There's a story in the paper today saying that Wal-Mart is going after Target's market niche: "The
shopper with more money who still likes a bargain."www.downingworld.com
archives: June, 2005
Target
Succeeds Growing from Minnesota Roots
There's a story in the paper today saying that Wal-Mart is going after Target's market niche: "The
shopper with more money who still likes a bargain."
According to the story, Wal-Mart's core group of customers have average household incomes of $40,000-$45,000. Target's core group averages $55,000-$60,000.
That should surprise no one. After all, Wal-Mart's base is small towns; the giant retailer only recently started entering the suburbs and central cities. But Target was born in and with the suburbs, and has grown with them. Target stores practically define the 'burbs, sprouting up wherever growth -- and money -- can be found.
Here in Minnesota, birthplace and home of Target, pretty much everyone shops there. I don't think Minnesotans even think of Target as a "discount store." To us, it's just a store where you can get pretty much anything. We joke about our favorite store, calling it "Tar-zhay," but no one sees any shame in shopping at the "discount store."
Part of that is because Target does such a good job of presenting an inviting shopping environment. The store has always been known for treating customers well. (In contrast, I gave up on K-Mart years ago, because it was dumpy, and the cashiers kept charging me full price on sale items.)
Another part is because we all like to think of ourselves as "middle class" -- even "the shopper with more money." Here, it's actually gauche to be upper class. People are apologetic about it. That's likely why upscale retailers like Neiman-Marcus have not thrived here.
Like I said, everyone wants to be "middle class." Growing up on the farm, I figured I was. We had enough to eat, clothes to wear, we weren't on any government programs, we paid full price for school lunches.
Then I went off to college and had my eyes opened. Those "middle class" kids from tony suburbs like Edina and Wayzata sure were a lot different from me!
Stable
Families Needed
I recently compared honor students listed in the paper, who usually
have two parents, with everyone sharing the same last name, to people who
are in the paper for the wrong reasons. Those in the paper for the wrong
reasons very often have confusing family structures.
Another example recently: A son has been arrested for beating his mother to death. He has one last name, she has another. Has she remarried? Don't know. Didn't seem to have a husband at the time of her death.
But I also picked up this tidbit (it was in the printed paper, but I can't find it in the online version of the story): Shortly before her death, the victim, who was 50 years old, had been celebrating the birth of her first great-grandchild. Good grief! A great-grandmother at age 50? How do you manage that? Do the math.
If she had a child at age 17, her child had a child at age 17, and her child's child had a child at age 16, that would make her a great-grandmother at age 50. That's quite a family tradition of early fertility.
Call me old-fashioned, call me judgmental, call me what you want. But I stand by my belief that traditional nuclear families, and traditional family values, are the backbone of a healthy society. When we deviate from that norm, we're on the road to nothing good.
Greatest
American? Let's Check the Calendar
A cable TV channel recently completed their competition for the
"greatest American." The winner turned out to be Ronald Reagan.
As much as I admire Reagan, I found him a surprising choice. I thought one
of the Founding Fathers would likely win the title.
But when I read in the paper that the criteria included who most "helped define what it means to be an American," Reagan did seem to fit the bill. He helped us remember who we were at a time when many had forgotten.
The choice of Reagan really has Pioneer Press columnist Laura Billings in a tizzy. (She's so consumed with her anti-Republican bigotry, she even attacked Abe Lincoln!) In her recent column, she complained of the "revisionist retelling of Ronald Reagan's time," and complained that during Reagan's funeral, "commentators claimed he had overthrown communism all on his own, with no credit given to 'the father of containment,' George Kennan, Mikhail Gorbachev or even Pope John Paul II."
How far the once mighty (in their own minds) have fallen. Now, Billings finds herself reduced to complaining that Reagan doesn't deserve ALL the credit for the fall of communism. But there was a time, before the fall of the Berlin Wall, when those of her ilk criticized Reagan for standing up against communism. They said Reagan was the bad guy -- the dangerous warmonger who threatened the world. They wanted us to be more like Eastern Europe. They thought communism was good -- Gorbachev was their hero.
And now they want Reagan to share the credit for something they opposed in the first place? I guess hypocrites have short memories. That's why they can't see their own hypocrisy. (Just like the terrorist-coddling liberals who now claim they have been offended by Karl Rove's accurate description of their previous actions.)
But, back to the Greatest American:
Who is the Greatest American? Well, you'd think it must be someone who has a national holiday in his honor. So let's go through the calendar and see what we've got. Here are the national holidays as I can recall them:
January -- New Year's Day. Then there's the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. That's one.
February -- Presidents' Day. Guess none of those guys is important enough for his own holiday.
March -- none
April -- none
May -- Drive Home After an Extra Day at the Lake Day (known in some circles as Memorial Day).
July -- Independence Day
September -- Labor Day
October -- Columbus Day! There you go, we have a contender....oh, you're right, he's not an American.
November -- Thanksgiving
December -- Christmas (or "Winter Holiday") Sorry, Jesus isn't an American, either.
So, that's makes it a battle between..... no battle at all. The Greatest American is obviously tRDMLKJr, the only American with a national holiday in his honor.
Imminent:
Who's Got the Dough? Mainly, It's a Can of Worms
The Supreme Court's eminent domain ruling is really going to open
up a can of worms. You've probably heard by now that a developer says he will ask to obtain Supreme Court Justice David Souter's
home, via eminent domain, so that
he can redevelop the site with a hotel.
I don't know how serious this proposal really is, but it has quickly illustrated the can of worms we've opened up. If the government of Weare, New Hampshire, refuses developer Logan Darrow Clements' proposal, they're opening themselves up to litigation.
The problem is the arbitrariness sure to be found in the way that eminent domain requests are granted. If Clements is turned down, he'll be able to argue that Weare is protecting Souter only because he is a big shot.
Now that the Supreme Court has made it so easy for government to take one person's property and give it to another, we're sure to see a huge amount of litigation. Previously, eminent domain litigation was about people trying to protect their property. Now, it will also be about people suing because they've been denied their request to take someone else's property. Local government are sure to play favorites in granting eminent domain requests, and that will lead to more litigation.
What a can of worms. As usual, when we abandon a traditional anchor of principle or morality, we create for ourselves a whole slew of new problems.
Bias
Is In His Genes
According to an interesting story by Benedict Carey of the New York Times, your ideology may be hardwired into
your genes.
According to researchers, while your political party allegiance may be more tied to environmental factors, your underlying beliefs and principles -- and where you line-up on the polarizing issues of the day -- are shaped by genetics.
(I'll buy the idea that the environment shapes your party allegiance. Here in Minnesota, where we've been brainwashed for years that Republicans are bad and Democrats are good, we've got no shortage of conservative-minded people who nonetheless call themselves Democrats (and vote for liberal Democrat candidates).
Interestingly, reporter Carey lets his own politics show through in the story. Yes, again, it's subtle, even unintentional. But that's what media bias is. If it were overt and intentional, it wouldn't be bias, it would be malice. Here are some examples:
Carey writes: "A child raised on peace protests and Bush-loathing generally tracks left as an adult, unless derailed by some powerful life experience. One reared on tax protests and a hatred of Kennedys usually lists to the right."
Great examples (not). Leftists love peace and "loathe" Bush -- an easy target these days. Meanwhile, those on the right "hate" America's royal family, and are greedy pigs who don't want to pay taxes.
Oh yeah, that's fair.
Second example: "Most of the twins had a mixture of conservative and progressive views."
"Progressive"? What happened to "liberal"? Only liberals refer to themselves as "progressive." Is there any doubt what's in this reporter's genes?
And they keep telling us there's no such thing as liberal media bias.
War of
the Words
We're at war, but we're fighting over words.
How could Durbin say that? He should apologize. How could Rove say that? He should apologize. Does Cheney really think the insurgency is in its "last throes"? He's lying to us.
The people of the United States are weak or stupid. Or maybe both. We need to concentrate on defeating the enemy. Instead, we fight amongst ourselves. There's an old saying, "Divide and conquer." People often misuse it. They think it means split up your forces and surround the enemy. That's not right. What it really means is divide the enemy, and then you'll be able to conquer him. That's what the Islamafacists -- with their willing allies the mainstream media and the Democrats -- are doing to us.
Does Cheney really believe that the insurgency (A misnomer, really. When the Allies landed at Normandy, were they resisted by Nazi "insurgents"? No, the "insurgents" were the French underground, fighting against the Nazis. The foreign "insurgents" in Iraq are no patriots.) is in its "last throes"? Maybe. Maybe not. But it's the kind of thing he needs to say. What else can he say? Should he wring his hands and say, "The insurgents are getting stronger. I don't know if we can beat them. If they keep it up, we'll have to withdraw and let them win"?
Of course not. There is a rhetoric that goes with conducting a war. If you hope to win, you have to act as though you are winning. If you despair, you will lose.
Did Churchill ever say, "We're doomed"? Of course not. It looked pretty bleak for Great Britain in 1940, but Churchill said Britain would win, and indeed she did.
Are we so stupid or so caught up in partisan bickering that we can't get with the program and go along with Cheney's rhetoric? Can't we show the bad guys that we are united, and that we intend to defeat them? If we can't show them that, then I don't know if we can succeed.
Think of a sports analogy. Before a game, a coach exhorts his team to win. He tells them they can beat the other team, even though they may be an underdog. And the team has to believe it, if they have any chance of pulling off the upset.
Meanwhile, we should be considered the overwhelming favorite in Iraq. But if we doubt ourselves, we can be beaten -- by ourselves.
I Told
You So
One reason I decided to start this website, is that for years I've
held views and made observations that are contrary to or ignored by the
media, only to eventually -- maybe after many years -- have some "expert"
come out in the paper saying what I had been saying all along.
You've no doubt heard about the 11-year-old boy lost in the Utah woods, who successfully HID FROM his rescuers for four days, because he had been taught not to talk to strangers.
Now comes this news flash: "Hard and fast rules like, 'Don't talk to strangers' can actually cause more harm," said Teresa Jacobs of the St. Paul-based Jacob Wetterling Foundation, named for Minnesota's best-known missing child.
That's what I've been saying for years. The fact is, more kids are going to NEED the HELP of a strange adult at some point, than are ever going to be the target of a malevolent stranger. And, if a child is indeed in danger from a stranger, his or her best hope for help is likely to be some other strangers.
But if we teach the kids that all strangers are bad... they'll run away from help, just like the boy lost in Utah. And if the bad guys know that the kids won't run to other adults for help... well, aren't we just encouraging them?
This principle has other applications. For instance, we tell convenience store clerks: "If you're robbed, just hand over the money. It's not worth getting shot over." And that's true. But, because the crooks know the clerk will just hand over the money, we certainly have more convenience store robberies than we would if convenience stores weren't seen as such easy pickings. (Plus, now the bad guys take the money AND shoot the clerk afterward, anyway.)
So, is "just hand over the money" really enhancing safety? Or are we encouraging robbers and killers to do more robbing and killing?
Concealed-carry of handguns is a similar issue. Opponents have said that the more people carrying (permitted) handguns, the more danger there will be. They say we'd be safer with no carry permits being issued.
But the bad guys don't care whether they have permits. They carry guns anyway. And when they are in a public place, they know that they are almost certainly the only one with a gun. So, by preventing the law-abiding people from having guns, are we promoting public safety, or just encouraging the bad guys to use their guns?
In this case, I think keeping guns away from the law-abiding majority is another example where, in Jacobs' words: "Hard and fast rules can actually cause more harm."
"This
War We Started"
I saw an editorial in a weekly paper with a headline reading "It's
Time for the Truth about this War We Started."
What's next for that newspaper? Maybe a headline reading: "Has the Mayor stopped beating his wife yet?"
Talk about a loaded headline. If the writer starts by feeding us the premise that "we started" the war in Iraq, it's obvious where she is going to end up. A central issue dividing people's opinions about the war in Iraq is the very question of "Who started it?"
Those who think the war was necessary tend to think that the other guys started it, and we put off joining in until we no longer had any choice. Many of those who oppose the war, on the other hand, delude themselves into thinking the whole world was getting along fabulously until "we started it."
Meanwhile, a poll shows 40% of the country thinks we should withdraw from Iraq. Then what? Iraq would be in chaos. You think a lot of people are dying now? The number pales next to how many would die if we left. (Or, next to how many were dying before we deposed Saddam.)
It's tempting to wish that we had never invaded Iraq. I try to imagine what the situation would be if we hadn't invaded. Well, you know what folks? If we hadn't invaded, it's not as though everything would be roses instead. If we hadn't invaded in 2003, we'd still be sitting around now debating what to do about Saddam and the threat he presented.
No, Really,
This Time We're Sure
A recent Newsweek magazine cover touted a story about the
"truth" about dinosaurs. I guess this story will tell us the new
"truth" about dinosaurs that trumps the previous "truth"
about dinosaurs.
This is an example of what I call the arrogance of science. They always think this time they've got it all figured out. Sure, our predecessors were idiots, but now we've got THE TRUTH.
Never mind that the next round of research and theories will probably say that the geniuses of 2005 had it wrong, too.
Why can't science say "We don't know"? Yes, science does discover many solid laws of nature, but there are also many theories alternately embraced and then thrown out along the way. But while each generation of scientists laugh at those ignoramuses who came before them (Bad air causes disease. Yes, we're sure of it. And maggots spontaneously generate in rotten meat.), they appear absolutely certain of their own theories. Guess what? Some day they'll be someone else's "ignoramuses."
U.S.
Out of Big Apple!
I heard some encouraging news out of New York City today. The murder
rate is down! Yes, for the first time since 1961, the Big Apple is on track
to record fewer than 500 homicides!
That means for more than 40 years, more than 500 people have been murdered annually in New York City. Sometimes, probably a lot more. (Let's check, going to the Internet......according to this story, it went as high as 2,245! Another story says that was in 1990.)
Think about that folks. For more than four decades, people in New York have been dying violent deaths at a rate higher than we are losing troops in Iraq. In a peak year, more people were murdered in New York City than U.S. troops have been killed -- in total -- in Iraq.
And for what? Nothing! They aren't dying for some greater good. They aren't dying to liberate someone else. They aren't dying for principles bigger than themselves. They aren't dying to make the world a safer place. They're just dying.
Yet we accept that. Where's the outrage? Why aren't there demands for a timetable for a withdrawal from New York City?
People's minds are really strange. We accept some risks, but get hysterical about others. People don't buy insurance, because "Nothing's going to happen to me." But they go out and buy lottery tickets because "Someone's gotta win it!"
We got something like 30,000+ dead in New York City, but it's no big deal? And 1,700 dead fighting evil, and it's time to throw in the towel?
Go figure.
Robin
Hood and His Monetary Men
Sort of a fun economics column from Ed Lotterman today. He postulates that, in some cases, crime DOES
pay. For society, that is. Lotterman writes: "Occasionally, theft is
economically efficient, leaving society better off than if it had not occurred."
An interesting premise.
Lotterman offers the example of a Bulgarian welder, who stole equipment from the government-owned shop where he worked, so that he could weld on his own time -- and for his own dime. "...the stolen assets produced substantially more for society than if they had stayed in government hands. Society had more goods and services because of the theft than if it had not taken place."
Probably true. But that got me to wondering: If you believe as I do that, generally, a dollar does more good in the the hands of a private individual than it does in the hands of the government, then is cheating on your taxes good for society?
Stereotypes
on Parade
From an actual Associated Press news story in the paper today:
"Wells Fargo hopes the crowds attending San Francisco's gay pride parade get a good look at its employees singing show tunes atop the stagecoach-themed float the bank entered in its hometown event on Sunday."
What would they do on an MLK Day parade float? Eat watermelon and fried chicken?
Suburbs
to City: Give Yourself Up; We've Got You Surrounded
The Twin Cities metro area is a mess. There are the Twin Cities
of St. Paul and Minneapolis (St. Paul is NOT a suburb of Minneapolis, for
those of you who get that impression from the national media. St. Paul is
older than Minneapolis, and it is the state capital.), but then there are
more than 100 separate municipalities in several rings of suburbs around
the central cities.
That leads to some conflicts.
Most recently, some Ramsey County suburbs (ringing St. Paul) object to a new plan for a shared 911 call center. They say that under the new, property-tax based plan, the suburbs will pay more than they have under the old plan, and they call that "subsidizing" St. Paul.
I grew up not in the city, or the suburbs, or even in a town. I grew up on a farm in the country, so maybe I have more of an outsider's perspective on this. I live in St. Paul, and one of the things I find strange is the suburbs. The distinction between the "city" and the suburbs is artificial. Someone can live on the other side of the river, or the other side of a street marking the city boundary, and then they say, "Don't bother me with St. Paul's problems. I live in Maplewood."
Meanwhile, that person has the benefit of working a well-paid job in downtown St. Paul, visiting St. Paul's parks and cultural amenities, and knowing that in the event of a real public safety emergency, St. Paul's full-time, professional public safety forces will come to the aid of his volunteer fire department.
But ask him to pay for something that supports St. Paul, and he acts like he lives 100 miles away. Meanwhile, the suburbs build community centers and water parks, and say, "These are for our residents only," or "If you don't live here, you'll pay more to use it."
But they're all too happy to enjoy St. Paul's Como Zoo -- free of charge.
If we can chop things up like this, then why not do it with St. Paul's neighborhoods, too? There are fewer 911 calls to my neighborhood than to other parts of St. Paul. Why should I pay as much as the people who live in those neighborhoods? Maybe my relatively well-off neighborhood should secede from St. Paul and tell the run-down neighborhoods to go solve their own problems.
Nice
Business Youse Got Here....
There's been a lawsuit filed against Visa and MasterCard, and against several of the nation's major banks.
Retail businesses are unhappy with the fees they pay with every credit card
transaction.
Of course, ultimately it's the consumer who pays. If the store didn't have all those fees, prices could be lower. But for reasons of convenience -- as well as "points" and rebates -- we're increasingly using plastic to pay. It has become the norm at many businesses, which see little cash come into the till.
Retailers feel trapped. The reality of the marketplace is that they have to accept credit cards to be competitive. From their perspective, it's almost a protection racket run by the credit card companies: "Nice little business youse got here, Pally. Be a shame if no one bought anything from you. Sign up for our credit card program, and we'll see that nothing bad happens to you."
Meanwhile, it's the consumers who ultimately pay the price, enriching huge banks in the process.
Flag
Burning and "Hate Crimes" Share Link
As it does regularly, a
proposed constitutional amendment to outlaw flag burning has re-entered
the public debate. I think burning the flag is a terrible thing.
But I also think outlawing flag burning has a lot in common with "hate crime." What "hate crimes" are to the Left, flag burning seems to be to the Right.
I've written before that I oppose the idea of "hate crime," because "hate crime" really means that we are punishing someone for his thoughts. And as Americans, we have the right to think whatever we want -- however unpopular.
So, if you beat someone up, that's assault. It's a crime. But it doesn't matter whether you beat the person up just because you're mean, or you did it because you "hate" the color of his skin. In my mind, the crime you have committed is the same. Now, if it comes out in your trial that you are a bigot who would beat someone up because of the color of his skin, then I will think you are not just mean, but total scum. You have shown the world what you really are. However, the government does not get to increase your sentence just because you are racist.
Americans have a right to be racist thinkers. We just don't have a right to beat people up.
I think to be consistent, I have to apply the same reasoning to flag burning. If you burn the flag, I'm free to think that you are scum. In my mind, you have exposed yourself for what you really are -- a hater of America and everything it stands for.
But if it's your own flag, that's your choice. By burning your flag, you'll show everyone that you hate America; but the government can't lock you up for those thoughts.
Of course, you still can't burn MY flag. And you can't burn a flag in a crowded theater. But if you do those things, the government should not be able to punish you more than if the flag you burned was the flag of a chess club.
I talked about being consistent. Note that we do presently have "hate crime" laws. Those are backed by Liberals, who generally oppose attempts to ban flag burning (no consistency there). So if our nation is going to be consistent, we need to either ban flag burning also, or do away with "hate crimes" (my preference). Conservatives aren't particularly consistent on this, either.
Finally, let me be clear about this: While flag burning and "hate" should not be ILLEGAL, that does not mean they should ever be ACCEPTABLE. But let the America-haters and the race-haters reveal themselves for who they are, so we can keep an eye on the scum.
"Hour
Car" the New "Yellow Bike"?
Several years ago, we in
St. Paul were blessed with the Yellow Bike program. Dozens of old bikes
were fixed up and painted yellow, then left around town for anyone to use
as needed. It was a nice, warm fuzzy idea.... that anyone with a brain knew
would fail. And it did. Before the summer was over, most of the bikes had
disappeared or were ruined, taking with them the funding dollars and efforts
that could have been used in a much more productive way.
Now, St. Paul has the "HourCar." The story is in the St. Paul Pioneer Press today, but not the whole story (more on that later). HourCar is a car-sharing program. People sign up and pay a monthly membership fee, then they can reserve a car and use it, paying for hours of use and mileage. HourCar is being touted as a way for people to have the use of a car, without being burdened with ownership and maintenance costs.
That does sound like a good deal. I mean, people rent other things that they use only occasionally, right? Like garden tillers or concrete tools. Trailers or party tents.
Ah, but this is different. HourCar isn't a service being offered by a privately-owned, for-profit rental company. No, HourCar is a program of the Neighborhood Energy Consortium (NEC), a St. Paul non-profit.
And since the program is run by a non-profit, you know what that means. That's right, it doesn't pay for itself. It depends on someone else's money. Whose? Well, yours and mine, of course.
This is the part that the fawning Pioneer Press story somehow overlooked: The NEC has raised $415,000 to launch the program. That's according to a story in the May 25 Highland Villager, a St. Paul neighborhood newspaper (sorry, not available online). The Villager story also reports that the money came mostly from federal grants, Hennepin County, and the state of Minnesota.
So, when Michele Quaranto (who "feels like she is improving the environment and building a community as well," in the words of the Pioneer Press) smugly says that HourCar suits her frugal lifestyle ("'I like to not have too much debt,' said Quaranto, who considers personal cars a luxury."), what she maybe should be saying is, "Thanks for paying for my car for me, suckers!"
Quaranto says she plans to use HourCar 15 to 20 hours a month. That sounds like more than occasional use to me.
As I said, car-sharing is a great idea -- if it supports itself. But this is a car subsidy. And it's driven by ideology. That's why, of course, the HourCars are Toyota Prius hybrids. The NEC is a real bunch of tree-huggers, to start with. Funny, but when the liberals spend $415,000 of other people's money on something like this, they never stop to ask how many children could be vaccinated with that money instead.
And I see big problems with the program. For one thing, the cars must be picked up and returned to just a few places. Which means the user must first find a way to get to the car. And there are going to be peak demand times to use the cars. What happens when there's a big sale at Granola Warehouse in the suburbs, and everyone wants a car at the same time (right -- carpool!)?
And of course, the NEC will keep coming back to the well for more money to keep subsidizing this.
But remember, they answer to a higher power. They are doing Mother Earth's work. They can't be bothered by little details like how much of OTHER PEOPLE'S money they are wasting.
Because HourCar is driven by ideology, the backers make grand claims. But they also contradict themselves. (Why should logic get in the way of their religious fervor?) For instance, here are some claims of the NEC, as reported in the Villager:
"A study of the car-sharing program in Philadelphia showed that each shared car took 23 cars off the road."
I suspect what that means, is that they have 24 times as many people signed up as they have cars to share. That's ridiculous thinking. Do they really think that if all 24 people owned their own cars, they would all be driving at the same time, each driving 24 times as much as they do with the shared car?
"A researcher in Berkeley, California, noted that car-sharers drive fewer miles, consume less gasoline, and cause less pollution than car owners."
Well, duh. Obviously these car-sharers aren't going to drive as much as car owners. But on the other hand, car-sharers drive MORE than people who don't own cars at all.
And that's where this idea really breaks down. The car-sharers profiled in both the Pioneer Press story and the Villager story are NOT people who have sold their car in order to use HourCar instead. Rather, they are people who did not have a car, but instead relied on buses, walking, biking, etc. That means that HourCar is really putting MORE CARS ON THE ROAD!
When Michele Quaranto drives the HourCar, instead of riding the bus or biking, like she used to, she's adding to traffic!
According to HourCar program manager Kurt Fischer, quoted in the Villager, when the NEC setup the program, "We looked for neighborhoods where a lot of folks are already taking transit or walking to work."
What!!!!! Let's find people who don't drive, and put them into a car? How is that going to save Mother Earth???!!!!
These people are nuts. Like I said, this is an ideological program for earth worshippers -- paid for by all of us.
Tax Ruling
Reporting Reveals Media Bias
Imagine, if you will, that
a high court has just issued a ruling upholding abortion rights. (OK, you
don't really have to imagine that.) Now, imagine this headline in a mainstream
daily newspaper:
"Death toll goes higher"
and this subhead:
"Court-allowed killing of unborn could cost millions of lives"
You'd never see that (and I'm not saying that you should).
Instead, you'd see something such as this:
"Court upholds women's rights"
Keeping that in mind, take a look at the way the St. Paul Pioneer Press reports today on a state Supreme Court ruling that allows Minnesota businesses to continue to take advantage of an existing provision in Minnesota tax law. Here's the front page headline on today's paper:
"Budget hole gets deeper"
"Court-allowed corporate tax breaks could cost state up to $300 million"
The paper reveals bias here in the choices that its personnel have made. They have chosen to play this as a "bad news" story, and they decided to define the issue as "corporate tax breaks." They had other choices available to them. For instance, keeping the hypothetical abortion ruling in mind, they could have played the story this way:
"Court upholds taxpayers' rights"
But they didn't, did they? No, they chose the easy, predicable angle of playing this as the evil corporations costing the state money. Which will, in turn, make it harder on (dramatic pause) the children, because the state is already short of the amount of money that Democrats would like to spend on public education and other entitlement programs.
But isn't this really a story of a victory for taxpayers? A story of the court protecting the rights of taxpayers? Even if the taxpayers in question are corporations, not some more politically-correct category of taxpayers?
Look, I'm not necessarily defending the tax law as written, which allows firms to avoid much of their state income tax by setting up Foreign Operating Corporations. But if that is the law, then it is the law. That's the same as with abortion issues. If the right to abortion exists in the law, then it can't be abrogated just because someone doesn't agree with it. It's the same with tax laws. If you don't like them, then you have to change them. You can't just deny some taxpayer his rights.
Laws are essentially a contract -- a contract between the government and the governed. Laws let each side know what is required of them -- what they may and may not do. This is especially so when it comes to tax law. And it's silly for the government to argue that it is being taken advantage of, because the government unilaterally writes the terms of the contract.
So, let's celebrate this ruling as a victory for the rights of the ruled. Then, if we don't like the results, let's change the law.
Finally
Saw "Star Wars" / Studios Put All Their Eggs into Opening Weekend
Basket
I "finally" saw
the new "Star Wars" movie over the weekend. I say "finally,"
because the film hasn't been out that long, has it? About a month, I think.
Yet, for this supposed "summer blockbuster," the theater was almost
empty -- days before summer actually begins! I guess pretty much everyone
has seen it already.
Personally, I can wait to see a movie. If you have to wait three years for the next George Lucas fantasy, why can't you wait another three months? I generally don't see movies until they come to the Riverview Theater in south Minneapolis. Not only do I get the real movie-going experience in a theater built before the TV age, but I get REAL BUTTER on my popcorn, and tickets are only $2 ($3 prime time).
And that's the way I grew up with the movies, anyway. We waited until a movie came to one of the towns in our rural area, then we saw it. But these days, people seem to want to be able to see any movie they want, whenever and wherever they want. No one wants to wait for the movie to come around to their neighborhood anymore.
And that goes hand-in-hand with Hollywood's current strategy of going for all or nothing on opening weekend. Instead of releasing a movie and letting good reviews and good word of mouth sell tickets over an extended release, the studios advertise like crazy to try to get a huge opening weekend crowd. A cynic might say they want to ensure that everyone sees it before they hear that it stinks. That reflects a lack of confidence in the quality of the product they are selling.
(A fairly recent exception was "My Big Fat Greek Wedding." That un-hyped release really had legs, based on -- imagine this -- good reviews and good word of mouth, not advertising hype.)
Here are a couple of links for you: An interesting Edward Jay Epstein story in Slate about the changing economics of the movie business, and how the studios spend more money advertising their films than they can ever hope to take in at the box office. And a Pioneer Press guest column by Bill Kraft, who argues that moviemakers have abandoned stories in favor of hype and technology.
Kraft does a great job of putting into words many of my own thoughts. Here's an excerpt:
"Summer fare in recent years has brought us the likes of 'Pearl Harbor.' It arrived in 2001 with enough hyperbole to give even the most rabid carnival barker a good run for his money. The studio behind 'Pearl Harbor' staged a promotional extravaganza in the grand Hollywood tradition - in Hawaii.
"Such extravaganzas are the preliminary to one of Hollywood's favorite marketing strategies: the pre-emptive strike. The pre-emptive strike posits the rationale that a film opening simultaneously on several thousand screens will make a quick killing before negative word-of-mouth jeopardizes its box office clout. In Hollywood parlance, a film has 'legs' when it demonstrates the kind of stamina that ensures a lengthy run. Too many summer releases pull up lame and limp toward the finish line. 'Pearl Harbor,' after bolting from the starting gate, stumbled badly down the homestretch like a winded nag.
"But does it really matter? The film fleeced enough unsuspecting rubes during premiere week to ensure its status as a commercial hit, largely because of another marketing dynamic: herd instinct. Herd instinct, like some sort of mass hypnosis, grips the public consciousness and makes a film the 'must see' event of the week. So pervasive is its pull that the attendant profits to be made from the sale of action figures and related collectibles become a subsidiary source of revenue for the studios. The film itself becomes an adjunct to its promotion. When the film turns out to be all hype and no substance, the public feels like the prizefighter who gets sucker-punched in the ring."
So, what did I think of "Revenge of the Sith," after prying $21 out of my rusted wallet so my family could see it without waiting any longer?
It was entertaining. And there sure was plenty of action. But it was a let-down, in a way. I think because by now, we all knew what was going to happen. There weren't any surprises left. As Kraft argues, there wasn't any story for us; the movie is all about something to look at, rather than something to think about. I like movies to give me surprises and something to think about. "Sith" fails in that regard.
How about the political messages in the movie? Well, if Lucas intended to make some points regarding current political events, he wasn't very subtle about it. The alleged political dialog in the movie seemed awkward and heavy-handed, in a cheesey "Reefer Madness" sort of way. It was as though the movie had been briefly interrupted for a "democracy" message from the sponsors. If those moments were intentionally designed to make a statement relevant to 2005, then Lucas wasn't very smooth about it. As Yoda might say, "The equal of Johnathan Swift, he is not."
Straight
Talk on Social Security
John Tierney of the New
York Times offers some straight talk on Social Security. Tierney points out that Americans are living longer, but want
to retire earlier.
"The problem isn't that Americans have gotten intrinsically lazier. They're just responding to a wonderfully intentioned system that in practice promotes greed and sloth. Social Security is widely thought of as a kumbaya program that unites Americans in caring for the elderly, but it actually creates ugly political battles among generations.
"With the help of groups like AARP, the elderly have learned to fight for the right to retire earlier and get bigger benefits than the previous generation - all financed by making succeeding generations pay higher taxes than they ever did themselves.
"The result is a system that burdens the young and creates perverse incentives for the people to retire when they're still middle-aged. Once you've worked 35 years, more work often yields only a tiny increase in your benefits (sometimes none at all), but you still have to keep paying the onerous Social Security tax, which has doubled over the last half century."
There was a time when "retirement" meant you were too old to work. Now, we like to look forward to a "retirement" that is in reality a life of leisure, filled with fun and travel. We used to have a name for people who lived like that. We called them the "idle rich." Now, we seem to think we're all entitled to that lifestyle once we hit age 55.
Now, there's nothing wrong with that, if you work hard and save up your money so you can quit working and live like that. More power to you, if you can accomplish it. But what I object to is the idea that that is somehow "normal" or a "right."
And it reminds me that one of the reasons we feel that life is so expensive is that we now expect everyone to have his or her own household, whether they work or not.
There was a time when people lived with their parents until they were married and started their own households. Now, young, single people expect to have their own place (There's the issue of "boomerang" children, but that's another story.).
More relevant to the Social Security issue, is that people now expect to quit working and maintain their own households for decades. It used to be more common for several generations to live under one roof. Grandma and Grandpa might move in with their children. Think of the "Waltons" TV show.
Now, we tend to see such a scenario as "poor Grandma HAS to move in with her kids." But we should consider grandparents, in such a circumstance, are not just sponges living off their children. The grandparents contribute to the household. They can help with housework, and -- most importantly -- they can provide assistance with raising the children.
It's somewhat ironic, then, that multi-generational households have gone out of fashion at the same time we've seen the rise of both the single-parent household and the double-income household.
Both types of households could certainly use another adult or two to help with the kids, even if it just means someone being there when the kids come home after school.
One Drop
and You're Black?
Why is it that the same
people so strident about telling us that we mustn't stereotype people based
on their race, telling us that we shouldn't judge people by the color of
their skin, but by what they are like on the inside, why is it they seem
to also be the people obsessed with slapping a label on everyone?
Here's an actual headline from last week's paper: "Ten years after Tiger Woods' rise, he continues to be the only African-American player on the PGA Tour."
Tiger Woods: poster child and token black on the PGA Tour.
But just how "black" is he? It's a simple question of mathematics. His mother is from Thailand. That makes his heritage 50 percent Asian. His father's lineage, reportedly, is African, Caucasian, and American Indian. That means the African part is less than 50 percent.
Why isn't Tiger known as, if not the only Thai golfer on the tour, then at least the most famous Thai golfer ever?
It's silliness.
If he and his Swedish wife have some offspring, what label are we going to slap on them? Are they going to be labeled "African-American," too?
Gravel
Dispute Illustrates Economic/Human Principles
Edward Lotterman
offers us an interesting take on a dispute over gravel mining in Dakota County.
The crux of the dispute: a landowner wants to mine the gravel from his property. Surrounding homeowners don't want him to. They don't want the dust, noise and truck traffic that will accompany a mining operation.
But we all need gravel. It's used in construction of roads and buildings (in concrete). If we can't mine the gravel that is near us, then we'll have to bring it in from farther away. And that will raise the costs of everything that we build.
So, while many will benefit a little from this mining operation, it's the few who will bear the most inconvenience who dominate the debate. Lotterman refers to Mancur Olson, who explored this situation in his 1965 book "The Logic of Collective Action."
Lotterman writes: "Olsen argued that society as a whole will suffer when the costs and benefits of some activity affect different groups asymmetrically. A small group that is hurt in a substantial way has large incentives to sue or lobby to stop the activity. A much larger group of people, each of whom benefits from the activity in a small way, does not act to keep the activity. The benefit to any one individual is not great enough to warrant making the effort. This is true even when the sum of small benefits to many, many people far outweigh the sum of costs to an affected few.
"This is probably true in the Dakota County gravel-mining case. Relatively few will benefit from driving mining farther out in the country. But those few will each benefit quite a bit. Millions will be hurt, but each only in a very small way. Few, if any, of those hurt will react."
(Maybe people would care more if we could quantify how much more a new baseball stadium will cost if the gravel has to come from outside the metro area?)
Neither Olsen nor Lotterman uses the term, but what is really going on here is now commonly known as NIMBY, or "not in my backyard." People may want gravel, waste disposal sites, power lines, factories, etc., but they always think they should be "somewhere else." As long as the undesired thing is proposed for "somewhere else," they remain silent. But let there be a proposal for the undesired thing to be built near them, and they're up in arms.
Once upon a time, I worked for the agency that treats wastewater (sewage) in the Twin Cities. There was a study underway to determine how to dispose of "sludge" removed from the wastewater during treatment. Some of the possible options could affect people, primarily through the introduction of odors to their neighborhoods. As part of the study process, a series of public meetings was held, to explain the study and receive public input.
At one meeting, in Hastings, the room was full of people. However, it turned out that NOT ONE of them was there as a private citizen. Everyone was there representing some government body or consulting company involved in the study. It seemed ridiculous for me to put on my "public" presentation when no members of the "public" were even there.
Why was no one there? The situation was at that point too vague. There was a study, to consider all options, which might affect someone somewhere. Who cared? But I can guarantee you, if it had been a meeting about building an incinerator at a certain location, the neighbors would have been out in force to protest.
But sometimes these things are a matter of taste. St. Paul struggled for years with "the nation's first urban ethanol plant." Neighbors complained about odors. I'm farther away, but when I smelled the plant, I didn't object. I thought it smelled like a bakery. What's the problem?
Then, a new coffee shop opened a block from my home. One day, I backed the car out of the garage and thought, What's that awful burning rubber smell? I shut off the car and looked under the hood. I didn't see any problem.
Well, it turned out the new coffee shop was roasting coffee beans. Which I think stinks to high heaven. But other neighbors love it, so go figure.
Thank
You for Your Support (the check's in the mail)
I received some encouraging
feedback from a reader recently. Just when I was starting to wonder whether
anybody really cares what I have to say, I received this compliment:
"I am a daily reader of your blog and find it to be the most interesting, honest and logical blog out there."
Wow. That's a lot to live up to. I'll keep trying. (And I'm sure that my mom wouldn't know how to fake an email return address, so no, it wasn't from her.)
I try to be myself, and not just parrot some of the more partisan, predictable, sharp-tongued, nasty sort of blogs that are out there. They may be more popular, but I'm just trying to be myself. That was the point when I started this in July, 2004 -- to tell the world what I think. So I think I'll keep at it. I'm glad to hear someone appreciates it.
Thanks for reading.
Randy
Moss vs. Rush Limbaugh
Did you hear what Randy
Moss had to say about comparing his new quarterback to his old quarterback?
The former Minnesota Vikings receiver said that his old QB, Daunte Culpepper,
is more athletic, but his new quarterback, Kerry Collins, is -- essentially
-- smarter.
Yep. The black guy's more athletic, but the white guy's smarter. There's a stereotype for you.
What if Rush Limbaugh had said that?
Racist
Comments Could End a Political Career
Oh boy, is President Bush
going to be in trouble. He has said about his political opponents, who pretty
much all have dark skin, "they all behave the same, and they all look
the same." He added, "They never made an honest living in their
lives."
What racism! What stereotyping! What a thing for......Howard Dean to say.
That's right, Bush didn't say any of that. Dean did. With one exception. He was talking about people with white skin, not dark skin.
People with a certain skin color all look and act the same. And they don't work.
Didn't statements like that used to be enough to end a political career?
For more on Grand Wizard Dean, read Myriam Marquez's column.
Ellen
Goodman is an Idiot
Ellen Goodman is a very
talented writer. If she could only think, she might be a good opinion columnist.
In a recent attack on frozen embryos (keep in mind, this is all about defending abortion), Goodman writes:
"When people claim to believe a frozen embryo is the moral equal of a child, ethicists like to pose this question: If a clinic is on fire and you could save either a 2-year-old or a vial full of embryos, which would you pick?"
First of all, that might be the sort of question a philosopher would ask. But it's not really a question for an ethicist. By attributing the question to an ethicist, Goodman wants to suggest that saving the child is officially the "right" answer (as defined by liberal academic types).
In the scenario she describes, I think saving the 2-year-old is indeed the preferred course of action. But not because there is no reason to save the embryos. It's really more a matter of triage. The most effective use of effort is likely to be saving the 2-year-old. Saving the vial of embryos might prove to be wasted effort, as we don't know that they will ever be allowed to resume growing (or that they will succeed in doing so).
That's similar to battlefield triage, in which tough choices must be made. Some may be allowed to perish, because limited resources can be used more successfully to save others.
Here's another doozy from Goodman:
"Embryos are not human beings. Nor are they hangnails. They carry the potential for human life that deserves moral attention and respect. It's not disrespectful to donate embryos to the search for a curing diseases. Nor is it respectful to keep embryos in a freezer until they're eligible for Social Security."
Sounds like something Adolf Hitler might have come up with:
Jews are not human beings. Nor are they hangnails. It's not disrespectful to donate them to research to improve the Master Race. Nor is it respectful to keep them in camps until they die a natural death. So we'll kill them now.
Ellen, you're in good company.
But if embryos aren't human beings.... well, what else can they be? Sure, they are different from the human beings who walk and talk. But an infant is different from an adult. And an adolescent is different from a senior citizen.
That embryo is a human being in his or her very early stage. From embryo-hood on, there's just growth. Nothing is added. That's why conception is the defining moment: Things change at conception. It all begins. Two separate entities come together to form a new entity, combining their DNA. That's a defining moment.
Goodman is right about one thing: That people don't give much thought to what they are going to do with all these embryos they are creating. I think we should stop creating all these embryos. Is that too complicated?
It's
"Reasonable Doubt," not "Reasonably Doubt"
I don't know whether Michael
Jackson should have been found guilty, but I'm not letting my kids visit
him. He seems like a first-rate perv to me. But I wasn't on the jury, and
I didn't hear the testimony.
Nonetheless, this is a good time to discuss the concept of "reasonable doubt."
I just heard someone on the radio saying that no one can be convicted if there is "any doubt," that he must be "proven guilty without a doubt." Wrong, wrong, wrong. It is not "guilty beyond a doubt," it is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." "Reasonable" is a modifier to the word "doubt." It specifically points out that we may convict someone even though there are doubts, if those doubts are judged not reasonable.
I think people get confused by the phrase "reasonable doubt." There are at least two ways to understand that term, and I think people often get it wrong.
The first way, is to ask yourself, "Can I reasonably doubt this person's guilt?" Well, sure. There's always some doubt. He could have been framed. Maybe he has an identical, evil twin. Maybe space aliens did it. We don't have proof that there aren't space aliens, after all.
Looking at it that way, there's always doubt. Therefore, we can't convict anybody. As I heard someone say today, about Jackson, "I think he's guilty, but I'm not 100 percent certain, so he can't be convicted."
That's not true at all. There's NEVER 100 percent certainty. A trial isn't a mathematical proof or a controlled science experiment. But we still convict people. We have to.
I think "reasonable doubt" needs to be understood differently. I think the intent of the phrase is to take into account that there is ALWAYS doubt. Of course there is. That is a given. The question is: Is that doubt reasonable? Is it reasonable to think that he was framed? Is it reasonable to think that he has an evil twin? Is it reasonable to think that space aliens did it?
Yes, we can reasonably consider those as possibilities, but then judge that they are not worthy of being considered reasonable possibilities.
That's the difference. It's not, "Can you reasonably doubt his guilt?" There are always doubts. It's "Are the doubts about his guilt reasonable?"
I also think sometimes jurors think way too much. They try so hard to be "smart" about their verdict, that they talk themselves right out of what they know to be true. They've seen too many TV shows where some noble juror holds out, and then discovers some key piece of evidence, which turns the decision completely around.
Well, that's TV, and it's not a juror's job to discover evidence.
Lotterman
Busts Social Security Myths
Another good column from
economist Ed Lotterman, who busts some myths bout Social Security. Concern over Social Security is nothing new,
Lotterman says, noting that a 1958 study predicted that the system would
hit insolvency in 2032, not far from current projections.
Lotterman writes:
"Two misconceptions are confusing current discussions about Social Security. The first is that the program has never been changed since its inception in 1935. The second is that until recently, the problems of funding baby boomer retirements were unanticipated and ignored.
"Both ideas are wrong. Social Security today is substantially different from the program that was enacted 70 years ago. Moreover, tax and retirement experts have been discussing the implications of aging baby boomers for 50 years."
Give it a read.
Still
Cheaper than Paying a Pump Jockey
Another story in the paper
about gas station drive-offs.
Beginning Aug. 1, Minnesota will join many other states in suspending the
driver's license of people who drive off without paying for their gas.
The story says that Minnesota's gas stations lose an average of $750 per year to drive-offs. Nationwide, the average is said to be $2,141 per station.
That's real money. Yet, it's a lot less than paying a pump jockey, isn't it? They could go back to having attendants at the pumps, but think what that would cost. Looks like drive-offs are just a cost of doing business the self-service way.
Whose
White House?
A newspaper headline reads:
"14 states gave Viagra to known sex offenders."
The subhead reads: "1998 White House letter said Medicaid had to cover prescription."
Notice anything there? If that letter had come out of the White House sometime since 2001, you know darn well that subhead wouldn't say, "White House letter." It would say, "Bush administration letter."
Media bias is in the details.
Researchers
Grow Brain Cells in Lab
I heard Paul Harvey today
reporting that a scientist has succeeded in growing brain cells in the lab.
This could be a huge breakthrough in the treatment of neurological problems.
But for once, Paul didn't tell us The Rest of the Story.
It seems that in the celebration that ensued, some beer was spilled. Most of the brain cells were killed. Those that survived were awarded college degrees.
"Lucky"
(and how!) Lindy Made His Share of Wham-Bam-Slam Dunks
With the revelations that
aviation hero Charles Lindbergh fathered 7 children with 3 mistresses, in addition to the children he sired by his wife,
it appears that he wasn't just the first man to fly solo across the Atlantic,
he was also the first NBA player!
Let's
Try Suicide First, Then Murder
We had one of those "murder-suicide"
cases in St. Paul this weekend. I wish such a tragedy would be reported
as a "suicide-murder." Maybe then these idiots who perpetrate
such crimes would get confused, and shoot themselves first.
As Famous as Tenzing
Norgay
Self-taught (! What's next?
Do-it-yourself surgery?) heart surgeon Hamilton Naki has died. Who was he? I never heard of him either, but according to his
obituary, he was Dr. Christiann Barnard's assistant on the first human heart
transplant, which took place in South Africa in 1967.
According to news reports, Naki's contributions were kept secret for decades because he was a black man in South Africa. It was only after apartheid ended in 1991 that Naki's work was acknowledged.
Meanwhile, the white Dr. Barnard became a household name.
[Tenzing Norgay? He was Sir Edmund Hillary's Sherpa guide on the first successful ascent of Mt. Everest in 1953. Of course, the white man Hillary got all the accolades. But for all we know, Tenzing Norgay really got their first, and then gave Sir Edmund a hand up!]
Where's
Dad?
A St. Paul 17-year-old is dead after getting punched in the face at a schools's out party at
St Paul's Como Park.
Last Thursday, I pointed out how the top students seem to have two parents -- no more, no less -- and usually everyone shares the same last name. Meanwhile, kids who are in the news for the wrong reasons seem to come from families with a diversity of surnames. The dead boy is Derrick New. But I noticed right away in a photo caption that his mother is Kathy Kane.
Sure enough, when I read the whole story, I found out that Derrick's parents divorced when he was only 3, and he has divided his time between two homes.
That's not a good recipe for child raising. But it's the situation too many children are in.
Oh, of course we're hearing how Derrick was such a good kid. How could something like this happen to him?
He died in a fight over a pot pipe. I've gotta think there were some warning signs there.
It's
My Birthday!
Plus, I'm off to the State
Central Committee meeting of the Republican Party of Minnesota. Then, a
couple of graduation open houses to try to squeeze in. Busy day. You can
check out these:
Church Bell Stolen; No Mention of Hate Crime
A 600-lb. bell has been stolen from a Ukrainian Orthodox church in Minneapolis, and the tires on the caretaker's car were slashed. Nowhere in the newspaper story does it mention the magic words "hate crime." Funny, I think we'd be hearing that if the same thing had happened, but the place of worship was of a different faith, or maybe even a different denomination.
Of course, I think the whole "hate crime" concept is nonsense. Say you're a bad person who does bad things, and you get five years for your action, and another five years because it was a "hate crime." That means, quite simply and clearly, that you have been sentenced to five years in prison for your thoughts. Aren't Americans supposed to be free to think what they want? Even if their thoughts aren't popular?
If you can get five EXTRA years for your thoughts, then it's a small step to getting the five years JUST for your thoughts, before you even act on them. That's scary.
American Experiment Publishes Essays on "Ownership Society."
The Center of the American Experiment, the Minneapolis-based conservative think tank, has published a collection of essays on the idea of the "ownership society." It's some good reading. This link is to a PDF file you should be able to view in your browser. I especially liked the contribution of Paul D. Allick, which begins at the bottom of page 2. Allick writes:
"Although he only made it through the eighth grade, my father has imparted a treasure of wisdom to me through the years. This wisdom has to do with the value of things. I recall his observations about public housing on the reservation where we lived: 'The way people tear those houses up, huh? Well, they don't own them so whey would they care?'
"This addendum would follow, 'Whatever is yours, you take care of it. My mom had a dirt floor and she raked it every morning. It doesn't matter what you have, you should take care of it.'"
Ownership and taking care of what is yours -- because it's in your own self-interest -- is why capitalism works, and communism doesn't.
Howard
Dean Would Say They Must be Republicans (and He Might be Right)
I saw an example of the
worst of the ugly American consumerism lifestyle last night. Passing by
on the way home after my softball game, my daughter and I stopped at the
Dairy Queen in Edina (Minnesota's version of 90210), near 50th & France
(Minnesota's version of Rodeo Drive).
There were 8-10 vehicles lined up in the drive-through. I thought, Isn't that just the stereotypical American consumer? Having the money to spend on over-priced ice cream treats, getting fat eating the ice cream, and too lazy to even get out of the car to get the ice cream!
I didn't want to sit in that line, and I prefer to go inside to order, anyway. On the way into the building, I saw that the woman in the car at the drive-up window was holding a clipboard. She was signing a credit card receipt!
That made it even worse -- she was lazily getting fattening ice cream that she can't even afford! And holding up the line in the process.
What a stereotypical image of the worst of how Americans can be! Maybe some of our critics around the globe aren't so far off the mark.
To conclude, we went inside, and found the line at the counter much shorter than the line at the drive-through. In fact, there was no line, just two clerks waiting to take our order. We had to make them wait while we decided. Then off we went, while others still waited in their cars.
My Candidate
Can Beat Up Your Honor Student
Pioneer Press columnist
Laura Billings had an interesting column this week. She started out writing about the way that some
high schools are doing away with valedictorians and salutatorians, a practice
that I have previously opposed. She was defending it, writing that obsessing
over GPA can adversely affect the courses that students choose to make.
I suppose that's true. I went to a small school, and there weren't so many choices. The top students pretty much took the same courses. But today, and in bigger schools, there seem to be so many choices. Kids take college classes while in high school. They even take honors courses that let some get grades higher than 4.0 on a 4.0 scale. So maybe the old way of measuring grades doesn't make the grade anymore. She made a reasonable argument that determining one or two top students was so inexact as to be meaningless.
But then, she took a turn. She decided to attack the value of getting good grades at all. She began to argue that good grades are overrated; your high school transcript is meaningless.
Then, why she was going down this road became clear. She wrote:
"Consider the case of Sen. John Kerry, the salutatorian of last year's presidential race. This week, the transcripts of his Navy career were made public, and while the Navy's account of his experience in Vietnam seems consistent with his own remarks, it turns out his reputation as a pointy-headed grade-grubber was a little off. In fact, he got four D's his freshman year at Yale, leaving him with a cumulative grade average one point below the guy he lost to, George W. Bush."
[Great headline we'll never see: "Transcripts show Kerry even dumber than Bush"]
Billings continues: "Let these records be a lesson to this week's valedictorians, and a consolation to the world's C students. Missing out on that A-plus might not be the end of the world.
"It may be the start of much bigger things."
So that's what she was up to! She was defending her hero, the "intellectual" John Kerry! Plus, she was trying to resolve her own cognitive dissonance. Sort of like a KKK member who finds out his great-grandmother was black, she was trying to come to terms with the fact that her hero was in fact one of "those people" -- "stupid" people like President Bush.
She's right, though, that academic scores aren't of much importance later in life. And maybe that's a key to understanding the last presidential election. Dems acted as though scholarship was a big deal, and they played up the angle of the "intellectual" Kerry versus the "stupid" Bush.
But the voters saw through that, leaving the Dems to wonder, What's wrong with those "stupid" voters in the Red States? Maybe those "stupid" voters knew then what Billings is arguing now: that grades don't mean much. The voters saw Bush as a better leader, no matter if he wasn't as smooth as Kerry.
As a valedictorian myself, I'll give Billings this: That honor don't mean nothin' once the ceremony is over.
Mayor
Eaton Being Returned to Private Life, Worn and In Need of Cleaning
Albert Lea mayor Jean Eaton,
she of the return-used-merchandise-for-fun-and-profit department store scam,
is resigning under pressure from the city council.
The Truth?
No Consequences
Albert Lea, Minnesota,
mayor Jean Eaton is in the news again this week. She's worked a deal that will prevent her from
being convicted of felony theft. As a felon, she would have been forced
from office. She intends to remain mayor.
Many have asked, Where's her sense of shame? Why doesn't she resign out of embarrassment?
Those days have passed. All sense of shame and embarrassment disappeared from political life during the Clinton administration. Clinton refused to act in response to shame or embarrassment, and it turned out there was nothing we could do about it. He got to stick around. This mayor is following the master's game plan.
Clinton knew there would be no consequences. That's in keeping with our no-consequences society. Consider:
Women get pregnant. But they don't think that means they should have to have a baby. They can just have an abortion instead!
People get married and have children. But they don't think that means they should have to work at building a healthy family unit. No, they can just get divorced instead!
People run up huge bills living beyond their means. But they don't think that means they have to pay up. They can just declare bankruptcy instead!
Children play a game. But they don't think that means someone should have to lose. They can just declare everyone a winner instead!
Students work for good grades. But they don't think that means someone should be the "best." So they just get rid of valedictorians instead!
What will be the consequences of our no-consequences society? Just look at Mayor Eaton. We're seeing them already.
Constitution
Going Up In Smoke: Supremes Take a Potshot at Founding Document
The Supreme Court's decision saying federal law prohibiting pot supersedes state law legalizing
medicinal marijuana use is a blow to the Constitution. Never mind what you
think about marijuana; that's not what this is about. This is about the
Constitution and the very nature of our nation.
Since the Civil War, we've greatly changed the nature of the relationship between the states and the federal government -- despite operating under the same Constitution. The United States of America was created by 13 independent states. The federal government is a creature of the states. The states created the federal government; it exists to serve them. They gave it certain, LIMITED powers. The 10th Amendment is very specific about the limited powers of the federal government:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Where in the Constitution, I ask, does it mention that the federal government may regulate marijuana?
We've turned things so upside down that most people today have no idea that the federal government is supposed to be taking its marching orders from the states, who created it. They just assume that the states are subservient to the federal government.
But it's not the federal government that created the states, the way that the states create counties for administrative purposes. The states pre-date the federal government. (OK, in the case of the "subsequent 37" states this is less clear than it is with the "original 13," but the principle is still there.)
FDR accelerated federalism. And the federal government taxing us and then giving states the money back only if they do as they're told (seat belts, speed limits, drinking age, etc.) has been an effective blackmail tool used to increase federal power.
Now, the Supreme Court has effectively told the states, "The federal government outranks you. Do as you are told."
This is not what the Founding Fathers agreed to. It's not what the Constitution says. It's simply wrong.
Top Students
Have Two Parents: Coincidence? I Think Not
My daily paper published
the names of top high school students yesterday. You know, valedictorians and salutatorians, although
some schools have done away with that in favor of "top ten" lists
or some other measure.
One thing I noticed again this year: The top students overwhelmingly list two parents -- no more, no less -- usually with the same last name.
Coincidence? I think not. The traditional family structure continues to be the best for children.
For comparison, read a news story about a young criminal. Watch for how many different last names show up in his family circle -- the perp will be Smith, his mother Jones, his father(?) Wilson and his brother something else. How does all that come about? And watch for all the "step" this or "step" that.
Not a coincidence, I tell you.
Muslim
Teaching Tool Featured in Public School Offices
I came across this when
I was down at the St. Paul Public Schools offices, trying to get myself
appointed to a vacant spot on the Board of Education. I didn't want to muddy
things up at the time by writing about this, but now that I didn't get the
job, there's no reason (other than procrastination) not to tell this story.
Down at the school districts offices, where the superintendent and the assistant superintendents and all the layers of bureaucracy hang their hats, I noticed a glass case with a "diversity" display. Inside were various items highlighting the diversity of St. Paul Public Schools students. There were books about the Hmong and Somalis, for instance, and displays of art and clothing.
Nothing wrong so far.
But I also noticed something else. A doll of the fashion-doll type. In a box. And on the box were these messages:
"Razanne the Muslim doll"
"Razanne builds character"
Let's see if I have this straight. The public school district is displaying a specifically Muslim doll, which has as its stated purpose building character.
Can you imagine, even if you try really, really hard, that in the year 2005 the public school would display something like:
"Mary the Christian doll"
"Mary builds character"
Of course you can't. Remember, this is a school district that doesn't even have "Christmas vacation" anymore, never mind that Christmas is a legal holiday. No, instead we have a "winter break." Wouldn't want to offend someone who doesn't celebrate Christmas.
But display a Muslim figure, along with the suggestion that Islam will build character in our children? Sure, why not?
Some might say that there's a difference here. Razanne is an example of ethnic diversity, she's not a religious figure.
Oh yeah? I'll remind you, she is "Razanne the Muslim doll." Not "Razanne the Arab-American doll," or "Razanne the Somali-American doll."
If you want to argue that "Muslim" is cultural, not just religious, then I will remind you that "Christian" can be cultural, as well. And in that sense, the U.S. is in fact a "Christian nation." So then why can't we have Christmas vacation, Easter vacation, B.C or A.D. anymore?
The real proof that Razanne is a religious figure is this: She comes in different ethnicities. Go to http://islamicbookstore.com/razmusdol.html and you'll see that she comes in your choice of "fair, olive or black complexion." You can get a Caucasian Razanne. You can get an African-American Razanne. Razanne isn't an ethnic doll. Her ethnicity varies. The one common element: she is a Muslim.
This is a religious teaching tool. And it's on display in the public school district's central office!
But I'm not going to call for Razanne's removal. Her display doesn't bother me. It's fine, in the name of education and "diversity," to display Razanne. As long as we give equal respect to all things Christian. Which we don't.
Actually, it's getting silly, all this "diversity" education about "minorities" in the schools. Yes, there is diversity. But EVERYONE is a minority in the St. Paul Public Schools. In the 2003-2004 school year, student demographics broke down like this: 29% white; 29% Asian; 28% black; 12% Hispanic; 2% American Indian.
Show me the "majority" in that.
While
Military Must Respect Quran, They're Expected to Suppress the Bible
All these Quran-flushing
stories are getting more and more ridiculous. (And that must be some toilet!
What kind of toilet would flush a book? I'll bet it's not a Mother Earth-friendly,
water-saving model. There's the real scandal for the left-wing media --
"Military Destroying Mother Earth!")
Now I read that some soldier took a leak outside a building, and some of his urine was sucked into a ventilation fan, which dispersed a spray inside, with some liquid hitting a Quran. Not exactly a high-level conspiracy, is it? And you've got to wonder, there must have been at least one Quran inside the World Trade Towers on Sept. 11. And there were toilets in the building. When it all went to hell.....there must have been some intermingling of molecules.
Meanwhile, the same day's newspaper contains another story damning the U.S. military; this one is about "misconduct" at the Air Force Academy. Under the headline "Leader admits bigotry at Air Force Academy," we learn of the terrible goings-on in Colorado. It seems there have been complaints of some Christian cadets overzealously sharing their faith.
We can't have that! No American citizen should feel free to exercise his rights to free speech and freedom of religion! What were they thinking!
The Academy's No. 2 commander, Brig. Gen. Johnny Weida, has been "admonished" for sending an e-mail promoting the National Day of Prayer. (Or, as the AP calls it, "National Prayer Day." Isn't that typical: They fall all over themselves trying to decide the proper spelling of Quran-Koran-Q'ran-whatever, but when there's an event observed by Christians nationwide, they can't be bothered to get the name right.)
I wonder, what if Brig. Gen. Weida were a Muslim, and he had sent out an email in recognition of an Islamic holiday or event?
We know what would happen: He would be praised, while any Christian airman who complained would be labeled "intolerant." THAT would be the story, then -- "Intolerant" airmen who opposed the Islamic message. But since the message was Christian in nature, it's reported totally the other way.
Watergate
Under the Bridge
I haven't weighed in on
"Deep Throat" yet. I don't think I have much unique to add.
What I really don't like is the way everyone is so eager to take sides politically. If you're a Republican, then Mark Felt is a criminal. If you're a Democrat, then he's a hero.
There are arguments to be made either way, but can't we have that discussion first before we just reflexively line up on partisan sides?
Instead, Republicans attack Felt, presumably feeling they are defending themselves in the process (It's too late to defend Nixon's honor.). Democrats praise Felt, and hope to tarnish present-day Republicans with some of Nixon's dirt.
As for me, I say this is old news -- Watergate was 30 years ago, for crying out loud! Present-day Republicans deserve no more blame for Nixon's deeds than they deserve credit for Lincoln's emancipating the slaves, or Teddy Roosevelt's conservation agenda.
Jack Rice offers an interesting take on some politicians' refusal to face the facts regarding Watergate.
There's
No Dancing in Baseball!
In a post last Thursday,
I gave my blessing to girls being both athletes and cheerleaders. I specifically
referred to softball players who give cheers from the bench while teammates
bat.
But at a game last night, they took it too far. My daughter's opponents unveiled a new twist: When they were in the field, and they recorded an out, they did a little cheer for themselves, concluding with a synchronized dance step!
That's a little too much.
As Tom Hanks' character might have said in "A League of Their Own": "There's no dancing in baseball!"
61 Years
Ago Today...
June 6, 1944. D-Day. Thousands
-- yes, THOUSANDS -- of Allied troops died on one day, giving their lives
to successfully begin the invasion of France, culminating in the defeat
of Hitler 11 months later.
Americans, Brits, Canadians. Joined by the free French, Poles who had escaped the Nazis. They were men of many nations who died together to defeat fascism.
Thank you.
American
Liberals On the Wrong Side of History
Reader Dave Shimp alerted
me to this column by David Brooks of the New York Times. (Note: It would seem obvious to provide you a
link to the New York Times website, but whenever possible I prefer
to provide a link which I know will not require you to register. The exception:
I link regularly to the St. Paul Pioneer Press website, as that is
the daily paper I read. But if you register once at http://www.twincities.com
you'll be good to go for subsequent links.)
Brooks makes the case that the "progressive" European policies the American Left would have us emulate aren't doing Europe any good. Hard to argue with that. Still, America's left-wing fundamentalists cling to their faith in socialism.
Can't they see what's going on in the rest of the world? The REAL world, not the utopian socialist one they imagine?
China is becoming capitalistic. The country is full of entrepreneurs, for crying out loud! In the former Soviet republics, people now have private property. They want to protect their property, so they clamor for the right to own guns! They want to be like us!
Meanwhile, the American Left is going along humming Pete Seeger songs and working toward the day when we can be like China and the Soviet Union USED TO BE!
I previously wrote a post about my Darwinian theory of immigration, which included the idea that the more-ambitious Europeans came to the U.S. and made it great, while their risk-averse, less ambitious countrymen stayed behind. I argued that that may play a role in explaining present-day economic differences between Europe and the U.S.
Now, in a turnaround, a stagnating Europe is being inundated by immigrants, many from the Middle East. Could it be that these immigrants share the qualities -- ambition and risk taking -- that previous generations of Europeans brought to America? If so, maybe they'll soon dominate economically, leaving the native Europeans in their dust.
How Far
Should Religious Accommodation Go?
I heard recently of a
firefighter who was fighting his department's policy forbidding facial hair.
He is a Muslim, and he says facial hair is part of his religion.
But the argument from the other side is that all firefighters have to be clean-shaven so that their air masks will form tight seals to their faces, ensuring that they will be able to do their jobs in burning buildings.
How far should accommodation of religion go? A person still has to be able to do the job. What if a Muslim woman was a firefighter, and she argued that she should be able to wear a veil?
Better yet, let's take the question to an extreme. What about a woman -- of any religion -- who signed on for a job as a stripper, then told her boss that her religion forbade her to take her clothes off?
Ridiculous? Yes, but the principle is the same. If your religion prevents you from doing a job properly, then you'll have to find another job.
Media
Bias Is in the Details
As I've pointed out before,
the liberal bias in the mainstream media manifests itself in subtle ways.
Usually, the perpetrators have no idea they are being biased; they are just
reflecting the world the way they see it.
Another example revealed itself yesterday. A one-paragraph story buried in a news round-up reported that the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History has withdrawn its support for a film about intelligent design, or, as the paper reports it, "intelligent design." The film was produced by a group that takes a skeptical view of the theory of "evolution," or, as the paper reports it, evolution.
See the problem? Someone has decided that "intelligent design" requires quotation marks, a way of showing us that this is some made-up term (and idea) that the paper doesn't recognize as legitimate. Meanwhile, "evolution" gets to stand on its own, no quotation mark qualifiers required. Never mind that evolution is also an unproven (and unproveable) theory.
Abortion is another topic that demonstrates this bias. Watch how abortion politics is reported. If one group describes themselves as pro-life, the paper is likely to write it as "pro-life," with quotes to show that the paper doesn't recognize that term as legitimate. Left to its own devices, the paper will call this group people opposed to abortion rights.
And, of course, the mainstream media never calls anyone pro-abortion. No, that side is always called pro-choice, or supporters of abortion rights. Doesn't that sound nicer?
And so it goes, as they gently guide the public consciousness in the direction they want it to go.
(I know, some would say, "But I'm not 'pro-abortion,' I just think people should have the right to choose for themselves." I think that's a cowardly cop-out. It's like saying you'd never beat your wife yourself, but you want others to have the right to choose -- because it's a decision best made by a man and his lawyer.)
Social
Security Number: Why Not Just Tattoo It On Our Foreheads?
We're always being told
to protect our Social Security numbers, to prevent identity theft. That's
such a joke. Our SSNs are all over the place. And the government is the
worst offender. Last week I bought a Minnesota fishing license. I had to
give the store clerk my SSN to get a fishing license!
Yesterday, I wrote an estimated taxes check to the IRS. Their instructions say to write my SSN on the check! Good, now anyone in the check processing system can have my SSN, to go along with my checking account number and my address!
And if anyone has, and has a reason to have, my SSN, it's the IRS. Why do I have to give it to them over and over and over? It's on the payment coupon that accompanied the check. If the check gets separated, they'll just have to look up my name and address in their computer, which I'm sure also has my SSN.
Three
Cheers for Gender Differences
Used to be, the boys played
the game, and the girls cheered them on.
Then, we began to encourage (or let) the girls play, too. That was good.
But we also began to denigrate cheerleading, telling girls that being a cheerleader made them "less" than an athlete. That was bad. If girls want to be cheerleaders instead of, or in addition to, soccer players, why shouldn't they be?
Last night I realized something interesting at my daughter's softball game. These are girls of 11-12, and I've noticed in the past that some of the teams like to cheer themselves on. While one girl is batting, those on the bench engage in chants and cheers of encouragement.
Last night's opposing team was particularly vocal. It seemed they'd never be quiet. But they helped me realize something:
Maybe girls just like to cheer!
I'm not aware of boys' teams behaving in this manner.
So maybe, just maybe, there's something about girls that naturally makes them LIKE cheering. And if so, then what's wrong with that?
Maybe girls like cheering, the same way they tend to like dolls, while little boys like trucks.
It's very interesting. Girls are told they should be athletes INSTEAD of cheerleaders, but they end up being both.
More power to 'em.
Memorial
Day Thoughts
Has Memorial Day always
been treated as a "patriotic" holiday? Wave the flag and wear
red-white-and-blue?
Honoring the dead who defended this country is at least indirectly a patriotic occasion, I suppose. But it seems more and more in recent years that Memorial Day is beginning to seem an awfully lot like the Fourth of July.
And what's with the concept of the Memorial Day Sale, anyway? "Hey! People died defending your freedoms! Come on down and buy some carpet!" Exploiting Memorial Day in order to sell stuff is inherently disrespectful.
One more thing: Isn't Memorial Day about honoring those who served in the armed forces? And especially those who died in battle? It seems that the day is increasingly seen as a day to remember anyone who has died. Maybe there's nothing wrong with that, but it seems to be missing the original point.
Finally, say hello to the fishing champs. Team Greg and Dave's 9 largemouth beat Team Dan and Jim's 5, winning a Minnesota bass opener grudge match Saturday at Fish Lake. Yours truly also took honors with the largest fish.
Thanks to my friend Greg for his hospitality, for getting me out of bed and onto the lake at sunrise, and for guiding me to the hot spots.
Whose
Store Is It, Anyway? Part 2
I previously opined (April 28) about the issue of whether a pharmacist should be able to refuse
to dispense medications that violate his or her personal (religious) beliefs.
This concern mostly focuses on birth control/abortion issues.
Some say the pharmacist should have no discretion. If he or she is a pharmacist, then he or she must sell whatever prescription medications a customer wants.
But I realized recently that there is a retail precedent for not selling items that conflict with the proprietor's religious beliefs.
For instance, restaurants. Some types of restaurants would not be expected to serve beef, and some would not be expected to serve pork, because those meats are forbidden in the cultures/religions which form the basis of the menu.
Likewise, meat markets. Some meat markets cater to a particular religious clientele, selling meat that is prepared in accordance with religious laws. Such markets don't sell meat that is not permitted for members of that particular religion.
Where are the protesters there? Why don't they demand that the Indian restaurant serve beef? Or that the the Halal (Islamic) meat market sell pork?
Could it be that they really just don't like conservative Christians?
Give
'Em an NEA Grant and Call It Art
This Quran-down-the-toilet
story is really blown all out of proportion. I find it entirely plausible
that someone, somewhere, could have down something like that. And they shouldn't
have. But so what? When you have a lot of people involved in something,
some will do things they shouldn't. If they are caught, deal with them,
and let it be a lesson to everyone else. And that's it.
But the mainstream media are obsessed with this story because they see it as some sort of indictment of President Bush, and some sort of judgment on the entire war on terror. As though if it can be proved that someone disrespected the Quran, then that proves that all of Bush's policies are wrong, and maybe even justifies flying airplanes into buildings.
Nuts.
Do they really think that an organization as large as the U.S. military, and involved in the kind of work that it does, will never have anyone overstepping the boundaries? That has to be expected. Expected, but accepted. However, a few rule breakers-don't convict the entire organization.
But you wouldn't know it from the mainstream media. Here's a good quote from Captain Ed:
"Due to their [liberal media] efforts, the American military has been defined by a handful of miscreants at Abu Ghraib, instead of the tens of thousands that brought democracy to over 50 million people suffering under two of the worst tyrannies of the past generation."
And now they are doing the same with the alleged Quran "incident." The guilt of a few is somehow supposed to be shared by all who share an external characteristic -- in this case, a military uniform.
I thought enlightened people weren't supposed to judge people on external characteristics. For instance, in one day's newspaper, I read stories about a man who killed people in Atlanta, a man who killed someone in St. Paul, and a man who killed people in Winona, Minn. In all three cases, the killers shared an external characteristic -- their skin color.
Why didn't the mainstream media go on a jihad against everyone of that race?
Because, of course, that would be wrong.
But so is condemning an entire military, an entire administration, an entire foreign policy, because of the actions of a few.
You know what really ticks me off about the Quran story? I want to know, since when is the mainstream media so pious? Since when do they care about what someone does to a holy book? I thought desecrating holy objects was all about free speech. The mainstream media thinks it is. If you want to put a crucifix in a vial of urine and call it art, they're all for it. You should even get a government grant.
Why do they care so much about Islam, when they care so little about Christianity?
Truth be told, they don't care about either. And they don't care about the Quran. They just want to attack President Bush, and join their foreign fellow travelers in hating our country.
Duck
Season! Rabbit Season! Vikings Stadium Bid Also Employs Reverse Psychology
Apparently impressed by
the Minnesota Twins' strategy for getting a new stadium, new Minnesota Vikings owner Zygi Wilf says he
also wants a new stadium without a roof.
But while the Twins have played the passive-aggressive martyr -- "Oh, woe is us. We'll never get a stadium if we insist on a roof. So never mind. We don't need it. Don't worry about little old us." -- Wilf is going with a straight reverse-psychology strategy.
Wilf is acting as though a new stadium without a roof would be his preferred option. He has pointed out how the cold would be a good thing, restoring that legendary cold weather, home field advantage of the Vikings Super Bowl teams.
I think Zygi is counting on us collectively saying, "Hold on there a minute. Who says we don't want a roof? Don't try telling us what to do! If we build you a new stadium, it's darn well going to have a roof on it! Whether you like it or not!"
Here
We Go Again, Vikings Fans
Yesterday, Zygmunt Wilf
was approved as the new owner of the Minnesota Vikings football team. "Ziggy"
is a real estate developer from New Jersey. He replaces "Red,"
a used car salesman from Texas. But don't worry, Ziggy says he won't move
the team. Which isn't very reassuring. Red said the same thing, then threatened
to move to Los Angeles.
But what happened to Reggie and Denny? Last February, we were introduced to Arizona Reggie Fowler, supposedly the new owner of the Vikings. We were supposed to be all excited about Reggie, because he would be the first Black majority owner of a major pro sports team. And, we weren't supposed to worry about him not being from around here, because one of his partners was local auto magnate (and alleged sexual harasser) Denny Hecker.
Now, several months and revised resumes later, Reggie is merely a minor partner in the deal, and Denny is nowhere to be found. Apparently, Reggie couldn't ante up when Red said, "Show me the money!"
Now, I've read speculation that Reggie may sell his interest, purchased with a down payment of $30-50 million, to Ziggy at a nice profit.
How did all this happen? Reggie gets his foot in the door with the "first Black owner" play. Local guy Denny backs him up. But somehow, we end up with New Jersey Zig owning our team.
Was Reggie an unwitting pawn all along? Or did he freely trade on the color of his skin, opening the door for Zig, and making himself a tidy profit at the same time?
And was Denny a dupe?
Don't know. But I'm warning you that the Los Angeles Vikings of Minnesota is still a possibility.
Just
Big Kids: Some Never Take Their Responsibility Seriously
I had another one of those
experiences today, where observing the behavior of children gave me insight
into the behavior of adults.
I have a child who serves as a school crossing guard. I've observed that not all of the crossing guards take their jobs seriously. They've been put in a position of great responsibility. It's up to them to keep other kids safe when crossing the street and walking to school.
But some of them don't seem to understand that being a crossing guard is about fulfilling a duty to OTHERS; it's not about "me."
Some seem to think being a crossing guard is just about having power, feeling important, telling others what to do, wielding your flag -- the symbol of your power -- like a weapon used to intimidate other kids.
How about that? Many adults are no different. When they are put into positions of responsibility -- maybe even elected to government office -- they focus on what's in it for them. Power, ego, perks. They lose sight of serving those who have entrusted them with the power.
Yes, once again we see that many adults are nothing more than big kids.
J.R.R.
Tolkien Victim or Thief?
Perhaps I should be embarrassed
to admit this, but I have never read Tolkien's classic trilogy. And only
recently, when the women folk were away for the weekend on a Girl Scout
outing, did I give in to my son's request to view the movies. We watched
all nine hours that weekend, and we enjoyed the movies immensely.
But I was left with this puzzling question: Who "borrowed" more from LOTR? George Lucas? Or J.R. Rowling? I was spurred to write about this today, thanks to a post on Vox Day's blog.
There are a lot of similarities between these three great trilogies(+).
To start with, you've got Frodo/Luke/Harry, an innocent thrust into greatness, with the fate of the world in his hands.
Harry's friend Ron is Samwise all over again.
We've got the wise Gandalf/Obi-Wan/Dumbledore. Gandalf and Dumbledore both deliver messages about death not being the end, but just the beginning of another chapter of a great adventure. Obi-Wan, meanwhile, dies but continues to appear to Luke.
LOTR and HP both feature trolls. SW has sand people and all manner of dangerous creatures.
LOTR and HP both have trees that can move and attack people.
LOTR has giant elephant beasts used in warfare. SW has giant, elephant-like, four-legged "walkers."
Sure, a lot of this merely reflects common literary themes. It's not outright copying. And even when one author might have influenced another, it's not clear who's being influenced by whom. There can be a sort of time travel paradox involved.
LOTR came first. But when I ponder Peter Jackson's interpretation of those LOTR elephant-beasts, the ones that reminded me of the walkers from "The Empire Strikes Back," I have to wonder, was Jackson actually influenced by Lucas, who made his movie 20 years earlier? But were Lucas' walkers influenced by Tolkien?
But maybe what I really should be asking is this: How much did all of them "borrow" from "The Wizard of Oz"?
Let's see...enchanted trees, Munchkins (dwarves/Ewoks), scary flying creatures, a tin man (C3PIO), a shaggy lion (a Wookie), a brainless, clumsy scarecrow (Jar-Jar Binks).
Hmmmm.....
Just
How Stupid Is the Electorate?
Politicians of all stripes
may think the voters aren't too smart, but Democrats absolutely depend on
it.
Minnesota's version of the Democratic Party -- the DFL (originally for Democrat-Farmer-Labor, though the farmers and laborers were forgotten years ago, and now it's more like Democrat-Freak-Liberal) -- is running radio ads criticizing the Minnesota Republicans, and Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty. If you listen closely to exactly what is said in the ads, you'll realize that it's a lot of nonsense.
The ad starts with a claim that Gov. Pawlenty cut education spending. Then, the announcer tells us that Minnesota ranks 45th in INCREASING education. spending. (Although they emphasize "45th" rather than "increasing.") Clearly, what they are hoping will register in our brains is the idea that Minnesota ranks 45th in spending. But that's not true. Minnesota continues to rank near the top in education spending. But when it comes to INCREASING spending, of course the spending leaders are going to rank low. The states that spend less are going to find it much easier to INCREASE their level of spending. But complaining that Minnesota ranks 45th in INCREASING spending is like complaining that a team that wins the Super Bowl three years in a row isn't improving any from year to year.
Finally, the ad states that the Democrats want to increase education spending by a certain amount, which is twice the amount the Republicans want.
Wait a minute. That means the Republicans also are proposing an increase in education spending. What happened to Republicans cutting spending? Which is it?
Yes, they count on us being stupid. So the Dems had better be careful. Maybe they'll get what they want in the way of education funding, and future generations will be too smart to fall for their tricks!
And What Is Our Republican Governor Up To?
Governor Pawlenty pledged "no new taxes." Citing that campaign pledge, he vetoed a bill that included an increase in the gasoline tax. Never mind that an increase in the gas tax is just the sort tax increase Republicans should be able to support in good faith. After all, they're the ones always calling for more money for roads.
And the gas tax has to increase periodically, just to remain the same. That's because it is not a percentage, but a set amount. And it hasn't been increased since 1988. In the meantime, inflation has eaten into the road-building power of the 20 cents per gallon collected, while increases in fuel-efficiency mean more miles are being driven -- with more wear on the roads -- for each 20 cents collected.
So, it's only logical that the gas tax will need to be raised periodically, just to stay the same.
I'll note that that is in contrast to taxes such as income tax, which are based on a percentage. I've heard supposedly intelligent people say, "Of course we have to raise the income tax rate. Because of inflation and because the population has grown, the government needs more money."
Sure, the government needs more money because of those reasons. But, along with inflation, wages rise. And along with population growth, there are more wage earners. That means more tax money collected, even thought the RATE stays the same.
But now, Governor Pawlenty wants to increase the amount of money the government collects on the sale of a pack of cigarettes by 75 cents. Most people would call that a tax increase. He calls it a "fee."
Either this is just political gamesmanship, or Pawlenty thinks we're stupid, too.
"Star Wars" and the Price of Gas
We continue to hear how expensive gasoline is, and I continue to say, no, it's not. Adjusted for inflation, today's gasoline is just as affordable as in the "good old days" when you could drive around all night for a couple of bucks. (And don't forget the benefits of improved gas mileage, too.)
A recent "Star Wars" feature in the paper listed some data from each year in which a "Star Wars" movie was released. Here's the price of a gallon of gas, given for each year:
1977: $0.62
1980: $1.25
1983: $1.24
1999: $1.17
2002: $1.39
2005: $2.09
Yes, there was a big increase between the first and second movies, due to the second oil embargo. But note that in in 1999, the price was actually less than in 1980! Without any adjustment for inflation! 19 years later!
Yes, there's been a recent surge in prices, but that seems to be the way it works. Rather than adjusting yearly with most other prices, the price of gasoline seems to stay at one level for a number of years, then surge all at once. The psychological effect is that we're left complaining about the "high" gas prices, when we could just as well be saying, "Boy, can you believe we could buy gas for the same price for 20 years?"
Just allowing for inflation, today's "expensive" gasoline is actually selling at roughly the same price as the $0.62 gas of 1977.
This 'n' That
Franken-Fools?
Ever notice that the same people so worried about genetically-modified plants seem to be the same people in favor of genetically-modified people -- supporters of fetal stem cell research?
FDR & GWB
Last month, one of the cable channels ran a program about how FDR lied and kept the nation in the dark, in order to promote his war agenda, and protect the nation. FDR, the Left's greatest president ever. Lied to the people, got them into a war they didn't support, all in the name of national security.
Sound familiar?
So why is Bush such a villain for doing the same thing?
FDR said, "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself." Yeah! What a strong leader!
But when Bush did not jump up in a panic when told of the 9/11 attacks, he is criticized for keeping his cool.
Go figure. If you have eternity. Because you'll never arrive at a logical explanation.
"Home Team" Could be Anywhere
The Minnesota Twins baseball team is pushing a proposal for a new stadium. Again. One of the local sportswriters came out with the argument that we have to provide a new stadium even for the people who'll never go to it. You see, we need a new stadium to ensure that the team doesn't leave Minnesota. Because if the team left, then all the shut-ins and people in nursing homes wouldn't be able to hear the Twins on the radio, or see them on TV.
And I say, Why not?
Why, if the team left Minnesota, couldn't its games still be broadcast here? The ratings would go down some, but that would be offset by lower broadcast rights fees. The team would make the bulk of its broadcast money in its new home market; anything made in Minnesota would be gravy.
It's not a matter of technology. That part is easy. Just get a feed from the source. It goes that way now, anyway. Twins games are broadcast not just out of the Twin Cities, but also on other stations in Minnesota, and even in many Northern Plains states. If the Twins moved to -- oh, Las Vegas -- what difference would it make to a radio station in Billings, Montana?
Before the Vikings started playing NFL football, people in Minnesota followed the Green Bay Packers' games. So people can follow a team even if it isn't in their city or state.
When the Minnesota North Stars NHL hockey team left for Dallas in 1993(?) I wondered why they didn't just keep broadcasting the Dallas Stars games here in Minnesota. We already knew the players. There would have been plenty of interest. MOST fans only follow the team via broadcast, anyway, they don't attend the games. So what's the difference where "home" is?
(Is the concept of the "home team" a dinosaur? In sports, and in patriotism? Read "Free Agency for Players; Free Agency for Fans.")
Which
Movie Is On First? George Lucas Creates Generation Gap
George Lucas has sparked
a galactic generation gap in our household. When there's any discussion
of the "Star Wars" movies, the conversation is likely to devolve
into some sort of interstellar "Who's on First" routine. An example:
Older-than-dirt parent: "Luke did that in the first movie."
Know-it-all child: "No he didn't. He wasn't even born yet."
"No, not 'Episode I.' I'm talking about the first movie.
"But that is the first movie."
"I mean the first one they made."
"Which one is that?"
"'Star Wars.'"
"Which 'Star Wars'?"
"The one called 'Star Wars'!"
"They're all 'Star Wars'!"
"I mean the one you call 'Episode IV.'"
"You mean 'A New Hope'?"
"Yes, but it wasn't called that. It was just 'Star Wars.'"
"Why didn't they call it 'Episode IV'?"
"Because it was the first one. That wouldn't have made any sense."
"Then why didn't they call it 'Episode I'?"
"Because they didn't know there would ever be another one."
"Why not?"
"Because they didn't know if the movie would be successful enough to make another one."
"That's dumb. Why wouldn't it be? It's a 'Star Wars' movie!"
Cheeky
Juxtaposition Cracks Me Up
I like to read columnist
Leonard Pitts, Jr.
on the Miami Herald website. He's a good writer, and a smart thinker.
Butt I got more than I bargained for when I checked out his latest column.
The screen capture below shows an interesting juxtaposition: Check out the
sentence I highlighted in yellow. Next to that ad, the words "I've
seen the absolute bottom" take on a different meaning than Mr. Pitts
had in mind!
An "Absolute bottom" sure beats a beer belly! (Intoxicating beverage pun)
Dave
Out of Running for School Board
Well, the school board
may their selections for the second round of interviews. They didn't pick
me. Not that I expected them to. I don't know if I would have picked me.
But I applied with the purpose of taking a message to the board. I hope they heard some of it and didn't just
write me off as a crackpot. Imagine that! Someone wanting to serve on the
school board, and he says more money isn't the answer?! I must be nuts!
They're going to interview two former board members, a former city council member, and two "civilians" with closer ties to school issues than I have. My money is on retired St. Paul police chief, and former school board member, Bill Finney to get the appointment.
No Surprise
in Pheromone Study
A Swedish study has found
that the brains of gay men react more like the brains of straight women,
rather than like the brains of straight men, when exposed to chemicals in
male sweat.
A similar finding resulted when test subjects were exposed to wallpaper samples and fabric swatches.
Meanwhile, a Norwegian study found that the brains of lesbians react more like the brains of straight men, rather than like the brains of straight women, when exposed to chemicals used on golf courses.
OK, OK, the second and third paragraphs are jokes. But the first one is real. Peter Gorner of the Chicago Tribune reports:
"Powerful airborne chemicals emitted in male perspiration and associated with sexual reproduction trigger a heightened response in the brains of homosexual men similar to that seen in heterosexual women, researchers reported Monday.
"Heterosexual men did not share the brain response to the chemicals in male sweat, according to a team of brain imaging specialists from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden.
"The debate over whether homosexuality is a matter of choice or is inborn makes such research extremely controversial, said team leader and neuroscientist Dr. Ivanka Savic of the institute's Center for Gender Related Medicine.
"'I want to be extremely cautious - this study does not tell us anything about whether sexual orientation is hardwired in the brain. It doesn't say anything about that,'" Savic said.
"'We're saying that we've detected measurable differences in the brains of homosexual men in regions that are known to mediate reproductive and sexual behavior."
Savic is right, this study doesn't prove sexual orientation is hardwired in the brain. Correlation does not prove causation. Remember Pavlov's dog? He salivated when he heard the dinner bell. There was nothing hardwired in the dog's brain to make him "aroused" in this way at the sound of a bell. He learned the response. The same could be true of the gay men and straight women in this study: they know they like men, so when they sense a man, they get excited. Associating pheromones with attraction to men could be a subconscious, learned response.
But I don't know why anyone should be surprised by these findings. I know there are those who don't want to accept that gays are simply made that way, but a lifetime of observing people would seem to indicate that is the case. After all, consider all the stereotyped secondary sexual characteristics we associate with gays and lesbians -- the effeminate man, the butch dyke. They're based on something. While some gays and lesbians may fit the stereotype perfectly, and others not at all, it seems obvious that there is some physiological explanation beneath the surface.
Of course, I can't generalize about all gay people. Everyone has his or her own story. And who am I to speak for their group? But as I've said, some gay people fit the stereotypes perfectly, some not at all. No doubt gay people cover a broad spectrum "internally," as well, when it comes to feelings of orientation and identification. No doubt some feel clearly and truly gay, while others may have internal conflicts. (Of course, there's no shortage of heterosexuals who've been less than sure, too.)
But I do hold out the likelihood that, while most homosexuals are simply made differently than heterosexuals, there may be a small subgroup of people who "learned" homosexual behavior. These may be people who suffered sexual abuse as children, which affected their sexuality as adults. This is similar to the way that heterosexual child abuse can result in victims who grow up to be especially promiscuous, or even abusers themselves.
The story also mentions a second study, taking place in Philadelphia. That study is finding a difference in body odors produced by gay and straight men. Very interesting. Maybe that explains how gaydar works?
But it would be fascinating to combine the studies, and see if the brains of gay men and straight women respond the same way to the sweat of ALL men, or whether it makes a difference if the sweaty guy is straight or gay.
Walk,
Walk, Walk
Walk for this. Walk for
that. Every weekend we've got some walk to fight some disease. I wonder
what that says about the collective psyche? There could be a good dissertation
waiting to be written about the proliferation of walks for causes.
This past Sunday, here in the Twin Cities, we had the AIDS Walk. 10,000 people walking to fight/cure/treat/raise awareness of AIDS.
I know it's not politically correct to say so, but making all this effort about AIDS seems like a waste of time. We already know how to prevent the spread of the disease. In almost all cases, it is spread through the behavior of the person who contracts the disease. It's the same way with lung cancer, but where is the Lung Cancer Walk? Smokers aren't a politically correct group, so I guess no one cares about them. (BTW, I am not a smoker.) They're just getting what they deserve, right?
This would be a good time to read a piece I wrote about how the politics of AIDS has hampered the fight against the disease.
Jesus
the Capitalist
"He who is a hired hand and
not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves
the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees
because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep." (John 10:12-13)
I was assigned to read those two verses as we began Bible study before church yesterday. I thought, What a commentary on human nature; and what a way to sum up economics in a nutshell.
President Bush likes to talk about creating an "ownership society." The idea is that when people are "owners," they will put out more effort -- and act more responsibly -- because they themselves are the ones who reap the benefits, or suffer the consequences of bad decisions.
I agree. That's a basic principle of human nature. And we see that it was known to be true 2,000 years ago -- Jesus said so!
This is why owner-occupied dwellings are better-maintained than rental units. (And where do you think we got the expression: "Beat it like a rented mule?")
It also explains why capitalism works, and communism doesn't. Maybe you don't believe "Greed is good," as in the oft-quoted line from the movie "Wall Street," but self-interest most definitely is.
Atheists
Have Faith?
I really do notice the
strangest things. But that's the whole point of this website, isn't it?
So I can share my strange observations with you.
In my Saturday paper, there's a feature called "Faith Notes." It's a listing of religion-related happenings in the coming week. I was paying particular attention to it today, because I was checking to see if some information I had submitted was included.
I noticed a listing for Friday that puzzled me: "Atheist Bible Study -- The Bible on Women and Gays."
Huh? An atheist event listed in "Faith Notes"?
Isn't this an anti-faith event? I'm thinking the point of this Bible study is to criticize the Bible and Judeo-Christianity. What is this doing in here? It's insulting.
Seems a little like listing Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day observances, and including a KKK meeting on "The Real MLK."
By the way, this Friday, May 20, 7:00 pm, my church is hosting a concert by the House of Mercy Band, playing American Gospel Music (bluegrass/traditional/country/Americana). There's no admission charge; an offering goes to support St. Paul's Union Gospel Mission. The event is at Calvary Evangelical Lutheran Church, 341 Hamline Avenue South, St. Paul.
WWII:
The 50-year War
President Bush took some
criticism recently for not excusing the Soviet Union's occupation of the
Baltic countries following WWII. It underscores a point that I'd like to
make: WWII lasted more than 50 years.
Conventional wisdom says that WWII ended in 1945. But really, while Germany and Japan surrendered in 1945, the war as a geopolitical event was far from over. The Soviets occupied and annexed the Baltic nations, and replaced the Germans as occupiers in eastern Europe. Germany was divided. Berlin remained divided and occupied. The Cold War was merely the next phase of WWII.
Yes, the Soviets were U.S. allies in WWII, but not always. They were on Hitler's side until he turned on them. They had no interest in helping the West. So when Hitler was defeated, they readily, and opportunistically, reverted to being our enemy, taking Hitler's place.
And it took the fall of the Berlin Wall, the dismantling of the Iron Curtain, and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, until WWII was really over.
That makes WWII 50 years long.
If You
Know History, Present Is Less Scary
I came across something
very interesting in a Peggy Noonan column
that appeared in the Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal. Noonan was writing
about the evacuation of the Capitol and White House this past week, which
took place when an unknown aircraft entered restricted airspace.
What really caught my attention was a bit at the end of the column:
"And I am thinking what the woman from the Hart Building told me about the young. It reminds me of Lesley Stahl. After 9/11, Lesley found that the young people in her office in New York were especially shook. Panic attacks, anthrax in the news, the fear that more death was coming.
"When a young person would confide his or her fears, Lesley started saying, 'Come sit next to me.' She would talk to them softly about how lucky they all were to have to concentrate on getting the news. They would sit with her at her desk and do their work next to her. Then after a while they'd leave, and if they got scared again an hour later, they would come and sit next to her again.
"The young are new to history. The job of the mature is to be mature. Here's to them."
Maybe that helps explain it. Maybe my own interest in -- and knowledge of -- history helps explain why I have often reacted to current events so differently than others my age.
When other college students quaked in fear of "The Day After," I didn't care. I didn't think nuclear war was among our genuine fears. When on 9/11, some said, "This changes everything!" I said, "No it doesn't; this is how the world was all along." When others decried (or celebrated, it seemed) 1,000 U.S. deaths in Iraq, I recognized it as 1,000 individual tragedies, but a small death toll for two years of war.
And as Noonan notes, it's because I know my history. Way back in grade school, I read every book in the library about WWII. I know that over 400,000 U.S. troops died in WWII. Taking Okinawa took more than 40,000 U.S. casualties. Many thousands of Allied troops died on D-Day -- one day!
Hitler killed 6 million Jews. Recent reports say 27 million people -- civilian and military -- died in the Soviet Union. More than 50 million estimated dead worldwide.
Because I know history, I know how terrible things can get. That doesn't mean I think it's OK for lots of people to be killed. But it means I have a more realistic view of the world. All along, I've been more mature.
Ignorance
Is Bliss
There are some things we'd
rather not know.
This morning's paper carries the headline: "Vick was drunk, police say"
That's referring to St. Paul police officer Gerald Vick, murdered while working undercover last Friday. The story in the paper this morning reports that Vick's blood alcohol content was 0.20 percent -- twice the legal limit at which a driver is considered legally drunk in Minnesota.
I'm not sure what to make of this. Clearly it's troubling. It muddies up the whole picture. While undercover officers are allowed to consume alcohol to blend in, this was clearly out of line with department policy. What will it do to the way we remember this episode in the city's history. I'll reserve further analysis until more is known.
This turn of events reminds me of when Minnesota Timberwolves basketball player Malik Sealy died in a car crash five years ago. Sealy's car was hit head-on by a drunk driver, who was travelling the wrong way on the freeway.
The story was played out clearly in the media: Sealy was an innocent victim, killed in the prime of life by an evil drunk.
Yet, the picture wasn't that clear. No one wanted to suggest that Sealy himself shared any responsibility for the crash, but the case could be made. The crash happened in the early morning hours when most people are in bed. Sealy was going home from a late night at a strip club. Most important: Sealy had been drinking himself. And while his blood alcohol content did not reach the 0.10 percent level at which a driver is considered legally drunk, it was high enough (0.08) to make him legally drunk in many states with a somewhat lower threshold. (In fact, Minnesota will be lowering it's own allowed blood alcohol content for drivers soon.)
If the exact same event were to happen this summer, Sealy wouldn't be an innocent victim; he would be the other drunk driver in the crash.
It's all a matter of definitions.
And that's another thing that bothers me: The ease with which news people refer to someone as "legally drunk" when his or her blood alcohol content is at 0.10 percent or higher. That's a legal definition for DRIVERS! If you're sitting in your living room with a blood alcohol content of 0.10 percent, you may or may not have had "too much to drink," but you're not "legally drunk."
Similarly, if you're walking through the public park, with a blood alcohol content of 0.10 percent, it's a non-factor unless you disturb the peace or commit some sort of crime. Then, you might be charged with "public intoxication," but you're not "legally drunk" based on blood alcohol level. In fact, you could be charged with "public intoxication," based on your behavior, with a blood alcohol content much lower than the 0.10 percent level established for drivers.
The truth is, whether someone is "drunk" or not can be hard to say. It depends on the individual. Some people have such a high tolerance for alcohol, they can run their blood alcohol level well past 0.10 percent and not appear intoxicated. Others may have just one drink and immediately be affected by the alcohol.
So, I find it plausible that some people may be perfectly capable drivers with a blood alcohol level above 0.10 percent, while others may be a threat to themselves and others with a legal blood alcohol level of just 0.05 percent.
The statutory level of 0.10 percent for drivers may seem like a convenient reference point, but we should be careful in referring to it beyond its specific legal purpose.
Twins
Using Reverse Psychology in Stadium Quest?
The Minnesota Twins baseball
team is pushing a plan to get them a new stadium, without the state of Minnesota
having to appropriate any money. The team still needs approval from the
Legislature, however, in authorizing Hennepin County to levy a special sales
tax to help pay for the stadium.
One odd point of this plan: It provides for a stadium without a roof -- retractable or fixed. For years, it was assumed that if/when a new stadium was built for the Twins, it would have a roof, because the Minnesota weather is not compatible with early- and late-season games. Now, the Twins are pushing this plan, saying it's the best they can hope for.
Additionally, the Twins say they don't intend to try to add a roof in the future. In testimony before a Minnesota House committee this week, Jerry Bell of the Twins told legislators:
"We will not be back here looking for a roof."
Methinks thou protests too much.
This is reverse psychology. The Twins are taking the tack of, "Oh, woe is us. We'll be the martyrs whose stadium doesn't have a roof. But don't worry about little ol' us. At least we aren't asking you for anything."
They're just waiting for the legislature to say: "Hold on just a minute. Don't make any hasty decisions. As long as you're doing this, you might as well do it right. You haven't asked us for anything, so the least we can do is kick in for a roof."
Yep. It's reverse psychology. (Or should I say, it ISN'T reverse psychology? Would that work better to convince you?)
Police
Funeral Makes a Statement that the Bad Guys Have Not Won
St. Paul police officer
Gerald Vick, murdered by a career criminal last Friday, was buried Wednesday.
His funeral and the procession to the cemetery went on for hours and hours,
with hundreds of police cars and maybe thousands of law enforcement personnel
involved.
Some might ask, Why such a spectacle for one man? Is his life worth more than anyone else's life? He volunteered for a dangerous job. Cab drivers and convenience store clerks actually face a higher risk of dying on the job.
My answer is this: That spectacle yesterday was not really for Officer Vick; it was for all of us.
Yesterday's display shows the bad guys that they are not in charge. They may not shoot police officers and expect us to shrug it off. We all take it personally. The spectacle that is a police funeral makes the statement that killing police officers is not acceptable; it is crossing a line that may not be crossed.
It makes the statement that our community, our society, our civilization -- whatever you want to call it -- will not accept this behavior as ordinary or normal.
The Good Guys are still in charge.
Money
Not the Answer for Our Schools -- Dave Applies for School Board
I went through an interesting
process yesterday. I was one of 15 people who offered ourselves to the St.
Paul Public Schools Board of Education, for consideration for an appointment
to an open seat on the board. The term would last only through the end of
the year.
Previously, we all submitted resumes and letters of interest. Yesterday, we each had six minutes to give a little speech. We were supposed to address 1)Why we were interested in serving in this short appointment; 2)What relevant experience would we bring to the Board? 3)Explain how we would address an issue of immediate relevance to the St. Paul schools.
When I first heard of this opportunity, I was intrigued. I had no illusions about actually earning the appointment, but I thought it might be an interesting process to participate in.
But then, my thoughts coalesced, and I realized I had an issue to address. I had a message. And this could be a great way to try to get some discussion started.
Year after year, we hear that the schools need more money. Because they need more staff, more programs, to deal with more and more problems that kids bring to school with them.
But, as I've believed all along, more money for the schools won't fix these problems. The only real solution is to improve parents -- not try to replace parents with schools.
That's not new thinking. Plenty of you think the same thing.
But I had an epiphany: Who better to spread this message than....school boards!!!
School boards need to turn their thinking around. Instead of being willing recipients of whatever problems society dumps on them, they need to stand up and say: "Get your own house in order! Our job is educating kids, not raising them!"
Because as long as school boards silently accept their role as social service providers and parental substitutes, they will only be given more and more responsibilities, which rightly belong to the parents.
I thought I would bring that message before the Board. Because if not me, then who?
Here's what I told them:
----------
Why do I want to serve on the Board for this short appointment? Quite simply, I saw this as a unique opportunity. I've long thought I would be interested in serving on the Board some day, but right now, I have neither the time nor the interest to run a campaign. But this short-term appointment presented a unique opportunity.
You also ask, What relevant experience would I bring to the Board? To begin with, I'm a St. Paul taxpayer, and my two children attend Expo Elementary. Additionally, I have the experience of running my own business for 16 years. I've served on the Boards of various professional and community organizations. And I currently serve on my church council, and I was president of the congregation for four years.
I've lived in St. Paul for 19 years. First on the Eastside; now in Mac-Groveland. I'm not a native St. Paulite, but I think that outsiders have a lot to offer. I know that's true in my hometown, little Braham, Minnesota. New people bring new ideas, new enthusiasm, new dreams and new possibilities. They can look at what's great about a place, and bring ideas about how to make it even better. I believe it works the same way when people move to St. Paul. For instance, I love my St. Paul neighborhood, but I found it strange that people can live so close to each another, without knowing one another. So I volunteered to become a Block Leader, and I've helped bring people together. In the same way, as a member of the Board, my small-town upbringing could bring a fresh perspective of what is possible and expected in our schools.
So far, I've talked about opportunity and ability. If this were a detective story, at this point you might be asking, does this suspect have a motive?
Yes. My motivation comes in the issue I would like to address.
I think that our schools have fallen into a trap. A well-intentioned trap, no doubt, but a trap, nonetheless. We've been distracted from our real mission -- educating children -- and redirected to a new mission -- raising children.
And that mission is doomed to failure. Schools, even good schools, can't replace good parents.
I think we can all agree on that.
But for too long, our society has been dumping its problems on the schoolhouse steps -- expecting the schools to deal with them. Too many children come to school without the upbringing or support they need to succeed. Society passes the buck to the public schools. Teachers, School Boards, and Administrators try to help these children, but all too often, it's already too late.
Frustrated at being made scapegoats for the social pathologies that our society refuses to face head-on, our schools are reduced to annually begging for more money, to fund more and more social "band-aids" -- more staff, more specialists, more programs.
Yes, it's true that today's schools face challenges unknown to previous generations -- Children from broken homes. Shuttled between parents. Moving repeatedly during the school year. Living in poverty. Undernourished. Under-nurtured. Under-loved. And I applaud educators for trying their hardest to help children overcome these obstacles. But I'm here today to say that despite the best efforts of dedicated educators, more money is not the answer. More money, will not solve these problems. And as long as the schools willingly accept their role as social service agencies and parental substitutes, nothing will change. It will only get worse.
The only real solution is to improve the home environments in which children are raised.
And the first step is for someone to stand up and state the obvious. Like the little child who dared to say that the emperor had no clothes, someone needs to stand up and say, "Enough! This can not continue! This is not acceptable! Parents have to act like parents -- like adults -- and provide proper care for their children."
And I submit to you that that someone should be school boards. In fact, it has to be school boards, because no one else is going to demand a change, not as long as our public schools continue to let society dump its problems at the schoolhouse door.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if your jobs as school board members could be totally about educating kids, instead of having to deal with all the social work aspects? Wouldn't you like to be able to focus all your attention and all our city's resources on producing Nobel Prize winners, future teachers and doctors, and graduates with the skills to succeed and contribute to society?
But it won't happen unless someone has the courage to take a stand.
Because once the schools take on a new responsibility, once the schools get into the business of providing some social service, they can never get out of it. They're trapped. It becomes permanently THE SCHOOLS' JOB. And when everything doesn't turn out perfectly, guess what? It's THE SCHOOLS' FAULT! The schools -- and school boards -- are put into a situation where they can't win, but they're conveniently there to take the blame.
Let me give you an example of how schools get trapped by responsibilities that distract from the mission of educating our children.
I think it is disgraceful that our society has deteriorated to the point where it is has become necessary for the schools to feed breakfast to children.
But should we really be throwing in the towel, saying we think it's too much to expect of adults, that they be able to pour their own children a simple bowl of cereal?
Because if our expectations really are that low, we're guaranteeing that that is what we will continue to get.
Because the children who grow up eating breakfast at school, for example, won't expect to feed breakfast to their own children someday. No, they are learning that that job belongs to the school.
But breakfast is just an example. My point is that as long as the schools just go along, taking on more and more work that rightly should be done by parents, we'll continue to have schools doing more and more work, needing more and more money.
Please don't misunderstand, I'm not suggesting that we stop everything cold turkey.
But unless we aren't afraid to think big -- to dream of what should and can be -- we're simply dooming ourselves to continue on the same path.
I'm not so naïve as to think that effecting social change is as simple as shouting "Enough!" But the first step is recognizing what the real problem is. The real problem is not money, it's not unfunded mandates. The real problem is social. That's where the battle must be fought, if there's any hope of winning it.
And I think it's up to School Boards to be the ones to say so. Because everyone else is perfectly happy letting you take the heat. They won't stand up and demand a change -- or look in the mirror -- as long they have the schools to blame.
I'm calling on school boards to be leaders, to help galvanize public opinion. To help start directing responsibility for raising children back where it belongs -- the parents. And as a member of the Saint Paul Public Schools Board of Education, I'd be able to do just that.
Thank you.
---------
Here are some more comments that I had to leave out, for time constraints:
------
Before we take on a new responsibility such as feeding children breakfast, I think we need to ask whether we have an exit strategy. Will this program fix a problem, so that we will be able to discontinue it? Or are we getting into an eternal obligation?
Even my own children have asked, "Why can't we eat breakfast at school?" I tell them, "Because you don't NEED to." But they don't understand my concern. They just see being fed by the school as a natural thing.
Now that the schools have gotten into the breakfast business, how will they get out of the breakfast business?
---------
Some people will be called back for another round, in which they will have to answer two new questions, with no advance knowledge of what those questions are.
I'll keep you posted.
Say It
Ain't So, Craig!
A letter-to-the-editor
in the St. Paul Pioneer Press today attacks blogger and part-time
Pioneer Press opinion columnist Craig Westover
by labeling Westover a "neocon," lumping him into a faceless group
called "neocons," and proceeding to tell us "neocons this"
and "neocons that."
Can anyone even tell me what a "neocon" is? It seems to be used only as a disparaging term directed at one's political opponent. I don't think I've ever heard anyone describe himself as a "neocon."
More important, is Craig Westover really a closet "neocon"?
Paul Bartlett wrote his letter in objection to Westover's recent, positive column about David Strom, head of the Minnesota Taxpayers League. Under a (newspaper-penned) headline of "Westover and Strom peas in a neocon pod," Bartlett writes:
"Craig Westover's May 4 column was a feeble attempt to polish David Strom's tainted image. Westover and Strom reside in the same neocon camp where truth-twisting is standard operating procedure. Westover's real purpose: Clean up the messenger and maybe the message won't have quite the stink.
"The neocons have been very successful at redefining our language....."
(At this point, I'm thinking: Right. Just like liberals redefine the language by calling others "neocons," while they call themselves "progressives.")
"... Westover deceitfully described Strom as a "populist." Strom may be a lot of things, but he is certainly not a populist. In fact, Strom represents the very privileged elite that the populists and progressives have opposed over the years. Populists and progressives support more and better public services; Strom's group would love to privatize and eliminate what's left of our public sector."
Can you believe that? Is that irony, hubris, or just plain old stupidity? He goes on and on labeling others "neocons," preaches from some sort of pulpit of purity of parlance, then hides his own liberal identity behind the label "progressive." How's that for wanting to have it both ways?
But on to the the most important question: Is Craig Westover guilty as charged? Is he really a "neocon"? I thought I'd go right to the source, so I e-mailed Craig this message:
Is it true? Are you a "neocon"?. How about it Craig? Do you have anything to say in your defense?
Here's his reply:
"Other than I really don't know what a neocon is?
"What was ironic about the letter is that 'neocon' is usually applied to foreign policy issues, and the Strom interview dealt with social issues, the social impact of economic issues and political philosophy.
"Go figure."
Thanks, Craig. Our minds are at ease again.
Just as Craig notes, my own observation is that "neocon" has usually been used in reference to foreign policy issues. Specifically, my limited understanding was that it referred to people who are fairly recent converts to the type of foreign policy being pursued in Iraq.
But as this letter-to-the-editor illustrates, it has quickly become just another pejorative term, used to denigrate anyone on the political right. It's name-calling, practiced by people who in turn say, "Don't call me a liberal! I'm a progressive!"
Whatever you say, you godless communist, I mean, liberal, er, progressive.
Murder
of a Cop an Attack on Us All
I awoke this morning to
learn that one of our St. Paul police officers had been shot and killed while on duty overnight. Officer Jerry Vick, 41,
leaves behind a wife and two children.
I learned of the officer's death when I turned on a talk radio station this morning. Most of the callers to the Bob Davis Show on KSTP-AM1500 were rightly mad, and they were concerned about the rest of the police department, and about Officer Vick's family.
But I couldn't believe what some of the callers had to say. The St. Paul Police Department was out in force this morning -- every available officer searching for the suspects and for evidence. In response to the television images of a neighborhood overrun by cops, a couple of callers asked, "Why don't the police turn out in such numbers and make this much effort when a civilian is killed?"
Another caller criticized St. Paul Mayor Randy Kelly, for saying there's nothing worse than a police officer being killed.
"How about a 5-year-old being run over by a school bus?" the caller asked. "Isn't that worse?"
I don't understand their complaints. After all, this isn't a zero-sum game. Concern over a murdered cop doesn't take away from any other tragedy.
But most of all, I don't understand their complaints, because the killing of a cop really is a special case.
First of all, most murders are "personal." There's some connection between the murderer and the victim. A murder over a bag of drugs or a domestic dispute doesn't usually put an entire neighborhood at risk. The murderer had his reasons for killing his victim; he's not looking to kill anyone else.
Second, a person who murders a cop is someone who clearly does not recognize the rules we live by. There are many thieves, but rare is the criminal who will cross the line to killing a cop. Those who do are particularly dangerous.
And once someone has shot a cop, he really doesn't care who else he shoots. He's already going away for life, so if shooting more people gives him a sliver of a chance to escape, he's got nothing to lose. St. Paul last lost an officer in the line of duty in 1994. Officer Ron Ryan stopped to check on a man sleeping in a car. He was shot to death. In the ensuing manhunt, which stretched widely over St. Paul's eastside, Officer Tim Jones was also shot to death. Two in one day. By the same killer.
Third, the police, the "Thin Blue Line," represent us. When a cop takes a bullet, he takes it for us. Symbolically, it isn't just an attack on one man; it's an attack on our community, on our society, on civilization.
When a cop takes a bullet, he takes it for me. And for you.
Two suspects have been arrested. Both have extensive criminal records: one has been arrested at least 22 times; the other has been arrested at least 25 times. Let's hope this is the final arrest for both. (Yes, yes, assuming they are the killers. I know they're only ALLEGED killers for now.) They've already had way too many second chances.
Economy,
Like Natural Environment, a Force Beyond Man's Control
Ed Lotterman writes about the error of Keynesianism.
Disciples of John Maynard Keynes believe that a government can micromanage the economy -- employment, growth, inflation. It's just a matter of tweaking it exactly the right amount at exactly the right time.
Lotterman says this is wrong:
"With monetary policy, much experience and theory show that all a central bank can do is maintain stable prices. That is, it can control the money supply to avoid either inflation or deflation.
"But a central bank cannot change either unemployment or economic growth in anything except the very short term. Attempts to do so are not just ineffective, but often harmful. That is precisely what brought us to the stagflation of the late 1970s."
I agree. I think the economy is a lot like our natural environment: a powerful force that operates on rules of its own. It may go through changes and cycles, but left alone, it takes care of itself over time.
Man can try to control the environment and the economy, but it's not possible. However, in both cases, man's efforts are capable of creating great harm. The best thing to do is stay out of the way.
But, politicians are always going to want to take credit and place blame for what the economy does. I remember President Clinton, in about March, 1993, announcing that the latest economic figures showed a turnaround in the economy. "Already, our policies are working!" he crowed.
Those figures were for the fourth quarter of 1992. When George H.W. Bush was still president.
Putting
Government on a Diet
The really good thing about
tax cuts and budget cuts is they put government on a diet. They force a
re-evaluation of the way things are done. As long as the money keeps flowing
out of the spigot, agencies don't tend to watch their spending very carefully.
But cut off the easy money, and they'll finally do what they should have done long ago.
Here in Minnesota, I've just read about three cities (adjacent suburbs) that are consolidating their police forces, after years of discussion. The decision finally came about after cuts in state aid.
"...by sticking together, city officials said they can save about one-third of the cost of operating individual police departments.
"A growing number of cities appear to be coming to a similar conclusion: Cooperation can improve service and slash costs. Since state Auditor Pat Anderson issued a report encouraging those partnerships in December, she said interest in mergers is increasing.
"'It's been amazing,' said Anderson. 'We have had more requests for extra copies of this report than any others.'
"Anderson said service-sharing partnerships, involving anything from police to recycling services, typically cut costs by a third to a half. And savings can be far higher - officials with the joint ambulance services in Apple Valley, Farmington and Lakeville said they've reduced expenses by 85 percent."
Sometimes you've just got to take away the training wheels, and force the kids to learn to ride.
Self-Service
Needs Help
I read a story about the backlash against "self-service." It's by Stevenson Swanson of the Chicago Tribune.
"From the gas that people pump themselves to such brave new frontiers of do-it-yourself-land as the self-serve checkout kiosks at Wal-Mart and Home Depot stores, American consumers are shouldering an ever-growing chunk of the work involved in everyday transactions.
"The explosion in self-serve options is generating a backlash. Communications experts say people are more isolated than they used to be in the days of face-to-face service, and other observers question how much time people are really saving if they must constantly adjust to new machines, absorb new instructions and deal with the inevitable snags."
It's an interesting story, but it misses one really big self-serve headache: "self-serve" phone calls.
I refer to those calls where you reach not a real person, but the dreaded phone menu. "For no help at all, press 1." "To waste some more time, press 2." That sort of thing. I sometimes get so far removed from anything that sounds remotely like what I'm after, that I hang up and try a fresh start.
Instead of reaching a real person, who might be able to answer my question in 10 seconds, I have to spend 10 minutes trying to figure out if any of the options even remotely apply to the reason for my call. I end up wasting my time, and never getting any help.
How is that a "improvement" or a "convenience"?
I tried renewing my license tabs on-line one time. I thought I should get with the program, join the 21st century, and save the 37 cents a stamp costs (I usually mail in a check). Well, after spending way too much time navigating the Minnesota Driver and Vehicle Services website, I finally got to the "checkout," where I found that they were going to charge me EXTRA for doing it online! For my "convenience," dontcha know. Here I was saving them from having a human handle my envelope and check, spending more of my own time in the process, and they were going to charge me extra! So I cancelled, and sent in my renewal via mail, after all.
And here's a thought on self-service gasoline: Whenever gas prices take a jump, we inevitably hear about the increased "drive-offs" that are plaguing gas stations. You know, there's an easy way to keep people from driving off without paying -- have an attendant AT THE PUMP! That's the way it used to be done. But the gas sellers want it both ways: They don't want to have to pay someone to be responsible for supervising the gas pumps, then they cry when people take advantage of that.
Of course, another solution is the "pre-pay only" policy. It's not a factor for me anymore; now I just pay at the pump. But before pumps that read credit cards were common, I used to avoid any place that required me to pay before I pumped my gas. To start with, they're calling me a crook. They don't know if they can trust me to pay? Well, how do I know that I can trust them to not have put water in the gas? There has to be a certain level of trust if we are going to do business with one another.
But also, they were making the process more difficult for me. Since I like to fill the tank, I don't know how much it will take. That means I have to go in once, leave money or a credit card (bad idea) with them, then go in again to settle up.
That's no way to treat a customer. Not when the customer has options.
A Veritable Smorgasbord!
In the past couple of days
I've been presented with an appetizing buffet of news items just waiting
for my comment. I'll be a pig, and try to cover as many as possible. Fortunately,
the virtual "plate" of the Web is big enough to let me just keep
heaping it on. (Or, keep piling it deeper, depending on your perspective.)
The Hennepin County Board has voted 4-3 to approve a county-wide sales tax for the purpose of building a new stadium for the Minnesota Twins baseball team.
Interestingly, the 4 "yes" votes came from the four men on the board, while the 3 "no" votes came from the three women on the board.
What's the significance? Perhaps nothing. But imagine this: a similar vote comes up regarding a facility for the Minnesota Lynx women's pro basketball team, or maybe for one of the U of M's women's teams. The body making the vote divides on gender lines -- all the men against; all the women for.
You don't think there'd be a feminist uproar?
Everyone knows that girls are disadvantaged when it comes to education, right? They don't go into math or science. They're all being told that they are empty-headed Barbie dolls and baby factories, right?
That flies in the face of the facts. A news story in yesterday's St. Paul Pioneer Press reports on the current gender divide in Minnesota higher-education. Last year, the story says, out of the degrees awarded by Minnesota's post-secondary institutions, the following percentage went to females:
65% of master's degrees
59% of associate's degrees
58% of bachelor's degrees
53% of doctoral degrees
Looks like the girls are more than holding there own.
I especially liked this excerpt:
"Erin Marasco, a Ph.D. student in biochemistry at the University of Minnesota, said she was encouraged to take science and math as a high school student in Michigan. 'I've always been curious. It's a very interactive kind of job. That appealed to me,' she said. 'I've never had the experience where someone has told me, "Oh, you're a woman, you shouldn't study science."'"
Things can and do change over time. I'll give you an example. I sometimes visit the Veterinary school at the U of Minnesota, with my own aspiring junior veterinarian. There is a hallway hung with photos of the school's graduating classes. Go back to the 1950s, and you'll see a bunch of similar mugshots: a couple hundred guys sporting crew cuts and tuxes. But move along into the 1960s, and female faces begin to appear. Keep going down the hallway, and the mix becomes more and more equal. Finally, look at the most recent photos. Men are barely represented; veterinarian has become a woman's job.
British Election More Civil? In Some Ways
Laura Billings has weighed in with a light-hearted take on the British election. She says elections in the U.K. are more "civilized" than in the U.S.
I agree there's much in the British election system that looks better than what we've been doing. Especially the way that there's a more limited, defined campaign period. The key is, they never know for sure when the election will be called, so no one starts campaigning 2-3 (4 in the case of John "if at first you don't succeed..." Kerry?) years beforehand, the way they do here.
In some ways the British election may be more "civil," but not always. I had the good timing to be in England when the election was called. I saw that the politicians are less restrained there in what they say about their opponents. Here, politicians intimate that their opponents are liars. There, I was surprised to hear one of the politicians on TV saying outright "So-and-so is a liar!"
That's the conclusion reached by Canadian researchers: Parents take better care of pretty children than they do ugly ones.
Researchers from the University of Alberta observed parents and children at supermarkets to make their assessments.
I wouldn't put too much stock in this story, because I don't see evidence that the researchers really controlled the experiment very well. A real test of their theory would be seeing how the same parent treats his or her own children of different attractiveness. But it appears that the comparison was made between different families, so I'm not convinced that tells us a lot.
I mention this story because it's another example of how people confuse correlation with causation, and sometimes also confuse cause and effect. Read this excerpt:
"Dr. Robert Sternberg, a professor of psychology and education at Yale University, said he saw problems in Harrell's method and conclusions - for example, not considering socioeconomic status.
'Wealthier parents can feed, clothe and take care of their children better due to greater resources,' Sternberg said, possibly making them more attractive."
Yes, greater wealth likely makes it easier for people to spruce up their children. But what I object to here is Dr. Sternberg's apparent belief that a person's level of wealth is just some sort of accident, which comes first, and then that wealth bestows advantages on people.
Not necessarily. I will posit that people who are more capable of basic life skills -- like taking good care of their children -- are also more likely to become wealthy. So, I agree with Dr. Sternberg that there is likely a CORRELATION, but we disagree on which is the cause, and which is the effect.
Minimum
Wage, but Maximum Change
Here in Minnesota, the
legislature is working on raising the minimum wage. It looks like the new
minimum wage will be $6.15, a jump of a whole dollar from the level of $5.15
established back in 1997.
Now, I don't want to get into an argument about whether there should be a minimum wage, or what that minimum wage should be. In a lot of ways, the minimum wage is a non-factor. The sky won't fall either way -- whether we raise it or leave it as is.
But let me say this about the way we implement the minimum wage: If it's a given that we will have a minimum wage, then it also seems a given that the minimum wage will have to rise over time, along with inflation, so that it remains at the "right" or "fair" level.
But employers don't like the shock of having to dole out $1 an hour raises all at once. Who can blame them? And workers don't like having to wait eight years to get a bump in pay. Who can blame them?
So why do we do it this way? Why do we raise the minimum wage in a big bump all at once, after going eight years with no change? Why don't we do it gradually?
What if back in 1997, we had increased the minimum wage, and, additionally, specified that it would continue to rise 10 cents a year, until otherwise legislated? Or 5 cents a year? Either way, we could have left open the possibility to further increase the wage by passing new legislation.
So why don't we do something like that now? Go ahead, raise it to $6.15 if that's what we are going to do. But then also mandate that it will go up another 10 cents next year, and so on. That kind of system should please those who want the minimum wage to keep increasing, while also going easier on employers' payrolls and staffing decisions. We always hear opponents of a minimum wage increase claiming that it will result in fewer jobs. That prediction is much less likely to come true if minimum wage increases are implemented gradually.
There are those who were pushing for two increases: one this July, then up again to $7 next July. My proposal is a lot easier to swallow than that, yet it still does ensure additional increases. It sounds to me like such a good compromise idea that.......no one will ever go along with it.
(For more on my philosophy of the minimum wage, see my March 15, 2005 post, "Minimum Wage is Supposed to be Minimal.")
Think
Your Money's Safe? Don't Bank on It
Think once you put your
money in the bank it'll be there until you take it out? Don't count on it.
In a story today by
the St. Paul Pioneer Press' "Watch Dog" (Debra O'Connor),
we learn of Phyllis Rydeen, who buried her husband, and soon found that
the U.S. government had raided her bank account.
I suggest you read the story yourself, but in brief, here's the deal: For some reason, the Social Security Administration thought that Lester Rydeen had died in January of 2004, rather than 2005. So, the SSA decided it shouldn't have issued the final 12 months of checks it had sent to Mr. Rydeen.
So, the U.S. Treasury Department, on the behalf of the SSA, contacted the Rydeens' bank, behemoth Wells Fargo. Treasury said, "Give us $12,000 from that nice old lady's account." Wells Fargo said, "Duh, OK," and forked over $12,000.
But no one bothered to inform Mrs. Rydeen. There was no warning to her. SSA didn't bother to question her to verify that it really had overpaid. The bank didn't even tell her anything. The first she learned that anything had happened was when she started bouncing checks all over town.
So much for due process.
The situation is finally getting straightened out, but it raises some questions in my mind. The first concerns the ease with which the government could access the money in Mrs. Rydeen's account.
We live in an age of information technology and convenient, electronic banking. But information is a double-edged sword. When we give someone access to our financial accounts, for the purpose of direct deposits, are we also making it easy for that same entity to withdraw money from our accounts, as well?
What if the Rydeens had simply cashed their checks and buried the money in Mason jars in the cowyard? Mrs. Rydeen wouldn't have gone through all this nonsense, that's what. We've laughed at those old-timers (not many left) who lived through the Great Depression and didn't trust the banks. Maybe they weren't so paranoid, after all. If your bank could one day just give your money to someone else.... I'd like to think a person's bank wouldn't just "give up" the depositor to the feds like that, like some sort of criminal. I thought the bank was supposed to be on the side of the depositor. The bank shouldn't just roll over like that.
I once had money seized from someone's bank account. I won a case in small claims court, and to get payment, I had the Hennepin County Sheriff's Department seize money from the defendant's account. But he had the opportunity to pay, and there was a lengthy process involved.
But in order to collect, I had to be able to tell the Sheriff's Department where this guy had an account. Fortunately, he had paid me once previously, and my credit union was able to look at the microfilm they make of all deposited checks, and tell me what bank his account was at. (I learned from that to photocopy all checks before depositing them!) But if this guy had closed that account, I would have been out of luck. (As I would have been if his account didn't contain enough money to pay me. Or, if he had all his money in cash buried in the garden.)
Be Careful What You Wish For
The idea that technology giveth, and technology taketh away, reminds me of another thought. Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, I heard someone suggest that maybe TVs and radios should be equipped so that the government could turn them on in the event of an emergency, to give the public terrorism warnings or public safety information.
Sounds good, right? Sounds reasonable.
Not so fast. If the government has the power to turn our TVs and radios ON, then it follows that the government will also have the power to turn our TVs and radios OFF.
Do we want that?
The Melting
Pot(hole)
I just got home from the
United Nations. Oh, did I say United Nations? I mean, I just got home from
renewing my driver's license.
I tell you, people are coming to Minnesota from all over. I'll bet there were people there born on five different continents. There were people from East Africa, Southeast Asia, some likely from South and Central America, and I even overheard two women talking (I think) Russian! (And with me, there was at least one person born in North America.)
It makes me wonder what their stories are. How did they get here? Why did they come to St. Paul, of all places?
And they all want to drive. Why are people coming from all over the world to drive in Minnesota? I don't know. Could it be they heard how good our roads are?
Freedom
FROM Religion?
From a letter to the editor, in today's
St. Paul Pioneer Press, by Elizabeth Nelson, of St. Paul:
"The U.S. Constitution clearly states there is a separation of church and state. When a rally is held at the state Capitol and religious leaders speak to the group, that separation is gone."
Holy cow! (Oops, there I go, mixing church and dairy state.)
First of all, as most of us know, the First Amendment does not "clearly" say that there is a "separation of church and state." That wording is NOT part of the Constitution. Here's what the First Amendment says about religion:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
That's it.
In truth, the First Amendment exists to protect people of faith from those like Ms. Nelson, who think the right to free speech -- and the right to participate in public affairs -- can be made dependent on a person's religious beliefs, or lack thereof.
It's just the opposite. The First Amendment says we have rights, whether we are believers, or whether we aren't.
She couldn't be more wrong.
Loaded
Question
I saw the new TIME magazine today. The
cover features the new Pope, and asks "How conservative will he be?"
What's implied, it seems to me, is the idea that being conservative is bad, and the real question is "Will he be too conservative?"
Maybe I'm just too sensitive here, but it looks like still more evidence of the mainstream media's liberal bias. I can't imagine a TIME cover featuring a liberal religious leader or politician, and asking the question, "How liberal will he be?"
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/