Cash for grades?

An interesting article from the generally awful New York Post reports that last years privately funded initiative to reward minority  (black and hispanic, not asian) students with monetary rewards in exchange for passing AP tests has failed. In fact, the number of these students who passed the AP exams actually decreased from last year.

The laughably misguided quote of the article is here:

"Those behind the privately funded initiative said they saw many positive results on which to build, including an 8 percent increase in the number of AP tests taken and a 19 percent increase in students scoring at the top point level."

So, more kids took the tests and less passed? I call that a disaster.

What actually happened should be obvious... the students who were already motivated to do well did even better. Students on the bubble overreached by taking exams and failed them and of course the unmotivated students didn't even bother.

I suspect that it was a deeply disenfranchising experience for the middle-ground students and irritating to the poorer performers.

Surely the program was well intended but it obviously failed to address the underlying reasons why so many black and hispanic students perform poorly in academics. It's awfully difficult to get the correct answer when you don't know what the problem is.

I don't know the answer but I do know that public schools are not primarily structured around academic success. Colleges are set up to keep you in school as long as possible, elementary is daycare, junior highs are prisons, and high school is primarily designed to keep bands of criminal teenagers from roaming the streets while keeping the teachers unions happy. Not exactly ideal for solving this problem...

Smoke 'em if everyones got 'em

A handful of bar owners in West Virginia decided to protest the new ban on smoking in bars. The most interesting quote is this one:

"Either rescind the order or enforce it," Ellison said. "Either make it happen or let it go. I want a level playing field."

It would seem that liberty, property rights, and freedom of association are not his primary concern but rather equality. I often feel like I'm living in the wrong century, caring as I do about such anachronistic and outdated ideas as freedom.

Another reason I despise the British press

This article concerning Barack Obama's half-brother from the London Telegraph. 

Another reason why I love the Onion so much.

So I ask this? What is the purpose of this kind of reporting? George Obama made it clear that he prefers this information remain a secret. It tells us nothing at all about Sen. Obama's policies or fitness to be president. 

Does the Telegraph have nothing better to spend its resources on, for example British issues?

Do-nothing congress?

So the Wall Street Journal reports that this Congress hasn't been doing much in the way of passing legislation:

"In two decades of record keeping, no sitting Congress has passed fewer public laws at this point in the session -- 294 so far -- than this one."

It seems as though they have been spending the bulk of their time on meaningless drivel:

"...no Congress in the same 20 years has been so prolific when it comes to proposing resolutions -- more than 1,900, according to a tally by the nonpartisan Taxpayers for Common Sense.

...Congress has saluted such milestones as the Idaho Potato Commission's 70th anniversary and recognized soil as an "essential natural resource."

I'm not even sure how to respond to this but I will try.

It's always my preference for Congress to do as little as humanly possible because then they can't do much in the way of damage. I'm more than a little pleased that they are wasting their time on such meaningless nonsense but it makes me think that maybe it's time to consider a part-time Congress?

A man can dream...

An olympic update

So one of the worlds most sparsely populated nations and one of it's most populace are now celebrating having both won their first olympic individual gold medal.

So to Tuvshinbayar Naidan and Abhinav Bindra I can only say congratulations on your success.

I find India and Mongolia's juxtaposition to be an inexplicable curiosity that I just can't wrap my head around... and I've long had a mild affection for both nations. Congrat's all around.

Be a prick, go to jail.

Another charming development for free speech and the right to be a public jerk.

Apparently, intimidation is now a crime so long as you do it with racial overtones... and so Jeremiah Munsen from Alexandria, La. gets to spend four months in prison for driving around a civil rights rally with a noose tied to his truck.

Tacky? Sure.

Racist? Probably.

Juvenile? Oh yes.

Criminal? Apparently so...

This is another blow to the principle of  free speech and I wonder how long until we reach European standards and start prosecuting anyone who says anything that is deemed racially insensitive? I imagine not long...

Phelps, NBC's Savior?

That's what the Adam Buckman at the New York Post thinks.

As great as Michael Phelps is, his achievements will not be the ones that I remember most vividly from this olympics but rather it will be those last thirty-five meters swam by Jason Lezak in the 4x100 m freestyle relay that will go down in my memory along with the 2007 fiesta bowl and the 2004 ALCS as one of the most thrilling sports moments in my life. He may have very well swam the greatest finish in swimming history, chasing down the great Alain Bernard to smash two records and win a gold medal.

Fake fireworks and singers, and the fake minorities in the opening ceremonies, random violence, blatant rules violations, and a war, have all marred this olympics. Suspicious judging, underachieving Americans, and NBC's idiotic "live" delay out here on the west coast could have easily dulled my interest. Yet, it's Lezak's relay swim and even more so, the individual medal he wanted so badly that keep me tuning in.

Sorry Michael, as great as your story is, it's the Jason Lezaks of this olympics like the Rulon Gardner's of past ones that keep me watching. Phelps is the glory of sport, the icon but Lezak is the drama and the heart; he is the man we identify with because he is never the favorite, his wins are never easy, and his achievements so rarely headline making. Rather, his victories are often by slim margins, hard fought, and deeply, deeply personal... just like ours.

Stable sure, but...

A decent op-ed fromt the Wall Street Journal.

A willing decent into tyranny

Rasmussen's latest poll on the so-called fairness doctrine brings some very discouraging results for the liberty minded. 

47% of polled likely voters believe that the government should mandate equal airtime for opposing viewpoints on television and radio.

Even more shocking is that 31% believe the same of the internet. I can't imagine how that would even work or be enforceable but nearly a third of likely voters seem utterly unimpaired by similar concerns.

Here's a list of questions for this mass of potential voters:

1. What would the standard be for determining legitimate opposing viewpoints? Would libertarians get equal air time? Pro-life Democrats? Communists? Larouchites? How would this be determined and by whom?

2. Doesn't having the government mandating political entertainment and discussion on the airwaves encourage abuse? First amendment, anyone? Hello?

3. What about the rights of radio and television stations? Would they be forced into airing unprofitable material in order to fulfill some government mandate?

4. Where on earth does the government get the authority to do this?

5. Are you all fucking crazy?

I don't think that I have to address the myriad of problems with the fairness doctrine in this blog because they are well reported on in conservative circles. What this really suggests to me is that potential voters in this country are appallingly ignorant of the long-term implications of their actions.

As usual, it looks as though it's just a matter of time before the great public in this country puts an actual dictator in charge. Fantastic.

Utopian fantasies abound

One of the easiest ways to identify a philosophy, political outlook, or social vision that is doomed to failure, is to look for an underlying hint of utopianism. See if you can find it in John McCain's latest comments on the Russian conquest of Georgia.

Much the same as environmentalist's faith in ecological harmony being constrained by the fact that there is no such thing. The environment isn't harmonious but rather is starkly violent, hyper-competitive, and ever changing. What they are actually pursuing is a nostalgic return to childhood or primitivism, but not balance or harmony.

Then of course, there are the myriad of utopian political visions such as communism, multiculturalism, egalitarianism, etc. all of which suffer from the basic truth that human beings are not infinitely malleable. Hence their tendency to drift into authoritarianism in an attempt to force that change that our natures resist.

How about the neo-conservative utopian vision for the middle-east? Somehow, in spite of culture, race, religion, and history we could turn them into a nice, happy, pro-western democracy... and all we need to do to topple the dominoes, is strike Iraq. Worked out about as well as any other plan rooted in utopianism.

What is John McCain's utopianism? A frightful combination of 60's trauma induced faith in interventionism coupled with a new-age egalitarianism.

John McCain's foreign policy is rooted in the belief that American military influence can maintain an international equilibrium or harmony if you will. Somehow, we can prevent all wars, invasions, political uprisings, and genocide if we just try hard enough and have enough troops. That is the bold, imperial dream that defines his foreign policy and like any other utopian vision, it's rooted firmly in hope rather than fact. This kind of irrational disconnect from reality doesn't bother me much when I hear it from an athlete or motivational speaker but it's a bit more troubling when spoken by someone who might very well one day control the largest nuclear arsenal in the world.

I hate to take a cheap shot at the man but I've begun to suspect that his time spent imprisoned in Vietnam has left him permanently removed from reality, and stuck in his own vision of the world. He spent the worst years of the war in a prison camp being tortured with only his commitment to his duty to protect. He had to believe that the war was just or he wouldn't have been able to survive it. He didn't endure the most disillusioning years of the war as his fellow Senator's Hagel, Kerry, and Webb did. Instead he spent those years necessarily reinforcing the noble and just cause that lead to his imprisonment and torture. Couple that with his fathers belief that had the he been allowed to utilize total war, then the U.S. could have emerged successful. That, and not the facts of reality today, are what shape McCain's perfectionist foreign policy. While he may be a brave and decent man, he is also damaged in a way that makes him incapable of having a realistic view of the world. For him, the interventionist policies of the past sixty years are not failures, they just need more troops or more time and nothing will ever convince him otherwise.

The world is a chaotic and dynamic place with different nations, races, religions, corporations, and NGO's all vying for resources, influence, and power. It is an ever changing world where adaptability is second in importance only to having a keen sense of danger and the rational pursuit of our national interests. This requires a level of objectivity that the Arizona Senator is tragically incapable of.  

The international senators

There is something about John McCain and Barack Obama that I find not only inappropriate, but generally distasteful: their habit of engaging in foreign policy while serving as senators.

I understand that they both need to look presidential and that they need to outline their vision of our foreign policy. That's perfectly fine.

What isn't fine is actually engaging in foreign policy assuring a nation at war with a nuclear power that every American supports them (McCain) or touring Europe as though he were already president (Obama).

Neither one of these two men represent anyone other than the people of their state, and only on issues of domestic policy. I don't discourage them from discussing foreign policy in an appropriate manner and in the appropriate places but I absolutely disdain the arrogance involved in attempting to represent me, and the American people, before we have explicitly given either of them the right to by way of an election.

John McCain, speaking for America

So John McCain declared publicly today that he told President Saakashvili today that he speaks for all of America when declaring our support for Georgia.

WHAT????

I don't support Georgia in this. I'm an American. How presumptuous, arrogant, and absurd of McCain to think that a good number of American's wouldn't support Georgia in this. Why you ask?

Because Georgia's President is a fool. The simple truth is that Georgia and Russia had a little border dispute over an advantageous region with an oil pipeline so what does Russia do? It sets a trap. It prepped its military for a fast conquest and then encouraged the South Ossetians to get uppity with the hopes that Georgia would send in the military thus giving Russia a pretense for invading and conquering Georgia. Of course, after diplomacy, they will give most of it back except for the regions they wanted in the first place.

Georgia walked right into this trap because President Saakashvili foolishly thought that the west or the U.N. would back him up. Russia knew better. Russia also knew that had they invaded without any justification, no matter how weak, then they wouldn't be able to rely on China protecting them from the one thing they fear: economic sanctions. Thus they tricked Georgia into giving them that justification. A trick predicated on Georgia's naive faith in the U.N. encouraging them to pick a suicidal fight with Russia, which they did.

President Saakashvili gambled the integrity of his country and lives of thousands of his countrymen on the absurd notion that the U.N., or NATO, or anyone else would come to help them. In the days before these useless organizations, Georgia might have instead developed allies in the region who might have been able and willing to help or solved the issue through diplomacy. Instead they relied on the idealism of the U.S. and the United Nations. Only a fool would risk so much on so little.

The other element is that while Georgia may have been provoked, they still picked this fight and it was a fight that they knew they couldn't win. They only reason they did it was their faith that the their allies and the U.N. would save them. That's a dangerous, dangerous fantasy which encourages war over diplomacy. A country in a difficult situation is less likely to make a concession and more likely to start fighting if they believe that their allies will come rescue them after a few days of fighting. These kinds of small scale wars can escalate out of control very easily by dragging larger, wealthier nations into a conflict that has virtually nothing to do with them. 

So while I have no affection for Russia and what they are doing (other than admiring the fact that they seem to understand the state of modern international diplomacy better than most), I also no interest in supporting Georgia. They don't deserve it, no matter what John McCain says.

Protesters of the world, unite

There has always seemed, at least to me, to be something terribly wrong with people who protest about things which are of little consequence to themselves, i.e. animal rights protesters, minimum wage laws, human rights abuses abroad, etc.

It isn't that I find protesting pointless and absurd... because I don't. It's that I find half-hearted protesting to be pointless and absurd. If you are going to protest then you should go all out when doing it. Put your heart and soul and life into it; risk your life or your property or your liberty or all three. Most protesters protest as a hobby, getting out and waving signs about some issue that means everything to them for a couple hours a week or month. The issues are purely ones of vanity, designed to give them a sense of moral superiority and their lives a veneer of meaning. They risk very little and change even less. 

"What are you doing to change the world?" They ask so arrogantly. 

"Nothing less than you," I usually respond.

Such behavior can often lead to overreaching and these olympics have brought the fools out in force. French rioters attacking a paraplegic bearer of the olympic flame or protesters flying to China in order to roll on the ground in a Tibetan flag. What is the purpose of this? Is it really to make a difference? Do these people really think that a nation that causally murdered hundreds of its students is going to listen to a handful of petty protesters?

No. Of course not. The point of most protests is the self-indulgent desire to feel that they are part of something bigger than themselves, without the work and effort of truly being so. It is sham and a fraud and it doesn't deserve any respect.

Most of these protests have nothing to do with the stated cause. They aren't really going to help animals, free Tibet, or stop wars for diamonds because doing so is difficult and often life-threatening. The only thing they are doing is trying to artificially give meaning to their lives by attaching themselves to an international cause. It doesn't matter that they will have no effect, and possibly diminish the issue. All that matters to them is the warm, fuzzy feeling of being together, fighting for the  downtrodden in a cause that's "real". They can  then return home to their "empty, consumeristic middle-class" that they despise. That same life that affords them the both luxury to fight for real change, rather than merely surviving, as well as self-indulgent exercises in futile vanity like most protests.

What most protesters do is a farce, an insult, and a disservice to the people who live with oppression, violence, and suffering every day. Are you really showing "solidarity" with political prisoners in Tibet by waving a sign a few times a week? Somehow I doubt it...

What should they do? Do I expect middle-class Americans to fight in foreign wars, etc? Not unless they really care that much, but if that's the case then they are probably already there. I just want people to fight for what matters to them. How about protecting liberty and freedom in your own town? Or cleaning up a local river? Or helping the suffering in your own city? By focusing on a distant issue that a person can't really affect, it gives that person a false sense of achievement and thusly depriving that person the opportunity to make a real difference in someone's life or in their community.

I was just following orders

Here is a video discussing the aftermath of the Charlie Lynch trial. 

Forgetting about the horrible abuse of power that was the prosecution of Mr. Lynch, what is most depressing to me about this was the Jury Foreman's response to after the trial. She (Kitty Meese) can be heard, starting at 1:02 into the video, making this horrifying statement:

"We found Mr. Lynch guilty on all five indictments. I think the majority of us thought he was a nice man with good intentions who didn't stay within the parameters of the federal law. Under the federal law we had no choice but to find [him] guilty."

 

The key phrase here is "no choice."

Kitty Meese, as well as her fellow jurors, is a symbol of everything that is wrong with our justice system.

Her sheepish sentiment that she isn't responsible for her decision; that she had to follow the law. She had to accept the states argument that it was acting justly without question. She couldn't question the appropriateness of the prosecution or the law used to justify it. Her judgement meant nothing and she wasn't responsible for the outcome of her decision. She had no choice.

This woman is morally reprehensible in my view.

First let me say that I despise drugs and drug users and very little philosophical sympathy for drug users, per se. My beef here is with tyrannical federal power that goes unchecked because of the meekness of those whose responsibility is to check it: the people.

Mrs. Meese is not without culpability here, just like the nazi officers who claimed to be just following orders. She isn't simply a cog in a machine or a part of the process. She is the process. She, and the eleven other jurors, are ultimately the ones responsible for what happens to Mr. Lynch. It is their responsibility not only to judge the facts of the case but whether the prosecution was just or the law constitutional.

What keeps the government from passing and enforcing oppressive laws? Juries.

What keeps the state from arbitrary, political, or personally motivated prosecutions? Juries.

The weapon of juries is the process of jury nullification. Their justification for its use should not be racism, celebrity awe, favoritism, etc. but rather the rational, independent judgement of each individual on the jury. 

Mr. Lynch may spend as much as one hundred years in jail for a prosecution based on a 5-4 supreme court judgement and the jury's morally responsibility is absolute. The state can't be blamed for abusive prosecutions, that's the nature of the government. What is supposed to keep the state in check is the people, by way of juries. Mrs. Meese and that jury abandoned their responsibility and tried to claim helplessness. The truth is that they cowardly ran from their greatest civic responsibility.

Mrs. Meese obviously lacks the moral courage or integrity to live in a free society and all of us will pay the price for it.

A quick comparison

I've argued many times that the left-wing blogs are sloppier and angrier than the conservative ones. That isn't to suggest that they are any more dishonest, partisan, or inaccurate because I'm pretty sure they are just about equal on that.

Radley Balko has done excellent work exposing police abuses in the drug war and his reporting on the inexcusable Berwyn Heights incident has garnered the raid some mainstream coverage. Forgetting about the irresponsibility and danger of unnecessary paramilitary raids for a moment, I would like to draw attention to the coverage of it to make my earlier point.

Over at Reason, Radley Balko's coverage is well researched, well reasoned, passionately honest even in condemnation and outrage. Other libertarian leaning blogs also picked up the story as one would expect.

Finding this story on classically conservative blogs such as national review's the corner or redstate is impossible. They don't seem to have any interest in the story which doesn't surprise me considering their recent fondness for law and order authoritarianism.

The most psychologically telling response was this one from the DailyKos. Note the opening paragraph:

By now you've probably heard about the brainless July 29 police assault on Cheye Calvo of Berwyn Heights, Md., and his family. First the cops plant marijuana on them, then storm the house, terrorize Calvo, his mother-in-law, and his wife, and shoot dead their two Labrador retrievers. Despite having apparently been investigating a pot-smuggling ring for some time, the cops didn't even know that Calvo is the community's mayor.

Bold portion is my highlight.

In no other report on this subject, is the idea that the drugs were planted ever even suggested. In fact, the origin of the marijuana is well documented and explained, so why on earth would this blogger think to suggest that they were planted? I don't know, perhaps someone should ask him:

tleelange@hotmail.com

This kind of paranoid outrage and disdain for evidence is extremely common on the left, especially in the blogosphere, and supports my general sentiment that the primary psychological state of a leftist is irrational terror.