Minor Thoughts from me to you

Liberal, conservative, neocon, radical, progressive, red, pinko -- what does it all mean? Callimachus breaks it down in his latest Carnival of the Etymologies.

I'm not an educational expert, but a recent bill passed by the Florida House seems like a bad idea:

The Florida House passed a bill on Thursday that would make the state the first to require high school students to declare a major, just as college students do.

Mr. Bush and others say that requiring high school students to declare a major and concentrate on a particular field could prepare them better for college and the working world and reduce the dropout rate.

Opponents say the requirement would put too much pressure on students about their future. But supporters hope the state's dropout rate will fall and classroom achievement will rise if students can concentrate on subjects they enjoy. Majors could include basics like English and math or vocational fields like carpentry and auto repair.

I think this bill could be a bad idea, for several reasons. First of all, many college students switch majors multiple times and most high schoolers are completely clueless about what career they want to pursue. Indeed, most adults switch careers multiple times during their life. How much benefit can there possibly be in forcing someone to specialize so early in life?

Secondly, I think high school needs to continue to teach students about a wide variety of subjects. From what I remember, middle school classes focused on reading, writing, 'rithmetic, a little history, and a little science. I'm firmly of the opinion that high school students should be exposed to philosophy, economics, ethics, logic, and rhetoric. Not every student will end up attending college. With that in mind, I believe that high school should provide at least a rudimentary understanding of how the world works and how to think about the world.

I think restricting high school to a narrow, student-chosen list of classes would inhibit true learning and development. It may lower the drop-out rate, but at what price?

Go see them. I got quite a chuckle out of it.

Owen reported on two form letters that were sent to the state legislature, criticizing the Taxpayer Protection Amendment. One form letter was signed by leaders of city governments, the other was signed by leaders of county governments. Fortunately, my neither my alderman nor my County Board Supervisor signed it.

The more interesting part of this entire deal is that form letters were drafted by AFT-Wisconsin.

AFT-Wisconsin is a labor organization representing 17,000 public and private employees in the state of Wisconsin. Formerly called the Wisconsin Federation of Teachers (WFT), AFT-Wisconsin is the Wisconsin chapter of the American Federation of Teachers. Started primarily as a teachers' union with 1,400 members in 1933, AFT-Wisconsin has grown exponentially and today represents many diverse professionals with over 500 job classifications

In other words, people who work for the government are writing letters for other people who work for the government to sign. These letters say that the government should be able to raise taxes whenever it wants by however much it wants. That sounds to me like they're probably more interested in protection their jobs and their easy access to my pocketbook than they are in actually governing responsibly.

Furthermore, I think their worries about the TPA rolling back our basic services are a load of hooey. The TPA, sad to say, won't roll back any spending. It will just limit the rate at which spending can increase in the future. And, yes, it will allow spending increases. Just not huge ones. Unless you ask the taxpayers first. If they approve it, then it's all right. So why the long faces? Are they afraid to actually ask the taxpayers before increasing taxes? No, the TPA will not impose spending cuts. No, the TPA will not stop spending increases. All the TPA will do is slow down spending increases. Is that such a bad thing?

For the convenience of anyone else reading from Madison or Dane County, I've included the full list of Madison / Dane County signatories. If your alderman or county supervisor is on the list, I'd highly recommend giving them a call and expressing your displeasure. As Owen says, these are people are worthless local officials who are so terrified of having to ask the taxpayers when they want to blow the taxpayers' money. On the other hand, you might want to thank them all for providing such a handy list of people to vote against in the next election.

Representing Madison:

Dave Cieslewicz, Lauren Cnare, Austin King, Mike Verveer, Tim Gruber, Brenda Konkel, Ken Golden, Paul Van Rooy, Noel Radomski.

Representing Dane County:

Jane Licht (Register of Deeds), David Gawenda (Treasurer), Brett Hulsey, Robert Fyrst, Barbara Vedder, Kyle Richmond, John Hendrick, Don Eggert, Dave de Felice, Duane Gau, David Worzala, County Supervisor, Mark Opitz.

It's starting to look like the best method may be to let them play in the dirt, stick all sorts of things in their mouths, and, generally, be exposed to everything.

From the linked article:

Here's the new wisdom: Early exposure to pets, peanuts and intestinal worms might actually be good for you, because they program the developing immune system to know the difference between real threats, such as germs, and Aunt Millie's cat.

"When you're born, Day Zero, your immune system is like a new computer. It's not programmed. You have to add software," says Joel Weinstock of Tufts New England Medical Center. "Between the ages of zero and 12, you're learning to read, you're learning to write, and your immune system is learning to react to things. Part of that is learning to limit reactivity."

Although trying to link allergies to autoimmune diseases such as Crohn's might seem like a stretch, scientists say both types of ailments result from an immune system run amok. In allergies, the immune system goes on alert when ragweed or some other allergy-causing protein wafts through the air, settles on the skin or tickles the tongue. In autoimmune diseases, the immune system can no longer distinguish between the self and foreign proteins. Mistaking the self for those proteins, the immune system attacks the bowel in Crohn's disease or insulin-producing cells in Type 1 diabetes.

Weinstock, Elliott and other researchers believe that a low-grade infection with intestinal worms "” pig whipworms because they can't reproduce in people "” can restore the immune system's natural balance. A small-scale study in which 29 people with Crohn's disease drank whipworm eggs in Gatorade found that 23 responded to treatment and 21 of the 23 experienced complete remission.

Bryan Caplan found it disappointing. So did our own reviewer, Adam. Here are his thoughts:

Reviewers generally seem to be praising it to the heavens. The general audience reaction at my theater was from "...It was OK." to "Great googly moogly, that was horrible.".

I was not aware of this, but the movie is only written by the Wachowski Bros.; it's directed by an assistant of theirs, for whom this is a debut. His directing is serviceable; he seems to know how to point a camera, but not a whole lot more.

Alan Moore demanded his own name be removed from the credits of this movie (the movie simply attributes its source material like so: "Based On A Graphic Novel Illustrated by David Lloyd"), and it's really little wonder why: There are a couple of moments in the movie that are genuinely smart, at least one of which is even original and not to be found in the novel. But on the whole the film is a mishmash of bad story-editing decisions, a number of which are almost physically painful (V and Evey are now in love, for instance). This goes double for the film's horrendously heavy-handed attempts to make the film "more relevant"; there's not a single modern-day bogeyman that keeps liberals up at night which the film doesn't manage to add into its indictment (the overtly Christian Fascists come to power with the help of a pharmaceutical company and in one scene execute a man for owning a Koran). I suppose if we ever wanted a window into exactly what the hardcore liberal of today thinks will happen if the Republicans are ever fully in charge, now we have it.

Summarily, what we have here is a generally boring movie that will frustrate if you are expecting entertainment or profound thought from it, but which is interesting if you come to it with the intent of analyzing its deficiencies, a mental switch I made at some point in that theater. You can see the ideas that in other hands could have been (and WERE, under Moore's pen) extremely interesting. What ideas do make it through are rendered philosophically incoherent by minds that are either not clever enough for them, or that could not help but butcher them do to the limitations of working for Hollywood masters.

I actually won two free movie tickets at a comedy show two weeks back, so I didn't have to plunk down a dime for the viewing. See at your own $7.50's risk.

Madison, along with many other cities in Wisconsin, will be sporting a shiny-new anti-war referendum in the April election. The referendum is simple: Should the United States bring all military personnel home from Iraq now?. Simply vote "yes" or "no".

Recently members of the cheddarsphere have been opposing similiar referendums. Owen Robinson opposed it in Whitefish Bay and Lance Burri opposed it in Baraboo.

I fully support the views expressed in their remarks. They're both far more eloquent than I am, on this subject, so, please, go read their remarks. Then vote "No" on April 4.

The Anglican Church says no:

"I think creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories," the archbishop, the Most Rev. Rowan Williams, told The Guardian. "Whatever the biblical account of creation is, it's not a theory alongside theories. It's not as if the writer of Genesis or whatever sat down and said, 'Well, how am I going to explain all this?'"

"For most of the history of Christianity, there's been an awareness that a belief that everything depends on the creative act of God is quite compatible with a degree of uncertainty or latitude about how precisely that unfolds in creative time," he told The Guardian.

"For that matter," he said, "it's not even the same as saying that Darwinism is the only thing that ought to be taught. My worry is that creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it."

Creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation. For reasons why, check out Dr. John Walton's sermon, Why Didn't God Call the Light, Light?. The Genesis account of creation is far more interested in the purpose of the universe than it is in the material construction of the universe. Boiling the whole thing down to just an argument over physical construction misses the point entirely.

Will Wilkinson presents his Health Care Fantasia that includes the following prescriptions for cheaper health care: decartelization of doctors, abolishing the FDA, offering real insurance markets, creating a health care ideas futures market, creating electronic diagnostic services, allowing people to have big health care savings accounts, and forcing people to have a catastrophic insurance plan. Along with those ideas, he takes a stab at solving the problem of uninsured citizens. I support all of his ideas. Rather than making me repeat what's good, just go read it for yourself.

Last year, Arnold Kling presented his idea for a Medical Guidelines Commission that would:

consist of, say, seven members drawn from the disciplines of medical research, medical practice, statistics and actuarial science, and economics. It would have a staff with similar expertise to evaluate research and to oversee grants to stimulate research where none is available.

The Commission would have two main functions:

• Collect and summarize research about the effectiveness of various medical practices. For those of us willing to work with doctors to make our own decisions, this information would be sufficient.

• Issue guidelines that could be taken as recommendations for best practices. These guidelines would serve those people who would be intimidated by statistical research and prefer to be told what to do. The guidelines might also serve as industry-wide benchmarks.

Guidelines would not be carved in stone. Patients and doctors would be free to choose treatments that differ from the guidelines. Moreover, the guidelines themselves would change over time, because medicine is a constantly-evolving art.

The trick to making health care cheaper is to make health care more plentiful. The more patients can do for themselves, the cheaper health care will become (because the demand for doctor provided health care will be lower). The easier it is for people to become doctors, the cheaper health care will become (because the supply of doctors will be higher).

I'd like to draw attention to something that Will mentioned in his post: does setting a broken arm really require a full-fledged MD? Setting a broken arm has nothing to do with the liver, heart, lungs, kidney's, or any of the other subjects that MD's study. Why not open up the market for health care and allow people to specialize in specific areas of expertise (splinting broken bones) without requiring them to obtain a full medical degree?

(Hat tip to Arnold Kling)

According to FoxNews, Mayor Ray Nagin said that New Orleans residents should be allowed to rebuild anywhere -- as long as they do so at their own risk. Quoth the good mayor I don't recommend you going in areas I'm not comfortable with. I'm confident that the citizens can decide intelligently for themselves..

Actually, I am too. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that citizens will intelligently decide to rebuild in dangerous areas. Why? Because apparently poor decisions no longer have harsh consequences. President Bush's Gulf Coast Rebuilding Coordinator, Donald Powell, recently announced that President Bush would seek $4.2 billion for uninsured home owners that lived in the flood plains of New Orleans. The home owners that lived in that flood plain risked being flooded out. Many of them chose to accept that risk even without flood insurance. No matter. The federal government is now promising to cancel out any of the painful consequences of those decisions.

With consequences like that, I'm sure many citizens will choose to live wherever they please. It would be an intelligent decision too. After all, if the government's bailed them out once, it's likely to do it again. And we'll pay for it. How's that for living in the land of freedom and opportunity? Our government is guaranteeing that you can have the freedom to live wherever you want and your fellow citizens will have the opportunity of paying for your choice.

Geico is being sued because of their actuarial policy:

A leading U.S. consumer group Monday accused Geico Corp. of using consumers' education backgrounds and occupations as criteria in setting auto insurance rates, resulting in discrimination against minorities and lower-income people.

Geico, a unit of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., the insurance and investment company controlled by billionaire Warren Buffett, rejected the charges. It called them "an offensive attempt to link fundamentally fair and actuarially sound industry practices with invidious discrimination."

"There is clearly a disparate impact on minorities and lower income people," Hunter said in an interview. "If it isn't violative of the law, it should be. It strikes me as very unfair."

Life is unfair. Get over it. From an insurance and statistical standpoint, people with college degrees (and graduate degrees) probably are safer drivers. Therefore, it's cheaper to insure them. Geico, thankfully, passes that savings along to the driver. If you want to complain about it, first prove that -- on average -- a person with a high school degree drives just as safely as a person with a graduate degree.

Bringing charges of racism into the picture is growing increasingly tacky. It just reeks of an attitude of "I don't have a better argument to make, but I want sympathy anyway".

If Condoleezza Rice truly doesn't want to be President, she could take another job:

Condoleezza Rice, a bona fide football fan, is not applying for the newly opened post of NFL commissioner -- not now, anyhow, her spokesman said carefully on Monday.

"At the moment, the secretary is enjoying being secretary of state," said McCormack of his boss, an avid Cleveland Browns fan.

The wiggle-room in his response after NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue announced he would retire resonated off frequent only half-joking statements by Rice that as a lifelong football fan she aspires to run the league one day.

I'd support her for commish. (Also, it's not every day that I get to file a post as both "Sports" AND "National Politics".)

Sometimes it's possible to take lawn care a bit too seriously:

A man who neighbors say was devoted to his meticulously kept lawn was charged with murder in the shooting of a 15-year-old boy who apparently walked across his yard.

Charles Martin called 911 on Sunday afternoon, saying calmly: "I just killed a kid."

Police, who released the call's contents, said Martin also told the dispatcher: "I've been harassed by him and his parents for five years. Today just blew it up.

Of course:

Joanne Ritchie, 46, said [the boy] was known as "a good kid," but she always also considered Martin to be friendly.

Everyone is friendly, until they point a shotgun in your direction.

Life in Iraq may be dangerous right now. But at least you can be insured against the threat of terrorism:

Last month, Mr. Said, a slim, baby-faced 23-year-old, did what a small but growing number of Iraqis are doing: He walked into the offices of the Iraq Insurance Company and bought a terrorism insurance policy. It looked like an ordinary life insurance policy, but with a one-page rider adding coverage for "the following dangers: 1) explosions caused by weapons of war and car bombs; 2) assassinations; 3) terrorist attacks."

It cost him 125,000 dinars, about $90. Mr. Said paid more than most people because of his risky occupation. The payout, if he dies, is five million dinars, around $3,500, or about what an Iraqi policeman earns in a year.

(Hat tip to Marginal Revolution for the Markets in Everything concept.)

Occasionally I'll get asked about why I always advocate "letting the market handle it". Various people think it's a naive answer and one that places too much blind faith in capitalism. From now on, when I hear that question, I'll simply point the inquisitor to Professor Boudreaux's convincing answer. An excerpt:

People too often suppose that large social problems can be solved only by deciding ahead of time which particular group of people and procedures hold the key to the solution.

While declaring "Let the government handle it" comes across as a solution, it's no such thing. Instead, it is merely a sign of a simple and baseless faith -- a simple and baseless faith that people invested with power will not abuse it; that political appointees possess or will find better answers than will millions of people pursuing solutions in their own ways, and staking their own resources and reputations on their efforts; that only those 'solutions' that are spelled out in statutes and regulations and that have officials paid to implement them are true solutions.

So yes, show me a problem and I'll likely respond "Let the market handle it." I'll respond this way because I know that not only is my own meager knowledge and effort never up to the task of solving big problems but that not even the Einsteins or Krugmans or Bushes amongst us can know the best solution to any social problem.

Solutions to complex social problems require as many creative minds as possible -- and this is precisely what the market delivers.

Helicopter parents spend their entire lives hovering over the children. Apparently, many parents continue to hover even after their children have graduated from college:

Sue Shellenbarger writes about parents who seek to get deeply involved in the hiring process. One father showed up with his daughter, who was being interviewed for a job with Enterprise Rent-A-Car. The mother of another recruit at Enterprise joined a phone call and began grilling the recruiter about the benefits package. At other companies, parents are calling hiring managers to protest the offered pay packages and try to renegotiate. At GE, an offer was made to a recruit last fall, and the recruit's mother called the next day trying to negotiate an increase in pay. "It's unbelievable to me that a parent of a 22-year-old is calling on their behalf," say Allison Keaton, director of college relations for St Paul Travelers. She calls this generation "the kamizake parents--the ones that already mowed down the guidance and admissions offices and are now moving into the workplace."

I found this story via David Foster at Chicago Boyz. He continues on with:

But the levels of involvement described in the WSJ article go way beyond such traditional forms of support, and can only serve to undercut the development of confidence and independence. A 5% higher starting salary isn't worth it if the price is the failure to develop one's own negotiating powers. The same parents who focused on credentials rather than knowledge and metaskills in the education process are also failing to comprehend the importance of metaskill development in the workplace.

Americans have always liked to think of themselves as independent and self-reliant. Given the behavior described in these articles, is that view out of date?

I would tend to think that it is. Increasingly, many younger Americans appear to be reliant on either the government or their parents to move them through life. How sadly pathetic.

Bryan Caplan, writing at EconLog:

I recently mentioned that if you're feeling lonely, you should criticize Austrian economics, and you'll never again lack for human contact. Now Walter Block, Christopher Westley, and Alex Padilla have a hilarious 79-page piece of satire which turns Austrians' compulsive debating into the hallmark of good science:

[W]henever there is a dispute between two economists, the last one to articulate his opinion shall be deemed the winner of the debate, and thus having had the (more nearly) correct view. So, if there is a series of arguments and counterarguments of the sort A, B, where A publishes first, B replies, and then all is silence, then we conclude that B is correct, and A incorrect. If the format is of the following variety: A, B, A', where A starts, B disagrees, and then A publishes a rejoinder to B in a second round (A'), and that is the last we hear of this, then it is A' who has an inner track on the truth, and B who must be consigned to the outer rungs of darkness.

Larry Kudlow reported this morning on a pathetic state of affairs in the U.S. Senate. Currently, Senator Gregg's (R-N.H.) Budget Committee is writing and debating the Senate's budget resolution. So far, the commitee has managed to drop out entitlement cuts and is currently working on adding even more pork to the budget. Good job guys. You've succeeded in completely losing whatever small modicum of support I was willing to give to Congressional Republicans.

Let me make this perfectly clear: from this moment on, I will actively work to defeat every Republican Congressman or Senator up for reelection. I will actively work to reelect every Democrat Congressman or Senator up for reelection. For out of state races, I will donate money to Democrat candidates, not Republican candidates. For in-state races, I will make phone calls and literature drops on behalf of Democrat candidates. I will do anything and everything I can to ensure that only Democrats are elected. There is only one thing you can do to change my mind: grow a backup and stand up for the American taxpayer. Short of that, I see no reason why I should work for a Republican majority rather than a Democrat majority.

To all Republicans working to cut the budget -- you'd better find a way to convince your big spending colleagues to toe the line. You might start out by reminding them of all of the Congressional perks and committee assignments that they'll lose if Republicans lose the majority. At this point, I see no reason to give time, money, or effort to the Republican party as long as it is unserious about practicing fiscal conservatism. True, Democrats won't be any better. On the other hand, if big-spending budget bills are passed by a Democrat majority, President Bush just might remember where he hid the veto pen.

I'm willing to gamble. Are you?

Mark Twain once advised people to "never start a fight with a man who buys ink by the barrel". It's a lesson that the New York State United Teachers union might do well to learn. On January 13, John Stossel hosted an ABC special called Stupid in America. In it, he focused on public schools, private schools, educational vouchers, and other forms of school choice. He was critical of the union for their role in protecting bad teachers, at the expense of students. The union didn't react well to the criticism. Unfortunately for them, Stossel buys ink by the barrel.

Ever since Stupid in America aired, Stossel has been writing weekly columns about school choice and the teachers' union. The first six columns (Myth: Schools don't have enough money, Trapped in the wrong government school, Learning to read in South Carolina, Time for choice and competition, Union bosses get in the way of common sense, and Unions fight to protect the nightmare) recap the content of his ABC special. His most recent columns (The teachers unions are mad at me and Time to teach) are a direct response to the attacks he's received from the union.

I don't think this is a war that the unions can win. John can keep writing columns about school choice indefinitely. With each new column, he can print more facts and figures about the problems and inefficiencies of the union. The more they attack, the more damage John can do to them. The damage may be exponential as well. In his most recent column, he tells how the union chanted "Teach, John, teach!" outside of his door. They wanted him to go into a public school and teach for a week. It's an offer that Stossel has accepted. Will the union actually follow through or was it all a bluff? Either way, I'm not sure it will come out looking any better than it already has.

Actually, I'm not sure that understanding Russ Feingold is completely possible. But I would like to understand how he got reelected by such a wide margin in 2004. Levnik Lad recently said "I cannot help but think that there are a whole bunch of people out there scratching there heads wondering how on God's green earth Russ Feingold continues to get re-elected". Well, I've been wondering the same thing.

I'm a recent transplant to Madison, WI. I've now been here a little over 10 months. Feingold is a perfect fit -- if he was the Senator from Madison. From what I've seen of the rest of the state, however, Wisconsin is much more moderate than its junior Senator. So, those of you who've been here longer than me, how does he do it? How does Feingold keep getting reelected? Incompetent opposition? Election day 2004 was opposite day in Wisconsin?

I'd love to hear any ideas, thoughts, or wild speculations ya'll have.