dave ["at" ] downingworld
[.com] -- If you'd like to know what I
think about a particular topic, drop me a line: I may use it for a future
blurb. But remember: I'm not really a know-it-all; I just play one on the
Web. Thanks for tuning in, from your host David W. Downing.
Dave's
Latest Thought....
Unintended
Consequences: War on Terror / War on Poverty
A news story reports that experts say the U.S. is losing the war on terror, and not only that, but that the war in Iraq has actually benefited the terrorists.
That may be true. I believe the war was morally justified. The question has always been whether it was tactically the right thing to do. Would invading Iraq help us reach our goal of security against terrorism? Planners mistakenly thought that once Sadam was toppled, Iraq would carry on forward without him. Unfortunately, it didn't work out that way. Iraq went backward in many ways. Now the trick is to get it going forward again.
But would we be better off now if we had not invaded Iraq? We'll never know. As I've said many times before, life isn't a game show. It's not "Let's Make a Deal," where if you don't like what's behind the curtain, you know another choice held a good prize. In real life, sometimes none of the choices are "winners." But people like to think it works that way. They like to Monday morning quarterback things. So if the invasion of Iraq does not look like a great success, they figure it follows that NOT invading Iraq was the "right choice" and would have solved all of our problems.
If only real life were as simple as a TV game show.
But what I wanted to get at today is that this story, in which experts claim that the War on Terror has only served to create more terrorists, reminds me yet again about how the War on Terror reminds me of the War on Poverty. Critics of the Iraq war complain that it has gone on too long, and that it is taking up too much money.
But look at the 40-year War on Poverty. The same critics of the war insist that we must keep throwing more and more money at the Great Society's War on Poverty. They continue to think that eventually we'll win.
But I say that the War on Poverty seems to have served to institutionalize and perpetuate poverty, with a permanent, self-sustaining underclass.
Just as the experts in the news story claim that Iraq is now is a recruiting and training ground for terrorists, the War on Poverty has created breeding grounds for poverty and criminal behavior. Life is full of unintended consequences, and this is another one. Don't forget what they say about the road to Hell being paved with good intentions.
But shouldn't we have known better? I'm thinking in particular about one of the grand strategies of the War on Poverty: the building of vast public housing projects. What I call urban reservations.
It's as though some great thinkers said, "Look how well those reservations are working out for the Indians. Let's do the same for the poor black people!" So we segregated them in isolated communities, where they would have little hope for employment, and chemical dependency would be rampant.
Brilliant!
(Here's an idea: Maybe those housing projects should be allowed to build casinos!)
It's as though we've created self-sustaining leper colonies. In the leper colonies of old, the lepers were banished, exiled to live together in the wilderness, so they wouldn't give their disease to others. But in these modern day "colonies," the poor residents are free to reproduce, and pass on their own criminal behavior and poverty to their children. The "colony" nurtures the "disease," rather than bringing it to an end.
External
vs. Internal Solutions
I've recently noticed a couple of examples that may represent a trend. They show how liberals often look for external solutions, while conservatives often look for internal solutions. I'll explain what I mean.
Liberals like to say how much they "care." That's a big word with them. And they like to show how much they care by...insisting that the government seize someone else's money to fix the problem. (So much for putting your money where your mouth is.) They like to say how much they "care," then demonstrate their sincere concern by pointing their fingers and insisting that someone else do something. They don't look inside themselves for a solution; they look for someone else to give them something.
For example, they like to decry the state of public education, and insist that the government must give more money to the schools to fix the "problems." Where will this money come from? Why, from taxing "the rich," of course.
But conservatives know that money isn't the answer when it comes to education. The problems are social and moral. Our schools are forced to deal with kids from bad homes. They don't have stable families. They don't have responsible parents. They often don't have two parents. Some don't have even one parent. (They have a "guardian" or "care giver.") This is due to social and moral corruption. Children having children. Children born out of wedlock. Divorce. A breakdown of traditional family values.
Conservatives know that these are the real problems. These problems must be dealt with at the root, and then the schools won't "need" more money to try to deal with them remedially.
But these problems demand that people examine themselves and change their own behavior. Liberals don't like that. It's too "judgmental." Better to just blame the government for not giving enough money to the schools, and "the rich" for being greedy.
Another example would be the full-page newspaper ad purchased by a group of Twin Cities liberals last week. In their $20,000 ad, they called upon the state of Minnesota to raise their taxes. They are "willing to pay more for a better Minnesota," as the lawn signs say. Governor Tim Pawlenty quickly called their bluff, pointing out that there is nothing stopping anyone from writing out a check to make an additional donation to the state treasury. He even offered to personally accept such donations from the group.
But, of course, that's not what they really want. They want the state to seize more money from OTHER PEOPLE, in order to implement their own objectives. Yes, they "care" so much that they want to use the force of government to impose their sense of morality on everyone else.
Now, it's good for all of us to give what we can to help others. And you don't have to be "the rich" to do so. We should all give what we can. (Which for most people, is probably a lot more than they are giving now. Take Al Gore, for instance. Remember when the poor little rich boy Vice President reported about $200 of charitable giving on his tax return? Yet he's the darling of the liberals, jetting around the country telling us to stop burning fossil fuels.)
Again, we need to look at ourselves, and give what we can. Just like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, only in smaller sums. Notice how those two rich men are giving their money to causes they believe in. You know that money is going to do more good than if the government had seized it from them or their estates.
Liberals tell us that they are "pro choice." "Choice" is good, they say. Why don't they believe in giving people choice about what to do with their own money?
I think part of the problem is that the liberal philosophy sees people as helpless victims. They can't help themselves, and they can't even help each other. No, government is our only hope for salvation. They seem to think that people lack free will, and must be dictated to and manipulated by the government.
This "internal" vs. "external" idea isn't always so clear. Liberals who wouldn't dare be "judgmental" about children having children nonetheless tell us that "we have to change our driving habits" to conserve oil. Yet, look more closely. What they really are after is government mandates to impose their idea of "moral" driving on everyone else.
And what about abortion? Pro-life conservatives want the government to ban abortion, while pro-abortion liberals say there should be a "choice." This comes closer to the conservatives looking for the "external" solution while the liberals choose the "internal" solution. The "pro-choice" people say they want abortion to be "safe, legal, and rare."
That's always struck me as a bizarre statement. If there's nothing wrong with abortion, why do you care whether or not it is rare? And if there is something wrong with it, why do you want it kept legal?
Can you imagine someone saying, "I want wife-beating to remain safe, legal, and rare"? Or "I want slavery to remain safe, legal, but rare"?
Of course not.
Who Taught
These Guys to Negotiate?
So, Iraqi insurgent groups are offering to cease their attacks if the U.S. will agree to withdraw all troops within two years.
What kind of morons are these people?
The U.S. plan all along has been to leave as soon as possible, which has meant as soon as insurgents are under control and the country is reasonably peaceful. The U.S. could have left by now if they would have simply ceased their attacks two years ago.
But their strategy seems to have been to force the U.S. out by conducting a terror campaign, which is the very thing that has kept U.S. troops in Iraq for three years now. It's as though the insurgents struck the Tar Baby. If they had behaved themselves, they would have gotten what they wanted.
But who ever thought we were dealing with rational people who could reason? (Well, who except for American liberals?)
OK, as I was saying a few posts ago, women have always worked.
You'll often hear people say, "These days, it takes two incomes to get by." If that's true, it's only the two INCOMES part that's new. It's always taken two workers (unless you were quite wealthy) to support a family.
The difference is the idea that married women work for wages. Women had always worked, on the farm or in the home. They cleaned by hand, washed clothing by hand, made clothing, prepared food, grew food, canned food, spun wool, wove fabric, the list goes on and on. Surely you haven't forgotten the old saying, "A woman's work is never done"?
These days, much of what was traditionally "women's work" is being purchased with cash, instead of being done by the woman of the house. Thus, the need for a second income. Families spend increasing amounts of money on prepared foods and convenience foods. They pay cleaners to come into their homes. They pay more to have someone clean their clothes instead of doing it themselves.
And let's not forget the most important -- and most expensive -- aspect of traditional "women's work," raising children!
There was a brief period in American history -- let's call it the "Leave It to Beaver" Days -- when we let ourselves think that women didn't have to work. Machines would do all the housework, and housewives could play bridge all day! Yeah, right.
I think history shows that adults need to work to earn their keep on Earth. If there was a brief period when that didn't seem to be the case, it was an anomaly. Now we're just catching up to reality again.
Researcher
Says Sisters Are Irrelevant
There, now I got your attention. You know by now that I like teaser headlines. And if my own sister is reading, I was able to give her the needle!
I located Dr. Anthony Bogaert, mentioned in the previous post, and asked him the question I raised there. Dr. Bogaert reported that his study found that whether or not a man had older sisters was unrelated to whether he was gay. I figured he had considered that, but there was always the tantalizing chance that he would say, "Hmmmmm... good question."
Isn't the Information Age amazing? I just did a search for Brock University, went to the school's Website, then entered Bogaert's name in the site search function, and I quickly found him and his e-mail address. He quickly went from someone far, far away, whom I had read about in a Los Angeles Times story reprinted in my local daily, to someone I can talk to via e-mail. Amazing!
None, actually. But there's a link to be found in two stories I read in yesterday's paper. One gives a "Top 10" list of reasons for rampant obesity in the U.S. The other reports a study that shows the more older brothers a man has, the more likely he is to be gay.
The link is that these stories show another example of how liberals and conservatives can act the same. (The people in question don't declare their political ideology, but I think it's a pretty safe assumption.)
In the "gay" story, researchers say that the more older brothers a man has, the more likely he is to be gay. They can't identify why that should be so, but they think there is some sort of biological explanation -- something to do with antibodies that build up in a woman's body when she carries a son. The story carries this "opposing view" from a cynic:
Tim Dailey, of the conservative Center for Marriage and Family Studies, disagreed.
"We don't believe that there's any biological basis for homosexuality," Dailey said. "We feel the causes are complex but are deeply rooted in early childhood development."
There have been a number of attempts to establish a physical basis "and in every case the alleged findings have been severely challenged and questioned," he said.
In the "obesity" story, scientists attempt to explain some of the reasons why so many Americans are now obese. They point to changing societal and technological factors, such as inadequate sleep, climate-controlled home and work environments, less smoking, and population changes. This story also has the requisite "opposing view":
However, some critics say the researchers' "Top 10" list of explanations reads more like material for a David Letterman routine than a scientific study.
"I'd put this in the category of 'calorie distracters' -- 'Let's just do anything to get people to stop worrying about having to eat less and move more,' " said Marion Nestle, a nutrition professor at New York University and frequent food industry critic. " 'And let's not say a word to food companies about misleading and manipulative marketing practices, especially those directed toward children.' "
Anyone think she might have an agenda?
And that's where the link is. In both cases, the critics have an agenda. They've made up their minds, and they don't care what the research shows. They don't care what the facts might be. They've made up their mind who the bad guys are, and don't you dare try to tell them anything different.
Liberal or conservative, it doesn't matter. That's how people are.
-------
Mommy's little girl?
I wonder if the sexual orientation study looked at how sisters fit into the mix? Was there a difference when a man had a lot of older brothers but also one or more sisters?
What I'm thinking of is the old idea -- which may be entirely without merit for all I know -- that all mothers want a little girl to raise. And so if there is no little girl, a mother may raise her son(s) in a more feminine way than if she had a girl to direct those impulses toward. It would seem, then, that if there is such a tendency, it would grow stronger and stronger the more sons a woman has. The result would be that a woman with many sons but no daughter might lavish large amounts of feminine upbringing upon the youngest.
I'm going to see if I can find some contact information for the primary researcher, psychologist Anthony Bogaert of Brock University in Ontario. If he answers that question for me, I'll share it with you.
Civic Clubs
Victims of Two-Career Households
On his Garage Logic radio show yesterday, Joe Soucheray was talking about fraternal civic clubs (Moose, Elk, Eagles, etc.) and the way that they appear to be less prominent in society than they used to be. (Even if their membership levels have remained stable, if we consider rising population, the percentage of people active in such clubs has surely declined.)
I think there is a simple explanation: women in the workforce.
(Please note, I said "explanation," not "blame." So don't get after me for bashing women.)
Here's what I'm thinking: In the heyday of these clubs, a man went off to work, and his wife kept house. When he came home from work, supper was on the table. He could eat, kiss the wife and kids, and head out to a lodge meeting.
He had time for the club. (And he may have welcomed an excuse to get out of the house once a week, breaking out of the pipe, slippers and newspaper rut.) At the same time, women had time for women's organizations, which generally held their meetings during the day, when the husbands were at work and the kids were at school.
Now, we've got two people away from home and at work all day. After work, they've got to do the shopping, make dinner, and do all the other tasks that a full-time homemaker used to do during the day.
Now add to that the explosion in children's activities -- mostly taking place in the evening. Not only are there more organized youth sports than ever, but now they are almost exclusively taking place in the evening. Why? Because both parents (assuming there even are two parents) are away at work all day. When women stayed home with the children, these youth activities were more likely to take place immediately after school, or in summer, during the day.
I'd say that's the biggest factor -- two-career families.
No doubt there are other factors, as well. Let's face it, things change. Clubs have more competition these days. Entertainment options abound. The pipe, slippers and newspaper rut is now 400 channels and a remote control.
Additionally, I think people are less connected than they used to be. Especially in larger cities. Men would be more likely to join a club if many of their co-workers were already members, or many of their neighbors, or many of the guys they knew from church. They'd be getting a personal invitation and a "guide" to show them their way into the club. Club membership probably works with a sort of "snowball" effect. They more people in a community join, the more other people are encouraged to join. There would be peer pressure at work.
But these days relationships are so fragmented. People work with people who live all over the place. If your co-worker belongs to a lodge in his hometown that sounds fun, but you're both commuters and you live two hours apart from each other, you're not about to join him. Even if that lodge has a chapter where you live, you're not likely to join if you don't already have a friend who is a member. I doubt that few prospective members walk in off of the street "cold."
Finally, here's one more change that may have hurt membership: allowing women into the clubs (sometimes by government edict).
OK, I know, here I go "blaming" women again.
But men are men and women are women. Both sexes enjoy being separated at times. When some of these traditionally men's clubs went "co-ed," it had to have changed the social dynamic within them. Maybe it made the clubs more attractive to young singles looking to meet the opposite sex, but it had to have had the opposite effect on married men looking to escape the domestic scene for the evening and spend some fun time with the guys.
(While the "dual-income" or "two-career" household may be a new development, women have always worked. I'll address that in another post.)
Ed Lotterman had another great column in the Pioneer Press on Sunday. Lotterman used the recent fire in a code-deficient St. Paul apartment-house as a starting point for a discussion of the competing theories regarding government safety regulations.
One economic theory, Lotterman explains, holds that allowing people to decide for themselves what risks to accept -- and at what cost -- is ultimately the best both for the individual and for the greater society. If someone wants to live in a small, poorly-maintained, cheap apartment and spend their money for education or transportation to a job, that may ultimately be better for that person.
The competing theory argues that consumers often don't have enough reliable information available to allow them to make wise decisions. An example would be restaurant inspections by the public health department. It's not practical to expect a potential diner to personally inspect each establishment in which he might eat.
But as Lotterman points out, this isn't just an economic argument. It's also a moral and philosophical argument.
Philosophically, I tend to favor a system in which people use information to make their own decisions, at least whenever it is reasonable to expect people to be able to have that information. But then the problem becomes determining what is reasonable. (More on that later.)
And what are we to make of cases where people do have good information, yet they still make dangerous choices? Smoking would be one such example. You'd have to be older than 50 at least to be able to claim with a straight face that you lit up that first cigarette not knowing it was bad for you.
The government has been giving people that information for decades. It's worked somewhat, but about one-of-four people still smoke. Should government instead ban tobacco altogether?
And when exactly is it "not reasonable" to expect someone to have the information they need? We've been lowering that bar for quite some time. I think we're now past the point of no return. Personal responsibility? A thing of the past.
What I'm thinking of here is the way we've grown to expect the Nanny State to protect us from everything -- including our own foolishness. How often have you heard someone say, "THEY wouldn't let them sell it if it wasn't safe," or "THEY wouldn't let you do it if it wasn't safe"? And I'm talking about supposedly "responsible" adults!
We expect any product on the shelf to be safe. We expect that it will impossible to use it in a dangerous, unintended way. We expect fences and locks to keeps us out of places we don't belong, such as trespassing through a construction site for a short-cut. "THEY would put a better fence around it if THEY didn't want us to go through."
Yes, we've grown accustomed to expecting THEM to look out for us. It's not clear exactly who THEY are, but THEY seem to be some sort of government guardian angels.
And because we can no longer be expected to exercise our own common sense in pursuit of self-preservation, we've got those ridiculous "lawyer labels" on everything, telling us obvious things such as, "Do not store this gasoline can near an open flame."
But this "warning" thing sort of feeds upon itself. The more you do it, the more you need to do it. If there isn't a sticker explicitly saying NOT to do something stupid, then people figure it must be OK. Sort of like the way that if there is not a "NO PARKING" sign on the block, then people assume it's safe to park there.
Unfortunately, as the apartment fire shows, the consequences can be much more serious than a traffic ticket.
Light Rail
Suffers from Identity Crisis
Minneapolis and St. Paul and being railroaded with Light Rail Transit. You know how the Bush-haters complain that the decision to invade Iraq was made well in advance, and consideration of other options was a sham? That's how it is here with THE TRAIN. Officially, we've been going through study and public comment and such to decide which would be better, a train, or dedicated rapid busways. But all the liberal powers-that-be decided long ago that we will have a train. After all, Denver is 10 years ahead of us, as St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman likes to point out. And while his administration has ushered in a new era of cooperation with Twin City Minneapolis, our new rival is apparently the Mile High City.
Meanwhile, cost estimates for the line between downtowns St. Paul and Minneapolis continue to rise (as they did throughout construction of the now-completed Hiawatha Line through south Minneapolis). We're now talking about $930 million, instead of "only" $840 million. But don't worry, we don't really have to pay for it, because we're depending on that free federal money!
I think the biggest threat to the success of our inevitable University Avenue train is an uncertainty of purpose. If it tries to be everything to everybody, it's going to fail. So who is it intended to serve? People wanting to go quickly between the downtowns? Or people making stops along the Avenue? When I ask dedicated train supporters who are involved in the process, they all tell me "It will serve all different types of riders."
But I think that mindset is the kiss of death.
I think a lot of people assumed that the purpose of the train was to get people quickly from one downtown to the other. That's why it will have limited stops along University Avenue -- one mile apart. If there are a lot of stops, it will take too long to get from one downtown to the other. But when it was pointed out in the newspaper that a downtown-to-downtown trip on the train would actually take LONGER than the same trip on the existing freeway express bus service, the song and dance changed. Now we're being told that most people won't be going downtown-to-downtown. They'll be getting on and getting off somewhere in between the downtowns. And people in a hurry can still use the express bus (never mind that bus service is expected to be reduced once the train is running).
But if the train is for people to use along University Avenue between the downtowns, then doesn't it need to stop more frequently than just once per mile? Someone expected to use the train in that way would be better off using the existing bus service on University Avenue, so they could be picked up and dropped off closer to where they are going. (But, of course, the plan is to reduce that bus service once the train is going.)
What' the point of this train? Who is it supposed to serve? Let's figure it out. Is it a local or an express? If we are hell-bent on having this billion-dollar train, we'd better decide what it is that we want it to do, and then design it to do that in the best way possible.
Otherwise, the train as planned is sounding like a compromise that will serve no one well. If we're going to spend the billion dollars, let's at least have something that will be truly useful to someone.
I like to point it out when I observe examples of how some things are the same throughout the centuries, throughout millennia, even. This applies very often to human behavior, but I also observe ways that new technologies share much with old technologies.
For example, I was recently reading in the paper about how simply deleting files from your computer's hard drive doesn't necessarily remove the data from the disk. Someone can come along and retrieve your old files quite easily.
New technology, new problem, right?
Not really.
PBS recently ran a "Nova" program about the lost manuscript of Archimedes. The ancient mathematician wrote this book more than 2,000 years ago, and some copies were made by hand over the centuries. But eventually all copies were lost. Until it was discovered about 100 years ago that beneath the words of a medieval manuscript lay the words of the lost Archimedes volume! With modern technology, the words and diagrams of Archimedes are now being rediscovered.
How can this be? It was not uncommon in olden days for a scribe to wash the ink off of the pages of a unvalued book in order to reuse the parchment to make a copy of another book. That is what had happened in the case of the Archimedes manuscript. There is even a name for such a document, it is called a "palimpsest."
Recovery of Archimedes' writings has shown that the mathematical genius invented calculus, 2,000 years before the world discovered it again! What a mind he must have had.
I have another example of "nothing new," one where human nature and technology intersect. I heard a discussion on the radio yesterday about robots, as in the humanoid kind. There was much snickering about whether such machines might eventually be used in "service" to humans in a very personal way.
Off course they will be, if such robots ever become a reality.
Sex and technology have long been intertwined. The printing press led to pornography. The motion picture led to stag films. The telephone led to 976 numbers. The computer led to sex-themed Websites (one of the few successful money-makers on the Web).
The simple fact is, sex sells. There's money in sex. And people like sex. It's that simple. So it's inevitable that if it's possible to make money through applying a new technology to sex, it will be done.
What Doesn't
Kill Me, Makes Me Stronger
Fire hardens steel. Battle hardens troops. Hard work builds muscle -- and calluses. "Spare the rod, spoil the child."
We hear of many examples of stresses building strengths. Should this news item surprise us?
Gritty rats and mice living in sewers and farms seem to have healthier immune systems than their squeaky clean cousins that frolic in cushy antiseptic labs, two studies indicate.
The lesson for humans: Clean living may make us sick.
Are we turning into a bunch of hothouse flowers?
I've heard this theory expressed before, in regard to why the U.S. has an escalating rate of childhood asthma. Some people have claimed that children living in the garbage dumps of Mexico, for example, seem healthier than U.S. kids, and have postulated that a clean environment in the U.S. may be to blame. Indeed, the news story continues:
The studies give more weight to a 17-year-old theory that the sanitized Western world may be partly to blame for soaring rates of human allergy and asthma cases and some autoimmune diseases, such as Type I diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis. The theory figures that people's immune systems aren't being challenged by disease and dirt early in life, so the body's natural defenses overreact to small irritants such as pollen.
But can we extend this theory beyond the physical? By providing too much of a clean and comfortable environment for our children in other ways, are we making them emotionally and intellectually weak?
Consider, if you will, the way that we've stopped keeping score in children's games. No one ever loses; everyone gets a medal just for showing up. In school, we've moved away from grades. A bad grade might hurt some kid's self-esteem, don't you know. When grades are given, almost everyone gets an "A."
Are we bringing up "sickly" kids who will have no "immunity" to what life will throw at them? What will they do when they grow up and find out that life isn't "fair"? That bad things happen? That you don't always get what you want? That the you don't always win? That the boss won't be satisfied just because you "tried your personal best"? That the police won't merely point out that you made some "bad choices," then pat you on the head and send you on your way?
Then there are the layers of welfare programs that continue to protect people from the consequences of their own actions, even in adulthood.... You've got to wonder, are we really doing what's best for people when we try so hard to be "nice" and "caring"?
Maybe "This is for your own good..." and "Someday you'll thank me for this..." are the honest truth!
Damned If
You Do, Damned If You Don't
I don't know what to make of this. I guess I'm the wrong color to understand it. But I know this latest racial brouhaha doesn't portend well for the future of issues of a racial nature. The St. Paul Pioneer Press reported Sunday:
It seemed like the kind of project everyone could love. The University of Minnesota and its partners would bring a family mental-health center, small-business development and other ventures to an empty corner of north Minneapolis.
Sounds good, doesn't it?
Then came the pushback. Why a mental-health center? Fliers posted in the community asked, "Do you want our black families and babies to be tested on like black guinea pigs again?
The University Northside Partnership is now tangled in issues of race, mistrust and control, and it has opened the dam to a flood of long-held grievances against the university.
I know there are historical factors that feed into the suspicion and fear, but is it reasonable? I don't think so, but apparently some blacks do.
How can we break out of this racial rut? It seems that when it comes to dealing with "the black community," you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. If the University had planned their project for a suburb populated mostly by white people, we'd be hearing, "How come you don't spend all that money in a neighborhood where black people live?" But try to do just that, and...
I think we're getting to the point where a lot of people would just as soon say, "Why bother? You can't win, anyway. Just forget about them."
If you want to know what people are like, listen to what they accuse others of. They often seem to be describing themselves. Liberals love to complain about how much those "rich Republicans" love money. Yet, it seems to me that many liberals are obsessed with money, wanting more, and always comparing themselves to others. They are envious, and jealous of those who have more than they do.
Take Ellen Goodman (please!) for example. The columnist gives us her take on the inheritance tax, and how upset she is that some people inherit money, while others have to work for it. Life isn't fair! she cries.
Goodman uses hotel heiress and famous-for-being-famous celebrity Paris Hilton as her example of a typical, undeserving heir. Not a very sympathetic character there. Goodman asks: "Why exactly should the money handed down to super-rich heirs be tax-free while the money earned by your children be taxable income?"
I'll tell you why, Ellen. Because that inheritance money was already taxed once as income when it was earned by the deceased! Why should it be taxed a second time?
But such logic means nothing when you're green with envy. (Is it just coincidence that we say "green" -- the color of money -- with envy?)
Will That
Be Borders or Non-Borders?
I read a David Brooks column in the St. Paul Pioneer Press today. Unfortunately, there's no Web link for it, since the New York Times, for which Brooks writes, has restricted free Web access to its material. (I think it ran in the Times June 15.)
Brooks wrote about how he thinks American politics could be divided into two camps, which he calls "populist nationalists" and "progressive globalists." That got me thinking, and it occurred to me that we might instead define America's two political camps as "patriotic nationalists" and "one-worlders." The "patriotic nationalists" believe that America is a great, unique country founded on ideals. The "one-worlders," on the other hand, believe their ideas transcend -- and supercede -- borders.
This is why the "one-worlders" don't see anything wrong with foreigners streaming uncontrolled across the border into the U.S. Why should little details like citizenship or national borders get in the way of everyone realizing their socialist Utopian ideals? The "patriotic nationalists," meanwhile, see a distinction between "us" -- the U.S. -- and them, and want to maintain the distinction.
The current World Cup soccer tournament offers another example. The "patriotic nationalists" recognize that soccer is not the national pastime. It's not America's thing. But the "one-worlders" see soccer as "the world's game," and therefore, it must be our game, too. They don't wish to recognize any distinction between the U.S. and the rest of the world. They insist that we SHOULD care about soccer, and if we don't, means there's something wrong with America, because it isn't just like the rest of the world.
Scarily, the "one-worlders" share something with Al-Qaeda and the Islamo-fascists: they both put their ideology above national borders. Both wish to bring about their own version of a trans-national paradise, based on their own ideology.
Blacks Better
Than Whites; Women Better Than Men
According to a study, black people can hear better than white people, and women can hear better than men.
That's interesting. But what's even more interesting to me, is that this is played as a simple matter-of-fact news story, on page 8 of the newspaper, with no mention of "bias" or "discrimination." Compare that to the automatic uproar whenever anyone suggests that males or whites might be superior at something.
Right here in St. Paul in recent years, we had a battle about getting more woman into the fire department. Part of the debate concerned whether women are physically strong enough for the demands of the job. But such a politically incorrect question was a political hot potato. There was pressure to change the requirements of the physical skills test if not enough women could pass. It was politically unacceptable to acknowledge that men (as a group) were more suited to this job than were women (as a group).
But just a couple of years ago, I was at an assembly at my kids' St. Paul elementary school, and heard an address from a city councilwoman and former policewoman, who encouraged girls to go into law enforcement, because she thought women had qualities that made them even better at police work than men!
The good news is, after I pointed out to her that she might not like it if a male firefighter had encouraged the boys to go into firefighting because they were better at it than women, she agreed that I had a point.
I do think that FOR SOME ASPECTS of police work, women probably are better suited than men. Men and women are different. They do have different strengths. But remember, that's as a group. Not all women are the same, just as not all men are the same.
Stereotyping?
or Educated Guess?
I was in the backyard the other day and I heard some loud music blasting somewhere nearby. It sounded like some Mexican music, and then I heard a Spanish-speaking voice. It sounded like a Spanish language radio station. I said to myself, Is someone getting a new roof?
Oh, the horror! What a terrible person I am, doing such stereotyping! Thinking that all roofers are Mexicans, or all Mexicans are roofers, or whatever such awful thing I was thinking!
So I walked around front and peered down the street.
Yep, new roof half a block down.
Irish Coffee Sales Expected to Soar
According to a news story:
In a new study of more than 125,000 people, one cup of coffee per day cut the risk of alcoholic cirrhosis by 20 percent. Four cups per day reduced the risk by 80 percent. The coffee effect held true for women and men of various ethnic backgrounds.
Well, I want to know: Do five cups a day cut the risk by 100 percent?
Go, Figure!
It takes me too long to read the daily paper. I'm always reading stuff that doesn't even apply to me. Like the other day, when for some reason I started reading the shopping/fashion columnist. Someone had written to Pioneer Press columnist Allison Kaplan with a shopping problem. She said she had trouble finding swimsuits to fit her "average-petite frame" and 38DD bust. (Oh, I may have figured out what caught my eye.)
Kaplan wrote: "The narrow swimsuit selection at department stores can make you feel like an oddity -- which you're not."
Speaking as a man with eyes, I beg to differ. If petite women with 38DD chests were common, I would have noticed by now.
Spread the Destruction?
From the Associated Press:
HONG KONG - The survival of the human race depends on its ability to find new homes elsewhere in the universe because there's an increasing risk that a disaster will destroy Earth, world-renowned physicist Stephen Hawking said Tuesday.
Hawking said that if humans can avoid killing themselves in the next 100 years, they should have space settlements that can continue without support from Earth.
"It is important for the human race to spread out into space for the survival of the species," Hawking said. "Life on Earth is at the ever-increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster, such as sudden global warming, nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus or other dangers we have not yet thought of."
That doesn't make sense. If you're of the mindset that humans are destroying the Earth, do you really think we should spread ourselves around the galaxy so we can destroy other planets, too? Maybe we'd be doing the universe a favor by "quarantining" ourselves here!
End of an
Era: Baseball Can't Escape Technology (or $$$)
I read some sad news about major league baseball today. Hallowed Wrigley Field is set to be the first big-league stadium to "go wireless," as the traditional bullpen phone will be supplanted by a private-channel cell phone system. Now, when Cubs manager Dusty Baker wants to make the call to the 'pen, he'll simply flip open his phone and call bullpen coach Juan Lopez, who'll grab his phone from his belt and receive his instructions.
I supppose if he wants to, Baker will now be able to call the bullpen right from the pitcher's mound. Maybe that will speed up the game a little.
I think this is sad, because fans will be losing the drama of watching for the manager to "reach for the phone." Instead, it'll be just two more guys yakking on their cell phones in public. Where's the drama in that?
But then, with first cordless phones and now cell phones, anyone younger than, oh, 30 for sure, doesn't even understand the concept of the hard-wired phone. They don't remember when making a phone call meant standing in the kitchen within a few feet of the phone on the wall.
But wait. What did baseball do before hard-wired phones were installed in ballparks? The installation of those phones must have marked the end of another era. Was there a complex system of hand signals in use? Were bat boys or bench players used as messengers? If there had been blogs back then, I'm sure someone would have lamented the demise of that system, as well.
So, I suppose change is inevitable. These new wireless phones should work well, just as long as Dusty Baker remembers not to cover the sponsor's logo with his hand.
That's right, it's all about the money. The story notes:
Besides providing faster access to the bullpen, [Cubs official John] McDonough said, the new system provides the league with new revenue opportunities from fees that Motorola and other phone companies will pay to have teams use their branded phones.
Now we're getting somewhere.
Do you watch NFL football? If you do, then you know that the head coaches wear headsets that allow them to communicate with assistant coaches watching from the pressbox. They've used these for years, and years ago the headsets used to be large and cumbersome. But like other electronic devices, they've gotten smaller and sleeker over the years. (Think of singers who wear a microphone headset so small you hardly notice it.)
At least, the NFL headsets were getting smaller and sleeker. In recent years, I've noticed they've gotten bulky again. It didn't make sense. The technology shouldn't have required it. And as for aesthetics, well, the new headsets have almost a retro look. They don't even look like a product of contemporary industrial design.
Now I'm convinced my theory was right: The NFL headsets got bigger just so there was more room to make the sponsor's logo larger.
Oh, well. What are you gonna do? It's all about the money.
The baseball story also notes that this could be just the beginning:
Besides pursuing similar systems for other ballclubs, [Motorola official Tom Crawford] said, Motorola might be able to take advantage of Bluetooth technology and wearable communications for other off-the-field innovations in the future -- such as enabling Baker to communicate through a device embedded in his trademark wristbands, or coaches through their caps.
I've got to draw the line somewhere. When Joe Mauer starts text-messaging "fstbll" to Johan Santana, I'm becoming a soccer fan.
Ask Not
What You Can Do for Your Country, Just Blame Bush
From a news story:
"There are an estimated 275 billion tons of recoverable coal reserves in the United States, or about one-fourth of the world's total. The energy content of U.S. coal reserves is four times greater than the recoverable oil of Saudi Arabia and exceeds that of all the world's known recoverable oil reserves."
EXCEEDS ALL the WORLD'S recoverable oil reserves? And we have an "energy crisis"?
Maybe we're just too foolish to help ourselves.
The excerpt above is from a sidebar that accompanied this AP story about how the demand for coal is straining the ability of railroads to ship it. Unfortunately, the sidebar isn't included in the web posting. (The figures are said to have come from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.)
This sounds like good news, doesn't it? We should be able to lessen our dependence on foreign oil by turning to domestic coal.
Then why are we in St. Paul all excited because we're about to tear down the local coal-burning power plant and replace it with one that burns natural gas (which we are importing more and more of)?
"Progressive" forces that control the city are all excited because they say there will be less air pollution with the natural gas-burning plant (a good thing), but they are also looking forward to eliminating the plant's smokestack (the tallest structure in St. Paul, and a city landmark), the accompanying coal piles (which I find interesting), and the trains that deliver the coal (again, something I enjoy seeing whenever I pass by).
All this comes at the cost of knocking down one plant and building a completely new one, which will generate electricity using more expensive -- and largely imported -- natural gas. Ultimately, we'll all pay the cost in higher electricity rates.
This is "progressive"? It is, at least to those bothered by things like piles of coal, which get in the way of their "vision" for St. Paul to be an exclusive urban retreat away from the hustle and bustle of the big city.
Meanwhile, Minnesota enters into this story in yet another way. The story notes:
"And the first major rail expansion in the United States in about a century is in the works. The South Dakota-based Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad is seeking $2.5 billion in federal loans to extend and rebuild rail lines so it can haul Wyoming coal to the Midwest and Great Lakes regions. Its loan application is pending before the Federal Railroad Administration."
That sounds good, too, doesn't it? But not to everyone. In Rochester, Minn., especially, there is strong opposition to having an existing rail line upgraded to handle more trains. The trains might bother people there. They don't want more trains passing through town.
We have a lot of not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) going on here. People don't want to be "bothered" by anything, even if it might mean making real progress toward energy independence. Don't ask them to accept anything they don't like just for the good of their country.
No, they'd rather just blame President Bush for not having an "energy policy" that will solve the problem without making any demands on them. (Just on other people -- you know, legislate what types of cars other people can drive, that sort of thing.)
The truth is, politicians can't solve the problem with some "policy." We all have to change -- and accept change. And that might mean learning to live with trains and piles of coal. Not to mention more power plants. Of course, no one ever wants a new one of those built near them, either. But turning from oil to coal likely means more reliance on coal-generated electricity. (Meanwhile, let's continue to work on ways of burning coal more cleanly, to further reduce air pollution.)
Sen. Mark
Dayton First Cites the Bible, Then Says He Doesn't Care What Jesus Says
If you don't think liberals can be as self-righteous, narrow-minded, intolerant and hateful as anyone else, just read Sen. Mark Dayton's thoughts on why he opposes a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The kooky Minnesota Democrat attacks anyone who doesn't think just like him in (very) lengthy comments reprinted in the Pioneer Press yesterday. (Doggone it, can't find it on the paper's website. Here we go, on a government page, his comments to the Senate, which were printed in the paper. Go to this page. Dayton's comments start about half way down. Do a "find" for "Dayton," and you'll be there. At least it worked for me.)
The strangest part of Sen. Dayton's diatribe was when he decided to use the Bible to support his case, while pointing out that he doesn't like it when politicians use the Bible for political purposes. (I guess he thinks he's special and can have it both ways.) Here's that part:
In addition to being un-American, this amendment is also Un-Christian. I hesitate to bring religion into this debate. I am highly skeptical of politicians who do so. Giving a Bible to a politician is akin to giving a blowtorch to a pyromaniac. However, I reread the New Testament in preparation for this debate. I cannot find a single instance in any of the four gospels in which my saviour Jesus Christ speaks a single word against same-sex marriages or even same-sex relationships. He intones 6 times against divorce and 12 times against adultery. Yet I am not aware of any proposed constitutional amendments to ban either of them, nor would I support them. What I also know is that he preached for love and acceptance and against hatred and discrimination. He said the great commandment was to love God and the second was like unto it, to love thy neighbor as thyself, not just your family member, not just your friend, but to love your neighbor, whoever happens to be living beside you, as you would yourself.
There is no love in this constitutional amendment. There is discrimination, and underneath discrimination lies judgment and hatred. Jesus said also to beware of false prophets and charlatans, the fake good doers. He said the way to tell the difference is that the true believers practice love, while the false prophets preach hate. That is why this amendment is un-Christian.
I'm confused. Or, actually, I think Sen. Dayton is confused. First, he says that since Jesus did not speak against same-sex marriage, he (Sen. Dayton) will not oppose same-sex marriage. But then, he says that even though Jesus did speak against divorce and adultery, he, Dayton, would not support a ban on those.
The Senator shows a lack of consistent logic. He first says we should legislate according to Jesus -- when it comes to same-sex marriage -- but then says he doesn't care what Jesus said when it comes to divorce and adultery.
Which is it, Sen. Dayton? Should we do what Jesus says or not?
Sen. Dayton seems to be saying that he really doesn't care what Jesus said. If Sen. Dayton had found 12 times when Jesus specifically spoke against same-sex unions, I can only assume that Sen. Dayton would still not favor this proposed amendment. So why should he be able to use a lack of comments to support his position?
Why did Sen. Dayton bring up the Bible in the first place? What's his point?
There are reasons to oppose a marriage amendment. Sen. Dayton's theological "argument" is hardly one of them.
Brotherly Love
Sen. Dayton tries to make the point that, if this amendment passed, aspiring same-sex marriage partners would apparently be the only people in the country facing any sort of "discrimination." Is he unaware that we have marriage laws prohibiting other unions, such as those between siblings or cousins?
Now, you'll say that those restrictions are a "public health" matter, that the government has an interest in trying to prevent birth defects that might result from close relatives procreating together. That particular concern is not relevant to a union of two men or two women.
Fair enough.
But it's also not relevant to a union between two first cousins -- or even two siblings -- of the same gender. Should two brothers or two sisters be allowed to marry each other? After all, they won't be able to have children. (At least not yet. Modern medicine might yet make that possible.) The same sort of civil rights arguments applied in favor of same-sex marriage would seem to apply to two brothers who wished to wed.
This gets to one of the scenarios I imagine in a world without boundaries on marriage. Say you've got two bachelor farmers, both getting up in years. Let's say one has military benefits, or some other sort of benefits his brother lacks. Could the brothers get married just so the second brother could share in the first brother's benefits?
(This should not be confused with two brothers who marry two sisters. One of my sets of grandparents was the result of two brothers who married two sisters. This confused me, because my grandmother's married name was the same as her sister's married name, so I figured they were sisters-in-law. Which they were, I guess, but they were sisters first and foremost. Another interesting tidbit: As the result of this I have some second-cousins who are second cousins via two family trees. I think that makes those second cousins as genetically close to me as first cousins.)
These Days,
Even Common Sense is "Controversial"
I just read a great column by Ann Coulter. (It's from April; you may have seen it already.)
What she writes here should be classified as common sense -- common sense we should all be able to agree about. But I'm sure there are plenty among us who would read this and reject it all. Mainly just because of who wrote it.
That we can't all agree -- that we don't seem to even want to be able to all agree -- shows what this country is up against.
Some Animals
Are More Equal Than Others
That headline comes, of course, from George Orwell's "Animal Farm," and refers to the way selfish actions can speak more loudly than high-minded words. If you're up for a little reading, here are a couple of interesting pieces that should be linked.
The first, by blogger Ace of Spades, explains how liberals like to think of themselves as intellectuals, which they think makes them superior to conservatives. And since they are intellectuals, of course their opinions are superior, they reason. But Ace of Spades explains that liberals think they are intellectuals merely because they accept the liberal party line. There seems to be some circular reasoning going on. (Not very intellectual, that.) And it seems like almost a matter of a religious belief. (Like someone deciding he is superior because he accepts certain religious beliefs, and then since he is superior, he self-righteously determines that his opinions must be right. As I've said before, people on the left and the right often demonstrate the same illogic.)
Ace of Spades does a great job putting into words what I have observed for myself. (Tip of the hat to Peg at whatif?)
The second is a news story about what's bothering the organic food community. It seems organic foods are getting more and more popular, and some of the true believers are bothered by this. It seems they've enjoyed having their own little counter-culture thing going on, and it's going to ruin it if the masses want to join in. Especially if the industry gets "corporate," which they hate. They've got too much political ideology woven into their menu planning.
The link here is elitism. Leftist elitism. We have on exhibit people who like to think they are superior to the masses. And they don't want to share their superiority, because they like to be better than everyone else.
Shouldn't the organic food disciples want the whole world to adopt their beliefs? Wouldn't that be a good thing? Even if it means changes in the organic food industry? Instead, it makes me think of Jesus' disciples saying, "This isn't good. Too many people are joining us. If this keeps up, we'll have to stop meeting under a shade tree and start meeting in a big building or something. Then we'd have to get all "corporate" and organized and everything. It just wouldn't be the same. So let's keep the Good News to ourselves from now on."
You're Having
Your Tonsils Out, Now Settle Down and Pay Attention
These days we seem to have an explosion of cases of kids diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. I don't know if they even had a name for it when I was a kid.
In comparison, when I was a kid, it was common to have your tonsils taken out. These days, I understand that is rare.
Interestingly, a study published in the April issue of the journal Pediatrics found that when ADHD children had their tonsils out, half of them no longer had ADHD when checked a year later.
Hmmmmm. Coincidence? Or something more?
It's a Man's
World, and I'll Drink to That
Sorry, ladies, but a study published in the medical journal BMJ reports that while men may lower their risk of heart disease by imbibing in one alcoholic drink every day, ladies need only one drink a WEEK for the same benefit.
The Pioneer Press on Sunday had a feature on how St. Paul public elementary schools are meeting the challenges that come with having a large percentage of low income students. While it's true that there is a connection between low income and low achievement, I think it's a mistake the way that people talk about this as a causal relationship, that is, students do poorly because they come from low income families.
Maybe that's true in some cases, but I think it's more common that low income and poor school performance are both symptoms of the same dysfunctions within the students' families.
What I'm saying is that poverty and poor school performance are two fruits of the same vine. The same unhealthy vine. Our education establishment, however, operates on the premise that poverty is the vine, and poor school performance is the fruit. They think that the key is spending more money to "fertilize" the poverty-stricken vine.
I say dig out the root. Address the dysfunctions at the root of both problems if you want to really help children and break the cycle of poverty and failure.
Relating to that, I came across an interesting quote regarding poverty, from the mind of Ben Franklin. Franklin wrote: "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." [On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor (November 29, 1766)]
I heartily believe that. But if someone could point that out more than 200 years ago, why do we still insist on doing just the opposite?
It's time to delve into my own psyche again. I'm wondering, Why do I feel an urge to come to the defense of the soldiers accused of killing Iraqi civilians, or to downplay the incident?
If true, this is a terrible event that is indefensible. Why would I want to defend it?
I think it's a political thing.
I think it's because I know there are those out there who want to use this one terrible event as an indictment of the entire war, the military in general, President Bush, and the entire Republican party. Because of that, I instinctively go into a defensive mode.
I'm succumbing to the urge to do what I criticize others for doing sometimes. Like the union that defends a union member who doesn't deserve defending, or the spokesman for some "community" who defends a "community" member who doesn't deserve defending.
But what happens to my opinion of that union or "community" spokesman in such an event? It doesn't do it any good when I see that person defending a criminal. I always think that we should all be able to agree that what the individual did was wrong, and that it's not an indictment of the entire union or "community."
It should be the same in this case. We should all be able to agree that soldiers intentionally killing civilians is indefensible; it shouldn't be a partisan matter. (With the exception, of course, of those Americans who have said, "Well, you can understand why Iraqis would want to kill Americans." I'm sure they will be understanding that these soldiers felt like shooting up some civilians after seeing their comrade killed by a roadside bomb. Or, maybe they won't.)
It relates to another question I've been meaning to write about: Why is it so hard for politicians to admit their mistakes?
And the answer again is because everything is politicized. If a politician admits a mistake, the opposition doesn't say, "Well, OK then, let's move on with the people's business." No, in politics, it's "Kick 'em when they're down!" If politicians see weakness, they start piling on. If somewhat admits a mistake, the opposition will move in for the kill. Politicians tend to be cowards that way. (Note how now that Bush's approval ratings are way down, other politicians from both parties are criticizing him more and more. Where were these brave statesmen when Bush's approval ratings where high? Standing right behind him, hoping to ride his coattails, of course.)
So, if President Bush comes out and says, "I made a bunch of mistakes," the response won't be, "Let's learn from those mistakes and move forward." Rather, it will be, "Even HE admits he was wrong! Impeach him!"
It's like being able to say "I'm sorry." If you say "I'm sorry," and your spouse always responds with, "Well, you should be! It was all your fault!" how often are you going to say "I'm sorry"?
Legends
Aren't Supposed to Be Real People
Why do I not like to see Barry Bonds passing Babe Ruth on the homerun list? It's not because some people think Bonds is a jerk. And it has nothing to do with the color of anyone's skin. I delved into my psyche, and I think I figured it out: It bursts my bubble. It's like if someone had convinced you that there is no Santa Claus -- he's really your parents. It shatters the myth.
And that's the key: myth. Because he lived before my time, Babe Ruth is almost a mythological figure in my mind. Was he a real man? Was Paul Bunyan? Who knows! Both are the stuff of legend. It doesn't matter whether they were real men or not. Both have become superhuman figures.
But Barry Bonds? He's just some flesh and blood (and steroids) human being. I see him on TV and in the newspapers. He's just a man. How can he replace a legend?
What a let-down.
Every Immigrant
a Wanted Immigrant
I've written before that we can draw some parallels between the abortion debate and the immigration debate, as well as share some terminology back and forth. For instance, I pointed out that a nation should have a "choice" about whether it becomes the "parent" to another immigrant. And I said that unborn babies should be referred to as "undocumented children," because they are merely lacking a piece of paper -- a birth certificate.
I've thought of some other examples. Instead of the bumper sticker reading, "Every child a wanted child," how about, "Every immigrant a wanted immigrant"? "Pro child, pro choice" could become "Pro immigrant, pro border control." And to borrow one going back the other way, "No person is 'illegal'" could become "No baby is 'unwanted.'"
Before SUVs,
Life Was a Crapshoot
The family visited a cemetery this morning, as we do every Memorial Day. It's a little, out-of-the-way country cemetery. Nothing fancy. No one famous is buried there. But it's interesting to walk around and study the gravestones. Some of them go back a ways.
If you study the dates and do some math, you'll note the Civil War veterans who couldn't have been more than 14 when they joined the fight. Or the family that lost several members in a few weeks' time, in what must have been some sort of epidemic. Or the mother and child who died on the same day -- the day the child was born.
This morning, my 10-year-old and I were studying a set of three small graves. They contained the earthly remains of three siblings:
Elof, 1896-1897
Adolf, 1898-1898
Edwin, 1899-1900
Can you imagine losing three infants in a span of 3-4 years? Life was tough a century ago.
I explained to my son that 100 years ago, it was common for babies and children to die, but now it's almost unheard of, thanks to amazing medical advances and vaccinations that prevent childhood disease. Sometimes the mother died in childbirth, too, I told him, but with modern medical care, that's now extremely rare.
And then, as I was noticing yet another young adult buried in what should have been the prime of life -- and not during a time of war, I should add -- I thought, Life was really a crapshoot just 100 years ago. Your first day on Earth might be your last. And if you made it through childhood, well, you could still go at anytime.
Think of how much better we've got it now.
Yet, there are those among us who insist these are the worst of times. We're destroying the planet! We don't have any time to waste! We're all doomed! Global warming, secondhand smoke, french fries -- there's always something to worry about.
But when you look at those tombstones... well, it sort of puts it all into perspective. When would you rather have your child be born? In 1896, before SUVs and global warming? Or in 2006?
Maybe we should be thankful we live in the modern world.
School Officials
Reveal Ultimate Fear
DOWNING NEWS NETWORK
News Best Taken with a Grain of
Salt
A six-year-old in a St. Paul school opened his Scooby-Doo backpack this week and pulled out a bag of marijuana. (Scooby-Doo? How appropriate.)
That followed another recent incident in St. Paul, in which a 5-year-old took a gun to his Head Start pre-school.
Where will this trend end? Can it get any worse? In an exclusive, school officials have disclosed to Downing World what they see as a worst-case scenario:
If something isn't done quickly, they fear that sooner or later, a child will open up his backpack and pull out.... a Bible.
Target Case
Hits Hypocrisy Bull's Eye
The St. Paul city council has finally given approval to Target Corporation to build a new store to replace its own existing store, on its own property, with its own money.
Why should that be so hard?
But as I pointed out before, certain forces both within and closely tied to city government had been holding up Target's plans, as they tried to use the new store -- and Target Corporation's money -- to implement their own liberal -- they would say "progressive" -- "vision" of how society should be.
Liberals like to talk about being "open-minded," "inclusive," "diverse," and "tolerant." But the Target fiasco shows them to be anything but. It was "my way or the highway" when it came to Target's plans for its own property and own money. They saw this an an opportunity to enforce their own beliefs on others. And they saw nothing wrong with this, because they are true believers in the righteousness of their cause.
But when people claim to be operating out of "principle," it's useful to try putting the shoe on the other foot. Hmmm... I wonder how it would work out if dominant forces in a city adhered to philosophies of a more conservative bent? Would the demands they made of a new store be considered just as valid?
What if conservative politicians and community groups demanded that Target conform to their particular "vision"? What if they demanded that the new store not be open on Sundays? What if they demanded that Target not offer benefits to unmarried partners? What if they demanded that the parking lot was striped with wider parking spots so as to better accommodate SUVs? What if they demanded that the store's sporting goods department sell guns, in support of the Second Amendment?
Now that would be news. And we know full well that those conservatives would be the subject of ridicule for "trying to force their beliefs on everyone else."
How is St. Paul's example really any different?
If only we could make a car that runs on hypocrisy. There would be no shortage of fuel then.
It's time for some follow up on yesterday's post (second post down) about the placement of two stories in the Pioneer Press. One, about a missing dog, made the front page. The other, about a boy left to drown by a pot-smoking babysitter, was on page 3. I wondered why they were treated as they were.
First, I'd like to add a few things:
One, while the story appeared yesterday because charges had just been brought against the babysitter, I overlooked that the boy died March 3. That could make it less "timely" in the opinion of some, but I don't know that it matters to me. After all, I don't think the alleged outrageous conduct of the babysitter had been made public prior to the charges being filed. (I'm sure that if it were disclosed today that Elvis had shot JFK, it would make every front page tomorrow, despite being 43-year-old news. Come to think of it, I'd be surprised if it hasn't made some front page already, if we're counting the supermarket tabloids.)
Two, a reader informs me that the story about the drowned boy did appear on the front page in his edition of the Pioneer Press.
Three, if it sounded like I was attacking the newspaper, it was the result of some of my anger at the babysitter being misdirected.
Four, the story about the drowned boy was added to the paper's Website today, after I inquired about it. I was told it should have been there all along, but it hadn't been coded properly. So it was a mistake. A high-tech "typo," if you will.
Five, it's not so much that I thought the missing dog story was overplayed, as I thought the drowned boy story was underplayed. I understand that a successful paper needs to mix its stories to attract readers, and unimportant but compelling human interest stories (or canine interest stories) are part of that. A paper needs to use both vinegar and sugar to catch readers.
And that's part of what Thom Fladung told me. Mr. Fladung is the editor of the Pioneer Press. That's right, THE editor, as in, the top dog. And he graciously took the time to give a personal response to my inquiry about why these stories ended up placed as they were. You see, while it's easy enough just to rant and complain, I really do want answers to my questions, so I asked Mr. Fladung if he could help me understand the process that went into placing these stories.
Mr. Fladung said three issues come into play in deciding how to handle stories: Uniqueness, timeliness, and reader interest. In this case, he judged this particular missing dog story to be especially unusual, and he judged the dog story to be more timely, as it was ongoing, and the ultimate resolution was still a mystery. (I'll post his complete response at the end of this post.) He said it then often comes down to gut instinct in judging reader interest. In this case, he thought the missing dog story would grab readers' attention, and as it was the second-most read story online that day, it looks like he was right.
So that's how the thought process went in the newsroom. Ultimately, it's a judgement call, and I think we can be certain that different editors would make different choices. I might have handled it differently, but Mr. Fladung is able to make a case for his decision.
Some lessons from this:
We're fortunate to have in St. Paul an editor who will give a personal response to the concerns of someone as relatively unimportant as I am. Also, this illustrates that "the media" isn't some faceless, monolithic, all-knowing institution. It's made up of real people, who can make mistakes, and who make arbitrary judgements based on their own gut reactions or personal preferences -- just as the rest of us do. But rather than just complain, we must remember that we can speak up. In the process, we can learn something, and we have the opportunity to help "the media" do their job better.
Second, this illustrates how easy it is to jump to conclusions and make allegations, if that's your mindset. I didn't really think race had anything to do with the placement of these stories, or the fact that one couldn't be found on the Website. Rather, I was illustrating how easily such a charge can be made in the event of an innocent mistake. (Remember the flap over the U of M misspelling the name of former Gophers football great Sandy Stephens, and how quickly the usual suspects jumped in front of a microphone to claim it was because he was black?)
Finally, here's Mr. Fladung's response to my inquiry:
You raise a classic question. As you note, there's no question from anyone that a small child's death is more "important" than a missing dog. So why, then, did the dog story run more prominently than the drowned baby? Why, for that matter a story about the Valleyfair coaster breaking down or the story about people who collect art or virtually any of the stories that ran more prominently than a dead young child?
For argument's sake, I'll keep it to the dog vs. child debate your raised.
For me, you also have to factor in a couple of other key elements:
1. Unusual or unique aspects about the story.
2. Timeliness. When did the event happen? And what's happening now?
3. Reader interest -- particularly how readers can relate personally to a story and if there's something they can do about it.
Let's take them in that order:
1. Unfortunately, stories about child abuse or child deaths are not all that unusual. Certainly, nor are lost animals. So, in this case, the unusual aspects are the allegations about the adult smoking pot that led to the death. And, in the case of the dog, the owners' extraordinary efforts to get the dog back, which included cutting short a trip to Japan to return and search and offering a $2,000 reward. That is quite unusual.
2. The lost dog was happening right then. The child's drowning was in March, with the criminal charges being the current time hook.
3. Here's where gut instinct starts to come into play. Lots of people have pets and have had pets run away. It's not hard to imagine yourself in the place of the people who lost the dog and desperately want it back. I find it hard to imagine myself in the place of someone who had lost a child under the circumstances described. The dog story also has the urgency of something happening now -- and the remaining hope that this can turn out well. One of the most frequent -- and justified -- criticisms of newspapers is that we're filled with stories that provide no sense of hope or possibility. Just a depressing drumbeat of unsolvable problems. The child story, sadly, can leave a reader feeling hopeless and unable to imagine doing anything to help this situation.
Those are the specifics in this case. I also apply a broad set of measures to help decide what stories receive more prominence -- particularly front-page prominence. What is front-page news? Most often, I think, it is news that I didn't know about that affects those essential parts of my life: My family, my health, my community, my safety, my money. Information about fascinating people I would otherwise not meet often meets that test. Information about the unusual -- the weird, the wacky, the funny -- that gives me something to talk about also is a test. Pioneer Press news judgment also puts a premium on local news -- news from and about my community -- that cannot be found anywhere else.
Finally, again in the case of the dog story, we know a bit about reader interest -- at least on-line. On twincities.com that day, it was the second-most read story.
I think the dog story was played appropriately.
What About
the Toys I Already Bought You?
I took my kids to swimming lessons tonight, and by coincidence, there was a public hearing about light rail transit going on at the same time in the same building. I stopped by for a bit to hear what people had to say. I was told that more than 100 people had signed up to speak for or against a light rail line on University Avenue.
I'm in favor of mass transit. And I like trains, whether real, model, or toy. But I'm having a hard time getting onboard light rail. I don't think people are asking the right questions. It isn't really a question of whether or not a train would be a nice thing to have. It would be. But the real question is whether it is worth the $840 million it purportedly will cost. Is light rail the best use -- or even a good use -- of $840 million in public money that otherwise could be used for some other public good?
I really don't know the answer to that. Of course, no one does. The proof is in the pudding -- or in the riding, as the case may be.
But I'm not being convinced by many of the arguments being put forth by proponents. Beware someone trying to sell you something with "straw man" selling points. For instance, you wouldn't let a salesman talk you into buying a new bicycle just because the new bicycles have bells. You could just buy a bell for your existing bicycle. And you wouldn't buy a new house just to gain a dishwasher. You could have a dishwasher professionally installed in your current house for less than you'd pay in miscellaneous closing fees. Still, a spokesman for the Minnesota Twins said the other day that when the team's new (publically financed) stadium opens in 2010, fans will be able to enjoy "better food."
What, exactly, is preventing better food from being offered right now? Does it require hundreds of millions of dollars of concrete and steel just to offer "better food" to the fans?
But I feel like that's what some of the light rail proponents are doing. They talk about the benefits of mass transit in general. Or they talk about benefits of the train, but ignore that those same benefits could be achieved by making changes to the existing bus service. (Dedicated bus lanes, better wheelchair access, limited stop express service, etc.)
But what really makes me want to bang my head against the wall is when people say, "I don't ride the bus, but I would ride the train."
It reminds me of the way the kids always "need" a new toy, because they're already bored with the one they got last week. "I'm not going to buy you another new toy; you don't even play with the one I bought you last week," I tell them. "This is different," they reply, "We really will play with this one!"
Yeah, right.
I heard some comments tonight from people who say they won't ride the bus, but would ride the train. One fellow said he had lived in New York and Boston and hadn't owned a car until he moved to St. Paul. But he didn't ride the bus in New York or Boston, he said, only the trains. Here in the Twin Cities, he won't ride the bus, he added, but he would ride the train.
I wanted to shout out, "WHY won't you ride the bus?!"
Maybe we could find out why people won't ride the bus, and spend that $840 million to fix those problems. Heck, maybe we could use that $840 million to make bus rides FREE. Then watch ridership go up!
Sometimes, a person wonders how newspapers go about choosing how they will play the stories they encounter every day. Tuesday was such a day, as the St. Paul Pioneer Press carried two local "babysitter nightmare" stories of the kind that might make parents vow never to leave home again.
One story, inside on page 3, told of a two-year-old child -- Tyshawn Tyrone Tate -- who was placed in the bathtub by his babysitter, then drowned while the sitter was out in the garage smoking dope. The supposed babysitter -- Trynille Felder -- is a convicted felon. This story got about 20 column-inches of coverage. (I'd give you a link to read this story on the paper's website, but I can't find it there. I guess it isn't important enough to post.) I see no follow-up story in today's paper.
[UPDATE 5/25: The story is now online. I'm told it hadn't been coded properly, and it should have been there all along.]
The second "babysitter nightmare" story made the front page of the same "local news" section. It told of a couple who had gone on a trip to Japan and left their little one in the charge of a sitter. But the little one had run off and gone missing during an outing with the sitter. This story received about 27 column-inches of coverage, beginning on the front page and jumping inside.
Today there is a follow-up story, reporting that the little one has been found. The story is on page 8, but it is promoted by a photo on the front page. Together, they give about 22 column inches to this story.
Oh, did I mention that the "little one" is a dog?
How does a missing dog get so much more attention than a dead child? A dead child killed by the actions of the drug-using felon who was supposed to be caring for him? Isn't that A STORY!? Not as much as a missing dog, evidently.
I'm usually the last one to go down this road, but you have to wonder what role it plays that the dog is owned by a prominent local attorney, while the dead child was a "nobody," and I'm guessing, not caucasian.
Who's going to care for you in your old age? That's the question that's at the heart of both one of my own "crackpot" theories, and a recent business column by the Pioneer Press' Dave Beal.
Beal's column is built around a presentation given in the Twin Cities recently by Jeremy Siegel, a highly-regarded finance professor from the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. It points out that Siegel continues to preach the supremacy of the stock market as an investment tool, but also asks, as the demographic-bulging Baby Boomers begin selling their stock in retirement, will there be enough buyers? Or will stock prices collapse as all that stock floods the market?
This relates to my own theory that people who don't have children are economic "freeloaders." I'll try to explain:
I came up with this concept in reaction to those letters to the editor from people who say "I shouldn't be taxed for schools, because I don't have any kids," or "There shouldn't be any tax breaks for children; if you can't afford to have children, don't have any."
These folks can get pretty sanctimonious with their sense of superiority because they don't have children. But they got me thinking: The world needs children! If you don't have any, you should be glad someone else does.
At it's most basic, we can say that children are needed so that a society will continue. That should be obvious. And we can say that others helped send you to school; now it's your turn to pay it back. But maybe Mr. Childless says he doesn't give a hoot whether society continues. What then? Then I'd ask him, Who's going to take care of you in your old age?
Traditionally, people depended on their children to care for them in their old age. (Both financially, and in terms of the actual physical care.) Mr. Childless may think he has the answer for that: "I've invested my money; I don't need anyone to care for me." OK, you're planning ahead, good. But who's going to change your diaper, if it comes to that? "I've got long-term care insurance. That will pay for people to take care of me."
Sounds like he's got it all figured out.
But we're back to that question of, If people aren't having children at the rate they once did, who's going to buy his stock? And there's a second question: Who's going to work in the nursing home? If we take it to the extreme, and imagine that everyone in an entire generation in the entire U.S. of A. decides not to have any children, we can see that this plan is doomed to failure. We'll all end up lying around unattended in nursing homes, trying to diaper ourselves in worthless stock certificates.
Somebody, somewhere, had better be having children.
And what it comes down to, as Siegel points out, is somewhere. While there may not be enough U.S. stock buyers to absorb the Boomer sell-off, Siegel says that people from China, India, and other developing nations will.
And the nursing home workers? Well, I think the current immigration debate illustrates where they will come from. That means both the stock buyers and the workers will need to come from other countries.
Now, I don't mean to be critical of those who don't have children. No one should have children if they don't want children. And I realize that some people want children but can't have them. They have nothing to apologize for.
I'm just pointing out that those who don't have children shouldn't act superior, and claim that they are "subsidizing" those who do. The fact is, as a nation, as a society, as a world, we need children. Someone had better have them. If you don't want any, be glad someone else does.
Here's a quick one for you to think about: Consider the current public debate over "The DaVinci Code," and then ask yourself, How might the debate be different if instead of attacking the Roman Catholic church, someone had written a best-selling work of FICTION depicting icons of another institution -- let's say the civil rights movement -- as conspirators, liars and traitors?
Target Opponents
Completely Off the Board
The retro-gressive, anti-development forces opposing Target Corporation's redevelopment of its existing store site in St. Paul's Midway neighborhood are driving me nuts. Yesterday was supposed to be the day that the St. Paul City Council finally approved Target's plan -- a plan for Target to replace its existing Target store with a more modern SuperTarget store, on land that Target owns, and without public subsidy. This plan has been revised over-and-over again to please opponents, who don't want a successful company to be allowed to invest its own money on its own land. Rather, they want to enforce and bring about their own Utopian vision, using other people's money.
And at yesterday's council meeting, they succeeded once again. They brought up more demands and objections, and a decision was put off for yet another week.
I think it's great that Target wants to invest in the central city, and keep its store here on par with those in the suburbs. Many central cities would love to be in this position.
So why the opposition? Let's look at who is leading it.
First, there are left-wing fundamentalists who hate big stores and automobiles with a passion. They have a religious passion for "transit-oriented development." They insist that every development must be done in a way designed to support a light-rail line which might be built someday. These people would ban cars and big stores completely if they could. That's their real agenda. They talk about "the community" and "investment" and such, but that's just a smoke screen. They are anti-car and anti-corporation. They will cling to any excuse they can in order to try to bring about their ultimate goal: elimination of private cars and big stores. (Similar to the way I've noted that anti-gun people push "public safety" measures and anti-abortion people try to "protect women's health." We know what their real goals are.)
Read this piece by Target opponent Brian McMahon, which appeared in yesterday's Pioneer Press. It drips with elitism, condescension, and we-know-what's-best-for-you. (It was paired with a counterpoint by a Target executive.)
Then, there's the labor union. Target is a non-union store. SuperTarget includes a grocery store along with the conventional Target discount store. That irks the union that represents grocery workers in other big-box grocery stores in the neighborhood. The union worries that if people buy their groceries at SuperTarget, that will cut business at the other grocers, and will result in job losses at the union stores.
Let's think about that. Why would people switch to buying groceries at SuperTarget? Somewhat for convenience, but most likely, because the prices would be lower. So, what this comes down to is, the union wants low-income people in the Midway to continue to pay higher prices for groceries, in order to line the pockets of union members.
I thought unions were supposed to be for the "little guy."
(Interestingly, today's paper shows a photo of union leader Bernie Hesse, of the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 789, at a demonstration outside of Target corporate headquarters. Hesse is joined by someone who appears to be a clergyman, in dark suit and white collar. What happened to "separation of church and state"? I guess it doesn't apply if you can use the church to push a liberal agenda.)
A complaint about Target's plan is that it isn't a "high density" development, because it leaves too much parking space. But why does the store need a large parking lot? Because it is a large, successful store, and it hosts a lot of customers. Target is a HIGH DENSITY development. It's busy with customers from early in the morning until late at night. Money is spent there in a HIGH DENSITY manner. Maybe opponents need to be more inclusive in their understanding of what "high density" means.
Another complaint is that the new store will be too far from University Avenue, and it will be hard (and unsafe) for bus riders to walk to the store. Here's an easy fix for that: have the bus loop pass the front door to the Target store. I've seen buses leave the street to service senior citizen high rises or shopping centers. That would be nothing new.
That brings us to the complaint about Target not being "transit-oriented development" that fits in with the vision for light rail transit. Consider this: the Target site is one-half mile from the nearest planned stop for the proposed light rail line. Whatever is built there, it's not going to be very convenient for train riders.
This Target redevelopment is great for St. Paul. Let's get it done.
Just Like
Everyone Else, or Not?
This may be another slide down the slippery slope, or it may just be something that makes no sense.
A bill is working its way through the California legislature, which would require the state's public schools to teach the sexual orientation of historical figures. Advocates say this is to give gays and lesbians their due, and so that the children will know that gays and lesbians are contributing members of society. Social science courses would include "an age-appropriate study" of the "role and contributions" that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people have made to the "economic political and social development" of California and the United States.
But is this progress? Or a step backward?
I thought the message we had been getting was that gays and lesbians are no different from anyone else, except for one little, personal detail, and that doesn't matter. But now, supposed "gay advocates" would have people who have made important contributions to society defined by their sexual orientation, rather than be known for the strength of their accomplishments, regardless of their sexual preference.
I ask again, Is that progress? Does an inventor who merits mention for her invention -- and also happens to be a lesbian -- really want her sexual life to become part of the history book, too? And who will make the decision regarding whom to "out" in the text books? If everyone "knows" so-and-so is gay, will the textbook say so, even if he has never publicly mentioned his sexuality?
And what about figures from the past? It seem there's always someone trying to "out" Abe Lincoln or other figures for present-day political purposes. Who's going to decide which historical figures should be brought out of the closet in the new textbooks?
I know there have been efforts to bring Blacks and women into the history books, but that's because their femaleness or race actually had prevented them from getting due credit (either as a group, or in cases where white, male colleagues took all the credit). I'm not aware that sexual orientation has prevented people from claiming their place in history if they earned it through their accomplishments.
The bill's author says an example of its effect is that a teacher talking about poet Langston Hughes would mention that he was not just a black poet, but a gay poet, as well.
So what? Has being gay ever prevented a poet from getting recognized? I didn't know that Langston Hughes was gay, and I don't care. What's the big deal?
Here's an idea: Let's treat everyone as a person, not as a member of a victims' group. Let's just write about people for what they have done to make themselves noteworthy, and let's leave out the other stuff, unless it's crucial to the story. For example, a woman being the first to succeed in a male-dominated field, a black man who overcomes overt racism to succeed, or a heterosexual man who wins a Tony Award. Otherwise, let's just treat people as people.
Because if we don't, then where does this end? We could require textbooks to point out that someone is/was fat, anorexic, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, tall, short, bald or just about anything, if we wanted children to learn that members of each group are contributing members of society.
The LA Times story notes that California "schools are already required to teach the historical and social roles of blacks, women, Native Americans, Latinos, Asians and other ethnic groups."
But how about Christians? Isn't a big part of the story of the European settlement of North America and the ultimate creation of the U.S. linked to Christian groups escaping persecution and forming colonies? Are California textbooks allowed to ignore that? I'm guessing, yes.
U.S. Hockey
Hall of Fame in St. Paul?
The long-struggling U.S. Hockey Hall of Fame has closed in Eveleth, Minnesota, and its future is uncertain. A move to St. Paul would seem to make sense, and some city leaders are getting on the bandwagon.
Having the U.S. Hockey Hall of Fame in St. Paul sounds like a natural. But let's make sure it gets done right.
One councilman is talking about putting the Hall on the Eastside, home of Gold Medal Olympic Coach the late Herb Brooks. The Eastside sounds like a sentimental favorite. But sentiment can't be allowed to dictate a location. Remember, Eveleth -- once the epicenter of Minnesota hockey -- was a sentimental favorite. How'd that work out?
I think the Hall needs to be adjacent to the Xcel Energy Center, home of the NHL Minnesota Wild, so that people will go there on their way to, or after, the Wild games. There's an empty patch of land right across the street from the "X." How to best use it has been a subject of debate for many years. How about that?
A new building across from the "X" would be awesome. The Hall could feature special events and speakers that would bring fans in before the game. The story in today's paper says the Hall has been getting only 10,000 visitors a year. If each Wild season ticket holder went just once a year before or after a game, that would be more than 10,000 right there.
The Wild would want to be a big part of this. Along with season tickets, they could promote Hockey Hall of Fame memberships, so their season ticket holders could attend repeatedly without having to pay admission each time, and perhaps get admittance to special events at the Hall not open to everyone (meeting Hall of Famers, etc.).
This could be a great opportunity for St. Paul, but it has to be done right. We need to put the Hall some place where it will naturally be filled with hockey fans. Don't put it somewhere people will consider "out of the way" or "inconvenient." (Whether that assessment is fair or not.) Put it where hockey fans are, and they will come.
In addition, locating the U.S. Hockey Hall of Fame in St. Paul offers plenty of partnering opportunities. The college hockey WCHA regularly holds its post-season tournament at the "X." A section in the Hall devoted to the WCHA is a natural. Also, the Minnesota state high school hockey tournament is held every year at the "X." This would be a great opportunity for the Hall to work with the High School League to offer a first-rate exhibit on the high school tournament. That would bring a crowd into the Hall every spring.
The Hall should also serve as Hockey Central: This should be the place for hockey events: banquets, awards ceremonies, etc.
A new Hall could be part of a larger development, including a coffee place and maybe a restaurant, to generate more traffic and attract interest. This could serve hockey fans as well as downtown workers. (And those attending any other events at the X.) Get people in off the street, and they'll be tempted to tour the Hall.
My fellow Twin Cities writer Craig Westover has joined in questioning the "vision" the powers-that-be have for the development of St. Paul. In a column that appeared in Sunday's Pioneer Press and can be found on Craig's blog, he questions the notion that "the community" can plan St. Paul's future:
Unfortunately, as philosopher/novelist Ayn Rand noted, there is no such entity as "the community." Every community is merely an aggregate of individuals. So, when collective benefits happen to conflict with individual interests, the latter must be sacrificed to wishes of those in power. It cannot be any other way. Notwithstanding, the effort is made to convince us otherwise by promoting the illusion of a common community vision.
I agree that there is not a "community" vision. There are individuals, and there are groups. And there are certain groups that like to think of themselves as "the community" and toss that word about, but the truth is they represent only one (usually pretty extreme) end of the political spectrum. I've heard some of them say that they like St. Paul's new mayor because he is "inclusive." But that's not the word for it. What they really mean is they like that he appears ready to take orders from the liberal wing of the city's Democrats and listen to the Greens, while returning to the longstanding St. Paul policy of ignoring conservatives and business interests. For the past 12 years, St. Paul operated under mayors who were not puppets of the liberal Democrats. That greatly offended the liberals, who think it is their birthright to have all the power to themselves. Inclusive? They are anything but.
You Can't
Make It Up Fast Enough
OK, I was joking about the homestead-in-Russia scheme. But at the Russian music concert at church last night, I was informed by someone in the know that Chinese people are already moving to Russia so they can have more than the one child the Chinese communist government allows.
Who knew?!
Concert
Tonight -- and It's Russian!
In keeping with the Russian theme, tonight is the night for the Balalaika concert at my church in St. Paul. It starts at 7:00 pm, at Calvary Lutheran Church, 341 Hamline Ave. So. Church phone is 651-698-6138. Admission is free; your donations support the Christian Center in Petrozavodsk, Russia.
Get complete concert info, and view a map to the church, at http://www.calvarystpaul.org/concerts.html
Better than
the United Nations
I was discussing my Mexicans-to-Russia idea with my learned associate Professor Theo this morning, and we decided that Putin could extend his offer to Chinese families who want to have multiple children. (China is worried about overpopulation, and allows only one child per family.) Maybe these modern-day homesteaders could be offered 80 hectares of land.
This idea would help four nations at once: Russia gets more population; Chinese people get to have multiple children, but they don't add to overpopulation in China; Mexicans get new opportunities in a new land; and the U.S. gets some relief from illegal immigration.
With this one idea, we've helped more countries than the United Nations has in 60 years.
Russia,
the Land of Opportunity
According to a New York Times report by C.J. Chivers, Russia is desperate to reverse its population decline: (Sorry, doesn't seem to be an online link available. The New York Times has become very protective in that way.)
President Vladimir Putin directed parliament on Wednesday to adopt a 10-year program to stop the sharp decline in Russia's population, principally by offering financial incentives and subsidies to encourage women to have children.
Hmmm. You know, when a growing United States needed people to drive its growth, railroads, land companies, and steamship companies advertised in Europe, looking to attract downtrodden people looking for a land of opportunity where they could start a new, better life.
I'm thinking, maybe Russia should take out some ads in Mexico. The Bear could offer Mexicans a place to immigrate legally.
I saw an interesting juxtaposition of newspaper stories recently. Sunday's Pioneer Press had a story about the impact of same-sex marriage on our neighbors to the north. Canada has offered same-sex marriages for more than a year.
The story said that same-sex marriage in Canada generally had had little impact on broader society. In pointing out that the change had done no harm, the story a couple of times dismissively reported that some people claim that with same-sex marriage legal, schools will soon be required to teach kids about homosexuality.
That was very interesting, because the same newspaper, one day earlier, had run this story, about a Massachusetts school that sends a book about a gay family home with kindergartners in a "diversity book bag." That had drawn the ire of some parents, who contend that it is their job to teach their children about such things.
But in Massachusetts, the only state where same-sex marriage exists, officials say that same-sex marriage is a part of everyday life, so they need to teach about it.
"It strengthens the argument that we need to teach about gay marriage because it's more of a reality for our kids," said Lexington school superintendent Paul Ash.
Sounds to me like the fears so readily dismissed in the Manitoba story are already a reality in Massachusetts.
This issue illustrates two things. First, the "slippery slope" is a reality, and people know it. It's human nature that people are never satisfied with getting a little of what they want. And in the political arena, people are usually after more than what they initially are able to get. And this applies to both the left and the right. Abortion restrictions aren't really about protecting women's health; they're about ultimately banning abortion. Gun restrictions aren't really about public safety; they're about ultimately banning guns. And you must be high if you believe that all the advocates of medical marijuana are really concerned about relieving Grandma's pain; some are just after legal dope for themselves.
In the case of same-sex marriage, we see that the marriage itself isn't the ultimate goal. What advocates are pursuing is official recognition and approval of homosexuality. One way of gaining that is by having the government schools educate the young ones about the right way to think.
Second, we see here how once something is made a "right," the next move is to insist that the government has an obligation to provide that "right" to people. The argument in Massachusetts seems to be that since same-sex marriage is legal, the government now has an obligation to promote it.
In the current Minnesota legislative session, our elected representatives are debating whether to change a state law that says since abortion is a "right," the state must pay for it when a woman can't pay herself. That law is really strange, because the Constitution clearly gives us the right to own guns, for instance, but no one ever suggests that the government has an obligation to buy guns for the poor. And the Constitution gives us the explicit right to freedom of the press, but there's no government program to publish political tracts by low-income agitators.
Lies, Damn
Lies, and Newspaper Comics
This is an example of what I usually see on the comics page of the daily newspaper: direct, not at all subtle attacks on Republicans. Now, this guy is entitled to his opinion about the proper size of government and the efficacy of cutting taxes to spur efficiency and the elimination of waste. But he shouldn't lie.
That was followed the next day by:
It is absolutely a lie to portray the idea of "starving the beast" as an attempt to make government agencies unable to "function properly" so that they can't help people. That's nonsense. Government bureaucracies naturally grow fat during times of easy funding, becoming inherently wasteful and bloated. If the bureaucracy never faces "lean times," it never has an incentive to take a look at itself in a mirror and rethink its spending habits. It won't go on a diet if it doesn't have to.
So the idea of "starving the beast" is to make the bureaucracy take a good look at itself, and cut out the fat. In the past couple of years, we've had some good examples of how effective that can be here in Minnesota. Cuts in state funding to local governments have forced cities to find better ways of doing things. For example, faced with the prospect of paying for it themselves after years of counting on money from the state, two St. Paul suburbs decided they didn't really need the luxury of each having their own paid fire departments, and decided to combine forces, saving hundreds of thousands of dollars.
I wonder what this cartoonist would think of a cartoon like this:
1966: The Democrats in Congress and the White House are creating an entire system of "Great Society" programs -- making the poor and minorities perpetually dependent on the government by institutionalizing poverty, segregating minorities on government-owned urban "reservations," and letting the government take the traditional role of the father in black families, destroying them so that soon most black children will be born out of wedlock and grow up without a father.
Pretty funny, eh?
The point is, that's a lie, too. While it's my opinion that I've accurately described the result of these programs, it's not fair to say that this was what their backers intended them to do.
(However, it might be fair to say that, with 40 years of evidence, anyone who continues to think we can "solve" social ills by throwing even more money into the same failed programs either really must want this result, or is really, really stupid.)
I've criticized our current crop of journalists for doing too much he says/she says reporting, and not doing enough of finding the facts and sharing them with us, so it's nice to see when a reporter goes beyond just repeating what the two sides have to say on a story, and gathers some information on his own.
David Goldstein did that with this story, spurred by the fuss over the new, Spanish-language version of the "Star Spangled Banner." Critics have said it is outrageous, but Goldstein found that a Spanish language version has has already been available on the Library of Congress website for the past two years. And get this, it was produced by the U.S. Bureau of Education. Way back in 1918.
Goldstein notes that the Library of Congress also offers versions in Polish, French, Italian, Portugese, and Armenian, among others.
Verrrrrry interesting.
So that settles it then, right? There's no reason to be bothered by this new Spanish version.
Not so fast.
I see a difference between a translation, officially offered by the government, and intended as a learning tool to help those who wish to become new Americans, and a "replacement" version -- which seems to have its own agenda -- created by the newcomers themselves, for their own purposes.
That's really the key -- who decides to do the translating. The anthem belongs to the nation, so the nation should have the say on authorizing variations on the standard English-language version. When it appears that the anthem tampering is being done by or on the behalf of non-citizens, and even illegal aliens, it seems like someone is out of line.
It's the job of the government -- the government by and for the citizens -- to make those decisions.
Someone's
Always the "un-American" New Guy
Friday morning I saw some sombrero-topped kids pouring out of one of the local Catholic elementary schools, and I remembered that it was Cinco de Mayo. I doubt that any of those kids were of Mexican heritage, so the school must have taken it upon itself to observe the day and educate the kids about it.
And that's fine. Just fine. Can we get that out of the way up front? It's just fine that they did that.
But, it got me thinking, as just about everything does.
It's fine that non-Mexicans celebrate Cinco de Mayor. You don't have to be Irish to celebrate St. Patrick's Day. (Although I'm sure you can't in a public school; separation of church and state, and all of that. And the Italian-Americans' beloved Columbus Day is now ignored, as it has been judged politically-incorrect.)
But while the non-Irish may celebrate St. Patrick's Day just because it's an excuse for a party, it feels to me as though Anglo-Americans are under pressure to observe Cinco de Mayor as a sort of obligation -- an obligation due to white guilt and the political correctness of "diversity."
PRESERVING IDENTITY
It's as though the schools and press feel we are required to make sure that no group goes unnoticed. Because it would be a terrible thing for any minority group to lose its identity, right? These days we talk about the American "salad bowl" instead of the "melting pot."
And sending Indian children to Anglo schools, forcing them to speak English, and giving them English names, that was wrong, right? And interring all those Japanese-Americans during WWII -- how could we have done that?
It would be terrible to be stripped of your heritage, and to be singled out and picked on because of your ethnic heritage. I have to remember that, because as a generic "white" person, I don't know what it's like.
OR DO I?
One thing we never seem to talk about is German-American history. In Minnesota, we're always talking (bragging?) about our Scandinavian heritage. (And Swedish seems to be the most prestigious. Saying "I'm 100% Swedish" is equivalent to East Coast bluebloods saying "My family came over on the Mayflower." Never mind that the Swedes oppressed the Norwegians until 100 years ago, and then collaborated with the Nazis. But I digress.)
But according to the census, German is the heritage claimed by the highest percentage of Minnesotans. So why don't we hear more about our German heritage?
It's very simple. WWI and WWII. In the 20th century, being German became very politically incorrect. German-Americans were accused of being un-American, so they tried to distance themselves from their heritage. Some changed their names to something that didn't sound so German. Some businesses changed their German-sounding names. Even towns settled by German Immigrants changed their German names to something sounding more patriotic.
Despite all of this, some German-Americans were interred in camps during WWII, just like the Japanese-Americans were. Yet we don't hear about this. Under WWI-era sedition laws, German-Americans who dared speak in opposition to the war were sent to prison. If they were lucky. Others were terrorized or kidnapped and lynched by vigilante gangs. Yet we don't hear about that. (Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer recently pardoned 78 men imprisoned for WWI-era sedition. Read about their "crimes" here. Boy, when those modern-day war opponents say that their free speech has been taken away, Bush is fascist, and all dissent has been suppressed, they don't know what they are talking about.)
Once upon a time, German culture permeated America. According to a program I saw on PBS -- yes, PBS -- prior to WWI there was a major German-American holiday that was widely celebrated in the U.S. -- much as St. Patrick's Day is now -- but it was dropped like a mustard gas shell during WWI. (I don't recall the name of it, but it may have been "Mai Fest," celebrated on the first weekend of May.)
Here's a newspaper story I've been meaning to get to for several months. I finally found a tie-in. It tells about the WWII internment of German-Americans, and about the TRACES museum in St. Paul, which tells the story of this overlooked wartime atrocity. Here's a tantalizing excerpt from Alex Friedrich's story in the St. Paul Pioneer Press:
Law enforcement officials in the Twin Cities helped the U.S. government arrest 11,000 German-Americans and nationals during World War II, held many without trial for years in internment camps and deported some to fend for themselves in wartime Germany, a new St. Paul museum exhibit shows.
Hidden on the second floor of the Landmark Center -- itself the site of a number of the interrogations -- the four-month-old TRACES Center for History and Culture tells how wartime hysteria almost destroyed some American lives. Under government orders, families were split up, breadwinners lost their jobs and homeowners lost their houses.
It's a little-known story. So far it has largely gone unacknowledged by Congress, which has apologized for the wartime internment of 120,000 Japanese-Americans and nationals.
Why isn't this more widely known? I think it's because there has been no strong German-American lobby demanding victim status. There has been no long line of German-Americans with their hands out, wanting victim status and demanding something from the government. German-Americans haven't blamed "discrimination" against their ancestors for their present-day problems. They've been getting on with their lives, with most unaware that they are "victims."
And that includes me. My mother's side is 100% German-American. That makes me half German. (And 1/4 English, 1/4 Swedish, if you're counting.)
MY POINT
But my point is that I don't demand to be considered a victim. Because I'm not. The unfair treatment my German-American ancestors or some other German-Americans may have received is not a handicap in my life.
So are the sins of the past really such a handicap for members of other groups who play the victim today?
Can't we leave the grudges of the past behind and get on with the future?
GERMANS WERE A "THREAT," LIKE MEXICANS TODAY
We must constantly remind ourselves that there is little new in the world. At present, we hear a lot of concern that the influx of Mexican immigrants will "change" America, so that it isn't America anymore. Some interesting German-American histories I found on the Web show that the same sort of thing was said about German immigrants. And I'll bet it was said about the Irish, and the Italians, too.
And the Germans did change America. One lasting way, is that they gave us the Christmas customs we still practice. They gave us the Christmas tree, and many of our other common decorating and celebrating customs, which have been adopted by all sorts of hyphenated-Americans.
Other groups brought and shared their customs. And we should be glad. Would you want to live in an America without Pizza and Chinese food? Would you want to live in an America without Christmas trees? (And, no, you wouldn't have a "holiday" tree, either.)
I've just learned that Sen. Edward Kennedy has a dog named "Splash." That's the Sen. Kennedy who infamously drove off a bridge and then left Mary Jo Kopechne to drown in the river. That's pretty creepy.
I've got to wonder what would happen if President Bush got a cat and named it Katrina. I'll bet he'd be pilloried for his "insensitivity." And contrary to what many Bush-haters would have you believe, he didn't even drive that storm into New Orleans.
It's my belief that many of the Great Society social programs of the last 40 years have not solved the problems they were created to solve, but instead have worsened and institutionalized those social problems. But liberals continue to see the solution as spending even more money on more of the same discredited policies.
That has led me to come up with a new definition for a liberal:
A liberal is someone who finds himself at the bottom of a hole, and demands that the government buy him an even bigger shovel.
--------
Happy Cinco de Mayo. I've got something to write about that, but no time to get it done today. It'll have to wait until tomorrow.
Light Rail
a Case of the Tail Wagging the Dog
I like trains -- both real ones and model ones. And I believe in mass transit. (I used to take the bus when I worked downtown -- it made sense.) But I continue to fear that a light rail system in the Twin Cities is just a huge waste of money.
Supporters like to point to the first leg of the proposed system, and say it is a great success. They like to brag that ridership is up 50 percent over what was expected, and then just let people make the mistaken inference that this means the thing is profitable. But far from it. The initial projected ridership didn't represent a "break even" point, which a for-profit business would have to think it could reach before it went ahead with the project. It was just a number that proponents thought was attainable, but still sounded big enough to impress the people doling out the money.
But even with this "huge" ridership, the thing doesn't come close to supporting itself. It doesn't pay its own operating expenses, and never will. There was never any expectation that it would. And don't forget the nearly $1 billion spent just to build the thing. (You'll notice they talk a lot about ridership numbers, but not revenue. Maybe that's because riders are basically on the honor system when it comes to paying.)
Now, the push is on for the next leg of the system, a track down University Avenue from downtown St. Paul to downtown Minneapolis. Here's where the train seems like a case of the tail wagging the dog.
St. Paul mayor Chris Coleman has said that nothing will get built on University Avenue unless it is "transit friendly." That seems to mean everything must be built right up to the street -- parking lots are bad, because then people might be encouraged to drive -- and must employ or house people in great density. The idea seems to be to force University Avenue to become the sort of place that "needs" light rail, thus making the case that it must be built, and ensuring its "success" when eventually built. At the same time, the light rail line is being billed as a tool to bring about the revival of University Avenue. It's a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.
It's also a case of the tail wagging the dog, trying to force development that will bring about a rail line to serve it. If we'd just let the Avenue develop the way it wants to, we might find out that there's no need for the light rail line, and we could save a billion dollars.
And University Avenue is already going through a revival, without light rail. Developers continue to bring proposals for new retail projects, but city and community forces oppose them, because they aren't "transit friendly." Never mind that they are just the sort of developments that the market will support and St. Paul consumers need.
It seems some people don't care if University needs their help or not, they are so intent on being heroes riding to the rescue on their white train. "Stop succeeding! You need me! Stay downtrodden so I can rescue you!"
And there seems to be a lot of train envy going on, or some keeping-up-with-the-Denvers. Mayor Coleman specifically mentions that the Twin Cities is falling behind Denver in building light rail lines. So what? If they need them, let them build them. I didn't realize we were in competition with Denver, except maybe via our hockey teams. It reminds me of the "Simpsons" episode where the city of Springfield comes into money, then is enticed by a Prof. Harold Hill-type to build a useless monorail, just to keep up with rival city Shelbyville.
Here's something relevant and interesting I've just come across. It's from a Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal column . (You may need to register) The subject is urban planning, and the legacy of author and urban theorist Jane Jacobs, who recently passed away. Here's an excerpt that jumped out at me as spot-on regarding St. Paul's University Avenue plans:
Given urban planners' almost universal reverence for Jacobs, it is ironic that many have largely ignored or misinterpreted the central lesson of [Jacobs' book] "Death and Life" -- that cities are vibrant living systems, not the product of grand, utopian schemes concocted by overzealous planners.
Modern planners have contorted Jacobs's beliefs in hopes of imposing their static, end-state vision of a city. They use a set of highly prescriptive policy tools -- like urban growth boundaries, smart growth, and high-density development built around light-rail transit systems -- to design the city they envision. They try to "create" livable cities from the ground up and micromanage urban form through regulation. We've seen these tools at work in Portland, Ore., for more than three decades. But the results have been dismal and dramatic. The city's "smart growth" policies effectively created a land shortage, constricting the housing supply and artificially inflating prices. By 1999, Portland had become one of the 10 least affordable housing markets in the nation, and its homeownership rate lagged behind the national average. It has also seen one of the nation's largest increases in traffic congestion and boasts a costly, heavily subsidized light-rail system that accounts for just 1% of the city's total travel. Not exactly how they planned it.
That's because these planning trends run completely counter to Jacobs's vision of cities as dynamic economic engines that thrive on private initiative, trial and error, incremental change, and human and economic diversity. Jacobs believed the most organic and healthy communities are diverse, messy and arise out of spontaneous order, not from a scheme that tries to dictate how people should live and how neighborhoods should look.
She felt it was foolish to focus on how cities look rather than how they function as economic laboratories. "The main responsibility of city planning and design should be to develop--insofar as public policy and action can do so--cities that are congenial places for [a] great range of unofficial plans, ideas and opportunities to flourish," Jacobs wrote.
St. Paul, pay attention. They're talking about you.
Latin American
Echoes of the Middle East
As you know, I thought this "May Day Without (Illegal) Immigrants" celebration had anti-American overtones to it. Well, we can add some new concerns. Buried in the extensive coverage in the May 2 newspaper was a report on sympathetic anti-American protests held the same day throughout Latin America.
In Mexico, Monday was dubbed "A Day without Gringos." And no, I'm not making that up. Mexicans were encouraged to boycott U.S.-owned stores and U.S. products. Similar protests were held elsewhere in Central America.
Seems backwards to me. They think their people should be able to work illegally in the U.S., but they don't want U.S. businesses to legally do business in their countries. Wouldn't emphasizing how they welcome the U.S. in their countries better make the point that the U.S. should welcome them the same way?
And what are we to make of Bolivia? President Evo Morales picked May 1 to send his army into the natural gas fields and seize them for the government, taking them away from the "Gringo" companies that had legally been operating there. So much for a world without borders. Yankees go home! And we'll follow you there! Then you'll grant us rights! Is it just a coincidence that Morales picked the high holy day of communism to nationalize Bolivia's natural gas industry? We'll see.
Meanwhile, back in Mexico, we had this:
Masked Zapatista rebel leader Subcomandante Marcos told a rally of about 2,000 supporters outside the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City that immigrants in the United States are "fighting in the belly of the beast."
"As Zapatistas, we support the boycott of all the U.S. products that have proliferated in Mexico," he said, vowing to "expel from our land all the rich and powerful including, of course, U.S. capitalists."
Nothing to worry about? Just rhetoric? Don't forget, that's what people were still saying about Osama bin Laden on Sept. 10, 2001, if they had even heard of him at all. (Though I continue to wonder why we call 9/11 a "wake up call" when the Islamofascists had tried to bring down the same World Trade Center with a bomb in the parking garage eight years earlier. Shouldn't that have been enough to wake us up?)
Nothing would raise Marcos' profile like executing a terrorist attack in the U.S., and it would be sure to earn him points with other U.S. haters like Cuba's Castro and Venezuela's Chavez. Considering what could be plotted and pulled off from caves in the Middle East, how tough could it be to stage a major attack from Mexico, when people and contraband are already crossing over on a daily basis?
Someone competent better be keeping a close eye on this guy.
It seems almost a daily occurrence now, the anti-Republican, anti-Bush cartoons in the funny pages. Not the editorial page, but the comics page. That's why this Monty cartoon was such a nice change of pace, a glimmer of hope, a breath of fresh air. And it caught me by surprise, because I'm not used to seeing political content in this strip.
The Snobbery
of Retail Development -- St. Paul Suffers
There was a very interesting story in the Pioneer Press this week about the snobbery of retail development. Writer Bob Shaw described how cities -- whether suburban or central cities -- want to attract high-status businesses and discourage low-status businesses, but often settle for mid-status businesses. This story relates directly to what I've previously written about St. Paul's resistance to so many proposed new retail projects.
Low-status businesses are thought to make a neighborhood less desirable and create lower property values. These include pawnshops, bail bondsmen, check-cashing stores, thrift stores, and auto parts stores.
High-status businesses, which connote wealth and leisure, include cheese and wine shops, spas and salons, coffee shops, upscale restaurants, and expensive grocery stores. These businesses are thought to increase surrounding property values.
But what I found fascinating was the idea of mid-status businesses. These include lots of "big boxes" and chain stores: big discount groceries such as CUB, big home improvement stores such as Home Depot, and chain fast-food and sit-down restaurants. These businesses are thought to be neutral as far as surrounding home values go, but they are exactly the types of businesses finding themselves unwelcome in St. Paul.
And what I find particularly significant, is that these mid-status businesses seem to be the sort of businesses at which ordinary, middle-class people conduct most of their daily business. I personally, have little or no use for the stores in the low-status group. (Auto parts stores are quite useful. I'm surprised to see they are considered undesirables.) And I lack the money or interest to frequent the high-status stores. (Even if money were no object, they don't have what I need.)
The three "classes" of stores seem to correlate pretty well to three classes of people that will frequent them: upper-class, middle-class, and lower-class. And that illustrates the problem for St. Paul.
They say the strength of a country or city lies in having a strong middle class. But what do we offer shoppers in St. Paul? We've got the low-status businesses, spread around most of the city. Too many, some would say, as is usually the case in a central city. And we've got the high-status businesses, though mostly concentrated in certain neighborhoods, such as Grand Avenue or Highland.
What we are lacking is the mid-status businesses, the meat-and-potatoes stores frequented by the middle class. So St. Paul residents drive to the suburbs to spend their money at these businesses. But when these businesses want to locate in St. Paul, they are given the cold shoulder. (If they're lucky. For some, it's more like knocking on the door, then having it answered by someone wielding a shotgun.)
We've got to do more to make St. Paul a suitable home for the middle class. Otherwise, we continue to broaden the gap between rich and poor -- something the "progressives" blocking retail development are always complaining about. Large parts of the city have become poor parts of town full of low-status businesses, while smaller sections of the city become more and more upscale.
What about the rest of us? The middle class needs places to shop. And the lower class would benefit from the mid-status stores, as well.
But powerful -- or at least loud -- forces in St. Paul don't care. We seem to be under the control of a well-to-do, self-described "progressive" elite who want to preserve St. Paul as their own private little retreat from the hustle and bustle of modern urban life. Someone needs to explain to them that they're about 150 years too late for that.
Once again, I find that obituaries provide some fascinating history. Today, the Pioneer Press carried the obit of Stanley Hiller Jr., a boy genius, entrepreneur, and helicopter innovator. While still a teenager, Hiller avoided the draft in 1944 by demonstrating his helicopter design for the Navy, which insisted he get a deferment so he could continue to work on his invention.
Hiller didn't invent the helicopter, but his innovations helped make it a practical tool for the military. For decades after the war, he continued to come up with new advances. That shouldn't have come as a surprise, because he had been inventing and manufacturing successful products since childhood.
Here's a more extensive obit/bio for you. I encourage you to read through it all. It's fascinating.
And here's a page from the "Helicopter History Site" that shows a photo of Hiller's 1944 helicopter.
Take the time to read up on this guy. He was something else.
Well, how about this? After writing earlier today that May 1 means a communist holiday to me, I learn that May 1 is also Loyalty Day in the U.S. -- a day to fly the flag and reaffirm our allegiance to the nation. Coincidence? Hardly.
It seems that during the height of the Cold War, the May Day link to international communism bothered the Veterans of Foreign Wars and enough members of Congress that a new, American holiday was created for May 1. The first Loyalty Day was in 1959.
But it doesn't seem to have caught on. I was born after 1959, and I still associate May 1 with communism. And I don't recall ever before hearing of Loyalty Day. Also, it's not on any calendar I have.
We keep hearing about RECORD PROFITS for BIG OIL COMPANIES. But Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren of the Cato Institute put it in perspective, arguing that the oil companies, by virtue of their huge size, will of course amass huge profits, when measured in terms of total dollars. But when measured as a percentage of profit on sales, the oil companies pale in comparison to companies in many other industries. If a 10.7 percent profit at ExxonMobil is "too much," then what are we to make of Yahoo (a 45.5 percent profit margin), Citigroup (33.4 percent), Intel (24 percent) or Apple (22.7 percent)?
Meanwhile, I found this gas price information
in a Wall Street Journal online editorial. It's interesting to note how much
more the Europeans are paying because of very high gasoline taxes. But strip
away the tax, and the prices don't vary as much, falling into a range from
$2.10 to $2.61.
But somewhat surprisingly, the U.S. is a close second at $2.60. We've long heard that we shouldn't complain, because U.S. gas is cheap compared to what they pay in Europe. Turns out, that's only the case because of the taxes that are added to it. Gasoline in the U.S. is NOT cheaper, we just don't tax it as highly. The way we add on taxes and don't distinguish between what we're paying to the oil company and we're paying to the government disguises the true cost of the fuel, and the true level of the tax.
St. Paul was shocked over the weekend when a dead body was found in a cemetery.
OK, it was a big deal because he was found above ground, and he appeared to have been murdered.
But it reminds me of the newspaper headline I saw years ago:
"Beach closed after shells found."
Well, yeah, it's the beach, you'll find shells there.
Oh. Artillery shells? Never mind.
But What
If It Had Been the Republican Coleman?
St. Paul mayor Chris Coleman had a little excitement over the weekend. He usually has a police department driver to chauffeur him about town in an unmarked police car. But Saturday, he was driving the sedan himself when he was clipped by another, out-of-control vehicle.
This became particularly newsworthy when Coleman switched on the car's police flashers to get the driver of the other vehicle to stop.
It seems there is a question of whether or not it was legal for Coleman to engage the police lights.
I don't think this is any big deal. Coleman acted impulsively in a stressful situation. No harm was done. Maybe some good was done. I don't care whether or not this was legal. If it wasn't, then that should be pointed out. But there is no scandal here.
Nonetheless, turning on the lights was probably not a good move. The mayor could have endangered himself (and his young son, who was with him) by provoking a confrontation with a potentially dangerous individual. He should be advised not to take the law into his own hands in the future.
But that leads to my question: Would this story play out the same way if it involved a Republican government official? I don't think so. Suppose, for instance, that the politician involved had been U.S. Senator Norm Coleman. I'm sure we'd be hearing all the usual stupid rhetoric from the Left:
"This is just what you'd expect from one of Bush's lapdogs. It represents the unchecked and overreaching police power they've created in what used to be a democracy. Now, law-abiding citizens won't even be able to drive, without fear that their every move is being watched by fascist Republicans, just like Bush is listening in to all of our phone calls."
I can just imagine all the letters to the editor making that claim.
These immigration protesters really need better PR advice. First it was the Mexican flags, then the Spanish-language "anthem." Backlash? Duh. You think?
If they want to assure native-born Americans that they are not a threat, that they just want to become Americans, too, they have a strange way of showing it.
Now, it's a May Day protest! Stories in the paper refer to May 1 as "an international workers' day." But in my mind, it will forever be the International Communist Holiday. I haven't forgotten those televised images of the Soviet troops on parade, joined by menacing truck-borne missiles, in a display designed to intimidate the West and convince us that they would "bury us."
May Day to me triggers thoughts of "anti-American." It's a very poor choice for this protest.
Show Some Commitment
Boycott backers say that skipping work today will show the country how much it needs (illegal) immigrants. If that's the case, then let's see some commitment on their part. Protesters shouldn't just skip one day of work. They should leave the U.S. completely, then wait to be begged to come back, this time with papers.
If you'd like to know what I think about a particular topic, drop me a line: dave ["at"] downingworld [.com]. I may use it for a future blurb. But remember: I'm not really a know-it-all; I just play one on the Web. Thanks for tuning in, from your host David W. Downing.
dave
["at"] downingworld [.com]
HOME -- Public Affairs -- Marriage -- Ronald Reagan
Farm Life -- Slice of Life -- Humor
DowningCommunications -- Downing Pumpkins
keep count with WebCounter, http://www.digits.com/