Krugman vs. DeLay
Paul Krugman has decided to go after Representative Tom DeLay. I am not the biggest fan of DeLay, but I do think he is an able Congressman who represents the issues I support. More importantly though, I think Krugman has a very distorted view of DeLay and is trying hard to portray DeLay is an extremist. Krugman uses such odd reasoning that a Freudian might wonder what it is exactly that Krugman is repressing.
To begin with Krugman claims that even liberals mistakenly think Tom DeLay is less radical than Newt Gingrich. Funny thing, that statement. I am pretty certain that the opposite is true. A Google search for the words: tom, delay, and radical retrieves an estimated 27,500 hits. Look here, here, here, and here. In fact, my inability to swoon over DeLay, in spite of his support for many positions I promote, is because he so often is quoted and characterized as so extreme and embarrassing.
Krugman falls into his normal pattern of not citing sources so it is hard to prove that he may be taking Tom DeLay out of context. But, let's just apply some logic to the quotes that Krugman attributes to DeLay.
"Mr. DeLay has described the Environmental Protection Agency as 'the Gestapo.'"
The Gestapo looked over people's shoulders and arrested people for just the appearance of a mistake. Hmmm. Can anyone see any parallels to the EPA? Even people in favor of regulations protecting the environment should be honest enough to see that the EPA has extraordinary powers to shut down a business with little due process. Sure, the EPA doesn't throw people in concentration camps. But, then again it is liberals like Krugman who say or imply that Conservatives are modern day Nazis. The irony here is that Nazism was about Socialism and the Gestapo was used to enforce Socialism--maybe DeLay is more correct than Krugman wants to admit.
"Above all, expect to see the wall between church and state come tumbling down. Mr. DeLay has said that he went into politics to promote a 'biblical worldview,'"
Okay, what is a "biblical worldview"? Could it be that it is a worldview that embraces the concept of right and wrong? Or how about the concept that there is a God? Western law is already firmly based on this world view. Where did we get laws against murder and theft? Why does the government get involved in marriage and divorce? Why do you think we hold parents responsible for the behavior of children? Forget that the whole point of separation of church and state was meant by the founders to mean that they didn't want an American version of the Church of England. A biblical view is not advocacy for the Baptist or Methodist church as the state religion--that would be a Baptist worldview, but simply a recognition that in order to preserve the very culture that promotes freedom and prosperity in this country there is a need to preserve the biblical foundation of western culture.
"How about the schools: after the Columbine school shootings, Mr. DeLay called a press conference in which he attributed the tragedy to the fact that students are taught the theory of evolution."
If this is true, then DeLay is kind of obtuse. My guess, since I have no idea what the source for this is, is that DeLay said something a lot more detailed. He probably made some statement about how schools are in trouble and how Columbine was one example, but that there are many other problems to include: teaching the theory of evolution. Now, I am not one who wants to keep my children from learning about evolution. I learned about it in high school and college and concluded it was useful for predicting micro changes and that on macro changes much still needed to be researched. I intend to challenge my own children to ponder this exact issue. That being said, when DeLay and other social conservatives decry evolution what they really are saying is that they see evolution as a pillar in the religion of athiesm/agnosticism and that they resent that it is taught as fact while Biblical, and even Eastern, religions are taught as fiction or an opiate of the masses. Krugman and other liberals should stop poisening the water of school reform by making unfair allegations about a legitimate public concern.
"Many of those who minimize the threat the radical right now poses to America as we know it would hate to live in the country Mr. DeLay wants to create. Yet by playing down the seriousness of the challenge, they help bring his vision closer to reality."
This is the concluding statement in Krugman's piece. The one thing I am missing, at this point, is exactly where Krugman found the details of Tom DeLay's "vision". Krugman seems to be aware of some master plan that DeLay has for reinventing America. I looked at Tom DeLay's website and could not find any details about the master plan. If a true "vision" I would suppose that Tom DeLay would promote it. If a secret agenda, exactly how did Krugman figure it out? While Tom DeLay is not my favorite Republican to quote, I think Krugman is grossly unfair to a hard working and serious Congressman.
Jun 11, 2003
The Government Program Conundrum
I often observe with a grin that bureaucrats, Congress persons, most Democrats, and some Republicans are often befuddled to discover that a government program meant to solve a problem has failed. Foxnews.com reports that the Head Start program is not as successful as hoped. A little background is offered in the article, but I will summarize: Head Start is a federal program for low income children to recieve pre-schooling so that they can compete with the rich kids when they arrive in kindergarten. Initiated in the 1960s, this program is meant as a solution to a bad problem. There is little reason to dispute that poor kids tend to do worse in school. Grades, test-scores, and behavior lag norms. It is a tragedy in many respects. What is mistaken is the assumption that it can all be fixed by some government program. Here is the problem. As the parent of a child that was not poor enough to attend Head Start, I didn't want my kid to fall behind so I opted to pay for her to attend a private pre-school. At a minimum I made it impossible for poor kids to close the gap. Which points to the source of the conundrum--too many "government can fix the world" types don't make dynamic calculations. In other words they do not anticipate the unintended incentives they create. There are all kinds of examples.
Sticking with education here is another example. What is the consequence of lowering standards in public schools? The goal is to make sure that no one feels left behind or emotionally rejected. The hope is that as the mediocre students are encouraged to stay in school they will be grow by mixing with the 'smart' students. So what does a parent who understands the importance of high standards do? They home school or find a private school. What do the treachers who understand that some students can handle greater rigor do? They create gifted and talented programs that remove the 'smart' students from the normal classroom and create an achievement segregated school within a school. Consequently the smart kids still get the best teachers and the mediocre students struggle with the unqualified. College admissions committees learn to recognize the signs of smart kids even if the SAT scores lose relavence. If you are home schooled, privatly schooled, or in a gifted program then you must be smart. Ultimately, the mediocre student ends up with little to show for a lot of government spending.
So, back to Head Start. There are other problems related to educational achievement amongst the poor that should be studied and reviewed. For instance, is the real problem that poor kids are poor because the parents are dumb and genetics can not be overcome? I went to high school with many children of college professors and rarely were the children 'dumb'. Is it possible that the reverse of this phenomenon is true on the opposite end of the smarts spectrum? Liberals have often argued it is because of lack of funds in a poor family to send kids to private schools--thus Head Start funding. That may be true, but does Head Start attract the best teachers? Or do the best pre-school teachers prefer to work at private institutions with the children of wealthy parents who are willing to pay well for services and are available to volunteer at the school? Is it possible that there are other immutable factors? Studies show that a young person is more likely to get a college degree if the parents have a college degree. Why is this? Is there a family commitment to education? Or maybe nerds raise nerds.
Many in government will look upon the report cited by Foxnews.com and conclude that we need to spend more money. In fact, the article already notes a proposal to reform the system to allow State flexibility while providing more money. Ultimately, the real solution may be to scrap the Head Start program. Is there a case for helping poor kids have a chance? Sure. But, is the Head Start program giving them that chance? I don't think so.
I often observe with a grin that bureaucrats, Congress persons, most Democrats, and some Republicans are often befuddled to discover that a government program meant to solve a problem has failed. Foxnews.com reports that the Head Start program is not as successful as hoped. A little background is offered in the article, but I will summarize: Head Start is a federal program for low income children to recieve pre-schooling so that they can compete with the rich kids when they arrive in kindergarten. Initiated in the 1960s, this program is meant as a solution to a bad problem. There is little reason to dispute that poor kids tend to do worse in school. Grades, test-scores, and behavior lag norms. It is a tragedy in many respects. What is mistaken is the assumption that it can all be fixed by some government program. Here is the problem. As the parent of a child that was not poor enough to attend Head Start, I didn't want my kid to fall behind so I opted to pay for her to attend a private pre-school. At a minimum I made it impossible for poor kids to close the gap. Which points to the source of the conundrum--too many "government can fix the world" types don't make dynamic calculations. In other words they do not anticipate the unintended incentives they create. There are all kinds of examples.
Sticking with education here is another example. What is the consequence of lowering standards in public schools? The goal is to make sure that no one feels left behind or emotionally rejected. The hope is that as the mediocre students are encouraged to stay in school they will be grow by mixing with the 'smart' students. So what does a parent who understands the importance of high standards do? They home school or find a private school. What do the treachers who understand that some students can handle greater rigor do? They create gifted and talented programs that remove the 'smart' students from the normal classroom and create an achievement segregated school within a school. Consequently the smart kids still get the best teachers and the mediocre students struggle with the unqualified. College admissions committees learn to recognize the signs of smart kids even if the SAT scores lose relavence. If you are home schooled, privatly schooled, or in a gifted program then you must be smart. Ultimately, the mediocre student ends up with little to show for a lot of government spending.
So, back to Head Start. There are other problems related to educational achievement amongst the poor that should be studied and reviewed. For instance, is the real problem that poor kids are poor because the parents are dumb and genetics can not be overcome? I went to high school with many children of college professors and rarely were the children 'dumb'. Is it possible that the reverse of this phenomenon is true on the opposite end of the smarts spectrum? Liberals have often argued it is because of lack of funds in a poor family to send kids to private schools--thus Head Start funding. That may be true, but does Head Start attract the best teachers? Or do the best pre-school teachers prefer to work at private institutions with the children of wealthy parents who are willing to pay well for services and are available to volunteer at the school? Is it possible that there are other immutable factors? Studies show that a young person is more likely to get a college degree if the parents have a college degree. Why is this? Is there a family commitment to education? Or maybe nerds raise nerds.
Many in government will look upon the report cited by Foxnews.com and conclude that we need to spend more money. In fact, the article already notes a proposal to reform the system to allow State flexibility while providing more money. Ultimately, the real solution may be to scrap the Head Start program. Is there a case for helping poor kids have a chance? Sure. But, is the Head Start program giving them that chance? I don't think so.
Jun 10, 2003
Iraq, WMD, and editorialists that do not get it
On the editorial pages of today's New York Times Paul Krugman had this to say: "I'll tell you what's outrageous. It's not the fact that people are criticizing the administration; it's the fact that nobody is being held accountable for misleading the nation into war."
Since this is the concluding sentence of his piece I can only conclude this is his most important point. While I am clearly surprised that we don't have more WMD evidence at this point, I am not sure that it equates to "misleading the nation into war." Krugman and his left wing colleagues were opposed to the war regardless. They are not disappointed so much as they are trying to score points after the game.
Before the war with Iraq these opponents tried every strategy to raise doubts and discourage support. First they tried the 'this is all about oil and Bush's oil buddies' argument. It didn't stick--it didn't add up. Next they tried the Vietnam quagmire argument. Essentially trying to make the case that just like our opponent in Vietnam the Iraqis would prove a determined and fierce force that would resist defeat. It didn't stick--American's felt the lessons of Afghanistan and the previous Gulf War were more consistent and appropriate. Next they tried the 'it is not right to start a preemptive war' argument. It didn't stick--Americans could easily make the connection that if we had preempted previous despots like Hitler we could have saved ourselves a lot of suffering. This strategy of trying a new fear each week continued relentlessly. There were the arguments about lack of world support, no UN mandate, the fury of the Arab street, no direct link to Al Qaeda, North Korea being more pressing and on and on. There were no principles except distrust of George W Bush's motives. It raised in my mind the following question: "Had Al Gore won the Presidency, and after 9/11 he had concluded that we needed to eliminate the threat of Saddam Hussein for once and for all, would the war opponents sing the same song?"
What Krugman and others do not get is that Americans understand the president's strategy. They understand that it is not just about WMD. It never was. I have a friend who was not at all excited about the war, but he understood and liked Bush. He thinks Bush is a cowboy, and he thinks this is what makes him great. What is a cowboy? Pick your favorite western and make some popcorn. There is good and there is bad, and everyone knows the difference. Sure, the good cowboy is sometimes weak for whiskey or women, but at the end of the day he is willing to risk all to save the town from a bunch of bad guys. He has no problem picking out the bad guys since they do bad things and clearly look out for each other. The point being that he sees right and wrong. For people who are unwilling or unable to see the difference between right and wrong such a world view is disturbing and frightening. They make arguments such as: 'the Arab right and wrong is different than the American right and wrong, so who is right?' But, this just proves that they don't get it. When Iraqi's pulled down the statue of Saddam in the middle of Baghdad Iraqis proved that they saw right and wrong the same way we did. Saddam was a bad man. The proof included many things. One of these was WMD. Interestingly enough, before the war there was never any question that he had WMD, but rather a question of whether or not he would ever use them against us or provide them to terrorists. Americans understand this. Americans understand that this is a war about right versus wrong. "You are either with us or against us" is a statement that carries a lot of meaning and seriousness. In one sense the reasons for war were complex--threats to strategic balance in the middle east, WMD, threats to humanity, potential relations with established terrorist groups, and even threats to the world oil market. But in another sense the reason for war was simple. Saddam was a bad man, we have known this for a long time and should never have tolerated him for so long. If there was an error it was that we waited so long.
After the war it became obvious that this was true. People were released from prisons, they rejoiced, and the regime quickly crumbled under the weight of selfishness. Opponents of the war were distraught for they had been embarrassed. Rather than admit that Saddam was trully a bad man and join in building a better future for the people of Iraq, the opponents have begun a new chorus: 'We were mislead into war'. We were not mislead or brainwashed or duped. All along we knew the terrorist links were weak and that WMD was a threat that might be years away, but what really scared us about Iraq was the track record of Saddam being a bad guy.
Ultimately, this is what still makes North Korea a problem. And what of Iran? In all cases we have no problem with the people of these nations. Do we hate Iraqis? I don't think so. And we do not hate Koreans or Iranians. But we do have a problem with Kim Jong Il and the Mullahs of Iran. These are bad people who are diametrically opposed to the interests of the United States, not to mention basic human rights. These are the people who look on the success of Osama bin Laden and get bad ideas. Are there other bad people out there? Yes. Do they seek after the means to militarily confront the interests of the United States? Not yet. Should we eventually concern ourselves with these dictators? Yes. But first let us concentrate on the nexus of bad guys who want to kill us, not to mention their own people. Maybe tomorrow we can get on to the other bad guys who just kill their own people. Afterall a cowboy can at most shoot only two guns at a time.
And as for Krugman and his cabal of left wing ninnies? Could you please stop trying to mislead Americans? Thanks.
On the editorial pages of today's New York Times Paul Krugman had this to say: "I'll tell you what's outrageous. It's not the fact that people are criticizing the administration; it's the fact that nobody is being held accountable for misleading the nation into war."
Since this is the concluding sentence of his piece I can only conclude this is his most important point. While I am clearly surprised that we don't have more WMD evidence at this point, I am not sure that it equates to "misleading the nation into war." Krugman and his left wing colleagues were opposed to the war regardless. They are not disappointed so much as they are trying to score points after the game.
Before the war with Iraq these opponents tried every strategy to raise doubts and discourage support. First they tried the 'this is all about oil and Bush's oil buddies' argument. It didn't stick--it didn't add up. Next they tried the Vietnam quagmire argument. Essentially trying to make the case that just like our opponent in Vietnam the Iraqis would prove a determined and fierce force that would resist defeat. It didn't stick--American's felt the lessons of Afghanistan and the previous Gulf War were more consistent and appropriate. Next they tried the 'it is not right to start a preemptive war' argument. It didn't stick--Americans could easily make the connection that if we had preempted previous despots like Hitler we could have saved ourselves a lot of suffering. This strategy of trying a new fear each week continued relentlessly. There were the arguments about lack of world support, no UN mandate, the fury of the Arab street, no direct link to Al Qaeda, North Korea being more pressing and on and on. There were no principles except distrust of George W Bush's motives. It raised in my mind the following question: "Had Al Gore won the Presidency, and after 9/11 he had concluded that we needed to eliminate the threat of Saddam Hussein for once and for all, would the war opponents sing the same song?"
What Krugman and others do not get is that Americans understand the president's strategy. They understand that it is not just about WMD. It never was. I have a friend who was not at all excited about the war, but he understood and liked Bush. He thinks Bush is a cowboy, and he thinks this is what makes him great. What is a cowboy? Pick your favorite western and make some popcorn. There is good and there is bad, and everyone knows the difference. Sure, the good cowboy is sometimes weak for whiskey or women, but at the end of the day he is willing to risk all to save the town from a bunch of bad guys. He has no problem picking out the bad guys since they do bad things and clearly look out for each other. The point being that he sees right and wrong. For people who are unwilling or unable to see the difference between right and wrong such a world view is disturbing and frightening. They make arguments such as: 'the Arab right and wrong is different than the American right and wrong, so who is right?' But, this just proves that they don't get it. When Iraqi's pulled down the statue of Saddam in the middle of Baghdad Iraqis proved that they saw right and wrong the same way we did. Saddam was a bad man. The proof included many things. One of these was WMD. Interestingly enough, before the war there was never any question that he had WMD, but rather a question of whether or not he would ever use them against us or provide them to terrorists. Americans understand this. Americans understand that this is a war about right versus wrong. "You are either with us or against us" is a statement that carries a lot of meaning and seriousness. In one sense the reasons for war were complex--threats to strategic balance in the middle east, WMD, threats to humanity, potential relations with established terrorist groups, and even threats to the world oil market. But in another sense the reason for war was simple. Saddam was a bad man, we have known this for a long time and should never have tolerated him for so long. If there was an error it was that we waited so long.
After the war it became obvious that this was true. People were released from prisons, they rejoiced, and the regime quickly crumbled under the weight of selfishness. Opponents of the war were distraught for they had been embarrassed. Rather than admit that Saddam was trully a bad man and join in building a better future for the people of Iraq, the opponents have begun a new chorus: 'We were mislead into war'. We were not mislead or brainwashed or duped. All along we knew the terrorist links were weak and that WMD was a threat that might be years away, but what really scared us about Iraq was the track record of Saddam being a bad guy.
Ultimately, this is what still makes North Korea a problem. And what of Iran? In all cases we have no problem with the people of these nations. Do we hate Iraqis? I don't think so. And we do not hate Koreans or Iranians. But we do have a problem with Kim Jong Il and the Mullahs of Iran. These are bad people who are diametrically opposed to the interests of the United States, not to mention basic human rights. These are the people who look on the success of Osama bin Laden and get bad ideas. Are there other bad people out there? Yes. Do they seek after the means to militarily confront the interests of the United States? Not yet. Should we eventually concern ourselves with these dictators? Yes. But first let us concentrate on the nexus of bad guys who want to kill us, not to mention their own people. Maybe tomorrow we can get on to the other bad guys who just kill their own people. Afterall a cowboy can at most shoot only two guns at a time.
And as for Krugman and his cabal of left wing ninnies? Could you please stop trying to mislead Americans? Thanks.
Jun 9, 2003
Martha Stewart
Let's begin by addressing this issue. I think the only prescient commentary was offered by John Stewart on The Daily Show. All the networks are falling all over themselves to report this as some big development. John Stewart points out in his own special way that they are overplaying it. It appears that she broke the law. Okay, so does that mean we need to spend endless hours on it? She fits into the same category as Bill Bennet and Sammy Sosa -- they all should have known better.
Hillary
This is another story blown out of proportion. She wrote a book, and apparently was upset when she found out her husband was getting some action from an intern. Is it just me or is she managing the best publicity effort for a book in the history of new books? She will sell her books and she will become a star, as if she isn't already one. And maybe, just maybe, people will realize that this is all just the latest act in a very precise and long-term effort to elect her as President. If nothing else, I must give her credit for managing a great strategy. I can't stand her, but I respect he ability. And it is time that her political opponents all do the same. She is smart, focused and ambitious. She can beat us and we better get ready.
News
Is there any news these days? The tax cuts passed, no American cares if we don't find WMD, the Yankees dropped their series with the Cubs, the NBA finals are all but decided in favor of the Spurs, and ... Summer is here and news slows down. So do I. I spent Saturday lounging around a pool with my kids and about the only thing on my mind was putting on sun screen. Here is to a lazy summer.
Let's begin by addressing this issue. I think the only prescient commentary was offered by John Stewart on The Daily Show. All the networks are falling all over themselves to report this as some big development. John Stewart points out in his own special way that they are overplaying it. It appears that she broke the law. Okay, so does that mean we need to spend endless hours on it? She fits into the same category as Bill Bennet and Sammy Sosa -- they all should have known better.
Hillary
This is another story blown out of proportion. She wrote a book, and apparently was upset when she found out her husband was getting some action from an intern. Is it just me or is she managing the best publicity effort for a book in the history of new books? She will sell her books and she will become a star, as if she isn't already one. And maybe, just maybe, people will realize that this is all just the latest act in a very precise and long-term effort to elect her as President. If nothing else, I must give her credit for managing a great strategy. I can't stand her, but I respect he ability. And it is time that her political opponents all do the same. She is smart, focused and ambitious. She can beat us and we better get ready.
News
Is there any news these days? The tax cuts passed, no American cares if we don't find WMD, the Yankees dropped their series with the Cubs, the NBA finals are all but decided in favor of the Spurs, and ... Summer is here and news slows down. So do I. I spent Saturday lounging around a pool with my kids and about the only thing on my mind was putting on sun screen. Here is to a lazy summer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)