Today I saw a new add from Hillary calling for...
a windfall profits tax. Great, now 66% of the presidential candidates support this silliness.
I tried to find the ad online, but I could not. I did find this youtube video that summarizes the candidates' positions. This video confirms that Hillary proposes a windfall profits tax.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=rVzKN8etdbg
Also, in my search online for more on this topic, I ran across this post - good stuff
http://gsimmonssc.blogspot.com/2008/04/barack-and-hillary-windfall-profitsnot.html
30 April, 2008
Gender/Race Affirmative Action
Look, I am tired of hearing about the importance of diversity (as defined by skin color). The color of one's skin pigment is not relevant - period. At least Mr. Poniewozik is man enough to admit that he is "calling on the networks to act in the name of mere cosmetic appearance." This is pretty simple, really: I want the best people in the position be they black, white, or purple. Gender does not matter either. To insinuate that it does insults me, as you are calling me racist, sexist, or both. I have a similar problem with affirmative action. As Chief Justice Roberts wrote in his opposition to affirmative action, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." In other words, you cannot "fix" discrimination by discriminating against the majority. Why is this a hard concept?
So congratulations to Mr Poniewozik for having the guts to admit he has
no basis for his complaint other than he thinks it is the right thing to do.
Come talk to me when you have a compelling reason to make a race or
gender-based hiring decision (they do exist, by the way, but this
situation does not fall into that category).
Replacing Katie Couric with a White Dude?
By James Poniewozik
Is it the year 2060 in America, or 1960? Jon Stewart at the Oscars and voters in the street have noted there's something sci-fi about an election in which two leading candidates are a woman and a black man. "By the time this came," a Pennsylvanian told the New York Times Magazine, regarding Barack Obama's run, "I thought I'd be flying around in a spaceship or driving in some kind of Jetsons vehicle."
If one side of the debate stage is Star Trek, however, the question-asking side looks like Dragnet. In the Democratic debates, Obama and Hillary Clinton have taken questions from Charles Gibson, Brian Williams, Tim Russert, Wolf Blitzer--white guy, white guy, white guy, white guy.
Now the white-male preserve of TV anchoring may get yet white-maler. Katie Couric, whose CBS Evening News remains in deep third place, reportedly may leave after the presidential Inauguration or sooner. Should Hillary pull the election out, the first female President could be sworn in just in time to say goodbye to the first solo female anchor.
This election has brought up many questions of identity politics, but one of the most glaring is the identity that TV news divisions put up front. (Not that white men are exactly rare in print either, as the head shot at the top of this column illustrates.) It should be embarrassing that presidential politics--which gave us all those dead white guys in your wallet--is moving forward as TV news is moving back. Our leaders are more diverse than our anchors.
Two thoughts here:
1. Who says which actions are "back" or "forward"? It is a hiring decision,
not a linear equation. There is no "greater" or "worse". So any decision
that is at odds with the author's point of view is a step "back".
How convenient.
2. The author is calling for anchors to be hired on the basis of their race and gender. It follows, then, that it should be acceptable that anchors could also be fired on the basis of their race and gender. Can you imagine the firestorm that would result from an anchor being fired for being female? To me, this demonstrates the hypocrisy of affirmative action supporters. Race and gender can only be factors as long as those characteristics are used to support the members of the identity group.
CBS may replace Couric with a woman, but most of the successors floated--Anderson Cooper, Scott Pelley, Harry Smith--are white men. (Diane Sawyer is a possibility, but that would mean going the celebrity-morning-show-host route again.) And CBS executives have speculated that viewers were not "ready" for a woman--maybe because network chiefs believe it, maybe because it's easier to blame society than themselves (while casting themselves as brave pioneers).
But they can't hang this all on the viewers. Yes, women have a higher bar to clear in TV news. In a February Harris poll, three of Americans' six least favorite news personalities were women (Couric, Nancy Grace and Barbara Walters), while only one was among the six most liked--Couric, at No. 6. (No African Americans were listed as disliked--because there were no African Americans in the poll, period.) But Couric is the only woman to solo-anchor a network evening newscast. To say that no woman can succeed at 6:30 because Couric couldn't would be as facile as saying that no woman can become President if Hillary can't.
Can we stop here for a moment, please? Isn't it possible that those tv
figures are liked or disliked due to their behavior and personalities? I dislike Nancy Grace not because she is a female but because I find her
annoying and shrill and I believe she sensationalizes the news for her
personal gain. I like how any negative attitude towards any female figure
is now attributed to show a bias towards all women. I don't dislike all
women, I dislike that woman.
There's a difference.
The dissonance between the candidates' podium and the anchor desks has prompted some change. Like a company scouring the staff for a black employee to attend a meeting with a minority client, cable news--where all but a handful of prime-time hosts and anchors are white men--has loaded up on female and minority pundits and analysts instead. It's a universal phenomenon: businesses say they have no qualified female or minority candidates until there's a pressing financial or p.r. reason to find them. Then, suddenly, they're everywhere. So there's no excuse not to develop them for the plum anchor spots as well.
P.C. alert! Am I calling on the networks to act in the name of mere cosmetic appearance? Yes! News anchors are--more than any profession outside of car-show modeling--about cosmetic appearance. Yes, they need news chops, but they are hired, foremost, literally to be the face of a news division. Diversity is no more superficial a goal than gravitas, which apparently derives from the Latin for "white dude."
There are journalistic reasons to make this call too. Race and gender are real campaign issues--and white men have every right to cover them--but the networks have been practically handicapped by their makeup. If they were not largely fronted by white men, they would have been less vulnerable to the uncomfortable images of the media's boys ganging up on Hillary in the earlier debates or of largely white TV personalities piling on Obama about Jeremiah Wright in the much trashed ABC debate and before. Finally, there are solid business reasons. If TV news has any hope of finding another generation of viewers, hiring staff who reflect younger viewers' reality is relevant.
Politicians like to say that elections are about the past vs. the future. That's what this one is looking like, with the white guys of TV sitting opposite a black man or a woman through November and maybe beyond--1960 interrogating 2060. Any chance they could at least meet in 2008?
So congratulations to Mr Poniewozik for having the guts to admit he has
no basis for his complaint other than he thinks it is the right thing to do.
Come talk to me when you have a compelling reason to make a race or
gender-based hiring decision (they do exist, by the way, but this
situation does not fall into that category).
Replacing Katie Couric with a White Dude?
By James Poniewozik
Is it the year 2060 in America, or 1960? Jon Stewart at the Oscars and voters in the street have noted there's something sci-fi about an election in which two leading candidates are a woman and a black man. "By the time this came," a Pennsylvanian told the New York Times Magazine, regarding Barack Obama's run, "I thought I'd be flying around in a spaceship or driving in some kind of Jetsons vehicle."
If one side of the debate stage is Star Trek, however, the question-asking side looks like Dragnet. In the Democratic debates, Obama and Hillary Clinton have taken questions from Charles Gibson, Brian Williams, Tim Russert, Wolf Blitzer--white guy, white guy, white guy, white guy.
Now the white-male preserve of TV anchoring may get yet white-maler. Katie Couric, whose CBS Evening News remains in deep third place, reportedly may leave after the presidential Inauguration or sooner. Should Hillary pull the election out, the first female President could be sworn in just in time to say goodbye to the first solo female anchor.
This election has brought up many questions of identity politics, but one of the most glaring is the identity that TV news divisions put up front. (Not that white men are exactly rare in print either, as the head shot at the top of this column illustrates.) It should be embarrassing that presidential politics--which gave us all those dead white guys in your wallet--is moving forward as TV news is moving back. Our leaders are more diverse than our anchors.
Two thoughts here:
1. Who says which actions are "back" or "forward"? It is a hiring decision,
not a linear equation. There is no "greater" or "worse". So any decision
that is at odds with the author's point of view is a step "back".
How convenient.
2. The author is calling for anchors to be hired on the basis of their race and gender. It follows, then, that it should be acceptable that anchors could also be fired on the basis of their race and gender. Can you imagine the firestorm that would result from an anchor being fired for being female? To me, this demonstrates the hypocrisy of affirmative action supporters. Race and gender can only be factors as long as those characteristics are used to support the members of the identity group.
CBS may replace Couric with a woman, but most of the successors floated--Anderson Cooper, Scott Pelley, Harry Smith--are white men. (Diane Sawyer is a possibility, but that would mean going the celebrity-morning-show-host route again.) And CBS executives have speculated that viewers were not "ready" for a woman--maybe because network chiefs believe it, maybe because it's easier to blame society than themselves (while casting themselves as brave pioneers).
But they can't hang this all on the viewers. Yes, women have a higher bar to clear in TV news. In a February Harris poll, three of Americans' six least favorite news personalities were women (Couric, Nancy Grace and Barbara Walters), while only one was among the six most liked--Couric, at No. 6. (No African Americans were listed as disliked--because there were no African Americans in the poll, period.) But Couric is the only woman to solo-anchor a network evening newscast. To say that no woman can succeed at 6:30 because Couric couldn't would be as facile as saying that no woman can become President if Hillary can't.
Can we stop here for a moment, please? Isn't it possible that those tv
figures are liked or disliked due to their behavior and personalities? I dislike Nancy Grace not because she is a female but because I find her
annoying and shrill and I believe she sensationalizes the news for her
personal gain. I like how any negative attitude towards any female figure
is now attributed to show a bias towards all women. I don't dislike all
women, I dislike that woman.
There's a difference.
The dissonance between the candidates' podium and the anchor desks has prompted some change. Like a company scouring the staff for a black employee to attend a meeting with a minority client, cable news--where all but a handful of prime-time hosts and anchors are white men--has loaded up on female and minority pundits and analysts instead. It's a universal phenomenon: businesses say they have no qualified female or minority candidates until there's a pressing financial or p.r. reason to find them. Then, suddenly, they're everywhere. So there's no excuse not to develop them for the plum anchor spots as well.
P.C. alert! Am I calling on the networks to act in the name of mere cosmetic appearance? Yes! News anchors are--more than any profession outside of car-show modeling--about cosmetic appearance. Yes, they need news chops, but they are hired, foremost, literally to be the face of a news division. Diversity is no more superficial a goal than gravitas, which apparently derives from the Latin for "white dude."
There are journalistic reasons to make this call too. Race and gender are real campaign issues--and white men have every right to cover them--but the networks have been practically handicapped by their makeup. If they were not largely fronted by white men, they would have been less vulnerable to the uncomfortable images of the media's boys ganging up on Hillary in the earlier debates or of largely white TV personalities piling on Obama about Jeremiah Wright in the much trashed ABC debate and before. Finally, there are solid business reasons. If TV news has any hope of finding another generation of viewers, hiring staff who reflect younger viewers' reality is relevant.
Politicians like to say that elections are about the past vs. the future. That's what this one is looking like, with the white guys of TV sitting opposite a black man or a woman through November and maybe beyond--1960 interrogating 2060. Any chance they could at least meet in 2008?
23 April, 2008
Windfall Profits Tax
Here is a campaign ad I saw in TV recently -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdOK4L868cI
This ad really makes me mad. First off, I think it is really unfair he is singling out a specific company to attack. It isn't like he is accusing them of doing anything illegal - just that they run a business too efficiently and, therefore, make too much money. Let's look at the accusation and the practical application of such a tax on running a successful business.
Proposition: Exxon makes outsize profits.
Explanation: According to Fortune.com, Exxon made $40.6 Billion
on Revenues of $372.8B in 2007. That's a ratio of 10.9%.
Let's compare that to the profit/ revenue ratios of some of
the other Fortune 500 Titans. To be fair, I am showing 2007
results from companies representing a cross-section of industries:
General Electric -12.6%
Bank of America - 12.6%
AT&T - 10.0%
Can someone explain to me why Exxon is being singled out here?
Could it be because gas prices happen to be high at the pump at
the moment (a function of a world commodity - oil) This political
grandstanding makes me sick. Is President Obama going to go
after other industry leaders next? And who sets the threshold
for "outsized profits" that call for a windfall profits tax? Ridiculous.
Also, if we want gas prices to go
down we need a) to reduce demand (unlikely, given the rise of China
and India) or b) increase supply. What incentive do Exxon or other
oil companies how to increase supply if the gov is going to artificially
limit the amount of money they can make? This type of tax goes
against our entire economic system. If Senator Obama wishes to
encourage alternative fuels, have at it, but don't force existing oil
companies to finance the competition that will make their product
obsolete. That's crazy.
This kind of blame game is the very "politics as usual" Senator Obama
professes to be against. Finally, a windfall profits is an additional tax on
the company, but more importantly, on the shareholders of that
company. That means Senator Obama is taking $ out of the pockets of
the retirement funds of millions of Americans through their 401K and
IRA investments. I imagine a large majority of pension and mutual
funds have stakes in Exxon and the other large oil companies. I wonder
if this would be such a popular message if those facts were emphasized
(calling John McCain...)
Barack - stealing from the successful to give to the less successful is not
a viable long-term strategy. If does not provide incentive for the less
successful to work harder, and it provides dis-incentive for those who
have the capability to achieve success. Bad news all around.
Just so you don't think I am alone in my comments above, here is a
corroborating opinion from an expert:
Obama Goes Populist, Seeks Penalty on Windfall Profits of Oil Companies
by Gerald Prante
Presidential candidate Barack Obama has released a new ad that contains a lot of rhetoric designed to appeal to the masses, yet whose underlying economics is pure nonsense.
Obama seeks to impose a tax on the windfall profits of oil companies, which he implies in the advertisement is the cause of the high prices at the pump. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't work that way. The CEO of Shell doesn't get up one morning wanting to raise gas prices and say "I'm going to screw the American consumer today so my company's shareholders will get a greater return." And then the next morning when he wants to lower prices say, "I slept well last night and feel good this morning so I'm going to lower prices for the American people even if it cost my shareholders."
The oil companies have reaped a lot of gain from the recent rise in oil prices. There is no disputing that. And a windfall profits tax in the short-run would do little to change the price of gasoline, and would push money into government's coffers. However, in the long-run, by telling the oil companies that if they have higher than average profits in any given period they will be taxed extra on those profits, then that tax affects business investment for the future. That, in turn, lowers investment in oil, raising the price at the pump, lowering wages, and lowering returns to investors.
The fact of the matter is that Obama would be more accurate if he said that his foreign policy would help lower gas prices given that recent tensions in the Middle East have played a larger role in raising the price. Unfortunately, Obama is merely engaging in nonsensical political rhetoric by targeting the current outcomes of the energy markets instead of the underlying causes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdOK4L868cI
This ad really makes me mad. First off, I think it is really unfair he is singling out a specific company to attack. It isn't like he is accusing them of doing anything illegal - just that they run a business too efficiently and, therefore, make too much money. Let's look at the accusation and the practical application of such a tax on running a successful business.
Proposition: Exxon makes outsize profits.
Explanation: According to Fortune.com, Exxon made $40.6 Billion
on Revenues of $372.8B in 2007. That's a ratio of 10.9%.
Let's compare that to the profit/ revenue ratios of some of
the other Fortune 500 Titans. To be fair, I am showing 2007
results from companies representing a cross-section of industries:
General Electric -12.6%
Bank of America - 12.6%
AT&T - 10.0%
Can someone explain to me why Exxon is being singled out here?
Could it be because gas prices happen to be high at the pump at
the moment (a function of a world commodity - oil) This political
grandstanding makes me sick. Is President Obama going to go
after other industry leaders next? And who sets the threshold
for "outsized profits" that call for a windfall profits tax? Ridiculous.
Also, if we want gas prices to go
down we need a) to reduce demand (unlikely, given the rise of China
and India) or b) increase supply. What incentive do Exxon or other
oil companies how to increase supply if the gov is going to artificially
limit the amount of money they can make? This type of tax goes
against our entire economic system. If Senator Obama wishes to
encourage alternative fuels, have at it, but don't force existing oil
companies to finance the competition that will make their product
obsolete. That's crazy.
This kind of blame game is the very "politics as usual" Senator Obama
professes to be against. Finally, a windfall profits is an additional tax on
the company, but more importantly, on the shareholders of that
company. That means Senator Obama is taking $ out of the pockets of
the retirement funds of millions of Americans through their 401K and
IRA investments. I imagine a large majority of pension and mutual
funds have stakes in Exxon and the other large oil companies. I wonder
if this would be such a popular message if those facts were emphasized
(calling John McCain...)
Barack - stealing from the successful to give to the less successful is not
a viable long-term strategy. If does not provide incentive for the less
successful to work harder, and it provides dis-incentive for those who
have the capability to achieve success. Bad news all around.
Just so you don't think I am alone in my comments above, here is a
corroborating opinion from an expert:
Obama Goes Populist, Seeks Penalty on Windfall Profits of Oil Companies
by Gerald Prante
Presidential candidate Barack Obama has released a new ad that contains a lot of rhetoric designed to appeal to the masses, yet whose underlying economics is pure nonsense.
Obama seeks to impose a tax on the windfall profits of oil companies, which he implies in the advertisement is the cause of the high prices at the pump. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't work that way. The CEO of Shell doesn't get up one morning wanting to raise gas prices and say "I'm going to screw the American consumer today so my company's shareholders will get a greater return." And then the next morning when he wants to lower prices say, "I slept well last night and feel good this morning so I'm going to lower prices for the American people even if it cost my shareholders."
The oil companies have reaped a lot of gain from the recent rise in oil prices. There is no disputing that. And a windfall profits tax in the short-run would do little to change the price of gasoline, and would push money into government's coffers. However, in the long-run, by telling the oil companies that if they have higher than average profits in any given period they will be taxed extra on those profits, then that tax affects business investment for the future. That, in turn, lowers investment in oil, raising the price at the pump, lowering wages, and lowering returns to investors.
The fact of the matter is that Obama would be more accurate if he said that his foreign policy would help lower gas prices given that recent tensions in the Middle East have played a larger role in raising the price. Unfortunately, Obama is merely engaging in nonsensical political rhetoric by targeting the current outcomes of the energy markets instead of the underlying causes.
17 April, 2008
Democratic Debate
No Whining About the Media
By David Brooks
Three quick points on the Democratic debate [on April 16]:
First, Democrats, and especially Obama supporters, are going to jump all over ABC for the choice of topics: too many gaffe questions, not enough policy questions.
I understand the complaints, but I thought the questions were excellent. The journalist’s job is to make politicians uncomfortable, to explore evasions, contradictions and vulnerabilities. Almost every question tonight did that. The candidates each looked foolish at times, but that’s their own fault.
We may not like it, but issues like Jeremiah Wright, flag lapels and the Tuzla airport will be important in the fall. Remember how George H.W. Bush toured flag factories to expose Michael Dukakis. It’s legitimate to see how the candidates will respond to these sorts of symbolic issues.
The middle section of the debate, meanwhile, was stupendous. Those could be the most important 30 minutes of this entire campaign, for reasons I will explain in point two:
Second, Obama and Clinton were completely irresponsible. As the first President Bush discovered, it is simply irresponsible statesmanship (and stupid politics) to make blanket pledges to win votes. Both candidates did that on vital issues.
Both promised to not raise taxes on those making less than $200,000 or $250,000 a year. They both just emasculated their domestic programs. Returning the rich to their Clinton-era tax rates will yield, at best, $40 billion a year in revenue. It’s impossible to fund a health care plan, let alone anything else, with that kind of money. The consequences are clear: if elected they will have to break their pledge, and thus destroy their credibility, or run a minimalist administration.
The second pledge was just as bad. Nobody knows what the situation in Iraq will be like. To pledge an automatic withdrawal is just insane. A mature politician would’ve been honest and said: I fully intend to withdraw, but I want to know what the reality is at that moment.
The third point concerns electability. The Democrats have a problem. All the signs point to a big Democratic year, and I still wouldn’t bet against Obama winning the White House, but his background as a Hyde Park liberal is going to continue to dog him. No issue is crushing on its own, but it all adds up. For the life of me I can’t figure out why he didn’t have better answers on Wright and on the “bitter” comments. The superdelegates cannot have been comforted by his performance.
Final grades:
ABC: A
Clinton: B
Obama: D+
By David Brooks
Three quick points on the Democratic debate [on April 16]:
First, Democrats, and especially Obama supporters, are going to jump all over ABC for the choice of topics: too many gaffe questions, not enough policy questions.
I understand the complaints, but I thought the questions were excellent. The journalist’s job is to make politicians uncomfortable, to explore evasions, contradictions and vulnerabilities. Almost every question tonight did that. The candidates each looked foolish at times, but that’s their own fault.
We may not like it, but issues like Jeremiah Wright, flag lapels and the Tuzla airport will be important in the fall. Remember how George H.W. Bush toured flag factories to expose Michael Dukakis. It’s legitimate to see how the candidates will respond to these sorts of symbolic issues.
The middle section of the debate, meanwhile, was stupendous. Those could be the most important 30 minutes of this entire campaign, for reasons I will explain in point two:
Second, Obama and Clinton were completely irresponsible. As the first President Bush discovered, it is simply irresponsible statesmanship (and stupid politics) to make blanket pledges to win votes. Both candidates did that on vital issues.
Both promised to not raise taxes on those making less than $200,000 or $250,000 a year. They both just emasculated their domestic programs. Returning the rich to their Clinton-era tax rates will yield, at best, $40 billion a year in revenue. It’s impossible to fund a health care plan, let alone anything else, with that kind of money. The consequences are clear: if elected they will have to break their pledge, and thus destroy their credibility, or run a minimalist administration.
The second pledge was just as bad. Nobody knows what the situation in Iraq will be like. To pledge an automatic withdrawal is just insane. A mature politician would’ve been honest and said: I fully intend to withdraw, but I want to know what the reality is at that moment.
The third point concerns electability. The Democrats have a problem. All the signs point to a big Democratic year, and I still wouldn’t bet against Obama winning the White House, but his background as a Hyde Park liberal is going to continue to dog him. No issue is crushing on its own, but it all adds up. For the life of me I can’t figure out why he didn’t have better answers on Wright and on the “bitter” comments. The superdelegates cannot have been comforted by his performance.
Final grades:
ABC: A
Clinton: B
Obama: D+
16 April, 2008
Obama + Obama restated
Barack Obama quote in SanFrancisco:
"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," Obama said. "And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Senator Obama later explaning his comments:
"So I said, well you know, when you're bitter you turn to what you can count on. So people, they vote about guns, or they take comfort from their faith and their family and their community. And they get mad about illegal immigrants who are coming over to this country."
After acknowledging that his previous remarks could have been better phrased, he added:
"The truth is that these traditions that are passed on from generation to generation, those are important. That's what sustains us. But what is absolutely true is that people don't feel like they are being listened to.
"And so they pray and they count on each other and they count on their families. You know this in your own lives, and what we need is a government that is actually paying attention. Government that is fighting for working people day in and day out making sure that we are trying to allow them to live out the American dream."
Huh?
"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," Obama said. "And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Senator Obama later explaning his comments:
"So I said, well you know, when you're bitter you turn to what you can count on. So people, they vote about guns, or they take comfort from their faith and their family and their community. And they get mad about illegal immigrants who are coming over to this country."
After acknowledging that his previous remarks could have been better phrased, he added:
"The truth is that these traditions that are passed on from generation to generation, those are important. That's what sustains us. But what is absolutely true is that people don't feel like they are being listened to.
"And so they pray and they count on each other and they count on their families. You know this in your own lives, and what we need is a government that is actually paying attention. Government that is fighting for working people day in and day out making sure that we are trying to allow them to live out the American dream."
Huh?
The Hype Regarding CEO Compensation
A few comments here:
1) The argument around CEO compensation is usually focused on the wrong details. Yes, some CEOs make a considerable amount of money.
But the issue isn't so much that they make a lot of money but how their
salaries are approved. The lack of oversight regarding CEO compensation
is the real culprit here. Boards hire compensation consultants who
award large salaries in order to be hired again the next year.
Additionally, boards lack motivation to restrict excessive salaries.
Salary compensation is not going to decrease until shareholders decide
they don't want to spend such large sums for a CEO.
2) Why doesn't anyone ever complain about the salaries of athletes,
celebrities, or movie stars? Arguably these entertainers have less
of a "real world" impact than the heads of major corporations, and
yet we never hear a critique of their salaries.
3) Another question I have for those who complain about CEO
salaries is - "and what would you have the President do about it?"
CEO compensation is not a presidential issue. It isn't even a
governmental issue. Do you really want the government deciding
the upper limit of income? And if you start distinguishing between
different positions, isn't that blatent discrimination? Are we going
to go after business owners next because "hey, they make too
much money"?
4) Obama's hyperbole is not uncommon. I am passing along this article
because a) it is superficially interesting and b) readers should be critical
when they hear politicians cite "facts" and make vague statements
about inequality. All men are created equal - it doesn't mean they
enjoy equal lives from that point forward. The government should
not be in the business of ensuring equal outcome for all. The result
of that course is an equally bad outcome for all.
Obama, CEO Pay, and the Politics of Class Envy
By Lee Cary
Populism uses the politics of discontent. Barack Obama's recurring comparisons between CEO and average worker salaries is a class-warfare play on resentment with just enough truth to make it work with many voters.
Senator Obama has made frequent reference to the spread between CEO compensation and average worker pay. For example:
1. January 20, 2008, "The Great Need of the Hour" speech on MLK Day
"We have a [moral] deficit when CEOs are making more in ten minutes than some workers make in ten months."
2. Radio ad in the Texas primary race
"Some CEOs make more in 10 minutes than some American workers make in a year."
3. April 11, 2008, REUTERS article quoting Obama in Indianapolis
"Some CEOs make more in one day than their workers make in one year."
The parameters for Obama's comparison continue to drift, but few notice. His is not an exercise in mathematics. It's an appeal to voter discontent.
When a politician bemoans the salary-disparity on the Jay Leno or David Letterman Shows the crowds applaud. Never mind that Jay makes $123,000 and Dave $154,000 for each show - considerably more than the average U.S. worker makes in a year. Entertainers, including sports figures, are exempt from salary comparisons. They have talent. And never mind that Obama has leveraged his support from Oprah Winfrey to gain votes. At an annual income of $260,000,000, The Oprah makes a million dollars per weekday.
Obama's floating pay equations have generally been specious. Here's how.
Let's start with the average annual salary (AAS) for a U.S. worker as computed by the San Francisco Chronicle using U.S. Department of Labor statistics: $39,795.33 (Q1 2005). We could use CNN's computation of a 2006 AAS of $29,544, but they relied on the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy; that lower figure factors in both full- and part-time salaries. Therein is a challenge with computing comparative salaries; not only do the numbers lag behind the calendar, but some sources spin the numbers to support their policy agenda. In October 2005, a third source put the ASS at $40,409. We'll use $40,000 as the ASS to test Obama's equations.
Forbes placed the aggregate pay for the CEOs of the top 500 U.S. companies at $5.1 billion, or a CEO average of $10.2 million. Another source notes that the range of 2005 CEO pay is from $10-15 million. We'll use the higher number - $15 million.
In all of Obama's equation he uses the word "some." It's a word that baths generalizations in the warm waters of perceived accuracy. If, for example, you own twin pug dogs that are the only canines that ever learned to play checkers, you could rightly say, "Some dogs play checkers." But, truth be told, most dogs don't. Obama has said this,
1. "We have a [moral] deficit when CEOs are making more in ten minutes than some workers make in ten months."
Here's the math: The 2005 AAS for 10 months was $33,333.33. Based on a 40 hour week, a CEO making more than $33,333 in ten minutes ($3,333.33 per minute) would have a weekly (2,400 minutes) salary of about $8 million and an annual salary of about $416 million. How many CEOs met that qualification? The answer is (drum roll here) - none. According the Forbes, the highest CEO salary for 2005 was Yahoo's Terry Semel at $230 million. (He's right there in Oprah territory.)
2. "Some CEOs make more in 10 minutes than some American workers make in a year."
Oops. This equation pushes the "some" CEOs annual salary up to nearly $500 million. That's equivalent to about what the top three highest paid CEOs made in 2005 combined. So this equation is clearly bogus. Then, finally, Obama lowers the numbers.
3. "Some CEOs make more in one day than their workers make in one year."
Okay, now Obama is into reality with his math, although he was careful not to put the word "all" before "their workers." But, some CEOs do make $10.4 million a year. In fact, as we've seen, that's about the average for the top 500 companies. Some Obama supporters do even better, including Steven Spielberg, who makes $110 million a year; George Clooney, $25 million; Matt Damon, $24 million; Will Smith, $31 million -- and good for them. CBS News reportedly gave Katie Couric a five-year contract making $46,149 per evening news broadcast. So Ms. Couric receives more for 20-odd minutes of teleprompter reading than the AAS of U.S. workers. You suppose CBS News has aired any stories on the disparity between CEO compensation and worker pay?
Where's Senator Obama going with all these sliding comparative equations? The answer is that he's appealing to class envy.
It's not as though the spread between CEO compensation and worker pay isn't already under considerable scrutiny. For a review of proposed and passed legislation pertaining to executive compensation see here. And, for a comprehensive overview of the issue you can read "Excessive CEO Pay: Background and Policy Approaches," a February 2007 publication of the Congressional Research Services (CRS). Here's a summary from that report describing how the government has been addressing the issue.
"There have been two general approaches to executive pay reform. First changes to securities laws and regulations have attempted to strengthen the bargaining position of shareholders by (1) requiring more complete and comprehensive disclosure of CEO pay, (2) making boards more responsive to shareholder interests, or (3) requiring direct shareholder approval of executive pay packages. Some of initiatives are the result of regulatory initiatives, while others are or were legislatively based. Second, Congress has tried to restrain the growth of executive pay by eliminating the tax deduction for compensation paid in excess of specific caps." (p. CRS-3)
So it's not as if Senator Obama is doing the nation a public service by surfacing an issue that's been ignored. No, he has another agenda.
Quote #1 above came from Obama's MLK Day speech wherein he said, "Unity is the great need of the hour. Unity is how we shall overcome." But exploiting class envy is not a unification tactic. It's a divisive tactic and represents the same old liberal politics of discontent. It offers no vision for the future of the nation except friction and stridency.
In the wake of Senator Clinton's attempt to exploit Obama's recent statement about small town Pennsylvanians clinging to guns and religion, Obama said, "Shame on her." In this case, it's shame on him.
1) The argument around CEO compensation is usually focused on the wrong details. Yes, some CEOs make a considerable amount of money.
But the issue isn't so much that they make a lot of money but how their
salaries are approved. The lack of oversight regarding CEO compensation
is the real culprit here. Boards hire compensation consultants who
award large salaries in order to be hired again the next year.
Additionally, boards lack motivation to restrict excessive salaries.
Salary compensation is not going to decrease until shareholders decide
they don't want to spend such large sums for a CEO.
2) Why doesn't anyone ever complain about the salaries of athletes,
celebrities, or movie stars? Arguably these entertainers have less
of a "real world" impact than the heads of major corporations, and
yet we never hear a critique of their salaries.
3) Another question I have for those who complain about CEO
salaries is - "and what would you have the President do about it?"
CEO compensation is not a presidential issue. It isn't even a
governmental issue. Do you really want the government deciding
the upper limit of income? And if you start distinguishing between
different positions, isn't that blatent discrimination? Are we going
to go after business owners next because "hey, they make too
much money"?
4) Obama's hyperbole is not uncommon. I am passing along this article
because a) it is superficially interesting and b) readers should be critical
when they hear politicians cite "facts" and make vague statements
about inequality. All men are created equal - it doesn't mean they
enjoy equal lives from that point forward. The government should
not be in the business of ensuring equal outcome for all. The result
of that course is an equally bad outcome for all.
Obama, CEO Pay, and the Politics of Class Envy
By Lee Cary
Populism uses the politics of discontent. Barack Obama's recurring comparisons between CEO and average worker salaries is a class-warfare play on resentment with just enough truth to make it work with many voters.
Senator Obama has made frequent reference to the spread between CEO compensation and average worker pay. For example:
1. January 20, 2008, "The Great Need of the Hour" speech on MLK Day
"We have a [moral] deficit when CEOs are making more in ten minutes than some workers make in ten months."
2. Radio ad in the Texas primary race
"Some CEOs make more in 10 minutes than some American workers make in a year."
3. April 11, 2008, REUTERS article quoting Obama in Indianapolis
"Some CEOs make more in one day than their workers make in one year."
The parameters for Obama's comparison continue to drift, but few notice. His is not an exercise in mathematics. It's an appeal to voter discontent.
When a politician bemoans the salary-disparity on the Jay Leno or David Letterman Shows the crowds applaud. Never mind that Jay makes $123,000 and Dave $154,000 for each show - considerably more than the average U.S. worker makes in a year. Entertainers, including sports figures, are exempt from salary comparisons. They have talent. And never mind that Obama has leveraged his support from Oprah Winfrey to gain votes. At an annual income of $260,000,000, The Oprah makes a million dollars per weekday.
Obama's floating pay equations have generally been specious. Here's how.
Let's start with the average annual salary (AAS) for a U.S. worker as computed by the San Francisco Chronicle using U.S. Department of Labor statistics: $39,795.33 (Q1 2005). We could use CNN's computation of a 2006 AAS of $29,544, but they relied on the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy; that lower figure factors in both full- and part-time salaries. Therein is a challenge with computing comparative salaries; not only do the numbers lag behind the calendar, but some sources spin the numbers to support their policy agenda. In October 2005, a third source put the ASS at $40,409. We'll use $40,000 as the ASS to test Obama's equations.
Forbes placed the aggregate pay for the CEOs of the top 500 U.S. companies at $5.1 billion, or a CEO average of $10.2 million. Another source notes that the range of 2005 CEO pay is from $10-15 million. We'll use the higher number - $15 million.
In all of Obama's equation he uses the word "some." It's a word that baths generalizations in the warm waters of perceived accuracy. If, for example, you own twin pug dogs that are the only canines that ever learned to play checkers, you could rightly say, "Some dogs play checkers." But, truth be told, most dogs don't. Obama has said this,
1. "We have a [moral] deficit when CEOs are making more in ten minutes than some workers make in ten months."
Here's the math: The 2005 AAS for 10 months was $33,333.33. Based on a 40 hour week, a CEO making more than $33,333 in ten minutes ($3,333.33 per minute) would have a weekly (2,400 minutes) salary of about $8 million and an annual salary of about $416 million. How many CEOs met that qualification? The answer is (drum roll here) - none. According the Forbes, the highest CEO salary for 2005 was Yahoo's Terry Semel at $230 million. (He's right there in Oprah territory.)
2. "Some CEOs make more in 10 minutes than some American workers make in a year."
Oops. This equation pushes the "some" CEOs annual salary up to nearly $500 million. That's equivalent to about what the top three highest paid CEOs made in 2005 combined. So this equation is clearly bogus. Then, finally, Obama lowers the numbers.
3. "Some CEOs make more in one day than their workers make in one year."
Okay, now Obama is into reality with his math, although he was careful not to put the word "all" before "their workers." But, some CEOs do make $10.4 million a year. In fact, as we've seen, that's about the average for the top 500 companies. Some Obama supporters do even better, including Steven Spielberg, who makes $110 million a year; George Clooney, $25 million; Matt Damon, $24 million; Will Smith, $31 million -- and good for them. CBS News reportedly gave Katie Couric a five-year contract making $46,149 per evening news broadcast. So Ms. Couric receives more for 20-odd minutes of teleprompter reading than the AAS of U.S. workers. You suppose CBS News has aired any stories on the disparity between CEO compensation and worker pay?
Where's Senator Obama going with all these sliding comparative equations? The answer is that he's appealing to class envy.
It's not as though the spread between CEO compensation and worker pay isn't already under considerable scrutiny. For a review of proposed and passed legislation pertaining to executive compensation see here. And, for a comprehensive overview of the issue you can read "Excessive CEO Pay: Background and Policy Approaches," a February 2007 publication of the Congressional Research Services (CRS). Here's a summary from that report describing how the government has been addressing the issue.
"There have been two general approaches to executive pay reform. First changes to securities laws and regulations have attempted to strengthen the bargaining position of shareholders by (1) requiring more complete and comprehensive disclosure of CEO pay, (2) making boards more responsive to shareholder interests, or (3) requiring direct shareholder approval of executive pay packages. Some of initiatives are the result of regulatory initiatives, while others are or were legislatively based. Second, Congress has tried to restrain the growth of executive pay by eliminating the tax deduction for compensation paid in excess of specific caps." (p. CRS-3)
So it's not as if Senator Obama is doing the nation a public service by surfacing an issue that's been ignored. No, he has another agenda.
Quote #1 above came from Obama's MLK Day speech wherein he said, "Unity is the great need of the hour. Unity is how we shall overcome." But exploiting class envy is not a unification tactic. It's a divisive tactic and represents the same old liberal politics of discontent. It offers no vision for the future of the nation except friction and stridency.
In the wake of Senator Clinton's attempt to exploit Obama's recent statement about small town Pennsylvanians clinging to guns and religion, Obama said, "Shame on her." In this case, it's shame on him.
13 April, 2008
Millennials and the Economy
I truly hope that the author is wrong about the millennial generation, but I fear that he is correct in assuming that young adults are unfamiliar with the economic pain of the 70s and don't have a firm grasp of the economy as a political issue. I hope they are at least willing to listen and think critically during the coming debate.
Uncle Sam Pays? Sure, Whatever
By Michael Barone
Saturday, April 12, 2008
"It's the economy, stupid." Those immortal words of the political philosopher James Carville in 1992 have been reverberating increasingly in the 2008 campaign. Polls show the economy as the top issue for voters, far ahead of Iraq. The general assumption is that this helps the Democrats, since the Republicans hold the White House and economic growth has stalled on their watch. But what do voters want done about the economy? And how amenable are they to the big-government programs Democrats are proposing?
On fiscal policy, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton want higher taxes, at least on high earners. They want to let at least some of the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010, as scheduled. On trade, they oppose new free-trade agreements and want to renegotiate NAFTA with Canada and Mexico.
As it happens, another president embraced such policies in a time of economic slowdown and financial market turbulence. Herbert Hoover raised taxes on high earners sharply and, ignoring a letter from 1,000 economists, signed the Smoot-Hawley tariff in 1930. The results were not pretty. Until now, his example has not commended itself to Democrats. One wonders whether voters will agree that tax increases will stimulate the economy.
Obama and Clinton are also proposing a traditional Democratic remedy for recession -- more spending and new federal programs. And on the broader question of expanding government, Pew Research Center polls show an increasingly favorable opinion climate, particularly on health care, than when we elected our last two presidents, in 1992 and 2000.
One reason is generational change. Almost all voters in 1992 and a large majority in 2000 had vivid memories of the 1970s, when we had both economic stagnation and double-digit inflation -- stagflation -- and thanks to government price controls, motorists had to wait an hour in line to fill up their gas tanks. Those experiences put the advocates of bigger government on the defensive.
This year, half the voters are too young to have been behind the wheel in a gas line or to have been paying rapidly rising monthly bills with a paycheck eroded by inflation. They have lived all their adult lives -- all their lives, in the case of the millennial generation, born since 1980 -- in an era when we have had low-inflation economic growth 95 percent of the time.
In their recent book "Millennial Makeover," Morley Winograd and Michael Haides write that these Millennials have high trust in the federal government. Have Uncle Sam pay for health care? Hey, that's like, neat.
But they also say that Millennials favor systems that give them lots of choices. They want to mouse-click on the option they prefer. This, of course, is in conflict or at least tension with systems in which government makes choices for you. If young voters' positive disposition to government programs gives Democrats an opening, their preference for choices gives Republicans one, too.
As it happens, we have a recent example, the Medicare prescription drug program passed in 2003. Democrats wanted government to negotiate prices and thought that seniors would hate to choose between plans. But even the elderly, who grew up in an America where big institutions -- the U.S. military, big corporations, giant labor unions -- made choices for them, turned out to be satisfied with the choices they had under Medicare Part D. You haven't heard the Democratic presidential candidates campaigning much against it this cycle.
My sense is that voter preferences on issues like the economy and health care will depend on discussion and debate that haven't taken place yet. Voters have been concentrating on the curriculum vitae and character of the candidates, and the candidates themselves have made little in the way of argument for their positions. It's not immediately obvious what fiscal policy or health care policies voters want. It's less "the economy, stupid," than "the economy, huh?"
Uncle Sam Pays? Sure, Whatever
By Michael Barone
Saturday, April 12, 2008
"It's the economy, stupid." Those immortal words of the political philosopher James Carville in 1992 have been reverberating increasingly in the 2008 campaign. Polls show the economy as the top issue for voters, far ahead of Iraq. The general assumption is that this helps the Democrats, since the Republicans hold the White House and economic growth has stalled on their watch. But what do voters want done about the economy? And how amenable are they to the big-government programs Democrats are proposing?
On fiscal policy, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton want higher taxes, at least on high earners. They want to let at least some of the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010, as scheduled. On trade, they oppose new free-trade agreements and want to renegotiate NAFTA with Canada and Mexico.
As it happens, another president embraced such policies in a time of economic slowdown and financial market turbulence. Herbert Hoover raised taxes on high earners sharply and, ignoring a letter from 1,000 economists, signed the Smoot-Hawley tariff in 1930. The results were not pretty. Until now, his example has not commended itself to Democrats. One wonders whether voters will agree that tax increases will stimulate the economy.
Obama and Clinton are also proposing a traditional Democratic remedy for recession -- more spending and new federal programs. And on the broader question of expanding government, Pew Research Center polls show an increasingly favorable opinion climate, particularly on health care, than when we elected our last two presidents, in 1992 and 2000.
One reason is generational change. Almost all voters in 1992 and a large majority in 2000 had vivid memories of the 1970s, when we had both economic stagnation and double-digit inflation -- stagflation -- and thanks to government price controls, motorists had to wait an hour in line to fill up their gas tanks. Those experiences put the advocates of bigger government on the defensive.
This year, half the voters are too young to have been behind the wheel in a gas line or to have been paying rapidly rising monthly bills with a paycheck eroded by inflation. They have lived all their adult lives -- all their lives, in the case of the millennial generation, born since 1980 -- in an era when we have had low-inflation economic growth 95 percent of the time.
In their recent book "Millennial Makeover," Morley Winograd and Michael Haides write that these Millennials have high trust in the federal government. Have Uncle Sam pay for health care? Hey, that's like, neat.
But they also say that Millennials favor systems that give them lots of choices. They want to mouse-click on the option they prefer. This, of course, is in conflict or at least tension with systems in which government makes choices for you. If young voters' positive disposition to government programs gives Democrats an opening, their preference for choices gives Republicans one, too.
As it happens, we have a recent example, the Medicare prescription drug program passed in 2003. Democrats wanted government to negotiate prices and thought that seniors would hate to choose between plans. But even the elderly, who grew up in an America where big institutions -- the U.S. military, big corporations, giant labor unions -- made choices for them, turned out to be satisfied with the choices they had under Medicare Part D. You haven't heard the Democratic presidential candidates campaigning much against it this cycle.
My sense is that voter preferences on issues like the economy and health care will depend on discussion and debate that haven't taken place yet. Voters have been concentrating on the curriculum vitae and character of the candidates, and the candidates themselves have made little in the way of argument for their positions. It's not immediately obvious what fiscal policy or health care policies voters want. It's less "the economy, stupid," than "the economy, huh?"
The Olympics
I can't say that I agree with using the Olympics as a political football. U.S. athletes do not participate as an arm of the government, and it is unfair to hold them hostage as world governments squabble.
Olympian Problems
By Rich Galen
Friday, April 11, 2008
The 2008 Summer Olympic Games are scheduled to be held in Beijing, China from August 8 to August 24.
As part of the run-up to the Opening Ceremonies, China has mounted an Olympic Flame tour - a highly staged effort to drum up support by having runners carry a torch who's flame was lit in a ceremony in Greece on March 24, as the official International Olympic Committee (IOC) website reports, "by a Holy Priestess, according to the traditional ritual, using the sun's rays and a parabolic mirror."
Since that time the Torch has been mugged in Paris, London, and San Francisco by demonstrators who, apparently, blame it for the troubles between China and Tibet.
The Modern Games were reinstated in 1896 in Athens with the goal of:
"to contribute to building a peaceful and better world by educating youth through sport practiced without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play."
A worthy effort which, unfortunately, has been - as Hamlet said - honored more in the breach than in the observance.
It is precisely because the world's attention turns so fully to the Olympic Games that the whole business becomes as large a stage for political actors as it is a field for athletes.
There is a rule, according to the UK Times, against athletes participating in propaganda. The reporting by Ashling O'Connor has IOC president Jacques Rogge saying that "that competitors were free to express their political views but faced sanctions if they indulged in propaganda."
Fine line there, it seems to me.
Sen. Hillary Clinton has broad-jumped into the fray by demanding that President Bush follow the lead of UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown (whom she praised) in boycotting the Opening Ceremonies.
Once again Hillary appears to have been misinformed. According to The Times, Brown had long ago announced he would be attending the Closing Ceremonies instead and 10 Downing Street has been trying to knock down the notion that Brown was now the poster child for high-level protest of the Chinese government.
The IOC didn't just decide Tuesday afternoon to allow China to host the 2008 Olympics. They awarded the Games to Beijing in July, 2001 with Sports Illustrated saying:
"The International Olympic Committee put aside human rights concerns in making their historic decision, hoping to foster further change in the world's most populous country."
The point being, the world has had seven years to complain about the 2008 games and has had nearly 60 years to complain about China's swallowing of Tibet which (according to the BBC webpage) occurred in 1950.
The very people who are calling on political leaders, advertisers and athletes to boycott some or all of the Beijing Games are the same people who routinely pillory President George W. Bush for not following a policy of engagement with political foes.
Sen. John McCain has suggested President Bush reconsider his plans to attend the Olympic Games saying, "If Chinese policies and practices do not change, I would not attend the opening ceremonies."
Clinton we already know about.
Barack Obama skated on the issue first saying, according to the Agence France-Presse (AFP), "he was of 'two-minds' over whether the United States should play a full role in the Olympics, again citing Tibet and Darfur."
But upon, as NFL referees like to say, further review, Obama's folks realized he was the soft cheese standing along and so hardened his position saying: "If the Chinese do not take steps to help stop the genocide in Darfur and to respect the dignity, security, and human rights of the Tibetan people, then the president should boycott the opening ceremonies."
The people who get caught in the cross-fire of all this are the athletes. For a huge proportion of demonstrators against the Olympic Flame, their commitment to the protest was cutting their ten o'clock Poly Sci class.
The athletes, however have, in most cases, devoted the majority of their time on Earth preparing for these Games. If, having practiced for hours a day, every day, for years on end, an athlete decides that China's reluctance to help in Darfur or free Tibet is too much to overlook, then he or she has earned that right.
The pretension of politicians and protesters that anything China is doing today is any worse than it was doing in 2002 or 2003 or 2004 is at best, folly, and at worst, hypocrisy.
Olympian Problems
By Rich Galen
Friday, April 11, 2008
The 2008 Summer Olympic Games are scheduled to be held in Beijing, China from August 8 to August 24.
As part of the run-up to the Opening Ceremonies, China has mounted an Olympic Flame tour - a highly staged effort to drum up support by having runners carry a torch who's flame was lit in a ceremony in Greece on March 24, as the official International Olympic Committee (IOC) website reports, "by a Holy Priestess, according to the traditional ritual, using the sun's rays and a parabolic mirror."
Since that time the Torch has been mugged in Paris, London, and San Francisco by demonstrators who, apparently, blame it for the troubles between China and Tibet.
The Modern Games were reinstated in 1896 in Athens with the goal of:
"to contribute to building a peaceful and better world by educating youth through sport practiced without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play."
A worthy effort which, unfortunately, has been - as Hamlet said - honored more in the breach than in the observance.
It is precisely because the world's attention turns so fully to the Olympic Games that the whole business becomes as large a stage for political actors as it is a field for athletes.
There is a rule, according to the UK Times, against athletes participating in propaganda. The reporting by Ashling O'Connor has IOC president Jacques Rogge saying that "that competitors were free to express their political views but faced sanctions if they indulged in propaganda."
Fine line there, it seems to me.
Sen. Hillary Clinton has broad-jumped into the fray by demanding that President Bush follow the lead of UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown (whom she praised) in boycotting the Opening Ceremonies.
Once again Hillary appears to have been misinformed. According to The Times, Brown had long ago announced he would be attending the Closing Ceremonies instead and 10 Downing Street has been trying to knock down the notion that Brown was now the poster child for high-level protest of the Chinese government.
The IOC didn't just decide Tuesday afternoon to allow China to host the 2008 Olympics. They awarded the Games to Beijing in July, 2001 with Sports Illustrated saying:
"The International Olympic Committee put aside human rights concerns in making their historic decision, hoping to foster further change in the world's most populous country."
The point being, the world has had seven years to complain about the 2008 games and has had nearly 60 years to complain about China's swallowing of Tibet which (according to the BBC webpage) occurred in 1950.
The very people who are calling on political leaders, advertisers and athletes to boycott some or all of the Beijing Games are the same people who routinely pillory President George W. Bush for not following a policy of engagement with political foes.
Sen. John McCain has suggested President Bush reconsider his plans to attend the Olympic Games saying, "If Chinese policies and practices do not change, I would not attend the opening ceremonies."
Clinton we already know about.
Barack Obama skated on the issue first saying, according to the Agence France-Presse (AFP), "he was of 'two-minds' over whether the United States should play a full role in the Olympics, again citing Tibet and Darfur."
But upon, as NFL referees like to say, further review, Obama's folks realized he was the soft cheese standing along and so hardened his position saying: "If the Chinese do not take steps to help stop the genocide in Darfur and to respect the dignity, security, and human rights of the Tibetan people, then the president should boycott the opening ceremonies."
The people who get caught in the cross-fire of all this are the athletes. For a huge proportion of demonstrators against the Olympic Flame, their commitment to the protest was cutting their ten o'clock Poly Sci class.
The athletes, however have, in most cases, devoted the majority of their time on Earth preparing for these Games. If, having practiced for hours a day, every day, for years on end, an athlete decides that China's reluctance to help in Darfur or free Tibet is too much to overlook, then he or she has earned that right.
The pretension of politicians and protesters that anything China is doing today is any worse than it was doing in 2002 or 2003 or 2004 is at best, folly, and at worst, hypocrisy.
10 April, 2008
09 April, 2008
Political Loathsomeness
By Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Do any of the prospective nominees of either party deserve respect from the American people? The answer partially depends on your knowledge, values and respect for the U.S Constitution.
When either Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or John McCain take office, they are going to place their hand on the Bible and take the oath, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
It will be a phony affirmation, but what's worse is that the chief justice of the United States, who administers the oath, and the average American will believe the new president.
You say, "Hey, Williams, that's a pretty tall charge! Explain yourself." There's a measure introduced in every Congress since 1995, by Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., called The Enumerated Powers Act that would require that all bills introduced in the U.S. Congress include a statement setting forth the specific constitutional authority under which the law is being enacted.
I think this is a fantastic idea.
The Enumerated Powers Act currently has 44 co-sponsors in the House. In the Senate, it has never had a single co-sponsor, and that's a Senate that includes our three presidential aspirants. The question one might ask is why would Sens. Obama, Clinton and McCain have a distaste for, and fail to support, a measure binding them to what the Constitution actually permits?
Because it is not politically expedient to do so, would add a level of complexity to all legislation, and would increase the frequency of constitutional challenges against passed legislation.
There's a two-part answer to that question. First, few congressmen, including our presidential aspirants, have the integrity, decency and courage to be bound by the Constitution, but more important is that congressmen and presidents simply reflect the constitutional ignorance or contempt held by the American people.
Most of what Congress is constitutionally authorized to spend for is listed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution and includes: coining money, establish Post Offices, to support Armies and a few other activities. Today's federal budget is over $3 trillion dollars. I challenge anyone to find specific constitutional authority for at least $2 trillion of it. That includes Social Security, Medicare, farm and business handouts, education, prescription drugs and a host of other federal expenditures. Americans who have become accustomed to living at the expense of another American would not want Congress to obey the Constitution, especially if it left out their favorite handout.
A harebrained politician or lawyer might tell us that the Constitution's general welfare clause authorizes those expenditures. Here's what James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, said: "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
Later, Madison added, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions."
Thomas Jefferson explained, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
At one time there were presidents who respected the Constitution. Grover Cleveland vetoed hundreds of spending measures during his two-term presidency, often saying, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution." Then there was Franklin Pierce who said, after vetoing an appropriation to assist the mentally ill, "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity," adding, "To approve such spending would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."
Can you imagine a president saying that today? There would be an uproar - why let the Constitution get in the way of progress.
We should consider ending the charade and get rid of our 200-year-plus presidential oath of office and replace it with: I accept the office of president.
By Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Do any of the prospective nominees of either party deserve respect from the American people? The answer partially depends on your knowledge, values and respect for the U.S Constitution.
When either Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or John McCain take office, they are going to place their hand on the Bible and take the oath, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
It will be a phony affirmation, but what's worse is that the chief justice of the United States, who administers the oath, and the average American will believe the new president.
You say, "Hey, Williams, that's a pretty tall charge! Explain yourself." There's a measure introduced in every Congress since 1995, by Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., called The Enumerated Powers Act that would require that all bills introduced in the U.S. Congress include a statement setting forth the specific constitutional authority under which the law is being enacted.
I think this is a fantastic idea.
The Enumerated Powers Act currently has 44 co-sponsors in the House. In the Senate, it has never had a single co-sponsor, and that's a Senate that includes our three presidential aspirants. The question one might ask is why would Sens. Obama, Clinton and McCain have a distaste for, and fail to support, a measure binding them to what the Constitution actually permits?
Because it is not politically expedient to do so, would add a level of complexity to all legislation, and would increase the frequency of constitutional challenges against passed legislation.
There's a two-part answer to that question. First, few congressmen, including our presidential aspirants, have the integrity, decency and courage to be bound by the Constitution, but more important is that congressmen and presidents simply reflect the constitutional ignorance or contempt held by the American people.
Most of what Congress is constitutionally authorized to spend for is listed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution and includes: coining money, establish Post Offices, to support Armies and a few other activities. Today's federal budget is over $3 trillion dollars. I challenge anyone to find specific constitutional authority for at least $2 trillion of it. That includes Social Security, Medicare, farm and business handouts, education, prescription drugs and a host of other federal expenditures. Americans who have become accustomed to living at the expense of another American would not want Congress to obey the Constitution, especially if it left out their favorite handout.
A harebrained politician or lawyer might tell us that the Constitution's general welfare clause authorizes those expenditures. Here's what James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, said: "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
Later, Madison added, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions."
Thomas Jefferson explained, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
At one time there were presidents who respected the Constitution. Grover Cleveland vetoed hundreds of spending measures during his two-term presidency, often saying, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution." Then there was Franklin Pierce who said, after vetoing an appropriation to assist the mentally ill, "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity," adding, "To approve such spending would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."
Can you imagine a president saying that today? There would be an uproar - why let the Constitution get in the way of progress.
We should consider ending the charade and get rid of our 200-year-plus presidential oath of office and replace it with: I accept the office of president.
Absolute
Interestingly enough, I do not have a problem with this situation. I believe the ad is culturally relevant in Mexico, where the ad was originally printed. At the same time, I believe it is perfectly appropriate for those in the US who are insulted by this ad to boycott the product. If companies are going to use edgy ads (as Absolut has done for time time) they must be prepared to alienate some portion of the consumer base. I think this is an interesting study in advertising more than anything else.
Absolut's Left-Wing Liquor
By Michelle Malkin
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Is it wise for a global beverage company to pander to radical politics while alienating a much wider consumer base?
Absolut, the Swedish-owned vodka maker, apparently drinks to that. Last week, my e-mailbox lit up with messages from readers and fellow bloggers about a new Absolut ad catering to Mexican drinkers who believe the American Southwest belongs to them. (That extreme ethno-supremacist idea, of course, is not news to anyone who has paid attention to the massive illegal alien marches of the past two years -- where "This is our continent, not yours" has been a rallying mainstay.) As part of its "In an Absolut World" campaign in print magazines and on billboards, the company featured a large color photo of a redrawn map of the continental United States. The ad imposed pre-1848 borders on America, with Mexico swallowing up California, Texas, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado and Arizona.
Here's how Favio Ucedo, creative director of leading U.S. Latino advertising agency Grupo Gallegos, which was not involved in the Absolut campaign, explained the reconquista-endorsing ad to the Los Angeles Times: "Mexicans talk about how the Americans stole their land, so this is their way of reclaiming it. It's very relevant and the Mexicans will love the idea."
Oops. Guess he didn't get the liberal talking points manual: You're supposed to deny that reconquista exists and label anyone who criticizes it as a delusional racist. And remember: The National Council of La Raza ("the race") claims that reconquista is just a "code word" invented by conservative "hate groups" who are dreaming the whole thing up.
Reader Paul Hergert wrote to Absolut: "Your company's illustration of Mexico occupying a large part of the western United States is reprehensible for myriad reasons. Not only is it an anachronistic and ersatz view of geography, it also unnecessarily inflames American/Mexican tensions. I understand that marketing is to be provocative, but when it can be used as propaganda for certain people/nations, it has crossed the line into the political realm and is, therefore, inappropriate."
Bar owner Matthew Rogers of Pt. Richmond, Calif., sent this note to the company: "I run a bar in Pt. Richmond. … After seeing your ad campaign where you show a western map of the United States in which California is part of Mexico again, I've decided to do the following: 1) Never carry Absolut. Ever; 2) Lower the price of Ketel One vodka to $2 a shot indefinitely to build loyalty; 3) Print a copy of your ad and put it above the Ketel One drink special; 4) Tell all my friends and family what Absolut thinks of the United States of America and our right to enforce border laws. I am on the frontline of illegal immigration and its effects. Where are you? Oh, yes, Sweden. Good riddance."
Absolut's initial response to complaints was to hang up on consumers who phoned and to delete their e-mail without bothering to read it. But the controversy spread like a California wildfire stoked by Internet Santa Ana winds. In the first of two statements, Absolut Vice President of Corporate Communications Paula Eriksson attempted to douse the flames by touting the company's embrace-diversity ethos. "As a global company," she pedantically intoned, "we recognize that people in different parts of the world may lend different perspectives or interpret our ads in a different way than was intended in that market. Obviously, this ad was run in Mexico, and not the U.S. -- that ad might have been very different."
That arrogant, p.c. sanctimony had the effect of pouring gas on the flames. So over the weekend, Eriksson issued a new statement announcing withdrawal of the ad. It was comically titled "We apologize" -- and disingenuously argued that "In no way was the ad meant to offend or disparage, or advocate an altering of borders, lend support to any anti-American sentiment, or to reflect immigration issues. …This is a genuine and sincere apology."
For its part, the open-borders Associated Press attempted to minimize the widespread opposition to the Absolut ad from Americans and persisted in labeling reconquista views "fringe." I direct them to the speech given two weeks ago in San Bernardino by Hillary Clinton campaign co-chair Dolores Huerta, who railed, "We didn't cross the border, the border crossed us" and gloated that immigration enforcement is moot because the reconquista is won. "It's really too late," Huerta said. "If 47 million (Latinos) have one baby each … it's already won."
Maybe Absolut should hire Huerta as its next spokesperson.
Fresh off its Aztlan debacle, the company announced its newest campaign this week featuring an ad titled "Ruler," described as "a humorous look at gay men and their fascination with perfect, eight-inch 'member' measurements."
The company doesn't seem to have grasped that left-wing identity politics and liquor don't mix.
Absolut's Left-Wing Liquor
By Michelle Malkin
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Is it wise for a global beverage company to pander to radical politics while alienating a much wider consumer base?
Absolut, the Swedish-owned vodka maker, apparently drinks to that. Last week, my e-mailbox lit up with messages from readers and fellow bloggers about a new Absolut ad catering to Mexican drinkers who believe the American Southwest belongs to them. (That extreme ethno-supremacist idea, of course, is not news to anyone who has paid attention to the massive illegal alien marches of the past two years -- where "This is our continent, not yours" has been a rallying mainstay.) As part of its "In an Absolut World" campaign in print magazines and on billboards, the company featured a large color photo of a redrawn map of the continental United States. The ad imposed pre-1848 borders on America, with Mexico swallowing up California, Texas, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado and Arizona.
Here's how Favio Ucedo, creative director of leading U.S. Latino advertising agency Grupo Gallegos, which was not involved in the Absolut campaign, explained the reconquista-endorsing ad to the Los Angeles Times: "Mexicans talk about how the Americans stole their land, so this is their way of reclaiming it. It's very relevant and the Mexicans will love the idea."
Oops. Guess he didn't get the liberal talking points manual: You're supposed to deny that reconquista exists and label anyone who criticizes it as a delusional racist. And remember: The National Council of La Raza ("the race") claims that reconquista is just a "code word" invented by conservative "hate groups" who are dreaming the whole thing up.
Reader Paul Hergert wrote to Absolut: "Your company's illustration of Mexico occupying a large part of the western United States is reprehensible for myriad reasons. Not only is it an anachronistic and ersatz view of geography, it also unnecessarily inflames American/Mexican tensions. I understand that marketing is to be provocative, but when it can be used as propaganda for certain people/nations, it has crossed the line into the political realm and is, therefore, inappropriate."
Bar owner Matthew Rogers of Pt. Richmond, Calif., sent this note to the company: "I run a bar in Pt. Richmond. … After seeing your ad campaign where you show a western map of the United States in which California is part of Mexico again, I've decided to do the following: 1) Never carry Absolut. Ever; 2) Lower the price of Ketel One vodka to $2 a shot indefinitely to build loyalty; 3) Print a copy of your ad and put it above the Ketel One drink special; 4) Tell all my friends and family what Absolut thinks of the United States of America and our right to enforce border laws. I am on the frontline of illegal immigration and its effects. Where are you? Oh, yes, Sweden. Good riddance."
Absolut's initial response to complaints was to hang up on consumers who phoned and to delete their e-mail without bothering to read it. But the controversy spread like a California wildfire stoked by Internet Santa Ana winds. In the first of two statements, Absolut Vice President of Corporate Communications Paula Eriksson attempted to douse the flames by touting the company's embrace-diversity ethos. "As a global company," she pedantically intoned, "we recognize that people in different parts of the world may lend different perspectives or interpret our ads in a different way than was intended in that market. Obviously, this ad was run in Mexico, and not the U.S. -- that ad might have been very different."
That arrogant, p.c. sanctimony had the effect of pouring gas on the flames. So over the weekend, Eriksson issued a new statement announcing withdrawal of the ad. It was comically titled "We apologize" -- and disingenuously argued that "In no way was the ad meant to offend or disparage, or advocate an altering of borders, lend support to any anti-American sentiment, or to reflect immigration issues. …This is a genuine and sincere apology."
For its part, the open-borders Associated Press attempted to minimize the widespread opposition to the Absolut ad from Americans and persisted in labeling reconquista views "fringe." I direct them to the speech given two weeks ago in San Bernardino by Hillary Clinton campaign co-chair Dolores Huerta, who railed, "We didn't cross the border, the border crossed us" and gloated that immigration enforcement is moot because the reconquista is won. "It's really too late," Huerta said. "If 47 million (Latinos) have one baby each … it's already won."
Maybe Absolut should hire Huerta as its next spokesperson.
Fresh off its Aztlan debacle, the company announced its newest campaign this week featuring an ad titled "Ruler," described as "a humorous look at gay men and their fascination with perfect, eight-inch 'member' measurements."
The company doesn't seem to have grasped that left-wing identity politics and liquor don't mix.
08 April, 2008
In an article for Newsweek magazine entitled "The World According to John McCain", author Michael Hirsh ridicules McCain for calling the war on terror the "transcendent challenge of the 21st century". Hirsh writes - "he's indicated that anyone who disagrees with that premise - read Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton - is simply incompetent." Hirsh finds this to be an arrogant comment and believes it shows a flaw in McCain's character - his tendency to frame others as "wrong" on the issues.
I could not disagree with Hirsh more strongly. I believe the war on terror is by far the most important challenge facing the US at the moment. As McCain comments, "Any president who does not regard this threat as transcending all others does not deserve to sit in the White House, for he or she does not take seriously enough the most basic duty a president has - to protect the lives of the American people."
Why is this a hard concept? Terrorists want to kill us. Is that not more threatening than the temporary shape of the economy, immigration difficulties, or even the rising cost of health care? How can McCain's position be opposed by any rational, logical individual? Those who do not recognize this basic fact are clearly not prepared for the nation's highest office.
And since when is saying "I believe I am right and you are wrong" a sign of arrogance? I agree with him that any candidate that does not put national security first is not prepared to be president.
Anyone who disagrees with this view should spend more time explaining the basis for their disagreement and less time time attacking the character of those who hold the opposing view.
I could not disagree with Hirsh more strongly. I believe the war on terror is by far the most important challenge facing the US at the moment. As McCain comments, "Any president who does not regard this threat as transcending all others does not deserve to sit in the White House, for he or she does not take seriously enough the most basic duty a president has - to protect the lives of the American people."
Why is this a hard concept? Terrorists want to kill us. Is that not more threatening than the temporary shape of the economy, immigration difficulties, or even the rising cost of health care? How can McCain's position be opposed by any rational, logical individual? Those who do not recognize this basic fact are clearly not prepared for the nation's highest office.
And since when is saying "I believe I am right and you are wrong" a sign of arrogance? I agree with him that any candidate that does not put national security first is not prepared to be president.
Anyone who disagrees with this view should spend more time explaining the basis for their disagreement and less time time attacking the character of those who hold the opposing view.
07 April, 2008
I am in favor of seeing what we start through to completion, especially if progress is being made and a successful outcome remains a possibility. I believe it sends the wrong message if we pull out now - it will empower those who wish to do us harm (just hold on long enough and the US will quit) and lessens our credibility as an ally and principled, dedicated nation. Every American casualty is painful and the $$ being spend there is certainly regrettable, but we have to deal with the situation as it is and not get caught up in arguing about the past. To use a business term - those are sunk costs and irrelevant. Whether we pull out or not, remember that the men and women fighting in the armed forces are sacrificing years of their lives on our behalf and deserve our respect and gratitude.
Iraq and Its Costs
By JOE LIEBERMAN and LINDSEY GRAHAM
April 7, 2008; Page A13
When Gen. David Petraeus testifies before Congress tomorrow, he will step into an American political landscape dramatically different from the one he faced when he last spoke on Capitol Hill seven months ago.
This time Gen. Petraeus returns to Washington having led one of the most remarkably successful military operations in American history. His antiwar critics, meanwhile, face a crisis of credibility – having confidently predicted the failure of the surge, and been proven decidedly wrong.
As late as last September, advocates of retreat insisted that the surge would fail to bring about any meaningful reduction in violence in Iraq. MoveOn.org accused Gen. Petraeus of "cooking the books," while others claimed that his testimony, offering evidence of early progress, required "the willing suspension of disbelief."
Gen. Petraeus will be the first to acknowledge that the gains in Iraq have come at a heavy price in blood and treasure. We mourn the loss and pain of the civilians and service members who have been killed and wounded in Iraq, but adamantly believe these losses have served a noble cause.
No one can deny the dramatic improvements in security in Iraq achieved by Gen. Petraeus, the brave troops under his command, and the Iraqi Security Forces. From June 2007 through February 2008, deaths from ethno-sectarian violence in Baghdad have fallen approximately 90%. American casualties have also fallen sharply, down by 70%.
Al Qaeda in Iraq has been swept from its former strongholds in Anbar province and Baghdad. The liberation of these areas was made possible by the surge, which empowered Iraqi Muslims to reject the Islamist extremists who had previously terrorized them into submission. Any time Muslims take up arms against Osama bin Laden, his agents and sympathizers, the world is a safer place.
In the past seven months, the other main argument offered by critics of the Petraeus strategy has also begun to collapse: namely, the alleged lack of Iraqi political progress.
Antiwar forces last September latched onto the Iraqi government's failure to pass "benchmark" legislation, relentlessly hammering Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as hopelessly sectarian and unwilling to confront Iranian-backed Shiite militias. Here as well, however, the critics in Washington have been proven wrong.
In recent months, the Iraqi government, encouraged by our Ambassador in Iraq, Ryan Crocker, has passed benchmark legislation on such politically difficult issues as de-Baathification, amnesty, the budget and provincial elections. After boycotting the last round of elections, Sunnis now stand ready to vote by the millions in the provincial elections this autumn. The Iraqi economy is growing at a brisk 7% and inflation is down dramatically.
And, in launching the recent offensive in Basra, Mr. Maliki has demonstrated that he has the political will to take on the Shiite militias and criminal gangs, which he recently condemned as "worse than al Qaeda."
Of course, while the gains we have achieved in Iraq are meaningful and undeniable, so are the challenges ahead. Iraqi Security Forces have grown in number and shown significant improvement, but the Basra operation showed they still have a way to go. Al Qaeda has been badly weakened by the surge, but it still retains a significant foothold in the northern city of Mosul, where Iraqi and coalition forces are involved in a campaign to destroy it.
Most importantly, Iran also continues to wage a vicious and escalating proxy war against the Iraqi government and the U.S. military. The Iranians have American blood on their hands. They are responsible, through the extremist agents they have trained and equipped, for the deaths of hundreds of our men and women in uniform. Increasingly, our fight in Iraq cannot be separated from our larger struggle to prevent the emergence of an Iranian-dominated Middle East.
These continuing threats from Iran and al Qaeda underscore why we believe that decisions about the next steps in Iraq should be determined by the recommendations of Gen. Petraeus, based on conditions on the ground.
It is also why it is imperative to be cautious about the speed and scope of any troop withdrawals in the months ahead, rather than imposing a political timeline for troop withdrawal against the recommendation of our military.
Unable to make the case that the surge has failed, antiwar forces have adopted a new set of talking points, emphasizing the "costs" of our involvement in Iraq, hoping to exploit Americans' current economic anxieties.
Today's antiwar politicians have effectively turned John F. Kennedy's inaugural address on its head, urging Americans to refuse to pay any price, or bear any burden, to assure the survival of liberty. This is wrong. The fact is that America's prosperity at home and security abroad are bound together. We will not fare well in a world in which al Qaeda and Iran can claim that they have defeated us in Iraq and are ascendant.
There is no question the war in Iraq – like the Cold War, World War II and every other conflict we have fought in our history – costs money. But as great as the costs of this struggle have been, so too are the dividends to our national security from a successful outcome, with a functioning, representative Iraqi government and a stabilized Middle East. The costs of abandoning Iraq to our enemies, conversely, would be enormous, not only in dollars, but in human lives and in the security and freedom of our nation.
Indeed, had we followed the path proposed by antiwar groups and retreated in defeat, the war would have been lost, emboldening and empowering violent jihadists for generations to come.
The success we are now achieving also has consequences far beyond Iraq's borders in the larger, global struggle against Islamist extremism. Thanks to the surge, Iraq today is looking increasingly like Osama bin Laden's worst nightmare: an Arab country, in the heart of the Middle East, in which hundreds of thousands of Muslims – both Sunni and Shiite – are rising up and fighting, shoulder to shoulder with American soldiers, against al Qaeda and its hateful ideology.
It is unfortunate that so many opponents of the surge still refuse to acknowledge the gains we have achieved in Iraq. When Gen. Petraeus testifies this week, however, the American people will have a clear choice as we weigh the future of our fight there: between the general who is leading us to victory, and the critics who spent the past year predicting defeat.
Iraq and Its Costs
By JOE LIEBERMAN and LINDSEY GRAHAM
April 7, 2008; Page A13
When Gen. David Petraeus testifies before Congress tomorrow, he will step into an American political landscape dramatically different from the one he faced when he last spoke on Capitol Hill seven months ago.
This time Gen. Petraeus returns to Washington having led one of the most remarkably successful military operations in American history. His antiwar critics, meanwhile, face a crisis of credibility – having confidently predicted the failure of the surge, and been proven decidedly wrong.
As late as last September, advocates of retreat insisted that the surge would fail to bring about any meaningful reduction in violence in Iraq. MoveOn.org accused Gen. Petraeus of "cooking the books," while others claimed that his testimony, offering evidence of early progress, required "the willing suspension of disbelief."
Gen. Petraeus will be the first to acknowledge that the gains in Iraq have come at a heavy price in blood and treasure. We mourn the loss and pain of the civilians and service members who have been killed and wounded in Iraq, but adamantly believe these losses have served a noble cause.
No one can deny the dramatic improvements in security in Iraq achieved by Gen. Petraeus, the brave troops under his command, and the Iraqi Security Forces. From June 2007 through February 2008, deaths from ethno-sectarian violence in Baghdad have fallen approximately 90%. American casualties have also fallen sharply, down by 70%.
Al Qaeda in Iraq has been swept from its former strongholds in Anbar province and Baghdad. The liberation of these areas was made possible by the surge, which empowered Iraqi Muslims to reject the Islamist extremists who had previously terrorized them into submission. Any time Muslims take up arms against Osama bin Laden, his agents and sympathizers, the world is a safer place.
In the past seven months, the other main argument offered by critics of the Petraeus strategy has also begun to collapse: namely, the alleged lack of Iraqi political progress.
Antiwar forces last September latched onto the Iraqi government's failure to pass "benchmark" legislation, relentlessly hammering Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as hopelessly sectarian and unwilling to confront Iranian-backed Shiite militias. Here as well, however, the critics in Washington have been proven wrong.
In recent months, the Iraqi government, encouraged by our Ambassador in Iraq, Ryan Crocker, has passed benchmark legislation on such politically difficult issues as de-Baathification, amnesty, the budget and provincial elections. After boycotting the last round of elections, Sunnis now stand ready to vote by the millions in the provincial elections this autumn. The Iraqi economy is growing at a brisk 7% and inflation is down dramatically.
And, in launching the recent offensive in Basra, Mr. Maliki has demonstrated that he has the political will to take on the Shiite militias and criminal gangs, which he recently condemned as "worse than al Qaeda."
Of course, while the gains we have achieved in Iraq are meaningful and undeniable, so are the challenges ahead. Iraqi Security Forces have grown in number and shown significant improvement, but the Basra operation showed they still have a way to go. Al Qaeda has been badly weakened by the surge, but it still retains a significant foothold in the northern city of Mosul, where Iraqi and coalition forces are involved in a campaign to destroy it.
Most importantly, Iran also continues to wage a vicious and escalating proxy war against the Iraqi government and the U.S. military. The Iranians have American blood on their hands. They are responsible, through the extremist agents they have trained and equipped, for the deaths of hundreds of our men and women in uniform. Increasingly, our fight in Iraq cannot be separated from our larger struggle to prevent the emergence of an Iranian-dominated Middle East.
These continuing threats from Iran and al Qaeda underscore why we believe that decisions about the next steps in Iraq should be determined by the recommendations of Gen. Petraeus, based on conditions on the ground.
It is also why it is imperative to be cautious about the speed and scope of any troop withdrawals in the months ahead, rather than imposing a political timeline for troop withdrawal against the recommendation of our military.
Unable to make the case that the surge has failed, antiwar forces have adopted a new set of talking points, emphasizing the "costs" of our involvement in Iraq, hoping to exploit Americans' current economic anxieties.
Today's antiwar politicians have effectively turned John F. Kennedy's inaugural address on its head, urging Americans to refuse to pay any price, or bear any burden, to assure the survival of liberty. This is wrong. The fact is that America's prosperity at home and security abroad are bound together. We will not fare well in a world in which al Qaeda and Iran can claim that they have defeated us in Iraq and are ascendant.
There is no question the war in Iraq – like the Cold War, World War II and every other conflict we have fought in our history – costs money. But as great as the costs of this struggle have been, so too are the dividends to our national security from a successful outcome, with a functioning, representative Iraqi government and a stabilized Middle East. The costs of abandoning Iraq to our enemies, conversely, would be enormous, not only in dollars, but in human lives and in the security and freedom of our nation.
Indeed, had we followed the path proposed by antiwar groups and retreated in defeat, the war would have been lost, emboldening and empowering violent jihadists for generations to come.
The success we are now achieving also has consequences far beyond Iraq's borders in the larger, global struggle against Islamist extremism. Thanks to the surge, Iraq today is looking increasingly like Osama bin Laden's worst nightmare: an Arab country, in the heart of the Middle East, in which hundreds of thousands of Muslims – both Sunni and Shiite – are rising up and fighting, shoulder to shoulder with American soldiers, against al Qaeda and its hateful ideology.
It is unfortunate that so many opponents of the surge still refuse to acknowledge the gains we have achieved in Iraq. When Gen. Petraeus testifies this week, however, the American people will have a clear choice as we weigh the future of our fight there: between the general who is leading us to victory, and the critics who spent the past year predicting defeat.
McCain's Refusal to go home
I have a hard time wrapping my head around such a scenario.
Can you imagine being in this situation and refusing to go home?
Amazing.
Why the MSM is dumbfounded by McCain’s refusal to go home
By W. Thomas Smith, Jr
Sunday, April 6, 2008
In the summer of 1968, 31-year-old U.S. Navy Lt. Commander John S. McCain III – a prisoner of war in a North Vietnamese POW camp – was offered by his captors a chance to go home.
McCain’s father, Adm. John S. McCain Jr., had just been awarded command of all U.S. forces in the Pacific, and the North Vietnamese saw an opportunity for a propaganda stunt: Show the world a “merciful” North Vietnamese government, while simultaneously creating a sense among other American prisoners that the “blue bloods” among the POW ranks would easily accept preferential treatment.
The younger McCain refused the bait.
Wracked with dysentery, having been tortured as a POW for nearly eight months (he would be imprisoned for another five years), at times suicidal, nearly killed upon ejecting from his crippled A-4E Skyhawk (shot down over Hanoi), and beaten and bayoneted during his capture; McCain simply said “no.”
The young Naval aviator couldn’t go home; not and leave behind those men who had been imprisoned and tortured longer than he.
McCain’s rejection of the enemy offer seems remarkable to many journalists who have recently been covering the presidential campaign of the now 71-year-old U.S. senator from Arizona. Some have asked, “How could you not go home?” McCain’s response is almost always something along the lines of, “Most of my fellow POWs would have done the same thing I did.”
A salute to his fellow former-prisoners: But it was much more.
What the journalists who have been covering McCain don’t understand – and which the North Vietnamese also failed to grasp – is that McCain’s actions were not – and are not –unusual for an American fighting man; and when I say American fighting man, I am specifically speaking of those trained for service in the various combat arms fields.
Granted, the average person would have jumped at a chance to leave hell and go home. So there is nothing wrong with the question.
But to an American combatant – soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine – there are many things worse than separation from loved ones, mental and physical torture, and death. Those things which are an aversion to the American combatant, in his purest form, include: betraying or abandoning others, quitting when others are still on the job, lying about anything, cheating, stealing, exhibiting cowardice, cooperating with an enemy, surrendering when one still has the means to resist, or in any way violating the Code of Conduct for U.S. fighting forces or any other written or unwritten honor code. And it is something that endures beyond one’s service.
Rarely – if ever – would an American fighting man lie about (much less feel a compulsion to lie about) an incident of an imagined Bosnian sniper attack. An American fighting man would not be able to deny the knowledge of the maniacal rantings of a racist anti-American with whom he had maintained a familially-close relationship for 20 years. Nor would he be able to maintain such a relationship with such a hater of America.
This doesn’t mean there are not selfish, dishonest souls carrying rifles, driving tanks, flying jets, or perhaps even working around nuclear weapons. There are. The military is not without less-than-creditable characters. Nor are the military’s combat arms fields without bad people. But there are far fewer immoral men as a percentage of the whole in combat arms units than there are immoral men and women in greater society.
It’s difficult for most Americans to get their heads around this, because most are not – and have never been – military combatants.
Most people believe that most adults lie sometimes or exaggerate for whatever reason, cheat at some level, and probably look out for numero uno at the expense of others. And it is widely believed that to do any of those things is not actually dishonoring oneself: It’s just getting by, perhaps being resourceful, or simply being human. After all, what someone else doesn’t know, doesn’t hurt them. Right?
Wrong.
The ready acceptance of dishonor and dishonesty is why when U.S. Marines were accused of murdering innocent civilians “in cold blood” in Haditha (November 2005) it was automatically assumed among the anti-Iraq war crowd and in the mainstream media that they did murder, even when the accused Marines said they did not.
The politicized reasons given for the Marines’ alleged “cold-bloodedness” have been everything from the Marines being over-stressed to being predisposed to evil to fighting in an unpopular war. Those of us who have been Marines – or soldiers, sailors, and airmen – or who have in some civilian capacity served with them up close and personal, know that for a single Marine to murder or kill an innocent person – though some Marines surely have over the Corps’ 232-year history – is an anomaly. And for several members of a unit to commit murder is almost impossible.
The reasons are simple: Putting others ahead of oneself, being honest, and – to borrow an oft-uttered phrase – “being a Boy Scout” is a part of the mix which drill instructors have always tried to whip into raw recruits. Moral men simply make better, more-disciplined fighters who will put the unit above themselves. So as a consequence, former fighters are, more often than not, going to be good, moral people.
We’ve all heard of Good Conduct Medals and phrases like the Army’s (at West Point) “Duty, Honor, Country,” and the motto of Marines, “Semper Fidelis” (always faithful). Then there is the Honor Concept at the U.S. Naval Academy, McCain’s alma mater, a portion of which reads:
“Midshipmen are persons of integrity… They do not lie. … They do not cheat. … They do not steal.”
But to outsiders, medals are just attaboys, and mottos, codes, and oaths, just words
Insiders however understand it’s all a part of building character and maintaining a person who is to be tasked with extremely difficult missions: This kind of person has to be the proverbial Boy Scout. He has to be the kind of American who will accomplish what he says he is going to do – or what he is directed to do – no matter what. His mission or his cause is always greater than his own self-interest. He must of course be resourceful, and he may have to change the plan along the way, but he doesn’t cut corners in terms of delivering on promises and achieving objectives. He doesn’t step on his peers to achieve that objective. He works with the man on his right and his left. He helps others as much as he can along the way. If someone betrays him or does him wrong, the good man does not seek equally wrong payback. Good men strive for the goal line together, and they bring with them all of their dead and wounded.
That’s the kind of person John McCain was raised to be by his father and grandfather, both of whom were admirals. That’s how the Navy trained – and still trains – its aviators (and other officers and sailors performing combat missions). And that’s why a physically broken future-presidential candidate did the right thing back in 1968.
Can you imagine being in this situation and refusing to go home?
Amazing.
Why the MSM is dumbfounded by McCain’s refusal to go home
By W. Thomas Smith, Jr
Sunday, April 6, 2008
In the summer of 1968, 31-year-old U.S. Navy Lt. Commander John S. McCain III – a prisoner of war in a North Vietnamese POW camp – was offered by his captors a chance to go home.
McCain’s father, Adm. John S. McCain Jr., had just been awarded command of all U.S. forces in the Pacific, and the North Vietnamese saw an opportunity for a propaganda stunt: Show the world a “merciful” North Vietnamese government, while simultaneously creating a sense among other American prisoners that the “blue bloods” among the POW ranks would easily accept preferential treatment.
The younger McCain refused the bait.
Wracked with dysentery, having been tortured as a POW for nearly eight months (he would be imprisoned for another five years), at times suicidal, nearly killed upon ejecting from his crippled A-4E Skyhawk (shot down over Hanoi), and beaten and bayoneted during his capture; McCain simply said “no.”
The young Naval aviator couldn’t go home; not and leave behind those men who had been imprisoned and tortured longer than he.
McCain’s rejection of the enemy offer seems remarkable to many journalists who have recently been covering the presidential campaign of the now 71-year-old U.S. senator from Arizona. Some have asked, “How could you not go home?” McCain’s response is almost always something along the lines of, “Most of my fellow POWs would have done the same thing I did.”
A salute to his fellow former-prisoners: But it was much more.
What the journalists who have been covering McCain don’t understand – and which the North Vietnamese also failed to grasp – is that McCain’s actions were not – and are not –unusual for an American fighting man; and when I say American fighting man, I am specifically speaking of those trained for service in the various combat arms fields.
Granted, the average person would have jumped at a chance to leave hell and go home. So there is nothing wrong with the question.
But to an American combatant – soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine – there are many things worse than separation from loved ones, mental and physical torture, and death. Those things which are an aversion to the American combatant, in his purest form, include: betraying or abandoning others, quitting when others are still on the job, lying about anything, cheating, stealing, exhibiting cowardice, cooperating with an enemy, surrendering when one still has the means to resist, or in any way violating the Code of Conduct for U.S. fighting forces or any other written or unwritten honor code. And it is something that endures beyond one’s service.
Rarely – if ever – would an American fighting man lie about (much less feel a compulsion to lie about) an incident of an imagined Bosnian sniper attack. An American fighting man would not be able to deny the knowledge of the maniacal rantings of a racist anti-American with whom he had maintained a familially-close relationship for 20 years. Nor would he be able to maintain such a relationship with such a hater of America.
This doesn’t mean there are not selfish, dishonest souls carrying rifles, driving tanks, flying jets, or perhaps even working around nuclear weapons. There are. The military is not without less-than-creditable characters. Nor are the military’s combat arms fields without bad people. But there are far fewer immoral men as a percentage of the whole in combat arms units than there are immoral men and women in greater society.
It’s difficult for most Americans to get their heads around this, because most are not – and have never been – military combatants.
Most people believe that most adults lie sometimes or exaggerate for whatever reason, cheat at some level, and probably look out for numero uno at the expense of others. And it is widely believed that to do any of those things is not actually dishonoring oneself: It’s just getting by, perhaps being resourceful, or simply being human. After all, what someone else doesn’t know, doesn’t hurt them. Right?
Wrong.
The ready acceptance of dishonor and dishonesty is why when U.S. Marines were accused of murdering innocent civilians “in cold blood” in Haditha (November 2005) it was automatically assumed among the anti-Iraq war crowd and in the mainstream media that they did murder, even when the accused Marines said they did not.
The politicized reasons given for the Marines’ alleged “cold-bloodedness” have been everything from the Marines being over-stressed to being predisposed to evil to fighting in an unpopular war. Those of us who have been Marines – or soldiers, sailors, and airmen – or who have in some civilian capacity served with them up close and personal, know that for a single Marine to murder or kill an innocent person – though some Marines surely have over the Corps’ 232-year history – is an anomaly. And for several members of a unit to commit murder is almost impossible.
The reasons are simple: Putting others ahead of oneself, being honest, and – to borrow an oft-uttered phrase – “being a Boy Scout” is a part of the mix which drill instructors have always tried to whip into raw recruits. Moral men simply make better, more-disciplined fighters who will put the unit above themselves. So as a consequence, former fighters are, more often than not, going to be good, moral people.
We’ve all heard of Good Conduct Medals and phrases like the Army’s (at West Point) “Duty, Honor, Country,” and the motto of Marines, “Semper Fidelis” (always faithful). Then there is the Honor Concept at the U.S. Naval Academy, McCain’s alma mater, a portion of which reads:
“Midshipmen are persons of integrity… They do not lie. … They do not cheat. … They do not steal.”
But to outsiders, medals are just attaboys, and mottos, codes, and oaths, just words
Insiders however understand it’s all a part of building character and maintaining a person who is to be tasked with extremely difficult missions: This kind of person has to be the proverbial Boy Scout. He has to be the kind of American who will accomplish what he says he is going to do – or what he is directed to do – no matter what. His mission or his cause is always greater than his own self-interest. He must of course be resourceful, and he may have to change the plan along the way, but he doesn’t cut corners in terms of delivering on promises and achieving objectives. He doesn’t step on his peers to achieve that objective. He works with the man on his right and his left. He helps others as much as he can along the way. If someone betrays him or does him wrong, the good man does not seek equally wrong payback. Good men strive for the goal line together, and they bring with them all of their dead and wounded.
That’s the kind of person John McCain was raised to be by his father and grandfather, both of whom were admirals. That’s how the Navy trained – and still trains – its aviators (and other officers and sailors performing combat missions). And that’s why a physically broken future-presidential candidate did the right thing back in 1968.
06 April, 2008
Dumb Money
By Michael Kinsley
We don't need a conversation about race. At least not now. What we need is a conversation about money. It becomes clearer by the day that this is not your grandmother's--or even Barack Obama's grandmother's--economic downturn. This time we start with a huge government deficit and record private debt, all run up when times were good and we should have been storing up acorns. This is one that begins with people losing their homes, which is usually the last act of the drama. This is one that is bringing back stagflation--that poisonous combination of economic slowdown and eroding currency we cured at a terrible cost back in 1981. When that red phone rings in the middle of the night, it probably won't be the National Security Adviser saying Osama bin Laden has struck again. It will be the Treasury Secretary reporting that markets have opened in the Far East and the dollar has become worthless.
The three remaining candidates have finally given speeches that addressed the economic crisis. But the presidential campaign is bouncing into its second year inside a hermetic bubble where the discussion is mainly about itself. Who cares about the economy when there is the allocation of superdelegates to worry about?
John McCain has manfully admitted that he doesn't know much about economics. Typically, this comment has been analyzed in terms of its effect on the campaign, not in terms of what it might mean to have a President who doesn't know much about economics. It has become an occasion for the popular Washington game Who Will His/Her Advisers Be? In a speech on March 25, McCain declared that he "will not play election-year politics with the housing crisis" but "will evaluate everything in terms of whether it might be harmful or helpful." He promised to "not allow dogma to override common sense."
In other words, he hasn't got a clue. Another word for dogma is values, and another word for politics is democracy. So McCain, by his own admission, knows little about economics, has no underlying values or principles to apply in considering what action to take and isn't interested in your opinion either.
Hillary Clinton's speech on March 24 blamed everybody for the excessive borrowing at the root of this crisis--except the people who did the borrowing. Her proposal to help is a parody of old-Democrat thinking. Thirty billion dollars to states and cities to spend on "everything from police and fire support to graffiti removal and better lighting." She offers a complex plan to renegotiate the terms of troubled mortgages--ultimately with a federal guarantee, which she insists "would cost the taxpayers nothing in the long run." Republicans believe you can cut taxes and bring in more money. Democrats believe you can turn mortgages that people can't afford to pay into ones that they can and it won't cost anyone a cent. Most pathetically, Clinton calls for an "Emergency Working Group" composed of Paul Volcker, Robert Rubin and Alan Greenspan. Let those guys figure it out if they're so smart.
As with most issues, there isn't much daylight between Clinton's position and Obama's. Obama also blames lenders and excuses buyers, while piling on new subsidies that will nicely compensate everyone involved for the new regulations he also wants them to endure. Obama's unique angle is blaming the war in Iraq. In the business, that is called "message discipline."
Where is the "conversation" about the economy that's even half as sophisticated as Obama's speech about race? One that explains to people that you can't just make everything better by sending out $1,200 checks? That there is a real cost to protecting overextended homeowners from the consequences of their own folly? That, yes, there are villains here, but blaming the whole mess on villainy is missing the point? That immigration and international trade are part of the solution, not the problem?
Journalists don't help. This is a golden age of economic journalism, with wonderful business writers churning out great stuff every day. But they're not the ones covering the candidates. The endless political campaign has produced a permanent class of political journalists (or perhaps it's the other way around). Many are just as wise as the business journalists, but they devote their wisdom to the minutiae of campaign strategy and are mystified to the point of terror about economics.
C'mon, boys and girls--economics may be complicated, but it's no more complicated than the laws about campaign-spending limits or the mathematics of Democratic Party superdelegates, all of which you handle with ease. We all know about the economist who predicted nine of the past five recessions. But you don't want to miss this one. It's going to be a whopper.
By Michael Kinsley
We don't need a conversation about race. At least not now. What we need is a conversation about money. It becomes clearer by the day that this is not your grandmother's--or even Barack Obama's grandmother's--economic downturn. This time we start with a huge government deficit and record private debt, all run up when times were good and we should have been storing up acorns. This is one that begins with people losing their homes, which is usually the last act of the drama. This is one that is bringing back stagflation--that poisonous combination of economic slowdown and eroding currency we cured at a terrible cost back in 1981. When that red phone rings in the middle of the night, it probably won't be the National Security Adviser saying Osama bin Laden has struck again. It will be the Treasury Secretary reporting that markets have opened in the Far East and the dollar has become worthless.
The three remaining candidates have finally given speeches that addressed the economic crisis. But the presidential campaign is bouncing into its second year inside a hermetic bubble where the discussion is mainly about itself. Who cares about the economy when there is the allocation of superdelegates to worry about?
John McCain has manfully admitted that he doesn't know much about economics. Typically, this comment has been analyzed in terms of its effect on the campaign, not in terms of what it might mean to have a President who doesn't know much about economics. It has become an occasion for the popular Washington game Who Will His/Her Advisers Be? In a speech on March 25, McCain declared that he "will not play election-year politics with the housing crisis" but "will evaluate everything in terms of whether it might be harmful or helpful." He promised to "not allow dogma to override common sense."
In other words, he hasn't got a clue. Another word for dogma is values, and another word for politics is democracy. So McCain, by his own admission, knows little about economics, has no underlying values or principles to apply in considering what action to take and isn't interested in your opinion either.
Hillary Clinton's speech on March 24 blamed everybody for the excessive borrowing at the root of this crisis--except the people who did the borrowing. Her proposal to help is a parody of old-Democrat thinking. Thirty billion dollars to states and cities to spend on "everything from police and fire support to graffiti removal and better lighting." She offers a complex plan to renegotiate the terms of troubled mortgages--ultimately with a federal guarantee, which she insists "would cost the taxpayers nothing in the long run." Republicans believe you can cut taxes and bring in more money. Democrats believe you can turn mortgages that people can't afford to pay into ones that they can and it won't cost anyone a cent. Most pathetically, Clinton calls for an "Emergency Working Group" composed of Paul Volcker, Robert Rubin and Alan Greenspan. Let those guys figure it out if they're so smart.
As with most issues, there isn't much daylight between Clinton's position and Obama's. Obama also blames lenders and excuses buyers, while piling on new subsidies that will nicely compensate everyone involved for the new regulations he also wants them to endure. Obama's unique angle is blaming the war in Iraq. In the business, that is called "message discipline."
Where is the "conversation" about the economy that's even half as sophisticated as Obama's speech about race? One that explains to people that you can't just make everything better by sending out $1,200 checks? That there is a real cost to protecting overextended homeowners from the consequences of their own folly? That, yes, there are villains here, but blaming the whole mess on villainy is missing the point? That immigration and international trade are part of the solution, not the problem?
Journalists don't help. This is a golden age of economic journalism, with wonderful business writers churning out great stuff every day. But they're not the ones covering the candidates. The endless political campaign has produced a permanent class of political journalists (or perhaps it's the other way around). Many are just as wise as the business journalists, but they devote their wisdom to the minutiae of campaign strategy and are mystified to the point of terror about economics.
C'mon, boys and girls--economics may be complicated, but it's no more complicated than the laws about campaign-spending limits or the mathematics of Democratic Party superdelegates, all of which you handle with ease. We all know about the economist who predicted nine of the past five recessions. But you don't want to miss this one. It's going to be a whopper.
Affirmative Action for Men?
I find this really sad. Why do we continue to make excuses for underperformance? Stop trying to engineer equality. This is a really tough concept so read carefully - Admit the best candidates. Period. I don't care if they are black, white, purple, male, female, whatever.
Affirmative Action for Boys
By NANCY GIBBS
Back in olden days--in 1974, to be exact--Mr. T. Harding Jones of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton lamented how "coeducation has ruined the mystique and the camaraderies that used to exist" on campus. Admitting girls to Princeton, he predicted, was "going to prove a very unfortunate thing."
I landed at college a few years later, at the very moment the number of female undergraduates nationally reached parity with that of men--though my school was still 3-to-2 male. Like my peers, I suspect, for every pterodactyl who thought I had no business being there, I found three gentle mentors who smoothed the way.
But a gender gap has reopened: if girls were once excluded because they somehow weren't good enough, they now are rejected because they're too good. Or at least they are so good, compared with boys, that admissions committees at some private colleges have problems managing a balanced freshman class. Roughly 58% of undergraduates nationally are female, and the girl-boy ratio will probably tip past 60-40 in a few years. The divide is even worse for black males, who are outnumbered on campus by black females 2 to 1.
While educators debate whether there is a "boy crisis" that warrants a wholesale change in how to teach, colleges are quietly stripping the pastels from brochures and launching Xbox tournaments to try to close the gap in the quality and quantity of boys applying. "It's a gross generalization that slacker boys get in over high-performing girls," says Jennifer Delahunty, dean of admissions at Kenyon College, "but developmentally, girls bring more to the table than boys, and the disparity has gotten greater in recent years."
Of course, admitting this is taboo, as Delahunty learned two years ago. She was in marathon committee meetings, stacking glorious girls on the waiting list while less accomplished boys wiggled through, when she got an e-mail informing her that her own daughter had been wait-listed. The experience inspired her to write a confessional Op-Ed, "To All the Girls I've Rejected," for the New York Times, responses to which lit up her inbox. "It pissed off the feminists and the misogynists--I got both sides of the spectrum," she told me. "The misogynists said women already have too many advantages. And the feminists said, How dare you not treat women like men." But what most amazed her was the reaction of young women: by and large, they assumed this is just how things work. "Why aren't they marching in the streets? That's the part that slays me," Delahunty says. "It isn't fair, and young women should be saying something about it not being fair."
But when it comes to private-college admissions, the law is murky, the process opaque, the needs of the institution primary. This includes ensuring that the freshman class is not 70-30 female, because that makes the school less attractive to male and female applicants alike. U.S. News & World Report found that the admissions rate of men at the College of William and Mary, for example, was an average of 12 percentage points higher than that of women--because, as the admissions director memorably told the magazine, "even women who enroll ... expect to see men on campus. It's not the College of Mary and Mary; it's the College of William and Mary."
But the gap persists on campus, where women tend to win more honors, join more clubs, do more volunteer work. "We sit and talk about why no men are applying for leadership roles," says Jason Zelesky, associate dean of students at Clark University in Massachusetts, which is 60-40 female. "Do we need to concentrate more on traditional masculine words--'Be a leader on campus,' as opposed to 'Come join our team'?" He's launching a "men helping men" support program to help boys adjust to their minority status.
I wonder if there's a price boys pay for the "soft bigotry of low expectations." The college deans I talked to worry that there is some message boys are not receiving, role models they are missing, that speaks to the importance of an education both broad and deep. "I found it harder to talk to guys in interviews, even after 40 years," says Haverford dean Greg Kannerstein, "because they seem narrower in their interests than the women." He wonders if schools and parents have wrapped boys in cotton, focused on "support" at the expense of accountability. "For a long time, guys were left on their own, which was not so great either," he says. "Now maybe we're shielding them a little too much." That would be the crowning irony, if it turns out that girls emerge stronger somehow from having the game rigged against them.
Affirmative Action for Boys
By NANCY GIBBS
Back in olden days--in 1974, to be exact--Mr. T. Harding Jones of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton lamented how "coeducation has ruined the mystique and the camaraderies that used to exist" on campus. Admitting girls to Princeton, he predicted, was "going to prove a very unfortunate thing."
I landed at college a few years later, at the very moment the number of female undergraduates nationally reached parity with that of men--though my school was still 3-to-2 male. Like my peers, I suspect, for every pterodactyl who thought I had no business being there, I found three gentle mentors who smoothed the way.
But a gender gap has reopened: if girls were once excluded because they somehow weren't good enough, they now are rejected because they're too good. Or at least they are so good, compared with boys, that admissions committees at some private colleges have problems managing a balanced freshman class. Roughly 58% of undergraduates nationally are female, and the girl-boy ratio will probably tip past 60-40 in a few years. The divide is even worse for black males, who are outnumbered on campus by black females 2 to 1.
While educators debate whether there is a "boy crisis" that warrants a wholesale change in how to teach, colleges are quietly stripping the pastels from brochures and launching Xbox tournaments to try to close the gap in the quality and quantity of boys applying. "It's a gross generalization that slacker boys get in over high-performing girls," says Jennifer Delahunty, dean of admissions at Kenyon College, "but developmentally, girls bring more to the table than boys, and the disparity has gotten greater in recent years."
Of course, admitting this is taboo, as Delahunty learned two years ago. She was in marathon committee meetings, stacking glorious girls on the waiting list while less accomplished boys wiggled through, when she got an e-mail informing her that her own daughter had been wait-listed. The experience inspired her to write a confessional Op-Ed, "To All the Girls I've Rejected," for the New York Times, responses to which lit up her inbox. "It pissed off the feminists and the misogynists--I got both sides of the spectrum," she told me. "The misogynists said women already have too many advantages. And the feminists said, How dare you not treat women like men." But what most amazed her was the reaction of young women: by and large, they assumed this is just how things work. "Why aren't they marching in the streets? That's the part that slays me," Delahunty says. "It isn't fair, and young women should be saying something about it not being fair."
But when it comes to private-college admissions, the law is murky, the process opaque, the needs of the institution primary. This includes ensuring that the freshman class is not 70-30 female, because that makes the school less attractive to male and female applicants alike. U.S. News & World Report found that the admissions rate of men at the College of William and Mary, for example, was an average of 12 percentage points higher than that of women--because, as the admissions director memorably told the magazine, "even women who enroll ... expect to see men on campus. It's not the College of Mary and Mary; it's the College of William and Mary."
But the gap persists on campus, where women tend to win more honors, join more clubs, do more volunteer work. "We sit and talk about why no men are applying for leadership roles," says Jason Zelesky, associate dean of students at Clark University in Massachusetts, which is 60-40 female. "Do we need to concentrate more on traditional masculine words--'Be a leader on campus,' as opposed to 'Come join our team'?" He's launching a "men helping men" support program to help boys adjust to their minority status.
I wonder if there's a price boys pay for the "soft bigotry of low expectations." The college deans I talked to worry that there is some message boys are not receiving, role models they are missing, that speaks to the importance of an education both broad and deep. "I found it harder to talk to guys in interviews, even after 40 years," says Haverford dean Greg Kannerstein, "because they seem narrower in their interests than the women." He wonders if schools and parents have wrapped boys in cotton, focused on "support" at the expense of accountability. "For a long time, guys were left on their own, which was not so great either," he says. "Now maybe we're shielding them a little too much." That would be the crowning irony, if it turns out that girls emerge stronger somehow from having the game rigged against them.
04 April, 2008
One more for today.
A Better Solution for the Housing Mess
By Linda Chavez
Friday, April 4, 2008
With the housing mess threatening to send the economy into a tailspin, politicians are scrambling to come up with a quick fix. Senate leaders this week announced they've come up with a housing bailout bill, including a $4 billion grant to local governments to buy foreclosed homes, authority for states to issue bonds for refinancing sub-prime mortgages, and a $7,000 tax credit for those buying new homes or existing houses in foreclosure. The bipartisan compromise package will cost taxpayers plenty but does little to alleviate the real problem. That's because politicians are scared to death to put the blame where it belongs. Yeah, it is hard to tell people to take responsibility for their own actions.
Everyone is willing to cry foul about the unscrupulous lenders who suckered borrowers into sub-prime loans that ballooned after a couple of years, making payments unaffordable for many. But what about borrowers who behaved irresponsibly in the first place? The fact is, Americans have been living beyond their means for years, and now the bill has come due. As usual, we expect someone else to pay it.
Borrowers have gotten in trouble because they bought houses they couldn't afford, often with little or no down payment, and accepted loans that sounded too good to be true -- and were. Banks used to tell prospective homeowners that they could qualify for a loan on a home that was roughly three times their yearly salary. Banks also required 20 percent down. So, if a family earned $75,000 a year, they could buy a $225,000 house, but they had to have saved $45,000 to put towards the house in order to qualify.
But at the height of the housing boom, some lenders were willing to lend borrowers five -- even 10 -- times their annual salary. And if the borrower didn't have the down payment, the lender would finance some or all of it, too, with a home equity loan. Even the closing costs on the sale -- amounting to thousands of dollars -- could be worked into the loan. In order to keep the payments within reach, lenders set very low interest rates for the first few years on adjustable rate mortgages, which then went up sharply. And those most likely to sign up for such loans were the buyers with the worst credit histories, who couldn't qualify for more traditional mortgages. And now we are supposed to bail out these lenders
and the investment banks who packaged these crappy loans?
Economists and others warned of a housing bubble about to burst, but builders kept building -- even when their new houses were sitting unoccupied for longer and longer periods. And existing homeowners refinanced their homes, taking out their rapidly inflating equity to buy new cars, furniture or vacations.
The whole process operated like a giant Ponzi scheme. But, eventually there aren't enough new chumps to buy into the scheme to keep it going forever. And as soon as those adjustable mortgages started to skyrocket, borrowers who really couldn't afford to be buyers started falling behind in their payments.
Now Uncle Sam wants to ride to the rescue. But, at whose expense? Those who will be most hurt by a bailout are the people who scrimped and saved for a down payment on a home they could afford and did without luxuries in order to pay their bills. No one is going to reimburse them for the fall in their home's value caused by this mess. Instead, they'll be paying higher taxes so that someone who had lousy credit and didn't know how to save could afford to buy a home above their means.
So basically we are going to punish people for behaving rationally
and carefully rationing their resources. Everyone will get gov.
support except the people who did it the right way.
The only thing the feds should do now is make it easier for borrowers with good credit histories to buy existing inventory. One of the most effective ways to do that would be to use tax policy to incentivize buyers. The Senate proposal includes a tax credit for individuals who buy houses now in foreclosure or new, unsold inventory, but not much else.
One idea to spur more sales would be to allow individual investors to write off losses on rental property against other income. Under current law, if you own a house you rent out, you can only take losses against profits when you sell. Since the rent a landlord can charge often doesn't cover the entire mortgage, taxes, insurance and upkeep on the property, many landlords let houses fall into disrepair and aren't likely to buy newer houses to rent out.
Why not allow those individuals who can afford the down payment to invest that money in buying up existing houses to rent out? If they could get even a partial tax deduction for the difference between the rent they receive and their expenses, it would make owning rental property a more attractive investment. And the government would eventually recoup the tax revenue when the house sold.
Many former homeowners are going to end up back in the rental market. We could help them -- and the rest of us -- by encouraging other buyers to purchase those homes as rental properties.
So the moral of the story is -
1) Lenders, borrowers, mortgage brokers, and securitizers are all to blame for this mess
2) Politicians now feel the need to "do something" to fix the situation
3) By fixing the situation, they reward poor decision making and punish those who behaved responsibly
A Better Solution for the Housing Mess
By Linda Chavez
Friday, April 4, 2008
With the housing mess threatening to send the economy into a tailspin, politicians are scrambling to come up with a quick fix. Senate leaders this week announced they've come up with a housing bailout bill, including a $4 billion grant to local governments to buy foreclosed homes, authority for states to issue bonds for refinancing sub-prime mortgages, and a $7,000 tax credit for those buying new homes or existing houses in foreclosure. The bipartisan compromise package will cost taxpayers plenty but does little to alleviate the real problem. That's because politicians are scared to death to put the blame where it belongs. Yeah, it is hard to tell people to take responsibility for their own actions.
Everyone is willing to cry foul about the unscrupulous lenders who suckered borrowers into sub-prime loans that ballooned after a couple of years, making payments unaffordable for many. But what about borrowers who behaved irresponsibly in the first place? The fact is, Americans have been living beyond their means for years, and now the bill has come due. As usual, we expect someone else to pay it.
Borrowers have gotten in trouble because they bought houses they couldn't afford, often with little or no down payment, and accepted loans that sounded too good to be true -- and were. Banks used to tell prospective homeowners that they could qualify for a loan on a home that was roughly three times their yearly salary. Banks also required 20 percent down. So, if a family earned $75,000 a year, they could buy a $225,000 house, but they had to have saved $45,000 to put towards the house in order to qualify.
But at the height of the housing boom, some lenders were willing to lend borrowers five -- even 10 -- times their annual salary. And if the borrower didn't have the down payment, the lender would finance some or all of it, too, with a home equity loan. Even the closing costs on the sale -- amounting to thousands of dollars -- could be worked into the loan. In order to keep the payments within reach, lenders set very low interest rates for the first few years on adjustable rate mortgages, which then went up sharply. And those most likely to sign up for such loans were the buyers with the worst credit histories, who couldn't qualify for more traditional mortgages. And now we are supposed to bail out these lenders
and the investment banks who packaged these crappy loans?
Economists and others warned of a housing bubble about to burst, but builders kept building -- even when their new houses were sitting unoccupied for longer and longer periods. And existing homeowners refinanced their homes, taking out their rapidly inflating equity to buy new cars, furniture or vacations.
The whole process operated like a giant Ponzi scheme. But, eventually there aren't enough new chumps to buy into the scheme to keep it going forever. And as soon as those adjustable mortgages started to skyrocket, borrowers who really couldn't afford to be buyers started falling behind in their payments.
Now Uncle Sam wants to ride to the rescue. But, at whose expense? Those who will be most hurt by a bailout are the people who scrimped and saved for a down payment on a home they could afford and did without luxuries in order to pay their bills. No one is going to reimburse them for the fall in their home's value caused by this mess. Instead, they'll be paying higher taxes so that someone who had lousy credit and didn't know how to save could afford to buy a home above their means.
So basically we are going to punish people for behaving rationally
and carefully rationing their resources. Everyone will get gov.
support except the people who did it the right way.
The only thing the feds should do now is make it easier for borrowers with good credit histories to buy existing inventory. One of the most effective ways to do that would be to use tax policy to incentivize buyers. The Senate proposal includes a tax credit for individuals who buy houses now in foreclosure or new, unsold inventory, but not much else.
One idea to spur more sales would be to allow individual investors to write off losses on rental property against other income. Under current law, if you own a house you rent out, you can only take losses against profits when you sell. Since the rent a landlord can charge often doesn't cover the entire mortgage, taxes, insurance and upkeep on the property, many landlords let houses fall into disrepair and aren't likely to buy newer houses to rent out.
Why not allow those individuals who can afford the down payment to invest that money in buying up existing houses to rent out? If they could get even a partial tax deduction for the difference between the rent they receive and their expenses, it would make owning rental property a more attractive investment. And the government would eventually recoup the tax revenue when the house sold.
Many former homeowners are going to end up back in the rental market. We could help them -- and the rest of us -- by encouraging other buyers to purchase those homes as rental properties.
So the moral of the story is -
1) Lenders, borrowers, mortgage brokers, and securitizers are all to blame for this mess
2) Politicians now feel the need to "do something" to fix the situation
3) By fixing the situation, they reward poor decision making and punish those who behaved responsibly
Pork Season
The Citizens Against Government Waste released their annual "Pig Book" listing the earmarks requested in the latest budget bill. I am sure we will hear more about specific pork requests over the next few weeks, but you can find a complete listing of all 11,610 projects totaling $17.2 Billion here.
"[...] we’re going to have to cut the spending, we’re going to have to eliminate the pork barrel and wasteful spending. And I’m proud to tell you, Chris, in 24 years as a member of Congress, I have never asked for nor received a single earmark or pork barrel project for my state and I guarantee you I’ll veto those bills. I’ll ask for the line item veto and I’ll veto them and I’ll make the authors of them famous."
- John McCain in an interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace
"[...] we’re going to have to cut the spending, we’re going to have to eliminate the pork barrel and wasteful spending. And I’m proud to tell you, Chris, in 24 years as a member of Congress, I have never asked for nor received a single earmark or pork barrel project for my state and I guarantee you I’ll veto those bills. I’ll ask for the line item veto and I’ll veto them and I’ll make the authors of them famous."
- John McCain in an interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace
First Comment!
I would like to recognize Doris - the first person to comment on a post. Thanks Doris - keep it up!
02 April, 2008
Border Fence Action
I have already received some strong feedback on the following article. What do you think?
Feds: Rules to be waived for border fence
By EILEEN SULLIVAN Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON—The Bush administration will use its authority to bypass more than 30 laws and regulations in an effort to finish building 670 miles of fence along the southwest U.S. border by the end of this year, federal officials said Tuesday.
Invoking the two legal waivers—which Congress authorized—will cut through bureaucratic red tape and sidestep environmental laws that currently stand in the way of the Homeland Security Department building 267 miles of fencing in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, according to officials familiar with the plan. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly about it.
The move is the biggest use of legal waivers since the administration started building the fence, and it will cover a total of 470 miles along the Southwest border, the department said. Previously, the department has used its waiver authority for two portions of fence in Arizona and one portion in San Diego.
"Criminal activity at the border does not stop for endless debate or protracted litigation," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said in a statement. "These waivers will enable important security projects to keep moving forward."
As of March 17, there were 309 miles of fencing in place, leaving 361 to be completed by the end of the year to meet the department's goal. Of those, 267 miles are being held up by federal, state and local laws and regulations, the officials said.
One waiver will address the construction of a 22-mile levee barrier in Hidalgo County, Texas. The other waiver will cover 30 miles of fencing and technology deployment on environmentally sensitive ground in San Diego, southern Arizona and the Rio Grande; and 215 miles in California, Arizona and Texas that face other legal impediments due to administrative processes. For instance, building in some areas requires assessments and studies that—if conducted—could not be completed in time to finish the fence by the end of the year.
Chertoff had said using the waivers would be a last resort. The department has held more than 100 meetings with lawmakers, environmental groups and residents in an effort to work out obstacles and objections to fence construction.
In New Mexico, the waivers cover more than 50 miles in seven separate segments along the border with Mexico.
Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said in light of the recent murders and drug-related violence near the state's border, he welcomes any action to better protect the border and its residents.
"I support the waiver," he said. "It won't end every problem, but it should help clear the way for more miles of fencing, vehicle barriers and other security measures on the New Mexico border."
The department will conduct environmental assessments when necessary. But the waivers allow the department to start building before completing the assessments. Chertoff said the department will continue to ask for input on the construction plans.
Residents and property owners along the U.S.-Mexico border have complained about the construction of fencing. In South Texas, where opposition has been widespread, land owners refused to give the government access to property along the fence route. The government has since sued more than 50 property owners in South Texas to gain access to the land.
Environmentalists have also complained about the fence because they say it puts already endangered species such as two types of wild cats—the ocelot and the jaguarundi—in even more danger of extinction. They say the fence would prevent them from swimming across the Rio Grande to mate.
"Unwilling to consult with local communities or to follow long-standing laws, Secretary Chertoff chose to bypass stakeholders and push through this unpopular project on April Fool's Day," Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope said in a statement. "We don't think the destruction of the borderlands region is a laughing matter."
Chertoff has said the fence is good for the environment because immigrants degrade the land with trash and human waste when they sneak illegally into the country.
Feds: Rules to be waived for border fence
By EILEEN SULLIVAN Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON—The Bush administration will use its authority to bypass more than 30 laws and regulations in an effort to finish building 670 miles of fence along the southwest U.S. border by the end of this year, federal officials said Tuesday.
Invoking the two legal waivers—which Congress authorized—will cut through bureaucratic red tape and sidestep environmental laws that currently stand in the way of the Homeland Security Department building 267 miles of fencing in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, according to officials familiar with the plan. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly about it.
The move is the biggest use of legal waivers since the administration started building the fence, and it will cover a total of 470 miles along the Southwest border, the department said. Previously, the department has used its waiver authority for two portions of fence in Arizona and one portion in San Diego.
"Criminal activity at the border does not stop for endless debate or protracted litigation," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said in a statement. "These waivers will enable important security projects to keep moving forward."
As of March 17, there were 309 miles of fencing in place, leaving 361 to be completed by the end of the year to meet the department's goal. Of those, 267 miles are being held up by federal, state and local laws and regulations, the officials said.
One waiver will address the construction of a 22-mile levee barrier in Hidalgo County, Texas. The other waiver will cover 30 miles of fencing and technology deployment on environmentally sensitive ground in San Diego, southern Arizona and the Rio Grande; and 215 miles in California, Arizona and Texas that face other legal impediments due to administrative processes. For instance, building in some areas requires assessments and studies that—if conducted—could not be completed in time to finish the fence by the end of the year.
Chertoff had said using the waivers would be a last resort. The department has held more than 100 meetings with lawmakers, environmental groups and residents in an effort to work out obstacles and objections to fence construction.
In New Mexico, the waivers cover more than 50 miles in seven separate segments along the border with Mexico.
Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said in light of the recent murders and drug-related violence near the state's border, he welcomes any action to better protect the border and its residents.
"I support the waiver," he said. "It won't end every problem, but it should help clear the way for more miles of fencing, vehicle barriers and other security measures on the New Mexico border."
The department will conduct environmental assessments when necessary. But the waivers allow the department to start building before completing the assessments. Chertoff said the department will continue to ask for input on the construction plans.
Residents and property owners along the U.S.-Mexico border have complained about the construction of fencing. In South Texas, where opposition has been widespread, land owners refused to give the government access to property along the fence route. The government has since sued more than 50 property owners in South Texas to gain access to the land.
Environmentalists have also complained about the fence because they say it puts already endangered species such as two types of wild cats—the ocelot and the jaguarundi—in even more danger of extinction. They say the fence would prevent them from swimming across the Rio Grande to mate.
"Unwilling to consult with local communities or to follow long-standing laws, Secretary Chertoff chose to bypass stakeholders and push through this unpopular project on April Fool's Day," Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope said in a statement. "We don't think the destruction of the borderlands region is a laughing matter."
Chertoff has said the fence is good for the environment because immigrants degrade the land with trash and human waste when they sneak illegally into the country.
Schools' Ability to Enforce Rules vs Individual Privacy
How here's an interesting situation. Clearly the school has gone to far in subjecting this young girl to this search, but how do we strike a balance between the school's ability to enforce its rules and ensuring students are not subjected to humiliating searches such as this one?
The School Crotch Inspector
By Jacob Sullum
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
There are two kinds of people in the world: the kind who think it's perfectly reasonable to strip search a 13-year-old girl suspected of bringing ibuprofen to school, and the kind who think those people should be kept as far away from children as possible. The first group includes officials at Safford Middle School in Safford, Ariz., who in 2003 forced eighth-grader Savana Redding to prove she was not concealing Advil in her crotch or cleavage.
It also includes two judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, who last fall ruled that the strip search did not violate Savana's Fourth Amendment rights. The full court, which recently heard oral arguments in the case, now has an opportunity to overturn that decision and vote against a legal environment in which schoolchildren are conditioned to believe government agents have the authority to subject people to invasive, humiliating searches on the slightest pretext.
Safford Middle School has a "zero tolerance" policy that prohibits possession of all drugs, including not just alcohol and illegal intoxicants but prescription medications and over-the-counter remedies, "except those for which permission to use in school has been granted." In October 2003, acting on a tip, Vice Principal Kerry Wilson found a few 400-milligram ibuprofen pills (each equivalent to two over-the-counter tablets) and one nonprescription naproxen tablet in the pockets of a student named Marissa, who claimed Savana was her source.
Savana, an honors student with no history of disciplinary trouble or drug problems, said she didn't know anything about the pills and agreed to a search of her backpack, which turned up nothing incriminating. Wilson nevertheless instructed a female secretary to strip search Savana under the school nurse's supervision, without even bothering to contact the girl's mother.
The secretary had Savana take off all her clothing except her underwear. Then she told her to "pull her bra out and to the side and shake it, exposing her breasts," and "pull her underwear out at the crotch and shake it, exposing her pelvic area." Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between drug warriors and child molesters.
"I was embarrassed and scared," Savana said in an affidavit, "but felt I would be in more trouble if I did not do what they asked. I held my head down so they could not see I was about to cry." She called it "the most humiliating experience I have ever had." Later, she recalled, the principal, Robert Beeman, said, "he did not think the strip search was a big deal because they did not find anything."
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that a public school official's search of a student is constitutional if it is "justified at its inception" and "reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place." This search was neither.
When Wilson ordered the search, the only evidence that Savana had violated school policy was the uncorroborated accusation from Marissa, who was in trouble herself and eager to shift the blame. Even Marissa (who had pills in her pockets, not her underwear) did not claim that Savana currently possessed any pills, let alone that she had hidden them under her clothes.
Savana, who was closely supervised after Wilson approached her, did not have an opportunity to stash contraband. As the American Civil Liberties Union puts it, "There was no reason to suspect that a 13-year-old honor-roll student with a clean disciplinary record had adopted drug-smuggling practices associated with international narcotrafficking, or to suppose that other middle-school students would willingly consume ibuprofen that was stored in another student's crotch."
The invasiveness of the search also has to be weighed against the evil it was aimed at preventing. "Remember," the school district's lawyer recently told ABC News by way of justification, "this was prescription-strength ibuprofen." It's a good thing the school took swift action, before anyone got unauthorized relief from menstrual cramps.
The School Crotch Inspector
By Jacob Sullum
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
There are two kinds of people in the world: the kind who think it's perfectly reasonable to strip search a 13-year-old girl suspected of bringing ibuprofen to school, and the kind who think those people should be kept as far away from children as possible. The first group includes officials at Safford Middle School in Safford, Ariz., who in 2003 forced eighth-grader Savana Redding to prove she was not concealing Advil in her crotch or cleavage.
It also includes two judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, who last fall ruled that the strip search did not violate Savana's Fourth Amendment rights. The full court, which recently heard oral arguments in the case, now has an opportunity to overturn that decision and vote against a legal environment in which schoolchildren are conditioned to believe government agents have the authority to subject people to invasive, humiliating searches on the slightest pretext.
Safford Middle School has a "zero tolerance" policy that prohibits possession of all drugs, including not just alcohol and illegal intoxicants but prescription medications and over-the-counter remedies, "except those for which permission to use in school has been granted." In October 2003, acting on a tip, Vice Principal Kerry Wilson found a few 400-milligram ibuprofen pills (each equivalent to two over-the-counter tablets) and one nonprescription naproxen tablet in the pockets of a student named Marissa, who claimed Savana was her source.
Savana, an honors student with no history of disciplinary trouble or drug problems, said she didn't know anything about the pills and agreed to a search of her backpack, which turned up nothing incriminating. Wilson nevertheless instructed a female secretary to strip search Savana under the school nurse's supervision, without even bothering to contact the girl's mother.
The secretary had Savana take off all her clothing except her underwear. Then she told her to "pull her bra out and to the side and shake it, exposing her breasts," and "pull her underwear out at the crotch and shake it, exposing her pelvic area." Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between drug warriors and child molesters.
"I was embarrassed and scared," Savana said in an affidavit, "but felt I would be in more trouble if I did not do what they asked. I held my head down so they could not see I was about to cry." She called it "the most humiliating experience I have ever had." Later, she recalled, the principal, Robert Beeman, said, "he did not think the strip search was a big deal because they did not find anything."
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that a public school official's search of a student is constitutional if it is "justified at its inception" and "reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place." This search was neither.
When Wilson ordered the search, the only evidence that Savana had violated school policy was the uncorroborated accusation from Marissa, who was in trouble herself and eager to shift the blame. Even Marissa (who had pills in her pockets, not her underwear) did not claim that Savana currently possessed any pills, let alone that she had hidden them under her clothes.
Savana, who was closely supervised after Wilson approached her, did not have an opportunity to stash contraband. As the American Civil Liberties Union puts it, "There was no reason to suspect that a 13-year-old honor-roll student with a clean disciplinary record had adopted drug-smuggling practices associated with international narcotrafficking, or to suppose that other middle-school students would willingly consume ibuprofen that was stored in another student's crotch."
The invasiveness of the search also has to be weighed against the evil it was aimed at preventing. "Remember," the school district's lawyer recently told ABC News by way of justification, "this was prescription-strength ibuprofen." It's a good thing the school took swift action, before anyone got unauthorized relief from menstrual cramps.
Questions for Senator Obama
Here is an excerpt from an article challenging Senator Obama to further clarify his previous statements regarding Jeremiah Wright (also the subject of a previous post). I am only including the questions I believe are relevant to his capacity to be President. The article can be read in its entirety here.
1. You’ve repeatedly spoken of Wright’s “outrageous” or “offensive” remarks, but never specified which specific comments you had in mind. Where, precisely, did Wright go wrong?
2. Do you agree with Pastor Wright [...] that black people suffer disproportionately from drugs and AIDS because of a government conspiracy? If not the government, who is responsible for the vastly higher rates of HIV and serious drug abuse in the black community?
3. For at least ten years during your membership at Trinity United Church of Christ, official church policy emphasized a “Black Value System.” The Church website declared: “These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered.”
What, exactly, is this value system? Can you (Senator Obama) please suggest
publications so that we as voters can get a better grasp on what this value system
could suggest about the direction you propose for the country?
4. You have commented elsewhere that you consider Hamas a terrorist organization (as does our government) and wouldn’t negotiate with these Islamic thugs and killers. In this context, are you comfortable with Reverend Wright featuring a pro-Hamas manifesto on “The Pastor’s Page” of the church newsletter (July 22,2007)? This anti-Israel diatribe was written by Hamas official Mousa Abu Marzook, an indicted terrorist conspirator currently believed to be a fugitive in Syria.
5. When did you first become aware of the radical and anti-American views of your pastor?
I think these are all valid questions. I hope we get answers soon.
Sidenote:
On “The View” [Senator Obama] suggested that people have received the wrong idea about Pastor Wright. “What you have seen is a snippet of a man,” [Senator Obama] said. “Imagine if somebody compiled the five stupidest things you ever said and put them in a 30 second loop that was played every day for two weeks.”
1. You’ve repeatedly spoken of Wright’s “outrageous” or “offensive” remarks, but never specified which specific comments you had in mind. Where, precisely, did Wright go wrong?
2. Do you agree with Pastor Wright [...] that black people suffer disproportionately from drugs and AIDS because of a government conspiracy? If not the government, who is responsible for the vastly higher rates of HIV and serious drug abuse in the black community?
3. For at least ten years during your membership at Trinity United Church of Christ, official church policy emphasized a “Black Value System.” The Church website declared: “These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered.”
What, exactly, is this value system? Can you (Senator Obama) please suggest
publications so that we as voters can get a better grasp on what this value system
could suggest about the direction you propose for the country?
4. You have commented elsewhere that you consider Hamas a terrorist organization (as does our government) and wouldn’t negotiate with these Islamic thugs and killers. In this context, are you comfortable with Reverend Wright featuring a pro-Hamas manifesto on “The Pastor’s Page” of the church newsletter (July 22,2007)? This anti-Israel diatribe was written by Hamas official Mousa Abu Marzook, an indicted terrorist conspirator currently believed to be a fugitive in Syria.
5. When did you first become aware of the radical and anti-American views of your pastor?
I think these are all valid questions. I hope we get answers soon.
Sidenote:
On “The View” [Senator Obama] suggested that people have received the wrong idea about Pastor Wright. “What you have seen is a snippet of a man,” [Senator Obama] said. “Imagine if somebody compiled the five stupidest things you ever said and put them in a 30 second loop that was played every day for two weeks.”
I have a problem with this scenario. These aren't the 5 stupidest things ever said by the Rev. Wright - these are the 5 stupidest things he said in his capacity as congregation leader with a large microphone in his hand. I can only imagine the thoughts he shares in private. To suggest that the hateful, racist speech revealed in these tapes is anything other than what it seems is insulting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)