Hospitality

For the past couple of days I have been in Aguascalientes and Zacatecas with my wife. I wanted to have her see the area - where I have been doing a lot of work recently and a good friend wanted her to meet his wife.

The friend is the rector of a start up university that is doing quite well - growing but also developing some very substantive assets for the region. His family is wonderful - two boys and two girls - the oldest in university and the next about to enter. The kids are thoughtful and well behaved. They are part of a class of people their age that seem quite comfortable with international visitors. My friend and his family took two days and showed us around. At the end of each day they were kind enough to take us back to their house to meet some of their friends. That was really wonderful. We also got to see both cities - Aguascalientes is in the center of Mexico (El Corazon de Mexico) and is a wonderful community of about 700,000 last fall I led a program for the new Governor (who is a new kind of Mexican politician) and his staff. We got to see the Governor briefly on this trip. The next day we went to Zacatecas which is about an hour´s north of AGU. Site of one of the most important battles in the Mexican Revolution but very colonial in feeling.

This afternoon we had a chance to catch up with one of our three Mexican ¨sons¨ - he is an attorney who is currently finishing his doctorate at one university while serving as dean of two other law schools. He has a girl friend and seems quite involved in a lot of interesting projects. It was a real pleasure to hear about all the things he is doing.

The warmth we experienced in both places gave me a great feeling. Our friends went out of their way to show us their city and to give my wife especially a good idea of the community. Our young friend in Mexico took a couple of hours out of his day just to catch up - coming to the airport on a Friday is a sacrifice but we had a great lunch and heard all about his things - family, dissertation, girl friend, politics, etc.

NBC should fire Brian Williams

Last week NBC news anchor commented that the "first several US presidents were terrorists." Funny, I do not remember George Washington kidnapping innocent civilians. I also do not remember Thomas Jefferson blowing up explosives to kill and maim non-combatants. I do not remember James Madison beheading anyone in the name of the revolution. I may have missed it but I do not think John Adams held hostages.

A terrorist is someone who advocates repression and violence in pursuit of their aims. How does he justify his characterization?

Were he in any way responsible, he would resign. If he does not he should be launched. He might use some free time to learn a bit more care in his language.

Original Intent and Sandra Day O'Conner

The news seems to be all over the idea that Sandra Day O'Conner was a) a unifying force for the Supreme Court or b) a conservative. Clearly, not both of those judgments can be correct. But as I reflected on her 24 years on the bench the more I reviewed the decisions where she had a major impact the more I see the folly of not looking for someone with original intent in mind.

Should the Constitution be able to change with the times - what about writing a document when there were no corporations or internet or fast food or any other contrivance? Obviously, with a little thought about it we can bring the Constitution up to modern times when we do not think it is working right - we've done it 27 times. Now some are trying to make it 28 with the flag amendment (which I personally think is silly). Madison argued persuasively in Federalist #10 to avoid the "passions of the people" - unfortunately a lot of what has passed for clear thinking on the court in recent years has not done that.

In Grutter - Justice O'Conner argued that affirmative action may be troubling to the equal protection clause but we need to keep it in place for another 25 years to assure ourselves that racism has been expunged. What is the logical indicator in 25 years that will be used to test whether we have met our match? Will it change over time?

In Grutter she said ""We have repeatedly acknowledged the overriding importance of preparing students for work and citizenship, describing education as pivotal to 'sustaining our political and cultural heritage' with a fundamental role in maintaining the fabric of society. This court has long recognized that 'education is the very foundation of good citizenship.' For this reason, the diffusion of knowledge and opportunity through public institutions of higher education must be accessible to all individuals regardless of race or ethnicity. . . .
"We take the law school at its word that it would 'like nothing better than to find a race-neutral admissions formula' and will terminate its race-conscious admissions program as soon as practicable. It has been 25 years since Justice Powell first approved the use of race to further an interest in student body diversity in the context of public higher education. Since that time, the number of minority applicants with high grades and test scores has indeed increased. We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today."
The motive is noble but the long term consequences of chasing a principle not properly grounded in the Constitution is also wrong.

Her comments in First amendment cases have been particularly troubling. The Establishment clause has been interpreted in modern terms far beyond its intent. I believe to the detriment of religious practice. Does the country bound itself on religious principles that a primarily Judeo-Christian? Absolutely. Should religious institutions be getting support to advance their religious goals. No. But what is the harm in allowing some recognition in public places for religious principles? In both the Texas and Kentucky decisions (where Bryer switched his vote for no apparent logical principle) O'Conner voted no. In a 1984 case (Lynch) she wrote in a concurring opinion "Government can run afoul of that prohibition in two principal ways. One is excessive entanglement with religious institutions, which may interfere with the independence of the institutions, give the institutions access to government or governmental powers not fully shared by nonadherents of the religion, and foster the creation of political constituencies defined along religious lines. The second and more direct infringement is government endorsement or disapproval of religion. Endorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community. Disapproval sends the opposite message." But clearly if we were founded on the base principles they should be recognized in public discussions - not to bring adherents or to embarass non-believers but more to recognize the fundamental founding principles of our nation.

In the recent stretch that the court went through on eminent domain Justice O'Conner caught the very essence of the issue - which unfortunately was missed by the majority. She commented "As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result. 'That alone is a just government,' wrote James Madison, 'which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own."

I hope the President finds someone who is a bit less political and a bit more intent on not trying to find a minimum winning coalition which Justice O'Conner did well in the legislative process - but to adhere to a clear understanding of principles. A good many of the cases the Court is asked to decide are "tweeners" but as I reflected on Justice O'Conner's long history on the court her luck with those issues was spotty at best.

How many is enough?

The Rivercats are playing Salt Lake for the next couple of days. Last night they lost a close decision. Tonight they came into the ninth with a seven run lead. They brought in Chris Mabeus before then and he had one good inning but then lapsed into his old ways. One of our seat mates in our section - who celebrated her 50th tonight - quoted the old Woodie Allen line a few weeks ago when in a similar situation - having Mabeus as a reliever is like being offered the choice between death and cake (and we're all out of cake.) Mabeus can have a couple of good innings but he is inconsistent.

The other heart breaker this evening - as with the last time they got together was the youngster Jairo Garcia - Garcia is 22 - has a fast ball is pretty awesome but not very consistent. He can throw a lot of pitches at more than 90 MPH - the problem is not many of them are over the plate.

In the end they were able to close out for a win but not until they allowed the Stingers to produce 5 runs. How many is enough - tonight 7 were just enough.

Family

Over the weekend I was in Winston Salem with my two brothers, my wife and one sister in law celebrating an achievement of one aunt who worked as a professional sports writer and one aunt who has lived a life of service.

The aunt who was a sports reporter was awarded the Red Smith Award which the AP gives to outstanding sports reporters. Mary Garber was a sports reporter on the Winston Salem paper for more than 50 years. She is the first woman to receive the award. There is a good story about her on the Women Sports Writers Association page. She started when the males on the paper went to WWII. They came back and rather than being relegated to the society page she convinced her editor to stay in sports. There are lots of stories about her contacts and friendships with major sports figures of the century (Jackie Robinson, Carl Ellers, Big House Gaines, Billy Jean King) but the real stories are her friendships and stories about the athlete who had one crowning moment. I can't tell you how many times in the last 30 years, when I have visited, that some grey headed gentleman has come up to the table - pulled out a yellowed press clipping about some long forgotten high school game that Mary wrote about and and then wanted to say hello to "Miss Mary." The importance of sports in our society should not be underestimated.

Her younger sister, Cornelia, lived a slightly different life. She took care of three members of my family -first her dad, then her mom and now her sister. She contributed to the community in a raft of volunteer activity - book clubs, service leagues, little theater. While Mary is slightly introverted, Neely is the extrovert - always the life of the party. She is able to tell stories with the best of them. Many of them are true - many are also funny. Both of them examplify simple contributions to their community. Mary has been more visible than Neely but both seem to cut in at all levels of society.

On Sunday, they held a BBQ with their next door neighbors for the neighborhood. It was amazing in two ways. First, that these two ladies had lived in the same house for more than 80 years. That is an achievement in itself. Second, the neighborhood, which is made up of a pretty diverse group of people - are all appreciative of the contributions that both have made to the neighborhood. Those contributions have been large and small. For example, on Saturday morning a group of Black business people came over to the nursing home where Mary is recovering to wish her well. They were very kind - but clearly reflected the affection that she had offered in covering high school and college games in the area. A story is told about Mary going to a Black high school long ago where one young student said to another "What is that White woman doing at our school?" The other kid said something like "That is Mary Garber and if you do something good she will write about it in the paper." Those were from the larger community - but one attendee for the BBQ called them the "glue" that holds the neighborhood together.

On Sunday morning we went to church with Neely - at the church where my parents were married. The church is a grand old place - very similar in age to the one my wife grew up in. Part of the service was for Neely to show off her relatives to her buddies. But part of it for me was a chance to reconnect to something that has been in my family for a very long time.

This weekend was a good chance to see my two brothers (sister Nancy was working) and my two aunts. But it was also a chance to re-educate myself about what is important in life. If you want to see the people involved I did a website at my home page but you can get to it directly by clicking HERE

The Supreme Court on Private property

Today there was a contrast that I thought was interesting. At Econologthere was a post about libertarians - with a great quote
"Libertarians see the state as just another human institution, with the same moral status as a supermarket or a bowling league."

It was especially timely as the Supreme Court issued its land use decision in Kelo v. City of New London. The slim majority argued that it was ok to move a couple of families out of their homes merely because some local government unit had decided that an economic development project took precedent. There is a good post - including a copy of the decision here.

Glen Reynolds at Instapundit has a witty post wondering whether this court is the Emily Latella Court - this was not one of Anthony Kennedy's finest hours. Instapundit includes a comment from Charles Fried

I think the quote on libertarians is a bit off the mark - indeed there are some limited number of instances where a governmental decision should take precedent. But as several pointed out today there should be some very stringent considerations in making that type of decision. In the same way that taxes should be raised with supermajorities - eminent domain decisions should be made with some extraordinary procedures.

Private Accounts

Robert Bennett, Senator from Utah, was on Squawk Box this morning touting his "compromise" on Social Security that will not include private accounts. As he explained his plan - the idea would include Pozen indexing - which would introduce equity based indexing (more for people with lower incomes) and longevity based indexing (life expectancy at retirement would be taken into account for benefits) into the system without raising the retirement age. Neither change is a bad one. But the longer term effects of private accounts on both the size and scope of government and on the personal empowerment for individual citizens should not be lost. It looks like some members of the GOP have shown a lack of intestinal fortitude - if the Dems just hold their breath long enough - things like private accounts will just go away. The GOP should change its name - what is "grand" about a party that is not willing to fight hard enough on basic principles?

Commencement Speeches I would have liked to have heard II

In this morning's Sacramento Bee, Peter Schrag makes an important point. Richard Rodriguez, author of Hunger of Memory as well as a raft of other writings on the Latino experience and on broader topics of life in America, had been invited to speak to the Haward State (now called CSU East Bay) graduation. But a small group of Latino activists protested. Rather than diminish the day for graduates he withdrew. Rodriguez made a compelling point - the day should not be on the graduation speaker but on the graduates and the expected protests would have detracted from that. It is a shame that any place that calls itself a university does not have the gumption to encourage the free exchange of ideas. Rodriguez showed class in his statement - like his much of his writing - he offered a profound elegance that the activists lack.

Bluegrass in the Mountains

Each Father's day the California Bluegrass Association holds a festival on the Nevada county fairgrounds. The last four days are basically concerts. (Before that are workshops.) This year Rhonda Vincent and Rage were there, so was The Del McCoury Band, so were two other bands I really liked Lost Highway (which I had heard before) and True Blue- which I had not. The Grascals were also there, and I like them a lot. Finally, there was IIIrd Tyme Out which is a band that has been around for a while and like Del McCoury is consistently great. McCoury always amazes me. His energy on stage is infectious. His two sons, who now play with him, are excellent technically (as is Del) but Del's enthusiasm is wonderful.

The festival is a low key affair - music goes from about 10 in the morning to 11 at night with two breaks - one for lunch, one for dinner. Everyone sits on lawn chairs or blankets under the pines. On Friday night it was very cold. If you like that kind of music - this festival is a must. The CBA Website will tell you all about it and their other activities.

When are apologies appropriate in politics - E.J. Dionne's Column is a bit short

In a column this morning in the Washington Post, E.J. Dionne suggests that Tom Delay and Bill Frist should apologize to the nation because the autopsy of Mrs Schaivo found a significantly diminished brain capacity. It is a good piece of rhetoric but fails on other grounds. In the Schaivo issue, I was offended by both sides because I think both sides lost sight of the key principle that Mrs. Schaivo was, even in diminished capacity, still a human being. The decision whether to kill her should not have been taken over by the apparatus of the state. Although ultimately the question is one which our laws have not caught up with our technologies (we can now sustain a person indefinitely - remember Mrs. Schaivo was not being sustained by extraordinary means). So yes, I think Frist and DeLay owe us an apology. But then all of the politicians who jabbered on this issue also owe us an apology for not dealing with a developing issue in an intelligent manner. Granted Mrs. Schaivo had diminished capacity but where is the appropriate place to draw the line? Does the "principle" established in this case allow a family to decide to terminate a child with an extremely low IQ? On the other hand does the GOP position require that we consistently take extraordinary means to sustain life no matter what the cost? There is a slippery slope here that I am quite uneasy about. The policy questions here are very tough - 1) When should another person have the ability to make a decision about the viability of another person's life - absent a consistent life sustaining technology intervening? 2) Is a feeding tube different than a respirator - or more importantly which technologies are appropriately turned off and which are not?

Then we get to Dick Durbin. Durbin this week called Gitmo a "gulag." Doesn't that also deserve an apology? In the first instance, both the right and the left (but mostly the right) interposed public policy into an area where fundamental issues are unsettled in a way that did not treat the object of their quest with dignity. In the second instance, a US Senator in the second role of the minority made knowingly false accusations trying to undermine the president. If Dionne were being balanced he would ask for an apology from both. The character of political rhetoric turns many voters off - the extreme statements on important issues treat the voters like buffoons - but make the politicians look like them. Dionne's last line in the piece should be read broadly - "No, we should not move on. We should remember that some politicians will say whatever is necessary to advance their immediate purposes. Apologies, anyone?"

Commencement Speeches I would have liked to have heard

Steve Job's Stanford Commencement Address is a good example of a great commencement speech. It is short. It makes some profound points in a clear and at times very personal manner. He divided his comments into three stories - the benefits of dropping out of Reed, doing a job you love, and dealing with mortality. He ends it was Stuart Brand's mantra from the last Whole Earth Catalogue - stay hungry, stay foolish. If you want to be inspired - read the speech.

Old Rockers

On Saturday we went to a concert called Hulaballo - at Raley Field. It was an interesting melange. First, the age of the concert goers was older than I expected. Should not have been surprised - who knows who the Hollies were. Second, some of the groups were worth seeing - Johnny Rivers is a really great guitarist - whether you like his songs or not. The Grass Routes were wonderful - and lots of fun. Best line of the evening - "Buy our best of live album - I have a grandchild to support!" But their music was also fun.

Al Wilson was as I remembered - a good R&B/Soul voice in a lot of genres. The rest were less than memorable.

People mostly had a good time - although some of the aging rock fans were a bit annoying. Some of the music was dated - but a lot of it was not. Maybe I will go to another one in about a decade.

The APPLE INTEL deal

The response of the markets suggests that Apple goofed when they linked with Intel. As an original Macintosh Evagelista I say BALONEY. The essence of Apple, at least since the reappearance of Steve Jobs, has been the operating system. OSX is impregnable compared to Windows. It also is filled with wonderful bells and whistles that Mr. Baumer only dreams of.

So what are the risks?

#1 - Execution - The Osborne Problem - my first computer was an Osborne - when Adam Osborne announced his next generation of machines, he killed his company - or so the folklore goes - because his channel died and he failed to deliver. The conditions here are quite different. First, Jobs wisely created backwards compatability - the PPC and Intel platforms will be able to work across each other. He offers an environment called Rosetta that will allow programmers to write on both chips without doing work twice. Second, that also allows a transition among those who want to buy a PPC model. The chatter in the WWDC seems to have been - this is not tough and will increase our market. So in the short and long term this seems to make sense.

#2 - The Maginot Problem - Let's face it, Windows is not open source but it is certainly a leaky boat as it relates security. It has more viruses than the NIH. If we go to their chip will we face the same problem? I think not - I am not a programmer but those I know say the inherent issue is with the software not the hardware. OSX is unix based and less likely to have the same kind of problems that pre-Longhorn Windows has. In this case I would rather be a Tiger than a cow.

#3 - The market comparison problem - With an intel chip why buy a Mac? The simple answer is even greater flexibility. Look at the comments about the latest operating system - most border on the scale of insanely great. Walt Mossberg had it right when he wrote his comments about Tiger. What Mac users get out of this is a bit more flexibility on size and battery life and speed. We still have Apple engineers who have some of the best designers in the business.

#4 - Will the company lose focus? Apple has lived well in the last couple of years based on the iPod but also on some really great software. The sold base of the new OS - several weeks into launch - is more than 2 million units - according to Jobs' speech at the Developer's conference this week. The adoption rate is quick. Thus, this seems to integrate with current focus and also seems to offer some long term benefits.

I for one often am not a fan of Job's speeches at Macworld and the WWDC - but the substance of his message - the linkage he got from a couple of major dogs including Mathematica, Microsoft and Adobe - suggests that the pros like this deal. If you want to see his WWDC speech and judge for yourself you can at Steve Jobs at WWDC

The Dopes on the Supreme Court

In the recent decision on medical marijuana I thought Justice Thomas had it about right, as he often does. He said the following in his dissent - "The majority prevents states like California from devising drug policies that they have concluded provide much needed respite to the seriously ill." He also commented "Our federalist system, properly understood, allows California and a growing number of states to decide for themselves how to safeguard the health and welfare of its citizens."

I am not sure where Scalia was on this - it seems odd that he voted with the majority. But in this case Thomas had it right.

A really interesting article on European federalism

In an article that appears in the electronic edition of The New Republic, Niall Ferguson argues that the no votes against the proposed constitution are based more on a relatively sophisticated understanding of federalist principles - i.e. a constitution where the individual parts are pretty different in size and economic power needs to have the kinds of mitigations between (or more properly among) the sizes to be able to work. The unique balance in the US model which used the big state/small state model - might be a more appropriate model. That is really clear thinking.

Interim Status on "Saving the Republic"

There are several quick comments on the recent votes to dislodge the logjam of nominations in the Senate.

1) So far the deal has worked pretty well - we've (the American people) have gotten a couple of pretty good judges confirmed after several years of petty delay. but

2) There are a couple of big boulders in the road ahead - including the Bolton nomination - which is not in the same class but certainly important.

3) Sheets and some of his colleagues can certainly not be accused of lowering their level of rhetoric. The senior senator from New York - whose antics are always a bit sophomoric - has lived up to his reputation. I often wonder what it would be like to live in his world where cataclyism invades one's every breath. The seat he inhabits is not in the line of Roscoe Conklin - that was the Moynihan/Clinton seat - but his rhetoric is often in the spirit of the man who commented in the 1880s - Those who fear the allure that patriotism has for scalawags and scofflaws, have not noticed the clarion call that reform has for these same people.

Twain's quote was better - "nothing need's reforming so much as other people's habits."

4) Even with the deal, if it holds up, the real tests are to come - especially when the first Supreme Court nominee is in place.

5) Finally, the deal may have increased the number of no votes, at least for some of the nominees. With the deal in place some mid-leaning dems may have felt no obligation to consider these issues fairly.

What to do about Ground Zero

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal had a long article on an attempt to broaden the theme of the 9/11 memorial at ground zero. In a post today at SISU the author has a much better phrase for this effort by the left to divert our attention from this hallowed ground - she calls them "grave robbers" - and that sounds about right to me.

There is plenty of time to debate silly claims like the Amnesty International rant that we run gulags like the Soviet Union. There are also plenty of locations to commemorate almost any other issue that enough people who want to fund it can choose.

But the location where the Twin Towers were should be reserved to honor the memory of those who died that day. The monument should be simple and focussed. Why in the world should it be anything else?

A few weeks after 9/11 a concert was held to raise money for the families of the victims. Operaman appeared and sang a great line about the Saudi shiek who had offered $10 million but but put a condition on it partially blaming America for its plight. As you may remember Mayor Guiliani said to the shiek - take the cash and shove it. If Soros wants to fund this thing - we should collectively tell him to go find the shiek.

In today's WSJ a person on the Commission tries to play it down by saying there will be some additional stuff around the memorial in the freedom center and then has the audacity to quote from Lincoln at Gettysburg. Wouldn't it be more moving to simply have the memorial at that place and use some other place to make the political statement?

Duck Walking with the LA Times

In Friday's LA Times there is a page one article with the headline "He's not walking like a duck." The article then goes on to suggest that Bush was defensive in his last press conference and is therefore a lame duck. When you go to the inside part of the story - it is a bit more balanced - listing the strengths that Bush has compared to other second term presidents of recent memory. The story comes from news that was created by the tone of the questions in the news conference and then is mitigated when you get to its meat.

There could be an interesting story here. a) Bush has been extraordinarily ambitious for a second termer (in terms of goals and programs) and b) most presidents at this point in their tenure begin to lose steam. Then the story could have analyzed the situation with a bit of care and precision. But then that would be reporting.

Dinner with Jedgar

In 1969 my wife and I were recently married and about to celebrate our first Christmas in Washington, D.C. On Christmas Eve we decided to splurge and went to the Redwood Room in the Mayflower for dinner. It had snowed that evening and so we found the place empty save three other people. In the center of the room was Vance Hartke and his wife. Hartke was a senator from Indiana and was a leading opponent of the war in Vietnam. In the corner of the room was J. Edgar Hoover, eating alone.

We were seated and almost immediately, the Senator came over to our table and asked us if we would like to join him and his wife for Christmas dinner. We moved to the larger table and the Senator said let's see if the Director would like to join us. Hartke walked over to Hoover's table to invite him. It was far enough away so that all I could hear was Hartke's midwestern twang going on for a couple of sentences. Then I heard Hoover say a single "No" in a basso profundo. Hartke came back to our table and said, "the Director has decided not to join us this evening."

That evening was memorable if for no other reason that I was working on a thesis on the War Powers Act, and so got a chance to talk to one of its authors. But he also made sure that conversation was not all about business. Hartke later sent me a copy of his book. But the one word reply from Hoover also stuck in my mind!

Dejavugate - the Role of W. Mark Felt

I should first admit that I worked in the Nixon Administration - twice. But I should also comment that after the first experience I went on to work for the guy who cast the deciding vote against one of the worst Supreme Court nominees ever (up to then - G. Harold - Justice Mediocre - Carswell). ( I will write about that experience some time in the future.)

The revelation of who Deep Throat was this week has brought back a lot of thoughts or is it acid reflux? Who is the hero here?

Some suggest that the former deputy director of the FBI W. Mark Felt, who served as Woodward and Bernstein's source, is a hero. I think that is silly. He was a sworn officer of the law - he ignored his responsibilities and oath to respond to a perceived slight when he did not get the top job. He was disgruntled that Mr. Gray had been named to replace Jedgar. (The contraction of J. Edgar - in my first year in DC I had an interesting interchange with Jedgar - again later on that one.) I find no valor in his conduct. He was convicted of a series of illegal acts in other areas and was pardoned by RWR. So no, I do not find him a hero.

Some have suggested that the two reporters and their editor are the heroes. They spun a pretty good yarn about a second rate burgalry and its associated crimes - some of which were pretty serious. It is pretty clear that the editor and possibly the two reporters were excited about their role in bringing down a president. Prior to Watergate the Post was a second rate paper. It still is - consistent bias in its news pages, too much about social goings on, blah, blah, blah. What the process did spawn was a generation of reporters who are in the business of social change not reporting. There really is not a snake under every rock but some reporters still look for the next "gate."

Some have suggested that the convicted in this process, especially Liddy, were the heroes. Liddy and some of his crew were certifiable at the time of their work upon which they were convicted. While I think he has done a great job since then is in his prison ministries, I am not sure I would count him as a hero - especially in the role during the events. Here, even if his conduct during the scandal was less than admirable, since then it has been stellar.

What this has done for me is to remind me of the one person I really admired during the process - he was a guy who was slightly older than me - who broke the law, admitted it, served his time, went back and restablished a life of merit. At a party among friends soon after he was released from prison, my wife (who had not know him) asked him about his situation - and he came back with a simple statement - "I made a mistake, was seduced by the trappings of power, but it was still my responsibility" - For my money one of the heroes of this was Seattle attorney Egil "Bud" Krogh.

As for the scandal - I am not sure it was as legitimate a crisis as those on the left have portrayed it. I am pretty sure we have gotten both good and bad from the time we went through to get to all of the people that ultimately got removed. In one strange sense, the dems should be the ones who dislike Felt's role. The McGovern rules, which caused immediate and long term problems for moderate democrats, were a partial result of Watergate. We got arguably one of the worst presidents in the history of the republic (Carter) as a result of Watergate - his performance brought on Reagan's three terms (yes, POTUS 41 was really a third term). All that and crisis TV may be a pretty high price to pay.

Jermaine Clark as Commentator

At yesterday's game of the Rivercats, Jermaine Clark, one of the fastest utility men in baseball was the guest on the radio broadcast of the game. Clark is a pleasure to watch on the field - his base running is very quick. For right now he may be a hot prospect for the A's but when he is done with baseball, he is also a hot prospect for announcing. Johnny Doskow, the voice of the Rivercats is one of the best in the game - with clear and concise reporting of the game and great side chatter about the team and baseball. But Clark did a wonderful job of filling in details. He sounded bright and intelligent. The Rivercats can be heard on the net or on 1380 AM. Jose Reynoso is the Spanish announcer for the Cats and also quite good.

At 29-25 the Rivercats are in the lead for the Southern Division of the Pacific Division of the PCL - with Albuquerque and Oklahoma ahead in total wins in the American Southern Division - there are four divisions in the league (N/S American and Pacific). But at this point in the season there are plenty of teams who could be contenders.

At the team breakfast I won a half innning of being in the booth with Doskow and am looking forward to that opportunity. I know I will have two questions for him. Every baseball voice has some unique phrases - Doskow's is "holy kadelphia" - who knows where that came from. The other is something that came out of the breakfast. The people who sat with him at the breakfast asked him about the worst call he ever made in a game - he said it was in Appleton Wisconsin where he called a ball playable that was actually a home run out of the park by about 40 feet - I wonder how tall that outfielder was.

What is really happening in the EU?

Most of the traditional media are speculating that the rejection of the EU constitution in France and the spiking of it in the Netherlands is somehow a reaction against free market policies of the bureaucrats in Brussels. Indeed, as Chancellor Schroeder once commented there are very high expectations for a social welfare state - he said 'Germany has the oldest university students and the youngest retirees in the world." - so there is some of that.

I suspect that while that is part of it - the real reason is the inherent intelligence of the voters and their manifest distrust of the elites. This afternoon I went through the proposed draft and picked out only a few examples of the absurdity of some of the language in the lengthy document. The document includes lots of vague detail. Declarations of rights which by any reasonable standard would be uneforceable in any reasonable proceeding but expanding expectations none-the-less. Perhaps the voters did not act out of fear but more appropriately out of "self interest rightly understood." I think those areas of improvement will remain - but the non and nee of the last few days and nein and no that would come from other places will be there as long as the voters feel the soft and hard effects of bureaucratic interventions in their lives.

If the elites are smart in this, and based on the comments from the Marshall Fund person a few days ago (*quoted several days ago) they may not be, they will think a bit more carefully about the real business of drafting a constitution not a laundry list.

Posted below are just some examples of the absurdities in the European Constitution.
ARTICLE II-89 Everyone has the right of access to a free placement service.
ARTICLE II-91 1. Every worker has the right to working conditions which respect his or her health, safety and
dignity. 2. Every worker has the right to limitation of maximum working hours, to daily and weekly
rest periods and to an annual period of paid leave.
ARTICLE II-112 1. Any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by this Charter must be
provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. Subject to the principle
of proportionality, limitations may be made only if they are necessary and genuinely meet
objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms
of others. 2. Rights recognised by this Charter for which provision is made in other Parts of the
Constitution shall be exercised under the conditions and within the limits defined by these relevant
Parts. 3. Insofar as this Charter contains rights which correspond to rights guaranteed by the
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the meaning and scope
of those rights shall be the same as those laid down by the said Convention. This provision shall
not prevent Union law providing more extensive protection. 4. Insofar as this Charter recognises fundamental rights as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, those rights shall be interpreted in harmony with those traditions. 5. The provisions of this Charter which contain principles may be implemented by legislative
and executive acts taken by institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union, and by acts of
Member States when they are implementing Union law, in the exercise of their respective powers.
They shall be judicially cognisable only in the interpretation of such acts and in the ruling on their
legality. 6. Full account shall be taken of national laws and practices as specified in this Charter.
7. The explanations drawn up as a way of providing guidance in the interpretation of the Charter
of Fundamental Rights shall be given due regard by the courts of the Union and of the Member
States.

Disconnects in the EU

This morning's Wall Street Journal (Subscription Required) has a long article on the dynamics of the votes on the European consitution. Most interesting is a chart showing who voted oui and non. The chart, based on exit polling data, suggests that there was an relationship between income and a yes vote - the more income, the higher propensity to vote oui.

Two responses could be taken from that. The first, is certainly what many in Brussels would take, that there is a correlation between education/income and a yes vote. The second, which, IMHO, is a bit more reliable is a bit more complex.

When I first started working in Mexico I noticed two phenonema in public markets. First, the price of small leather coin purses tracked pretty closely to the value of the peso. As the value fluctuated the price also did. I noticed it because, even then with very limited Spanish, the price was close to a buck. Other commodities were not as responsive - at least as I could see in an informal look - but the street vendors seemed to be pretty saavy on this commodity. The second was even more amazing. In Oaxaca there is a large outdoor Sunday market called Tlacalaula (Click here for great pictures) in a period over a couple of years in the 1990s - as the value of the peso fluctuated pretty wildly, the vendors made an interesting change in their habits. At one point, when the peso was floating pretty dynamically the vendors would give a premium to Americans who flashed dollars. They actually changed their prices and offered a discount that amounted to something close to 20% for people who pulled dollars out. If the price was 100 pesos and a person pulled out dollars - it dropped to the equivalent of 80 pesos (the peso was in the range of 7-8 at the time). But a year later when the value of the peso had settled, the vendors exchanged the dollar for its common equivalent - less an arbitrage calculation. I watched both of these happening too often to think that this was a coordinated action.

The OUI voters in Sunday's referendum suffered from two disabilities. First, they may have gotten too much from the traditional media - they actually believed that a bureaucratically drafted document would be helpful (which is what a lot of the traditional media were saying). Second, they are more insulated from the day to day effects of the nannyism that is Brussels. The regulatory impediments of a several hundred page constitution could be substantial - look at the complexity of living with our short document. Length does not breed clarity.

There is a well established concern in our history for avoiding the Passions of the People(Federalist #10 but that concern does not mean that the people do not get things right in many instances. In this case the real importance of the vote on Sunday was a recognition that if the elites move too fast in trying to homogenize, the voters will say "non" - too bad the other voters did not have the chance to say "nein" or "αριθ."

dEUmocracy - only real if you follow my rules

The Dutch PM, Jan Peter Balkenende’s has added some conditions to accept a no vote on the EU constitution set for Wednesday. To be qualified as a "real" vote - turnout must reache at least 30 % and the no vote must be 55%. It is reassuring that some European leaders are able to guide their "constituents" so precisely. This is a new definition of democracy.

The NYT presents a comment from a Marshall Fund official that clarifies the situation - "This is a kick in the pants for the French and for the political class in Europe, one that's overdue and badly needed," said Ronald D. Asmus, executive director of the German Marshall Fund's Transatlantic Center in Brussels. "This whole project hasn't been bringing people on board, and lots of problems were being papered over. At some point, people realized there was too much papering over." I guess that is not true in the Netherlands.

The EU Constitution as a Reinheitsgebot

The defeat of the proposed EU Constitution by the French on Sunday should not come as a surpise. Constitutions are interesting things. The best are not like the German beer purity laws (Reinheitsgebot) or the French laws on cheese. They establish working conditions that allow a society to operate. The beer laws specified when and how beer should be made and consumed - differentiating rules for summer and winter. The French rejection and the upcoming Dutch one are signs that the drafters did not get it right.

The EU has been touted for the last several years as something a lot more than it is. It is a pretty good free trade zone - with some rough edges. It is not a growing community - although there are many similarities in approach (economic growth for one - the EU countries commit a lot of their resources to governmental solutions and a lot less to economic growth) there are also wide divisions among the partners on fundamental issues of culture and even how to interact.

What the EU has gotten right in the last several decades is an increasing ability to talk - Europeans, as opposed to Americans, are much better at speaking another language. But the bureaucrats in Brussels have claimed to much, certainly much more than they should. Keeping the internal parts of Europe from bickering into wars is no small task - and the rest of the world should be appreciative. Even the unification of currencies is a bit of a reach. But beyond that seems just a bit of talk.

One observer got it right - Roman Prodi, the former president of the European Commission, "This is still better than a war of secession like the United States once had," he said in a telephone interview. "I'm serious now. We must keep this perspective in mind. We don't have a treaty, but we also don't have wars." OK, but the people like Prodi suggested that rejection would mean the end of the Union - of course it will not - but the definitions will certainly change.

If you want to read what was rejected, or you are suffering from insomnia see the proposed European Constitution

There is a good post explaining some of the dynamics of the election which includes the electoral map (with a RED-Non and Blue- Oui division - mostly RED) at Powerline

Third Test

Mason and his dad Pete, originally uploaded by drtaxsacto.

Ever the economist- this is our son Pete and his son Mason (and my wife in the background). OK so among the three which builds readership the most and why - no prizes but any responses will be welcomed.

Alternative Test

Mason, originally uploaded by drtaxsacto.

This is an alternative to the prior test. This is our grandson Mason.

A Test

Emily,
originally uploaded by drtaxsacto.

This is a test. Some of my daughter's friends read my blog this week (thanks) and suggested that I would get even higher readership if I published her picture. So here is a picture - and even as her father (an unbiased observer) this one does not do her justice. I am going to temporarily reopen comments to see what you think. Please note- this and the following two posts are not based on size of the picture - this one is from a smaller file and thus smaller - I could post a bigger one of Emily.

"Investing in the Right Ideas"

At the WSJ, James Piereson did a wonderful article today about the flows of ideas and funding from foundations for conservative causes. It is a long article but details how a small investment in ideas created a tremendous stir in society. Pierson divides this level of funding into three phases - an early one where Hayek is predominant and a latter one with more conscious attention to morals rather than economics where ideas turned a bit less libertarian (Piereson calls this less utopian and theoretical) - thus the ideas ventured into areas like the humanities and religion.

What is striking about his analysis is that the relative investment by conservatives - from the early phases like the Liberty and Volker Funds to Anthony Fisher (in the UK) to the later period when foundations like Bradley and Olin and Scaife took over - is tiny when compared to the investments of the more liberal foundations.

This article should be read in conjunction with the recent one by Andrew Sullivan in the New Republic - which appeared in the May 2 issue and divides the conservatives into the politics of doubt and the politics of faith. I tend to think that Sullivan is a bit overly simple on his divisions - all dichotomies are false including this one - but when read with Piereson - you have a full set of the cross cuts in how conservatives got to where they are.

By the way, a plug for the New Republic online. It is well worth the less than $30 per year for a subscription - their emails of both the weekly edition and special articles come efficiently. While there is a lot that I do not agree with in TNR - there is also a lot of very good and interesting writing - you can subscibe to TNR at The New Republic Online Ditto for Commentary and their online subscription.

The original article can be found at the WSJ Investing in the Right Ideas
or in Commentary at Commentary

The Sullivan article can be seen at NEW REPUBLIC

The Role of State Owned Media in the Internet Age

The BBC RSS summaries has an article on the role of the internet on the French referendum on Sunday. It suggests that in France there are beginning to be a wider range of voices and there is noticable discontent about the one sided visions from the traditional media. Sunday's vote looks increasingly close. Oddly, as noted above this story was in the BBC. The same page also carries a note that Chancellor Schroeder pushed the EU ratification through the Bundesrat.

There is a parallel in the US with the fight on balance in PBS. One need only listen to the snide giggles about almost anything conservative to understand the focus and bias of that network. In an age when the ability of almost anyone has the chance to communicate - what justification can there be for significant state support for a media outlet - beyond the millions we spend for the spinners in all public offices?

Click here for the BBC STORY

The EU (Pronounced OOOH)

In a post at THE BELGRAVIA DISPATCH
The German ambassador is quoted -

"As older societies, we tend to think of ourselves as more experienced in the way societies evolve, and we tend to be skeptical of Americans who seem to think that if you believe hard enough, and you muster enough resources, you can change the world...In the last year or so, as we've engaged in discussions about the transformation of the Middle East and democracy, I have told my American friends that the region in this world that has seen the most transformation and change is Central and Eastern Europe--without shedding a drop of blood. So don't preach to us. And don't think transformative change will work according to mechanistic rules. This is very complicated. Changing the way people think often has to do with religious and cultural issues--we tend to think of them as long-term, and Americans think, Let's solve the problem in the next four years!"

Let's see GDP growth in the EU is roughly one third of that in the US, and unemployment is consistently several clicks about the US rate. Or did the ambassador understand anything about Kosovo? (I guess that was bloodless.) So much for the older societies experience.

Neolibertarians

Over at Instapundit Glenn Reynolds comments about Neolibertarianism. This is an interesting discussion of a group that is basically skeptical of the all of the current political configurations - too much of a good thing is almost always bad. The view of neolibertarians is summarized at the following post - NEOLIBERTARIANS DEFINED

In the domestic arena the choices that would differentiate these people from demublicans or remocrats would include the following: The choice that maximizes personal liberty is the best choice. The policy choice that offers the least amount of necessary government intervention or regulation is the best choice. The policy choice that provides rational, market-based incentives is the best choice.

There is a blog http://www.neolibertarian.net/ NEOLIBBLOG in case you want to check out how the ideas are developing.

The State of Kalifornia - The Governor and his Reforms

This morning I went to the Golden State Breakfast (formerly called the Host Breakfast) which is in its 79th year. It is an event that presents the business community with the Governor. Only once in all that time has the Governor failed to show.

For those in the political class that think the Governor is in decline, they might want, as Fagin suggested to "think it out again" - obviously this is a partisan group but he was still good. As noted when I saw him do Crossfire, he is great at staying on message. But in this case he was not only good at that (not a hard job here) but also testing some messages for the four themes he wants to pursue in the Special Election. He did a good job of reciting what has happened in the last 12 months - for example - last year, he claimed, the legislature wanted to increase taxes by $5 billion - yet he argued that we could grow the economy to get us out of the budget problem. He then said they want to do it again - even though state revenues have grown by $6 billion -" they still want more."

He restruck the "reform" agenda he has been using all spring - but with a special vigor. Each of his comments could be repackaged in a good sound bite or into speeches. On redistricting - "You'd think if we can fight for democracy in Iraq that we should also pursue it in California." On the education reforms - "We have unions for teachers and nurses and all sorts of other public employees but where is the union for the students?" On the budget package (Live within our means) - he did a great cut at the history of the legislature since 1998 and whether they deserve the 12% payraise the commission granted them yesterday. He had a string of one liners that are perfect for repackaging - "Power is not with the money of the unions but with your vote."

I was reminded a lot about the history of California around the turn of the last century and the efforts of Hiram Johnson and the progressives that brought us a political legacy that lasted almost 40 years. This will obviously be a big fight - this afternoon the unions are coming to the Capitol to rally - all wearing SEIU purple. But this is one area where the size of the group and the size of the bankroll may not tell the story of what will resonate with voters.

Carly in Detroit

The Ex-CEO of HP talked to the Detroit Economic Club and speculated that she would next take a job in public service - presumably with the notion that if you can screw up a good company, you should be able to offer your services to government. She said in her speech, sitting on a $21.1 million severence package, that "Winning will not be a matter of destiny. It is going to be a matter of decision." That is about right but when one looks at most of her decisions - one wonders what her conception of winning is. She also threatened to write a book. I wish she would just go quietly away. I suspect all of the greatful shareholders of HP have the same thoughts.

The Nuclear Option and .533 ball

Tonight the Senate averted a constitutional crisis by putting together a middle group of senators who said they will consider the nominees carefully and only filibuster in "extraordinary circumstances." Unfortunately, the group includes such luminaries as "Sheets" Byrd. The NYT described this group as "moderates, mavericks and senior statesmen." Presumably, that group is a good thing. Sheets commented "We have kept the republic." The minority leader suggested ""abuse of power will not be tolerated, and attempts to trample the Constitution and grab absolute control are over." Neither of these comments offers me much optimism about the reality of this solution. Allegedly a couple of the nominees will get their vote on the floor. That will increase the president's appelant confirmation percentages - to something slightly higher than the current average of the Rivercats (.533 - with a win tonight over Iowa - moving us to 3 games over 500 - 24-21). But there is no guarantee that the same old tactics will not resurface when the inevitable nominee for the Supreme Court is presented. Our junior senator, always a wethervane of the looney left, called this a "big victory." (Not the Rivercats win, mind you) There were some very good people on the side of this compromise but with McCain and Sheets in the mix, and with people like John Warner in the center - one wonders whether this was the right thing to do.

The Cats are third in the league in team batting and about in the middle for pitching (which is not bad considering their number of injuries). Our best batter has actually already moved to the bigs (Matt Watson - a good guy) and our second (Dan Johnson - also a good guy) is likely to also move up. But it is June. We can wait and see how the team continues to develop - there are some exciting new personalities in the mix - who knows things could continue to improve. Or was I talking about averting a constitutional crisis in the Senate?

If you really care to read the text of the agreement you can at Senate Agreement Text
- thanks to Taxprof. If you want to read last nights box score check out Rivercats Homepage

Who is on first - and who should be?

At the New Republic Online (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050530&s=rosen053005) Jeffrey Rosen makes an ingenious argument about the current (and upcoming) fight on judicial nominees. He argues that " we are in a dangerous situation when the people's will is better represented by the Supreme Court than Congress." Indeed, we are. But is the fight about whether to confirm the appellant nominees on that issue and is the Supreme Court a better representative than Congress of the people's will? That is probably the wrong question.

Rosen argues that Congress has grown to be less representative over time. That is true and his criticisms, in part - redistricting and other incumbent advantages allow elected officials to look more like potentates than representatives - are on the mark. That is not just true in Congress and it is not just true in legislatures. Elected officials have discovered the perks of office and have exploited their ability to wrest small and large favors from their constituents. Not all elected officials do this - but enough to degrade the institutions. We need to think creatively about adjusting our institutions to take congnizance of modern times and inventions without destroying the fundamental principles that grounded our institutions.

Rosen suggests that the American people agree with all sorts of things based on poll numbers - for example they support the filibuster. They do only if you ask the question in a way that does not elicit a true response. The American people are pretty clear when asked whether these people should be confirmed that they would like the Senate to act. They do not support things like holds or procedural maneuvers to not get to a decision.

One of the important principles from our founders was modesty about goals and possibilities - what another TNR writer suggested recently was the politics of doubt. If the activities of government become all encompassing then government will become less successful. An excess in areas of social policy by the GOP is not counterbalanced by excess by the dems in other areas.

The job of advise and consent for the Senate is not to rewrite the election results but to carefully review the qualifications of the president's nominees. All the bloviating about this or that by the opponents of the nominees is nothing more than sour grapes. Each of the nominees is qualified. Were the opponents smart, they would go forward with the votes - and if these seven were really terrible - the voters could take their revenge on the president and his party. That is the way the system was designed to operate. If they really believed in the system they would certainly have enough faith that one bad nominee will not destroy the system. One need only look at David Souter to understand that principle.

Nooyi vs. Langston - How Commencement Speeches Should Be Done

As noted in the post about Indra Nooyi, I see a lot of commencement speeches. Yesterday I was able to attend the commencement for Southern California College of Optometry. SCCO is a small, high quality, specialized place that trains optometrists. They graduated 91 new doctors of optometry yesterday. Their commencement speaker was the owner of the construction and design firm that has built most of the campus, including most recently an impressive new eye clinic. Bill Langston was the co-founder of the Southern California firm Snider-Langston.

His message was simple and direct. OK, so you've completed an advanced degree in a specialized field but you cannot be successful until you engage yourself outside your profession in civic and community affairs. After establishing his own background a bit (he built a major firm over more than 40 years) he went on to illustrate how involvement in community was important to his career but also fulfilling. Langston is a pilot and has helped to fly doctors to help deliver medical services to remote areas of Mexico. But he has also been involved in projects closer to home.

The best quote in the speech was from Henry Ford - "You can't build a reputation on what you are going to do."

Pepsi's Commencement Swarm

As I was coming back from meetings in LA this afternoon I heard Hugh Hewitt about his take on the Pepsi person's commencement remarks at Columbia. This story was first broken in a number of places over the weekend- I think I read it first in Instapundit. As I see this, I think the Blogosphere has it about right but I think there is also a continuing point.

I give a fair number of commencement speeches and have always believed that any commencement speaker should follow two rules - indeed one should be substantive, it is an important occasion. But the two rules are be brief and be funny. If you can't be funny you should still be brief. You are not the main attraction. But many commencement speakers feel this is their chance to make a point. She seems to have tried to be brief and funny.

In this case Ms. Nooyi tried to make a politically correct statement about the American role - in a poorly reasoned speech and when she got called on it tried to offer a non-apology apology. Did she mean what she said? Or was it mis-construed? When you read the speech - it is pretty clear that she did not bother to think out her point. It may, indeed, be appropriate to make a comment about the potential for a positive and negative role of the US in foreign and economic policy - but her speech did not achieve even that fairly simple point. Sometimes speakers can get caught up in their rhetorical devices. It is even credible to me that a person who was not born here and helps to manage an international business could make an important point on foreign policy or the US role in the world. That is a legitimate hook for her to start from. But then in what most consumer products companies rarely do - she forgot her audience and the purpose of the speech. A commencement speech is not filler between the opening and the awarding of the degrees, it could well be called a continuation speech - when done well it encourages the graduates to continue to think. But in this case she blew it.

To then compound the bonehead speech she offered an apology written in cultural fog speech of the worst kind. Hewitt quotes here response to him - "Over the years I've witnessed and advised others how a thoughtless gesture or comment can hurt good, caring people. Regrettably, I've proven my own point. I made a mistake and, again, I'm very sorry."
- Indra Nooyi" What baloney.

Donald Sensing (discovered on Instapundit but found at http://www.donaldsensing.com/?p=213) does the best post I have seen - "Rhetorically, Nooyi’s speech was a mess. More than that, it was insulting to the graduates. She talked down to them and sought to impart a sense of shame where they had done no wrong." He then goes on to analyze the devices used in the speech and finds them wanting. IMHO that is the best post on this set of issues I have read so far.

I am not a big fan of either Pepsi products or boycotts - but I am constantly annoyed at the arrogance of commencement speakers who think they can use an occasion commencing graduates entry out of a university to make a point that does not fit the occasion. That does not mean that commencement speakers should only offer platitudes - but if one makes a substantive point they should a) make it well and b) be prepared to defend it. In this case Ms. Nooyi did neither.

Paragons of Accuracy - Not Newsweek

In this morning's LA Times one of the lead headlines reads - "Governor readies special election to attack legislature, unions."

Hmmm, let's see is there any other way to consider the issues the Governor is pursuing? Governor continues efforts to improve legislature cut outrageous pension costs? Or Governor seeks representative legislative and seeks to end union ripoffs. No that is not the way a reasonable person would try to convey the issue either.

This story is about a flawed process for redistricting. The current system creates uncompetitive districts. Is trying to make changes in that system an attack on the legislature? The second part of the story relates to whether unions should have the ability to extract political contributions from their members without their consent. The Beck decision (at the federal level) said no. But the California legislature said yes. But somehow the Times see that as an attack.

Or consider the pension issue - which the Governor also mounted. A couple of years ago the pension costs in California were a couple of hundred million dollars - this year they exceed $2 billion. Should there be changes in the way we offer public employee pensions? Are the stories about United and other unsustainable pension systems in the private system an attack on unions or simply an unsustainable out-dated system?

The Times is dropping like a stone. And that is not even a biased headline. No need to wonder why.

The Role of Authority in News and Religion

There are odd parallels between the recent stories about Newsweek's non-denial denial and the response of the Bishop of the Episcopal Church of America in his recent letter to his congregants expressing sorrow at the consternation the decisions of the Episcopal Convention have caused for large numbers of his own parishoners and for his fellow Anglicans. In both cases the expression of regret is not at all compelling.

In the first instance, the sloppy reporting of a major news organ suggests either malevolent intent by someone who contributed to the Periscope column or simple incompetence. One would hope that editors of something so widely read would have a better sense that something so damning should probably be checked first. The more that act like this, the less it will be widely read.

In the second instance, Bishop Griswald's statement of contrition without repentence has the same stink on it. The Bishop claimed he was sorry for all of the controversey in the church, including his own area of responsibility the Episcopal Church of America. Yet, his statement makes little attempt to deal with the issues he caused to be raised or with following even minimal procedure of a group like the entire Anglican community.

In both cases authorities (in a news organization and in a denominational leadership structure) said let normal procedures be damned. In Newsweek's case, the apparent zeal to bring out salacious gossip should have been checked a bit more. It does no good to suggest that others have talked about these kinds of things or that the White House demanded a retraction. Their first responsibility was to get it right. And they seemed indifferent to that imperative.

In the church's decision process, a group (be it a majority or minority in the ECUSA) forced a vote when the historic notion of the church is to take these kinds of decisions with care and most importantly with charity to your fellow congregants. The Windsor report (which the Archbishop of Caterbury requested) describes in pretty good detail the process that the denomination went through in redefining the role of women in the priesthood. In the end, what was a major decision, was also a positive one. But it was clear that the decisions made on the ordination of Bishop Robinson were done without any concern for fellow Anglicans in other areas of the world, or even for members of the denomination in the US who might dissent from the decision. In the ordination of women, a tough decision was broadened in its' acceptance. In the Robinson decision, a tough decison caused further dissention. Process counts for a lot.

The hubris in both decisions is appalling. Both seem to assume that personal desires or concerns trump reasonable process. Arrogance does not substitute for authority. Does Emily Latella still live?

The Fall of Arnold

One wonders why anyone would listen to the mad ravings of Ariana Huffington - who at this point has had more political incarnations that facelifts (probably). But in this morning's post - one of her associates gives us a true insight into the bizarre nature of this cult. Robert Greenwald comments -

"When the front page of the New York Times announces the fall of Arnold, then we know it is real. Now that we know he is falling, the big question: why? As a participant in the plans to dethrone the emperor, I want to chime in."

Most sane people understand that the New York Times is not exactly stellar on political reporting in general and on California issues in particular. One need only go back and look at their analysis of what was going to happen in the recall to understand how truly strange it is to suggest that the NYT has any standing to call events like this.

Seems that Greenwald believes that the issues the Govenor chose were the wrong ones because he chose out public employee unions - although to date they have wrapped themselves in the cloak of public servant. On each of these issues he chose there are vulnerabilities on the other side - in each a union wants to get more for itself without any demonstration of benefiting citizens - where are California schools and how have the teacher unions helped bring them to this point; where is the California health care system and how have the nurses unions helped to bring them to this point; etc., etc., etc.

This is obviously a premature declaration of victory. Perhaps Mr. Greenwald should consult with President Kerry - who the Times also opined on (that time in favor).

Think about it

Instapundit linked to a site I had not seen before with a Challenge. Change the words of the Second Amendment and then try to justify the bizarre interpretations that are applied to the Second Amendment.

The site is http://blog.ianhamet.com/index.php/archive/2005/05/13/518/

It was so good I have also reproduced it here --

Banana Oil!
Notes from Shanghai on Life, the Movies, and Everything
Home
A challenge
Posted by Ian on May 13th, 2005 — Posted in Culture
If you favor gun control of any stripe, please read and attempt the following:

A well regulated Intelligentsia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.

Convince me, using only the text above,

that this sentence does not guarantee an individual right, only a “collective” right; or
that this sentence means that the only legitimate intelligentsia is the one controlled by government; or
that this sentence allows the government to decide which books are safe and which are dangerous, and permits it to ban those it does not approve, and to dictate how all books under private ownership must be stored; or
that this sentence permits the government to require the registration of all books and book owners.
Now there are a few rules here.

You may not dismiss the authors of the sentence as being “dead white men” who “wore powdered wigs, so maybe they got a few other things wrong, too.” If you support gun control, then you subscribe to the belief that an object with no will can be good or evil, a decidedly odd thought. Address the text, not its authors.
You may not bring up “wacko right-wing militia men” who support this and suggest that, because of them, it is bad. Hitler liked sugar, and so do you. Address the text, not its adherents.
You may not dismiss it as “not applying to today,” unless you point out a clear term limit or expiration date within the text, or show another amendment that explicitly annulls this one. (Besides, you never know when what is useless today will be invaluable tomorrow.) Address the text, not your pipe dreams.
Hmm, am I being pissy? Probably. Anyway, it occurred to me to post this, and here it is.

UPDATE: Comments enabled. Silly me.

CAFTA Sense

The Sugar lobby is at it again. The 50,000 plus jobs represented by the sugar industry have mounted a full scale press against the proposed free trade agreement. Clearly Americans pay to much for sugar - based in part on the only eight refiners in the country but more importantly based on the restrictive trade policies that go back before Castro. Want to increase economic activity in the US? Want to improve the standards of living and thus the numbers of consumers in the region (*and thus the market for US goods and services)? Don't listen to the sugar protectionists - adopt CAFTA.

Certainty

In an article in the New Republic last week Andrew Sullivan discusses the apparent schism in conservative ranks between the conservatives of faith and the conservatives of doubt. His article is an interesting one - with a lot of good stuff. But the more I think about it his division is a bit odd. Indeed, religious conservatives work, too often, from a point of certainty. But incidence of this error is not confined to the right. Are some of the manifold groups on the left that we constantly hear from any less certain of their convictions? The American political system is threatened by the politics of certainty.

That does not mean there are not issues where Americans have profound and fundamental disagreements. But we should all be cautious about advancing an idea while being unwilling to at least consider the alternative points of view.

No that does not make me think George Voinovich has a backbone - he is just a wimp.

More on TIGER - RSS

One of the best new features in Tiger - the new Mac OS - is the integrated RSS reader in Safari. It is simple and clean. Open a site and if it has an RSS feed there is a small RSS indicator in the browser window, then simply click on that and it will record new feeds as they become available. I had used Net News Wire(Now in a new version) - but this is better.

Michael Medved, United Airlines Bailout and Social Security

This is a note I posted to Michael Medved on this afternoon's show.

Dear Michael,
I was surprised to hear you fumble a question on United Airlines and Social Security. There is no parallel. Here is the explanation. United offered its employees a defined benefit retirement program - in that kind of retirement system employees contribute something but are guaranteed a benefit in the future (sound like something else???). Unfortunately, some corporations, including United, failed to fund those future expenses thoroughly. (Again, does this sound like anything you've heard of?) The President's proposal is a defined contribution program where the employee and the employer contribute something to savings for retirement and the employee then owns the asset. Had the United pension fund been like the President's proposal to divert some of the contributions to private accounts the employees would not have been cut by 85% - which is what the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation has estimated employees will loose as a result of the mismanagement of the fund. Corporations that offer defined benefit plans are now required under the rules of the Financial Accounting Standards Board to fund those expected liabilities (something the federal government and most state and local governments have not had to do.) I hope that clarifies why the United situation actually reinforces the case for the president's proposal - in reality it actually argues for an even greater proportion of funds going to the private accounts. Dear Michael,
I was surprised to hear you fumble a question on United Airlines and Social Security. There is no parallel. Here is the explanation. United offered its employees a defined benefit retirement program - in that kind of retirement system employees contribute something but are guaranteed a benefit in the future (sound like something else???). Unfortunately, some corporations, including United, failed to fund those future expenses thoroughly. (Again, does this sound like anything you've heard of?) The President's proposal is a defined contribution program where the employee and the employer contribute something to savings for retirement and the employee then owns the asset. Had the United pension fund been like the President's proposal to divert some of the contributions to private accounts the employees would not have been cut by 85% - which is what the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation has estimated employees will loose as a result of the mismanagement of the fund. Corporations that offer defined benefit plans are now required under the rules of the Financial Accounting Standards Board to fund those expected liabilities (something the federal government and most state and local governments have not had to do.) I hope that clarifies why the United situation actually reinforces the case for the president's proposal - in reality it actually argues for an even greater proportion of funds going to the private accounts.

The Joys of Air Travel

One wonders whether civilization will survive at times. Since 9/11 we have had to endure the absurdity of the Transportation Safety Administration (Thousands Standing Around) and its absurd changes in the way people fly. What you can carry on the plane seems to change periodically. We lose things like nail clippers (I guess they might induce a hangnail) but the screening system missed a metal letter opener that was given to me as a gift. Which is more dangerous? If you buy a one way ticket or change your plans (and most business people change their plans) be prepared to go through their search. Their computers cannot figure out that I got on and off airplanes more than 150 times last year.

This morning I was a bit late to the airport and found out that United and the TSA have instituted a rule that says you need to be at the gate 30 minutes before a flight or 45 minutes if you check baggage. Obviously I showed up less than 30 minutes before the flight. The folks in the TSA seem incapable of doing things with either energy or efficiency. And yet, there is little reason to believe we are substantially safer than we were prior to the tragedy of 9/11.

The Congressional demand that they move the screening to public employees has done everything critics said it would.

The Rivercats go to .500

Yesterday must have been an interesting one in Las Vegas - the Rivercats were ending a four day cycle with the 51s. According to Johnny Doskow it was windy - up to 40 MPH - which makes for some odd conditions for baseball. In addition, the wind was out going on the field - thus, singles - if high enough could go out - if they got carried. The Rivercats ended the day with 24 hits - 19 runs and scored in the first through the fifth - including 11 runs in the fifth. The 51s starter (Jackson) had a hard first inning. The 51s scored in the fourth, fifth and sixth (including 9 in the sixth) but with only 13 hits. The Rivercats won 19-13. It sounded great on the radio but it must have been even better being there.

Four More Years - Ferris Bueller's Day Off

The Legislative Analyst in California is an independent agency designed to advise the Legislature - similar to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in D.C. Yesterday, they released a report on high school. Ferris Bueller was right - much of high school is silly. Increasingly, it is hard to justify the current configuration of how we deliver the last four years of elementary and secondary. Last year, the Superintendent of Public Instruction tried an initiative on high school but for a lot of reasons it did not go anywhere. But the report yesterday (at http://www.lao.ca.gov/2005/high_schools/improving_hs_050905.htm) could be a fine basis for beginning a discussion about how to change.

The LAO divides students into three groups - University bound, General and Dropouts. In California about 45% of the total students attend some form of higher education. Those groups then divide in the following way after high school - about 30% of all students in high school drop out - most of those presumably are in the lower levels of achievement (based on some data in the report and from other sources). Likewise about 20% of the students go on to four year colleges. Thus, 25% of the students go on to community colleges and the remainder - presumably from the general group do not go to college. The consequences for the dropout and non-college groups are substantial - higher levels of unemployment for example.

After a review of a number of research studies - the way to reduce the dropout rate is to concentrate on low performance students. The LAO recommends some changes in the way the state has done No Child Left Behind by concentrating resources on the students and districts most likely to drop out. In addition, they recommend that the state begin a better data collection effort on dropouts. This would also lead to more flexibility with categoricals.

For the middle group of students - what the LAO calls General students - the LAO recommends some more choices. They suggest that many students with college aspirations drop out quickly because they are ill prepared. Here are some statistics - almost one half of the recent graduates enroll in community colleges enroll on a part time basis - 40% of that group fails to reenroll one semester after that. 40% of the new community college students need basic skills courses. General track students are unclear about the A-G requirements that govern who gets into UC and CSU - but also serve as a basis for basic college skills and preparation.

The LAO then discusses the low payoff for vocational courses in high school - they have little impact on future job skills, are declining in popularity and that vocational courses do not aid in reducing dropouts. They then make some suggestions for improvement in high schools and commend the sequencing and integration in community colleges. Ultimately, if the high schools are to improved in these areas they need to develop clearer "pathways" and better coordination of programs.

They then get to counseling and make two very strong suggestions - creating an eight grade planning sequence for students and doing a tenth grade "check in" - by creating these two formal steps every student would be exposed at least twice to begin to think about aspirations.

For the university group the report recommends a closer coordination between the statewide acheivement tests (STAR) and admissions and placement decisions. STAR results would also be integrated into community colleges - in this case for a better level of diagnostics.

The LAO makes some creative suggestions to increase accountability in high schools while at the same time offering students wider levels of flexibility. At the same time they suggest that students will be more intelligent consumers of education with more information - both what their choices are and the liklihood of their success. At the same time policymakers need better information about what is happening.

None of these ideas are revolutionary but this report is one of the best I have seen in offering some good ideas to make high school a bit less like the vision presented in Ferris Bueller.

A Blast from the Past

Last night we saw A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Doug Adams was about 32 when his first book hit the stands. It immediately came to best seller status. He had a couple of radio shows before the book that had the same kind of quirky humor. His humor was reflective of a British tradition that includes the likes of Monty Python and Peter Sellers. The movie is well done and has some amusing parts - but I, for one, found it dated. Adams died in 2001 of a heart attack so the final version was completed by others - but I think the movie is true to the book.

His humor had an ironic twist. Here are some of my favorite quotes -

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so. (Last Chance to See)
Humans are not proud of their ancestors, and rarely invite them round to dinner.

There is a wonderful set of his quotes at http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Douglas_Adams.

Will II

This afternoon, a second service was held for Will Britt at University of the Pacific. I spoke at it and here is a summary of what I said.

The service had originally been scheduled for outdoors but it got moved inside because of rain into the Morris Chapel. We had about 30 people there - which is remarkable considering that this is finals week and Will had only been at Pacific for one semester.

I was pleased the services were moved into the chapel. When I was an undergraduate there were speakers at Morris like Bettina Aptheker, Russell Kirk and Timothy Leary. Will would have enjoyed some of those speeches. I took a class called Christianity and Communism in the room we held the service in. My wife and I were remarried in the chapel and my room-mate all the way through college was married there and I was his best man. This was fitting because, in one sense, this was Will's last intellectual home.

I spoke about our trip in 1997 to Oaxaca. During that trip, I successfully embarrassed Will by telling a shaggy dog story in Spanish which fell entirely flat. At the next break he ran out to Peter - who was in a more advanced class - and said I had embarrassed him because the joke bombed so much. But the highlight of the trip was up to Monte Alban - which is a huge and important archeological site discovered by Antonio Caso in the early 1920s. According to the story Caso was walking in a corn field and found a small chard of pottery and speculated that it did not belong there so there must be something important below the site. What a remarkable point of insight. I showed Will and Peter around the site - the observatory, the Pelote field, the hospital where they actually did brain surgery. And I had been there several times before. They seemed interested but the real find was that both boys then found other parts of the site that I had simply not seen before - because I had always taken the normal path and 15 year olds did not do that.

I then talked about Will and my trip to Pacific for the first time - I went down with Will in December to introduce him to the campus. We had lunch with a friend who is a professor named Bob Benedetti. Will showed well that day. We talked about a range of political and social philosophers. Will was struggling with Nietzsche - I've never liked much of what he had to say - although I cannot seriously say I have thought very carefully about him - but Will was trying to figure him out.

Will's gift to me was to recognize that my son Pete may take a different path to get to where he wants to go.

Then Bob Benedetti spoke and read a poem about a fallen athlete and the special problems of young people dying.

George Condon then gave a wonderful talk on his encounters with Will. His interactions with Will on doing a goal statement - where Will was determined to portray himsel in his own terms. And the last conversation he had with Will about next steps which might have been something in a Washington internship. George spoke with Will immediately after I did - and so soon after he then got into his car.

One student spoke, the Rabbi sang a bit and then Will's father gave a moving response - talking about Will's situation - how he got to Pacific and what Will had lived with over the last year. It was different than the service on Tuesday. I hope it was comfort to Don and Jennifer, it certainly was to me.

The Numbers Guy

One of the annoying parts about public policy is how easily statistics get thrown around. In the early 1970s I was working for a Michigan congressman and we were opposing a taconite processing plant in upper Michigan. One afternoon we calculated the amount a taconite that was being dumped in Lake Superior by simply multiplying our assumed flow of water (width of the flue times average depth - which we guessed) times the concentration of filings in the water (again we guessed). Lo and behold, the number we used in one press release began to show up in various public discussions including in evidentiary materials in a court case.

The Wall Street Journal has begun a column called the Numbers Guy (Carl Bialik) and I recommend his columns. This week's column was on whether white kids buy more rap music (probably yes) and whether one advocate had overstated the proportion of gay parents in the foster children system in Texas (the answer is probably - based on some inaccurate extrapolations of data). The point is that lots of people try to foist baloney on us in numbers - and we buy it. Bialik tries to discover where the numbers come from. This is a really great service that should make all of us a bit more careful about believing any numbers.

His current column is at http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,numbers_guy,00.html?publicf=yes.

Savage Idiots

This evening I went to a dinner at Mills College which was introducing the UC Berkeley Chancellor to the business and higher education community. As I was driving around I tuned into Michael Savage. He was railing, I am not sure he ever does anything else, against the First Lady's speech to the Washington Press. Any normal person thought she was wonderful fun. But Savage was outraged.

For a while I listened to Air America, the low power and listener alternative to conservative radio. Al Franken, who did his best work as Stuart Smalley (and even that was a one trick pony) is on in the morning. But his routines are tired.

In LA you have narodniks John and Ken - yabber, yabber, yabber. Phil Hendrie - the guy who invented phony talk radio - is now at 570 XTRA. He is outrageously funny - creating odd and curious guests which individuals call in on with outrage. One of my favorites was a guy from the Children's smoking coalition - a guy who wanted to get more children into smoking.

Talk radio was creative for a while. There are still some interesting things on the radio - Laura Ingram has an interesting mix of gossip and guests. Michael Medved is uneven but when he is on - he is great. Can't say I can agree with him on his notions about Vietnam - but he often seems to get into issues. Dennis Prager is a bit full of himself and has some odd jihads - the nihlistic discussions about higher education are a lot over the top. And then there is Hugh Hewitt. Without his USC bashing, he has some interesting segments - some of the regulars (John Campbell's repartee is dandy) and then there are discussions like the two law professors (one from Chapman and one from Duke) and the movie and music segments.

Back to a Win

Last night the Rivercats finally came back with a bang. They won a game 16-3. They had multiple run innnings - 5 in a row. This was a continuation of a series that began in Sacramento against the Tuscon Sidewinders. But after losing four in a row to the other team they had a phenomenal game with lots of runs and hits. That was fun to listen to. This was after a game on Sunday which stunk up the house and one on Monday in Tuscon where the same odor pervaded. They are still below .500 ball - but last night gave some hope for the season.

Aspirations versus demands

One of the legislative battles that I am engaged in at the current time is whether the California State University should be authorized to issue doctoral degrees independently. Under current policies, CSU is limited to joint programs with the independents or UC. Several times since the adoption of the Master Plan for Higher Education the system has attempted to broaden their authority and each time the legislature has been reluctant to accept the arguments.

This time there are two arguments for the change. First, is that there is a continuing need to doctorally trained people especially in audiology and physical therapy (and also education). Here at least there is some evidence that a lot of people want a degree - even if there is less evidence that society needs doctoral training in these areas. The audiology request stems from a decision by the private specialized accrediting body that changed its rules to require that audiologists must be doctorally trained.

Second, CSU claims the other segments are either too expensive or too aloof to be bothered with these "clinical" or "practitioner" degrees. Never mind the recent study by Art Levine at Columbia Teacher's College that suggests that Ed.D.s are not demonstratably useful in managing public schools of today. Never mind that UC has worked with CSU in the last couple of years to create a bunch of new joint programs. And nevermind that several independent colleges and universities have expanded their capacity in recent years. The CSU definition of need is based solely on aspirations - conceivably anyone who ever expressed a remote desire to get a doctorate should be able to get one at almost no cost.

The CSU uses some sly arguments to advance their position. First, they suggest that compared to other states, California has fewer persons serving in the public schools who have doctoral training. It is one of those social science correlations that are statistically correct but wrong on their substance. Has anyone ever done a correlation between the number/percentage of doctorally trained administrators and success in the public schools?

CSU claims they will offer the program for what is costs to produce it using something called the graduate marginal cost methodology (read fees of about $8000 or $9000) with no additional General Fund support. Those institutions that have started doctoral programs have found how expensive it is to do them well. So the number may be a bit optimistic. But when we looked at our institutions and factored in the institutional assistance that is available and the cohort structuring - which assures that a student will graduate in a reasonable period of time - the net price difference between the two programs would be very small.

But then you need to look at the students. The average age for doctoral students in these kinds of programs is late thirties. Ed.D. programs are among the most diverse in the country. For example if you look at the USC site for their most recent admits (http://www.usc.edu/dept/education/academic/edd/admissions_profile.htm) more than 60% of the students are African American, Asian, Latino or Native American. That kind of diversity prevails throughout the sector.

Wouldn't it be better for the CSU to spend a bit more energy on improving performance in their key areas - undergraduate education and producing teachers and nurses?