Reportedly relying on the advice of some pointy-headed academic from Duke University, the Bush Administration has decided that continuously throwing the word “Victory” at the American people will halt their eroding support for the endeavor in Iraq. The contention, based on the pointy-head’s research, is that Americans have a much higher tolerance for casualties in a war if they think victory is an achievable goal. Duh.
The first point to note is that for a long time Republicans made political hay out of their characterization of Democrats as the party of pointy-headed academics. Just goes to show that pointy-heads range the ideological spectrum.
But is continually screeching “victory” at the American people going to be enough? After all, the Bushies are being very careful not to define with any precision what “victory” in Iraq will consist of. It certainly won’t be anything as well defined as the signing of surrender papers on the deck of the battleship Missouri in Tokyo Bay.
Well, this is the genius of the strategy, and here the Bush Administration may be borrowing an idea from a deceased U.S. Senator who was Republican but today would most likely be uncomfortable with the party’s ideological absolutism. As the American people were becoming increasingly disenchanted with the Vietnam War, Senator George Aiken of Vermont suggested that we simply declare victory and leave.
The cranky old guy predicts that something along the lines of Senator Aiken’s approach is in the works. The push following the elections will be to form a government. The U.S. effort will be to get the participants to agree on anything that resembles an in-charge body. The establishment of that body will be, if not the full “victory” itself, at least an important component of it. We might even have another carrier landing, with a “VICTORY” banner instead of a “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED” banner. And troops will be coming home, probably not all of them but a significant number, maybe even to a parade down 5th or on Constitution Avenue.
But Iraq will not resemble a tolerant peaceful democracy anytime soon. If “victory” is just a step in a long-term journey, then “victory” is achievable. By implicitly raising the specter of historical victories, however, the Bushies are setting the nation up for another letdown, and themselves for the charge of once again over-stating and over-promising.
Incidentally, the President is receiving kudos for finally admitting to a few mistakes. The cranky old guy thinks these admissions are commendable. But they are very little and very late. The cranky old guy wants to hear an explicit admission about the pre-eminent mistake: entering Iraq with far too few troops to secure the country. The cranky old guy doesn’t want to hear any more statements to the effect that “I gave the generals what they asked for.” Former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki certainly didn’t get the troops he asked for. The generals were political enough to hear the underlying, unstated message: “don’t ask for much.”
DSH
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Friday, November 25, 2005
IRAQ AND VIETNAM, PART II
America’s involvement in Iraq today and in Vietnam four or so decades ago have similarities, principal ones being the misjudgments and even incompetence of the advisors and decision-makers in the White House and in the upper levels of the Defense Department. But do those similarities mandate that the outcome in Iraq will be similar to the outcome in Vietnam?
No. Significant differences exist between the two situations, differences that will likely override the common characteristic of high-level ineptness. Although in both situations America and its local ally faced an insurgency, in Vietnam they also faced a regular, main-force army, the North Vietnamese Army. That army was the ultimate victor, and then only because, after fifteen or so years of conflict, America got tired, picked up its marbles, and went home. Indeed, in Vietnam, the insurgency was, by the early 1970s, a relatively minor annoyance, just a shadow of what it had been.
In Iraq, America faces no main-force army. Its foes are an insurgency and, on a wider scope, an anti-modern, nihilistic, Islamic radicalism. America’s task is complicated by its own less-than-impressive leadership, but the quality of its soldiers and diplomats on the ground may prove sufficient to offset the ineptness from above. If America were to pick up its marbles and go home, as it did in Vietnam, no modern military force is standing in the wings to fill the vacuum.
What is standing in the wings is most likely chaos. But a degree of chaos has been and is likely to remain a part of the Middle Eastern scene no matter what America does. Thus the challenge facing America is to find strategies that mitigate the chaos, that further the struggle against the real foe—which is anti-modern, nihilistic, Islamic radicalism—and that produce in Iraq itself a modicum of stability garnished with sprigs of democracy and tolerance. An ingredient of such strategies is certainly a lower profile in Iraq and a willingness to let Iraqis work out there own future, which may involve a dissolution into two or more semi-hostile semi-nations.
DSH
No. Significant differences exist between the two situations, differences that will likely override the common characteristic of high-level ineptness. Although in both situations America and its local ally faced an insurgency, in Vietnam they also faced a regular, main-force army, the North Vietnamese Army. That army was the ultimate victor, and then only because, after fifteen or so years of conflict, America got tired, picked up its marbles, and went home. Indeed, in Vietnam, the insurgency was, by the early 1970s, a relatively minor annoyance, just a shadow of what it had been.
In Iraq, America faces no main-force army. Its foes are an insurgency and, on a wider scope, an anti-modern, nihilistic, Islamic radicalism. America’s task is complicated by its own less-than-impressive leadership, but the quality of its soldiers and diplomats on the ground may prove sufficient to offset the ineptness from above. If America were to pick up its marbles and go home, as it did in Vietnam, no modern military force is standing in the wings to fill the vacuum.
What is standing in the wings is most likely chaos. But a degree of chaos has been and is likely to remain a part of the Middle Eastern scene no matter what America does. Thus the challenge facing America is to find strategies that mitigate the chaos, that further the struggle against the real foe—which is anti-modern, nihilistic, Islamic radicalism—and that produce in Iraq itself a modicum of stability garnished with sprigs of democracy and tolerance. An ingredient of such strategies is certainly a lower profile in Iraq and a willingness to let Iraqis work out there own future, which may involve a dissolution into two or more semi-hostile semi-nations.
DSH
Thursday, November 17, 2005
IRAQ AND VIETNAM
Comparisons between America’s involvement in Iraq today and America’s involvement in Vietnam four decades or so ago (has it really been that long?) are popular. Some of the comparisons are compelling, others strained. Here are three that are compelling, at least to this cranky old guy.
First, in both instances the United States attempted to control a far corner of the planet with a relatively small number of troops. Superior technology was supposed to offset the lack of manpower. It ultimately didn’t in Vietnam, and the experience thus far in Iraq has not met the initial optimistic expectations of those at the top of the command structure.
Which leads to the second similarity between the two conflicts: the top of the command structure, specifically the policy makers and implementers in the White Houses and upper reaches of the Defense Departments of Lyndon Johnson and George W. Bush. In both instances, those recommending and making policy seemed guided as much by hope for a successful outcome as by realistic, in-depth, hard-eyed, historically knowledgeable calculations of the likely costs and potential benefits. In both instances, the Department of Defense was led by a successful titan of the corporate world, an arrogant, number-crunching, efficiency expert who proved to have little understanding of the messy, nasty, brutal, dehumanizing nature of war.
And for the third similarity, in neither instance was there a universal belief that the nation was fighting for its immediate survival, as in World War II. Thus the national leadership was, and is, in a weak position to defend setbacks, apparent lack of progress, and misjudgments and mistakes that cost the lives of American soldiers. In the dark early days of World War II, Winston Churchill rallied the British people with words such as:
We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender. . . .
And on another occasion:
[T]he Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilisation. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. . . . Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duty, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say: “This was their finest hour.”
The limited nature of their wars and the disagreements about the necessity of those wars to the survival of the nation precluded Presidents Johnson or Bush from such stirring appeals, even assuming such appeals were within their capabilities, or more accurately the capabilities of their speechwriters. Instead, rather than talking bluntly to the American people about the conflicts, rather than admitting setbacks and mistakes, all too often the motivational messages from the Johnson and Bush White Houses were, and are, when not outright distortions, little more than pabulum, centered on such phrases as “the light at the end of the tunnel,” we are “making progress,” we must “stay the course,” and the insurgency is in its “last throes.” Moreover, the messages were then and are now based on dubious domino theories: if we don’t stop the commies in Vietnam, all Southeast Asia will fall under the hammer and sickle; if we don’t stop the terrorists in Iraq, all Islam will fall under their sway.
Here endth the lesson.
DSH
First, in both instances the United States attempted to control a far corner of the planet with a relatively small number of troops. Superior technology was supposed to offset the lack of manpower. It ultimately didn’t in Vietnam, and the experience thus far in Iraq has not met the initial optimistic expectations of those at the top of the command structure.
Which leads to the second similarity between the two conflicts: the top of the command structure, specifically the policy makers and implementers in the White Houses and upper reaches of the Defense Departments of Lyndon Johnson and George W. Bush. In both instances, those recommending and making policy seemed guided as much by hope for a successful outcome as by realistic, in-depth, hard-eyed, historically knowledgeable calculations of the likely costs and potential benefits. In both instances, the Department of Defense was led by a successful titan of the corporate world, an arrogant, number-crunching, efficiency expert who proved to have little understanding of the messy, nasty, brutal, dehumanizing nature of war.
And for the third similarity, in neither instance was there a universal belief that the nation was fighting for its immediate survival, as in World War II. Thus the national leadership was, and is, in a weak position to defend setbacks, apparent lack of progress, and misjudgments and mistakes that cost the lives of American soldiers. In the dark early days of World War II, Winston Churchill rallied the British people with words such as:
We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender. . . .
And on another occasion:
[T]he Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilisation. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. . . . Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duty, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say: “This was their finest hour.”
The limited nature of their wars and the disagreements about the necessity of those wars to the survival of the nation precluded Presidents Johnson or Bush from such stirring appeals, even assuming such appeals were within their capabilities, or more accurately the capabilities of their speechwriters. Instead, rather than talking bluntly to the American people about the conflicts, rather than admitting setbacks and mistakes, all too often the motivational messages from the Johnson and Bush White Houses were, and are, when not outright distortions, little more than pabulum, centered on such phrases as “the light at the end of the tunnel,” we are “making progress,” we must “stay the course,” and the insurgency is in its “last throes.” Moreover, the messages were then and are now based on dubious domino theories: if we don’t stop the commies in Vietnam, all Southeast Asia will fall under the hammer and sickle; if we don’t stop the terrorists in Iraq, all Islam will fall under their sway.
Here endth the lesson.
DSH
Monday, November 07, 2005
VOTING
Over the past few days, the Cranky Old Guy has told the following individuals to, in the immortal words of David Letterman, “Bite Me”: President George W. Bush, Senator George Allen; Congressman Tom Davis; some carpet-bagging Yankee name of Rudy Giuliani, and Sheriff Jim Dunning.
The encounters were not as satisfying as might be expected, however. The individuals had no reaction to the request. Indeed, each kept right on talking in what turned out to be a completely one-sided telephone conversation. Could it be that the Cranky Old Guy was not receiving a call from a real live person?
Really, is this sort of political advertising effective? In the Cranky Old Guy’s world, voting in response to a taped telephone conversation would be grounds for having one’s vote discounted. Voting in two different elections in response to taped calls would put you in the ranks of felons: you loose the right to vote. You are below the lowest common denominator.
Other actions that should result in a loss of the right to vote:
You actually belief a politician’s campaign promises.
You shake a candidate’s hand and get giddy.
You base your vote on lapel pins.
Negative political advertising makes you feel good.
You don’t think there is such a thing as negative political advertising.
dsh
The encounters were not as satisfying as might be expected, however. The individuals had no reaction to the request. Indeed, each kept right on talking in what turned out to be a completely one-sided telephone conversation. Could it be that the Cranky Old Guy was not receiving a call from a real live person?
Really, is this sort of political advertising effective? In the Cranky Old Guy’s world, voting in response to a taped telephone conversation would be grounds for having one’s vote discounted. Voting in two different elections in response to taped calls would put you in the ranks of felons: you loose the right to vote. You are below the lowest common denominator.
Other actions that should result in a loss of the right to vote:
You actually belief a politician’s campaign promises.
You shake a candidate’s hand and get giddy.
You base your vote on lapel pins.
Negative political advertising makes you feel good.
You don’t think there is such a thing as negative political advertising.
dsh
Monday, October 24, 2005
Republicans And Democrats
Republicans come in two kinds: Money Republicans and Chump Republicans. Money Republicans, also known as 19th Hole Republicans for their propensity to arrive at simplistic solutions to the world’s complex problems over alcohol after 18 holes, are in turn of two varieties: Wall Street and Main Street. The Wall Streeters are the big boys, the ones with the real bucks. The Main Streeters are your local movers and shakers, the country club crowd. A common characteristic of both varieties is an inability to comprehend that everybody doesn’t have money.
Chump Republicans are ordinary folk who have somehow come to believe that they share common values with the Money Republicans. In some cases those values are known as family values. Many sincere Christians, overlooking the general moral and ethical sordidness of a good portion of Money Republicans, come to the Republican Party through this route. In other cases, the perceived shared value is simply a dislike of authority, and hence government, in general. But what this group of Chump Republicans misses is that the Money Republicans are not necessarily anti-government, just anti-any government they do not control. For still another group of Chump Republicans, the value shared with the Money Republicans is an abhorrence of the chaotic nature of the alternative, the Democratic Party.
And like the Republican Party, the Democratic Party also comes in two varieties: Money Democrats and Chump Democrats. Money Democrats, also called Victim Democrats and Whinny Democrats, and more accurately called Lack-of-Money Democrats, don’t have all the money they figure they’re entitled. The reason for the lack of money may be race, geography, occupation, or simply inadequate initiative. Whatever the reason, Money Democrats believe they got shafted in some way, shape, or form and want government to do something about it.
Chump Democrats have over-sized hearts and want to help the Lack-of-Money Democrats. The desire to help is unclouded by the question of whether or not a particular group of Lack-of-Money Democrats have a legitimate beef.
DSH
Chump Republicans are ordinary folk who have somehow come to believe that they share common values with the Money Republicans. In some cases those values are known as family values. Many sincere Christians, overlooking the general moral and ethical sordidness of a good portion of Money Republicans, come to the Republican Party through this route. In other cases, the perceived shared value is simply a dislike of authority, and hence government, in general. But what this group of Chump Republicans misses is that the Money Republicans are not necessarily anti-government, just anti-any government they do not control. For still another group of Chump Republicans, the value shared with the Money Republicans is an abhorrence of the chaotic nature of the alternative, the Democratic Party.
And like the Republican Party, the Democratic Party also comes in two varieties: Money Democrats and Chump Democrats. Money Democrats, also called Victim Democrats and Whinny Democrats, and more accurately called Lack-of-Money Democrats, don’t have all the money they figure they’re entitled. The reason for the lack of money may be race, geography, occupation, or simply inadequate initiative. Whatever the reason, Money Democrats believe they got shafted in some way, shape, or form and want government to do something about it.
Chump Democrats have over-sized hearts and want to help the Lack-of-Money Democrats. The desire to help is unclouded by the question of whether or not a particular group of Lack-of-Money Democrats have a legitimate beef.
DSH
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Wahoo Spin Artists
This commentary is dedicated to all true blue (and orange) Wahoo Cavalier U of VA football fans - both of you. Yes, it was another sad weekend when the highly touted home team got their collective butt kicked by an unranked and pretty much worthless conference rival that is coached by a happy fat guy who has no business running any team higher than division one A high school league (Yes, I mean the Terps).
But the phenomenon that is really of interest is the clever manner in which the good folks in C’ville are able, year after year after year, to spin an enormous amount of pre-season hype that convinces the national pollsters that the Wahoos are really top ten (or at least top twenty) material. Top fifty, certainly. But the ‘Hoos have never completed a full season that would justify the hype that constantly projects them into the ranks of the really big collegiate football powerhouses.
Yet there is real irony here because Mr. J’s beloved “academical village” (as they call it in Hook-ville) does not have a school or college of communications or media relations. You would think that with the ability that the athletic department has of deluding all the football polling organizations into believing that this is a top ten program that students wanting to study public relations would be lining up to study with such real pros.
And speaking of the media, I hope that all of you will join the Cranky Old Guys in protesting the coverage (or rather, lack of coverage) that the blue-and-orange gets form The Washington Post. Plenty of ink to spill on the Terps and Hokies, but the only front page (A-1) banner headlines ever give to the ‘Hoos is when they lose - never when they win. And why does the Post assign a full-time staff member to cover the Terps and Hokies but uses a stringer for the Cavs? This biased policy has been in effect for many years and is an affront to everyone who has sung a druken chorus or two of "The Good Old Song."
But enough of this whining. Let’s focus on the things that really matter in the academic world - such as the new Wahoo marching band in full uniform with plumes in their hats and all sorts of neat stuff. Yeah, that’s what it’s all about!
JBY
But the phenomenon that is really of interest is the clever manner in which the good folks in C’ville are able, year after year after year, to spin an enormous amount of pre-season hype that convinces the national pollsters that the Wahoos are really top ten (or at least top twenty) material. Top fifty, certainly. But the ‘Hoos have never completed a full season that would justify the hype that constantly projects them into the ranks of the really big collegiate football powerhouses.
Yet there is real irony here because Mr. J’s beloved “academical village” (as they call it in Hook-ville) does not have a school or college of communications or media relations. You would think that with the ability that the athletic department has of deluding all the football polling organizations into believing that this is a top ten program that students wanting to study public relations would be lining up to study with such real pros.
And speaking of the media, I hope that all of you will join the Cranky Old Guys in protesting the coverage (or rather, lack of coverage) that the blue-and-orange gets form The Washington Post. Plenty of ink to spill on the Terps and Hokies, but the only front page (A-1) banner headlines ever give to the ‘Hoos is when they lose - never when they win. And why does the Post assign a full-time staff member to cover the Terps and Hokies but uses a stringer for the Cavs? This biased policy has been in effect for many years and is an affront to everyone who has sung a druken chorus or two of "The Good Old Song."
But enough of this whining. Let’s focus on the things that really matter in the academic world - such as the new Wahoo marching band in full uniform with plumes in their hats and all sorts of neat stuff. Yeah, that’s what it’s all about!
JBY
Sunday, October 02, 2005
ARMY TEN MILER
Today, the terrorists won, at least if winning is described as getting us to significantly change our routine. In response to a suspicious package sighting shortly after the start of the Army Ten Miler in Arlington, Va., and Washington, D.C., the 20,000 runners were diverted from the planned course at the 7-mile mark. They ended up running approximately 11 miles in what is being described as a “fun run.”
The sighting of the suspicious package was by a unit of a local police organization, described in some accounts as the harbor police. The sighting occurred just shortly after the start of the race. The location of the package was reported to be under the Fourteenth Street bridge. The bridge was on the last leg of the course.
If a mere report of a suspicious package is enough to shut down a race, perhaps the time has come to end mass public races. The Army Ten Miler, the Marine Corps Marathon, the New York Marathon, and many others attract thousands of participants and consequently are in theory desirable terrorist targets. And if mass public races continue, inevitably the day will come when one is the subject of a terrorist attack.
But just about any public gathering is the possible subject of a terrorist attack, so not venturing from one’s home would seem to be the only real solution.
Perhaps in the days ahead we will be given more details on the “suspicious package.” The cranky old guy’s thought is that it had better be a darn big suspicious package. It was apparently under the bridge. Therefore, to injure runners, it would have to bring down the bridge. A suspicious package this size is no longer a package.
For a mere “package,” this is how the cranky old guy would have handled the situation if he were the race director. As runners approached the bridge, someone with a bull horn would yell: “There may be a bomb under the bridge, so proceed at your own risk. If you do proceed, be best advised to move quickly.” Okay, so maybe that’s why no one has asked the cranky old guy to be a race director.
Seriously though, the cranky old guy thinks that someone may have overreacted in this instance. In these times, mass races entail a risk of mass casualties. If mass races are to continue, both the participants and the sponsors and conductors have to accept these risks. And in securing the course to the best of their ability, the sponsors and conductors need to do a more thorough job than what seems to have been a last minute inspection.
A long, long time ago in a place far, far away, the cranky old guy was a military law enforcement officer in an environment where suspicious packages were a dime a dozen. Infrequently, a suspicious package report turned out to be legitimate. So the cranky old guy is not unmindful of the dangers of suspicious packages and the need for care and vigilance. But dagnabit, he was having a good race.
DSH
The sighting of the suspicious package was by a unit of a local police organization, described in some accounts as the harbor police. The sighting occurred just shortly after the start of the race. The location of the package was reported to be under the Fourteenth Street bridge. The bridge was on the last leg of the course.
If a mere report of a suspicious package is enough to shut down a race, perhaps the time has come to end mass public races. The Army Ten Miler, the Marine Corps Marathon, the New York Marathon, and many others attract thousands of participants and consequently are in theory desirable terrorist targets. And if mass public races continue, inevitably the day will come when one is the subject of a terrorist attack.
But just about any public gathering is the possible subject of a terrorist attack, so not venturing from one’s home would seem to be the only real solution.
Perhaps in the days ahead we will be given more details on the “suspicious package.” The cranky old guy’s thought is that it had better be a darn big suspicious package. It was apparently under the bridge. Therefore, to injure runners, it would have to bring down the bridge. A suspicious package this size is no longer a package.
For a mere “package,” this is how the cranky old guy would have handled the situation if he were the race director. As runners approached the bridge, someone with a bull horn would yell: “There may be a bomb under the bridge, so proceed at your own risk. If you do proceed, be best advised to move quickly.” Okay, so maybe that’s why no one has asked the cranky old guy to be a race director.
Seriously though, the cranky old guy thinks that someone may have overreacted in this instance. In these times, mass races entail a risk of mass casualties. If mass races are to continue, both the participants and the sponsors and conductors have to accept these risks. And in securing the course to the best of their ability, the sponsors and conductors need to do a more thorough job than what seems to have been a last minute inspection.
A long, long time ago in a place far, far away, the cranky old guy was a military law enforcement officer in an environment where suspicious packages were a dime a dozen. Infrequently, a suspicious package report turned out to be legitimate. So the cranky old guy is not unmindful of the dangers of suspicious packages and the need for care and vigilance. But dagnabit, he was having a good race.
DSH
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
COMPUTER STUFF
One of the cranky old guys was an English major. The other cranky old guy recently went back to school and got a B.S. in Electrical Engineering. So who is the computer expert?
That’s right, the English major.
The EE cranky old guy has been part of the computer world since the days of word processors, but he has never really mastered the things. Oh, he can do basic tasks, and even some more complex stuff, but with any new program or procedure, he needs lots of time, and an old-fashion, hardcopy manual.
And until just recently, the EE cranky old guy had never bought a computer. The little woman did that. But for a variety of complex reasons, the EE crank decided he needed a home office. So he not only undertook his first computer purchase. He also went DSL (that stands for something having to do with something else called broadband) and wireless (meaning the new computer would be connected to the internet not by wire but through radio waves, or telepathy, or brain waves, or whatever).
The effort to get all this up and occasionally running required five frustrating, exasperating days. Let’s try to just hit the highlights.
In theory you just plug stuff in, turn stuff on, insert disks in stuff, and nature, or Bill Gates, takes over. In a perfect world, after some blinking and burping on the part of your stuff, you have a working computer effortlessly exchanging pleasantries with the World Wide Web (is that where www comes from?).
But in theory, FEMA is on top of natural disasters. We’ve recently seen how well that’s worked out. The real world in terms of installing, trouble-shooting, and operating computer stuff involves talking on the phone to someone in India, which the last time the EE cranky old guy checked was on the other side of the globe.
Surprisingly, at least to the EE cranky old guy, the someone in India was usually quite helpful. But the someone always seemed to be reading from the steps in a manual, which causes the EE cranky old guy to wonder how come he doesn’t have that manual. Manuals, he can follow.
One difficulty with the someones in India was that they were limited in their jurisdictions. The DSL someone would only go so far before telling the EE cranky old guy that he needed to talk to the computer someone, who would stop just short of solving the problem to pass the EE cranky old guy to the wireless someone.
But the EE cranky old guy finally turned to the ultimate source of computer knowledge, the English major cranky old guy. Although the latter’s knowledge is far from complete, he was able to mesh the advice from the someones in India to produce, apparently, a working DSL wireless-connected computer for the EE cranky old guy.
The real test will be whether this blog is posted.
Eureka!!
That’s right, the English major.
The EE cranky old guy has been part of the computer world since the days of word processors, but he has never really mastered the things. Oh, he can do basic tasks, and even some more complex stuff, but with any new program or procedure, he needs lots of time, and an old-fashion, hardcopy manual.
And until just recently, the EE cranky old guy had never bought a computer. The little woman did that. But for a variety of complex reasons, the EE crank decided he needed a home office. So he not only undertook his first computer purchase. He also went DSL (that stands for something having to do with something else called broadband) and wireless (meaning the new computer would be connected to the internet not by wire but through radio waves, or telepathy, or brain waves, or whatever).
The effort to get all this up and occasionally running required five frustrating, exasperating days. Let’s try to just hit the highlights.
In theory you just plug stuff in, turn stuff on, insert disks in stuff, and nature, or Bill Gates, takes over. In a perfect world, after some blinking and burping on the part of your stuff, you have a working computer effortlessly exchanging pleasantries with the World Wide Web (is that where www comes from?).
But in theory, FEMA is on top of natural disasters. We’ve recently seen how well that’s worked out. The real world in terms of installing, trouble-shooting, and operating computer stuff involves talking on the phone to someone in India, which the last time the EE cranky old guy checked was on the other side of the globe.
Surprisingly, at least to the EE cranky old guy, the someone in India was usually quite helpful. But the someone always seemed to be reading from the steps in a manual, which causes the EE cranky old guy to wonder how come he doesn’t have that manual. Manuals, he can follow.
One difficulty with the someones in India was that they were limited in their jurisdictions. The DSL someone would only go so far before telling the EE cranky old guy that he needed to talk to the computer someone, who would stop just short of solving the problem to pass the EE cranky old guy to the wireless someone.
But the EE cranky old guy finally turned to the ultimate source of computer knowledge, the English major cranky old guy. Although the latter’s knowledge is far from complete, he was able to mesh the advice from the someones in India to produce, apparently, a working DSL wireless-connected computer for the EE cranky old guy.
The real test will be whether this blog is posted.
Eureka!!
Sunday, September 11, 2005
THE QUEST
Every so often, the cranky old guy feels the need to undertake a quest. The latest quest is to travel by kayak from Northern Virginia to North Carolina’s Outer Banks, a distance of 300 some miles. Several motivations are behind this quest.
First, the cranky old guy is tired of fighting the traffic to get to the Outer Banks. I-95 south, I-64 east, Rt. 158 south, over the Currituck Sound bridge: the possibilities for backups and delays are infinite, particularly with all the other idiots on the highways. There’s got to be a better way.
Second, the cranky old guy wants to test the emergency evacuation plan put forth several years ago by occasional Washington Post columnist (and Ben Bradlee’s wife) Sally Quinn. The evacuation difficulties the folks of New Orleans experienced with Hurricane Katrina have focused attention on similar problems that other metropolitan areas might encounter. Regarding the Washington area, Ms. Quinn has recommended kayaks as a means for the populace to get quickly to safety. A terrorist attack? Hop in your kayak and head for. . . , well, that’s what the cranky old guy wanted to investigate. Ms. Quinn’s proposal was a little unclear on that point.
Third, why not?
The water route from Northern Virginia to the Outer Banks is down the Potomac River to the Chesapeake Bay, down the Bay to Hampton Roads, across Hampton Roads, up the Elizabeth River, and finally through canals of the Intercoastal Waterway to Currituck, Albemarle, and Pamlico Sounds. Piece of cake.
This will not be an all-at-once trip. Initially, the plan is day hops: the cranky old guy’s spouse/chauffeur will transport the cranky old guy to a starting point by car, drop him and his kayak off, and retrieve him, hopefully, later in the day further along the route. Thus the trip will be underway for some time, possibly even years as enthusiasm waxes and wanes. On the other hand, the quest won’t ever be a failure, at least until the cranky old guy croaks, because the next hop will always be scheduled.
The first two hops have already been completed. Hop 1 was an 18-mile, 7-hour, trip from Belle Haven in Alexandria to Leesylvania State Park. Hop 2 was a 13-mile, 5 ½-hour, trip from Leesylvania to Aquia Landing in Stafford County.
From these first hops, the cranky old guy has learned several things. Sitting in a kayak for longer than about two hours is extremely uncomfortable. If ever captured by the enemy, the cranky old guy will blab like a baby if threatened with hours in the kayak position.
Second, moving slowly on a large open body of water can be the epitome of boredom. The scenery changes are barely perceptible. The immediate landmark one is paddling for just doesn’t seem to get any closer. And the feeling of progress in general is pretty much absent.
Third, the mansions along some stretches of the upper Potomac serve to remind the cranky old guy that he missed the brass ring as far as wealth is concerned.
And finally, Sally Quinn is nuts.
DSH
First, the cranky old guy is tired of fighting the traffic to get to the Outer Banks. I-95 south, I-64 east, Rt. 158 south, over the Currituck Sound bridge: the possibilities for backups and delays are infinite, particularly with all the other idiots on the highways. There’s got to be a better way.
Second, the cranky old guy wants to test the emergency evacuation plan put forth several years ago by occasional Washington Post columnist (and Ben Bradlee’s wife) Sally Quinn. The evacuation difficulties the folks of New Orleans experienced with Hurricane Katrina have focused attention on similar problems that other metropolitan areas might encounter. Regarding the Washington area, Ms. Quinn has recommended kayaks as a means for the populace to get quickly to safety. A terrorist attack? Hop in your kayak and head for. . . , well, that’s what the cranky old guy wanted to investigate. Ms. Quinn’s proposal was a little unclear on that point.
Third, why not?
The water route from Northern Virginia to the Outer Banks is down the Potomac River to the Chesapeake Bay, down the Bay to Hampton Roads, across Hampton Roads, up the Elizabeth River, and finally through canals of the Intercoastal Waterway to Currituck, Albemarle, and Pamlico Sounds. Piece of cake.
This will not be an all-at-once trip. Initially, the plan is day hops: the cranky old guy’s spouse/chauffeur will transport the cranky old guy to a starting point by car, drop him and his kayak off, and retrieve him, hopefully, later in the day further along the route. Thus the trip will be underway for some time, possibly even years as enthusiasm waxes and wanes. On the other hand, the quest won’t ever be a failure, at least until the cranky old guy croaks, because the next hop will always be scheduled.
The first two hops have already been completed. Hop 1 was an 18-mile, 7-hour, trip from Belle Haven in Alexandria to Leesylvania State Park. Hop 2 was a 13-mile, 5 ½-hour, trip from Leesylvania to Aquia Landing in Stafford County.
From these first hops, the cranky old guy has learned several things. Sitting in a kayak for longer than about two hours is extremely uncomfortable. If ever captured by the enemy, the cranky old guy will blab like a baby if threatened with hours in the kayak position.
Second, moving slowly on a large open body of water can be the epitome of boredom. The scenery changes are barely perceptible. The immediate landmark one is paddling for just doesn’t seem to get any closer. And the feeling of progress in general is pretty much absent.
Third, the mansions along some stretches of the upper Potomac serve to remind the cranky old guy that he missed the brass ring as far as wealth is concerned.
And finally, Sally Quinn is nuts.
DSH
Sunday, September 04, 2005
INITIAL REFLECTIONS ON KATRINA
The cranky old guy has some thoughts on the disaster that has descended upon the Gulf Coast, and the responses of us pathetic humans.
(1) This was a catastrophe of the first magnitude, certainly among the most devastating in American history. But the cranky old guy is not willing to jump on the bandwagon of the we-should-have-been-totally-prepared crowd. Yes, in an ideal world we—meaning governments and individuals—would be prepared for any eventuality. But the ideal world is not constrained by limited time and resources. Our real world is. We can’t be perfectly prepared for every disaster that descends upon us.
(2) That having been said, we could have been better prepared for Hurricane Katrina. Long-term, the preparation failures included the unwillingness on the part of successive Administrations and Congresses to provide funds for improvements to the levies surrounding New Orleans. Short-term, governments at the local, state, and federal levels all seemed to have been somewhat lax in pre-positioning personnel, supplies, and equipment for the recovery effort that was sure to follow the landfall of a category III-IV hurricane.
(3) But in the cranky old guy’s opinion, the most condemnable immediate failure resides with the federal government. By late Tuesday, anyone watching television coverage knew that human suffering of epic proportions was unfolding. Consequently, by late Tuesday a massive influx of federal resources, including substantial forces of the U.S. military, should have been on the move to the Gulf Coast. Yet it appears to have been several more days before the decision to commit these resources and forces was made. The failure to make that decision in a more timely manner should be counted near the top of the negative column in any list of the Bush Administration’s pluses and minuses.
(4) The Bush Administration’s response to Hurricane Katrina has something in common with the campaign in Iraq. In both instances, the Administration has been reluctant to commit substantial manpower. In Iraq, the failure to have adequate forces on the ground following the end of initial hostilities—when the mission was declared accomplished—turned a difficult task of establishing law and order and restoring the infrastructure into a debacle. On the Gulf Coast, the failure to have an immediate influx of manpower resulted in substantially greater, and unnecessary, human suffering than would have otherwise been the case.
(5) In the first hours and days after Katrina’s landfall, the media performed yeoman service in alerting the rest of the nation to the extent of the disaster. By the following Sunday’s talk shows, however, the media effort was actually threatening to take the edge off one of George W. Bush’s worst weeks. As the federal government and the nation focused on the enormous recovery effort ahead, the Sunday talking heads concentrated most of their efforts on playing Gotcha’ with Administration spokespersons. For example, in an interview with Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer could pursue no subject other than “whose fault was it.” Chertoff had ample opportunity to give what is becoming the Administration stock response: it is a catastrophe of unprecedented proportions and our focus now should not be on recriminations but on the huge task ahead. By beating the subject of fault to death, the talking heads are making George W. a sympathetic figure to much of middle America.
(6) Finally, and on a lighter note, at least to people with a more secular bent, the religious interpreters are in action. The disaster is being proclaimed as the Almighty’s response to gambling on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, to the sins of New Orleans, to evil in general. Well, the cranky old guy is not adverse to such an interpretive approach. Only, as the cranky old guy looks around, he sees other things about which the Almighty might be irritated. How about this possibility: the Almighty is irritated because we put such an incompetent group in charge of the nation?
DSH
(1) This was a catastrophe of the first magnitude, certainly among the most devastating in American history. But the cranky old guy is not willing to jump on the bandwagon of the we-should-have-been-totally-prepared crowd. Yes, in an ideal world we—meaning governments and individuals—would be prepared for any eventuality. But the ideal world is not constrained by limited time and resources. Our real world is. We can’t be perfectly prepared for every disaster that descends upon us.
(2) That having been said, we could have been better prepared for Hurricane Katrina. Long-term, the preparation failures included the unwillingness on the part of successive Administrations and Congresses to provide funds for improvements to the levies surrounding New Orleans. Short-term, governments at the local, state, and federal levels all seemed to have been somewhat lax in pre-positioning personnel, supplies, and equipment for the recovery effort that was sure to follow the landfall of a category III-IV hurricane.
(3) But in the cranky old guy’s opinion, the most condemnable immediate failure resides with the federal government. By late Tuesday, anyone watching television coverage knew that human suffering of epic proportions was unfolding. Consequently, by late Tuesday a massive influx of federal resources, including substantial forces of the U.S. military, should have been on the move to the Gulf Coast. Yet it appears to have been several more days before the decision to commit these resources and forces was made. The failure to make that decision in a more timely manner should be counted near the top of the negative column in any list of the Bush Administration’s pluses and minuses.
(4) The Bush Administration’s response to Hurricane Katrina has something in common with the campaign in Iraq. In both instances, the Administration has been reluctant to commit substantial manpower. In Iraq, the failure to have adequate forces on the ground following the end of initial hostilities—when the mission was declared accomplished—turned a difficult task of establishing law and order and restoring the infrastructure into a debacle. On the Gulf Coast, the failure to have an immediate influx of manpower resulted in substantially greater, and unnecessary, human suffering than would have otherwise been the case.
(5) In the first hours and days after Katrina’s landfall, the media performed yeoman service in alerting the rest of the nation to the extent of the disaster. By the following Sunday’s talk shows, however, the media effort was actually threatening to take the edge off one of George W. Bush’s worst weeks. As the federal government and the nation focused on the enormous recovery effort ahead, the Sunday talking heads concentrated most of their efforts on playing Gotcha’ with Administration spokespersons. For example, in an interview with Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer could pursue no subject other than “whose fault was it.” Chertoff had ample opportunity to give what is becoming the Administration stock response: it is a catastrophe of unprecedented proportions and our focus now should not be on recriminations but on the huge task ahead. By beating the subject of fault to death, the talking heads are making George W. a sympathetic figure to much of middle America.
(6) Finally, and on a lighter note, at least to people with a more secular bent, the religious interpreters are in action. The disaster is being proclaimed as the Almighty’s response to gambling on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, to the sins of New Orleans, to evil in general. Well, the cranky old guy is not adverse to such an interpretive approach. Only, as the cranky old guy looks around, he sees other things about which the Almighty might be irritated. How about this possibility: the Almighty is irritated because we put such an incompetent group in charge of the nation?
DSH
Saturday, August 27, 2005
The Rev Sounds Off
One of the cranky old guy’s favorite Virginians is back to sticking his foot in his mouth. Pat Robertson, the Rev, wants to assassinate the guy running Venezuela. Admittedly, the guy running Venezuela is a jerk. But isn’t assassinating foreign leaders not an activity the United States habitually practices?
The Rev periodically emerges from his Virginia Beach citadel with a preposterous statement of some sort. Some of them seem to suggest the solution of problems by the committing of mayhem, such as a call not too long ago to straighten out the Department of State by nuking Foggy Bottom. His prayer for vacancies on the Supreme Court is only a tad less provocative.
Apparently, the Rev’s brand of Christianity is not overly concerned with all that love your neighbor stuff. The cranky old guy is betting that the Rev finds the smiting parts of the bible and Christian history much more appealing than the turning the other cheek parts. You remember the smiting parts, don’t you? Where the Hittites, the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Canaanites, the Israelites, the Persians, and the Romans, among others, smote each other from Jerusalem to Jericho and back?
The funny thing is, when in his youth the Rev, before he was the Rev, had an opportunity to smite the forces of evil, in this case communism, he discover better things do to. Back during the Korean War, pre-Rev Robertson found himself a United States Marine and on the way to Korea. The pre-Rev’s father, A. Willis Robertson, was at the time a United States Senator. The story is a little murky, but instead of fighting the commie hordes directly, the pre-Rev apparently served his country by being the liquor officer of his unit. More details can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Robertson or www.schlatter.org/liquor_officer.htm.
Still, the Rev, in the Presidential campaign of 1988, described himself as a former “combat” Marine. Those flights to Tokyo over the Sea of Japan to get the liquor probably did entail some risk. After all, Lieutenant Colonel Henry Blake was killed over the Sea of Japan.
Southeastern Virginia, the Rev’s stomping grounds, has its share of oddballs. Maybe it’s something in the water, or the effect of that nuclear power plant in Surry County. The cranky old guy himself was raised in the area, and has both relatives and in-laws through out the vicinity. So he feels qualified to opine that in terms of loons per capita, southeastern Virginia is well above the national average.
Occasionally, the cranky old guy’s spouse will suggest the possibility of retiring to the area.
Yeah, right.
The Rev periodically emerges from his Virginia Beach citadel with a preposterous statement of some sort. Some of them seem to suggest the solution of problems by the committing of mayhem, such as a call not too long ago to straighten out the Department of State by nuking Foggy Bottom. His prayer for vacancies on the Supreme Court is only a tad less provocative.
Apparently, the Rev’s brand of Christianity is not overly concerned with all that love your neighbor stuff. The cranky old guy is betting that the Rev finds the smiting parts of the bible and Christian history much more appealing than the turning the other cheek parts. You remember the smiting parts, don’t you? Where the Hittites, the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Canaanites, the Israelites, the Persians, and the Romans, among others, smote each other from Jerusalem to Jericho and back?
The funny thing is, when in his youth the Rev, before he was the Rev, had an opportunity to smite the forces of evil, in this case communism, he discover better things do to. Back during the Korean War, pre-Rev Robertson found himself a United States Marine and on the way to Korea. The pre-Rev’s father, A. Willis Robertson, was at the time a United States Senator. The story is a little murky, but instead of fighting the commie hordes directly, the pre-Rev apparently served his country by being the liquor officer of his unit. More details can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Robertson or www.schlatter.org/liquor_officer.htm.
Still, the Rev, in the Presidential campaign of 1988, described himself as a former “combat” Marine. Those flights to Tokyo over the Sea of Japan to get the liquor probably did entail some risk. After all, Lieutenant Colonel Henry Blake was killed over the Sea of Japan.
Southeastern Virginia, the Rev’s stomping grounds, has its share of oddballs. Maybe it’s something in the water, or the effect of that nuclear power plant in Surry County. The cranky old guy himself was raised in the area, and has both relatives and in-laws through out the vicinity. So he feels qualified to opine that in terms of loons per capita, southeastern Virginia is well above the national average.
Occasionally, the cranky old guy’s spouse will suggest the possibility of retiring to the area.
Yeah, right.
Sunday, August 14, 2005
A NEIGHBORHOOD COMES TOGETHER
A good neighborhood comes together in a time of crisis. The cranky old guy’s neighborhood? Well, maybe we could use a little work.
Our current crisis involves a tree branch on the cranky old guy's property. In a recent storm, it fell across a power line. There it still rests, straining the line but not as yet causing any difficulties. The power company, the successor to the infamous VEPCO of the cranky old guy’s youth, has been called. A human spokesperson, reached after many tedious minutes of dealing with a computer, said that the situation was on the company’s To Do list, but that it would likely be awhile.
Most in the neighborhood accept the situation, realizing that the matter is the power company’s responsibility and that the cranky old guy is not about to climb a tree to cut a branch away from a live electrical line. Also, most realize that no self-respecting tree company will tackle the problem without the power company’s say-so and supervision. Maybe Daryl and Daryl of the Culpepper Tree, Gutter, And Whatever Else You Want Done Company, but not a bona fide bonded outfit.
A few in the neighborhood, however, look upon such situations as an opportunity to expound upon their neighbors’ flaws and to demonstrate their own superior concern for the neighborhood’s well-being. For some reason, these few are mostly female. Instead of registering their complaint with the power company, the place where the problem has to ultimately be resolved, these few persist in reminding the cranky old guy that a situation on his property is causing them mental and emotional anguish. And much of the reminding is not done directly but through the little behind-the-back whispering avenues that criss-cross most neighborhoods.
Fortunately, the cranky old guy has an option to escape both the harping and the possible interruption, at a time of temperatures approaching the century mark, of the neighborhood’s electrical supply. That option is a place at the beach. So he’s off. Please give him a call when the situation has been resolved.
DSH
Our current crisis involves a tree branch on the cranky old guy's property. In a recent storm, it fell across a power line. There it still rests, straining the line but not as yet causing any difficulties. The power company, the successor to the infamous VEPCO of the cranky old guy’s youth, has been called. A human spokesperson, reached after many tedious minutes of dealing with a computer, said that the situation was on the company’s To Do list, but that it would likely be awhile.
Most in the neighborhood accept the situation, realizing that the matter is the power company’s responsibility and that the cranky old guy is not about to climb a tree to cut a branch away from a live electrical line. Also, most realize that no self-respecting tree company will tackle the problem without the power company’s say-so and supervision. Maybe Daryl and Daryl of the Culpepper Tree, Gutter, And Whatever Else You Want Done Company, but not a bona fide bonded outfit.
A few in the neighborhood, however, look upon such situations as an opportunity to expound upon their neighbors’ flaws and to demonstrate their own superior concern for the neighborhood’s well-being. For some reason, these few are mostly female. Instead of registering their complaint with the power company, the place where the problem has to ultimately be resolved, these few persist in reminding the cranky old guy that a situation on his property is causing them mental and emotional anguish. And much of the reminding is not done directly but through the little behind-the-back whispering avenues that criss-cross most neighborhoods.
Fortunately, the cranky old guy has an option to escape both the harping and the possible interruption, at a time of temperatures approaching the century mark, of the neighborhood’s electrical supply. That option is a place at the beach. So he’s off. Please give him a call when the situation has been resolved.
DSH
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
INTELLIGENT DESIGN AND W
According to news reports, the President recently told a group of Texas journalists visiting the White House that he sees nothing untoward in a local school board deciding to allow the teaching of the Intelligent Design concept. That concept is all the rage among certain segments of the Christian fundamentalist community.
Well, this is too juicy to resist. Where to start is the only problem. But before doing so, let it be stated that this cranky old guy is not just some knee-jerk whiny liberal. He even voted for W in 2000. It is only the incompetence and arrogance displayed in the years since by the winners of the election that have led the cranky old guy to question the wisdom of his vote.
The following is certainly an over-simplified description of Intelligent Design, or ID for short, but if W and his Administration can over-simplify everything under the sun—from war, to taxes, to social security—why can’t the rest of us? This cranky old guy’s understanding of ID is that the complexity of the human animal, and the world in general, is advanced as proof of one or both of the following assertions: evolution couldn’t have occurred, and there is an all-powerful Supreme Being.
Just as an aside, it would seem that if an all-powerful Supreme Being exists, he, she, or it could have arranged for evolution. Some people, however, just can’t abide the idea of a monkey as an ancestor. But we will avoid this line of inquiry.
It can’t be denied that the world is complex, at least to our feeble mortal minds. Anyone who has ever struggled with an introductory course in quantum physics or Einstein’s special or general relativity would likely concede the point. But should complexity really be the focal point of such weighty issues as the origin and development of life and the existence of a Supreme Being? If it should, perhaps Bill Gates is a supreme being. After all, some of his software products, such as Word, are complex enough to keep a mortal busy for years exploring all the nooks, crannies, and perplexing happenings.
The problem with complexity is that it is not—or should not be—an end in itself. Complexity is just an intermediate point to a result. And this cranky old guy would caution the ID crowd about basing theological propositions on results because the results that are before us leave something to be desired.
Let’s just consider one result most of us are probably somewhat familiar with: sex. Here is an activity that produces a few moments of pleasure, and sometimes offspring. The price for those ends is awkwardness, embarrassments, messiness, occasional foul odors, and general yuckiness. If one were starting from scratch to design a procreation system that entailed a modicum of pleasure, one could certainly come up with something more refined and less yucky. Perhaps nothing more than a simple touching of fingertips and then the participants go their merry ways. A lot of approaches would be an improvement over what we are saddled with.
So this cranky old guy doesn’t buy the ID concept as something warranting the expenditure of public moneys to learn about. W and his cohorts have done enough damage in the areas that are their Constitutional responsibility: foreign policy, military policy, and economic policy, for example. About matters such as religion, school curricula, and the origin and meaning of life, matters that are beyond their responsibilities—and obviously more than beyond their competences—they should keep their opinions to themselves.
DSH
Well, this is too juicy to resist. Where to start is the only problem. But before doing so, let it be stated that this cranky old guy is not just some knee-jerk whiny liberal. He even voted for W in 2000. It is only the incompetence and arrogance displayed in the years since by the winners of the election that have led the cranky old guy to question the wisdom of his vote.
The following is certainly an over-simplified description of Intelligent Design, or ID for short, but if W and his Administration can over-simplify everything under the sun—from war, to taxes, to social security—why can’t the rest of us? This cranky old guy’s understanding of ID is that the complexity of the human animal, and the world in general, is advanced as proof of one or both of the following assertions: evolution couldn’t have occurred, and there is an all-powerful Supreme Being.
Just as an aside, it would seem that if an all-powerful Supreme Being exists, he, she, or it could have arranged for evolution. Some people, however, just can’t abide the idea of a monkey as an ancestor. But we will avoid this line of inquiry.
It can’t be denied that the world is complex, at least to our feeble mortal minds. Anyone who has ever struggled with an introductory course in quantum physics or Einstein’s special or general relativity would likely concede the point. But should complexity really be the focal point of such weighty issues as the origin and development of life and the existence of a Supreme Being? If it should, perhaps Bill Gates is a supreme being. After all, some of his software products, such as Word, are complex enough to keep a mortal busy for years exploring all the nooks, crannies, and perplexing happenings.
The problem with complexity is that it is not—or should not be—an end in itself. Complexity is just an intermediate point to a result. And this cranky old guy would caution the ID crowd about basing theological propositions on results because the results that are before us leave something to be desired.
Let’s just consider one result most of us are probably somewhat familiar with: sex. Here is an activity that produces a few moments of pleasure, and sometimes offspring. The price for those ends is awkwardness, embarrassments, messiness, occasional foul odors, and general yuckiness. If one were starting from scratch to design a procreation system that entailed a modicum of pleasure, one could certainly come up with something more refined and less yucky. Perhaps nothing more than a simple touching of fingertips and then the participants go their merry ways. A lot of approaches would be an improvement over what we are saddled with.
So this cranky old guy doesn’t buy the ID concept as something warranting the expenditure of public moneys to learn about. W and his cohorts have done enough damage in the areas that are their Constitutional responsibility: foreign policy, military policy, and economic policy, for example. About matters such as religion, school curricula, and the origin and meaning of life, matters that are beyond their responsibilities—and obviously more than beyond their competences—they should keep their opinions to themselves.
DSH
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
FIRST FLIGHT
Recently, I took my first flight in a long time—a long, long time. In fact, the last flight was in the previous millennium. Okay, so my life lacks excitement. Not the point. The point is that this was a traumatic event for a cranky old guy.
For one thing, major surgery had occurred since the last flight, and I have various leftover wires and perhaps other surgical paraphernalia embedded in my being. For another thing, airport security procedures had been substantially tightened. Horror stories of fondling, strip searches, and other aggressive intrusions abound. I had visions of shivering naked in a cold room as sadistic individuals entered various bodily orifices in pursuit of offending images on the x-ray machines.
The other matter of concern was that I would be separated from a faithful companion for a period of time, a companion I was much dependent upon, both physically and emotionally. That companion was my Swiss Army knife with its plethora of useful blades and tools. I had been led to believe that in the post-9/ll environment, one could be imprisoned for life for even thinking about carrying a pocketknife on a plane. Since I was trying to avoid checking any baggage, I would be without the faithful companion for several days. The thought made me even more cranky.
In preparation for the flight and the possible examinations of my person, I decided to break down and wear underwear and clean socks; or was that socks and clean underwear? Whatever the case, I wanted to avoid as much embarrassment as possible.
To my surprise, the trips through the various security checkpoints went without a hitch. Profiling might have had something to do with it. Each time I went through the security gauntlet, I was in the middle of a group of sinister-looking characters who corralled the attention. Tattoos seemed to particularly wet the appetites of the checkers. So all the concern about being pawed by strangers turned out to be unwarranted.
But the absence of the Swiss Army knife was a problem, and for an unanticipated reason. Cranky old guys have their habits, and one of mine is two beers before bed. The kind of places I stay in do not have room service, so I purchased my beer—in bottles—at the local minimart. Bedtime approached. I reached for the trusty Swiss Army knife to pop the caps, and Holy #&*#!
So if you ever stay in a motel near the town of Woodstock, Vermont, and wonder about the various gouges in odd places—such as on the door frame near the hinges, around the sink, below the shower faucet handles—you know that the cranky old guy was there.
DSH
For one thing, major surgery had occurred since the last flight, and I have various leftover wires and perhaps other surgical paraphernalia embedded in my being. For another thing, airport security procedures had been substantially tightened. Horror stories of fondling, strip searches, and other aggressive intrusions abound. I had visions of shivering naked in a cold room as sadistic individuals entered various bodily orifices in pursuit of offending images on the x-ray machines.
The other matter of concern was that I would be separated from a faithful companion for a period of time, a companion I was much dependent upon, both physically and emotionally. That companion was my Swiss Army knife with its plethora of useful blades and tools. I had been led to believe that in the post-9/ll environment, one could be imprisoned for life for even thinking about carrying a pocketknife on a plane. Since I was trying to avoid checking any baggage, I would be without the faithful companion for several days. The thought made me even more cranky.
In preparation for the flight and the possible examinations of my person, I decided to break down and wear underwear and clean socks; or was that socks and clean underwear? Whatever the case, I wanted to avoid as much embarrassment as possible.
To my surprise, the trips through the various security checkpoints went without a hitch. Profiling might have had something to do with it. Each time I went through the security gauntlet, I was in the middle of a group of sinister-looking characters who corralled the attention. Tattoos seemed to particularly wet the appetites of the checkers. So all the concern about being pawed by strangers turned out to be unwarranted.
But the absence of the Swiss Army knife was a problem, and for an unanticipated reason. Cranky old guys have their habits, and one of mine is two beers before bed. The kind of places I stay in do not have room service, so I purchased my beer—in bottles—at the local minimart. Bedtime approached. I reached for the trusty Swiss Army knife to pop the caps, and Holy #&*#!
So if you ever stay in a motel near the town of Woodstock, Vermont, and wonder about the various gouges in odd places—such as on the door frame near the hinges, around the sink, below the shower faucet handles—you know that the cranky old guy was there.
DSH
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
OWNERSHIP SOCIETY
If one owns Kennebunkport, the appeal of an Ownership Society is certainly understandable. For many of the rest of us citizens, however, the attractiveness of the concept is somewhat nuanced.
Ownership Society is a term that was being bandied about several months ago in support of adding some form of personal investment accounts to the social security system. The whole topic of social security reform seems to have fallen off the radar screen here recently, but it will no doubt resurface.
The Ownership Society argument apparently is that the more control we have over our own wealth and finances, the better off we will be, both monetarily and emotionally. But the proponents of the argument do not pay a great deal of attention to how different levels of wealth and finances might fare under an Ownership Society, or how citizens in those different levels might view an Ownership Society.
Those at the top of the wealth pyramid are probably all for a 100 percent Ownership Society. The fact that they have wealth is evidence to them that they can do a much better job of creating and maintaining wealth than can the government. (The fact that many of them inherited their wealth rather than created it is something they often overlook.) A goodly proportion of those with less wealth, however, aren’t as convinced that they can beat the system. Oh, they certainly want a considerable degree of freedom to handle their own finances, but they aren’t adverse to, and may even desire, some form of common safety net.
Moreover, if the matter comes down to what may be no more than a small annuity, say a social security payment of $ 750, $1,000, or even $1,500 a month, do many people really want to incur additional risk in order to have more “ownership?”
So the proponents of the Ownership Society concept might want to refine their arguments a bit. To date, the Ownership Society has sounded like a great thing if you already own a lot of stuff. But it hasn’t sounded like a way to get a lot of stuff if you are starting from little or no stuff.
And one other thing. One of the backers of such concepts as the Ownership Society is the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. Is it just me, or is anyone else bothered a little that some policy makers appear to put so much stock in advice from an organization named after the President who presided over the Crash of 1929 and the onslaught of the Great Depression?
DSH
Ownership Society is a term that was being bandied about several months ago in support of adding some form of personal investment accounts to the social security system. The whole topic of social security reform seems to have fallen off the radar screen here recently, but it will no doubt resurface.
The Ownership Society argument apparently is that the more control we have over our own wealth and finances, the better off we will be, both monetarily and emotionally. But the proponents of the argument do not pay a great deal of attention to how different levels of wealth and finances might fare under an Ownership Society, or how citizens in those different levels might view an Ownership Society.
Those at the top of the wealth pyramid are probably all for a 100 percent Ownership Society. The fact that they have wealth is evidence to them that they can do a much better job of creating and maintaining wealth than can the government. (The fact that many of them inherited their wealth rather than created it is something they often overlook.) A goodly proportion of those with less wealth, however, aren’t as convinced that they can beat the system. Oh, they certainly want a considerable degree of freedom to handle their own finances, but they aren’t adverse to, and may even desire, some form of common safety net.
Moreover, if the matter comes down to what may be no more than a small annuity, say a social security payment of $ 750, $1,000, or even $1,500 a month, do many people really want to incur additional risk in order to have more “ownership?”
So the proponents of the Ownership Society concept might want to refine their arguments a bit. To date, the Ownership Society has sounded like a great thing if you already own a lot of stuff. But it hasn’t sounded like a way to get a lot of stuff if you are starting from little or no stuff.
And one other thing. One of the backers of such concepts as the Ownership Society is the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. Is it just me, or is anyone else bothered a little that some policy makers appear to put so much stock in advice from an organization named after the President who presided over the Crash of 1929 and the onslaught of the Great Depression?
DSH
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
LIBERALS & CONSERVATIVES: A PRIMER
Liberals think too much. Conservatives don’t think enough.
Conservatives want to conquer nature. Liberals want accommodation with nature.
Liberals love all government regulation except regulation they don’t agree with. Conservatives hate all government regulation except regulation they agree with.
Liberals are permissive. Conservatives are, well, not.
Conservatives see absolutes. Liberals see nuance.
Liberals endlessly and agonizingly fret over conflicts among their values, beliefs, positions, and actions. Conservatives embrace hypocrisy.
Liberals consider sex an end in itself. Conservatives are suspicious of something so potentially pleasurable.
Conservatives view taxes as an evil second only to sodomy. Liberals would rather pay taxes than eat.
Liberals wonder why. Conservatives respond because.
Conservatives say the answer is obvious. Liberals can’t agree on the question.
DSH
Conservatives want to conquer nature. Liberals want accommodation with nature.
Liberals love all government regulation except regulation they don’t agree with. Conservatives hate all government regulation except regulation they agree with.
Liberals are permissive. Conservatives are, well, not.
Conservatives see absolutes. Liberals see nuance.
Liberals endlessly and agonizingly fret over conflicts among their values, beliefs, positions, and actions. Conservatives embrace hypocrisy.
Liberals consider sex an end in itself. Conservatives are suspicious of something so potentially pleasurable.
Conservatives view taxes as an evil second only to sodomy. Liberals would rather pay taxes than eat.
Liberals wonder why. Conservatives respond because.
Conservatives say the answer is obvious. Liberals can’t agree on the question.
DSH
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
IT'S NOT OUR FAULT
The President just gave the nation a pep talk on Iraq. The gist of the talk seemed to be that the American people are becoming the problem. We don’t have the fortitude to persevere for the long haul. We lack the insight to see that all of the Administration’s actions were made necessary by 9/11. And most important, in questioning the conduct of the war in Iraq, we are letting down our men and women in uniform.
To make up for our shortcomings, we need to look for ways to express support for our troops. We need to fly the flag on July 4. And implicitly, we need to stop questioning the competence of our leaders.
Well, I’m not buying it. It is not the American people who are letting down our troops but our civilian leaders. As an example of the ineptitude with which the war in Iraq has been waged, the President said in his speech that if his generals said they needed more troops, he would give them more troops. But shortly before or after that statement, he said more troops were not the answer because more troops would send a message to the Iraqis that we were never leaving.
The issue at this stage should not be whether the war in Iraq was necessary. That Rubicon has been crossed. Let the historians, and the presidential candidates in 2008, rehash that matter. The issue today is whether we are pursuing our national goals, including our goals in Iraq, in a competent manner. Another Republican president in another time of national testing was not afraid to punish failure by making changes. Abraham Lincoln went through several generals before he finally found one, Grant, who could get the job done.
George Bush needs to take a similar approach. His team has made a number of mistakes in the war in Iraq. Instead of blaming the American people, he should look at the architects of those mistakes. And the primary architect is the Secretary of Defense. If George Bush really wants to get the American people back on his side, as they were in those months following September 11, 2001, he should start by firing Donald Rumsfeld.
DSH
To make up for our shortcomings, we need to look for ways to express support for our troops. We need to fly the flag on July 4. And implicitly, we need to stop questioning the competence of our leaders.
Well, I’m not buying it. It is not the American people who are letting down our troops but our civilian leaders. As an example of the ineptitude with which the war in Iraq has been waged, the President said in his speech that if his generals said they needed more troops, he would give them more troops. But shortly before or after that statement, he said more troops were not the answer because more troops would send a message to the Iraqis that we were never leaving.
The issue at this stage should not be whether the war in Iraq was necessary. That Rubicon has been crossed. Let the historians, and the presidential candidates in 2008, rehash that matter. The issue today is whether we are pursuing our national goals, including our goals in Iraq, in a competent manner. Another Republican president in another time of national testing was not afraid to punish failure by making changes. Abraham Lincoln went through several generals before he finally found one, Grant, who could get the job done.
George Bush needs to take a similar approach. His team has made a number of mistakes in the war in Iraq. Instead of blaming the American people, he should look at the architects of those mistakes. And the primary architect is the Secretary of Defense. If George Bush really wants to get the American people back on his side, as they were in those months following September 11, 2001, he should start by firing Donald Rumsfeld.
DSH
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
More Taxes Mean Tax Relief
Since The Washington Post is unlikely to publishing the following letter to the editor, I heareby offer it to you, dear readers:
Dear Mr. MacMillan [The Washington Post writer]:
Your recent story, “Alexandria to Tax Cell Phones as Other Revenue Drops” (16 June 2005) is grossly inaccurate. You write, “The City Council approved a new tax on cell phones as part of the fiscal 2006 budget. It will help make up some of the money that the city will lose after the real estate tax rate was lowered in order to provide relief to homeowners.”
Please allow me to disabuse you of the idea that Alexandria has lost any revenue from any source whatsoever. Real estate property taxes are going up this year and have gone up every past year that I can remember. Yes, the property tax rate is going down. But the actual amount of tax dollars (i.e., “taxes”) being paid by each property owner will go up because of increases in assessments. Furthermore, the amount of tax dollars that the city will receive from real estate taxes will increase significantly. Consequently, I am quite baffled as to where you get the idea that the city “will lose” any money.
Unfortunately, you allow yourself to be co-opted by slick politicians who want to create the illusion that they have reduced taxes. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is currently a column on your web site by Howard Kurtz titled, “Backlash on the Left” in which he describes how the mainstream media has kowtowed to the Bush administration by failing to publish hard hitting stories about their mistakes. You, too, seem to be part of this problem.
You fall into this same syndrome when you buy into the local politicians’ scams in which they pretend that they are lowering taxes when, in fact, they are clearly raising them. If there is any doubt in your mind about the reality of these tax increases, I will be quite glad to send you copies of my Alexandria real estate bills for the past twenty-seven years. Let me assure you that they have risen every single year.
I would suggest that a better opening for your story would have been, “The city of Alexandria is creating a new tax on cell phones in order to meet its insatiable thirst for tax revenue. The recent increase in real estate tax revenue has proved insufficient to cover all of the city’s spending plans and therefore still more tax money is needed.”
JBY
Dear Mr. MacMillan [The Washington Post writer]:
Your recent story, “Alexandria to Tax Cell Phones as Other Revenue Drops” (16 June 2005) is grossly inaccurate. You write, “The City Council approved a new tax on cell phones as part of the fiscal 2006 budget. It will help make up some of the money that the city will lose after the real estate tax rate was lowered in order to provide relief to homeowners.”
Please allow me to disabuse you of the idea that Alexandria has lost any revenue from any source whatsoever. Real estate property taxes are going up this year and have gone up every past year that I can remember. Yes, the property tax rate is going down. But the actual amount of tax dollars (i.e., “taxes”) being paid by each property owner will go up because of increases in assessments. Furthermore, the amount of tax dollars that the city will receive from real estate taxes will increase significantly. Consequently, I am quite baffled as to where you get the idea that the city “will lose” any money.
Unfortunately, you allow yourself to be co-opted by slick politicians who want to create the illusion that they have reduced taxes. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is currently a column on your web site by Howard Kurtz titled, “Backlash on the Left” in which he describes how the mainstream media has kowtowed to the Bush administration by failing to publish hard hitting stories about their mistakes. You, too, seem to be part of this problem.
You fall into this same syndrome when you buy into the local politicians’ scams in which they pretend that they are lowering taxes when, in fact, they are clearly raising them. If there is any doubt in your mind about the reality of these tax increases, I will be quite glad to send you copies of my Alexandria real estate bills for the past twenty-seven years. Let me assure you that they have risen every single year.
I would suggest that a better opening for your story would have been, “The city of Alexandria is creating a new tax on cell phones in order to meet its insatiable thirst for tax revenue. The recent increase in real estate tax revenue has proved insufficient to cover all of the city’s spending plans and therefore still more tax money is needed.”
JBY
Thursday, June 09, 2005
COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY
A letter to the editor in the New York Times of Sunday, June 5, 2005, cogently summarized the thoughts of at least a few Americans. In its entirety, the letter, from Joseph Chianese of Oakland, California, stated:
Under the present command, when anything goes well in the military, the president, Congress, the Defense Department and the generals fall over one another taking credit. But when something goes awry, they start another investigation and bust a private.
Perhaps recruiting will improve when the leadership does.
Unfair or at least overstated? Perhaps, but the fact is that no one at the top of the nation’s leadership structure has taken more than nominal responsibility or suffered any public consequences for the military, intelligence, and foreign policy mistakes and miscalls of the last few years. Indeed, the President has gone out of his way to praise some architects of the nation’s efforts, giving Medals of Freedom to George “Slam Dunk” Tenant, Paul “Chaos” Bremer, and Tommy “No Plan for the Aftermath” Franks.
Meanwhile, such proven-correct critics as former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki, who testified before Congress that several hundred thousand troops would be needed to control Iraq, are ignored.
In this writer’s opinion, the President and his immediate associates are not guilty in a legal sense of dishonorable actions by lower ranking individuals carrying out national policy. Those at the top of the chain of command, however, do bear moral and political responsibility, a responsibility that they have not been men, and woman, enough to accept. Among their major mistakes are two that fall within those alluded to by the New York Times letter writer.
First was the decision to invade Iraq with forces inadequate to secure the country after the collapse of the regular Iraqi military. This decision resulted in U.S. forces being spread dangerously thin, which in turn reduced the supervision exercised over units and individual soldiers. The inadequate supervision has most likely been a major contributor to the unfortunate acts by a few members of the military and of the intelligence community.
The second mistake was the rather cavalier attitude expressed by the highest leadership toward the treatment of detainees. The President, backed by the Attorney General, said that the Geneva Convention did not apply. The Secretary of Defense apparently became directly involved in drawing up a list of permissible means of “persuasion.” The message this cavalier attitude conveyed to the lower echelons was not quite “anything goes,” but dangerously close to it.
What the President, the Vice President, the National Security Adviser, the Secretary of Defense and their immediate subordinates were guilty of is not comprehending the nature of military force. Often lost in the high-tone rhetoric of patriotism and in the idealistic commitment to freedom for all is the fact that military force is an extremely violent instrument of national policy. When the proverbial dogs of war are let loose, the overall national objective may be achieved, but the negative side effects and collateral damage can be extensive. To lessen these undesirable consequences, and to ensure that the national objectives are indeed achieved, the military objectives should be identified with precision, the military force committed should be at least adequate, and the nation’s adherence to humanitarian principles developed at great cost over a long period should not be compromised.
In short, what our national leadership has been guilty of in recent years is naiveté. The chief members of that leadership have portrayed themselves as hard-nosed realists. They are hard-nosed all right, but not realists. Their actions have shown a distinct lack of understanding of a fundamental component of national policy, that component being military force. They have shown that they don’t understand how military force should be employed, they don’t understand its limitations, and they don’t understand the passions released when men and women take up arms to do a difficult, nasty job.
DSH
Under the present command, when anything goes well in the military, the president, Congress, the Defense Department and the generals fall over one another taking credit. But when something goes awry, they start another investigation and bust a private.
Perhaps recruiting will improve when the leadership does.
Unfair or at least overstated? Perhaps, but the fact is that no one at the top of the nation’s leadership structure has taken more than nominal responsibility or suffered any public consequences for the military, intelligence, and foreign policy mistakes and miscalls of the last few years. Indeed, the President has gone out of his way to praise some architects of the nation’s efforts, giving Medals of Freedom to George “Slam Dunk” Tenant, Paul “Chaos” Bremer, and Tommy “No Plan for the Aftermath” Franks.
Meanwhile, such proven-correct critics as former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki, who testified before Congress that several hundred thousand troops would be needed to control Iraq, are ignored.
In this writer’s opinion, the President and his immediate associates are not guilty in a legal sense of dishonorable actions by lower ranking individuals carrying out national policy. Those at the top of the chain of command, however, do bear moral and political responsibility, a responsibility that they have not been men, and woman, enough to accept. Among their major mistakes are two that fall within those alluded to by the New York Times letter writer.
First was the decision to invade Iraq with forces inadequate to secure the country after the collapse of the regular Iraqi military. This decision resulted in U.S. forces being spread dangerously thin, which in turn reduced the supervision exercised over units and individual soldiers. The inadequate supervision has most likely been a major contributor to the unfortunate acts by a few members of the military and of the intelligence community.
The second mistake was the rather cavalier attitude expressed by the highest leadership toward the treatment of detainees. The President, backed by the Attorney General, said that the Geneva Convention did not apply. The Secretary of Defense apparently became directly involved in drawing up a list of permissible means of “persuasion.” The message this cavalier attitude conveyed to the lower echelons was not quite “anything goes,” but dangerously close to it.
What the President, the Vice President, the National Security Adviser, the Secretary of Defense and their immediate subordinates were guilty of is not comprehending the nature of military force. Often lost in the high-tone rhetoric of patriotism and in the idealistic commitment to freedom for all is the fact that military force is an extremely violent instrument of national policy. When the proverbial dogs of war are let loose, the overall national objective may be achieved, but the negative side effects and collateral damage can be extensive. To lessen these undesirable consequences, and to ensure that the national objectives are indeed achieved, the military objectives should be identified with precision, the military force committed should be at least adequate, and the nation’s adherence to humanitarian principles developed at great cost over a long period should not be compromised.
In short, what our national leadership has been guilty of in recent years is naiveté. The chief members of that leadership have portrayed themselves as hard-nosed realists. They are hard-nosed all right, but not realists. Their actions have shown a distinct lack of understanding of a fundamental component of national policy, that component being military force. They have shown that they don’t understand how military force should be employed, they don’t understand its limitations, and they don’t understand the passions released when men and women take up arms to do a difficult, nasty job.
DSH
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
TROUBLE IN PARADISE
There’s trouble in Paradise, Paradise being Alexandria, Virginia. How is Alexandria Paradise, you ask? Well, it must be. Why else would real estate values be so astronomical?
Anyway, there’s trouble in Paradise, and Paradise is taking action. The trouble is, or are, mosquitoes. The action is to get rid of water. The theory is that mosquitoes need puddles of still water to perpetuate the species, and consequently eliminating puddles will eliminate the species, or at least enough of the species to make an evening stroll across the lawn bearable.
So city employees and various volunteers are on the prowl, looking for offending water.
Me, I’m skeptical. How do you eliminate water, except by drought? Oh sure, you can find the odd bit of wetness here and there. Water in a discarded tire can be extracted. (Although emptying an old tire is no easy matter; try it sometime.) A neighbor with a landscaped pond can be harassed.
But what about the thousand and one other gatherings of water? I’m under the impression—and all you amateur naturalists correct me if I’m wrong—that the amount of water it takes to breed mosquitoes is not much. Mere moisture might suffice. How about water cupped in a large leaf? In a depression in a tree stump? In a pile of decaying grass?
Moreover, what about rain gutters? Paradise is blessed with vast numbers of shade trees. Many arch over those astronomically priced homes. How often do we residents of Paradise, including the members of the mosquito patrol, clean our gutters? Maybe twice a year at the most. But those beautiful trees are dropping debris year round. Right now, probably a majority of the houses in Paradise have at least one stopped up gutter, and the artificial ponds thereby created are thriving with mosquito larva.
And don’t even get me started on the consequences of grass watering.
So I don’t have a lot of confidence that Paradise’s assault on mosquitoes will be successful. If you really want to get rid of mosquitoes, think back 30 or so years to the fogging trucks that dispensed poisons throughout residential areas. Of course, the poisons had their downside.
Now excuse me while I go fill my ornamental birdbath.
DSH
Anyway, there’s trouble in Paradise, and Paradise is taking action. The trouble is, or are, mosquitoes. The action is to get rid of water. The theory is that mosquitoes need puddles of still water to perpetuate the species, and consequently eliminating puddles will eliminate the species, or at least enough of the species to make an evening stroll across the lawn bearable.
So city employees and various volunteers are on the prowl, looking for offending water.
Me, I’m skeptical. How do you eliminate water, except by drought? Oh sure, you can find the odd bit of wetness here and there. Water in a discarded tire can be extracted. (Although emptying an old tire is no easy matter; try it sometime.) A neighbor with a landscaped pond can be harassed.
But what about the thousand and one other gatherings of water? I’m under the impression—and all you amateur naturalists correct me if I’m wrong—that the amount of water it takes to breed mosquitoes is not much. Mere moisture might suffice. How about water cupped in a large leaf? In a depression in a tree stump? In a pile of decaying grass?
Moreover, what about rain gutters? Paradise is blessed with vast numbers of shade trees. Many arch over those astronomically priced homes. How often do we residents of Paradise, including the members of the mosquito patrol, clean our gutters? Maybe twice a year at the most. But those beautiful trees are dropping debris year round. Right now, probably a majority of the houses in Paradise have at least one stopped up gutter, and the artificial ponds thereby created are thriving with mosquito larva.
And don’t even get me started on the consequences of grass watering.
So I don’t have a lot of confidence that Paradise’s assault on mosquitoes will be successful. If you really want to get rid of mosquitoes, think back 30 or so years to the fogging trucks that dispensed poisons throughout residential areas. Of course, the poisons had their downside.
Now excuse me while I go fill my ornamental birdbath.
DSH
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
MILLIONAIRES
I live on a street of millionaires, or at least a lot of close-to-millionaires. So how do we millionaires spend our time? Cavorting, lawn parties, entertaining others of the leisure class?
Hardly. The younger ones go off in the morning to government offices, law firms, medical jobs, and the like; basic middle-class occupations. Some of us who are supposed to be retired—the cranky old guys—work for chump change. One teaches at a community college. Another turns out the lights at a local golf course. Still another is a low-level editor—a comma counter—with a government agency. All for chump change. The neighborhood poker group plays for nickels, dimes, and quarters: chump change.
So are we millionaire retirees working for chump change because we enjoy it? Yeah, right. The bottom line is that we need the chump change to bear to the cost of having outrageously priced property. That cost is called real estate taxes.
Decades ago we bought middle-class homes in a Washington, D.C., suburb. As the years went by, the prices others were willing to pay for these homes moved inexorably upwards, sometimes slowly, sometimes in disturbing bursts. On one hand, we felt good about feeling wealthier. On the other, the local government was not bashful about tapping that wealth. That was okay for those few whose income was on a decided upward track. For those of us not so fortunate, buying our rapidly appreciating property anew each year from the local government has taken an ever heftier share of our stagnate or only moderately increasing earnings.
And for some retirees, the yearly re-purchasing of their homes has become a real burden, eating into the funds set aside for those final years in the House of Drooling on Oneself.
As home prices began approaching the million dollar mark, the nature of the buyers began changing. Most of them are really good people. But most of them are also something the neighborhood did not have much of: Republicans. In fact, one of the cranky old guys—an unreconstructed Henry Howell-Keep the Big Boys Honest Democrat—began referring to the neighborhood as the neighborhood of Young Republican Starter Homes. He hypothesized that the newcomers would only be here a few years because they would soon want to join their own kind in places such as McLean and Belle Haven.
So is there a moral to this story? It’s certainly not easy to sympathize with property owners who have the option of cashing in their greatly appreciated properties and moving to cheaper locales. So what if they have to abandon their homes of many decades. The Ownership Society is not a free lunch. Perhaps the only moral is that being a millionaire is not what it used to be.
(P.S.: If you don’t know who Henry Howell was, you are either no Virginian or too young to be reading this.)
DSH
Hardly. The younger ones go off in the morning to government offices, law firms, medical jobs, and the like; basic middle-class occupations. Some of us who are supposed to be retired—the cranky old guys—work for chump change. One teaches at a community college. Another turns out the lights at a local golf course. Still another is a low-level editor—a comma counter—with a government agency. All for chump change. The neighborhood poker group plays for nickels, dimes, and quarters: chump change.
So are we millionaire retirees working for chump change because we enjoy it? Yeah, right. The bottom line is that we need the chump change to bear to the cost of having outrageously priced property. That cost is called real estate taxes.
Decades ago we bought middle-class homes in a Washington, D.C., suburb. As the years went by, the prices others were willing to pay for these homes moved inexorably upwards, sometimes slowly, sometimes in disturbing bursts. On one hand, we felt good about feeling wealthier. On the other, the local government was not bashful about tapping that wealth. That was okay for those few whose income was on a decided upward track. For those of us not so fortunate, buying our rapidly appreciating property anew each year from the local government has taken an ever heftier share of our stagnate or only moderately increasing earnings.
And for some retirees, the yearly re-purchasing of their homes has become a real burden, eating into the funds set aside for those final years in the House of Drooling on Oneself.
As home prices began approaching the million dollar mark, the nature of the buyers began changing. Most of them are really good people. But most of them are also something the neighborhood did not have much of: Republicans. In fact, one of the cranky old guys—an unreconstructed Henry Howell-Keep the Big Boys Honest Democrat—began referring to the neighborhood as the neighborhood of Young Republican Starter Homes. He hypothesized that the newcomers would only be here a few years because they would soon want to join their own kind in places such as McLean and Belle Haven.
So is there a moral to this story? It’s certainly not easy to sympathize with property owners who have the option of cashing in their greatly appreciated properties and moving to cheaper locales. So what if they have to abandon their homes of many decades. The Ownership Society is not a free lunch. Perhaps the only moral is that being a millionaire is not what it used to be.
(P.S.: If you don’t know who Henry Howell was, you are either no Virginian or too young to be reading this.)
DSH
Friday, May 06, 2005
SOCIAL SECURITY: TOO MUCH CHOICE ALREADY?
More choice is one argument being advanced by proponents of the Bush Administration’s plan to substitute some sort of investment account for a portion of an individual’s social security contributions and benefits. But my feeling, which admittedly is probably a minority view, is that the current social security system already has too much choice. Some things in life are improved by choice. Alternatives regarding, for example, food, vehicles, vacation destinations, TV channels, and beer are good choices.
But when it comes to many things monetary, choice makes my head hurt. Just give me one possibility. I might complain about it, but at least I don’t have to spend an inordinate amount of time analyzing other alternatives.
The choices in the current social security system involve when to start drawing benefits. The system is usually described in most government publications and by the majority of commentators as built around a full retirement age. For those born in 1937 or earlier, the full retirement age is 65. For those born during the period 1938 to1942, the full retirement age increases from just over 65 to just under 66. For us boomers born during the period 1943 to 1954, the full retirement age is 66. For yuppies born during the period 1955 to 1959, the full retirement age increases from just over 66 to just under 67. For those born in 1960 or later, well, it doesn’t really matter because the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Bushies have other plans for you.
Regardless of your full retirement age under the current system, you can elect to begin drawing benefits as early as age 62 if you are willing to accept lesser monthly compensation. The reduction in benefits, which is permanent, depends on how close to your full retirement age you are when you begin drawing benefits. The maximum reduction occurs if you retire immediately upon reaching age 62. For those born in 1943 or later, retirement at the stroke of 62 results in a 25 percent reduction from what you would have received if you had waited until full retirement age.
But the full retirement age concept is misleading because if you delay receiving benefits to sometime between your full retirement age and age 70, you get more. How much more depends on how long you wait. For those born in 1943 or later, the yearly increase between full retirement age and age 70 is 8 percent.
Let’s put this in concrete terms. Say you are a boomer—that is, born during the period 1943 to 1954—and say your benefit at the full retirement age of 66 would be $1,000 per month. Thus your benefit if you took early retirement at age 62 would be $750. Here is what delaying benefits would mean:
• Age 62: Monthly Benefit—$750.
• Age 63: Monthly Benefit—$800; 106% of Age 62 Amount.
• Age 64: Monthly Benefit—$867; 116% of Age 62 Amount.
• Age 65: Monthly Benefit—$933; 124% of Age 62 Amount.
• Age 66: Monthly Benefit—$1,000; 133% of Age 62 Amount.
• Age 67: Monthly Benefit—$1,080; 124% of Age 62 Amount.
• Age 68: Monthly Benefit—$1,160; 154% of Age 62 Amount.
• Age 69: Monthly Benefit—$1,240; 165% of Age 62 Amount.
• Age 70: Monthly Benefit—$1,320; 176% of Age 62 Amount.
Thus if you delay benefits until age 70, you would receive almost double what you would receive at age 62. So instead of describing the current system as centered around a full retirement age, a better approach, at least for me, is to view the decision to receive benefits as a bet on when I’m going to croak. By delaying benefits, I would be betting that I’m going to have a viable existence into at least my late 70s. The increased benefits would make that existence more comfortable. By taking benefits early, I would be betting that I’m outta here early.
Does the concept of full retirement age have any real meaning? Yes, and a very important one. If you begin receiving benefits before full retirement age but continue working and receiving earnings, your benefits will reduced. The reduction is $1 for every $2 you make over a limit, which is $12,000 in 2005. In the year you reach full retirement age, the reduction is $1 for every $3 you make over a limit, which is $31,800 in 2005. The reduced benefits do result in increased benefits in later years to account for months you didn’t receive a benefit before reaching full retirement age. Once you reach full retirement age, social security benefits are not affected by other earnings.
The bottom line is that the current social security system requires me to bet on when I’m going to die. By proposing to add even more variables to the system, the Bush Administration apparently wants the members of the younger generation to spend even more time contemplating their demise than us boomers do. With all this attention devoted to death, when do we have time to enjoy the Culture of Life?
DSH
But when it comes to many things monetary, choice makes my head hurt. Just give me one possibility. I might complain about it, but at least I don’t have to spend an inordinate amount of time analyzing other alternatives.
The choices in the current social security system involve when to start drawing benefits. The system is usually described in most government publications and by the majority of commentators as built around a full retirement age. For those born in 1937 or earlier, the full retirement age is 65. For those born during the period 1938 to1942, the full retirement age increases from just over 65 to just under 66. For us boomers born during the period 1943 to 1954, the full retirement age is 66. For yuppies born during the period 1955 to 1959, the full retirement age increases from just over 66 to just under 67. For those born in 1960 or later, well, it doesn’t really matter because the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Bushies have other plans for you.
Regardless of your full retirement age under the current system, you can elect to begin drawing benefits as early as age 62 if you are willing to accept lesser monthly compensation. The reduction in benefits, which is permanent, depends on how close to your full retirement age you are when you begin drawing benefits. The maximum reduction occurs if you retire immediately upon reaching age 62. For those born in 1943 or later, retirement at the stroke of 62 results in a 25 percent reduction from what you would have received if you had waited until full retirement age.
But the full retirement age concept is misleading because if you delay receiving benefits to sometime between your full retirement age and age 70, you get more. How much more depends on how long you wait. For those born in 1943 or later, the yearly increase between full retirement age and age 70 is 8 percent.
Let’s put this in concrete terms. Say you are a boomer—that is, born during the period 1943 to 1954—and say your benefit at the full retirement age of 66 would be $1,000 per month. Thus your benefit if you took early retirement at age 62 would be $750. Here is what delaying benefits would mean:
• Age 62: Monthly Benefit—$750.
• Age 63: Monthly Benefit—$800; 106% of Age 62 Amount.
• Age 64: Monthly Benefit—$867; 116% of Age 62 Amount.
• Age 65: Monthly Benefit—$933; 124% of Age 62 Amount.
• Age 66: Monthly Benefit—$1,000; 133% of Age 62 Amount.
• Age 67: Monthly Benefit—$1,080; 124% of Age 62 Amount.
• Age 68: Monthly Benefit—$1,160; 154% of Age 62 Amount.
• Age 69: Monthly Benefit—$1,240; 165% of Age 62 Amount.
• Age 70: Monthly Benefit—$1,320; 176% of Age 62 Amount.
Thus if you delay benefits until age 70, you would receive almost double what you would receive at age 62. So instead of describing the current system as centered around a full retirement age, a better approach, at least for me, is to view the decision to receive benefits as a bet on when I’m going to croak. By delaying benefits, I would be betting that I’m going to have a viable existence into at least my late 70s. The increased benefits would make that existence more comfortable. By taking benefits early, I would be betting that I’m outta here early.
Does the concept of full retirement age have any real meaning? Yes, and a very important one. If you begin receiving benefits before full retirement age but continue working and receiving earnings, your benefits will reduced. The reduction is $1 for every $2 you make over a limit, which is $12,000 in 2005. In the year you reach full retirement age, the reduction is $1 for every $3 you make over a limit, which is $31,800 in 2005. The reduced benefits do result in increased benefits in later years to account for months you didn’t receive a benefit before reaching full retirement age. Once you reach full retirement age, social security benefits are not affected by other earnings.
The bottom line is that the current social security system requires me to bet on when I’m going to die. By proposing to add even more variables to the system, the Bush Administration apparently wants the members of the younger generation to spend even more time contemplating their demise than us boomers do. With all this attention devoted to death, when do we have time to enjoy the Culture of Life?
DSH
Saturday, April 30, 2005
To: David Letterman Re: Paris Hilton
First, let me explain who I am. I’m a devotee of late night TV (defined as 11:30 pm to about 12 midnight, depending on the circumstances) who has long believed that you were, and are, the rightful successor to the much beloved Johnny Carson. The reasons for preferring you to Jay Leno are plentiful: you are far more witty and clever; you are much less willing to suck up to the politicians of the day; and above all, you can actually conduct an interesting and insightful interview with an intelligent guest.
But therein lies the biggest problem of your show. The quality of your guests has been on a downward spiral for many years.
Fortunately, the first 30 minutes of the show are devoted to banter with Paul and the audience, Top Ten lists, humorous video clips, the absolutely riveting “Will It Float” episodes as well as attention holding escapades in which strange objects are dropped from the top of tall buildings. Mostly sophomoric stuff, but it’s almost midnight and we welcome the silliness.
While silliness may be an acceptable condition at such an hour, guests who are totally devoid of talent, character, and intelligence cannot be tolerated at any hour of the day or night. What prompts this outburst of mine? Well, I’ve seen Paris Hilton (and other such cretins) on your show just one too many times.
Yes, occasionally you have a guest who is truly interesting to hear. They range from highly prominent politicians and major TV personalities to even a few movie stars who are interesting individuals. And, yes, I understand that the guests are there because Viacom is placing them on your show to promote other Viacom-owned businesses such as Paramount Pictures.
But I expect more from you, Dave. That wimpy Jay Leno would never stand up to a network executive and say, “Not on my show!” But you are a better person than that. You have shown on many occasions that you truly have some semblance of integrity. If you tell management that you are not going to stoop but so low, they will back down.
So come on, Dave. Stand up for your long term followers. Stand up for the integrity of your show. And above all, make Harry proud of his dad.
JBY
But therein lies the biggest problem of your show. The quality of your guests has been on a downward spiral for many years.
Fortunately, the first 30 minutes of the show are devoted to banter with Paul and the audience, Top Ten lists, humorous video clips, the absolutely riveting “Will It Float” episodes as well as attention holding escapades in which strange objects are dropped from the top of tall buildings. Mostly sophomoric stuff, but it’s almost midnight and we welcome the silliness.
While silliness may be an acceptable condition at such an hour, guests who are totally devoid of talent, character, and intelligence cannot be tolerated at any hour of the day or night. What prompts this outburst of mine? Well, I’ve seen Paris Hilton (and other such cretins) on your show just one too many times.
Yes, occasionally you have a guest who is truly interesting to hear. They range from highly prominent politicians and major TV personalities to even a few movie stars who are interesting individuals. And, yes, I understand that the guests are there because Viacom is placing them on your show to promote other Viacom-owned businesses such as Paramount Pictures.
But I expect more from you, Dave. That wimpy Jay Leno would never stand up to a network executive and say, “Not on my show!” But you are a better person than that. You have shown on many occasions that you truly have some semblance of integrity. If you tell management that you are not going to stoop but so low, they will back down.
So come on, Dave. Stand up for your long term followers. Stand up for the integrity of your show. And above all, make Harry proud of his dad.
JBY
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Bye to a Favorite Commercial
One of my favorite commercials has been taken off the air. It was the Levitra commercial. I usually saw it during dinner as I was watching the evening news. Having that gal grope, stroke, pat, caress, and otherwise fondle “My Man” as I was shoveling down food made for the perfect culinary experience. Not.
The news article describing the removal said in essence that the ad exaggerated the potency—my word—of the drug and did not warn of all the side effects. The side effects were not discussed in detail, but based on the ad there seems to be one that has long intrigued me. A New York Times columnist noted it a few months ago.
In the ad, “My Man” never says anything. He simply accepts all the attention with a goofy grin on his face. The NYT columnist hypothesized that the drug renders the taker mute. He may be a sex machine of the first order, but he has lost all ability to communicate verbally. Of course, the gal doesn’t seem to mind. To take a little liberty with the song, she’s as horny as Kansas in August. Anyway, she seems perfectly happy with a man who communicates only in the physical realm. Now, how real is that? And why wasn’t I so lucky back when it matter?
The placement of this ad and ones for similar products in the evening news programs of the major networks has puzzled me. For one thing, even assuming that the only group watching network evening news is composed of us graying boomers and our doddering parents, how many of us really want this in-your-face-reminder of nature’s inevitable progression? And just after we’ve seen the latest slaughter in the Middle East? Please, I’m trying to eat.
Also puzzling is why these ads have not attracted the wrath of social conservatives. Oh sure, there has been some grumbling. But can you imagine the outcry if birth control products were advertised in a similar manner? My theory is that the widespread need for the product trumps any qualms about the advertising. Plus, the social conservatives’ culture of life is not just about being pro-life and anti-death but also about not letting nature take its course. Nature tries to reduce the sexual appetite, but the culture of life crowd says: “No way. Give me whatever is necessary to make the equipment work. To keep me alive, ram a tube down my throat. To keep me sowing the seeds of righteousness, give me a pill.”
Anyway, it’s just a theory.
Advertising erectile dysfunction products on prime time TV presents an interesting quandary. On one hand, a government ban on such advertising would remove something about which most people are probably at best squeamish. On the other hand, a government ban itself is a cause for squeamishness. This is one of those situations in which you wish a few Madison Avenue advertising executives and drug company bigwigs could exercise a little restraint. I just want to watch the slaughters on the evening news in peace.
DSH
The news article describing the removal said in essence that the ad exaggerated the potency—my word—of the drug and did not warn of all the side effects. The side effects were not discussed in detail, but based on the ad there seems to be one that has long intrigued me. A New York Times columnist noted it a few months ago.
In the ad, “My Man” never says anything. He simply accepts all the attention with a goofy grin on his face. The NYT columnist hypothesized that the drug renders the taker mute. He may be a sex machine of the first order, but he has lost all ability to communicate verbally. Of course, the gal doesn’t seem to mind. To take a little liberty with the song, she’s as horny as Kansas in August. Anyway, she seems perfectly happy with a man who communicates only in the physical realm. Now, how real is that? And why wasn’t I so lucky back when it matter?
The placement of this ad and ones for similar products in the evening news programs of the major networks has puzzled me. For one thing, even assuming that the only group watching network evening news is composed of us graying boomers and our doddering parents, how many of us really want this in-your-face-reminder of nature’s inevitable progression? And just after we’ve seen the latest slaughter in the Middle East? Please, I’m trying to eat.
Also puzzling is why these ads have not attracted the wrath of social conservatives. Oh sure, there has been some grumbling. But can you imagine the outcry if birth control products were advertised in a similar manner? My theory is that the widespread need for the product trumps any qualms about the advertising. Plus, the social conservatives’ culture of life is not just about being pro-life and anti-death but also about not letting nature take its course. Nature tries to reduce the sexual appetite, but the culture of life crowd says: “No way. Give me whatever is necessary to make the equipment work. To keep me alive, ram a tube down my throat. To keep me sowing the seeds of righteousness, give me a pill.”
Anyway, it’s just a theory.
Advertising erectile dysfunction products on prime time TV presents an interesting quandary. On one hand, a government ban on such advertising would remove something about which most people are probably at best squeamish. On the other hand, a government ban itself is a cause for squeamishness. This is one of those situations in which you wish a few Madison Avenue advertising executives and drug company bigwigs could exercise a little restraint. I just want to watch the slaughters on the evening news in peace.
DSH
Friday, April 15, 2005
PRIVACY OF THE PRIVILEGED
At first blush, the opposition of Virginia state legislators from largely rural areas to automated cameras at traffic signals is perplexing. Why do they care? When at home, they have relatively few traffic signals to contend with, so the personal burden would not seem substantial. Moreover, their argument that the cameras are an invasion of privacy makes little sense. What is private about operating a motor vehicle on a public road? Only the most wild-eyed libertarians are opposed to government’s regulation of driving.
Recently our neighborhood poker group in a little corner of Alexandria considered the question, partly as a break from the depressing topic of property taxes. We came up with the following thought. What state legislators are really afraid of is the possible negative impact on their own privileged positions that might result from a spread of red light cameras.
State legislators have a notorious reputation as habitual violators of traffic laws. Many of them appear to believe that a pass on traffic violations is a perk of the job. And indeed, their work does involve much time on the road. Campaign events, meetings with constituents, attendance at legislative sessions, all entail substantial travel, usually in a vehicle with prominent license plates.
Local law enforcement officials have been known to treat legislators as a privileged group, according them considerable slack. When the big shiny car with those prominent license plates runs a red light, the conversation can go something like this:
“Senator, didn’t you see that red light?”
“I thought I had a yellow. Guess I was a little preoccupied. How’s the wife and kids, anyway?”
“Oh, they’re doing fine, thank you Senator. You need to be a bit more careful. I’ll just give you a warning this time, but please, take it easy.”
“I will, I truly will. And be sure to vote for me come November.”
“You can count on it. And Senator, I know that you boys in the Legislature say it’s okay to drive with an open can of beer, but it’s really not a good idea.”
“Ha, Ha, you’re right Officer. I won’t open another.”
In the unlikely event that a ticket is issued, a phone call to his or her buddy, the local judge, usually suffices:
“Charlie, Howya doin’? How’s Florrie and the kids?”
“Oh, they’re doing good, Roy. How’s Betty Sue?”
“She’s good, real good. Look Charlie, I’ve got this darn ticket for runnin’ that red light over by the feed store. I’m supposed to be in your court next week but I need to be up in Richmond. Anything we can do ‘bout this?”
“I guess we might. Don’t worry about it. But you should be more careful, Roy. This is the third time this year, right?”
“Yeah, I know, Charlie. And I will. You got my word. Give my regards to Florrie.”
“Will do, Roy. And you give my regards to Betty Sue.”
The impersonal automated camera sharply curtails the legislator’s ability to talk his or her way out of a ticket. The legislator no longer enjoys a privileged position. The camera is not a forgiving constituent or a sympathetic fellow member of the local power structure. Instead, an unforgiving, unmovable, inanimate object is now the authority, an authority that gives the big shiny car with the prominent license plates no respect. In other words, the legislator has lost power and privilege, and that hurts. Yes, cameras at traffic signals are indeed an invasion of privacy: the privacy of the privileged.
DSH
Recently our neighborhood poker group in a little corner of Alexandria considered the question, partly as a break from the depressing topic of property taxes. We came up with the following thought. What state legislators are really afraid of is the possible negative impact on their own privileged positions that might result from a spread of red light cameras.
State legislators have a notorious reputation as habitual violators of traffic laws. Many of them appear to believe that a pass on traffic violations is a perk of the job. And indeed, their work does involve much time on the road. Campaign events, meetings with constituents, attendance at legislative sessions, all entail substantial travel, usually in a vehicle with prominent license plates.
Local law enforcement officials have been known to treat legislators as a privileged group, according them considerable slack. When the big shiny car with those prominent license plates runs a red light, the conversation can go something like this:
“Senator, didn’t you see that red light?”
“I thought I had a yellow. Guess I was a little preoccupied. How’s the wife and kids, anyway?”
“Oh, they’re doing fine, thank you Senator. You need to be a bit more careful. I’ll just give you a warning this time, but please, take it easy.”
“I will, I truly will. And be sure to vote for me come November.”
“You can count on it. And Senator, I know that you boys in the Legislature say it’s okay to drive with an open can of beer, but it’s really not a good idea.”
“Ha, Ha, you’re right Officer. I won’t open another.”
In the unlikely event that a ticket is issued, a phone call to his or her buddy, the local judge, usually suffices:
“Charlie, Howya doin’? How’s Florrie and the kids?”
“Oh, they’re doing good, Roy. How’s Betty Sue?”
“She’s good, real good. Look Charlie, I’ve got this darn ticket for runnin’ that red light over by the feed store. I’m supposed to be in your court next week but I need to be up in Richmond. Anything we can do ‘bout this?”
“I guess we might. Don’t worry about it. But you should be more careful, Roy. This is the third time this year, right?”
“Yeah, I know, Charlie. And I will. You got my word. Give my regards to Florrie.”
“Will do, Roy. And you give my regards to Betty Sue.”
The impersonal automated camera sharply curtails the legislator’s ability to talk his or her way out of a ticket. The legislator no longer enjoys a privileged position. The camera is not a forgiving constituent or a sympathetic fellow member of the local power structure. Instead, an unforgiving, unmovable, inanimate object is now the authority, an authority that gives the big shiny car with the prominent license plates no respect. In other words, the legislator has lost power and privilege, and that hurts. Yes, cameras at traffic signals are indeed an invasion of privacy: the privacy of the privileged.
DSH
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
A Modest Proposal for Solving the Critical Shortage of Certain Professionals
Several years ago Jay Mathews, a reporter for The Washington Post who covers education, developed a simplistic and highly questionable method of ranking high schools. His idea was to take the total number of students in a school and divide it by the number of Advance Placement courses taken by the students in the school. The quality of the students’work was of no importance; only quantity counted.
Not surprisingly, this easily computed statistic has been an enormous hit with school administrators. Their only goal is to figure out a way to entice more bodies into AP courses. And any way of doing so is pretty much acceptable. The desired result is simply to make the score on the Mathews scale - which he calls the Challenge Index - go up. As stated before, the grades that students receive in the classes or the scores they receive on the AP exams are irrelevant.
Recently, Patrick Welsh (an English teaches at T.C. Williams High School) challenged this system of rating high schools and pointed out that it has little relevance to classroom teachers who deal with students of greatly varying levels of academic ability [see The Washington Post, April 10, 2005; page B3]. Yes, it is highly popular with administrators who love to generate whatever public relations spin that they can manufacture. But, no, it really does not improve the overall academic performance of students who are either unmotivated to perform well or who do not have strong academic ability.
What we really have is yet another system for declaring by fiat that every child is a genius. Let’s place every child in every AP course and dull children will suddenly become inspired and start to excel at quantum physics and write insightful analyses of Ulysses. Why didn’t we think of this sooner?
In reality, of course, the content of these classes will be substantially lowered. Because if they are not lowered, a sizable number of students will fail. Mathews’ scheme is just the same old ploy to eliminate any and all semblances of grouping students by ability, because in the sacred scriptures of all professional educators there is absolutely no such thing as differing abilities among students. We can all be rocket scientists if we just fill out the right application form.
This line of logic leads me to a fantastic insight for solving such crises as shortages of doctors and computer engineers. The only thing that we need to do is to triple the enrollment in schools of medicine and engineering. And why are we having trouble doing so at present? Well, we maintain this silly system of requiring that certain “standards” be met before admission is granted to these professional schools. But these standards are not a part of the Mathews Challenge Index system. You just simply put a bunch of warm bodies into medical school and engineering school and, voila, we’ll have solved the shortage problem.
Just one question for Mr. Mathews: Would you allow me to select one of these new graduates from medical school to perform your next by-pass surgery?
JBY
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)