But These Children Are Supposed To Be Left Behind

Amazing. Apparently some educators believe that "No Child Left Behind" is supposed to work like this: A school is declared "failing", so parents of children with substandard test performance transfer their kids to other schools, the better performing children stay behind, and the school performance magically "rises" without a lick of effort.

The legislation is intended to give struggling students the chance to move from high-poverty, low-performing schools, but Fairfax school officials have found that the students who take the transfers generally aren't the ones who need extra help.

Instead, they are like Umaid: higher-scoring students from middle-class homes. The trend, evident in suburban school districts nationwide, means that the receiving schools don't have to augment their remedial programs or worry about test scores dropping. It also means that resources spent on transfer students aren't going to the students who need them most, some educators said.

Yup. That's right. Smart kids don't need resources, and can do just fine in crappy schools. To his credit, a spokesman for Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), one of the principal authors of the legislation, expressed that "the law also envisions times when successful students will transfer."

And this gets to a big part of the problem - schools can't fix what is going on at home. We as a society seem to think that a school should accomplish over the course of a few hours per day, in an ever-shrinking school year, what many parents can't be bothered to do for themselves. Why is it a surprise that the parents of higher-achieving kids are more attuned to their children's needs, and are more willing to take advantage of alternative educational opportunities when their children's schools are declared "failing"? That should have been expected - and it certainly should not be distorted into a problem.

More Red, Blue and Purple America

Maps with commentary from Michael Gastner, Cosma Shalizi, and Mark Newman at the University of Michigan.

The Demise of Democracy

Today, David Broder takes on the issue of redistricting - the creation of "safe districts" where the incumbent often runs unopposed, describing the account of a Florida resident.

"I pointed out to an election official at our polling place that there was no House race on the ballot, even though congressmen and women were up every two years. She immediately called the Volusia County supervisor of elections for an explanation.

"While she was on the phone . . . I was informed that my congressman, John Mica, was unopposed. I said, 'I knew that, but shouldn't his name be on the ballot, with a line below it for a write-in candidate?' That seemed traditional to me. I asked whether Mica didn't need to get at least one registered vote somewhere so he could be returned to Washington as an 'elected official' to serve another two years. The answer came back over the phone that Mica had been 'automatically reinstated in Washington.'

Last year, the Supreme Court came pretty close to declaring redistricting to be a "political issue", not ordinarily subject to judicial review. The Court was ostensibly frustrated with the fact that its prior decisions of the subject had not proved to create workable standards for the lower courts, and the growing minority argued that (absent patent illegality, such as redistricting with a racially discriminatory intention) the issue belongs in the political arena, not the courts.

Of course, as the Florida case detailed above indicates, and as the Republicans demonstrated in Texas, if you leave this to the politicians, they will do their utmost to skew the system away from democracy. (It is my cynical belief that, now that the Texas model has created a precedent, absent a legal declaration of its unconstitutionality that model will be followed by both parties in the future. But then, isn't it easier for all of us when our politicians are "automatically reinstated", and we don't have to be bothered with those unseemly elections, challengers at the polls, and recounts?)

Fascism or Puritanism?

In "The Puritanism of the Rich", George Monbiot challenges the notion that Bush embraces "soft fascism" (or any other sort of fascism), suggesting that Bush instead represents puritanism.

Puritanism was primarily the religion of the new commercial classes. It attracted traders, money lenders, bankers and industrialists. Calvin had given them what the old order could not: a theological justification of commerce. Capitalism, in his teachings, was not unchristian, but could be used for the glorification of God. From his doctrine of individual purification, the late Puritans forged a new theology.

At its heart was an "idealisation of personal responsibility" before God. This rapidly turned into "a theory of individual rights" in which "the traditional scheme of Christian virtues was almost exactly reversed". By the mid-17th century, most English Puritans saw in poverty "not a misfortune to be pitied and relieved, but a moral failing to be condemned, and in riches, not an object of suspicion ... but the blessing which rewards the triumph of energy and will".

* * *

Of course, the Puritans differed from Bush's people in that they worshipped production but not consumption. But this is just a different symptom of the same disease. Tawney characterises the late Puritans as people who believed that "the world exists not to be enjoyed, but to be conquered. Only its conqueror deserves the name of Christian."

If we're headed into a new Republican world of "Upstairs, Downstairs" or "Manor House, on which side of the staircase do you expect to find yourself?

What Bush and Mao Have In Common

According to The Guardian, in an article on China's "one child" policy:

"Liberalism," [Chairman Mao] wrote in his 1937 tract, Combat Liberalism, "stems from petit bourgeois selfishness, it places personal interests first and the interests of the revolution second ..."

Minor Distractions IV

While taking Emma to the hospital for her hearing test (a standard screening), I had to maneuver through some crowded spaces. Emma was in her car seat, as she was sleeping quite soundly and it is ideal that she be sleeping during the hearing test.

Typical male reaction: To not even notice that I was carrying a baby. One man glared at me as he walked in my direction, as if I was obstructing his path with a large suitcase rather than carrying a baby. (And I wasn't even blocking his path - he just wanted to pass on the right, where Emma was, as opposed to the left.)

Typical female reaction: Broad smile.

Red, Blue, and Purple America

What are purple mountain majesties, anyway, if not a symbol of America? Some fascinating maps of the red, blue and purple that constitutes America from lies.com.

Why does anybody take him seriously? II

Babbling Brooks shares his words of... well, his words in today's Times:

But the same insularity that caused many liberals to lose touch with the rest of the country now causes them to simplify, misunderstand and condescend to the people who voted for Bush. If you want to understand why Democrats keep losing elections, just listen to some coastal and university town liberals talk about how conformist and intolerant people in Red America are. It makes you wonder: why is it that people who are completely closed-minded talk endlessly about how open-minded they are?

I guess he doesn't recognize his own hypocrisy, or how he is describing himself in his last remark?

Why does anybody take him seriously?

Andrew Sullivan on Bill Maher's show: "Don't demean people and expect them to vote for you."

Right - and any liberal who disagrees should take his tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show back to a blue state, where it belongs.

Quality Reporting

ABC News tells us of "conflicting reports on Arafat's health":

There are more conflicting reports today about the health of Palestinian leader Yassar Arafat. The Palestinian Foreign Minister says Arafat is not getting better, but his spokeswoman says his condition is not deteriorating.

You think he might be, say, stable? (Where do they find these "reporters"?)

I obviously don't know the full story, and certainly won't get it from that type of news story, but I do know this much: When the leading debate seems to be over where you will be buried, having your condition declared medically stable seems a small consolation.

Smoking III

I guess by now you're curious? The answer is, "lifelong non-smoker". ;-)

Smoking II

News about nicotine addiction:

Researchers say they have identified brain cell receptors that appear to be responsible for nicotine addiction, a finding of clear importance for smokers who are desperately trying to kick the habit.

The receptors normally are activated by acetylcholine, a molecule that carries signals between nerve cells and has multiple functions in the body. A large number of acetylcholine receptors have been identified, each with subunits adapted for a specific function. Twelve of those receptors also are activated by nicotine.

"Best Speech Ever"

Four years ago, the media related that Al Gore gave an extraordinary concession speech, and it was even suggested that if his concessionary persona had been evident during the campaign he might have won the election. Now, we're getting the same type of spin about Kerry's concession - e.g., "Tearful Kerry leaves best speech to the bitter end".

Is this the new motto for the Democratic Party? They can't win a national election to save their lives, but they're extraordinarily gracious in defeat? ("Bush also did 10 points better this time among voters who told exit pollsters that government should intervene more, not less, to solve problems." If you even lose the "nanny state" vote to the Republicans, what hope is there?)

Smoking

It has long been said that cigarettes are addictive in the same way as heroin (sometimes misunderstood as cigarettes being as addictive as heroin, which they aren't) - and now, following up on similar results from animal studies, UM researchers help explain why:

It's the first time smoking has been shown to affect the human brain's natural system of chemicals called endogenous opioids, which are known to play a role in quelling painful sensations, heightening positive emotions, and creating a sense of reward. It's the same system that is stimulated by heroin and morphine.

* * *

"It appears that smokers have an altered opioid flow all the time, when compared with non-smokers, and that smoking a cigarette further alters that flow by 20 to 30 percent in regions of the brain important to emotions and craving," says David J. Scott, a graduate student in the U-M Neuroscience Program who will present the results.

Demockery In Action

So the wave of the future is that the Democrats work to bring out the vote, and then the Republicans send out "poll watchers", backed by legions of trial lawyers, to interfere with voters' exercise of their rights and to prevent the votes from being counted?

And certain Democrats will complain that the youth vote that didn't show up to vote for Kerry would have shown up to vote for Dean (even if nobody else did).... Color me skeptical. When people don't bother to show up for the polls in any significant number, it's hard to believe that they have sufficient interest to do so for any candidate.

Troublemakers At The Polls

... In Detroit.

Looking For The Exceptional

It would have been interesting to see one of the also-rans from 2000 running in this election - John McCain instead of George W. - as parts of the campaign would have been very different, particularly given McCain's pointed criticism of Bush campaign's grotesque misrepresentation of his own Vietnam record back during the 1999 primary season. I don't think that type of slander, or the "Swift Boats" nonsense, would have gained traction in a battle between the two principled Vietnam War veterans. (And both are principled, particularly by "Washington standards", even if you don't agree with their principles.)

Also, whatever you make of their lives in politics and their questionable conduct during this campaign, both McCain and Kerry did extraordinary things when they were younger. Kerry opted to serve in Vietnam, and came back to forcefully oppose that war. McCain chose to decline an early release from the "Hanoi Hilton", suffering worsened treatment during the remainder of his incarceration, out of solidarity for his fellow POW's. I can't think of anything similarly extraordinary in the privileged background of either Al Gore or GW Bush - nor do I have any confidence that anything in either man's character would have ever led them to be similarly extraordinary.

Given McCain's ability to shoot from his hip, and to shoot straight, and the fact that his episodic candor has earned him significant bipartisan respect (including by many who question many of his political stances), a Kerry-McCain match-up could have been very interesting. It may well have been, at least in comparison to the now-traditional mud wrestling contest, relativley honest and clean.

I think McCain would have beaten Gore in 2000, but apparently he was too much of a maverick - too much of "his own man" - for his party. I think that there's a good chance that McCain would beat Kerry in 2004, were he the candidate.

Interesting Headline

The International Herald Tribune observes, "Rehnquist delays return, prompting new questions". Okay, the questions they raise are different, and more relevant, but with tongue firmly in cheek, doesn't the following question come to mind: "Without Rehnquist's vote in his favor, whatever the merits of the case, won't 'Bush v Kerry' end with a 4:4 tie?"

Lies, Lies, and More Lies

Today, Robert Samuelson touches on something that bothers me a lot about politics in this country. At least in a typical Western parliamentary system, between heckling on the floor of parliament and a weekly question period, there are frequent opportunities for bovine excrement to be called by name. Here? The media doesn't seem to do its job - or want to do its job - preferring to treat any allegation as a "he said, she said" to be resolved by two talking heads (representing the "pro" and "con") and a jabbering news anchor, or to run a sensational rumor apparently to sell additional papers or draw viewers for a later program, rather than spending the five or ten seconds it would take in many of these cases to find and report the truth.

The other day, Larry King was truly scraping bottom with Ann Richards, Al Sharpton, Dennis Prager, and Marc Racicot trading official "talking points" and absurd prevarications, along with pathetic answers to any direct question posed, while Larry played the part of, as Jon Stewart might say, the happy monkey. I just don't know how anybody who is even slightly informed on the issues, given that group of people and that opportunity, would be so seemingly taken in by each side's nonsense, and so unwilling to cry foul when the more absurd falsehoods are presented. And this is now the norm.

Samuelson notes,

While everyone has emphasized the differences between George Bush and John Kerry, what's more revealing are the similarities. Both have avoided some of the nation's most obvious problems: the coming spending explosion to pay baby boomers' retirement benefits (mainly Social Security and Medicare); the relentless advance in health costs that's squeezing wages and other government spending; the rising tide of immigration and the associated social problems; Americans' uncontrolled thirst for insecure foreign oil; and the perils of letting Iran and North Korea go nuclear.

To be sure, the candidates had positions. But these consisted mostly of appealing platitudes that said what people wanted to hear.

Well... yes. And let's not forget George "I cut your taxes" Bush, who refuses to address the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) which will soon claw back most or all of the "middle class tax cut" from about 90% of its beneficiaries, or Kerry who is very much aware of that issue but apparently afraid to make it a campaign issue - after all, current budget and deficit projections anticipate the continued expansion of AMT revenues.

Samuelson opines,

At the root of all these glaring omissions is public opinion. On these issues, pleasant solutions don't exist. ... If the public won't abide honest discussion of clear problems -- and our leaders can't lead opinion -- then the problems simply fester. In this campaign, neither Bush nor Kerry has risen above that dilemma.

That suggests that many of our largest social problems will progressively worsen until they get so bad that we're forced to deal with them. Or they deal harshly with us. This is the true deadlock, and it may be incurable.

Still, I wonder what would happen if an incumbent President, particularly one with a majority in both houses, truly took on the hard issues, rather than making every significant initiative take effect in his second term. What if a President dared to tell the truth and to lead during his first term, rather than treating it as an audition. After all, are we so stupid to think that Bush truly thought that the Israel-Palestine "road map" would be more or less complete in 2005? That the Medicare prescription benefit wasn't put off until 2006 because it is anticipated that many (or most) seniors will find it horribly lacking? That Afghanistan's Parliamentary elections won't take place until 2005 (even as its first Presidential election was moved up to make Bush-friendly headlines)? That although nominal sovereignty was handed over to a new, appointed council of Iraqi's, no election will occur until 2005? Everything difficult goes into the second term.

Well, yes... maybe we are that stupid.

(I single out Bush not because this is unique, but because he is the incumbent, and likes to pretend that he is a leader. By way of Democratic example, the roots of Clinton's failure in his Israel-Palestine peace efforts lie largely in his failure to address the hard issues, such as borders, settlements, and refugees, until his last six months in office.)

Minor Distractions III

Grandma: She's much cuter than you were when you were a baby.
Dad: I think she's much cuter than most babies.
Grandma: All parents think that.
Dad (to self): (Except you?)

Okay - so I can't be too hard on Grandma for thinking her grandkids are cuter than her kids were. ;-)