Reporting from the Missionary Position

Others can and will comment on the senseless killings that took place on April 16th, 2007 at Virginia Tech. Many of them will do so far more eloquently than I can ever hope to. I will leave that to them. I wish, instead, to comment on the equally senseless media storm that is now centered on the university.
I suppose that some of it is to be expected. It is entirely reasonable for the major media outlets to dispatch a reporter or two to the scene of the bloodiest stooting in the country's history. I was disgusted, however, when I saw that Katie Couric and Brian Williams, two of the three anchors for the major networks, were already there at the scene. I would be surprised if Charles Gibson and Anderson Cooper weren't at the campus as well, I just didn't happen to see them.
What purpose was there in having the network news broadcast from the crime scene? Was there any value added by the anchor's presence? Well of course there was - ratings.
The news is an interesting business. As with all broadcast media, it is driven by ratings, and as unfortunate as it may be, bad news sells, and the worse the news, the better it is for the ratings. There is a difference, however, in thoroughly reporting the news, and exploiting the news. The reporting on the Virginia Tech shootings have crossed this line.
This story is certainly important enough to dominate the news. The problem is that there isn't enough information available for it to dominate the news. For students that were involved in the event, the last thing that they need is microphone stuck in their faces. Students not involved, on the other hand, do not have much (if anything) to offer. Telling the story is one thing, but to attempt to cover a story like this from every conceivable angle, not to mention calling in additional talking heads to speculate and postulate on what happened, why it might have happened and/or what could or should be done to prevent it from happening again, it crosses the line to exploitation.

Dueling With Immersion

Today, I learned a new term, Dual Immersion. My children’s school is supposed to be implementing this program over the next several years. At Sunnyslope Elementary School, Dual Immersion will require a multi-year commitment, beginning in Kindergarten. The two Dual Immersion Kindergarten classes will have 90% of their instruction in Spanish, and 10% in English. As the students progress to 1st Grade, the ratio will change to 80% Spanish and 20% English. 3rd Grade will by 70% Spanish and 30% English and by the 5th Grade, the ratio will be 50/50.

I am all for introducing secondary language in our Elementary Schools. I believe that there is solid evidence that language skills are more easily obtained by children at that age. That being said, I have concerns about this program and the way it will be implemented. On the surface, it appears to me that is likely that Dual Immersion is a way to circumvent Proposition 227, California’s English Only initiative. Perhaps I am wrong, but to prove this to me, there are a few questions that I need to have answered.

Who is this intended to benefit, English Speakers or English Learners? With a 90/10 split in instruction time to begin with, I have a hard time believing that it is both. If it is good for English Speakers to have 90% of instruction in Spanish, wouldn’t it be good for English Learners to have 90% of their instruction in English? If it is good for the English Learners to have 90% of their instruction in their native tongue, isn’t it a disservice to the English Speakers to have only 10% of their instruction in their native tongue?

How will English Speakers in a classroom that has 90% of the instruction in Spanish not fall behind in the core curriculum? The documentation that I have read indicates that by the time students in a Dual Immersion program reach the 6th Grade, they are at or above grade level. The same documentation, however, indicates that there is, either by design or by chance, a higher degree of parental involvement with students enrolled in Dual Immersion. Many studies have shown that higher parental involvement is an excellent indicator of student performance on standardized tests, which begs the question: What would these students test scores have been had they been enrolled in a more conventional program, with the same level of parental involvement? How can we be assured that it is the language skills that have made the difference, and not the additional parental involvement?

Why not just add Spanish to the Elementary School curriculum, at least on an optional basis? This question is actually rhetorical. There isn’t time to add Spanish to the curriculum. We are asking our children to do more and more at a younger and younger age. I see my 4th graders asked to do math that we didn’t see until 8th or 9th grade. I see my 5th and 6th graders expected to exhibit levels of cognitive thought that they aren’t ready for yet. My kids are struggling to keep up as it is, I can’t imagine what it would be like if we were to add a secondary language to the mix?

What assurances do we have that this isn’t merely a way of circumventing Prop 227? As stated above, it is counterintuitive that both English Speakers and English Learners will benefit equally from a disproportionate percentage of instruction being in Spanish. The thing is, it appears that the move away from bilingual education is working. Standardized test scores have improved since the passage of 227. This indicates that the better way to learn a second language is through immersion programs. If we are using programs such as this as a back door around 227, we may be doing a disservice to our English Learning students.

Do we know what the demand is for this program? The current plan is to have two kindergarten classes taught as Dual Immersion classes in the first year of the program. Do we have enough demand for this program within the area serviced by Sunnyslope Elementary? If there isn’t, there is talk of allowing students from elsewhere in the district to transfer to Sunnyslope. Doesn’t this open up the possibility that some kindergarteners in the Sunnyslope area will have their places taken by students from outside the area because they may not want to be involved in the program. From what I understand, these classes are in place of standard kindergarten classes at Sunnyslope, not in addition to them. Will students be forced to attend schools farther away from home because of this program? I hope not. I hope that no parent is told that their child can attend Sunnyslope, but the only slot that is available is in a Dual Immersion class.

All this being said, this is an optional program. I am a firm believer that we need more choice in our schools, not less. As long as this program is voluntary, and as long as it is not meant as a way to get around Prop. 227, I am not opposed to it. If I had a child entering kindergarten, I don’t think that I would sign up for this. Other parents can make their own choices

Steele Equivocating

The Washington Post ran an editorial on Sept. 23rd that condemned the actions of staffers of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, who illegally obtained confidential credit reports on Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele. OK, condemned may be a bit strong for what the Post editorialized, but they did say quite firmly that, if they did it again, The DSCC should be prepared to go on time out. I am quite willing to say that I don't know enough about what happened to know if this story has legs enough to make it down the driveway, let alone around the block, but I did find a couple of things quite interesting about this editorial.
First, nearly as much time is spent discussing how Republicans do this sort of thing, too. I can't help but wonder, if the situation were reversed, would the piece have gone on about how both sides pull dirty tricks on the other? Or would the commentary have focused more on the specific dirty trick involved. The Post does its readers a disservice if when one side of the aisle is caught with its hand in the cookie jar, everyone is at fault, while when the other side is caught doing something untoward, the focus is on them alone.
Then, the Post closed with what I think is an absolutely preposterous comparison.

As political dirty tricks go, snooping for financial dirt on Mr. Steele by illegal means strikes us as roughly on a par with eavesdropping on a rival party's private telephone conversations, as Virginia Republican officials did several years ago.

Excuse me, but this doesn't seem like it is even roughly on par with eavesdropping. The correct comparison is that it would be equivalent to illegally tapping a rival party's telephone. I don't know if this is what Virginia Republicans did or not, but that would be roughly the same. The Mainstream Media likes to pretend that they are even-handed, but editorials such as this make that difficult to believe.

Cub Scout Camp - Alex

Alex - Your Move
Originally uploaded by brent2mnen.

This is Alex in the middle of his first game of chess. He won this game almost by accident. He attempted to make an illegal move with his queen and put his opponent into check. When told that there was a legal move with the queen to put him in check, he took it. I looked for a moment and realized it was checkmate. The two boys running this activity were amazed and came running over to confirm the win. It was the only checkmate of the session.

Alex really impressed me during his second game of chess. As I mentioned earlier, he tried to make a couple of illegal moves in the first game, but by the second he seemed to have all the pieces down. He wasn't able to finish his second game, but if you were to have decided the game on points, he was ahead when time ran out. I am going to have to play chess with both of the boys. I was really pleased that they have both taken a liking to the game. As the grow older, and get better at the game, it will be a wonderful thing for us to do together. I suppose that I will have to learn to play multiple games at the same time, so that no one feels like they are being left out. Hopefully, that will also cut down on the kibitzing.

Alex really loved swimming. He was fearless, too. When the boys first got to camp, they took a swimming test. That wouldn't have been a problem except for one thing - Alex doesn't swim. That little detail didn't phase him in the least, though. He was taken to the deep end of the pool and, over the objections of myself and two other parents that were with us, jumped right in when he was told to. I don't know how much of it was from fear, and how much of it was from the cold water, but when he emerged, he had a look on his face that I had not seen before (and hope never to see again). Even that experience, though did not deter is love of the water, and by the end of the summer he had taken swimming lessons, and earned both his Swimming Beltloop and Pin.

Cub Scout Camp - Ryan

Ryan - Fishing
Originally uploaded by brent2mnen.

It isn't often that you see Ryan sitting still for this long. This picture was taken while Ryan was at Camp Wiley, a Cub Scout camp in Running Springs, CA. I don't know about you, but this picture reminds me of something from the Andy Griffith Show. Unfortunately, I wasn't around to see him catch his fish. If you were to ask him, he would tell you that he caught a Blue Gill (he says it as if it were two separate words). I can't tell you how good the Cub Scouts has been for Ryan. Just at camp, he was able to go swimming, shoot a BB gun, learn some Archery, whittle (yes, with a real pocketknife). I have to admit, though, that I was worn out after a few days of Cub Scout Camp. I spent much of the time running back and forth between Alex's group, and Ryan's - which is why I missed capturing his fish on film. I think that I went through a couple of liters of water daily. I was very grateful that I had purchased a hydrating backpack to carry around with me.

Ryan was a star meteoroligist, too. The boys that had just graduated to Bear Scouts (going into 3rd grade) were "Weather Bears", and got to announce what the weather was going to be for the day. They also had a class in which they learned a little more about meteorology. Ryan already knew most of the different types of clouds (cumulus, cumulonimbus, stratus, cirrus, etc.).

Did I mention that one of Ryan's activities was whittling? Ryan handling a firearm? I could handle that. Ryan in Archery class? No problem. But Ryan with a knife was almost more than I could bear. This class was the reason that I didn't make it back to see Alex in Archery class. After a quick lecture in knife safety, the boys were each given a knife and a piece of wood to whittle. Fortunately, these knives were very dull, unlike the knife that I purchased for Ryan to use. Ryan then proceeded to wrap his fingers completely around the blade to open and close the knife, and because he was more to the side of the boys conducting the class, it wasn't noticed.

Before the class started, the parents were instructed not to speak to the boys. The older gentleman that ran this activity said that the only injuries he had ever had were due to parents distracting their children. Seeing my son with his fingers around the blade of a knife, however, was more than I could take. As Popeye is wont to say, "That's all I can stands and I can't stands no more." It took some effort, but I finally got the instructors' attention and they went over and supervised Ryan a bit more closely. This actually happened a couple of times before they realized that Ryan needed more supervision than most boys, but by the end of the session, someone was sitting next to Ryan the whole time. I was relieved when this activity was over. Looking at his Bear book, though, I noticed that Ryan is supposed to do a carving. I think that we will have him carve soap... using a plastic knife. As it is, his Cub Scout knife stays in my possession and only comes out when Ryan can be supervised.

Open Houses

Dennis Prager, who I listen to regularly on the radio, is trying to organize people that will open up their homes to families displaced by Hurricane Katrina. His plan is to limit the stay to 1 month, so that there are fewer complications. If a family needs more than a month, they would move to a different home. If you are interested, you can give your name to Dennis to sign up at his website.

The Best of Times.... The Worst of Times

It was the best of times....
Never is the character of the American people more evident than in times of crisis. At home or abroad, Americans are among the most compassionate and generous people on the planet. This is again evident in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, which looks to become the most devastating hurricane ever to hit the United States. What do Americans do when disaster strikes? They band together. They dig deep. Everywhere you look, there are stories that show the best of what mankind can become.
It starts at a young age. Children across our country are taking hammers to piggy banks - forgoing Barbies and baseballs, because they want to help. They are creating lemonade stands - not so that they can have a little spending money, but because there are people in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama that don't have a room, a shirt or a decent meal. They are donating their favorite stuffed animals - because they know that there are children out there that lost their own.
The city of Houston has reached out and is taking in tens of thousands of people that have been trapped in New Orleans. Many Houston hotels have reduced their rates, rather than increase them. The city is allowing cars with Louisiana plates to have free parking. The governor of Texas has offered to take the children of New Orleans that have been relocated into the Texas public schools.
I was listening to the radio today, and I heard a woman from Arizona say that she would like to take a family into her home. She said that she had room for a family of four. Many of us are reaching into our wallets, offering to help in that way, but this woman was offering to let a family of strangers into her life. I know of no more generous offer than to share your home, your life, with a complete stranger.
Who is it that says that Corporate America is heartless? Corporation after corporation is donating Food, Clothing and Water, as well as cash donations to charities in order to help people that have been devastated by Katrina. GM and Nissan are sending vehicles to help with disaster recovery. Budweiser is bottling water, not beer and sending it to the hurricane ravaged Gulf Coast. This article in USA Today documents even more of the efforts that Corporate America is making to help out in this time of disaster.

It was the worst of times....
Just as a disaster can bring out the best in people, it can also bring out the worst. The looters were just the beginning. I don't hold it against people that have taken the food, clothing or medical supplies that they might need to survive, though I believe that they should attempt some form of restitution at some future date. Televisions, however, are not a necessity. It is tragic that, just as the rest of America is being selfless, there is a portion of it that is being completely and entirely selfish. I have heard reports of trucks that are coming into the areas with supplies being hijacked. A medical airlift attempting to get some of the sick and the injured out of the Superdome was at least temporarily suspended after someone apparently fired a shot at a military helicopter. There are reports of police officers turning in their badges. They have lost everything, and don't feel that it is worth it to risk their lives battling thugs and looters.
Who can blame them? I have heard many complain about the lack of relief - that there is too little, too late. At the same time, though, there is a portion of the population that is actively hindering rescue and relief operations. Shots are being fired at police officers. Violence is being threatened against rescue workers, in an attempt to have their family attended to first.
Respect. This is a word that is often bandied about. Respect, though, is something to be earned, and the best way to earn it is to act respectably. Unfortunately, there are so many good people that are suffering because of the actions of these thugs. I don't remember people that were affected by last December's tsunami being this ungrateful, or this demanding, either. It doesn't help to dwell on the things that one doesn't have - it is much better to be grateful for what we do have.

Immigration, the Nanny State and Unintended Consequences

It was about a week ago that I was driving home from work, listening to talk radio as is my habit, when I overheard a host talking about how the American Welfare State was an incentive to illegal immigration. I don't know that people come to the US to take advantage of our welfare system. I tend to believe that most people come to the United States looking for work. And let's face it, work is here to be had. Employers, especially in the agricultural sector, often contend that the reason they need to hire immigrants is that American workers are unwilling to do the work - of course, they always seem to leave a very important phrase off of this statement, "at the wages they offer." And that is when it dawned on me. The American Welfare State may, indeed, be an incentive to immigrants - not because they come for the benefits, but because it gives American workers an incentive not to work.
Why should a person do the back-breaking work of picking strawberries when they can exist - maybe not well, but exist nonetheless - on the government dole. Even if a worker could make more cleaning hotel toilets, how much more would they need to be compensated before they chose to do that instead of being paid for doing nothing at all? The Welfare State may actually be artificially raising what workers perceive to be a "living wage", while at the same time enticing immigrants and employers to find common ground in the underground economy.
I was unemployed recently, for approximately three months. I was able to make ends meet during that time by selling the small portfolio of stock I had accumulated, spending the minimal severance package I received, my tax refund, and unemployment. I doubt that I could have lasted much longer without starting to skip payments on credit cards, my mortgage, etc. I was picky, though, in my job search. I confined it companies in my immediate area, not desiring to have to make a long commute which would take time away from my family. That being said, as my funds ran short, and I started to experience shortfalls, I would have lowered my expectations, made compromises, and ultimately done whatever I had to do to support my family and pay my bills. I don't think that other people are any different. We will do what it takes to survive, but if we can survive before "going to the mattresses" we are likely to make trade-offs.

The Case For Retirement

Much has been made about Chief Justice William Rehnquist's decision to remain firmly planted on the bench of the Supreme Court. Many have questioned whether his health is such that he has the strength, both mental and physical, to carry out his duties. The decision recently announced in Kelo v. New London, however, makes a compelling case for the retirements of Justices Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy and Souter.
These five Justices have essentially said that private property isn't private. Rush Limbaugh claims to have talent on loan from God. The Supremes have now declared that our property is merely on loan from the government, and can be taken for nearly any reason. According to Justice Stevens, the government of New London's "determination that the area was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvination is entitled to our deference". In other words, whatever the city wants, the city gets. There is no standard by which to determine if a city justly has determined that economic rejuvination is necessary. They just have to find that it is, and the Supreme Court will defer to that determination.
It didn't take long for municipalities to get the message - it was open season on private property. The decision came down on June 23, 2005. John Revelli's family had owned and operated Revelli Tires in Oakland for 56 years. No more. On July 1, the city of Oakland evicted both John Revelli and a neighboring business owner so that apartments could be built on their properties. For the full story, refer to this article in the San Francisco Chronicle. This was not the first, and certainly won't be the last, instance of this kind of gambit.
Rarely is a decision by the Supreme Court as wrong as this - so wrong that both the Left and the Right are up in arms over it. For those that are concerned about the direction that John Roberts will take the Court, this should be some consolation. If Roberts turns out to be the conservative Justice that he is expected to be, he would have come down on the right side of this decision. It should be noted that it was the Court's most liberal members that have ripped the foundations of our homes and businesses out from under us. I pray for the speedy retirements of these five justices, and their replacements by Justices that understand their role, and the laws and principles that they are sworn to uphold.

Here's to Bush's Health

I was floored today, when I read of legislation that has just made it out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Apparently, John Shadegg (R) of Arizona has introduced legislation that would allow consumer to purchase insurance from any one of the 50 states. This, by no means, ensures that the legislation will become law, but it is a step in the right direction. As it currently stands, each state passes its own legislation that regulates the insurance carriers in that state, which leads to a wide array of pricing structures throughout the country. As the Wall Street Journal points out, this is precisely the sort of thing that the Commerce Clause was written to address. These regulations have the same effect as tariffs, making it impossible for companies that do business from one state to do business in another state. Allowing consumers the flexibility of choosing policies from any state they wish will allow them to pick plans that best suit their needs. President Bush has apparently endorsed the Shadegg proposal, which could result in the best health care legislation we have seen in some time.

They Still Have US to Kick Around

Thomas Friedman really hit the ball out of the park with his article today in the NY Times. If Iran and North Korea do indeed develop and test nuclear weapons, whose fault will it be? In the eyes of the world, it will be the fault of those Americans, no doubt. But Friedman questions whether Europe and China have the political will or even desire to pressure Iran and North Korea into giving up their radioactive dreams. The US has already severed nearly all ties with both countries, and therefore has little leverage left. Friedman is especially insightful when he makes this statement:

Are the Europeans and Chinese behaving cynically? Of course, these are the very countries constantly complaining about U.S. "hegemony," and calling for a "multipolar world." Yet the only thing they are really interested in being a pole for is to oppose the U.S. - not to actually do something hard themselves to stabilize the global system.

They complain when we act like the world's only superpower and they complain when we don't. It is almost enough to make you want to return to those halcyon days of American isolationism and quit being the world's policeman. But the world needs a policeman, and who else will take that role? The Europeans? The Chinese? Do we really want them to?

Dead Last

I may not have the quote exactly right, but I heard LA Mayoral candidate Antonio Villaraigosa state today that "of the top 67 largest cities in America, Los Angeles' roads rank dead last." He may be right, I can't quibble about the number, but I find it hard to believe that the survey took into account only 67 cities. Maybe 50 cities, or 75, or even 100, but not 67. If LA had come in the 44th position, the quote would have read "of the top 44 largest cities in America, Los Angeles' roads rank dead last." The same would be true if they had been 23rd, or even 7th. The key thing is that Villaraigosa was able to say that they were "dead last."
I don't have a horse in the LA Mayors race. I don't live in Los Angeles, and wouldn't care much for either candidate if I did. That being said, the use of statistics in this manner is disingenuous at the very least. As my grandfather often would say, "There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics."

Thank God for the UN

The United Nations has issued an alarm for women's rights groups in Afghanistan "after three young Afghan women were found raped, hanged and dumped on a roadside with a warning not to work for foreign relief organizations."
I'm just trying to remember - did the UN issue any such alarms for women's rights when they were living under the Taliban?

Words, Words, Words.... Wolf!!!

Words mean something, or at least they used to. Today, however, it seems that even our language is suffering from egalitarianism.
The degradation of the meaning of words takes many forms. In some cases, we degrade our speech by resorting to the use of obscenities. It isn't merely that obscenities are dirty, foul, or degrading, but that they don't have the same power of language. When we are angry, we often say that we are 'pissed'. But what, exactly, does that mean? There are many words for angry: upset, agitated, perturbed, annoyed, mad, furious, irate, livid.... Where, precisely, does 'pissed' belong in a continuum of such words? Instead of finding a place in the continuum, it covers the whole spectrum, and we lose the nuances of the other words that could have been used. How about insults? Calling someone a #(&*@ (coward - female genitalia) just doesn't carry the same weight as saying that they "have the backbone of a chocolate eclair". Even Archie Bunker calling his son-in-law 'meathead' had more meaning than an obscenity would have.
Another way that words lose their meaning is when we use them improperly, especially in improper comparisons. When we use the word 'rape' to describe a woman that wakes up and regrets having sex with the man she met the night before, we degrade the meaning of the word rape, and therefore the act of rape itself. When people use the word 'jihad' to describe the religious right in this country, we aren't just making the religious right out to be worse, we are saying that actual 'jihad' isn't so bad. John McCandlish Phillips references a number of major columnists in this article in the Washington Post.
All this makes me think of the boy who cried wolf. If we continually degrade our language by trying to make dissimilar things out to be similar, soon we won't be able to tell the wolves from the sheep. A serial rapist? Isn't that just another word for a Casanova?

Who's Running This Circus?

What struck me even more about the Gene Healy article in Reason was the following excerpt:

McCain-Feingold clocked in at a mere 36 pages, yet in February 2003 The New York Times reported that the Democratic and Republican party organizations had to hire high-priced lawyers and consultants to run seminars teaching senators and congressmen about the requirements of the law they had just passed. "I didn't realize what all was in it," Rep. Robert Matsui (D-Calif.) said.

They didn't understand the requirements of the law they had just passed. Unbelievable. And this was legislation that directly affected them and the way that they raised money.
McCain-Feingold is extraordinarily bad law. It may have been based on good intentions, but the ramifications of the law have been disastrous. First, it has made it all but impossible for anyone but the very rich to run for office. For some reason, the courts have ruled that spending your money on advertising, etc. to promote your own political ideas or to support your own political campaign is a free speech issue, protected by the 1st amendment, while spending your money on someone else's campaign is not. Therefore, under McCain-Feingold, you cannot give more than $2,000 to any single candidate in any single election. It takes a lot of $2,000 contributions to run a successful campaign these days, especially difficult if you aren't an incumbent.
The loophole that McCain-Feingold left open gave rise to the 527 organizations in the last election. These organizations can accept unlimited amounts of money, but cannot be officially tied in anyway to a candidate. Politician's must love these. 527's can put out the most outrageous and scandalous allegations, and the candidate can say that he had nothing to do with them. Plausible deniability.
So, Congress passed this law, a mere 36 pages of text, and didn't understand it. The Intelligence Reform Bill of 2004 is 200 pages longer. How many Senators actually understand that little piece of legislation? If you want some real reform in government, maybe we should adopt a five sentence rule for legislation. No law can be longer than five sentences long. Of course, maybe we should also make sure that they use single syllable words so that the whole of Congress can understand them, too.

Bring On Mr. Smith

Gene Healy makes some compelling arguments in this article in Reason today. I don't know that I agree with him about the likelihood of the disallowing of filibusters on judicial appointments leading to the end of all filibusters, but he is right that the Republicans would be better off forcing their colleagues on the other side of the aisle to mount a real filibuster. As best I understand it, the current process of acquiescing when the other side announces that they plan to filibuster is nothing more than a gentleman's agreement. In reading the text of the Senate Rule, there is only the requirement of an affirmative vote "in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn" to close debate, except to change the rules, in which case "the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting". The filibuster is meant to be used on issues that are so important as to put aside all other work of the Senate. The Democrats want to call on the memory of Mr. Jefferson Smith? Let them emulate him. Bring on the debate, and the cots.

You Can't Win Them All

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has consistently been right on the importance and necessity of the war in Iraq, but he has weighed in a couple of pounds light on the nomination of John Bolton to be our Ambassador to the UN (column). I don't know that Bolton is necessarily the right man for the job, although anyone with the chutzpah to say that we could do without 10 floors of the UN building and no one would notice has risen several pegs in my book. I do know, however, that it would be far worse to heed Friedman's advice and nominate George H. W. Bush to fill the role.
The foreign policy goals of the two Bush administrations could hardly be more diametrically opposed. George Bush 41 viewed foreign policy as the need for stability, the theory being that it was better to bear those ills we have than flee to others we know not of. George Bush 43, on the other hand, has instituted a foreign policy based on change and the primacy of freedom. He has a vision of a better world, based on democracy and freedom.
Friedman is also wrong when it comes to the costs of the current Mid-East campaign. Having more allies would not reduce, in any significant measure, the cost in blood nor dollars that America is expending in Iraq. A more Grand Alliance would be merely symbolic. In Operation Desert Storm, the United States provided the vast majority of troops and equipment, and an even more disproportionate percentage of casualties. The same is true in Operation Iraqi Freedom. It doesn't matter. What does matter is doing the right thing. As King Arthur says in the Broadway Musical Camelot, what we believe in is not that might makes right, but that we should use might for right.

Change Everything?

That is the prescription that James Carville and Paul Begala have given the Democratic Party. I am reminded of something I once heard. If two people agree on everything, one of them isn't thinking. I think that the same can be said when two people disagree on everything - one of them isn't thinking either. Their article does, however, get at least one thing right. The biggest problem that the Democrats face is not that they stand for things that the American public doesn't like, but that they stand for nothing. As it stands, it is still the Rupublican Party that is the party of ideas, the party of change and the party of reform. It is not and will not be enough for the Democrats just to stand up and say "No!" (which, by the way, seems to be what they are doing). They must instead formulate an alternative plan from which to govern. Carville and Begala have outlined five issues that they believe can be exploited. Doing so, however, may be more difficult than they imagine.
The Economy. The Democrats solution: Tax the rich, encourage corporations to keep jobs in the US, reform and simplify the Tax Code by making it more progressive (again, tax the rich). There is a plan in place that accomplishes everything in that list save the last, making it more progressive, the National Sales Tax. It is proposed by a Republican congressman from Georgia.
Health Care. The Democrats solution: Some sort of mandated health insurance for every American. Their preference would be a single-payer (government funded) plan, but they would settle for requiring employers to insure their workers, with an additional tax to cover those that fell through the cracks. The Republicans here aren't much better, preferring to let people make their own health decisions - whether it is an employee benefit (in lieu of salary), privately purchased health insurance, or (in the only innovative policy set forth on this issue) private, tax-deductible, individual health insurance accounts. The problem with all but the private accounts is that it hides the cost from the consumer. Do you know that your insurance carrier may be paying more for your doctor visits and prescriptions than you would pay yourself in a "pay-as-you-go" system. And you are probably paying a co-payment for that priveledge.
Foreign Policy. If you haven't been watching, it would seem that the current administration's firm, decisive foreign policy has been having effects far beyond the borders of Afghanistan and Iraq. Although too early to call the campaign for freedom a resounding success, there are now fledgling democracies in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and a general move toward democracy in Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. There is even hope for a democratic movement in Iran and Syria. American foreign policy shouldn't be reached as a consensus with other nations. It should be based on doing the right thing, regardless of what the rest of the world thinks. If they come along for the ride, great. If they don't, we can go it alone just fine.
Political Reform. This issue is like the chimney sweep telling the coal miner that he is dirty. There is plenty of political corruption on both sides of the aisle. It is easy to point a finger at Tom Delay now, but now the Democratic House Leader, Nancy please, is having similar allegations flung her way. Political reform as a campaign issue will often take down friend and foe alike. If Carville and Begala don't see this, it is because they see Democrats not as being right, but good, and Republicans not as wrong, but bad.

Time to Ban Assault Rocks

Rocks can be dangerous things, just ask Goliath. In the interest of the public safety, then, it is high time that we look at the danger that Assault Rocks are in our society. In my unscientific estimate, there are in excess of 8 million rocks for every man woman and child in the United States. That is enough of these potentially lethal weapons for every citizen to wipe out an entire major city, yet we allow these objects to fall into the hands of criminals on a daily basis. Not only that, but large-capacity Assault Rock Magazines are made available at no cost at every major grocery store, in two convenient styles, paper and plastic. These magazines can hold hundreds of Assault Rocks at a time, and pose an even greater risk to society. This is a worldwide problem, with incidents in South Africa, Israel, Honduras, Haiti, and Ireland, to name a few.
Here, finally, is an issue where we can get out in front of the curve. Legislation is needed immediately to protect us from this danger that surrounds us seemingly on all sides. I can't believe that there are still people out there that claim "rocks don't kill people - people kill people." We need to make sure that there is a 2 month waiting period before people are allowed to take possession of rocks, and complete FBI background checks performed in the interim. Smooth stones should be completely prohibited, as they are more aerodynamic, and there is no reason for them other than to hurt or kill people and other living things. No rocks should be allowed within 100 yards of a school or government building. The penalty for carrying rocks onto school property by students should be immediate expulsion, and applied to rocks of any size and shape, from grains of sand (which can insidiously be hidden in childrens' shoes) to boulders (which can cause catastrophic damage). It is important, as part of our necessary zero tolerance policy that all rocks and rock-like substances be included in this ban, lest we set a bad example and promote the idea that some rocks are safe and others are not.
Thanks to Jason Adams for the concept and link to the Aran Islands (Ireland) rock-throwing incident.

The Derby

I would be remiss if I didn't at least post something about my sons' Pinewood Derby (Cub Scouts) experience yesterday (April 2nd). Both of them were just so proud of their cars, and both of them did admirably. Ryan placed 4th in his group (Wolves or 2nd graders), and Alex placed 1st in his (Tigers or 1st graders). You should have seen the look of pride on his face as he stood up there waiting to compete against the other division winners.
I was surprised one thing, however. Everything that I had read had indicated that putting more weight in the back would make the car run faster. The cars that I saw do the best, though, had the weight more evenly distributed. In fact, the car that won for the entire Pack was barely more than the original block of wood.
Regardless, though, a good time was had by all, and congratulations to all participants, and especially the winners.