Thoughts, comments, musings on life, politics, current events and the media. Blogroll Me! Comments by YACCS |
Tuesday, September 09, 2003
Hey, look over here! No, I mean over here.We're moving! Blogger has been good to us for the last 18 months, but we think we're ready to move over to the slightly snazzier MovableType, so, here goes...Point your bookmarks, assuming anybody has actually bookmarked this page, to http://www.oobleck.com/tollbooth. Same name, same great taste, fancier packaging. Sunday, September 07, 2003
Self vs. UnThe New York Times reports on the latest unemployment data in its usual unbiased way.The Labor Department announced yesterday that 93,000 jobs were lost in August, countering expectations that employment would finally begin to expand. The economic recovery in the United States is now in its 22nd month, without reversing constant job losses.First, note how the Times sets up the story: to begin with, it describes what "economists" say, as if there's some well-established, undisputed Economic Truth here. Only then does it describe the Bush administration position, introducing it with a "however" to make it clear that the Bush administration is in opposition to "economists" generally, and hence wrong. Second, note the phrasing: they "listed themselves as self-employed." The Times is apparently accusing these people of lying. No evidence is presented to support this accusation, of course. Why shouldn't we believe that people who list themselves as self-employed really are? By the way, the few people who bother to read to the end of a story like this will find, in paragraph twenty-four, the one economist the Times quotes in support of this theory of dishonest unemployed losers: "Whenever you see a spike in self-employment in this kind of economy, you know that is involuntary entrepreneurship," said Jared Bernstein, a senior labor economist at the Economic Policy Institute.Ah. Count the problems with that:
Reading really is fundamentalBreaking new ground, John Zuccarini became the first person in the country to be charged with violating the recently-passed Truth in Domain Names law.Prosecutors said that as part of the scheme, the defendant, John Zuccarini, had registered 3,000 domain names that included misspellings or slight variations of popular names like Disneyland, Bob the Builder and Teen magazine. Mr. Zuccarini used more than a dozen variations of the name Britney Spears, the prosecutors said.Perhaps I'm slow, or really naive, but what exactly is the point of this? The article quotes prosecutors as assuming this is a moneymaking scheme of some sort, and Zuccarini's past activities make that seem plausible: Mr. Zuccarini has long been the subject of complaints, including lawsuits, over his use of domain names, records and news reports show. In about 100 complaints raised in arbitration proceedings to resolve domain name disputes, panels have ruled against him almost every time, prosecutors said, and ordered him to transfer the names at issue to the legitimate holder.And yet, I don't quite get it. How do those schemes translate into this one? Is there a large untapped market for pornography among dyslexic eight year olds? I would understand the plan if he took advantage of sites intended for adults, like Amazon, CNN, or ESPN. But Teletubbies or Bob the Builder (whatever the heck that is)? Where exactly does the profit come from? Not that this guy sounds like a rocket scientist, but I would think he would have thought through at least this part of his plan. Whatchoo talkin' 'bout? (Sorry, but how can I not use the pun?)Gary Coleman is upset that people don't respect him.So why is the aging action star taken more seriously than the erstwhile child actor?Well, that might be it. Or it might be that the littler Arnold has the IQ of, well, a sitcom actor: He has appeared on CNN, Fox News and foreign programs. Sean Hannity, the conservative, asked Mr. Coleman to name the vice president of the United States. He could not.Nah, it's probably the height. Saturday, September 06, 2003
My faith in humanity is goneIf you can't trust a murderous dictator, who can you trust? What's this world coming to?Friday, September 05, 2003
If a senator filibusters in a forest and there are no cameras, what's the point?In the past, I've wondered why we only see virtual filibusters nowadays, rather than the real thing. Well, over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Randy Barnett quotes Larry Solum's explanation approvingly as to why a real filibuster (which Solum calls a 24/7 filibuster) won't work:The contemporary filibuster is a polite affair. Charles Schumer does not talk through the night, bleary eyed and exhausted. Why not? Couldn't the filibuster be broken if the Republicans forced the Democrats to go 24/7? No. Because the 24/7 option actually gives an advantage to the minority. Why? In order to force a 24/7 filibuster, the majority must maintain a quorum at all times, but the minority need only have one Senator present to maintain the filibuster. So 24/7 both exhausts and distracts the majority, while allowing the minority the opportunity to rest and carry on their ordinary business. No modern filibuster has been broken by the 24/7 option. For more on this, see my post entitled Update on Filibusters.Interesting, but I'm not entirely convinced. Of course Larry's right, if the goal of forcing a real filibuster is simply literally to wear your opponents down; the filibusterers can always outlast the filibusterees, for the reasons stated. But the point of requiring the Democrats to filibuster for real was never to wear them down until they gave in; the point was to create bad publicity for them. Republicans hoped that Democratic filibusters could be exploited in the press to make the Democrats look obstructionist, and get the voters angry with them -- but that plan never got off the ground. Why? Because the non-filibuster didn't have any legs in it. There was no reason for the media to cover the story, because it just wasn't very exciting. In particular, there was no video footage. On the other hand, a real filibuster is sexy. (I don't mean that literally, unless Mary Carey moves on to the Senate after her bid for California governor succeeds.) It's news. It's not quite as exciting as a high speed car chase, but at least there's something to show to the public. Republicans would have something to point to while saying, "See? Look how ridiculous Democrats are being." It might have backfired; it might have made Republicans look like bullies. But at least it would have put pressure on one side or the other to resolve the situation. This way, Miguel Estrada was just strung along indefinitely, until he finally gave up. Which means that there's no reason to think this won't continue to happen unless and until one side picks up sixty seats in the Senate, which doesn't look too likely too soon. The world turned upside downTyler Cowen happens to mention this odd description of the co-editor of the Almanac of American Politics:"Michael Barone is to politics what statistician-writer Bill James is to baseball, a mix of historian, social observer, and numbers cruncher who illuminates his subject with perspective and a touch of irreverence."--Chicago TribuneI remember, growing up, hearing Bill James compared to others all the time. Galileo and Einstein were popular choices, but my favorite was one, coincidentally from the same Chicago Tribune, labeling him "the Mozart of baseball statisticians." James was always something of a cult figure among a small group of Actually, it's John Ashcroft, out to get you.To answer Partha's question -- though the answer can be found elsewhere now -- it's not just Partha's computer. YACC, who provides our commenting service, is down, and will be down through the weekend. I would do something about substituting another service for YACC, but we're planning some big changes behind the scenes which will be unveiled shortly and make it unnecessary, so I see no great urgency to act right now. So if you want to complain about something Partha wrote (and who doesn't?) you'll have to respond to us via email.Thursday, September 04, 2003
You might not be a NASCAR Dad if...In a promo for the Brian Lehrer Show yesterday morning on New York City's National Public Radio affiliate WNYC, Mr. Lehrer tells us that the topic of the day is "NASCAR Dads" (a term that is fast replacing "Soccer Moms" as the political demographic cliche of choice) and asks anyone who considers themself a NASCAR Dad to call in to his show later that morning.Of course, there is an inherent contradiction in his request, for a sure sign that you are *not* a NASCAR Dad is if you listen to NPR call-in shows!! Saturday, August 30, 2003
No hobgoblins hereJohn Rosenberg points out a minor discrepancy in the positions of the NAACP on two race-related issues:In Florida the NAACP does not want the state to collect information that would identify poorly performing schools. By contrast, in California, as one of their primary arguments against Prop. 54, the Racial Privacy Initiative, the NAACP and its allies argue that the state must continue to collect racial information in order to monitor compliance with civil rights laws.Of course, nobody who has been paying attention over the last few decades thinks the NAACP stands for any principle beyond naked self-interest any longer, but the contrast is still striking. Thursday, August 28, 2003
My kids are hot! Please raise my taxes!James Lileks writes a column about a column he didn't write:
If I didn't like Lileks so much, I'd say screw the kids - let parents go to his beloved Target and spend a few bucks on wading pools of their own. But I won't. Instead, I'll point out that he's right on the money about politicians' motivations. A friend of mine who worked for a U.S. Senator confirms that this is *exactly* how budgeting works: fully fund the invisible, unpopular, and/or silly programs, so there is less money left than there should be for the visible, popular, and/or necessary programs; then make grand pronouncements about how this latter group of programs will need to be cut unless something is done. Politicians don't close public swimming pools in August because they hate children. Politicians close public swimming pools in August so constituents won't complain as much when their taxes go up by a few hundred dollars in January. Wednesday, August 27, 2003
Elections are a serious threat to democracy!On the November ballot in New York City will be a proposal to eliminate partisan primaries. If the proposal passes, all candidates in a district will run in a single primary election, which will be open to all voters. The top two vote-getters for each office in the primary will face off in the general election. Such a system is used in many other large cities, and it sounds like a reasonable idea to me. But not to everyone:
I fail to see how the proposal is a "serious threat to democracy," and I doubt McLaughlin was asked to elaborate. How anyone can get so riled up to fight the proposal is beyond me. Well, almost beyond me - obviously, anyone with an entrenched interest in the current system is going to scream. So far, that would be political party hacks and labor union leaders. Which suggests to me that the proposal would be the best thing to happen to the city since unlimited ride MetroCards were introduced.
Tuesday, August 26, 2003
Who said it first?With regard to the Fox lawsuit against Al Franken, I've heard several pundits comment about the general absurdity of being allowed to trademark a common phrase like "fair and balanced." So here's a question: is the phrase "fair and balanced" really a common phrase, or do we just think it's common because of Fox? Were people regularly using the phrase before Fox adopted it?Moore religionAccording to Eugene Volokh, Hindus are gay! Well, it makes sense if you read the whole post.And on the subject of the intersection of religion and government, this excerpt of aletter published in the New York Times about the Roy Moore ten commandments controversy: The duty of a judge is not to obey God but to follow the law, which he took an oath to uphold. If Chief Justice Moore finds that his duties as a judge conflict with his religious beliefs, he can resolve the conflict in favor of his higher calling by resigning from his secular responsibilities.In other words, Moore can believe what he wants, but he can't act on those beliefs as a judge; he has to follow the law. That, indeed, seems to be the conventional wisdom amongst liberals about Moore. Which is fine, except that I recall someone not on the left saying the exact same thing about judges like Moore, and taking flak for it. Last year, Justice Scalia gave a speech, and then published an article, saying that judges, whatever their personal moral or religious views, had to follow the law with regard to capital punishment: I pause here to emphasize the point that in my view the choice for the judge who believes the death penalty to be immoral is resignation, rather than simply ignoring duly enacted, constitutional laws and sabotaging death penalty cases. He has, after all, taken an oath to apply the laws and has been given no power to supplant them with rules of his own. Of course if he feels strongly enough he can go beyond mere resignation and lead a political campaign to abolish the death penalty—and if that fails, lead a revolution. But rewrite the laws he cannot do.Scalia was accused of injecting religious views into jurisprudence, and there was great uproar on the left. But all he was saying is what people are saying now about Moore: if he can't obey the law, he's not fit to be a judge, and he should step down. Friday, August 22, 2003
Still, more successful than the Devil Rays.A couple of years ago, Tampa famously rolled out surveillance cameras with facial recognition technology at the Super Bowl. They've finally, tacitly, admitted failure:Two years after Tampa became the nation's first city to use facial-recognition software to search for wanted criminals, officials are dropping the program.Perhaps if they had focused the cameras on the state legislature? In any case, I say that they "tacitly" admitted it, because they didn't really admit it at all: Durkin emphasized Tuesday that the trial run with Face-It didn't cost the city any money. But even so, he said, its use likely benefited the city.And the best part of not calculating it is that the city is free to pretend that it provided a benefit, without fear of contradiction. Except, if it "likely benefited the city," then why are they giving it up? I shouldn't complain overly; it's good to see that government officials are willing to experiment with new approaches, and it's also good to see that they're willing to abandon those experiments if they prove to be failures. We should count our blessings that this didn't go the way of the typical failed government program, as seems to be happening in nearby Pinellas County: Meanwhile, facial-recognition technology has been in use at the airport, jail and jail visitation center in Pinellas County for more than a year, and at the courthouse since late April. And Pinellas sheriff's officials have no plans to discard it, although they have not attributed any arrests to the technology.Hmm. With that stubborn denial of reality, anybody want to bet that there's a federal grant somewhere out there which is paying for Pinellas' use of the technology? Wednesday, August 20, 2003
Conservatives are evilYesterday the New York Times came up with yet another of those well-some-Republicans-are-okay-but-these-extremists-in-Washington-now-are-modern-day-Torquemadas editorials they're so famous for. This time, it didn't come from Paul Krugman, but from editorial board member Adam Cohen, who is allegedly an attorney. (I say "allegedly" for reasons that will be made clear.)He describes the National Constitution Center, a new museum in Philadelphia devoted to (you guessed it) the Constitution, as a wonderful, inspiring place that tells "a largely triumphal story of rights recognized and new groups woven into the fabric of the nation." You can practically hear the trumpets in the background. But now (cue ominous music) George Bush and his evil comrades want to change all that, taking away the right to vote from women and re-enslaving blacks. Or something like that; Cohen doesn't come out and say precisely that, but he implies it as strongly as possible without doing so. But holding out the spectres of Dred Scott and the Chinese Exclusion Act is just the beginning for Cohen; he then goes on to slander specific nominees of Bush's: One Bush choice for the courts, Michael McConnell, now a federal appeals court judge, has argued that the Supreme Court was wrong to rule that the equal protection clause required legislative districts with roughly equal numbers of people.Here's why I question Cohen's credentials as a lawyer: he can't tell the difference between an argument about what the law is and an argument about what the law ought to be. It's one of the first things one learns in law school, but Cohen has problems with it. It's possible that Michael McConnell is secretly a Klansman, dreaming up ways to keep blacks down. But that has nothing to do with the discussion; McConnell makes a scholarly argument that the Supreme Court misinterpreted a law. Does Cohen not know that, or does he not care? Jay Bybee, also now an appeals court judge, has argued, incredibly, that the 17th Amendment should be repealed, and United States senators once again selected by state legislators.And? What's so "incredible" about that? It may be a good idea; it may be a bad idea. But why is Cohen so horrified by it? Cohen doesn't say. He provides no context for Bybee's statement, nor does he let anybody know why this particular amendment is so important in the arena of civil rights, which was the framework for Cohen's discussion. People for the American Way, in their denunciation of Bybee, argues that it's "anti-democratic" and "turning back the clock on representative government" to repeal the 17th. But (a) given that state legislatures are democratically elected, it is in fact neither of those things, and (b) given that the whole Bill of Rights which PFAW and Cohen celebrate is anti-democratic, that's not a very compelling criticism standing alone. William Pryor, a nominee to the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, urged Congress to repeal an important part of the Voting Rights Act.He urged Congress to repeal a provision of the Voting Rights Act, Section 5, which requires Justice Department preclearance before certain portions of certain states make even trivial changes in voting procedures. Since the Justice Department rarely objects to these changes, there's little purpose to the law. Repealing it wouldn't change the substantive rights of anybody; it would just streamline bureaucratic procedures. Cohen demagogues this to make it sound as if Pryor is trying to repeal voting rights for blacks -- but again, is vague enough that most readers won't know the difference. President Bush has said he wants to appoint judges like Clarence Thomas and Justice Scalia, both embarked on campaigns to undo years of constitutional progress.Not all change, of course, is progress, and in any case, Cohen provides no evidence for this assertion. "Judges like Clarence Thomas and Justice Scalia" want to change the way judges work; Cohen again either can't discern, or refuses to acknowledge, the difference between statements about what the law should be and statements about what the law are. Justice Scalia advocates tying Americans' rights today to the prevailing wisdom of the 18th century. In a petulant dissent in the recent sodomy decision, he argued that gay sex can be criminalized now because it was a crime in the 13 original states.Actually, Justice Scalia advocates tying Americans' rights today to two things: the Constitution, and the prevailing wisdom of the 21st century. He argues that judges ought to apply the Constitution rather than their personal views, and, on issues where the Constitution is silent, that democratically elected legislatures ought to decide. He argues that gay sex isn't forbidden by the Constitution for the simple reason that nothing in the Constitution addresses the issue; he argues that it can be criminalized now because the "prevailing wisdom" in Texas now says so. Justice Thomas offered the dangerous argument in last year's school voucher case that states should be less bound by the Bill of Rights than the federal government.A flat out lie. That one seemed bizarre, so I checked it out. Thomas argued, in the school voucher case, that the states should be less bound by the establishment clause than the federal government. Here's what he actually wrote: Consequently, in the context of the Establishment Clause, it may well be that state action should be evaluated on different terms than similar action by the Federal Government. "States, while bound to observe strict neutrality, should be freer to experiment with involvement [in religion]--on a neutral basis--than the Federal Government." Walz v. Tax Comm'n of City of New York, 397 U. S. 664, 699 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring). Thus, while the Federal Government may "make no law respecting an establishment of religion," the States may pass laws that include or touch on religious matters so long as these laws do not impede free exercise rights or any other individual religious liberty interest. By considering the particular religious liberty right alleged to be invaded by a State, federal courts can strike a proper balance between the demands of the Fourteenth Amendment on the one hand and the federalism prerogatives of States on the other.Not only does Thomas not make a claim about the "Bill of Rights," but he doesn't make the claim that states can establish a religion or discriminate on the basis of religion. Again, Cohen tries to turn a legal argument about the interpretation of a particular amendment into a claim that a conservative judge wants to revive lynchings. Reasonable people can disagree on some of these issues of legal interpretation, but Cohen doesn't even try. He just race-baits in the hopes that nobody will notice the paucity of logic, facts, or fairness in his column. When Republicans attempted, unconvincingly, to claim that Democratic opposition to Bill Pryor was based on anti-Catholic bias, the New York Times had a tantrum. And yet the Times' editorial writer has no problem insinuating that George Bush and his gang -- including the black Clarence Thomas -- want to take away basic rights from blacks and women. Didn't families of suicide bombers get $15,000 also?From the killing-the-golden-goose department: Blair Hornstine, the girl who successfully manipulated the system to become valedictorian and gain admission to Harvard, and then tried to gild the lily (perhaps it's actually the mixed-metaphor department) by suing her school district for millions of dollars, has settled for a mere $15,000. (Her attorneys also get $45,000, lucky them.)So, let's tote up the scorecard:
(What's known but doesn't get enough attention in all this is that the school district wasn't trying to take her valedictorian status away from her. I've heard several radio talk show hosts make that claim. Her whole lawsuit was motivated by the fact that someone else was also going to be honored. How much of a jerk do you have to be to try to keep someone else from getting what is, ultimately, a pretty trivial honor? Sure, it's an accomplishment, but she was already in college, and it's not as if, years down the road, anybody would have cared whether she was a high school valedictorian or "mere" high school co-valedictorian.) Ah, well. Knowing the way the world works, she'll probably be defrauding investors of her own company someday. Tuesday, August 19, 2003
Only the true Messiah would deny his divinity... or something like that...American religion is becoming more "mystical" and less "mainline" says New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof. The Roman Catholic holiday of the Feast of the Assumption this past week is his Exhibit A. Fine. Let him believe or not. What I was most struck by in the column was this passage:
First off, the Virgin Birth isn't meant to be a matter of scientific or historical evidence. For that matter, it's not clear whether such an event *could* be proved by any such evidence. Secondly, one can probably find Biblical scholars who doubt the existence of God. If all Biblical scholars agreed on everything, all Christians would still be Catholic (well, not exactly - you'd still have Biblical non-scholars around - but you get my point). But it's the claim that 47 percent of non-Christians believe in the Virgin Birth that is most striking. How was this poll taken? Who are these people? You can certainly believe that Jesus was born, was crucified, and had lots of followers without being a Christian. But the Virgin Birth is an event that presumably marks Jesus as, well, somehow special. Perhaps 47 percent of non-Christians didn't fully understand the question? I'd be interested to know how many of them believe in the Immaculate Conception and Transubstantiation as well. Sunday, August 17, 2003
Future urban legend?The New York Times points out a budding myth: despite what people are saying, it wasn't fifty million people who lost power in the recent blackout.The number 50 million appeared as part of a news release issued late Thursday and again on Friday by the reliability council, which sets rules for managing the electrical grid.It calls to mind the "Super Bowl Sunday" domestic violence myth. A "fact" is reported once, and is repeated over and over again, by reporters whose goal is sensationalism, and whose idea of research is cutting and pasting from older stories. Good to see the Times, for once, not falling into this trap. Thursday, August 14, 2003
Now I know my ABCsPerhaps I'm just missing something really obvious, but I can't quite figure out the point of the California alphabet lottery. If they're going to rotate the alphabet from district to district in order to be fair, well, that part makes sense. Different people will be at the top of the ballot in different districts, so nobody gains the advantage of being first all the time.But if they're going to do that, then why do they need to pick a random alphabet? What exactly does that do for them? Ultimately, ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ is no more or less random than RWQOJMVAHBSGZXNTCIEKUPDYFL. The former, of course, is more familiar, so it seems more "ordered," but it's no more or less arbitrary than the latter, and hence no more or less fair. Or am I missing something really obvious? Monday, August 11, 2003
When bad things happen to bad peopleAlso known as getting what you deserve.(Yeah, I know: she meant well. Big whoop.) Advertisements for vouchersFun with unions... a New York City junior high teacher was arrested for possession of cocaine and marijuana. Did I say teacher? I meant "dean of discipline." He pled guilty to a felony. The Department of Education fired him. Well, they tried, anyway. But he entered a "drug treatment program," and so an arbitrator has now ruled that he should be allowed to keep his job.The arbitrator's "logic," and I use the term loosely, was that since completion of the diversion program would leave the teacher without a criminal record, the Education Department couldn't fire him. Ain't tenure grand? But I'm sure the real problem with public schools is that not enough money is being thrown at them. And vouchers can't possibly help, because, after all, private schools don't have the same highly-qualified teachers the public schools do. (Incidentally, none of my comments should be read as an endorsement of the drug war. The whole fiasco just points out the idiocy of the whole situation. First we pretend that possession of a recreational substance causes harm. Then we pretend that we can "treat" people who are carrying these substances around, as if they had pneumonia, when what we're really doing is making politicians look compassionate while keeping jails from filling up too fast. Then we pretend that this "treatment" erases the harm supposedly caused by the offense itself. And at the end of the process, we've spent thousands of tax dollars for no clear reason, and have accomplished nothing. But all that aside, it hardly sends the right message to students to tell them that the person in charge of enforcing the rules against them doesn't have to obey the rules himself.) Friday, August 08, 2003
Panda RepublicanismAnne Applebaum of the Washington Post is moving to New York City:
She's right, and I find it just about the most infuriating thing about living in the city. Thanks to Dr. Manhattan for pointing the article out. I agree completely with his comments:
Indeed. One other reaction I get when they do find out my party affiliation is "well, you're just a *fiscal* conservative, right?" I've been asked that multiple times. It's a rough enough description of my beliefs that I usually just agree. Friends (as well as people I've just met) are somewhat comforted to know that while I may be all for lowering taxes, I'm not in favor of hunting gay people for sport.
Friday, August 01, 2003
When is a door not a door? When it's ajar!What do you call it when the government imposes costs on you, which you must pay, by law, whether you get something for it or not? Well, if you figure it out, please let the New York Times know, okay? Writing about the BBC:Indeed, the corporation is governed by a 10-year Royal Charter, not expiring until 2006, meaning it can take a much longer view of its investments and spending than other broadcasters. At the same time, though, to the annoyance of competitors, the charter permits it to sell programs, books and magazines even as it harvests income from the compulsory license fees that its critics call a tax.(Emphasis added.) What do other people call it, a penguin? Thursday, July 31, 2003
Not SollyIt's on right after the Simpsons and it's unlike anything else on TV. It's Banzai! And it's ticking people off:
Notice the contempt the professional complainers at the Media Action Network for Asian-Americans show their fellow Asians in attempting to dictate to them what television programs they may not watch. That's what *I* find offensive. Hooray for the series creator Gary Monaghan (as well as the Fox Network) for showing some sense and not backing down:
Wednesday, July 30, 2003
I hate when things get cheaperYou've got to love the logic of desperate partisans:But the recall provision, which was created in 1911 to thwart the corruption of East Coast-style machine politics and domination by plutocrats, has become another way big money can warp the system.Got that? A Democrat is complaining that elections cost too little and that this lower cost is biased in favor of the wealthy. Instead of having to spend $50 million, a candidate can spend $2 million, and this drop in price is "big money warping the system." [MAJOR caveat here: I'm citing Maureen Dowd for a quote. Jerry Brown may have actually said something slightly different, such as, "I hope the As win the World Series."] Monday, July 28, 2003
DoubleplusungoodBy the way, think of the phrase "nonviolent drug offenses," which I used below. Aren't all drug offenses, by nature, nonviolent? If a drug addict mugs an old lady to pay for his habit, that's assault and robbery, not a violent drug offense. If a drug dealer shoots another drug dealer over a territorial dispute, that's murder, not a violent drug offense. By using the phrase "nonviolent drug offense," though, we imply that there's another kind. And this implies that some drug offenses are worth locking people up for. And once we imply that, then we're just haggling over the price of each, not arguing a fundamental point.Without meaning to sound all Orwelly, the words we use matter. They shape (and sometimes cloud) our thoughts. That's why it's important to stop and think about what the words mean, instead of just reflexively using them. And that's why I endorse the use of the phrase "homicide bomber," which many think is silly. I endorse its use not because "homicide bomber" is more accurate, but because a change in our cliches means we have to pause and reflect on what those words refer to. "Suicide bomber" had become a one-word term, like peanut-butter-and-jelly. Nobody mentally broke it down into separate components, because people had become so used to saying it as a phrase. But by introducing the phrase "homicide bomber," people were forced to step back and consider what the words truly meant. Even if they ultimately concluded that suicide bomber was more suitable, it meant that they were thinking about it, instead of just using the phrase thoughtlessly. At least for a little while. Whoosh!The New York Times's Fox Butterfield is (in)famous for not being able to grasp cause-and-effect, but his myopic mindset appears to be spreading. An Associated Press story on the subject of crime pays homage to one of Butterfield's classics in the annals of liberal cluelessness:America's prison population grew again in 2002 despite a declining crime rate, costing the federal government and states an estimated $40 billion a year at a time of rampant budget shortfalls."Despite"? Actually, down in its fifth paragraph, after the mandatory quote from the ACLU, the article actually does present the case that the causal relationship may just be there. But it does so skeptically, and immediately moves on to suggest that there's something wrong with putting people in prison, even if it reduces crime. Namely, the cost. But while the article does discuss, ad nauseam, the costs of incarceration, it never even mentions the benefits. How much money is saved due to the reduced crime? It doesn't say. You would think the benefits of a program would be an important part of cost-benefit analysis. Unless you were a reporter, in which case you'd forget all about it. And then we get to the second aspect of liberal media bias: the implication that the criminal justice system is just a sideline, a distraction for the government from its real business of ensuring that we don't eat too many saturated fats, making sure that women can play basketball in college, and wiring homeless shelters in North Dakota for broadband internet access. We do see stories from time-to-time which depict government programs such as these as unaffordable, yes. But the focus of those stories is invariably on how the government needs to find more money to pay for these essential programs, rather than on how the government needs to find ways to cut spending on these programs. With crime control, on the other hand, we see articles like this one, in which increased incarceration is treated as an obstacle to reducing the deficit, rather than the other way around. Now, I'll be the first to acknowledge that there are problems with our criminal justice system, that people are prosecuted for nonviolent drug offenses when they shouldn't be. But the problem with that isn't the fact that it costs money, but that arresting people for victimless crimes is a bad idea at any price. If we're prosecuting the right people, then the cost is worth it; that -- not health care, or prescription drug benefits, or subsidies for farmers -- is the job of government. Saturday, July 26, 2003
Why not the XFL?There are many people who have criticized the Postal Service for sponsoring Lance Armstrong's team in the Tour de France. Generally, people questioned why the Post Office, as a monopoly, would need to advertise. But then there's the argument everybody except the New York Times would be embarrassed to print. In an Op/Ed piece they published -- scarily enough, by someone who sits on the Postal Rate Commission -- we see a new theory for how the Postal Service should choose its advertising strategy:Rather than criticizing the Postal Service for supporting Lance Armstrong (although perhaps he needs far less money than when he joined the team years ago, before he was a superstar) we should demand that sponsorships reflect the diverse character of postal customers. Why, for instance, does the agency seem so partial to men's sports? Why not sponsor women's soccer or the Dance Theater of Harlem, or the American Film Institute? Why not sponsor graphic art exhibitions that simultaneously promote stamp illustration sales and stamp collecting?Why not? Uh, I'm going to take a wild stab at it. Maybe because the purpose of sponsorship is to bring in revenues? Why not sponsor women's soccer? How about because test patterns get higher ratings? Hmm. Affirmative action for advertising. If Lance Armstrong doesn't "need" the money, and the Dance Theater does, then give it to the latter. After all, who cares about the needs of the Postal Service? They should be spending their advertising dollars based on the needs of the recipients. Sheesh. You'd think it was a parody, if it weren't for the fact that the context, and the author's biography makes it clear that she is entirely earnest. You've got to love leftist identity politics. Friday, July 25, 2003
Uday's BodyguardI found this interview with one of Uday Hussein's bodyguards fascinating. Sorry, no excerpts. Read the whole thing, as they say.Thursday, July 24, 2003
Iceberg, Greenberg, Goldberg, what's the difference?Did they really say this? From a New York Times story on immigrants in Japanese society:Though Vietnamese by origin, as fellow Asians they would be hard to pick out out in a crowd.Yeah, they all look alike to me. All them colored people do, in fact. Wednesday, July 23, 2003
What happened to the WMDs? We don't know.It's possible Saddam was disarmed five years ago, but we didn't know that then. And we didn't know that in March. And President Clinton has just admitted he still doesn't know:
This is not to bash Clinton - nobody else seemed to or seems to know. Pro-war and anti-war folk alike thought that there were WMDs left - remember that a main point in opposition to the war was the fear that Saddam would use such weapons against us. Perhaps the only way to find out for sure was to send in the Army. And if they come back and say "well, golly, the WMD's *were* destroyed five years ago", I can live with that. I'll leave it to war opponents who might be cheered by that news to explain why they feel bombing was justified then in the first place. Anyway, here's another excerpt from that very same article:
If Clinton can move on, can Clinton democrats? Tuesday, July 22, 2003
Let's hope this is confirmed soonFrom msnbc.com:
It really would have been more gratifying if they were captured alive, but why quibble? We won! How outrageous!Of course, Clinton actually lied about his affair. At most, Bush was wrong about the Niger connection (although note that the British are sticking to their story). An actual lie is the suggestion that uranium purchases were the only reason for going to war, and that proving that claim wrong would wreck the entire war rationale. Sorry, but that would still leave Saddam as a very immediate threat to his people and his neighbors, an avowed threat to the United States, a flouter of multiple U.N. resoutions, and a thorn in the world's side for decades. Good enough reasons to get rid of him for me, and for most of the country, yellowcake or no yellowcake.A related lie is that Democrats can gain by running against a war we won. Note that they were smart enough not to try that in 1992. As James Taranto puts it:
To the rescueDon't fret, we're going to Liberia. I know you've always been eager for war, Partha. It just takes time:
So where's the concern about threatening and invading a sovereign nation that is neither an immediate nor a long-term threat to us and which has no ties to terrorism? Where's the concern about the projection of American power and hegemony? Darn it, you anti-war folks, I demand consistency! Get organized! I expect thousands at a "hands off Liberia" rally this weekend on Fifth Avenue! Harrumph. Sunday, July 20, 2003
Just imagine the dry cleaning billSo you thought your wedding was expensive? Try this wedding dress on for size:NEW YORK (Reuters) - A Syrian-Jewish bride from Brooklyn will this summer wear what could be America's most expensive wedding gown, a white dress adorned with 1,100 glittering diamonds and worth $300,000, an assistant to the designer said on Thursday.Probably three times? How many $100,000 weddings have you been to? I'd like to meet some of Mindy Woon's pals. Having a ballI know that there are people out there who hate President Bush with every molecule of every fiber of their being. (Thousands of people drove that point home this past winter by taking to the streets denouncing him and supporting one of the most murderous dictators of the past fifty years.) I've learned to find their shrill rants amusing, despite their dead seriousness. And for a fine example of shill ranting, check out this lead paragraph by Matt Taibbi of the New York Press:George Bush should be hung up by his balls. No kidding. He should be grabbed from behind, restrained, forcibly stripped below the waist, and a big hook should be pushed through his scrotum. Then the rope attached to the hook should be dragged through a pulley at the top of a flagpole, and the president should be hoisted up and left to swing in the breeze, 60 painful feet above the ground.Ye gods. So what did the president do to earn Taibbi's wrath? He went to Africa and made a speech condemning slavery. (Gasp!) And he also changed the way Head Start and Section 8 programs are funded. (The nerve!) Mind you, funding levels haven't been reduced, they're just now being given out as block grants to the states. Taibbi describes this as "whipping out the rusty garden tools and cutting the very balls out of the black community." (Note the casual racism in implying that all blacks, and no whites, are on welfare. Apparently, he doesn't much care about the poor white men in testicular danger. And never mind the women.) So as I said, it's amusing. What other reaction can you have? People like Taibbi aren't going to listen to reason, for their Bush-hatred is like a religion. And you can't argue with religious fanatics. But if you try (and you're a man), remember to wear a protective cup. Logic deficitWouldn't complaints about the deficit be more credible if they were coming from people who had ever met a federal program (other, of course, than the defense department) that they didn't like? I didn't notice Democrats who demanded a prescription drug program worrying about the deficit. I didn't notice Democrats who demanded federal grants to the states for their budgets worrying about the deficit. I didn't notice Democrats who complained about the lack of funding for No Child Left Behind, or for port security, or for aid for Africa, or peacekeeping in Liberia, worrying about the deficit. I didn't notice Democrats who demanded universal health care worrying about the deficit.So what's with the sudden interest in the deficit? Mere partisan hypocrisy? Well, there are a few other possibilities:
Saturday, July 19, 2003
On further reviewActually, Partha, the White House is correct. The correct rendition of Roberto Clemente's name is Roberto Clemente Walker, and the Baseball Hall of Fame changed his plaque a few years ago to reflect that.(Oh, and he didn't actually "win" anything; he was given an honor.) On the other hand, maybe the Times wouldQuick question: do you think the New York Times would have printed a boy-isn't-that-cute profile of a kid who read Mein Kampf when he was little, thought the Nazis ideas sounded really cool, and went on to lead a branch of the Aryan Nations? Somehow, I doubt it. So what's up with this New York Times puffery about Charlotte Kates, one of the organizers of the pro-terrorism conference at Rutgers?My favorite part is right at the beginning: WHEN Charlotte L. Kates was in elementary school, she devoured a series of books on foreign countries. One nation, however, captured her imagination. She was in the family car on her way to a children's arts festival in Philadelphia, when, she said, the utopian vision of a communist society in the Soviet Union leapt off the pages and inspired her to be a revolutionary.Sounds like a common story for young communists in the 1930s, when the New York Times was busy covering up Stalin's crimes and many people thought the USSR was a neat idea. Only, read further, and you see this: "Ms. Kates, 23..." That's right; when she "was in elementary school," it would have been about 1990. After the Berlin Wall fell. After everyone, including the Soviet Union, had rejected communism. But she joined the Communist Party anyway. Boy, isn't that cute? And she "agitated to loosen the dress code at her [middle] school and reduce the lunch fees." Boy, isn't that cute? And, oh yeah, she supports Palestinian terrorism. And the total elimination of Israel. Boy, isn't that cute? Thursday, July 17, 2003
Mass DestructionAccording to an article in Newdsay:
Does anybody out there still believe that we shouldn't have overthrown Saddam? Park-Workers, Nun-Beaters, and Candy-Stealers Local 1208I have long thought that government workers should not be allowed to form labor unions. This article does nothing to change my mind:
These are precisely the jerks whose jobs *should* be threatened. Fire them all. Monday, July 14, 2003
Several of the punctuation marks were correctThere have been those who argued that blogs are inferior to traditional media because blogs aren't subject to the same standards that newspapers or magazines are. Blogs, the theory goes, don't have editors, so sloppy and misleading stories get published without the appropriate level of fact checking that editors provide. Anybody who believes that should read this appalling article-length correction in today's New York Times. The original story was so wrong that one has to wonder whether it was something left lying around Jayson Blair's desk before he quit.From the correction: A loan dispute between Prudential Securities and TVT Records, one of the nation's largest independent record companies, has had no impact on the control or management of TVT Records by its founder and president, Steven Gottlieb.In short, they described something as already having happened as a result of a lawsuit, when in fact it hadn't happened at all, and couldn't happen as a result of the suit. And it goes on. The Times described him as litigious; they had to take it back. The Times quoted his opponents in litigation without realizing that those people might have an agenda. The Times describes him as having sued people he hadn't sued. The Times described him as releasing albums he hadn't released. The Times described a suit as frivolous with no basis for that description, but citing yet another of its infamous anonymous sources ("People close to the case."). The Times reports that a contract was signed months before it actually was signed. The Times describes the songs as old when they weren't. I guess the Times does get points for admitting the errors -- unusually, for them -- but that's like giving the surgeon who amputated the wrong leg credit for reattaching it. Let's wait and see what happens to Lynette Holloway, who wrote the original story. If her byline continues to appear regularly, we'll know that the recent spate of accountability at the Times is just for show. Sunday, July 13, 2003
Six of one...In the 2000 election, Ralph Nader declared repeatedly (to some applause and much more derision) that there was no difference between Bush and Gore, or indeed between the Republican and Democratic parties in general. Of course, by that Nader meant that Gore and the Democratic party were conservative, just like the Republicans. They both favored NAFTA and globalization, after all, and both accepted "soft money" campaign contributions, and neither one spoke about corporations the way the Pope speaks about abortion. There's some truth there. Then again, there's some truth to the argument that there's not much difference between Bush and Gore because the Bush administration is liberal, just like the Democrats. For instance, just to pick one example at random, this headline from the New York Times: Bush Administration Says Title IX Should Stay as It Is.The reference, of course, is to the law which bans sex discrimination in federally funded programs, and specifically to the portion of it which bans sex discrimination in college sports. When Bush announced a commission to review Title IX, there had been hope in some corners that the law might be amended, and on the left, the liberal advocacy machine had already geared up to blast Bush for wanting to eliminate women's sports and make all women barefoot and pregnant. But Bush, the supposed conservative right-wing extremist who wants to destroy everything good and decent in America, ultimately did nothing. By the way, you've got to love the New York Times' idea of balance in reporting: The National Women's Law Center says Title IX has led to increases of women's participation in sports of more than 400 percent in colleges and of more than 800 percent in high schools. But Title IX supporters point out statistical equality has not been achieved; 56 percent of college students are women and 42 percent of the athletes are women.They quote supporters of the law to point out how important Title IX is, and contrast them with... supporters of the law who think it doesn't go far enough. They couldn't bother to find people who think that Title IX goes too far and is seriously misguided when applied to sports? Title IX is one of those government programs that sounds perfectly fine on its face, if one doesn't follow the news enough to know how the program has been implemented. In theory, the law (and Department of Education bureaucracy in charge of enforcing it) allows three ways for colleges to comply with the anti-discrimination provisions. One is proportionality -- having the percentage of female athletes match the percentage of females in the student body. Another is to be continually increasing the size of women's sports programs until proportionality is reached. The third is to meet all the demand of female students. In reality, colleges have found that cutting men's sports programs (and budgets) and giving the resulting money to women's sports is the only practical way to comply with the law. Obviously, they could increase women's sports budgets without cutting men's... if they could find a source of free money sitting around waiting to be claimed. Since we don't live in the land of tooth fairies and Easter bunnies, that isn't a realistic option. Of course, schools could address the actual wishes of students -- except that they can't. The problem is that in the most significant court case on Title IX, Cohen v. Brown University, the First Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Brown's attempt to show that they were meeting all needs: We view Brown's argument that women are less interested than men in participating in intercollegiate athletics, as well as its conclusion that institutions should be required to accommodate the interests and abilities of its female students only to the extent that it accommodates the interests and abilities of its male students, with great suspicion. To assert that Title IX permits institutions to provide fewer athletics participation opportunities for women than for men, based upon the premise that women are less interested in sports than are men, is (among other things) to ignore the fact that Title IX was enacted in order to remedy discrimination that results from stereotyped notions of women's interests and abilities.Title IX does permit institutions to provide fewer athletics participation opportunities for women than for men, if women are less interested. Brown didn't merely take that as a "premise"; Brown proved it with actual statistics. The judges, though, didn't care, substituting their prejudices for the law. We conclude that, even if it can be empirically demonstrated that, at a particular time, women have less interest in sports than do men, such evidence, standing alone, cannot justify providing fewer athletics opportunities for women than for men.In short, as courts have decided to enforce the law, schools have to provide opportunities for women whether women want those opportunities or not -- meaning that the only realistic option remains to cut men's programs. Which is why many people are opposed to Title IX. But the New York Times buried that argument, and the supposedly right-wing Bush administration ignored it. Saturday, July 12, 2003
Why ask why?Over in National Review Online, there's an article by Clifford May providing a strong rebuttal to the sudden, weird claim that Bush's State of the Union address was a lie. While everyone has concluded that the Niger documents were phony, Bush did not mention those documents in the speech, and merely cited the British government for the proposition that Iraq was attempting to procure uranium from Africa.May questions whether any member of Congress can honestly argue that this single minor claim was that significant to his decision making -- but May actually misses the mark on this point, because he fails to note that Congress voted to authorize war in October, three months before the State of the Union was given. So it would be pretty damn difficult for members of Congress to claim that Bush's true (if inaccurate) claim in the SOTU address is the smoking gun proving that Bush lied to get the US into war. But what about the bigger picture? Maybe Bush's January statement didn't convince Congress to vote for war in October, but it surely convinced the American public to support the war, right? Wrong. What war opponents fail to mention is that all the administration's statements, over all the months since Bush began the full court press to "sell" the war, were ultimately irrelevant: ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Latest: March 27, 2003. N=508 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4.5. Fieldwork by TNS Intersearch.(Data from the invaluable Polling Report, which archives poll results.) That's right; support for (and opposition to) the war was essentially unchanged from the beginning of the process until the day the war began. Minor week-to-week fluctuations, within the margin of error. Regardless of whether you think Bush lied, this simply isn't a Gulf of Tonkin situation. Bush's factual claims didn't mislead or trick Americans into supporting the war; Americans supported the war because they agreed with the various reasons advanced for it from the beginning. It strains credulity to suggest that these handful of words in a speech that most Americans didn't watch, that weren't seen as overly significant at the time (see, for instance, Jake Tapper's review of the speech in Salon, where he barely mentioned the uranium claim in passing) somehow constitute the proof that Bush falsely tricked us into war. In the zillions of speeches Bush and other administration officials gave over the more than six months of intensive campaigning for war, it would be shocking if everything that was said turned out to be perfectly accurate. But if these 16 words are the best that Bush's critics can come up with, then it would be difficult to conclude that Bush did anything wrong. Content of their character, shmontent of their characterIdentify the bigot who criticized a civil rights activist thusly:"It is possible for a lot of people to find his colorblind message to be superficially appealing..."Hint: it was said in 2003, not 1963. Of course, the hint gives it away; the only people who are no longer for colorblindness in 2003 are minority interest groups, and this was said by a senior member of the NAACP. They're criticizing Ward Connerly, who, in the wake of Sandra Day O'Connor's ruling on behalf of race preferences, is campaigning for a ballot initiative in Michigan to ban the preferences, just as he has successfully done in California and Washington. The NAACP is annoyed. But so are others. Opposition to his efforts has already begun to take shape. A Detroit News editorial on Tuesday called a potential battle over affirmative action dangerous, and called on Mr. Connerly to go home.Sounds just like officials from the Jim Crow South complaining about outside agitators stirring up trouble, doesn't it? It's never the racial policies that are the problem -- it's always the people trying to end them who are accused of "pitting the two races against each other." By the way, I know there are those who insist that race preferences are necessary because of the racism still prevalent in the United States. So what to make of this? The leaders of both of the state's political parties also opposed the effort.In the Michigan cases before the Supreme Court, universities, major corporations, and retired military officers (and of course the editorial board of the New York Times) all weighed in in favor of race preferences in the service of "diversity." And in Michigan now, both parties are in favor. So much for principle. Thursday, July 10, 2003
No Liberals Need Apply?An ex-radio talk show host from South Carolina is suing her former employer for firing her.The suit alleges that co-hosts Herriott Clarkson Mungo III, also known as Bill Love, and Hayden Hudson, also known as Howard Hudson, encouraged Cordonier to join their pro-war discussions regarding the invasion of Iraq.As is often the case, the facts are unclear from the news coverage, but it adds: The suit cites a state law that declares a person cannot be fired because of political opinions. Thought Number 1: I wonder how many people who would cite this a horrifying example of the suppression of free speech in this country also cheered the firing of Michael Savage by MSNBC? Thought number 2: What kind of idiotic law is that? It sounds superficially reasonable -- but as written, it would apparently protect not only this radio host, but also a Michael Savage from being fired in South Carolina. In this instance, the story isn't entirely clear, so I can't be certain whether this host was fired for expressing her anti-war views on the air, or merely for holding those views. If the former -- as in the Michael Savage case -- it seems to me that there would be clear first amendment problems with applying such a law. To force a station to employ someone whose on-air views are contrary to the station's is tantamount to forcing a particular set of views on the station. If the latter, there likely isn't a constitutional problem with the law -- but that doesn't make it less questionable. Why should an employer be forced to retain an employee who holds unpalatable political views? Should a black employer be prohibited from firing a member of the Klan? A Jewish employer be forced to keep on an avowed supporter of Hamas? (Are these extreme examples? Certainly. But, then, these sorts of laws are only needed for extreme situations. Nobody is going to fire an employee for being in favor of fireworks on the 4th of July. It's people who hold extreme views that will attract the ire of employers.) Tuesday, July 08, 2003
The people united can never be mass murdered!The International Herald Tribune reports that high school seniors in Italy are being taught that communism is bad. Actually, it reports that people are complaining that high school seniors in Italy are being taught that communism is bad.
Yes, what's a hundred or so million dead anyway? Their hearts were in the right place. Still, a history teacher should know that Nazism also shared the goal of uniting people. You know, "Ein Volk" and such. So where, I ask you, are the calls for a balanced discussion on Nazism? Coincidentally, Saddam Hussein is another chap who means well:
Jeebus, with uniters like these, give me good ol' fashioned divisiveness any day. Red Sox haven't won World Series since 1918; Bill Buckner solely to blameThe New York Times cites "Congressional investigators" in criticizing the Bush administration for its handling of Medicaid:The Bush administration has allowed states to make vast changes in Medicaid but has not held them accountable for the quality of care they provide to poor elderly and disabled people, Congressional investigators said today.Damn Republicans. Always deregulating and such without any concern for the results. Right? Well, sort of... More than a dozen state waiver programs covering tens of thousands of people have gone more than a decade without any federal review of the quality of care, the accounting office said. These programs were in Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas.In addition to blaming George Bush for things that happened years before he took office, the Times also significantly distorts the findings of the GAO report: The accounting office examined 15 of the largest waivers, covering services to 266,700 elderly people in 15 states and found problems with the quality of care in 11 of the programs.In fact, while the report does touch upon some quality-of-care deficiencies, that's not the focus of the study. The report, with regard to those eleven programs, cites problems with the states' documentation of their quality assurance programs. Got that? It's actually doubly removed from an actual problem. We're not talking about problems with care, and we're not talking about problems with state quality assurance. We're talking about the states inadequately explaining their quality assurance programs to the federal government. In short, paperwork problems. Hardly seems like a huge deal. But none of these nuances of time or details matter, when you're the New York Times and you're out to criticize the Bush administration. Monday, July 07, 2003
Cry me a riverPeople whose unemployment doesn't bother me:
But from the article: Outbound telemarketing brings in $211 billion in annual sales in the United States, according to the Direct Marketing Association.On the one hand, it obviously must be profitable, or why would companies do it? On the other hand, who the hell buys things from strangers who call them on the phone? I figure it must be a small, select group of morons. So why not establish a Please Call These People registry, and bother them 24/7? Thursday, July 03, 2003
VDHI never fail to be awed by Victor Davis Hanson. I am not worthy to share the same internet.Happy Independence Day. Wednesday, July 02, 2003
Paul Verhoeven is still a dopeHere's an article that explains the triumph of the PG and PG-13 ratings without blaming John Ashcroft:
Even so, more movies are still given R ratings than any other rating:
Shallow people go off the deep endI learned to swim at the town pool when I was about 5. I remember paddling around with the kickboards and also getting water in my ears, but my most vivid memory of the lessons is being forced to jump off the diving board into the deep end of the pool. The instructors stood at the side of a pool ready to extend a long pole I could grab on to if I panicked and started to drown. My fear of the deep end was largely psychological; I couldn't touch bottom in the shallow end, either. But fear is fear, and it was usually the pole for me.When I got a little older, even after that traumatic formative experience, I grew to appreciate the deep end. So now, when I read a line such as this: The old-style "drowning pools" won't be missed, said aquatics expert Tom Griffiths. I immediately look for a cup of coffee so I can take a sip and spew it all over my monitor in shocked surprise. "Drowning pools"? "Won't be missed"? "Aquatics expert?" Halle Berry full of grace, what in the heck is wrong with people today? In case you haven't yet read the article I am mocking, here's a summary: People were getting hurt jumping off diving boards in municipal pools, so the boards were removed. So fewer people used the deep end of the pools. So now the deep ends are being filled in: Philadelphia has been filling in its deep ends over the past several years, said Terri Kerwawich, the city's aquatics coordinator. After filling in two more this spring, the city has only 10 deep ends left at its 86 pools. All but one or two will eventually be filled in. The article quotes various aquatics experts and coordinators (who the heck knew such people existed?), along with a soccer, I mean swimming, mom who all praise the new shallow designs. They're "safer" and more "family-friendly" and yes, even "interactive" (you know, as opposed to the old pool designs that allowed no interaction whatsoever). Well, screw friendly interactive family safety if it's come to this. Let aquatics busybodies build themselves a safe little padded cell on a safe little island away from the people in the world who want to live. Give me my childhood of deep ends and merry-go-rounds and Big Macs and pointy chess pieces and un-car-seated car trips to Florida. (But I'll take today's adolescence. That sounds fun.) Monday, June 30, 2003
To Serve MankindWhile I'm glad the New York Times, as I noted, is finally providing some perspective on the supposed budget crises, the article still frames the debate as being between services or tax cuts. But what "services" are we talking about, exactly? Libraries? I suppose so. Fire investigators? Apparently. And, of course, the cabaret cops.Records from the city's Department of Consumer Affairs show that the Bowery Bar is not one of the city's 332 licensed cabarets, so the evening's dancing was illegal under current laws. The city has shut down 11 businesses for cabaret law violations this year, compared with 20 closed from 1999 through 2002.And heaven forbid people smoke while they dance; then the city of New York would declare martial law and call out the National Guard. Gee, I can think of a few government employees who could be fired without impacting the "quality of life" in New York City. (Or, rather, firing them will improve the quality of life in New York City.) It would be a lot less irritating to read columns about the horrors of government budget cuts if there weren't so many stories like this, of completely wasted government resources. Nobody even makes an attempt to slash programs like this before raising taxes. KateKatharine Hepburn is dead at 96. I'm not much of a cinephile; I have seen at most maybe one or two of her movies. Like W.C. Fields and Mae West, much of what I think I know about her comes from caricatures in 1930's Warner Brothers cartoons. But I always felt a little glimmer of amazement to know that, unlike all the others being lampooned, she was still alive. Sadly, no more.Sunday, June 29, 2003
On further reviewIt's been fashionable around certain areas of the blogosphere to single out certain New York Times articles and say, "See, they're finally trying to be fair, now that Howell Raines is gone." I don't really know whether he has anything to do with it, but it does seem as if the reporting has undergone a sharp change in direction in a short time. For instance, the Times has been "flooding the zone" (in Raines' favorite phrase) to prove that George Bush's tax cuts have been devastating for state budgets. (Though it's never explained _why_ the federal government should be funding the states.) We hear horror stories about people devastated, communities decimated, and children weeping in the streets.But, now, in the post-Raines era, lo and behold, a story which is actually balanced, pointing out that the budget cuts aren't extensive at all. Fire marshals will no longer investigate most car fires. There will be 3,500 fewer police officers compared to three years ago. Inmates on Rikers Island will not get intensive drug counseling. And most city libraries are now open five days, instead of six.It's nice to see, when reading the hysteria of Bob Herbert and Paul Krugman on the editorial page about the Republican plan to starve babies and puppies, some actual perspective. Spending, despite all the drastic, mean-spirited Republican tax cuts, is actually increasing in New York. As it is in most of the states with budget crises. The real crisis isn't that taxes are being cut, but that there is never an appetite for cutting any government program, ever. |