Those Social Responsibility bulletin boards in the post just below remind me of an old saying, "if you aren't outraged, you aren't paying attention." In today's Wall Street Journal, Arthur Brooks says we simply aren't so outraged, unless we're very liberal.

In May 2008, the Gallup Organization asked 1,200 American adults how many days in the past week they had felt "outraged." The average number of angry days was 1.17, and 54% of those surveyed said none. Only one in 20 reported being outraged every day. Despite the litany of horrors presented to us daily by campaigning politicians, most of us appear to be doing really quite well managing our anger.

Indeed, we are less angry today than a decade ago. Let's look back to the glory days of the 1990s, when -- according to the media narrative -- we enjoyed uninterrupted peace and prosperity. In 1996, the General Social Survey asked exactly the same "outrage" question of 1,500 adults. Then, only 38% had not been outraged at all in the past week. The average number of angry days was 1.5 per week, 29% higher than at present.

Virtually every group in the population is less angry in 2008 than in 1996...

I haven't been able to find the poll itself, though Art's work has been largely using the GSS data, so I would think what he's talking about is in there.

One-in-seven respondents who called themselves "very liberal" are angry seven days a week. These may be the people who do not recognize what most Americans do, in Brooks' view:

In some countries, a depressed economic climate means mass unemployment, political instability and large-scale deprivation. In America this decade, we have reached the point at which even in a down economy, our unemployment rate does not reach 6% (lower than the rates in Canada and the European Union, let alone those in the developing world). Any unwanted unemployment is terrible; but it is worth remembering that this stability especially benefits the economically vulnerable.

Furthermore, no matter what the state of our economy, we can realistically count on uninterrupted provision of critical public services, high business start-up rates, the world's highest levels of charitable giving and volunteering, and countless other benefits that come from living in a successful nation.

I recommend, by the way, his new book, Gross National Happiness. Recognizing these blessings of living in the US reduces the demand for programs like social responsibility.

Labels: economics

I am done with bulletin board #3, but while I was shooting that board I saw a few other things that I thought Scholars readers might find amusing. These are assorted postings on bulletin boards in my office building (Stewart Hall) that captured my eye. Small comments attach. I will be off tomorrow in search of new material from other buildings.

This is a work in progress, about the "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act," the law signed by Bill Clinton in 1996 which was to end welfare. The starting piece in the upper left corner says "A nation's laws affect a nation's ..." and nothing more yet. The left has opposed PRWORA since its enactment; it will be interesting to see where this one goes. It might be a new series on this blog some day.

Here's a board with information students might want to get about the university's graduate program in social responsibility. The little flyer in the bottom right corner was particularly interesting; let's take a closer look.

Three steps Towards Changing the World:

1. Enroll in the Master's program in Social Responsibility at St. Cloud State University.
2. Educate yourself about such issues as racism, gender bias, heterosexism, animal rights, globalization and many more. (...and many more? Like what? Check the list.)
3. Use your knowledge to help make a difference in the lives of others!

I hear you can get pizza with that.

Almost directly across from this board is a maintenance closet used by the people who keep our classrooms and hallways clean. On the door:

The bumpersticker reads: "If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a soldier." You might even say soldiers " make a difference in the lives of others!"

Labels: higher education, SCSU

Milton Friedman would have been 96 today were he still alive. Fifty events are happening around the country today to celebrate his legacy.

I have been teaching intermediate macroeconomics this summer, using the textbook of our current central bank chair (along with Andrew Abel and Dean Croushore), and we just finished the chapter on money. Towards the end of that chapter we teach the relationship between inflation and growth of the money supply. There's an equation which I can try to recreate here in words:


which assumes relatively stable velocity of money in the short run. Friedman had insisted that "inflation is everywhere and always a monetary phenomenon", and I suggested we use that equation to see where we are now. I tend not to make exact measurements in class, so if I do a little rounding here you can hopefully make adjustments if you want something a little more precise.

Today's GDP report for Q2 puts the growth of GDP at about 2%. Friedman had folllowed the quantity equation to make the income elasticity of money equal one. Other research puts the number closer to 2/3 or 0.7 (the Baumol-Tobin approach makes it the inverse of the square root of 2, which is roughly 0.71). People tend to economize on cash holdings as they become wealthier, so a result for that number less than 1 makes sense.

For money, I used M2 in class (you can look at other rates here or get the raw data and do your own; see also Mark Thoma for a primer on different velocities of money). The average growth rate appears to be around 6% for the recent data.
If you accept those data, then, what would you get? Assume the income elasticity is 2/3 and the growth of GDP is 2%, and your answer would be 4.33% inflation. Assume income elasticity is 1 and you get 4%.

Now, 2% isn't probably the best guess for what GDP growth will be in the long run. That might be closer to 3%. But the point is that the acceleration of money growth since early 2007 -- approximately at the beginning of the current mortgage mess, has led to easier money which Friedman would have most certainly called out as becoming inflationary at some point. The data from the TIPS market would have shown this as well.
If you use 2.7% for the long run growth rate of potential GDP as CBO estimates, an expected inflation rate for the long term of 3.4% is quite reasonable for an assumption that M2 money growth stays at current levels for some time into the future. That target inflation rate of 2% is increasingly looking like it's out the window. The Fed's gift to Friedman on this birthday should be a Fed funds rate increase at its next meeting.

UPDATE: Ironman has built a little program that lets you compute your own expected inflation rate. Thanks -- very cool!

Labels: economics, Federal Reserve

Our son is stationed with the US Army in Korea. One of his responsibilities is to make sure that the soldiers in his camp are able to vote. He contacted our Congressman, John Kline, and was directed to this website where soldiers stationed overseas can register to vote for any county in the USA. Please encourage your soldier to visit the site. I have gone through it and as the user who was given new applications to test because "if there's a glitch, Janet will find it" I can honestly say, this site is user friendly.

Our soldiers have had their votes denied in the past for a variety of reasons. There is enough time now to let your soldier know that they can get their ballots through this website.

Our son also reviewed it as well as other sites and has stated that in his opinion, this site is the best.

Thank your soldiers for their efforts and support.

Labels: elections, Freedom, US Soldiers

Michael has posted a copy of the administrative law judge's dismissal of the complaint about our ads regarding Al Franken and card-check legislation. That doesn't necessarily end the story of the complaint; the judge found that Melendez and the DFL had failed to provide any documentation of their claims that the ads violate section 211B.06 of the election laws. So they could file again. It's like getting your paper back from the professor who says "I failed this because you didn't follow directions. You can send it back in for a grade if you will finish your work."

It's weird to see my own name in a complaint like this, but we feel the ad is on relatively solid ground. The principle of free speech allows us latitude to interpret EFCA in its practical intent. We do not need to be literalists, to use David Brauer's term, to meet the requirements of the law. For the 50% minus one workers who do not sign (or are not offered the opportunity to sign) union membership cards, the last protection of their right to a secret ballot would be lost if card-check legislation passed.

I believed from the moment the complaint was filed that its audience was the media, not the campaign board. Call it vapor-complaint. Its intent was to keep us off the air. However, that has failed, as more ads are currently running.

One can hardly accuse us of being anti-labor. A Zogby survey done on behalf of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy found that 53% of union workers, when offered a choice between card check and the current secret ballot form of organization, chose the government protection of a secret ballot, as opposed to 41% favoring card-check. 84% of the respondents agreed with the statement "workers should have the right ... to vote on whether they wish to belong to a union." No wonder the union leaders and the DFL have tried to squelch these ads. Their own rank and file do not agree with them.

Labels: Democrats, politics, unions

Another concern of the bulletin board is bullying in schools. So the sign at the bottom of this picture tells us that "This is what a bully-free world would look and feel like." OK, that sounds like a good plan! But what words do we include for "the no bully zone"? Laughter. Opportunity. Fun. Yes, that's good. Happy. Harmonious. Kids harmonious? Sometimes, and sometimes not.

Inclusive. Opportunity. Diverse.

Wait a second. Are we saying bullying has a racial component to it? It's interesting that the pictures of children together are of different races, but I think only one picture has children of two races.

While this is all for this particular board, I have a few more from nearby boards that will make a nice essay for tomorrow and Friday that I will include in this series.

Labels: higher education, SCSU

Facebook has disappeared Scrabulous for US and Canadian users. Boo!

Facebook is running instead the official Scrabble game. Yea!

It crashes. Boo!

And I had three games going, too. Oh well, I think I was going to lose two of them.

Aside the controversy of using a campaign worker's spouse (see the update) to pen what might otherwise have been seen as an interested letter to the editor, I thought Susan Gaertner's letter about the claim of Michele Bachmann that the price of a gallon of gas could be $2 in the US in four years deserved some commentary. It is really a bold claim Rep. Bachmann makes and thus worth considering in more detail.

Most of the letters you read these days involve the EIA's estimate of the effect of opening drilling in ANWR. As I wrote about this last week, the report assumes that the price of a barrel of oil in 2020 would be less than $60. If $140 a barrel produces a price of $4 for gasoline, what does a price of $60 a barrel for oil produce? Those of you who answered "$2" can stop now; you've just agreed with Rep. Bachmann. (Though that's 2020 versus Bachmann's forecast date of 2012; if you'd like to argue a price that stays at $140 through 2012 -- or higher -- and then falls to $60 by 2020 so that EIA is right and Bachmann is wrong, I invite you to tell that story and wish you good luck.)

So let's suppose EIA is wrong about that forecast. This kind of cuts the legs out from Gaertner's substantive claims, but let's answer her question for her anyway. What might additional drilling produce for a price change? The key lies in understanding it's about more than just additional oil production.

James Hamilton posts this evening that demand for gasoline in the US appears to be more responsive to prices now that we're at $4 than it was when we were at $3 a gallon. I have talked about this in terms of the "second law of demand": consumer responsiveness to price changes is time dependent and expectations dependent. If the price rise is temporary, you smooth your consumption of gasoline through a combination of less spending on other goods and by saving less. If on the other hand you believe it is permanent, you make bigger changes, like dumping your SUV, riding a bike or buying a more fuel-efficient car. As that shift occurs, you move from a very inelastic demand curve to a more elastic one, and that produces a snap-back of prices towards where you were before. Jim's graphs would indicate that since the beginning of 2008 we are seeing some of that. That should give one some hope that the price decline we're experiencing right now could be the beginning of a longer period of lower gas prices.

But it's also expectations-dependent for suppliers, particularly at the refinery level. There's a very interesting post on VoxEU from Lutz Kilian of U. Michigan regarding the sources of increase in gasoline prices. Most importantly, his model distinguishes the market for gasoline and the market for oil. Domestic demand for gasoline and speculation over oil futures play almost no role in the price of gas; foreign demand and supply uncertainties explain most of the change in Kilian's model. That result makes sense to most observers (it fits, for example, that CFTC report on speculators.) The price spikes following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita reflected very tight refining capacities that were upset. Those shocks went to gas prices, with negligible impact on world oil prices.

Part of the plan pushed by Rep. Bachmann is to pass HR 6139 to cut the bureaucratic hurdles that impede the construction of new refineries. Sure, they take years to produce, but the prospect of additional capacity would reduce uncertainty about gasoline supplies and reduce inventories (which, unlike crude, have been going up versus a year ago.)

Inventory uncertainty, then, can play a substantial role in gasoline prices. Easing the regulatory chokehold on gasoline production could take much more off the price of gasoline today than anyone's projection of the impact on crude oil.

Cross-posted at Outside the Beltway.

(Afterthought: Just after posting this I realize some might think I'm predicting $2 gas myself. That's not the point; the point is the plan laid out has the capacity to create a $2 price all other things equal. To actually make that forecast would require a whole lot more analysis than offered here. I don't wish to denigrate the efforts of EIA with its annual energy outlook -- just that using it to talk about prices 12 years hence is bound to be fraught with the very difficulties I used here to dismiss Gaertner's use of it. Error bands expand the further into the future you forecast.)

Labels: economics, Energy, Michele Bachmann

As we saw yesterday, this bulletin board -- appearing in a hallway near the Social Work Department at the university -- is trying to make points about sex education. Along with many condoms and their (opened) packages we find discussion of feeling during sex, some myths about sex and pregnancy, a lament that "only 49% of college health centers provide emergency contraception" ... which I think is not a condom. "2800 teens each day become pregnant," one note chastises, indicating that it thinks teen pregnancy is a problem. I would think people in social work would believe so; it must be part of their experience.

The board seems to dismiss the possibility that abstinence is helping reduce teen pregnancy, despite plenty of evidence and bipartisan support for including abstinence in programs to address the issue. Note that while I linked to some of Robert Rector's work, I don't necessarily agree that one should not talk about condoms. I simply think the board goes over the top in its pushing for condoms over abstinence.

This board appears in a hallway leading to offices of the Social Work Department, to which some newly enrolling students will walk in the next few weeks, some with their parents, to receive advising. It would be interesting to get their reaction to this board. Would it give one pause? Would there be nervous laughter? Would it raise questions? Would it educate?

Labels: higher education, SCSU

Let's start with this wider view: this is part of the bulletin board that includes appeals for peace and affordable education. A lot of pictures cut out of magazine around it. If this is a classroom presentation, I'll just suggest that Littlest -- who celebrates her 14th birthday today -- can do better than this display. But click to enlarge that picture, and tell me what those are on the far right?

Yes, that's right: they're condoms. I'll start with this one for today:
The blue pieces of paper suggest these facts

• "1 in 3 women get pregnant under age 20." Well, the National Center for Health Statistics reports 40.5 live births for 1,00o population ages15-19, so unless there are a whole lot of abortions going on there, that figure looks just a little high.
• "80% of abstinence only curricular contain false, misleading & distorted information." This is based on a report commissioned by Henry Waxman that gets repeated in much of the NOW and other feminist literature. Of course, it's not about what the parents want, right? Is that a problem according to the third piece of paper...
• "Most adolescents learn sex ed from parents, friends & media before programs start." I cannot tell what they mean by this; are the programs spreading misinformation, or are the parents and friends? Who has the right information? Oh yes, that's right, must be the people who make these posters.

More on this board tomorrow.

Labels: higher education, SCSU

One part of joining a union is agreeing to allow your union dues to be used by the union's leadership to engage in political activity. One of the groups pushing card-check, the SEIU, is strong-arming its rank-and-file for money to fund political activity this year. The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has asked the Justice and Labor Departments to investigate the practice.

Article XV, Section 18 of the union’s constitution now authorizes the SEIU’s national brass to fine local unions for failure to meet its annual SEIU COPE fundraising obligations. SEIU COPE is the union’s federal PAC, and the FEC lists it as the top labor union PAC with over $23 million in receipts for 2005-2006.

However, federal labor law forbids unions from political fundraising through the imposition of mandatory financial penalties and it prohibits the conversion of union dues to “hard money.” In addition to asking for a Department of Labor investigation, the coercive nature of the amendment’s punitive mechanism violates core provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act, and warrants a Department of Justice criminal prosecution.

The new amendment also appears to allow local affiliates to use nonmember employees’ mandatory dues payments to cover PAC contributions and the SEIU’s fines. While imposition of financial penalties for failure to make political contributions is illegal regardless of how those fines are spent, the use of funds derived from nonmembers’ fees for political purposes also violates those employees’ constitutional rights.

Ed Morrissey notes

Now the SEIU suddenly has $150 million, from which they’ve already committeed at least $85 million specific to Democratic candidates. ... The union knows how to protect itself and its interests, and the lockstep nature of their support for Democrats should awaken voters to the threat their policies comprise. This is nothing more than a closed-feedback loop for Democrats, and Card Check is the prize that will ensure its rapid growth.

It's not even necessary, though, if the Justice Department does not forbid the compulsion of agency fees for payment of penalties for failing to hit the quota for its contributions to the unions' PACs.

But signing that card, my fellow worker, is now more expensive than ever. You will have no recourse to them taking that extra $6 per year. Did you sign such a card and now regret it? Instructions here on what rights you still have, at least until the next attempt to pass card-check.

Labels: economics, politics, unions

A few weeks ago I read a story on air (it's at the end of this podcast) that the idea of the gas tax holiday had not only foundered in Congress but that they were contemplating instead a gas tax increase. Today's Wall Street Journal carries a headline, "Americans Cut Back Driving, Straining Highway Funding". The problem is you are doing too much conserving, you nasty driver you.

A report to be released Monday by the Transportation Department shows that over the past seven months, Americans have reduced their driving by more than 40 billion miles. Because of high gasoline prices, they drove 3.7% fewer miles in May than they did a year earlier, the report says, more than double the 1.8% drop-off seen in April.

The cutback furthers many U.S. policy goals, such as reducing oil consumption and curbing emissions. But, coupled with a rapid shift away from gas-guzzling vehicles, it also means consumers are paying less in federal fuel taxes, which go largely to help finance highway and mass-transit systems. As a result, many such projects may have to be pared down or eliminated.

Remember when we joked "light up for the Twins" when it appeared a cigarette tax would help fund a new stadium? So at the same time you are advertising that driving big SUVs are harming your mother earth, you have to compensate for the effect of the advertising by increasing taxes to fund highway and bridge construction. This is supported by folks in the highway construction industry and the union leaders of those industries.

"We were losing ground to these incredible increases in construction costs, but then to see the erosion in driving -- it's a double whammy," said John Horsley, executive director of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

The government has used a tax system that says, in short, the more miles you drive the more you erode roads so you pay more. Thus a tax system that charges you a per-gallon tax. If Americans are driving fewer miles, highways should be eroding more slowly and construction should be able to slow to match this.

But transportation policy now appears to both want to control your price you pay (through taxes that discourage consumption) and the quantity of gas you consume (so that they can collect revenues enough to meet their construction plans.) Controlling both price and quantity is hardly a market solution to roads and bridges. Tolls would be a solution that returns us to a benefit principle for highway financing.

Cross-posted at Outside the Beltway, where I will be guest-posting most of this week.

Labels: economics, transportation

[Click on photos to enlarge them.]



As many of you know, I volunteer for John Kline, Congressman from Minnesota's Second Congressional District. ELection years are parade years. When I started in 2004, I thought, "I can't do this parade stuff." Well, I was wrong - they are fun, exciting and just a good way to spend a few hours.

Parade watchers are mostly families and the enthusiasm of the kids and their relatives is a real upper. We usually have at least 50 John Kline supporters at most of our parades. Here are a couple of pictures from today's parade in Rosemount, MN. We had about 60 today, including the tots in the John Deere car, the strollers, the Harley Bikers (in the back of the photo) and others.

Last week, in Watertown, MN, home of John Kline's opponent, Steve Sarvi, there were at least 67 Kline supporters marching to Mr. Sarvi's 25. Needless to say, we had a great day.

Labels: John Kline

In this post, I mentioned Congressman John Kline's pork busting effort, his website, Stop the Pork - where you sign the petition to say, "enough is enough" get control of US spending!

Today's Wall Street Journal notes on the Opinion Page, "Voters Want Less Pork, Even in Their Own District." As an active supporter of John Kline, I was glad to see this. Some letters to the editors slam Congressman Kline for taking his strong stand against pork. Turns out, this "get me my money" attitude represents the minority. Kline supporters are in the majority.

The Club for Growth recently conducted a nationwide poll on government spending, and the results were exactly the opposite of what most politicians have been saying for years. Voters are fed up with Washington's out-of-control spending. Bringing home the bacon is NOT what people want. Rather this earmark practice is simply funneling money to special interest groups, including local politicians. Voters want officials to cut the fat.

Survey Question: All things being equal, for whom would you be more likely to vote for the U.S. Congress: 1) A candidate who wants to cut overall federal spending, even if that includes cutting some money that would come to your district or 2) A candidate who wants to increase overall spending on federal programs, as long as more federal spending and projects come to your district?"

The results are unambiguous:

.............................Frugal..........Profligate
Voting Subset.......Candidate.....Candidate
General Voters.......54%................29%
Republicans..........72%................17%
Democrats............36%................42%
Independents........61%..............not specified

These results indicate the Democrat Party mantra of tax and control, raising taxes everywhere are NOT what we, the taxpayers, want. Reminder, the MN legislature, now dominated by Democrats passed the largest tax increase in 150 years in 2008. We pay more for anything and everything we buy, use, etc. Obama wants to increase taxes for all Americans, across the board.

People, it's our money and while we're telling "them" to stop, we also need to vote in people who will stop. As Kline indicated on his blogging conference call Thursday morning, the Democrats in the US Congress have now decided that there will be zero appropriation bills because the Democrat chairman of the appropriations committee, David Obey, is afraid to address the real issue, pork. It's time to hold Congress accountable. Vote in DC politicians who believe in sound fiscal policy - as Nike says, "Just Do It."

Updated 7/26

Labels: Democrats, earmarks

Have none of my pictures made it? Don't forget http://twitter.com/scsuscholars

The valley of death ( 15-17) has devoured four of my balls. Ed who has plyed almost no golf in two years is carrying me. It has been a humid day.

As a rehearsal for my plans for the Republican National Convention, I am going to experiment today with mobile blogging from the cellphone as we cover the Millard Fillmore Invitational from Valleywood. Updates also available from the Twitter page. Word is the Head of Alfredo Garcia will also provide live updates throughout the day. Where, I do not know.

Ed and Billy Baru be with me today.

Labels: mayor directives, MOB

Visiting St. Cloud yesterday to promote his "Kitchen Table Tax Plan", Al Franken had a bit of trouble explaining his plan to end IRAs and replace them with a 401(u) plan.

The retirement plan would be funded by eliminating an existing income tax deduction for Individual Retirement Accounts for people who participate in the new program, which would be voluntary, Franken said.

“Tax deductions help people who make the most money, but they don’t help those who don’t make enough to pay income taxes to begin with,” he said. “I think Social Security will still be around years from now if we don’t privatize it, but we need something else to help people save for their retirement.”

Pressed to explain how a voluntary system could raise enough money to pay the subsidy if those with higher incomes who benefit more from existing deductions don’t switch, Franken referred people to his campaign Web site and said “it’s a wash.”

Well, OK, we went to his web page about his 401(u).

What would it cost?
The shift from tax deductions to matching contributions is close to revenue-neutral.

That's the entire entry for "What would it cost?" Oh, that's MUCH clearer now.

The 401(u) isn't a new concept. It's the "automatic in, opt out" plan that Obama has been pushing. It requires employers to take a portion of a worker's check and put it into a plan, where it receives a 30% match from government (in the Franken plan), if the company doesn't have a retirement plan for employees (and has more than 10 employees.) This relies heavily on the idea from behavioral economics that people do not often enough choose to save. If this is true, why does the Franken plan allow families to"shape their account to fit their unique needs"? If they aren't smart enough to opt in, how are they supposed to do that? The funds would at the outset be placed in "responsibly in low-cost, diverse portfolios." Who chooses those?

Mark Thoma wrote about such plans (when a Republican supported them for Social Security):

In general, I hate opt-out programs. I don’t want to spend my time filling out forms and checking boxes telling people all the things I don’t want to buy. If I’m convinced there is market failure in the market for bicycles resulting in too few being purchased, is the proper solution to drop bicycles in people’s yards unless they remember to send in the proper paperwork? I remember being in music clubs like that when I was younger… Maybe a better answer is to work a little harder on the incentives and ease of opting-in.

Last, I worry we have forgotten the Lucas critique yet again. Change the rules and change the behavior. I can imagine that if you impose opt-out now when it is uncommon participation might be high. But as it becomes more common and institutionalized people will more easily opt-out. In addition, it also seems participation rates will fall in the long-run as people hit financial stress points. If you can opt-out at will, then the first time a family faces financial distress, they will likely opt-out. Unless they are somehow brought back into the program later, participation rates will fall as time passes and revenues may not meet projected values.

I agree with Thoma, though see Beshears et al [2006] for a more positive report. Someone pointed out to me as well that one of Franken's justifications for this bill is that the tax deductibility of the 401k isn't a value to about half the workers in America, because they don't pay any or too few taxes. How ironic that it would be Franken to point out one of the effects of the Bush tax cuts!

Labels: economics, Franken, taxes

I've written twice before on the Orwellian-named Employee Free Choice Act, which would make the heretofore voluntary agreement between workers and firms to use card-check systems (allowing a union to be recognized as sole bargaining agent for all workers if a majority of workers sign cards agreeing to be so represented) binding on firms who do not agree. Firms currently can request a vote to be administered by NLRB; those workers who do not wish to be unionized would have the opportunity, along with the firm, to argue why a union would not be in workers' best interest, and a vote would be held with workers' privacy protected by the NLRB. No such protections are provided under the proposed card-check program. Those who did not sign the card, or those who were not even approached by union organizers, would find themselves in a union, obligated to pay dues, without recourse, without a check or balance. The equivalent would be to imagine you waking one morning and reading in your newspaper that organizers had gone to other homes, had others sign a card that signified that they wanted King Banaian to be president of the United States, and that because they had enough cards signed, Banaian was now president without any further action required. You've never heard me talk, you don't know my views, but I now represent you on Pennsylvania Avenue. That'd be pretty bizarre, yes?

After the DFL accused the ad put out by the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (the TV ad was put out by them alone) of falsehoods, I wrote a letter to DFL state party chair Brian Melendez to invite him to debate the issue. We had recorded Al Franken answers twice to be sure we understood his views on the bill, and by their own admission Franken supports EFCA. So we assumed the debate would be on the merits of the bill. A discussion of the issue, I thought, might be a refreshing change to thirty-second ads.

So imagine my surprise last night to find out that the DFL would rather file a complaint. They'd rather debate through lawyers than in the state capitol. We are, of course, happy to have this debate any place Chairman Melendez chooses, but isn't it interesting that he needs to employ lawyers to assist his side?

We appreciate the coverage by the news and bloggers (Andy's post has both of the TV ads; I bet he watches them on his iPhone.) And we don't intend to go away; a new ad is running from us today.

A statement put out by J. Justin Wilson, managing director of the Employee Freedom Action Committee, said in a prepared statement,

It appears that Mr. Melendez is complicit in the scheme to deceive the public and take away working Minnesotans’ right to a private ballot vote. The irony of Mr. Melendez’s ‘complaint’ is that he is the one who is misleading the people of Minnesota in order to advance a union boss’ power grab that will generate millions in new forced dues dollars.

If Mr. Melendez truly cared about the best interests of working Minnesotans he would reject these absurd political games and agree to a substantive public debate on the private vote issue.

I reiterate that invitation, Chairman Melendez. I'm available almost any day in the month of August.

Labels: Democrats, Franken, free speech, Minnesota

A letter in this morning's StarTribune:

Regarding "Bachmann, back from Alaska, urges more domestic drilling" (July 23): U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann doesn't seem to understand the subtle difference between need and want (describing the untapped Alaskan energy resources as a locked pantry filled with food while children go hungry). Perhaps a better analogy would be a locked medicine cabinet filled with morphine in a room full of addicts.

Let's tend to the real needs of our children and provide a livable planet for their future that doesn't involve destroying our environment.

The difference between want and need is a source of great confusion in economics. Needs are necessary; wants are optional. In The Economic Way of Thinking, Paul Heyne, Peter Boettke and David Prychitko suggest for statements of "needs":

• The average person needs eight glasses of water per day in order to maintain optimal health.
• All citizens should be able to obtain the medical care they need regardless of their ability to pay.
• A diabetic needs insulin.
• You need to read your economics textbook.

The authors point out that all decisions are made at the margin, that all the values that matter are those at the margin. When I'm watching a baseball game at home and Mrs. S says "Who do you love more, me or baseball?" I answer "At the margin, baseball. And you're blocking the TV."

Foolish arguments like that advanced in the letter treat a marginal change as if it is an all-or-nothing choice. The choice about ANWR is not this at all. It is a decision to remove from preservation in undeveloped form a piece of land that might be 1.2 million acres (all of Area 10-02) or just 2000 acres (that part of the land designated for oil extraction) in return for an amount of oil about which we have imperfect information. The find might be small; that's the nature of oil exploration and extraction. It is a world of tradeoffs (the tragic vision I discussed earlier this week). Those tradeoffs reveal that what one might call a need is really just a want for a good with highly inelastic demand in the short run. Diabetics need insulin if they don't adjust their eating habits or use alternative health care. Those might not be great substitutes, but they are substitutes. You could list others, I'm sure.

Is a picture of an arctic scene equal to Area 10-02? Certainly not. But suppose I said you could have Area 10-02, another area of ANWR that has a very similar picture and no oil, or another area in ANWR and x billion barrels of oil. Is there no value for x that gets you to make that trade? I doubt it. I highly doubt it. If there are alternatives to oil, there are also alternatives to undeveloped land.

Scarcity is not optional; we do not live in a world where one can "tend to the real needs of our children" without sacrificing other goods for other people. People can provide for the "real needs" of pristine lands in a variety of ways, both public and private.

We call it the law of demand for a reason.

h/t: KAR, whose post is entertaining as well as educational.

Labels: economics, Energy

This bulletin board (see here for a review of the others) is at the entry to a set of offices for the Department of Social Work in my office building. Hundreds of students pass by here each school day. I do not know if this is the result of work in their classes, but it appears to be a composite of projects done by different individuals or groups. It is unlike the previous two boards.

The top image is of President Bush "wearing" a t-shirt that says "I [heart] Hugo Chavez", with fake currency around him. He is standing at a lectern with the presidential seal. The bubble quote over him was folded over when I saw it, so I held it up to take the second picture. It reads "Americans misunderestimated me! I approve raising the poverty line, increasing social welfare and implementing a living wage."

I would like to know the purpose of this particular course, if indeed this was coursework. If it's not, and it's on a departmental bulletin board, it's a bit worse as a statement about the values of social work programs. Perhaps this is a means to educate about the dispositions expected of majors.

Labels: higher education, SCSU

Congressman John Kline of MN's Second Congressional District (CD 2) has just completed a blogger conference call where he discussed his Stop the Pork initiative. The earmark/pork system was originally created to help states with special projects not expenditures like this one: The US House passed a bill that would spent $5 million to prevent the interstate sale of monkeys. John Kline voted against this one, thank you. But excuse me - monkeys? Our money for monkeys?

Ludicrous decisions like this one show the extent to which the earmark system has deteriorated. Funds now are totally dependent on party power and committee assignments; the definition of an earmark is unclear.

Starting in January of 2007, Republican Congressman John Kline refused earmarks. 11 other Congress members joined him. In 2008 the number increased to 50, from both parties. They were hoping to bring the issue to the entire US House but were stopped before they could begin by the Democrat "leadership" of Nancy Pelosi, Denny Hoyer and others. Net, even though there are Democrat house members who support a moratorium, the Democrat "leadership" refuses to even discuss the matter.

John Kline has had enough. He's begun a website, "Stop the Pork" where you can sign a petition to tell Congress, "Enough is enough." Please go here to sign. The goal is to obtain enough signatures to get Congress to stop all earmarks until standards can be designed and implemented.

Those who think we're not getting our fair share of the pork are missing the point - it's our money that goes to fund lighting in a fashion district in CA, olive fruit fly research in Paris, France, etc. It is up to us to take back our money.

Labels: Democrats

We've all been saturated with coverage of Senator Obama and will have to contend with this for a few more days. This saturation represents what many conservatives indicates the unfairness of political coverage by the mainstream media (MSM). Just reference one time in television's history when the anchors on the (used to be) Big Three networks were part of a non-president's overseas entourage? I don't think ever. Yet those on the left complain that the coverage is controlled by the right. Excuse me while I choke on that last statement.

Now from Investor's Business Daily comes a totally shocking report: Media donations favor Democrats. While the overview looks like 10:1 or 20:1, when Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani are taken out of the equation and only Obama and McCain are used, the ratio is 100:1. I'm shocked, just totally shocked! I had NO idea. Take a look at this table.



The MSM uses as its excuse that Obama is more newsworthy but the donations say otherwise - the MSM wants to flex its declining muscle and put Obama in as POTUS. They may do it since they ignore his gaffes, his flip-flopping (Obama makes John Kerry look like an amateur), his flat out misstatements (to be charitable) like the one today about his heading up the Senate banking committee when he's not even on a subcommittee. What's a little lie when the press is foreign - Obama and his staff probably figure those foreigners won't know the difference. Perhaps in fawning Europe that might be the case but not in Israel or the rest of the Middle East where Senator Obama has gotten a luke warm reception at best.

Enough - money talks and this table says it all. Media bias is alive and well. Please remember this when you read news reports.

What's really bad about this is that people only get one side of the "news" and this simply is wrong. I have a saying I use, "Like promotes like" and it sure looks like MSM, located in mostly strong blue cities, promotes blue/left leaning people to the detriment of us all.

Labels: Media

MPR reports on Al Franken's tax plan:

Franken wants to expand the dependent care tax credit to cover more than one-third of child care costs for families earning up to $100,000.

He would create a $2,000 tax credit to help families take care of elderly or ill relatives. Franken is also calling for an expansion of the Family and Medical Leave Act to cover millions more workers.

And he wants to eliminate the retirement savings tax deduction in favor of a 30 percent government match of every dollar a worker saves for retirement.

As one correspondent notes, the IRA deduction is valuable only if you have taxable income to deduct against. 25% of family heads had an IRA; 40.1% of families 55-64 own at least one. (Source.)

The article does not make clear what the benefit would be of the Franken plan. Imagine, for example, a young couple with a home that had appreciated (even despite the current declines in home prices.) Can they withdraw equity from their home, put it into a Franken plan and collect an extra 30%? Sounds like a good deal, but it puts the home at more serious risk of foreclosure if property values were to decline (further). Attanasio and DeLeire (2002) argue that all of the contributions to IRAs were shifting savings from taxable to tax-preferred forms. The Franken plan would likely do more of that.

This is a preview of coming attractions regarding bulletin boards we find on the university campus. This is a partial; the particular bulletin board we will study next is quite large and in a relatively narrow hallway. (I don't own a wide-angle lens.) Yes, that is a "I [heart] Hugo Chavez" shirt below President Bush's head. You can start discussion there if you like.

This is the third series of a continuing study. The summary of the first series is here. As we have not done a summary of the second series, here are links to the entire run:

• Preview
• Part 1, Child Savers
• Part 2, Don't React in Anger
• Part 3, Open Your Shades
• Part 4, The Postman
• Part 5, Hire Locally
• Part 6, Party!

I look forward to your comments on this new bulletin board, which I discovered only last week -- these might be the best ones yet.

Labels: higher education, SCSU

Excuse me while I clean the Coke off my keyboard after reading this.

Rep. Bachmann used a word picture to describe the offlimits energy supplies in this way:

Picture the pantry being full of food and your children wanting to eat. Then picture that the pantry is locked. America has lots of energy but Congress has locked the pantry.

Mr. [Pioneer Press reporter Jim] Ragsdale started by saying that he liked the picture, then asked this question:

“What if the pantry was full and the children were already overweight. Shouldn’t we keep that pantry locked?

Leo suggests Mr. Ragsdale "pines for the return to the malaise of yesteryear that everyone so enjoyed during the Carter administration."

Labels: Media, Michele Bachmann

Stein's Law, "If something cannot go on forever, it will stop," came to mind to me today while reading a post on Angry Bear about ANWR. To get at the thought, consider this graph above, which is from a report that pgl and most of the ANWR-ain't-diddly-squat crowd quote. You know, the one from EIA that says ANWR will make barely $.02 a gallon difference for gas. See if you can find the heroic assumption in the actual passage:

With respect to the world oil price impact, projected ANWR oil production constitutes between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030, based on the low and high resource cases, respectively. Consequently, ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices. Relative to the AEO2008 reference case, ANWR oil production is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light (LSL) crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 in the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 in the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 in the high oil resource case. Assuming that world oil markets continue to work as they do today, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) could neutralize any potential price impact of ANWR oil production by reducing its oil exports by an equal amount.

Did you catch that? It assumes OPEC's behavior in ten to twenty years will be to offset (potentially) any change in prices that occurs. It has complete control of the price. Were that true, why would people caterwaul about speculators? Can't OPEC control their behavior too?

These very same people are the ones who contend peak oil will drive the price of oil ever higher, which increases the temptation to cheat within the cartel. They never cheat, do they?

Now read that graph again. The part unshaded below the green area is production of oil in the lower 48; the green part is the current production in the leased parts of Alaska. You know, the part Pelosi says the oil companies don't use enough currently. Those other areas are the three possible projections for output from ANWR. Without additional drilling, US production in their model peaks in about ten years. (Just put your finger over all the colored areas except the green.) Drilling more of what we current lease is more a change in timing, borrowing against future oil production, unless you think the oil companies are sitting on proven reserves after a one-year 75% rise in prices.

Last point: the projections assume that in 2020 the price of a barrel of oil (without ANWR) is $59.70 and $70.45 in 2030. Were these accurate, you can see that there isn't nearly the need to increase production; prices will fall reasonably soon on their own. And they might. But people making models estimating the impact on the price of oil 20+ years from now are dealing the most imprecise of estimates. It assumes that world oil consumption is 117.6 million barrels per day. That's about thirty million more than now; if China continued to grow its consumption at its 1995-2005 rate, it would consume 21 of the 30 additional alone. And let's not forget India, perhaps for another four million. (It assumes the US would by 2020 only consumer 800,000 bpd more than it did in 2006.) Are all those assumptions realistic to you?

One of those things has to change, via Stein's Law. If prices are going to be where EIA is putting them, some economy is using a lot less energy than current trends project. Something that adds 10-20% more to our own production and reduces imports of oil by 6% (both figures for 2025, again if you beleive EIA), certainly seems a reasonable first step, lest that economy be ours.

UPDATE (7/23): pgl responds, arguing that the price in 2020 is irrelevant to the comparative statics. That's only true if you think the elasticity of demand at $60/bbl and $140/bbl are the same. I doubt this is true and would like him to write out the demand equation that does that. Given that the EIA included the price in its spreadsheet, I'm going to argue it was part of the calculations.

Labels: economics, Energy

Longtime readers know my fondness for Thomas Sowell, and his Visions of the Anointed remains one of my favorites. The competing visions are "tragic" and "cosmic"; the tragic vision sees the world as containing tradeoffs and policy consists of deciding which tradeoffs are worth making. A vast majority of economists have this tragic vision. The cosmic vision does not need to worry about this. So for example if one innocent man is sentenced to death by the criminal justice system the entire system must be razed and rebuilt. "Justice" demands no less. Those with the tragic vision take a different approach:

...while saving some innocent individuals from a false conviction is important, the question is whether it is more important than sparing other equally innocent individuals from violence and death at the hands of criminals. Is saving one innocent defendant per decade worth sacrificing ten innocent murder victims? A thousand? Once we recognize that there are no solutions, but only trade-offs, we can no longer pursue cosmic justice, but must make our choices among alternatives actually available--and these alternatives do not include guaranteeing that no harm can possibly befall any innocent individual. The only way to make sure than no innocent individual is ever falsely convicted is to do away with the criminal justice system and accept the horrors of anarchy. (p. 225)

(Thanks to John Hawkins for his quotes of VoA.)

My argument with people about the Obamas is that they are the most forceful advocates of cosmic justice, "a universe tailor-made to their vision of equality", in Sowell's words. Such sugarplums dance in the heads of the Obamas, as Mrs. Obama said at a fundraiser last night in Denver:

"We have one candidate who essentially is telling us every day that the world as it is just fine. That what we've been doing for the last eight years is fine," Obama said. "Stay the course. Don't make too many changes.

"And then we have this other candidate -- Barack Obama -- who is saying every day that the world as it is not right. It's not good enough," she said.

Obama rattled off a list of areas where she believes the nation has been underperforming during the two terms of President Bush: education, health care and the economy.

"I wish we had time to be divided. I wish we had time to be upset. To be angry. To be disappointed. I wish we did," Obama said. "Because if we had time for that, then things wouldn't be so bad right now. Instead, we're in a place where another four or eight years of the world as it is will devastate the life of some child."

Ed Morrissey asks the right questions:

Which child is that? And only one child? This is the kind of rhetoric that the Left loves to use, claiming that if just one person in the world is unhappy, then everything we do is wrong and entire systems have to be recreated to address it. It’s Utopianism, an impulse that has led to the devastation of millions of lives, not just one. The message intends to show the Obamas as more caring than John McCain, vapid enough without the silliness of arguing that McCain doesn’t want to change anything at all.

Sowell:

To the anointed, their vision and reality are one and the same. Yet the world inside their mind has few of the harsh constraints of the world inhabited by millions of other human beings. (p. 244)

And those who do not share that cosmic vision are not just wrong to the Obamas; they are benighted,

For those who have this vision of the world, the anointed and the benighted do not occupy the same moral plane or play by the same cold rules of logic or evidence. The benighted are to be made "aware," to have their "consciousness raised," and the wistful hope that they will "grow". (p. 3)

Hasn't this seemed like their modus operandi from the beginning? When he says he is trying to "balance a hard head with a big heart", do you not hear "bigger than yours?" Only the benighted will, after hearing her, "go back to your lives as usual." There are children to save, knave. Get going.

Many have called them "arrogant". But arrogance comes in many forms: vanity; proudful boasting; audaciousness. Theirs is an arrogance of vision that not only elevates theirs but calls yours morally suspect.

Labels: Obama, politics

Press corps women travelling with the Obama show to Israel and Jordan have been give explicit instructions regarding their dress codes. This article from Politico provides the list of "no-nos" for females.

Restrictions include but are not limited to the following:

“Do not wear nail polish.”

“Women should only wear a limited amount of jewelry.”

“Shoulders and arms must be fully covered (no strapless tops, no tank tops, no short sleeve shirts."

“Closed-toe shoes, women should also wear stockings.”

While I understand and respect conservative Jewish and Muslim traditions, there are plenty of Jewish and Muslim women in Israel and Jordan who do not follow these restrictive dress codes. In addition, temperatures in Israel and Jordan right now are rather high. I doubt many native women spend summers in 85+ and 90+ degree heat wearing nylon stockings.

But what really is telling is the fact that the Obama campaign thinks these professionals are not smart enough to figure out what is appropriate for themselves. Will we have dress codes in the US if he's elected?

Hat Tip: Ed Morrissey

Labels: Feminists

Zimbabwe introduces $100 billion banknotes. They're worth about USD 1. Technically, we've got a long way to go to reach the highest denomination, as the Hungarians issued 100 million B-pengo notes. A billion in Europe is a trillion in America, so 100 million trillion is 100 quintillion. However, if the new notes carry all the zeroes as the bills before it did, we've reached 11, tying the highest number of zeroes ever on a bill (Yugoslavia 1993.)

The government officially released figures last week indicating an inflation rate of 2.2 million percent. Unofficial estimates would put it closer to 10 million percent.

Interestingly in the first piece, I had not realized the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe was actually issuing bearer bonds rather than banknotes. I don't think it makes too much of a difference.

That picture to the right is the Zim$/USD exchange rate for the last twelve months. That's what hyperinflation looks like.

Labels: economics

A few nights ago I found my name in a post by fellow St. Cloud blogger "Political Muse", noting my opposition to sports stadia and wondering how I can square that with supporting Sen. Coleman's bid for re-election. I've met the senator and asked some tough questions of him in blogger conference calls, but I didn't know him as a mayor and thus never had the opportunity or incentive to ask his view of stadium subsidies. I did comment on Muse's post that in view of Franken's writings in Playboy I would find it much easier to vote for the re-election of Coleman.

Michael reports this morning that the Franken campaign has gone so far as to release an ad deriding Coleman's support of building the Xcel Energy Center.

I find the Franken campaign's choice odd. The reason these stadia keep getting public dollars is because the public believes somehow -- mistakenly, in the view of economists, but this is hardly the first time the public has chosen to ignore the economists -- that they are of benefit to a city and would be underprovided by private financing alone. Pointing out that Norm took from Peter to give to Paul is hardly a way to gain Paul's support in voting against Norm. There may be, there might be, a few Peters who are persuaded by the ad, but if that were true these stadium deals would not keep gaining passage. And support for hockey is enough in this state that even outstate arenas like St. Cloud and Bemidji draw public funding.

I wish there was a spokesman for the economists' view of public financing of sports stadia, but I don't think Al Franken is the right guy for that job either.

Labels: Coleman, Franken, Minnesota, sports

We have had fun the last few weeks with Michael and another friend of mine who are, like me, gadget geeks. I haven't talked with Lileks about his iPhone, but I'm sure he likes it. I am a longtime Palm user, currently with a Treo 700p I bought in December 2006. The phone has a replacement plan so that I am probably on my third phone.

So last Friday I went with Littlest to the Sprint store to see what they have. I like that Samsung Instinct; its lack of wifi might be the only thing I don't like. (I would kinda like a GSM phone to use overseas, but I probably am down to one trip a year so I can rent one for those.) I looked at the cost of changing over to AT&T for the iPhone and decided it wasn't worth it if I could switch to the Instinct today. Alas, they will not do it without an extra $250, unless I get to 22 months in the contract, which of course isn't until October.

Littlest is out with sports enough to warrant a phone, so I upgraded her phone. But I now think perhaps we should return it and bail out to the iPhone. If I pay $200 to get out of the contract now and get an iPhone, I don't wait three months, and the cost of a plan that shares out a second phone with her is $129. Hell, I can get her an iPhone too for that price. (Will she get one? I don't know if I'm that good a father.)

I am not whinging about the early termination fee. But it seems to me Sprint is making a mistake in pricing by having such a high differential on waiting. It is in some sense encouraging switching to AT&T -- I can have the Instinct for roughly $430 now, or have the iPhone for $199 + $200 to terminate Sprint. Though, I have wondered whether the remainder will get eaten up by texting charges on AT&T.

Of course, I can always hope the Palm dies before October and, if they haven't any more 700p's, perhaps talking my way into an Instinct.

Your advice is solicited in comments.

Labels: cell phones, technology

Driving back into town Saturday night after the show, I drive first by the St. Augusta exit which has two gas stations in direct competition. One has lots of signs to attract passing vehicles, offering gas at $3.849; the one that moved in second has a much smaller sign, $3.829. I drive by both of these. They tend to attract the less-informed gas purchases. (Though it's interesting -- their prices tend to look more like Twin Cities prices than St. Cloud prices, the latter of which are often 5-10 cents more. But not this day.)

I use First Fuel (bought a big load at $2.649 about fifteen months ago), so I usually go around to Highway 15 to get to the Pantown station near the St. Cloud Times' offices. There's a station owned by some immigrant family on Third St. N., and it's sign was $3.799. I smile: I was right about those stations near St. Augusta.

Later on the phone Gary tells me that stations on the east side were selling at $3.699. The Sunday morning paper reported it; this morning prices are two cents less than that according to GasPriceWatch.

What does a forty cent decline in gas prices mean for you and me? In 2005-2006 the average vehicle consumed about 700 gallons of gas according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. The average household has 2.28 vehicles. So a forty cent drop in gas prices is the equivalent of a $638.40 tax cut for the average household if the price remains at this lower level for a year. As it is, for a week it would get you about $12.27 in savings.

I am hard pressed to find alternative explanations for the reduction to the president's signature of a rescission of the ban on offshore drilling. You are welcome to add other possible explanations in comments; the previous statement has a very post hoc ergo propter hoc feel. I like the graph Paul Krugman draws -- I've discussed this before as the second law of demand -- but the precipitous nature of the drop makes me skeptical that a fall in demand is the proximate cause.

FFB, by the way, pushed its price down to $3.749 to put gas away for the next time we get over $4. To the right is a chart of their prices to put fuel into your account since Jan 2007. Time to buy again?

Labels: economics, Energy

On July 17, Al Gore gave another one of his misinformed, misleading, and misrepresentative speeches regarding global warming - oops, climate change. The cultist fear mongers spreading this dis-information had to change their term because earth has actually been cooling the last 10 or so years. Darn, it's really bad when the control crowd gets clobbered by the facts.

Anyway, the Americans for Prosperity decided to show up at Gore's speech location, the DAR at Constitution Hall in Washington, DC. The hypocrisy shown by attendees and the Gore family is just more indication of the double standard the elites are now trying to impose on the rest of us. Here are a few samples of the duplicity shown by the so-called, concerned crowd:

1 - Gore and Tipper and daughter, Karenna, arrived with two Lincoln Town Cars and one Suburban SUV - but hey, they're big shots, what's a limo or two to an important person like Gore? Prius, nah!
2 - Attendees who want all of us to use public transportation, arrived in CO 2 spouting cars instead of using bus transportation (stop .03 miles from the building; over 20 subway and bus stops within a half mile of the building);
3 - One guy actually liked the camera - $8/gallon gasoline is fine with him;
3 - The driver of the limousine transferring Tipper and Karenna Gore ran the car's air-conditioning for 20 minutes so the car would be nice and comfy for our Goracle's family.

You can view the 4-minute video here - be sure and watch to the end. Priceless!

Remember, this is the guy who uses more energy in his home in one month than most Americans use in a year. But, that's OK, he cares - doesn't do, just talks and cares.

BTW, President Bush's ranch home is a model of efficient energy usage - see here.

Labels: global warming????

For 40+ years, we have tinkered with our educational instruction. The results have not shown much improvement. We try one method, it fails, then go on to the next latest and greatest. When students do not learn basics they experience frustration and failure. Eventually they simply quit. Here's what we did in the last elementary school where I taught. It worked.

My last teaching assignment was in a Fairfax County elementary school with 25% off-the-boat foreign students from southeast Asia, eastern Europe, Africa, and Latin America; about 33% black, many who managed to get out of DC; and the rest were white. Students crossed the economic spectrum from welfare families to upper middle class. We were one of the bottom five elementary schools when measured socially and economically. What did we do?

First - Understand that students did learn to read in the days when primary teaching methods were phonics and drill, drill, drill. "Drill and kill" is a superficial sloganeering attack on a method proven to be effective. The alternative reading "programs" designed by academics who rarely worked in a classroom teaching reading are mostly bunk. They may work for a few students but not the majority.

Our school worked - Why? We had a terrific reading program that had 7-9 sublevels for each grade level. Each sublevel focused on particular phonic concepts. The content of the stories was geared to the age of the student and written to specifically teach the needed skills. Result? Our school, one of the poorest in Fairfax County VA, outscored 50% of the other elementary schools.

Second - we drilled basic arithmetic facts (addition, subtraction, multiplication and division) until they came easily and quickly.

Third - we had a 6'+ black guy for a principal who backed his teachers, regardless of color. Decent behavior standards, including respect, were known and maintained.

No one can learn concepts or critical thinking without knowing basics (reading codes, math facts, historical facts) and then taught when and where to apply them. Once the foundation of leanring is internalized, the vast majority of students will learn. Teaching feel-good pabulum results in students who are not only incapable of thinking but also unprepared for most kind of work that can lead to a successful life.

Labels: education

Reading a Leon Uris book decades ago, I was struck by the blatant description of the crass behavior of some middle eastern men towards women. I put it aside as a vulgar rarity but after reading this description about the behavior of Egyptian men, I wonder. While this article was written by two women, it's not in a mainstream publication.

This story follows another that showed the assassination of two Afghan women by the Taliban. The Taliban still exists in areas of Afghanistan where women are forced, as is visible in this photo, to wear the full burka. They were accused of prostitution but note what's missing: no witnesses; no trial; no court; no defense; no alternative other than to be executed by men of questionable standards.

When will the so-called defenders of women's freedom, those security driven feminists and their male cohorts, speak out about this kind of atrocious behavior? Their silence is in direct opposition to their comments that men and women are completely equal.

What has bugged m