% of white faculty.

Many, many years ago I lived in a graduate dorm with a fellow working on a PhD in government. He was employed at an institute in Southern California, charged with drawing alternative state and Congressional district boundaries; i.e., he was a gerrymanderer. And in drawing boundaries the goal is always to make sure the safe Democrat seats had as many Democrats as possible, and the safe Republican seats still had a significant fraction of Democrats, to negate their effects on the election. (My roommate worked for a institute that was hired by the California GOP.) Doing so would naturally create more "safe" Republican districts, but they would be by design less "safe" than Democratic districts, since you want 75-80% Democrat shares in the safe blue districts and 60-65% Republican shares in the safe red ones.

Obviously both sides play this game -- this isn't rocket science. But the ability to enforce this kind of gerrymandering depends on which party controls the various state legislatures right after the decennial Census. In the 2000 election, the number of state legislatures that were controlled by Democrats fell from 19 to 16; the share of Republican state legislatures held constant, so that the three that the Democrats lost were lost because only one house changed. And the governor's mansions have been increasingly red, with 31 Republican governors in 2001-02.

The impact of this is that Republicans can spread their votes out in enough districts to create majorities in Congress and state legislatures without actually receiving 50% of the votes.

After their stunning loss of both houses of Congress in 1994, the Democrats have averaged over 50% of the vote in Congressional races in every year except 2002, yet they have not regained control of the House. The same is true with the Senate: in the last three elections (during which 100 senators were elected), Democratic candidates have earned three million more votes than Republican candidates, yet they are outnumbered by Republicans in the Senate as well. 2006 is looking better for the Democrats, but our calculations show that they need to average at least 52% of the vote (which is more than either party has received since 1992) to have an even chance of taking control of the House of Representatives.

Why are things so tough? Looking at the 2004 election, the Democrats won their victories with an average of 69% of the vote, while the Republicans averaged 65% in their contests, thus ``wasting'' fewer votes. The Republicans won 47 races with less than 60% of the vote; the Democrats only 28. Many Democrats are in districts where they win overwhelmingly, while many Republicans are winning the close races--with the benefit of incumbency and, in some cases, favorable redistricting.

This explains why, in a generally down year for the party in power -- Year 6 of a two-term President -- and with this kind of districting, Republicans look so perilously close to electoral disaster, yet seem to be heartened. The map plays exactly as the optimists (like Hugh) say: If you can really turn out Republican voters, you can win your safe districts and the Congress, but you have a smaller margin for error than the Democrats do. Democrats, knowing this, are wisely engaged in the politics of voter suppression -- their best road to victory isn't to turnout their own voters as much as it is to keep Republicans discouraged and at home on November 7th. And it's why the polls' assumptions on voter turnout matter so much and give you such different conclusions.

This is the scene at Century College, where posting material on departmental bulletin boards without prior permission is now prohibited. (We discussed this case back in March.)

The board features nothing but a schedule of classes and the bulletin board policy, including:

Department bulletin boards are intended for the display of materials directly related to activities and events of the academic area(s).

Materials must be approved for posting by the chair or program director prior to posting to ensure the criterion stated in section 3 is met. If a department member disagrees with a decision made by the chair or program director, the member may ask for a review of the decision by the department. A 2/3 majority vote by department members is required to approve posting of the material.

Rather than be subject to censor, discussion on the suburban Minneapolis campus is thwarted.

FIRE is now dealing with another such case, this time at Marquette University. (KARnians, please try to contain yourselves, I beg you.)

Writer and humorist Dave Barry probably never expected that one of his jokes would spark a university free speech dispute. But in early September, a Marquette University administrator removed a Barry quote about the federal government from Ph.D. student Stuart Ditsler’s office door because the quote was “patently offensive.” Facing this arbitrary exercise of political censorship, Ditsler contacted the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) for help....

In late August, Ditsler posted a quote by Dave Barry on his office door in the philosophy department. The quote read, “As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful, and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government.” On September 5, Philosophy Department Chair James South sent Ditsler an e-mail stating that he had received several complaints and therefore removed the quote. He wrote, “While I am a strong supporter of academic freedom, I’m afraid that hallways and office doors are not ‘free-speech zones.’ If material is patently offensive and has no obvious academic import or university sanction, I have little choice but to take note.”

“This incident at Marquette is part of a truly disturbing trend,” [FIRE President Greg] Lukianoff said. “Administrators seem willing to ban speech across the board and to designate increasingly tiny ‘free speech zones’ rather than risk any student or faculty member being offended.”

Professor South then proceeds to read out the Marquette University academic freedom policy statement. I don't know which is more 'patently offensive' -- Mr. Ditsler's Dave Barry quote, or this particular office door (not more than 200 feet from my own):

Or a couple years ago you could have gone downstairs to another faculty member's office door and found this:

(Forgive my Blair Witch Project photography, I was using my cellphone.)

Now ask yourself, "Self, where would I like to go to college more? A place where I learn to deal with people who think differently than I do, even faculty who do, and learn to stand up on my own two feet for what I believe in? Or do I go to the school where any time someone displays something that offends me I go screaming to the nearest authority and demand protection of my senses?"

If you choose the first, you will need this book to help you find a good college.

If you choose the second, good luck with your Marquette application.

Because you are not an economist but a member of the Hall of Shame.

C. Ford Runge, "Distinguished" Professor of Applied Economics and Law at the U, is bragging about being one of the signers of the foolish letter arguing an increase in the minimum wage would not hurt employment and would increase wages for the poor. He uses the letter to attack Michele Bachmann in an op-ed in the PiPress that is breathtaking in its economic stupidity.

The simple economics of the minimum wage are that the "equilibrium" or market-clearing wage — the place where the supply and demand curves for labor intersect — is already above $7.25. Therefore, raising the minimum wage to this level will have virtually no effect on average wages or employment.

If the market-clearing wage is above the wage floor, "Professor", then wages naturally rise to that level without any act of Congress. This is a question we give in first-year economics: "If the equilibrium price is above the price floor there will be a) a surplus; b) a shortage; c) neither a surplus nor a shortage." The correct answer is c.) Why? Because the price goes to equilibrium.

Of course, he didn't really mean that, you say. OK, I can buy that, if you mean instead that there are many, many different jobs and many, many different market-clearing wage rates for those jobs. Labor is not perfectly substitutable; everyone has different skills. But if that's true then some of the market-clearing wage rates for some job categories must be below $7.25. Some of them might be even less than $5.15. Look at food service occupations, for example, from this list of 800 occupations. (Want to look just at St. Cloud? Here you go.) Median wage for fast food cooks is $7.25, so over 300,000 cooks make less. Just scroll that page and find the other categories. Unless demand curves are vertical, those industries are going to see a decline in the number of people employed.

And thinking demand curves are vertical disqualifies you from the Society of Real Economists.

Reconsideration is possible after you read Alex Tabarrok, and a review of the arguments as Missouri debates a minimum wage initiative (maybe the best argument against initiative and referendum I have seen!) by David Neumark.

Filed in: economics

I realize it's a little early to declare, but I'm pretty comfortable in announcing today that my daughter will not attend the University of Miami. After a fight on the field against a team that is a lesser opponent that lasted a very long time, the university has decided to give very light penalties to its players. (The other team, Florida International, has handed down much more severe penalties.) One sportswriter declares that at Miami "it's not the heat -- it's the stupidity." At least the school has graduated one of its players -- the announcer, Lamar Thomas, who appears ready for color commentary for professional wrestling.

I heard Donna Shalala, the president of the school (yes, that Donna Shalala), on Mike and Mike this morning and heard her story.

"This university will be firm and punish people who do bad things," Shalala said. "But we will not throw any student under the bus for instant restoration of our image or our reputation. I will not hang them in a public square. I will not eliminate their participation at the university. I will not take away their scholarships."

The faculty senate agrees, after first questioning Shalala's leniency. The report indicates that something said to the faculty senate by the administration that changed their minds.

At a meeting of Miami's faculty senate Wednesday, university president Donna Shalala and athletic director Paul Dee explained in detail the severity of the punishments to players involved in a brawl with Florida International. After the meeting, senate chairman Dr. Stephen Sapp said his group was "comfortable with" the explanations, which they found "acceptable," ESPN's Joe Schad reported.

Earlier in the day, Sapp had said that the punishments were "not adequate" and that there "should have been further thought given here."

"We're not going to vote on anything or recommend anything," Sapp said after the meeting. "After hearing some things that will not be made public about the disciplinary measures, we're satisfied."

Exactly what could have been said that would indicate the level of punishment is OK? I cannot believe this is the end of it. Skip Sauer says both the AD and the head coach should lose their jobs. Unless someone tells us what Shalala told the faculty senate, she should go too.

It is outside my custom to talk religion on this blog. I am called to witness for Christ, but I do not think blogs are the mechanism through which I work best as a witness. Teaching from a blog, that's different. But I'm not a pastor (though this Sunday I am leading a worship, for the third time in my life. Maybe I'll write about this, too.)

But the story of the pastor in the Cities who apparently broke the law by announcing his support of Michele Bachmann's candidacy carries some darker aspects that have troubled me today. (I already spoke to the pastor's role today.) This film of the pastor is serendipitous to the filming of Bachmann herself by Dump Bachmann blogger Avidor, who then chose to post the video on YouTube under the title "I'm a Fool for Christ." This is how Bachmann chooses to describe herself, choosing to become a Congressional candidate and spending 22 months in pursuit of that goal after prayer with her family.

The video's title is meant to be snarky, I believe. It suggests, I think, that Bachmann is foolish, or maybe that evangelicals are foolish, or maybe all Christians are foolish, in the view of the photographer. I don't know what he meant, but given what else he's done in caricature of Bachmann it's unlikely he meant anything flattering.

And that got me to wondering: Why do you think people pray?

My pastor tells me he goes once a week to a prayer group of evangelical pastors in the area (I attend a soon-to-be-defunct ELCA Lutheran church; note to locals: I will be church-shopping shortly.) He certainly has other Lutheran pastors to pray with, so I asked him why he does this? His politics don't really conform to those pastors. He answers, it's interesting to pray with people who actually think their prayers are answered.

And it is. I've acted in Passion Play (I'm now officially typecasted as the Jewish priest) and most people who act in these will be evangelicals. They pray before each performance and will pray in the most dynamic, earnest and expectant ways. They believe something will happen.

Is it really that damning to the Avidors of the world that someone would think their God acts in the world to make things happen? Is it really too much to think that someone could pray and, upon listening, hear the answer? Are people who believe prayers are answered unfit for public office?

Now do I really know that God answered Michele and Marcus Bachmann's prayers? No, of course not. Is it possible that they only thought they heard Him answer 'yes', when in fact it is their own egos that were screaming it? Yes, that's possible. Each of us carries the original sin of wanting to be God rather than listen to Him, and it's a sin we never escape, only something we can try to check. Only He and Michele can know the source of the answer she received to her prayer, not you or me -- and it's possible she doesn't know either. But I do know that He could answer.

If you think that makes me a fool too... then I ask, do you know Him?

Never follow one-month trends. (Thankfully, it appears even Mike Hatch didn't go for the head fake.) Instead you should keep the long view in mind:
This is Minnesota non-farm employment, since 1998. Which way does the line trend to you?

Jeff Jacoby argues against the totalitarian tilt towards free speech in discussing the French law on denial of the Armenian genocide and Orhan Pamuk:

The French legislation is meant to uphold the truth -- the Armenian genocide, like the Holocaust, is a fact of history -- while the point of the Turkish law is to debase it. Both, however, are intolerable assaults on liberty. Beliefs should not be criminalized, no matter how repugnant or absurd. As I wrote when David Irving was convicted of Holocaust denial in Austria earlier this year, free societies do not throw people in prison for giving offensive speeches or spouting historical lies.

Jacoby then traces through the entire history (of just the last month or so!) of attacks on free speech. He's right, enough is enough.

As you might tell from my last name, I'm Armenian. I have the stories my grandmother told on tape, the few bits of papers from the orphanage, etc. (here's a very small piece of it). I have the considered professional opinion of historians. If the Turkish government wants to behave foolishly about history, it is enough for me to point to the history. Much of my families past in Turkey is lost forever to destroyed homes and churches and civil records; no matter what they say, these cannot be returned. The damage is already done.

So there's no need for a law against denial. Public opinion takes care of some of this and the law can't fix the rest.

Assaults occur elsewhere. Pastors are told they cannot speak in their own churches about their faith and how it influences for whom they vote. This happens to both liberal Episcopalians and conservative evangelicals. All this because some former president decided he didn't like criticism and snuck a rider into a bill to make criticizing politicians from a church a crime. What is it about putting on a clerical collar that removes one's First Amendment rights? What is it about having an opinion that allows government to trample over the ban on the state establishment of a religion (by taxing those who speak out?)

And if it is to happen anywhere, it cannot be on university campuses, and yet it is, whether it is against Christians, Muslims, pro-immigrationists, or even those who want to make a small joke on a campus door. If you can't even speak on a college campus, none of the rest should surprise you.

This is the last in a series by Janet Beihoffer, a professor at Metro State, on an article written by Charles Baxter in the NYTimes three weeks ago.

As stated in earlier posts, Dr. Baxter showed his “hidden agenda” in many ways. First, he, a professor of creative writing, is asked to write a political opinion piece for the NYT.