Miscellany: 4/25/11

Quote of the Day

Choose thy love. Love thy choice.

German proverb

Donald Trump: SHUT UP About Obama! Talk about the ISSUES!

What is wrong with this guy? Now Trump is claiming that Obama is hiding his Columbia transcripts, that he didn't deserve to be admitted to Harvard Law School in the first place, and it sounded like we were arguing about Bakke (University of California, Board of Regents) all over again (i.e., reverse discrimination). I can't believe that Donald Trump has me actually defending President Obama. Let me be clear, Trump: what you are doing is unworthy of a legitimate candidate for higher office. The fact of the matter is however Obama got into Harvard, he got a law degree magna cum laude, which meant he graduated in the top 10% of his class. So what's Trump's point? Even if Obama got in with a so-so transcript, he still had to perform to make high honors.

Fortunately, there is a highly articulate man in the race whom is accomplished and yet tactful: Mitt Romney. As to Trump, Romney said, "He's a terrific guy and I wish him the very best. I hope he runs, come on in, the water's fine." As for Obama: "He's a nice guy, but he just doesn't understand what it takes to get the economy going." Spot on! Conservatives, take notice: in a poll released late last week from Dartmouth: Romney beats Obama by 8 points in New Hampshire. Trump loses to Obama by 22 points and Palin by 27 points.

Ray Stevens Video: Obama/"Helicopter Ben" Bernanke MONEY

On a Matter of Civility

You know that progressives simply have no shame when they write departure-from-reality things like: "Folks on both sides of the political aisle often agree that former President George W. Bush was one of the most incompetent commander-in-chiefs this country has ever had, but he was never disrespected (barring the shoe throwing incident by an Iraqi journalist) the way our incumbent president has been." First of all, it's hard to think of any two Presidents more incompetent on or less able to deal with military affairs than Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, neither of them whom served a day in the military or National Guard. (It seems their military moves consist largely of firing missiles and aircraft, but real control must be won with boots on the ground.)

I have issues with Bush's management of nation building, level of military staffing, and delays in changing a strategy that wasn't working, but the cited writer is in a state of denial: in fact, the Taliban, which refused to turn over Osama bin Laden, was ousted, and Saddam Hussein was deposed; and while the Democratic-majority Congress in 2007 wanted to cut and run from a seemingly out-of-control Iraq, Bush's change of strategy indisputably worked--over the explicit opposition of one Barack Obama. That singular difference proves that Bush was a more competent Commander in Chief than Obama will ever be.

Bush did not dictate military strategy and tactics but basically delegated authority to DoD and the Chiefs of Staff, something you would expect of a capable manager, versus (say) LBJ micromanaging the Vietnam War; you may disagree with the military command's decisions or recommendations, arguing there were tactical or even strategic mistakes made, but it's difficult to argue that experienced, knowledgeable military leaders were incompetent. (Human performance engineering studies show that even experts make mistakes, although at a low stable rate.)

But in terms of disrespect: anyone who seriously thinks that Barack Obama has gotten even as much as one-tenth of the disrespect as George Bush is in a state of denial. (At least this guy is honest enough to recognize the Iraqi journalist showing his shoes at Bush was disrespectful--but most of his fellow progressives were ecstatic (or angry at the journalist for missing or suggesting things other than shoes). Any cursory Google search will reveal links to the "Top 10 Bush Shoe Throwing Games". There have been literally thousands of "George Bush is stupid" jokes (never mind the guy has earned two Ivy League degrees, started a business, and was an executive for the Texas Rangers), and I got over 5.7 million hits on "George W. Bush" and "monkey".

Even the late night shows (particularly David Letterman) still take shots at George Bush more than 2 years out of office. To give a simple example, Letterman made this recent "joke", a not-so-subtle reference to former Presidents GHW Bush, GW Bush, and Governor Jeb Bush : "Hosni Mubarak was arrested near the Red Sea. They found him in hiding with his two sons, Hosni W. and Jeb." Unlike the constantly Bush-bashing Obama, I've never heard the Bush family EVER take cheap shots at the opposition; it speaks well of how they were raised. I try to pick a couple of late-night jokes to ad lib to, and I rarely find anything decent from Letterman. I don't find the above joke funny at all; it's just a cheap shot. In fact, I really think my jokes are much better than anything in Letterman's repertoire, and to be honest, I rarely see or hear a decent Obama joke; the late night comics make fun of his teleprompter, his ears, etc. Pathetic lack of creativity.

Anyway, what made the progressive blogger so upset was an alleged Orange County (CA) Tea Party activist Marilyn Davenport sent out a family picture of apes with Obama's face superimposed over the baby ape's, reportedly with a caption suggesting this was the reason there was no birth certificate. (The GOP county chair has called for her resignation.) Let me be very clear: whatever I think of President Obama and his policies, it's politics, not personal. I respect the office of the Presidency, and this sort of nonsense is unacceptable, period.

We have a massive federal deficit, 45% of workers exempt from paying a penny of federal government overhead, a health care "reform" law which exacerbates inflation (in which the "consumer" only pays about 10% out of pocket), the highest corporate tax rate in the world, and the jokers in Washington are doing little more but paying lip service to the national debt--but these conservative activists spend their time trying to keep alive a fake controversy over the indisputable fact of the President's birth citizenship--and add an offensive picture that does little to debunk the persistent progressive talking point over the past year that there are racist elements to the Tea Party. Where is RNC Chief Reince Priebus? You need to show some leadership here.

Obama: Sanctions Against Syria? YES!

I have to admit I've been intrigued by the fact that Syria, Iran's ally in the volatile Middle East, has been caught up in the African/Middle East contagion sparked by the Tunisia revolt. I have been sickened, of course, by news reports of the second generation minority strongman leader Bashar al-Assad, directing Syrian security to violently open fire on protesters, killing some 400 to date and another 1000 detained.

More Persecutions/War Crimes Against Christians in Africa

Ivory Coast has exploded into sectarian violence as President-elect Allasane Ouattara from the largely Muslim north part of the country defeated Laurent Ghagbo, whom has refused to give up power. The Obama Administration is backing Ouattara's side in the dispute. Atrocities have been reported for both sides, but one particularly sickening incident is the apparent murder (by gunshot or even machete) of more than 1000 civilians in a Roman Catholic mission in Duekoue overrun by primarily immigrant Muslim militia Ouattara allies. The mainstream media accounts I've seen to date are not really phrasing this in terms of a Christian/Muslim dispute; I'm mostly seeing this subject discussed in these terms by other conservative bloggers, whom seem to think the Obama Administration is not doing enough to protect the Christian minority. I want to be fair and point out that Ouattara forces have distanced themselves from this atrocity. I'm mostly concerned about stabilizing this situation and not letting it become another Rwanda. 

Glenn Beck and the Power of Kindness

This blog has often criticized Glenn Beck for a variety of reasons, but there is no doubt that he has motivated many of his listeners to perform acts of kindness. He discussed one such example on his show today. Good job, Glenn.

Fukushima Nuclear Incident Update

The only major blog update (of the handful of blogs I regularly follow) is for the Hiroshima Syndrome blogger whom starts off by noting the little-observed fact that none of the recent offshore Daiichi site area seawater samples met or exceeded LNT thresholds (in fact, 9 of the 10 showed no measurable trace of radioactive iodine). Temperatures/pressures remain steady; just one of the 2 reactor temperature indicators (the bottom one) for reactor 3 remains above cold shutdown stage. The blogger points out that the European press, stung by Japanese (much-restrained) criticisms of anti-nuke hyperbolic foreign coverage, has counter-charged that there is a lack of sufficient debate in Japan, i.e., the Japanese must be suppressing local anti-nuke voices (and hence they are speaking up on behalf of the Japanese little guy). (In fact, there is Hiroshima Syndrome all over Japan--as this blog has reported; the Japanese have instituted some bureaucratic changes, the government has forbidden shipping of foods anywhere near LNT thresholds, Fukushima refugees are discriminated against, only recently have there been attempts to recover the bodies of tsunami victims, etc.) Finally, there are the usual 'is-America-facing-its-own-Fukushima-Daiichi' queries going on; the blogger notes that America's nuclear plants are not located in Japanese-like earthquake zones and have been built to withstand much stronger earthquakes, tougher standards for backup power, redundant power supplies, etc., were implemented years before this nuclear incident. Do you really think facts are going to stop the anti-nukes from spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt?

Political Humor

"President Obama released his 2010 tax return. It turns out that he made $1.7 million and spent $14 trillion." –Conan O'Brien

[This year President Obama decided to use GE's accountants and discovered with his Kenyan investments he didn't owe any taxes at all last year.]

"Trump is very reluctant to release his tax returns. Either he doesn’t make as much money as he wants people to think he does, or he doesn't want anyone to know he claims his hairpiece as a dependent." –Jimmy Kimmel

[Trump is willing to provide an official receipt that his tax form is on file, but his  1040 cannot be released due to the same privacy laws covering Obama's original birth certificate.]

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

ABBA, "Money, Money, Money"

Miscellany: 4/24/11 Happy Easter!

Rembrandt, The Resurrection of Christ

 

Quote of the Day

Originality is nothing by judicious imitation. The most original writers borrowed one from another.

Voltaire

Feminist Ideology Doesn't Square With The Facts..

Unfortunately, I live in a state with two unaccomplished progressive Senators, Barbara Mikulski and Ben Cardin. Mikulski and Reid recently reintroduced the Paycheck Fairness Act. There's the usual misleading apples-and-oranges statistics, arguing women only achieve 77 cents on the dollar earned by men, despite posted notices on equitable compensation.

There are several reasons for the observed discrepancy, that involve not "gender discrimination" but, for example, males may have disproportionately sought out higher-paying jobs with difficult lifestyle choices.  For example, as a single, never married man without dependents, I've been open to doing the road warrior lifestyle of an IT consultant. I've generally made significantly more as a consultant, but I found myself constantly flying to assignments from weeks to months in duration (5 day weeks, not 4 days on site with a travel day), eating at odd hours in diners or late night fast food, conducting qualification interviews for potential hires in the evening, working on schedules or continuing training requirements, etc. I made more than I did working in a non-consulting role, but I found that I didn't have a social or dating life, I had to fit any visits to relatives around my work/travel schedules, and I was never really off: I might have to log onto a client system during the weekend to do or check on tasks, and check on any interim work emails. Companies often find that they have to pay more to staff these positions. Whereas I did meet female consultants, most of the ones I met happened to be single like me. I think most married women I've met, particularly if they have younger children, don't want to make those quality of life choices, and a number of men I've worked with ended up getting divorced with kids whom barely know them.

There are a couple of relevant quotes from a Time Magazine article posted last September (by a woman) that you PROBABLY would never have learned by politicians pandering to feminist ideologues:

• "A new analysis [by James Chung of Reach Advisors] of 2,000 communities by a market research company, in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in the U.S., the median full-time salaries of [unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities] are 8% higher than those of the guys in their peer group... This squares with earlier research from Queens College, New York, that had suggested that this was happening in major metropolises. [Chung] attributes the earnings reversal overwhelmingly to one factor: education... Studies have consistently shown that a college degree pays off in much higher wages over a lifetime, and even in many cases for entry-level positions."
• "Late last year [2009], the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that for the first time, women made up the majority of the workforce in highly paid managerial positions."
  

Dr. Mark Perry, on his interesting Carpe Diem blog, has a periodic tongue-in-cheek gimmick where he'll mark up some pretentious progressive nonsense, like a recent relevant New York Times editorial. The markup on the editorial backing the Mikulski bill is somewhat amusing.

More to the point, he has another post today pointing out that female ratio of college graduates dominates all but one category (professional) and even that category is less than 1.5%, with an overall advantage of roughly 17%. (In particular, we see lopsided majorities in the categories of African American women and Latinas.)

Trump's 'Sarah Palin Moment' on Abortion

I still remember when I first found out about abortion. I had seen the word discussed in some newspaper and asked my mom, whom described it in clinical, nonjudgmental terms. I was horrified that women would even think about doing that. I remember saying, "But that's murder! What does the (Catholic) Church say about this? They have got to be against this." (Of course, the Church has always regarded it as a grave sin, from the earliest days, including explicit references in the Didache: "you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born" ["The Romans practiced infanticide, contraception and abortion in order to limit the number of children born to the Roman family."])

The pro-abortion choice proponents have attempted to paint it as a religious issue vs. a general ethical issue in a deliberately misleading manner.  Christ Himself never specifically addresses the issue, but what is clear is that abortions in Israel were rare during times of Jesus, generally not accepted for reasons (e.g., economic reasons, lifestyle choices, deformity of the fetus, etc.) other than to save the lives of mothers; it's hardly surprising that Jesus wouldn't feel the need to preach against the rare practice of abortion in contemporary Jewish society versus more salient issues: he wasn't preaching to the Roman occupiers.

I have made it clear where I stand on Roe v Wade, and the underlying decision is poorly and wrongly decided. What we do know, from science, is that the unborn child from the moment of conception is biologically distinct from his or her mother. The child is, by nature, directly dependent on the mother for nourishment, just like a child after birth is relatively helpless and demands constant attention by the parents or surrogates. Certainly a woman has the right to have her tubes tied, to engage in preventive contraception, or to refuse sex. (I do think if she's married, certain relevant decisions should be jointly made.) Once a child comes into being, the facts have changed. The mother has a responsibility which reflect the choices she has made, directly or indirectly.

I'm not going to go into the details of Griswold v Connecticut  although I have previously mentioned I am sympathetic to looking at issues like family planning to be an unenumerated right (Ninth Amendment). (Does the state have the right to ensure, say, birth control drugs are safe and are marketed with valid claims? Yes.) Note that the Connecticut law restricting contraceptives, like, say, Texas sodomy laws, was an unenforceable law on the books for almost a century before being resurrected for political reasons. Like all rights, the right of family planning can be limited by due process; for example, the incarceration of a spouse will hamper the ability to have additional children. The decision found access to contraceptives to be under the right to marital privacy; it should be noted that Griswold did not expand on that privacy right to include abortion, but Roe v Wade eventually did, using the Fourteenth Amendment to compel conformance of states. In fact, Justice Blackmun did restrict that right within the last trimester, which I find utterly arbitrary and unpersuasive based on a leap of logic that conveniently defines away the human rights of the unborn child.

In fact, I do agree that all things being equal, the state does not have the right to intrude on our private lives. But there are circumstances where the state does have a vested interest in terms of protecting the more fundamental rights of others. If I'm the head of a household, I have certain financial responsibility for family members (food, shelter, health, etc.); I do not have a right to physically abuse them or take their lives. Public safety professionals have often intervened at family homes. The judicial system also is supposed to respect legal traditions, and there had been restrictions on abortion since at least the 1820's and most abortions were outlawed by 1900, in part due to conscientious objections by the medical profession. Whereas certain states or even the country sought to extend laws reflect certain idiosyncratic religious moral teachings (e.g., Texas sodomy and blue laws, Prohibition, etc.), there is a significant moral distinction between contraception and abortion; most people would also recognize there are certain restrictions on a pregnant woman's behavior (e.g., proper nourishment, alcohol and certain addictive drugs). Justice Byron White agreed with the court's decision in Griswold but did not find the same type privacy right in Roe v Wade.

I understand the Roe v Wade decision but fundamentally disagree with the leap of logic subordinating the rights of the unborn child to a woman's privacy rights, for the same reasoning I would oppose infanticide, and I disagree that the rights of a child change by some unspecified arbitrary line in human physical development. Nobody (except maybe progressive social workers) wants to tell parents how to raise their children.

In a recent NBC interview with Savannah Guthrie, Trump fell into EXACTLY the same gotcha trap that pro-life Sarah Palin fell into in the disastrous Katie Couric interview ("[VP Candidate Sarah Palin] was asked: “Do you think there's an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution?” Palin responded, “I do. Yeah, I do.”"):

Guthrie: “Is there a right to privacy in the Constitution?”

Trump: “I guess there is, I guess there is. And why, just out of curiosity, why do you ask that question?”

When pressed to explain how his position on the right to privacy “squares” with his anti-abortion position, Trump responded: “Well, that’s a pretty strange way of getting to pro-life. I mean, it’s a very unique way of asking about pro-life. What does that have to do with privacy? How are you equating pro-life with privacy? ”

Guthrie asked, “well, you know about the Roe v. Wade decision.” Trump responded, “yes, right, sure. Look, I am pro-life. I’ve said it. I’m very strong there.”

First of all, whether you're Palin or Trump, any reasonably intelligent person knows that over the past 40 years, the abortion issue is a predictable litmus test that is routinely played out whenever we discuss a potential vacancy on the Supreme Court. The mainstream media have a very predictable agenda that focuses on two lines of attack: (1) attempt to portray the pro-life candidate as "extremist", by probing their positions on abortion when the mother's life is in danger or in the case of rape; (2) try to undermine the credibility of the candidate by showing how uninformed the conservative is.

Do you really expect for the mainstream media to be even-handed? For example, question the morally incoherent position espoused by some well-known Catholic politicians like Pelosi, Biden, Cuomo and Kerry that they are personally opposed to abortion but don't want to impose their religious views on others? After all, do we also have to throw out laws against theft, perjury, or murder of post-birth humans, because we don't want to impose the Ten Commandments on the rest of society? Or at what magic moment do they believe the fetus becomes a person? They also advance disingenuous arguments, like Exodus does not prescribe the death penalty (but a lesser penalty) for someone whom is responsible for the death of an unborn child or a few early/Middle Age Christian theologians accepting the science of certain ancient Greek philosophers (i.e., Aristotle) whom held that a fetus goes through prior non-human stages of development before ensoulment. What they don't say, of course, is that the same theologians, making a judgment based on obsolete and incorrect science involving fetal development, have never failed to morally condemn pre-ensoulment abortion as frustrating the indisputable Judaic-Christian concept that each child is a gift from God, and rejecting that life is a profound sin, a rejection of God Himself. There is no doubt that if the ancient Jews or Christian theologians knew today's accepted scientific evidence of distinctive personal characteristics from the moment of conception, their source materials would have been written differently.

Now in terms of dealing with the media, as soon as a conservative hears a news reporter talk about "right to privacy", it's basically progressive shorthand for the unrestricted legal right to an abortion. I realize Donald Trump hasn't officially announced his candidacy yet, but it doesn't seem prudent for him to be discussing politics in the interim, before he has fully fleshed out his political positions and worked with some political consultants to prepare him for exactly these type of gotcha interviews.

Donald Trump has considerable skills, particularly in self-promotion. Unfortunately, he doesn't have knowledge and experience in the political arena. He needs to have a healthy respect for his limitations, and definitely, in this case, he was unaware of Sarah Palin's interview problems.  There is simply no excuse for improper preparation at anything, including a run for the Presidency. Donald Trump certainly wouldn't do that going into a business deal. It's almost insulting to the American that an otherwise intelligent man like Trump would launch a Presidential bid so casually and bombastically. It comes across to me like he looked at the election and thought, "What do I need to need to do to become the GOP nominee? Well, they don't like Obama, they have questions about his birth certificate, the base is pro-life; they are for the traditional definition of marriage; they think too many Mexicans are illegally crossing the border; ..." So he goes out and delivers on those talking points.  If you look at the exchange above, he's not really concerned about the interviewer revealing he didn't know about key arguments made in the Roe v Wade decision; he's not even thinking of the general election campaign right now. He knows to face Obama, he must capture the GOP base. (Keep in mind that there are also a  number of pro-abortion rights Republicans, e.g., Colin Powell.) Most of the faithful aren't that concerned with the reasoning behind what they consider to be a fundamentally unjust decision. That's why Trump is intent on hitting his marks: he's pro-life, against Roe v Wade.

The fact of that matter, like Sarah Palin, Trump doesn't have much of a political public record, and there are going to be interviews where, as in the case of 2008's Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric interviews with Sarah Palin, interviewers are looking for a career-making takeaway, perhaps casting doubt on a candidate's fitness for office: his command of the issues, his general character, intelligence and temperament, his qualifications for the office, etc.

There is nothing wrong with having self-confidence but in some cases, "less is more". He's barely touching on the key issues of the 2012 campaign: an out-of-control, intractable budget, federal bureaucracy, and entitlements, a smoke-and-mirrors health care law and super-bureaucracy, an all-but-certain train wreck with the Baby Boomer tsunami only in the initial stages of being played out. Instead, he's suggesting steps which potentially could set up a dangerous confrontation with Iran, trade wars with China: we have overextended our military, we've exhausted our finances.

I personally find it embarrassing to see that a large plurality of Republicans and/or Tea Party members claim to believe that Obama was not born in the US, despite compelling evidence otherwise. Maybe it's Corsi's most recently published flawed research or the constant hyping of conspiracy theories by the angry media conservatives. Every time I point out the facts my readership seems to decline. (I don't really think that many Republicans or Tea Party members are really that stupid; I think they see it as some sort of referendum on Obama, and the poll is really reflecting their rejection of Obama, period. It's what we behavioral researchers sometimes call a 'halo effect'.)

Anyone reading this blog on a regular basis knows that I am a sharp, persistent critic of Obama. Trump and I agree on one thing: Obama is, without question, the most incompetent, worst President in the history of the United States; it's not even close. There are only two reasons he has a shot of reelection: first, American voters personally like him, despite of the fact they disagree with his policies; second, I think they like the fact the nation proved it would vote for an African American to the Presidency in the aftermath of divisive racial politics throughout American history. Moreover, there will always be voters reluctant to admit they voted for the wrong person.

Fukushima Nuclear Incident Update

No new posts on the major blogs I follow. Presumably the reactor pressurized vessels 1 through 3 and spent fuel pools 1 through 4 are replenished with coolant on as-needed basis, temperature and pressure in the RPV's are declining/stable, and contaminated water from the reactor 2 turbine building is in process to the rad waste storage tank.

Political Humor

A few originals:

• President Obama had a Passover Seder at the White House. VP Biden was there as well, telling the Orthodox rabbi sitting next to him about the great hot dog he had at the last ballgame he went to and how he was particularly looking forward to the succulent Easter ham he would have this Sunday dinner, topped with Obama's Own pineapple glaze.
• Donald Trump is getting competitive in the upcoming GOP race with Mitt Romney. Not only does he think it's relevant being the first billionaire to run for the GOP nomination over a mere multi-millionaire like Romney, but he is clearly more in favor of traditional marriage, having married three women (tied with Newt Gingrich) to Romney's one, and has more experience dealing with bankruptcies, having had four of his own. But his worst attack ad notes that Romney has earned a Harvard law degree (like President Obama) and a Harvard MBA (like President Bush). Trump proudly notes that, like Sarah Palin, he stopped with just one college degree, and he would be the first American President since 1988 without a Harvard or Yale degree.

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

ABBA, "I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do"

Miscellany: 4/23/11

Quote of the Day

Travel only with thy equals or thy betters; if there are none, travel alone.

The Dhammapada

What Progressive Spherehead Thought Up This Idea?

Well, you'll be glad to know our progressive schools of education and enlightened Seattle public school administrations know their priorities. A private high school volunteer decided to organize an Easter egg hunt (plastic eggs filled with treats and jelly beans) as a fun activity for third graders. She was given permission by the third-grade teacher so long as she referred to the items as 'spring spheres', not 'Easter eggs'. The King County censors administrators have also stripped the word 'Easter' from their egg hunt activity. You see, some Constitutionally-protected freedom of speech words are "more equal" than others. You see, the mere utterance of the word 'Easter' is a magic spell which will instantly convert Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Wiccan and atheist children into devout Christians, praying for the conversion of their parents and siblings. [Of course, it also causes the mystical transfer of funds from public to Christian church coffers.] One must be officially intolerant of Christian words or else children from other backgrounds might traumatically learn by accident that Christian children live in America (before their parents have been able to prepare their kids for that awful truth--it's not a valid education topic like why it's okay for Uncle Harry to wear Granny's underwear and dresses). Thank God Mother Earth we have wise progressive sphereheads in public office to protect emotionally fragile kids from having to cope with the unbearable fact that they live in a pluralistic society with the expectation of mutual tolerance...

The Corrupt 'Business As Usual' Obama Administration:

NLRB Backs Frivolous Complaint From Union Special Interests:

Thumbs DOWN!

Boeing has been stung by four strikes at the end of 3-year contracts by its Seattle area International Association of Machinists union, costing the company some $2B in revenue. Boeing decided to create a second 787 Dreamliner factory; it started to talk to IAM in 2007 about a second Seattle factory. In 2008, IAM conducted a 2-month strike. IAM balked at Boeing's desire for a longer-term contract, knowing that Boeing has the economic liberty to build a factory in any state it chooses. Boeing decided to build its new factory in right-to-work state South Carolina, which it selected in October 2009.

This week the pro-union acting counsel for the NLRB, Lafe Solomon, issued a complaint, claiming that Boeing's decision to choose South Carolina was illegal retaliation against IAM for the 2008 strike. The complaint is totally without merit and based purely on Obama Administration paying off its special interest supporters. The idea that a union can veto management decisions by stonewalling negotiations, whether or not a second factory was raised in negotiations, is fundamentally unacceptable in principle. Boeing decided, as a business decision, that it needed to more control over its operational risks; it could do that locally by getting an agreement for a longer contract or building the second factory elsewhere. The union knew Boeing wanted a longer contract, and one of the benefits to a better contract would be an increased confidence for the company to expand locally, which would likely increase union membership. The union declined a longer contract. 

Decisions have consequences. Boeing never had a contractual commitment to expand its capacity locally. Moreover, IAM's accusations of  Boeing's "union busting" are even less tenuous when you consider that Boeing, since October 2009, has hired over 2000 new Seattle area workers versus 1000 in South Carolina. Obama's attempt to pack the NLRB with pro-union cronies, like the recess appointment of SEIU/AFL-CIO counsel Craig Becker, is nothing but a job-killing attack on American businesses. Unions have become state-of-denial anachronisms in an era when American businesses must be highly productive and react with speed and flexibility in a competitive global economy  

Guest Editorial: 

Charles Murray/CATO, "Bearish on the Bachelor's Degree": Thumbs UP!

In yesterday's post, I published a commentary on a different, related Murray essay, dealing with what could replace a bachelor's degree. This essay focuses on three reasons given for buying  earning a college degree: (1) a great liberal education, (2) a bridge to adulthood, and (3) a job ticket in the future, given expected earnings.  

It goes without saying when a libertarian conservative like myself speaks of "liberal", we aren't speaking of the current political ideology, but an education that is "concerned mainly with broadening a person's general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training" (Google Dictionary). Of course, this means going beyond the pervasive progressive groupthink in academia. (Some of us learned to think for ourselves rather than seeking approval by genuflecting in front of the self-righteous, condescending, self-important, judgmental politically powerful progressive elitists.) In fact, a liberal education necessarily means going outside of one's comfort zone, e.g., getting rigorous exposure to ancient through modern civilizations, religions, literature, art, science and mathematics, music, economics, and languages. Years ago I was attracted to the Paideia Proposal. (Anyone who agrees with this approach, like me, is aghast at what is going in the K-12 classroom, and the fact that education majors did not fare well in Arum & Roska's Academically Adrift is truly disconcerting. Cheers for Tiger Moms!)

Robert Hutchins says:

The liberally educated man has a mind that can operate well in all fields. He may be a specialist in one field. But he can understand anything important that is said in any field and can see and use the light that it shed upon his own. The liberally educated man is at home in the world of ideas and in the world or practical affairs, too, because he understands the relation of the two. He may not be at home in the world of practical affairs in the sense of liking the life he finds about him; but he will be at home in that world in the sense that he understands it. He may even derive from his liberal education some conception of the difference between a bad world and a good one and some notion of the ways in which one might be turned onto the other.

Getting back to Murray's point: only a handful of colleges deliver on the vision of Mortimer Adler and others. Instead, one has academic programs where, say (my example), Western Civilization course requirements are ditched in favor of politically motivated academic program survey classes in ethnic and feminist studies, multicultural literature, etc. You can fulfill degree requirements by taking (among other examples) frivolous classes on popular culture, e.g., Madonna, drinking and the college life, etc. So if a parent or student thinks, because of college hype, that for $30K or more a year, the college graduate will be a polymath or a Renaissance Man, it's a fraud. (In fact, many of today's college graduates don't even know what a polymath is... They probably have never met one.)

Murray's second point is consistent with my ideal of the college graduate as self-actualized. For instance, your professor is not your peer, friend, or drinking buddy. If you sleep through your final, you flunk the course; you don't get a make-up exam because the idea of failing a class might hurt your self-esteem. If you fall asleep at your job (let's take the improbable example, say, as an air traffic controller), you could be morally, if not legally responsible for deaths and destruction of property. Many college graduates have poor work habits, lousy communication skills and unrealistic expectations (they figure it might even take as long as a couple of years to make it to CEO).

Murray then talks about the idea of a college degree as a leg up in making a decent living. In essence, he's arguing that's true, but it doesn't mean that the employer is getting much of anything from that student's 4 years in college: a college degree simply provides a pragmatic first-cut filter when hiring in a buyer's market. He notes that the highly competitive nature of admission to certain prestigious programs (e.g., the Ivy League) provides a surrogate measure of an applicant's general intelligence and the timely completion of a degree plan an indicator of the student's motivation and persistence. I will point out some colleges/majors are more rigorous than others and with pervasive grade inflation and the lack of objective measures, it's difficult to compare graduates. (I will point out that some prestigious programs will provide what they consider a politically correct, more "balanced" student base, and in my case I was motivated by a college that offered a tuition scholarship and a college work-study stipend to cover my remaining expenses. I don't think there are many times today you'll find another 4.0 GPA student mopping cafeteria floors at 6AM or working at a library while his favorite team is playing in the Super Bowl. Of course, my favorite team is 0-4 in Super Bowl history, so maybe that was a blessing...)

I do think from Murray's two essays, he doesn't give enough credit to students whom manage to excel in areas I majored in, mathematics and philosophy. (I do realize I have a vested interest in such a consideration... I'll forget losing full credit on a freshman calculus exam for a proof. I argued my 10-step proof was valid, and my math professor agreed but pointed out I could have proved the theorem in 6 steps. Let's just say if I did that as a professor in one of today's colleges, I probably would have a line of parents and lawyers outside my office.) I have met others, especially during my years in information technology. Pure math and philosophy are probably as far from a professional program as one can get, but you have to have some serious intellectual bandwidth to do well (outstanding general analytical, problem-solving and/or communication skills). I would hire a talented graduate in a heartbeat for an IT position over any MIS student I've ever taught...

Fukushima Nuclear Incident Update

Atomic Power Review notes:

• Saturday afternoon update: The three problem reactors continue to stabilize in terms of temperature and pressure. Davis talks about the process and trade-offs in raising water levels in primary containment and reactor pressurized vessels, particularly in the context of any future earthquake activity, and the questions being raised about the level of building flooding. There was also the discovery of a piece of radioactive debris in a reactor 3 building; they are attempting to identify the source of the debris and why it's giving off high readings. 

Political Humor

"In the whimsical nation of Iran, citizens are taking to the streets to support legislation that would make it illegal to own a dog as a pet. Finally a country in the Middle East that really has its priorities straight." - Jimmy Kimmel

[Iran is looking to expand its trade ties with China; it had been thinking of a new trade pact with North Korea, until the North Korean government placed a price cap on dog meat last year.]

"The FAA has suspended an air traffic controller for watching a movie while on the job. The guy explained that he just couldn't get to sleep." - Conan O'Brien

[What's worse: he was watching the movie "Airplane!"]

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

ABBA, "Voulez-Vous"