Why We Are Republicans, continued

Republicans believe that the primary role of the Federal Government is to defend America from those who would destroy us. We fought and defeated the Nazis, the Japanese, and the communists; now we must fight and defeat the radical wing of Islam. Just in case you are not clear about the gravity of this threat read the words of an al Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahir: "We have the right to kill four million Americans – two million of them children."

Mass murder on this scale requires weapons of mass destruction, thus we must prevent rouge nations from providing those weapons to the terrorists who will use them. That is why we are fighting in Iraq and why we must thwart the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea. Republicans support our military in this struggle, while most Democrats would have us rely on diplomacy, a policy doomed to failure in a war against irreconcilable terrorists. We despise war but recognize that some despots are evil and cannot be dealt with diplomatically.

Republicans believe that freedom is an unalienable right, endowed by our Creator. All oppressed peoples in the world yearn for freedom and dictators who deny basic, natural rights spawn sociopaths and terrorists. Thus our policy of spreading freedom around the world is an integral part of our war on terror. Since 2001, we have freed tens of millions of people in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the citizens of the Ukraine and Palestine have had free elections.

What’s more, the oppressive governments in Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Middle East are hearing their peoples’ call for freedom and the patriots have heard President Bush’s commitment to stand with them.

{tomorrow: our belief in Capitalism}

Why We Are Republicans

“Who will provide the grand design, what is yours, what is mine?”
In one of their classic songs, the Eagles posed one of the fundamental questions about government. Our Founding Fathers knew the answer; that the “who” were the people, not King George, and they fought a war to establish that principle. Since 1776, property rights and the rule of law were the arbiters of socio-economic questions and it was not until the 20th century that the Federal Government began to seriously encroach on the rights of the people.

Like the Founders, Republicans believe in strict limits on the powers of government. Those limited powers flow from the consent of the people and are carefully enumerated in the Constitution. However, Democrats believe in the power, even obligation, of government to affect social change. The role of government is perhaps the fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats; other differences in principle or policy are related to this ideological difference.

{This is the first installment of the opinion piece by John Kolin and me that will be submitted to the Palos Verdes News. The next part deals with the primary government responsibility, defense of America. Comments are welcomed.}

Challenge Update: Bullshit

Bill,
"You are definitely right that the wind is with you. Actually I think you meant the wind was IN you, but then that's a problem that you older guys have."
Tom

Due to Tom's bum leg, he challenged me to an ocean swim, 1 or 2 miles. Not wanting to take advantage of the poor guy, I came up with a new challenge.

My proposal is a bullshit competition.

From the London Times: "Socrates himself explored the tension between rhetoric or sophistry, arguments intended to persuade regardless of whether they were true, and the deeper quest for understanding through philosophy. In this respect, it is worth noting that the term “bull”, with a similar meaning, is probably far older, etymologically, than the modern bullshit: the original word seems to have come from the Latin bullire, to boil, bubble or froth. At its source, then, the term has nothing to do with barnyard excrement, but rather the appropriate evocation of pure hot air."

Thus it seems just too appropriate that our global warming challenge should involve two grown men sitting in a bar, drinking stout, and pummelling each other with pure hot air.

Pick your venue. I will be there for you.
Yours in bullshit,
Bill

ps from the same Times article:

"THE WRONG sort of snow finally pushed Yuri Luzhkov, the Mayor of Moscow, over the edge. Enraged with Russia’s hopeless weather forecasters, he has vowed to fine them for any more inaccurate, misleading or unreliable predictions. As reported in yesterday’s Times, he admonished them in the following, memorable terms: “You are giving us bullshit.”

Those Brits are funny, no?

Global Warming Challenge Race

Tom: Alright, let's settle this thing once and for all. Although you are young and thin while I am old and chubby, I hereby challenge you to a 100 yard dash, winner take all. The historic race will take place this Sunday 2/29 at 10:00 AM in the Peninsula Center parking lot. I may run carrying my Starbucks mug, but believe that the wind will be with me.

When you lose, you will promise to forevermore cease talking about global warming. I figure that reducing the verbal output of a lawyer will significantly improve the atmosphere. Imagine the benefit of silencing a two-fer, lawyer and politician. It is my contribution to LA air quality. As to the warming, I will henceforth open all the windows in my house and turn on the air conditioning.
Same with the Porsche.

Be a man! Run for your cause.
PVBlogger

ps. Tom is scheduled for surgery to repair his torn hamstring. I may have a chance.


Ralph asked about the PVP News. It was purchased by the Daily Breeze. Will definitely link to our opinion piece.

Outline of Why we are Republicans:

1. Judeo-Christian values (vs moral relativism)
2. Conservative solutions to problems (vs big gov't solutions)
3. Capitalism and free trade (vs gov't regulation and union power)
4. Representative democracy (vs tyrany of judges)
5. Equal opportunity (vs economic equality)
6. Freedom for all (vs isolationism or partnering with dictators)
7. American exceptionalism (vs internationalism)

John and I will appreciate any comments.

Mea Culpa

Mes Amis,
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. [Veni. Vidi. Vici. All those years of foreign language in school and that’s all I can remember.] Your humble PVBlogger has been AWOL since last Sunday, allowing Library business to interfere with my retirement party. OK, so I’ve also played a good bit of bridge on the Zone. Friend Pam invited me to play in a tournament; we came in second, now I’m hooked. At any rate, I’ve been experiencing blog deprivation so here I am raring to go.

I’ll answer some of the interesting comments on the last few posts.

What Liberals Think About Poverty: Ralph (http://laxpat.blogspot.com) asked about Star Parker, author of Uncle Sam’s Plantation. Star is also the founder and president of CURE, the Coalition of Urban Renewal and Education (www.urbancure.org). Remarkable woman! Anonymous, is an actual Republican who believes “global warming is real; let’s take some sensible action.” I heartily agree that freedom and individual responsibility are two sides of the liberty coin, and that Liberals are ruled by their feelings. My global warming strategy is cautious regulation (not Kyoto) coupled with aggressive technology development, ie the Bush energy policy. BTW, Anony, please sign your nick so I don’t confuse you with other Anony’s. Narrator accused me of using “funny statistics.” He claims that the University of Michigan poverty study is discredited by looking at rural Mississippi and Detroit. Sorry, but anecdotes don’t discredit scientific studies based on huge stats. I’ll also point to the US Treasury study that showed the same upward mobility. Look it up. And I was comparing American poor to middle class people in Europe. America is doing great, rich and poor alike. Only the 3 million chronically poor are in big trouble and we should help them. Many are caught in the welfare trap. Ralph answers Anony pointing out that Lib’s are not exactly feeling good by embracing the Kyoto restrictions. But remember, Lib’s love collective responsibility.

Global Warming Postscript: Anony frets that the global warming solution is always presented as “all or nothing.” Why not make individual choices like buying a car with better gas mileage? Again, Anony and I agree. I recently traded in my gas guzzling SUV for a Porsche. Aren’t I the internationalist?

Good friend and great American John Kolin and I are working on an opinion piece for the local rag (the Palos Verdes Peninsula News) about Republican beliefs. We felt that the commentaries written by News reporters about Democrats were slightly biased.

What Liberals Think About Poverty

When it comes to worldwide poverty Liberals tend to take the long view. Every year millions of people die of AIDS, malaria, starvation and murder. And the Liberal mind focuses like a laser beam on that ultimate human tragedy … Global Warming! Now that the “Kyoto Protocol” is in effect, the cost to the participating countries will be between $150 Billion and $350 Billion per year. Using the lower figure, the cost of the first phase (2005-2012) will exceed one Trillion dollars. Even in the US that is serious money.

Meanwhile, five million children are in dire poverty, AIDS is devastating Africa and malaria is coming back with a vengeance. And the current worldwide aid budget is $50 Billion per year, a small fraction of the global warming expense. As Mike Crichton said: “Why are we not feeding people in this world who are hungry? Why are we not giving clean water to the almost billion people who don’t have clean water? The greatest source of environmental degradation is poverty. Why aren’t we cleaning up poverty?” The Copenhagen Consensus proposed spending $50 Billion over several years on AIDS, malaria, malnutrition and water yet the top priority for the UN, the EU and liberals everywhere is climate change.

In America, poverty is a more complex issue. The poor in America live, in many ways, better than the middle classes in other developed countries. The average American poor family has a color TV set (97%) with cable or satellite reception (62%), owns a car (73%), and lives in air conditioning (76%). Forty-six percent of poor families own their own homes. Poverty in America has decreased from 22% of the population in 1960 to 12.5% today. The poverty rate would be much lower if the US did not accept more immigrants than all other nations combined.

Most important is the fact that the poor in America do not, in general, remain poor for very long. This is the conclusion of a University of Michigan socioeconomic study that has been tracking over 50,000 Americans since 1968. In Myths of the Rich and Poor, Michael Cox and Richard Alm showed that only 5% of families in the bottom fifth of the income distribution in 1975 were still there in 1991. More than 75% of the families in that lowest quintile in 1975 had made their way up to the two highest quintiles by 1991. Over half of the lowest quintile moved to a higher quintile in only four years. This degree of upward mobility is truly remarkable and not experienced anywhere else in the world.

The remaining question is what to do about that 5% of the lowest quintile who are rooted in poverty. This works out to about 2.8 million Americans (5% X 20% X 280 million). The Liberal solution is to reduce pollution and fight global warming! No, just kidding. Liberals advocate as always more spending on welfare and school administrators and unfettered “choice.” In effect, keep those poor people on “Uncle Sam’s Plantation.” (See the eye-opening book by Star Parker.)

I think we can do better.

Global Warming Postscript

Are you among the group with Laurie David and Robert Kennedy Jr. who believe that Global Warming (GW) is the “greatest security crisis in the world?” Do you agree with Sen. Olympia Snowe (R – Maine) that “climate change is the most important long-term issue that the planet faces?” Do you adhere to the UN conclusion that the economic costs of GW will be very large and that the social and human costs are likely to be even greater, including mass loss of life? If GW is not the greatest crisis or the most important issue, then where does it stand, second, third, fourth? Let’s try to reach a consensus on the 10 most important socio-economic issues facing the world. If you had an extra, say, $50 Billion to spend on helping mankind, which issues would you fund?

It turns out that just such an exercise was completed last May by a group of esteemed economists in Copenhagen. The conference was supported by the UN and by “The Economist” journal, and had the benefit of position papers prepared by top scientists in fields such as communicable disease, hunger and malnutrition, sanitation, trade, climate change, civil conflict and others.

Each proposal was rated on benefit vs. cost both expressed in economic terms. The top 4 proposals all had benefit/cost ratios well in excess of 10. The bottom 4 proposals, rated 14–17, had benefit/cost ratios less than 1.

May I have the envelopes please? The top four proposals were:

1. Controlling HIV/AIDS (spend $27B over 8 years, estimated to prevent 30M new cases)

2. Fighting malnutrition ($12B for food supplements to relieve iron-deficiency anaemia)

3. Trade reform (Zero dollars but $Trillions benefit by eliminating agricultural and other subsidies)

4. Controlling Malaria ($11B for insecticides and bed nets)

Several other proposals were rated high but not high enough to spend any of the $50 Billion. The other good proposals included three on sanitation and water purification, a proposal to reduce the cost of starting small businesses in poor countries, and other proposals on malnutrition and disease.

Then there were the 4 Bad proposals, with estimated costs that exceeded their benefits. Number 14 was a guest worker program for unskilled workers, poorly rated because such programs impede assimilation of immigrants. (Attention President Bush.)

At the foot of the list were 3 proposals to alleviate global warming, including the Kyoto Protocol. And the panel did not doubt that global warming is occurring. It is simply a bad investment.

What to do about Global Warming

At it's core the Global Warming debate is about public policy, ie what resources does addressing the potential risk warrant?

We have spent some time discussing the science, but there is no scientific debate. The hard sciences are not debating societies. Scientific knowledge advances on the basis of the most accurate data and theories that explain those data and accurately predict verifiable events.

I regard the National Geographic report as propaganda because of its claims of "scientific consensus." Quoting Crichton at the Caltech Michelin Lecture 1/17/03: "Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."

Crichton's Caltech talk is called "Aliens Cause Global Warming." I'll be happy to
email a copy to anyone who asks.

Debate has no place in science, but is the stuff of politics. So let's turn to the public policy debate that should be occurring about what, if anything, we should do about global temperatures.

The European Union and several other countries have embarked on a path of reducing CO2 emissions by 5% below their 1990 level by 2012. This is the Kyoto Protocol. The problem is that Kyoto is a non-starter. It will do little to lower the rate of global emissions of greenhouse gas since China, India and the rest of the developing countries are exempted and are building coal-fired power plants and buying cars like there's no tomorrow. These countries recognize that stringent emission limits would be huge barriers to their economic growth and future development.

By 2012, when commitments under Kyoto to cut CO2 emissions expire, we will find that Kyoto provides no workable framework for future action. At the recent Buenos Aires conference, the European Union tried to prepare the way for Kyoto's extension beyond 2012 with tougher emission targets for developed countries and a commitment from the developing countries to emission targets. Instead the EU was rebuffed by the developing countries, notably India and China, who joined with the US and Italy (an EU member) to reject any move to extend the system of caps on emissions. Now, even the European Commission is backing off any binding commitment on future emission reductions after 2012.

This non-commitment is part of a strategic shift away from Kyoto's attempt to regulate emissions to a new paradigm of development and adoption of new technologies to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. The United States advocates a technology-push approach in which emissions continue to rise in the near term and then are cut steeply beginning in about 20 years. Over that time, the US sees the development of new energy efficient technologies, the creation of low cost methods for capturing and storing carbon dioxide and the invention of low carbon energy supplies. This approach has the advantage of fostering economic growth in the developing countries, lifting hundreds of millions from abject poverty over the next 20 years.

This is the debate that needs to take place in the UN. The US Congress has been jawing about the Bush energy policy for nearly 4 years. What we need is action. Call your Senate and House representatives.

Global Warming Debate

The recent posts on global warming (GW) have generated several good comments for which I am sincerely appreciative. I welcome the opportunity to debate the facts and the science. Be assured, there is good reason for debate. It is not a slam dunk as a former CIA head once unwisely declared about WMD.

Good friend P.J. from Tampa commented on the Left Coast blowhard contribution to global warming; my point, exactly.

Reader Sray questioned Crichton’s motive since he clearly does not believe in GW, and Sray thought that Mike ought to stick to things he understands. Well, Crichton is a very bright guy who researched the GW subject for two years and concludes that the debate is not over. I give more intellectual weight to Michael Crichton than to Laurie David.

Anonymous pointed to a web site (Real Climate) for “balance” to Crichton’s book. I read the article “Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion” on Real Climate but came away more skeptical of the conventional wisdom than before. As for balance, the scientific literature and the popular science books overwhelmingly support the establishment view. It is Crichton who provides some balance. I went to the Library and found only two of twenty books on GW that presented contrarian views: Is the Temperature Rising by S. G. Philander and The Satanic Gases by P. J. Michaels and R. C. Balling.

Tom pointed me to a long National Geographic article on GW in Sept. 2004. It was another good example of the dogmatic, flamboyant, sloppy-science treatment of this subject that is all too prevalent. The article begins with some absolutist statements: “There is no question that the Earth is getting hotter – and fast.” The question is “how much of the warming is our fault?” Later, we learn that “Human activity almost certainly drove most of the past century’s warming.” The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is quoted on the projected temperature rise over the next century: between 3F and 10F depending on the CO2 rise. Climate expert Jerry Mahlman warns that “controlling the increase would take 40 successful Kyotos.” (Heavens above, we must be doomed.) Much of the article shows great pictures of ice melting in the artic and glaciers that are disappearing from Glacier National Park in Montana. And friend Tom mentions other anecdotal evidence about Minnesota fishermen falling through the weakened ice. But global warming is not local nor is it anecdotal.

The trouble with the global warming ideology is that global climate change is the most natural thing in the world. For over 4 billion years the Earth’s temperature has varied significantly. (More than once the Earth was entirely frozen.) The variations have been quite regular, with a period of about 100,000 years, over the last million years or so. (Temperature is driven by the strength of solar radiation and the concentration of greenhouse gases. A short treatise on the “Temperature of the Earth” is available to anyone who asks.) For the last 10 thousand years we have been in an interglacial period of relative warmth during which civilization had the chance to emerge. But we will fall back into the 2.5 million year long ice age before very long. During the recent interglacial the temperature was much warmer about 1000 years ago and colder about 400 years ago when we experienced a “little ice age.” Since around 1850 the Earth has been warming slightly, although in 1975 the big environmental panic was a “looming ice age” that Newsweek worried would lead to catastrophic famines. Newsweek’s solution: melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot.

The global surface temperature rise over the last few decades has been either 0.17C/decade if you adhere to the U.N. Panel or 0.03C/decade if you believe the annual satellite measurements that began in 1979 or the balloon data that has been accumulated even longer. Two papers in the July 2004 issue of Geophysical Research Letters by Douglass and Singer reported measurements taken 7 feet above the ground that confirm the satellite and balloon data. Extrapolation of these data yields an increase of 0.3C to 1.7C, while the computer models predict from 1.4C to 5.8C, with journalistic emphasis on the upper end. As computer models are becoming more refined they tend to agree more with the lower end and with the better satellite and balloon data, hardly a catastrophe.

As Crichton states, “Before making expensive policy decisions on the basis of climate models, I think it is reasonable to require that those models predict future temperatures accurately for a period of ten years.”
I agree with Crichton.

I will discuss the folly of those expensive policy decisions like the Kyoto Protocol in a future post.

Tidbits 2/13/05

Newt Gingrich on the New Contract with America The American way of life is vulnerable to five major threats as difficult as any America has faced. The first threat is that Islamic terrorists and rogue dictatorships acquire and use nuclear or biological weapons. The second is the effort to drive God out of American public life. The third is the possibility that America will lose the patriotic sense of itself as a singular civilization. The fourth is that America's economic supremacy will eventually yield to China and India because of our failing schools and weakening scientific and technological leadership. The fifth is that an aging America's demands on Social Security, Medicare, and related government programs will collapse the current system. Let not your heart be troubled, we’re America after all.

Superhero He's a fairly ordinary, middle-class fellow who doesn't act as though he wields near-godlike power. But he's nearly unstoppable, capable of besting any imaginable enemy, and yet he seems perfectly content with his lovely wife, three kids, and a nice house in the suburbs. He knows that the world contains super-villains who don't go away just because he wants a vacation. He knows the kind of suffering that could ensue without his intervention so when the forces of evil threaten the innocent, he throws caution to the wind and teams up with like-minded friends to fight for freedom! He's Mr. Incredible, the animated star of Pixar's latest box office super-hit, The Incredibles --- He's America.

Republicans Rejoice Republicans throughout the US rejoiced over the news that Screaming Howard Dean has been named head of the Democratic National Committee! In his acceptance speech Dean pointed out that his leadership will guarantee that the Democratic Party will carry Berkeley for decades to come. But anti-Deaniacs lamented that the Democratic Party died yesterday after a long, painful lack of direction. Born in 1792, it was the second-oldest political party in the world, after the Tories of Great Britain. But it suffered decline for years and finally succumbed to complications brought on by elitism and anger. The cause of death was officially attributed to an obstruction lodged in its leadership.

People 1, Lawyers 0 Tort reform got a big boost last week when the Senate approved a bill that would move large class-action lawsuits into the federal court system. By a surprisingly wide 72-26 margin, it approved a reform measure that would make it harder for attorneys to "shop" for favorable state courts that routinely hand out multi-million dollar awards to plaintiffs, often on the flimsiest of evidence. In 2003, tort costs gobbled up $246 billion, or 2.2%, of U.S. GDP, and tort costs are growing much faster than the economy. Litigation costs now total about $3,200 per year per family. But the actual cost — including companies' canceling projects for fear of lawsuits or doctors' driven from the profession by exorbitant malpractice premiums — is much, much higher. Way to go U.S. Congress.

Global Warming Economics At the World Social Forum in Davos a panel on global warming asked whether the Kyoto Protocol’s emissions-trading scheme is really a method of “privatizing the atmosphere.” Those evil politicians are trying to auction off our environment to the highest bidder. Emissions-trading on the carbon market is by far the closest that anybody has come to implementing Kyoto—the European Union is doing it unilaterally.

Easongate Who would have imagined that the downfall of one of the world's most powerful news executives would be precipitated by an ordinary citizen blogging his eyewitness report at Davos in the wee hours of the morning. It's simply stunning. The courage of Rony Abovitz cannot be overstated. This ordinary American raised his voice at an international forum attended by Europe's most influential America-haters and demanded that CNN executive Eason Jordan back up his poisonous assertion about the American military targeting journalists. The shock waves that have overwhelmed CNN started with a single blogger and reverberated worldwide. The despicable Jordan has resigned.

Culture War Here are three small news items from around the world you might have missed:
1) An unemployed waitress in Berlin faces the loss of her welfare benefits after refusing a job as a prostitute in a legalized brothel.
2) A British court ruled that a suspected terrorist from Algeria cannot be detained in custody because jail causes him to suffer a ''depressive illness.''
3) Jeffrey Eden, 17, of Charlestown, R.I., has been awarded an A by his teacher and the ''Silver Key'' in the Rhode Island Scholastic Art Awards for a diorama titled ''Bush/Hitler and How History Repeats Itself.''

It's an open question whether the West will survive this twilight struggle.
For the details see the great Mark Steyn’s article in the Chicago Sun-Times 2/13/05.

Mike Crichton Rocks

Harvard trained medical doctor, novelist, screenplay-writer, teacher; Andromeda Strain, Jurassic Park, E.R. and now State of Fear : part science fiction thriller, part popular science, part public policy briefing.

You may have wondered where I dug up the factoids in the last post Hollywood Warming. They were woven into the story in State of Fear, a novel about eco-terrorists who create natural-seeming disasters in order to convince the public that abrupt and calamitous climate change is imminent. To these environmental radicals, global warming is an ideology, a religion, never mind the inconvenient facts.

Like all of Crichton’s books it is a fun read if that is all you want. But if you take the time to study the graphs, follow the data to the original sources that are meticulously supplied, and read the authors message and his essay “Why Politicized Science is Dangerous,” then you will see global warming for what it really is -- Hollywood hysteria!

Hollywood Warming

Google on Laurie David and you find that she began her career as a talent coordinator for David Letterman, rose to VP of comedy development for Fox TV, she is the wife of Seinfeld producer Larry David, an eco-crusader and “environmental hero.” From a tribute by her hubby, we find that Laurie used to be “a materialistic, narcissistic, superficial, bosomy woman from Long Island … watched hours of mindless television and shopped like there was no tomorrow … someone as shallow as me.”

But a meeting with Robert Kennedy Jr. transformed Laurie into an environmental activist. Laurie got religion. Now she admonishes her kids about taking long showers, but offers no apologies for her super-sized house where she hosts “hundreds of people for eco-salons.” Laurie drives a hybrid car and reviles SUV owners as terrorist enablers, but gives herself a pass when chartering a Gulf Stream jet. You find no mention of her credentials in atmospheric science. But there she is in the LA Times, railing at us about the dire threat of global warming – “the greatest security crisis in the world.”

Mrs. David says that the U.S. refusal to adopt the Kyoto Protocol is an “act of extreme irresponsibility” and yet another example of America behaving “like a superpower bully.” She points to Tony Blair’s statement of the “emerging consensus” on climate change and ridicules Oklahoma Senator James Imhofe for saying that “global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.” Science or hoax, which is it?

Laurie’s science: “The 1990s were the hottest decade in the last 1000 years. Nine of the ten hottest years on record occurred after 1994. The artic ice sheet has shrunk 20% since 1979.” That’s it.

The scientific facts are that the measured global temperature rise in the 20th century was only about 0.6 degree Centigrade. Most of the rise occurred in the first few decades, before 80% of the increase in atmospheric Carbon Dioxide due to burning fossil fuels. (The most accurate measurements in the U.S. show only about 1/3 degree C increase.) Between 1940 and 1970 the global temperature actually decreased while atmospheric Carbon Dioxide increased.

Antarctica contains 90% of the world’s ice and has been getting colder and accumulating ice for 50 years. The Greenland ice cap has been cooling at a rate of more than 2 degrees Centigrade per decade since 1987. The best measurements of mean sea level show a slight fall over the last 20 years.

While insisting that the science of global warming is irrefutable, Mrs. David avoids the sticky points. The global warming theory predicts that the upper atmosphere will heat more than the earth surface, but satellite and balloon measurements show that the opposite is true. The computer models vary by 400% in their predictions of warming over the next 100 years depending on the assumption about CO2 increase. Of the two most respected models one predicts an increase of cloud cover with a doubling of Carbon Dioxide while the other predicts a decrease of cloud cover.

Is it any wonder that the “Bush administration refuses to believe in (this) science”.

Reforming Public Education

Everyone agrees that public school education in America is a poor performer. We hear so much about failing schools and the need for increased funding for K-12 education. However, at the federal and state levels the new budget proposals are “austere” with small increases for public education. {Federal Government austerity means $2.57 Trillion for 2006, while in California austere means the territory somewhere north of $100 Billion. We could buy whole countries with such austerity.} If we really need to give the teachers a raise and buy more computers, where is the money to come from?

California spends $45 Billion educating about 6.2 million students in grades K-12. That works out to about $7500 per student or $180 Thousand for each class of 25 kids. Since the average teacher makes about $80 Thousand (salary and benefits), it seems there should be plenty of money for teacher’s aides, nurses, janitors, books and supplies. But, for some mysterious reason, much of the money does not make it to the classroom. What, exactly, is wrong?

A report by Dr. Brian Janiskee of the Claremont Institute clarifies the problem and offers a good solution. You see, of the 577 thousand employees of the California K-12 system, 270 thousand are not teachers. For each of the roughly 9000 schools, it breaks down to about 34 teachers plus 30 staff and administrators, on average. Do we really need all the bureaucracy (the “not teachers”)? Won’t teachers be burdened with administrative work if staff were reduced?

The numbers tell a different story. In a landmark report, John Chubb and Terry Moe found that “much of the failure of our public schools lies in the stifling hierarchy of school administration.” Another report by John Bohte revealed that every 1% increase of district administration resulted in a 1% decrease of standardized test scores and a 10% decrease in SAT scores. Just imagine the benefit of a 10% decrease in administration.

The problem with bureaucracy is that it is so meddlesome, producing curriculum churn and make-work for teachers. What’s more, bureaucracy tends to grow geometrically, just like government, destroying productivity. Over the last few decades, industry learned that flattened organizations improve productivity and America’s economy has boomed as a result. Meanwhile, public schools have resisted such reforms.

I prefer the most aggressive Claremont proposal that saves $1.2 Billion/year through the combination of a 30% cut in bureaucracy (instructional coordinators, school staff, district administration and staff) with pay raises of 10.7% for all of the teachers, instructional aides, counselors, nurses, librarians, even principals, plus a 92% increase in spending on books and supplies.

I wonder if the students would even miss the missing bureaucrats, and I’m willing to bet that the teachers will be more effective and happy with less oversight.

Fixing the Education Budget at Starbucks

The usual suspects were gathered at Starbucks last Sunday gabbing about politics and popular culture – the young white man in the corner wearing a sign proclaiming “F White Power” – when in walked Kelly Johnson, the Principal at Peninsula High. Our common friend Cathryn Boyd introduced me as the conservative guy with unusual opinions about the education budget. Kelly smiled: “Oh, you’re the right winger,” he said, “I’ve heard about you.”

I fessed up and explained my neoconservative position on the education budget: Give all the K-12 teachers a 10% pay raise. (Actually, I prefer 0 – 20% based on merit.) A recent study by the Claremont Institute notes that the $45 Billion that California spends on K-12 education employs 304 thousand teachers plus 273 thousand administrators and others (ie. bureaucracy). A 30% cut in the bureaucracy (mostly at the district and state levels) would save $1.2 Billion/year while at the same time enabling pay raises of 10.7% for teachers, aides, counselors, nurses, librarians, even principals, plus a 92% increase in the spending on books and supplies.

I wondered if the students would even miss the missing bureaucrats, and am willing to bet that the teachers would be more effective with less oversight. When Kelly departed I had the sense that Mr. Right and Mr. Left had found some common ground.

Ride the Third Rail

“What a year! The world’s first full-color feature film has been released.” In the wings are film adaptations of two new books, Gone with the Wind and the Wizard of Oz. The hot new entertainment medium is radio and fully two thirds of American homes have one, roughly the same percent of homes that are electrified. In a few years we can expect to receive radio-like signals on boxes known as televisions that will reproduce tiny pictures as well as sound. “It remains to be seen if there will be any consumer demand for such a novelty.” With American family median yearly income reaching $1000, Ford’s new Model-A priced at $695 is becoming a must have for many families.

But the news is not all so good. In Germany Hitler has withdrawn citizenshipfrom the Jews. American liberals seem to be hypnotized by Bolshevism. After the misery of the First World War, 94% of the public want us to stay out of all future wars. Thousands of children will be crippled with polio this year. Nearly a third of the US population is quite poor. And the average life expectancy is only 59 years.

However, hope is on the horizon. In August President Franklin Roosevelt pushed through Congress a universal government-paid pension as part of the Social Security Act. Benefits will commence when you reach 65, but most of us will be dead by then. In fact, there are now 65 workers paying into the trust fund for every retiree receiving payments. That trust fund balance must really be growing!
The year is 1935.

[The above excerpts are from “Take Ownership” by Karl Zinsmeister in the recent issue of The American Enterprise.]

How the times have changed. In the beginning workers paid 1% of their wages in payroll tax (Social Security) and employers matched the 1%. Today workers and employers together pay 15.3%. And there are only 3.2 workers for every one of the 47 million Americans receiving benefits. That ratio will continue to decrease and by 2018 the amount coming in will be less than the amount being paid out. I guess that is when the Government will have to start drawing down the trust fund. There must be gobs of money in the fund even if it was kept in a lock-box and lots more if it was put into a bank account and muy mucho more if it was invested in the stock market. Imagine 70 years of compound interest or stock market gains.

But, oh no! Those rascally Feds did not invest or even save the money. They spent it! The Social Security “trust fund” contains 70 years of government IOUs and there will be hell to pay when the flow becomes negative in just 13 years.

Well, how bad can it be? A few numbers shall reveal all. Everyone worries about the national debt, especially the $4 Trillion owed to the folks who own savings bonds. That so-called Federal Debt is huge, about 32% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). But it turns out that the % of GDP has averaged 31% since 1965, with a low of 18% in 1974 and a high of 44% in 1993. Thus 32% is hardly a catastrophe. However, the projected Social Security debt is another kettle of fish. A 2003 study by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) shows that the present-value, unfunded obligations of Social Security amount to $7 Trillion!

Imagine that you are a worker in your 50s, with 30ish children and grandkids in grammar school. In 2018 you will be retired and collecting Social Security. Your kids and grandkids will be working, paying Social Security taxes PLUS an extra tax (starting at $200B per year) to cover the unfunded amount due to all you retirees. And it will get worse every year. What a nice legacy for your family.

The Medicare situation is even worse than that. The same AEI study shows that the present-value, unfunded obligations of Medicare amount to $36.6 Trillion!! That is over 4 years of the U.S. GDP.

So perhaps we ought to grab onto that “third rail” and try to fix the problem. President Bush has gambled the political future of the Republican Party on just that.

Flogging the Blog

Dear PVBlog Readers,
In the midst of my depression over the paucity of comments on the blog, a friend (PJ) mentioned that she had not been able to post a comment. The darn posting process always required a sign-in. Aha! I said to myself. Self, that must be why the multitudinous visitors have not left their calling cards. So here is how you do it.

To Publish a Comment:

1. Go to the end of the post (paragraph) on which you wish to comment.
2. Click on "comments"
3. Click on "post a comment"
4. IGNORE the Sign-In box
5. Click on "Or Post Anonymously"
6. Type your comment and your name, if you wish
7. Click on [Publish Your Comment]

Next time you look at PVBlog your comment will be there. I will be grateful for your comments.

There, I am done shamelessly flogging the blog.
See ya

The Democrats are having a nervous breakdown.

The Democrats really need to stay on their meds. It’s getting embarrassing. After the President delivers an uplifting State of the Union address, the Democratic response was a blathering disaster. What a tragic decline in this once proud party: From FDR’s New Deal to Harry Reid’s No Deal; From JFK’s New Frontier to Nancy Pelosi’s No Frontier; From pro-choice on abortion to No choice on Social Security.

Is there any wonder that the Democrats are being increasingly rejected by the American people? Here’s a thought experiment for you. Name something that would be good for America and Americans that is also good for the Democratic Party. Free elections in Iraq? No! Personal retirement accounts? Nope! Tort reform? No way! Lower taxes? Are you kidding? School accountability? Shut up, you fascist! Democrats today are a reactionary party with no agenda worth a damn.

The Democratic Party used to be a muscular, idealistic party of the people. Democrats believed passionately in principles worth fighting for. They believed that freedom, a God given right, was a good reason to fight the Germans in World War I (Wilson’s war), the Nazis in WWII (Roosevelt’s war), the Communists in Korea (Truman’s war) and the Communists again in Vietnam (Kennedy’s and Johnson’s war). Democrats then had ideals and were the party of reform. Today, according to Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard, Bush and the Republicans have "totally seized the mantle of idealism" from the Democrats.

President Bush has foreign policies and domestic policies that are ambitious and liberal and grand. His policies strive to achieve freedom around the world and an ownership society at home. These policies spawn programs such as the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the end of the Hussein reign of terror in Iraq. At home the ownership society programs aim to make home ownership, advanced education and secure retirement a reality for people in all economic strata. Every one of these domestic reform agendas is needed and long overdue. The Democratic answer to each and every one: No! Non!! Nyet!!!
It’s truly inspiring.

Bush believes that freedom breeds peace and ownership spurs ambition, leading to a new "Great Society" in America, this time fostered by the Republican Party.

State of the Union Highlights

“As Franklin Roosevelt once reminded Americans, ‘each age is a dream that is dying, or one that is coming to birth.’ And we live in the country where the biggest dreams are born. The abolition of slavery was only a dream - until it was fulfilled. The liberation of Europe from fascism was only a dream - until it was achieved. The fall of imperial communism was only a dream - until, one day, it was accomplished. Our generation has dreams of its own, and we also go forward with confidence. The road of Providence is uneven and unpredictable - yet we know where it leads: It leads to freedom.”

President Bush spoke with confidence and passion to the American people in the State of the Union Address. In an inspirational moment Bush spoke of an Iraqi patriot:

“One of Iraq's leading democracy and human rights advocates is Safia Taleb al-Suhail. She says of her country, ‘we were occupied for 35 years by Saddam Hussein. That was the real occupation. Thank you - to the American people, who paid the cost, but most of all to the soldiers.’ Eleven years ago, Safia's father was assassinated by Saddam's intelligence service. Three days ago in Baghdad, Safia was finally able to vote for the leaders of her country - and we are honored that she is with us tonight.”

Bush spoke with emotion about the brave men and women “who died for our freedom, and whose memory this nation will honor forever.”

“One name we honor is Marine Corps Sergeant Byron Norwood of Pflugerville, Texas, who was killed during the assault on Fallujah. His mom, Janet, sent me a letter and told me how much Byron loved being a Marine, and how proud he was to be on the front line against terror. She wrote, “When Byron was home the last time, I said that I wanted to protect him like I had since he was born. He just hugged me and said: 'You've done your job, mom. Now it's my turn to protect you.'" Ladies and gentlemen, with grateful hearts, we honor freedom's defenders, and our military families, represented here this evening by Sergeant Norwood's mom and dad, Janet and Bill Norwood.”

While the combined House and Senate audience cheered, Janet Norwood embraced Safia Taleb al-Suhail. Sgt. Norwood's dog tags became entangled in the Iraqi woman's sleeve and for a moment bound these two women who had lost a father and a son in the fight for liberty.

The President expressed commitment and confidence in the US policy to end tyranny in the world.

“Our generational commitment to the advance of freedom, especially in the Middle East, is now being tested and honored in Iraq. That country is a vital front in the war on terror, which is why the terrorists have chosen to make a stand there. Our men and women in uniform are fighting terrorists in Iraq, so we do not have to face them here at home. … We will succeed because the Iraqi people value their own liberty - as they showed the world last Sunday.”

“That advance has great momentum in our time - shown by women voting in Afghanistan, and Palestinians choosing a new direction, and the people of Ukraine asserting their democratic rights and electing a president. We are witnessing landmark events in the history of liberty. And in the coming years, we will add to that story.”

Turning to domestic matters, Bush addressed the most important issues:

Disease
“Because HIV/AIDS brings suffering and fear into so many lives, I ask you to reauthorize the Ryan White Act to encourage prevention, and provide care and treatment to the victims of that disease. And as we update this important law, we must focus our efforts on fellow citizens with the highest rates of new cases, African-American men and women.”

At risk youth
“Our government will continue to support faith-based and community groups that bring hope to harsh places. Now we need to focus on giving young people, especially young men in our cities, better options than apathy, or gangs, or jail. Tonight I propose a three-year initiative to help organizations keep young people out of gangs, and show young men an ideal of manhood that respects women and rejects violence.”

Life Ethics
“To build a culture of life, we must also ensure that scientific advances always serve human dignity, not take advantage of some lives for the benefit of others. We should all be able to agree on some clear standards. I will work with Congress to ensure that human embryos are not created for experimentation or grown for body parts, and that human life is never bought and sold as a commodity.”

Budget Deficit
“America's prosperity requires restraining the spending appetite of the federal government. I welcome the bipartisan enthusiasm for spending discipline. So next week I will send you a budget that holds the growth of discretionary spending below inflation, makes tax relief permanent, and stays on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009. My budget substantially reduces or eliminates more than 150 government programs that are not getting results, or duplicate current efforts, or do not fulfill essential priorities. The principle here is clear: a taxpayer dollar must be spent wisely, or not at all.”

Economic Growth
“To make our economy stronger and more competitive, America must reward, not punish, the efforts and dreams of entrepreneurs. Small business is the path of advancement, especially for women and minorities, so we must free small businesses from needless regulation and protect honest job-creators from junk lawsuits.”

Health Care
“I ask Congress to move forward on a comprehensive health care agenda - with tax credits to help low-income workers buy insurance, a community health center in every poor county, improved information technology to prevent medical errors and needless costs, association health plans for small businesses and their employees, expanded health savings accounts, and medical liability reform that will reduce health care costs, and make sure patients have the doctors and care they need.”

Tax Simplification
“To build the prosperity of future generations, we must update institutions that were created to meet the needs of an earlier time. Year after year, Americans are burdened by an archaic, incoherent federal tax code. I have appointed a bipartisan panel to examine the tax code from top to bottom. And when their recommendations are delivered, you and I will work together to give this Nation a tax code that is pro-growth, easy to understand, and fair to all.”

Social Security Reform
“One of America's most important institutions - a symbol of the trust between generations - is also in need of wise and effective reform. Social Security was a great moral success of the 20th Century, and we must honor its great purposes in this new century. The system, however, on its current path, is headed toward bankruptcy. So we must join together to strengthen and save Social Security. As we fix Social Security, we also have the responsibility to make the system a better deal for younger workers. And the best way to reach that goal is through voluntary personal retirement accounts.”

Americans have much to be thankful for and, with George Bush’s leadership and God’s blessings, much more to look forward to in the years ahead.

The "Election" Baby

Yesterday’s post was devoted to the glorious demonstration of democracy in Iraq. The outpouring of love from the Iraqi people even included a baby born at a polling place and called the Arabic word for “Election” by the new mother. I could not bear to spoil the mood by reporting on the naysayers who see only bad news in a people liberated from tyranny. Saved it for today.

In the lead-up to the election, Britain’s Tony Blair responded to the cynics by noting that progressives (liberals) used to be in favor of liberty. Now, however, it is the left in America, Europe and around the world who abandoned the men, women and children of Iraq. “That most Democratic Party leaders, union leaders, gay leaders, feminists, professors, editorial writers and news reporters have called for an American withdrawal and labeled this most moral of wars ‘immoral’ is a permanent stain on their reputations.” (Dennis Prager)

So what were the Democratic Party leaders saying about Iraq?

Bill Clinton, on stage with Charlie Rose, in Davos, Switzerland offered a mea culpa from America:

"Most of the terrible things that Saddam Hussein did in the 1980s he did with the full, knowing support of the United States government. Because he wasn't Iran, and Iran was what it was because we got rid of their parliamentary democracy back in the '50s. At least that's my belief. I know it is not popular for an American ever to say anything like this, but I think it is true."

And from the senior bloviator from Mass., Ted Kennedy:

"The best way to demonstrate to the Iraqi people that we have no long-term designs on their country is for the administration to withdraw some troops now" and negotiate further withdrawals.

And this from the junior bloviator, John Kerry on Meet the Press:

"It is hard to say that something is legitimate when whole portions of the country can't vote and doesn't vote. This election is a sort of demarcation point, and what really counts now is the effort to have a legitimate political reconciliation. And it's going to take a massive diplomatic effort and a much more significant outreach to the international community than this administration has been willing to engage in. What the administration does in these next few days will decide the outcome of Iraq. And this is ... the last chance for the president to get it right."

Perhaps the best perspective on Kerry was provided by Jay Leno:
“Yesterday was election day in Iraq, and out of force of habit, John Kerry gave a concession speech.”

And, how have the esteemed journalists reported the election?

Bob Herbert of the New York Times: “Iraqis may have voted yesterday. But they live in occupied territory, and the occupiers have other things on their minds than the basic wishes of the Iraqi people. That's not democracy.” Bob seems to have it backwards. Rather than “but” it is because they live in occupied territory that the Iraqi people were afforded the right to vote. We, the American people made that possible.

And then there was Eason Jordan, Chief News Executive of CNN, at the World Economic Forum titled "Will Democracy Survive the Media?" During one of the discussions about the number of journalists killed in the Iraq War, Jordan asserted that he knew of 12 journalists who had not only been killed by US troops in Iraq, but they had in fact been targeted. He repeated the assertion a few times, which seemed to win favor in parts of the audience.

There is so much to choose from, but I’ll close with Thomas Oliphant of the Boston Globe: “The biggest threat to the new legitimately elected political leadership in Iraq is the very force that did so much to make it possible -- the American military.”

So the journalists think we are occupiers, the biggest threat and killers of journalists. If only these guys were on the hit list.

But there is hope. Liberals who are honest and care more about human rights than political power should follow the advice of liberal columnist Mark Brown in the Chicago Sun Times. “After watching Sunday's election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong? It's hard to swallow, isn't it? I think we have to face the possibility.”

“I won't say that it had never occurred to me previously, but it's never gone through my mind as strongly as when I watched the television coverage from Iraq that showed long lines of people risking their lives by turning out to vote, honest looks of joy on so many of their faces.”

“If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to require some serious penance.”

Amen!