WHAT HAS 100 LEGS AND EATS CABBAGE? Instapundit has discovered a weblog based in Sofia, Bulgaria, with a reaction to a visit by some Transnational Progressive. "Prices were cheaper back during the previous government, isn’t that right? Now I mean, you didn’t have cuisine then like MacDonalds,” he sneered that last word, “but hey?"
"The [Bulgarian hostess] girl looked like she was going to use her knife, but instead, she told him that everything was indeed much, much cheaper under Communism. Bananas, she said, were only 5 stultinki per kilo [US: 2.5 cents]. He nodded, knowingly. Except, she added, there were no bananas.
You could buy bread for 2 stultinki per loaf…He looked at her warily now…But bread was rationed."
InstaPundit gives this post his traditional "Indeed." Some people with shorter memories could do with a review session here. The creature with 100 legs that eats cabbage is 50 Muscovites lining up to buy sausage. And the bread might well have been rationed, after the collective farms bought bread for cattle feed. I am not making this up. Price controls on bread meant bread cheaper than unmilled grain. I guess the New Socialist Man was supposed to be a ruminant.
Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
15.11.02
14.11.02
LIBERTARIAN DEMOCRATS? Not quite, but a lengthy Kenneth S. Baer review of John B. Judis and Ruy Teixeira's The Emerging Democratic Majority. Some of my observations do turn up in the review. Consider this: "Professionals have come in contact with and been frustrated by authorities in both the private and public sector, forcing them to cede their own standards of quality to market imperatives. (Think of how much doctors hate HMOs, and one can grasp why professionals may no longer feel fidelity to the party of laissez-faire capitalism.)" By the same token, such professionals aren't going to be too enthusiastic about the public sector authorities not identified in the quote as objects of hate.
And this: "Beginning in the mid-1980s with the rise of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and the New Democrats, the Democratic Party began to shed its baggage as a party that could not be trusted to spend taxpayer dollars responsibly (which is important to fiscally conservative professionals) or to stand up for mainstream cultural values (which is important to the white working class). During the Clinton years, the Democratic Party--in Judis and Teixeira's approving words--offered a "moderate accommodation" to the "radical movements" of both the left and right." And apart from that business with Monica and Eleanor Mondale, the strategy was pretty successful. Why Vice President Gore chose to run as George McGovern with personality eludes me to this day.
As Baer's subtext here might be: "The Clinton record on reducing crime, reforming welfare, eliminating the deficit, expanding educational opportunity, and growing the economy speaks for itself--but it also spoke to voters, helping re-elect the first Democrat to a second full term in the White House since 1936. Another reason is that, just as a surging surplus began to stir the Old Democratic passion for big government programs--and the GOP's for massive tax cuts--Bill Clinton dedicated it to "save Social Security first." By placing fiscal discipline in defense of a valued entitlement, he solidified liberal support for his fiscal conservatism."
Here's Baer's conclusion (I don't know whether I've just read a book review, or the minutes of a Democratic caucus, but anyway): "Despite the continued dominance of the institutional party by Old Democrats far to the left of the general electorate and a noticeable resurgence of old perceptions of the party (weak on defense, soft on crime, untrustworthy on taxes), the party is at parity with the GOP." The review was penned before the election. Why the House Democrats, given the choice of a New Democrat with African ancestors, or a San Francisco Democrat with Silent Generation baggage, are choosing the latter also escapes me.
And this: "Beginning in the mid-1980s with the rise of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and the New Democrats, the Democratic Party began to shed its baggage as a party that could not be trusted to spend taxpayer dollars responsibly (which is important to fiscally conservative professionals) or to stand up for mainstream cultural values (which is important to the white working class). During the Clinton years, the Democratic Party--in Judis and Teixeira's approving words--offered a "moderate accommodation" to the "radical movements" of both the left and right." And apart from that business with Monica and Eleanor Mondale, the strategy was pretty successful. Why Vice President Gore chose to run as George McGovern with personality eludes me to this day.
As Baer's subtext here might be: "The Clinton record on reducing crime, reforming welfare, eliminating the deficit, expanding educational opportunity, and growing the economy speaks for itself--but it also spoke to voters, helping re-elect the first Democrat to a second full term in the White House since 1936. Another reason is that, just as a surging surplus began to stir the Old Democratic passion for big government programs--and the GOP's for massive tax cuts--Bill Clinton dedicated it to "save Social Security first." By placing fiscal discipline in defense of a valued entitlement, he solidified liberal support for his fiscal conservatism."
Here's Baer's conclusion (I don't know whether I've just read a book review, or the minutes of a Democratic caucus, but anyway): "Despite the continued dominance of the institutional party by Old Democrats far to the left of the general electorate and a noticeable resurgence of old perceptions of the party (weak on defense, soft on crime, untrustworthy on taxes), the party is at parity with the GOP." The review was penned before the election. Why the House Democrats, given the choice of a New Democrat with African ancestors, or a San Francisco Democrat with Silent Generation baggage, are choosing the latter also escapes me.
SELF-SELECTION. The magazine column in Monday's Chicago Tribune (print edition) refers to "The story that got away: Education's 'big payoff'." The Forbes column in question, by Dan Seligman, has headline, "Contrary to what you were authoritatively told by the media, our government has no evidence that increased education will raise incomes." Seligman's main point: "They are ignoring--just as the Census Bureau is ignoring--the powerful possibility that the correlation exists mainly because smart people tend to want more education, and smart people are what employers keep looking for: workers who catch on fast, are easy to train, and don't screw up. Many employers have used college degrees as a proxy for intelligence. But if not-so-smart people try to get in on the high-income game by, say, going to college instead of grabbing a job at age 18, they will ultimately find it doesn't pay. The labor markets are quite sophisticated at sniffing out true mental-ability levels."
There are two hypotheses, with modest support for both positions. First, there is the human capital hypothesis: more schooling gets you thinking more clearly. Second, there is the signalling hypothesis: the degree is a signal of ability, but because it is costly to acquire, under some circumstances only those people who have the ability will acquire the signal. There are Nobel laureates in economics (Gary Becker and A. Michael Spence come to mind first) who earned the honor for thinking through the subtleties of these things. And yes, if we made public policy with the expectation that universal college education would raise everyone's living standards, we'd probably be disappointed.
Seligman makes some other observations that don't really move his argument forward. Consider "It is certainly possible to identify individuals not now going to college who would benefit if they did go. But it seems even easier to identify young persons who are in college and shouldn't be there. The enormous number of college students instantly needing remedial help when they show up on campus surely carries a message. The National Center for Education Statistics tells us that 35.5% of first- and second-year undergraduates report having taken remedial courses--most often in math but also in reading, writing and, getting to the truly clueless, "study skills" (taught to 17.4% of those in remedial programs)."
I think we have a Complex Proposition here. Perhaps the message those students taking remedial (make that "middle school") courses are sending is that the middle and high schools are not doing their jobs. Regime change begins in kindergarten. Perhaps the message is that the admissions office has been engaging in affirmative discrimination, with lower admission standards for some students than others, who will be at greater risk of failure, absent such support, than students who were admitted under tougher standards. Regime change continues at the admissions office. Or perhaps the message is that having sufficient bodies to pay the bonds on the office buildings and athletic facilities each year, whether or not those bodies remain in residence, once "remediated," to complete a degree. Regime change must include the central administration in that case.
There are two hypotheses, with modest support for both positions. First, there is the human capital hypothesis: more schooling gets you thinking more clearly. Second, there is the signalling hypothesis: the degree is a signal of ability, but because it is costly to acquire, under some circumstances only those people who have the ability will acquire the signal. There are Nobel laureates in economics (Gary Becker and A. Michael Spence come to mind first) who earned the honor for thinking through the subtleties of these things. And yes, if we made public policy with the expectation that universal college education would raise everyone's living standards, we'd probably be disappointed.
Seligman makes some other observations that don't really move his argument forward. Consider "It is certainly possible to identify individuals not now going to college who would benefit if they did go. But it seems even easier to identify young persons who are in college and shouldn't be there. The enormous number of college students instantly needing remedial help when they show up on campus surely carries a message. The National Center for Education Statistics tells us that 35.5% of first- and second-year undergraduates report having taken remedial courses--most often in math but also in reading, writing and, getting to the truly clueless, "study skills" (taught to 17.4% of those in remedial programs)."
I think we have a Complex Proposition here. Perhaps the message those students taking remedial (make that "middle school") courses are sending is that the middle and high schools are not doing their jobs. Regime change begins in kindergarten. Perhaps the message is that the admissions office has been engaging in affirmative discrimination, with lower admission standards for some students than others, who will be at greater risk of failure, absent such support, than students who were admitted under tougher standards. Regime change continues at the admissions office. Or perhaps the message is that having sufficient bodies to pay the bonds on the office buildings and athletic facilities each year, whether or not those bodies remain in residence, once "remediated," to complete a degree. Regime change must include the central administration in that case.
MICROSOFT UPDATE. Atlantic Blog has the link to Brad DeLong's Microsoft post, noting that DeLong relies heavily on the comments of Nathan Newman, who Atlantic Blog describes as a "political activist." Atlantic Blog also has a link to Newmark's Door, with the observation that Newmark uses "actual evidence." Data in search of a hypothesis, perhaps ... while it may be true that the bear market lasted approximately from the guilty verdict in spring 2000 to the acceptance by Judge Kollar-Kotelly of the settlement, it is also true that stocks trading at 300 times actual earnings rather than the (old?) equilibrium value of 15 times earnings are likely to fall in price.
SEND ALL MY EXES TO SENSITIVITY TRAINING. Yup. Shunning is now emotional abuse, reports No. 2 Pencil. I am not making this up. Here's her take: "If these rules are intended to teach children how to behave when they grow up, then we should allow them to shun to their heart's content, because shunning is an old, valued, and perfectly polite way of conveying, 'I don't wish to be associated with you.' Just ask Miss Manners."
CREDIBLE THREAT? Little Green Footballs posts a lengthy statement from an al-Qaeda commander detailing dire consequences for the United States, and warning that the assets are already in place. A number of comments to the post have noted, if the assets are in place, why have they not already been used? Although the conflict between the United States and its allies and al-Qaeda is a repeated game, I do not know of any version of the folk theorem in which deferring your greatest threat rather than using it immediately is optimal. If there is research to that effect, please let me know.
As a nontechnical note, in repeated competition a competitor might want to establish a reputation for being ruthless, even at the cost of a short-term loss. Think, for example, about a chain store confronting a sequence of competitors. The most effective way to confirm that you will destroy any competitor is to destroy the first competitor. In like manner, if you have nuclear weapons, and your objective is to destroy the United States, it strikes me as more effective to use them rather than posture about them being hidden somewhere in tamper-proof cases. All it takes is the wrong computer being captured in Afghanistan with the locations stored on the hard drive...
As a nontechnical note, in repeated competition a competitor might want to establish a reputation for being ruthless, even at the cost of a short-term loss. Think, for example, about a chain store confronting a sequence of competitors. The most effective way to confirm that you will destroy any competitor is to destroy the first competitor. In like manner, if you have nuclear weapons, and your objective is to destroy the United States, it strikes me as more effective to use them rather than posture about them being hidden somewhere in tamper-proof cases. All it takes is the wrong computer being captured in Afghanistan with the locations stored on the hard drive...
OPPORTUNITY COSTS. "Recently, I heard several students complain that they couldn't print out their assignments because the computer room was out of paper. And faculty members, who haven't had a pay raise in two years, have recently seen their health insurance increase. Faculty also pay $172 per year to park at work.
While the university cannot seem to find the money to deal with some of these pressing issues, they always seem to find funding for the so-called "diversity" agenda. In fact, just a few days ago, the Chancellor disseminated a report from a diversity task force which hints that diversity funding may soon increase dramatically."
No, not another blast at the Northern Illinois University administration. Mike S. Adams is associate professor of criminal justice at UNC-Wilmington (motto: Where the Anaconda Plan was Completed) and his post has drawn comments from Tightly Wound and from Critical Mass. The factionalism among the various identities politic that Critical Mass notes is nothing new: if each believes that the total benefit to all is a reward of fixed size, each will squabble among the others. No big surprise there. Let me rather direct your attention to Professor Adams's concluding remarks:
"Reasonable people understand that when an idea fails consistently that it just might be wrong. But when we deal with the diversity proponents we are dealing with people who are at war with the very concepts of right and wrong. We are also dealing with people whose financial and political interests rely heavily on the success of the diversity movement.
Indeed, if the diversity nightmare ever ends, it will not be the result of some sudden realization among college administrators that it is expensive, hypocritical, and divisive. It will only end when ordinary Americans realize that they can no longer afford to be silent."
Amen to that, and next week's sermon will be on the peril of the next costly and time-wasting administrative fad, namely assessing the obvious. For those of you who want to read ahead, look at the next post.
While the university cannot seem to find the money to deal with some of these pressing issues, they always seem to find funding for the so-called "diversity" agenda. In fact, just a few days ago, the Chancellor disseminated a report from a diversity task force which hints that diversity funding may soon increase dramatically."
No, not another blast at the Northern Illinois University administration. Mike S. Adams is associate professor of criminal justice at UNC-Wilmington (motto: Where the Anaconda Plan was Completed) and his post has drawn comments from Tightly Wound and from Critical Mass. The factionalism among the various identities politic that Critical Mass notes is nothing new: if each believes that the total benefit to all is a reward of fixed size, each will squabble among the others. No big surprise there. Let me rather direct your attention to Professor Adams's concluding remarks:
"Reasonable people understand that when an idea fails consistently that it just might be wrong. But when we deal with the diversity proponents we are dealing with people who are at war with the very concepts of right and wrong. We are also dealing with people whose financial and political interests rely heavily on the success of the diversity movement.
Indeed, if the diversity nightmare ever ends, it will not be the result of some sudden realization among college administrators that it is expensive, hypocritical, and divisive. It will only end when ordinary Americans realize that they can no longer afford to be silent."
Amen to that, and next week's sermon will be on the peril of the next costly and time-wasting administrative fad, namely assessing the obvious. For those of you who want to read ahead, look at the next post.
IT'S CALLED A MARKET TEST. Highered Intelligence has a post on something called the National Survey of Student Engagement, administered to freshmen and to seniors, posing questions such as "The Nessie surveys of freshmen and senior undergraduates measure academic challenge, active and collaborative learning, student-faculty interaction, enriching educational experiences, and supportive campus environment. Questions include: How many written papers or reports of 5 to 19 pages were you asked to produce this year? How often did you work with other students outside of class to prepare an assignment? How often did you discuss ideas with faculty outside of class? Did you study abroad? How do you rate the quality of your relationships with other students?" (that quotation from this Jay Mathews column linked by Highered Intel.)
Sounds like the kind of assessment test I referred to here, and it might provide the kind of information about the effectiveness of university teaching the Illinois legislature is seeking. Why, then, do the universities distance themselves from this survey faster than a Laser on a screaming reach? Mathews suggests the dirty little secret is, there's precious little value added being delivered by universities, particularly the pricey ones. Highered Intelligence is a bit more skeptical. I tend to agree, but suggest that finding a more accurate assessment test is a waste of time. It's much simpler to look at student performance five, or ten, or twenty years out, and to discover which talents have been particularly useful, and whether the university has done anything to hone those talents.
Sounds like the kind of assessment test I referred to here, and it might provide the kind of information about the effectiveness of university teaching the Illinois legislature is seeking. Why, then, do the universities distance themselves from this survey faster than a Laser on a screaming reach? Mathews suggests the dirty little secret is, there's precious little value added being delivered by universities, particularly the pricey ones. Highered Intelligence is a bit more skeptical. I tend to agree, but suggest that finding a more accurate assessment test is a waste of time. It's much simpler to look at student performance five, or ten, or twenty years out, and to discover which talents have been particularly useful, and whether the university has done anything to hone those talents.
MORE ON MICROSOFT. Brad DeLong has weighed in on the recent Microsoft ruling. The unanswered question he raises is classic Bastiat: we see Microsoft. What have we not seen in the way of innovation in operating systems? In his post, he has not addressed this dimension: to what extent was Microsoft's creativity diverted to battling the Justice Department, or avoiding the kind of product development that proved to be unreasonable for United Shoe Machinery?
IT'S CALLED A MARKET TEST. "The pattern of traditional teaching methods faring better in rigorous comparisons than more open-ended ones, and then of the open-ended ones flourishing nevertheless, has repeated itself many times over. The best-known instance of the phenomenon is probably the endless battle between the proponents of phonics and of whole language instruction. Virtually every impartial effort to analyze the hundreds of studies on the subject, most recently by the Reading Panel of the National Institutes of Health, has found that the step-by-step approach of phonics is more effective, especially with poor children." That's from James Traub's investigation of educational methods chosen for their aesthetic appeal (at least to mushy-headed people) rather than for their effectiveness.
Joanne Jacobs, who comments on Traub's article, also discovers something that looks encouraging. "Also in the Times, a reporter visits Ernie Davis Middle School, her alma mater, which is now on the "failing" schools list. She finds the principal and teachers are working hard to raise test scores. In every classroom, students are reminded that an essay needs a topic sentence, supporting sentences with facts and examples, and a conclusion. Students are urged to speak in complete sentences." That's progress. Pick two or three Big Ideas, and use them, and use them, and use them, until using them correctly is as automatic as breathing.
Joanne Jacobs, who comments on Traub's article, also discovers something that looks encouraging. "Also in the Times, a reporter visits Ernie Davis Middle School, her alma mater, which is now on the "failing" schools list. She finds the principal and teachers are working hard to raise test scores. In every classroom, students are reminded that an essay needs a topic sentence, supporting sentences with facts and examples, and a conclusion. Students are urged to speak in complete sentences." That's progress. Pick two or three Big Ideas, and use them, and use them, and use them, until using them correctly is as automatic as breathing.
BY THEIR FRUITS SHALL YE KNOW THEM. The Chicago Boyz are tired of having the likes of Naomi (No Logo) Klein and Michael (Bowling for Columbine) Moore praised for their good intentions. "It's as though they lacked all imagination and were only capable of projecting their own meanness of spirit onto the creative people whom they vilify, while at the same time taking for granted the creatives' enormous accomplishments which make the modern world possible."
Amen.
Amen.
BALANCED JOB COMPLEXES. The Onion presents the problem of egalitarian division of labor as comedy. Governor Bradford's story of the same problem, and its resolution, is a little bit longer.
DESERVEDLY LOW PUBLIC OPINION. Critical Mass destroys the notion that "free speech is one thing, hate speech another." And more. Alas, his line "one person's hate is another person's truth" doesn't work really well.
THE EXECUTION OF AGHAJARI IS THE EXECUTION OF THE UNIVERSITY: Instapundit recommends Charles Paul Freund's essay noting that Iranian Professor Hashem Aghajari might well not appeal his death sentence, in order to compel Iran's mullahs to "confront their own barbarity." (Aghajari is a disabled veteran of the Iraq-Iran war.)
There is a call to arms to U.S. academicians, as well "Prominent secularist scholars, such as Egypt's Nasr Abu Zeid, have been driven from their jobs and even from their countries by Islamist student and faculty thugs who have been terrorizing intellectual life. Iran's students, on the other hand, appear anxious to be rid of their failed revolution, and to rejoin the modern world. As one prominent student told a student press agency, 'We must reach a stage in our destiny that we have lawful rights and freedoms'." We can do no less. It is not as if Donna Shalala knows how to tie a rope, or Loren Crabtree has tanks in his garage, or their brain-brothers or -sisters infesting the other universities can do anything more effective than screech.
There is a call to arms to U.S. academicians, as well "Prominent secularist scholars, such as Egypt's Nasr Abu Zeid, have been driven from their jobs and even from their countries by Islamist student and faculty thugs who have been terrorizing intellectual life. Iran's students, on the other hand, appear anxious to be rid of their failed revolution, and to rejoin the modern world. As one prominent student told a student press agency, 'We must reach a stage in our destiny that we have lawful rights and freedoms'." We can do no less. It is not as if Donna Shalala knows how to tie a rope, or Loren Crabtree has tanks in his garage, or their brain-brothers or -sisters infesting the other universities can do anything more effective than screech.
FORTY FEET BELOW. The Central Electric Railfans Association recently published a definitive history of the Chicago Tunnel Company, a network of tunnels originally intended for telephone cabling, but later used for a narrow gauge railroad that delivered mail, goods and coal to downtown buildings, and hauled away ashes. Al Capone's gang did NOT use the tunnels for any purposes, contrary to legend. The trains stopped running in 1959, and the network was forgotten until a dredging accident in April 1992 let water into the tunnels, and subsequently into the basements of many buildings in the Chicago Loop.
The history refers to an automated tunnel railway inspired by Chicago's, and built by Royal Mail in London. Where Worlds Collide reports the impending closure of this railway. Will some future Geraldo Rivera look for hidden Windsor treasures in those tunnels?
The history refers to an automated tunnel railway inspired by Chicago's, and built by Royal Mail in London. Where Worlds Collide reports the impending closure of this railway. Will some future Geraldo Rivera look for hidden Windsor treasures in those tunnels?
LESSONS RELEARNED. The November 2002 print edition of the Atlantic (not available online) includes Mark Bowden's report on the activities of the 391st Fighter Squadron in Afghanistan. There is one story, in which Army ground controllers working with the Northern Alliance, confronted a Taliban force with equal troop strength and tanks. The Northern Alliance troops were preparing to bug out, as it was a cloudy day, and no Northern Alliance armor to hand.
Then a Taliban tank exploded. A few minutes later, so did another. As, eventually, went all the Taliban armor on that field.
No, this is not an opportunity to marvel over U.S. technology. You have read your Tom Clancy, haven't you?
Rather, I want to direct your attention to this part of the story. The Army reports coordinates in degrees, minutes, and seconds. The Air Force uses degrees, minutes, and thousands of minutes. The smart bombs are therefore programmed in the latter. The interval between tank explosions was the time it took the weapons service officer in the plane to convert, using pencil, paper, and a Casio calculator watch to convert the Army's coordinate to Air Force coordinates. Once that calculation was completed, the Air Force advised the Army spotter to turn on his battery-powered laser, and then the bomb went.
We have been here before. Stephen Ambrose, in D-Day, notes that there was no "working method of communication between the soldiers on the ground with those eager-to-shoot P-38 pilots over their heads." That coordination was in place by December of 1944, and worked during the Ardennes battle.
The Washington Monthly, a frequent critic of interservice rivalry, does not appear to have picked up this story yet. Please advise me if I am in error.
Then a Taliban tank exploded. A few minutes later, so did another. As, eventually, went all the Taliban armor on that field.
No, this is not an opportunity to marvel over U.S. technology. You have read your Tom Clancy, haven't you?
Rather, I want to direct your attention to this part of the story. The Army reports coordinates in degrees, minutes, and seconds. The Air Force uses degrees, minutes, and thousands of minutes. The smart bombs are therefore programmed in the latter. The interval between tank explosions was the time it took the weapons service officer in the plane to convert, using pencil, paper, and a Casio calculator watch to convert the Army's coordinate to Air Force coordinates. Once that calculation was completed, the Air Force advised the Army spotter to turn on his battery-powered laser, and then the bomb went.
We have been here before. Stephen Ambrose, in D-Day, notes that there was no "working method of communication between the soldiers on the ground with those eager-to-shoot P-38 pilots over their heads." That coordination was in place by December of 1944, and worked during the Ardennes battle.
The Washington Monthly, a frequent critic of interservice rivalry, does not appear to have picked up this story yet. Please advise me if I am in error.
WORKING YOUR WAY THROUGH COLLEGE Rachel Lucas discovers all the supplemental charges that accompany college enrollment these days. The comments are worth reading also.
COMMIT AND SWITCH. Atlantic Blog discovers the dirty little secret of "relationships." And think about the terms that come in train: "issues," "baggage," and the like.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
