Settings
About Us
Categories
Search
Archives
Links
Miscellany
Well, actually one could write a Ph.D. dissertation on why the city of Detroit sucks. But if you could distill it into a single 200-word story, it would be this one. Any city who elects leaders that believe the future of that city requires outside assistance – that city, by definition, sucks.
Apollo posted this at 9:11 PM HKT on Tuesday, April 12th, 2011 as Amer-I-Can!, Crocodile Tears
Being forced to buy a school lunch—and prevented from bringing your own food—is tremendously paternalistic. The principal’s explanation should infuriate us:
Fernando Dominguez cut the figure of a young revolutionary leader during a recent lunch period at his elementary school.
“Who thinks the lunch is not good enough?” the seventh-grader shouted to his lunch mates in Spanish and English.
Dozens of hands flew in the air and fellow students shouted along: “We should bring our own lunch! We should bring our own lunch! We should bring our own lunch!”
Fernando waved his hand over the crowd and asked a visiting reporter: “Do you see the situation?”
At his public school, Little Village Academy on Chicago’s West Side, students are not allowed to pack lunches from home. Unless they have a medical excuse, they must eat the food served in the cafeteria.
Principal Elsa Carmona said her intention is to protect students from their own unhealthful food choices.
“Nutrition wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school,” Carmona said. “It’s about the nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom). It’s milk versus a Coke. But with allergies and any medical issue, of course, we would make an exception.”
Carmona said she created the policy six years ago after watching students bring “bottles of soda and flaming hot chips” on field trips for their lunch. Although she would not name any other schools that employ such practices, she said it was fairly common.
But the real outrage is buried:
At Claremont Academy Elementary School on the South Side, officials allow packed lunches but confiscate any snacks loaded with sugar or salt. (They often are returned after school.) Principal Rebecca Stinson said that though students may not like it, she has yet to hear a parent complain.
It always comes back to parents. Do homemade cookies count as a snack loaded with sugar? If parents aren’t willing to stand up to this Soviet-style waste—the students refuse to eat the food they’re required to buy—then the authoritarian schools and the servile parents deserve each other. The lessons the children are learning at school? Waste is ok, common sense is bad, and doing whatever the bureaucracy mandates is acceptable. There are ways to raise a free citizenry; this ain’t it.
Hubbard posted this at 11:13 AM HKT on Monday, April 11th, 2011 as Edjamacation, Ex Pede Herculem
Ron Radosh reviews some of the recent ignorant journalism regarding Bob Dylan’s trip to China. The quote in the title is from this post, and is my take away from this whole thing. I am an enormous fan Dylan fan and a native English speaker, yet he has entire albums whose meanings escape me. I went to a Dylan concert, and I simply don’t think it was possible, if you didn’t already know the songs, to make heads or tales of what he was singing.
Yet somewhere in China an office of Commie bureaucrats, who almost certainly speak marginal English, read through the thousand or so songs in Dylan’s repetoire to decide which ones were subversive and which ones weren’t. That’s an awesome thought.
Apollo posted this at 9:14 AM HKT on Monday, April 11th, 2011 as Pop Culture Is Filth, Those Wacky Foreigners
If Republicans claim that two plus two equals six, and Democrats claim that two plus two equals eight, then the American people will usually decide that two plus two equals seven. The point isn’t that Americans can’t do math (nobody can these days) but that Americans act and vote as though the best possible option is the middle one.
The middle way is politically important, which is why most politicians claim to be centrists and carefully deride any extremist who does out of the mainstream things like claiming that two plus two equals four. The exception that proves the rule is Barry Goldwater: “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!” In 1964, Americans went with their usual moderation.
A key to Barack Obama’s political success is that he’s soothing and seems moderate. If Republicans want to beat him, they need to make a serious, mainstream critique of him and avoid wading into the fever swamps. In short, they need to avoid Michael Moore disease.
Enter Donald Trump. He has no experience in elected office, a sordid past, and would be unknown were it not for his knack self-promotion. We cannot even call him a reliable money maker, as he’s had to declare business bankruptcy and nearly had to declare personal bankruptcy. But he’s fueling the Birther movement in an attempt to wound Obama. Given that Obama’s certificate of live birth can be seen on Snopes.com, we must wonder how President Trump would spend taxpayer money if this is how he wastes his own cash.
Yet this isn’t the worst that Trump can do.
The precedent here is Michael Moore’s attempt to defeat Bush in 2004. Plenty of moderates and conservatives had serious reservations about George W. Bush: he signed campaign finance reform, spent money like water, and didn’t seem to realize that the Iraq war was inexorably turning into a fiasco. But Moore’s unserious critique overshadowed anything that the mainstream Democrats churned out. In Michael Moore’s world, Bush was chimpymcburtonbushitler who went to war for oil and to torture minority children. Bush won reelection because he seemed like a moderate adult compared to the crazies who drowned out John Kerry.
Donald Trump could become the right-wing Michael Moore. And this is bad news for people who want to see Obama defeated. The anti-Obama crowd who like Donald Trump would do well to recall what Andrew Ferguson said of Michael Moore:
Bush himself remained vulnerable (Moore wasn’t the only fat target on offer this year). There was a serious critique of his presidency to be made, and occasionally more sophisticated Democrats—such as the suave editorial writers at the New Yorker, or even, sometimes, Kerry himself—would make it. But it was the Moore caricature that got the true believers’ hearts started every morning and that came to define the Democratic attacks on Bush. And the caricature, unlike the substantive critique, was absurd, and was understood as absurd by anyone not already consumed with hatred for the object of the caricature.
Hate is nothing new in American politics, needless to say. It’s probably [as] unavoidable as a leaven in the loaf. But its dangers have seldom been so evident as they were this year. Democrats might want to reacquaint themselves with Nixon’s farewell. Michael Moore is too clever and cynical a showman to destroy himself, as Nixon did. Democrats who succumbed to Moore’s showmanship may not be so fortunate.
Donald Trump will always land on his lenders’ feet. What will Republicans land on?
Hubbard posted this at 9:32 PM HKT on Sunday, April 10th, 2011 as Is It 2012 Yet?, Possession by the Coultergeist
The California Bar Association is requesting that US News & World Reports include “diversity” as a factor in its law school rankings. They want it to be 15% (!) of the overall score.
The obvious problem is how does one measure diversity. Well the California bar suggests three ways, one of which is “Surveying diversity professionals at law schools on diversity reputation.”
Yes, they believe that each law school’s racial discrimination policies should be judged by racial discrimination professionals at other schools, and that the opinion of these professional race discriminaters should influence the decision of where prospective law students spend three years of their life and six digits of their dollars.
I say that any prospective student who actually considers that information when selecting a law school should be immediately made a lawyer – perhaps even as a judge - because plainly there is nothing law school could do to increase that person’s analytical ability.
Apollo posted this at 3:31 PM HKT on Friday, April 8th, 2011 as Edjamacation, Race
Be still, my heart, but the Texas House of Representatives has passed a bill that would allow speed limits as high as 85 mph. Having driven the road to El Paso, I’m not convinced 85 is high enough (I was once given a warning in Hudspeth County for doing 86 in an 80, and I was spending about half of my time in the right lane being passed), but it’s better than the status quo. The only reason I can think of to keep the limit that low is that American drivers have for too long been forced to drive too slow, so the speed limit should only be increased incrementally. Given the capabilities and safety of modern automobiles, there are large stretches of the American West where the speed limit, if there should be one, should have three digits.
The harping from the insurance lobbyist is the typical nanny state drivel, arguing that even increasing the speed limit to 75 would cause a “dramatic” increase in deaths. This is poppycock. Since the repeal of the 55 mph limit, most states have had 70 or 75 mph speed limits, and the death rate per mile driven has decreased steadily. We still have a higher fatality rate than Germany, which is more densely populated than America and still has lengthy sections of unrestricted highways. Looking at this map, it’s not obvious to me that the Western states with a 75 mph limit fare significantly worse than those states with a limit of 70 or below.
Apollo posted this at 3:12 PM HKT on Thursday, April 7th, 2011 as Deep in the Heart of Texas
I think it’s pretty weird that Donald Trump has jumped so completely into the birther movement. Trump’s no fool, but there’s a question of what he’s aiming to get out of it. Is he really interested in becoming president? This seems like an odd way of going about it; actual birthers (as opposed to people who tell pollsters that Obama’s a non-citizen Muslim as a means of expressing opposition) are a significant but not driving force in Republican politics. I can’t imagine their votes are enough to win the primary, and those who oppose birtherism generally do so quite vehemently.
But I’m also not convinced that Trump’s merely doing this as a publicity stunt. He’s Donald Trump – how could his profile get any higher? And aligning himself with a widely despised political faction is not likely to increase sales of his ties at Macy’s.
Whatever his intentions, he’s his own man and can do with his money as he sees fit. His actions here, though, seem likely to benefit Republicans without offering much in the way of downside. In the highly unlikely event his investigators find something, well that benefits the party in obvious ways (and is the sort of thing that actually should be made public). If they don’t, Trump has only a marginal connection to the Republican party, even less connection to the conservative movement, and thanks to his reputation this will be chalked up as just another publicity stunt without any connection to Republicans. Moreover, it will discourage other candidates from venturing into this field and allow them an easy out with birthers during the primary: “Look, this has been seriously investigated by a man with billions of dollars, and if he didn’t find anything I think that’s a strong indication that there’s nothing there.” Win, win.
Worst possible outcome? Trump’s investigators find something and he somehow rides that discovery to the presidency. We could do worse than a President Trump – see 2008, Election of – but it still seems like a pretty excreable idea to me. I doubt, however, that even outing Obama as a secret Muslim Kenyan would be enough to let Trump get the nomination.
Apollo posted this at 10:18 AM HKT on Thursday, April 7th, 2011 as Is It 2012 Yet?, Lord, What Fools These Mortals Be!
First the president revealed he doesn’t know about getting cars out of ditches, then he revealed that he doesn’t know about gears. Now he reveals that he doesn’t know about modern fuel economy:
Obama needled one questioner who asked about gas prices, now averaging close to $3.70 a gallon nationwide, and suggested that the gentleman consider getting rid of his gas-guzzling vehicle.
“If you’re complaining about the price of gas and you’re only getting 8 miles a gallon, you know,” Obama said laughingly. “You might want to think about a trade-in.”
What car gets 8 miles per gallon? The story doesn’t mention what sort of car the guy had, whether he actually got 8 mpg (even if you’re driving a Prius, wouldn’t rising gas costs bother you?), or whether Obama just made that number up. Given the joking tone, I’m going to think he made it up.
But honestly, could you buy an 8 mpg car today if you tried? From the 2010 model year: a 530 horsepower, V12 Ferrari 612 with an automatic (!?) gets 9 mpg city and 16 highway; a Maybach 57 S weighs over 6000 pounds and is powered by a V12 that produces 603 horsepower, but it still gets 10 mpg city and 16 mpg highway; the fastest sedan in the world, a Porsche Panamera Turbo, with 542 horsepower, gets 4 passengers from 0-60 in 3.3 seconds, and still gets an, um, miserly 15 mpg city and 23 mpg highway; but if you don’t want to look like a jerk in your Panamera, you could settle for a 500 horsepower BMW M5, which will get you to 60 in a grandma-like 4.7 seconds while getting 11 mpg city and 17 mpg highway.
But enough about high-end imports, what about the dread SUVs. Surely they get 8 mpg, right? A Ford Expedition comes in around 3 tons, and in its most fuel inefficient form gets 12 city and 17 highway (9/13 if you use ethanol fuel, which is less efficient than regular gasoline and still isn’t as inefficient as the president’s out-of-his-ass number). It may be weighed down with three tons of bling, but a Cadillac Escalade, gets 13 city and 20 highway. A 4 wheel drive Hummer would still get no worse than 9 mpg city, and that’s using inefficient ethanol (it gets 13 city on regular gas).
Looking over the entire 2010 model year, I can find exactly two cars that get 8 mpg, and for both of them that’s the city number. What are they? What gas-guzzlers was the president addressing today? What group of Americans are driving up the cost of gas by using 8 mpg (city) cars? My countrymen, our president today saw fit, evidently, to mock the owner of either a Lamborghini Murcielago (641 horsepower V12, 0-60 in 3.3 seconds, and it still gets 9 mpg city if you’re a boob and opt for the automatic transmission) or the fastest car in the world, the 987-horsepower, 0-60-in 2.46-seconds, almost-as-fast-as-a-supersonic-fighter jet Bugatti Veyron, which gets 8 mpg city and 14 mpg highway. Yes, it seems like our president took time out of his busy schedule to scold Simon Cowell for being a cheapskate.
Anyone who knows the slightest about cars knows that getting 8 mpg is simply preposterous in today’s world. I once spent a day at a race track in a 300 horsepower BMW 335, during which I always had either the break or the accelerator in contact with the carpet, and I still got 7 mpg. But I guess I agree with the president on this one point: if you’ve got a million dollar car and are complaining about gas prices, you should probably trade it in.
Apollo posted this at 9:01 PM HKT on Wednesday, April 6th, 2011 as Barack Obama Couldn't Persuade a Bear to Crap in the Woods
Seen today in Austin:
So, um, how’d that work out for you?
Apollo posted this at 7:03 PM HKT on Wednesday, April 6th, 2011 as Audacity of Hype, CHANGE!
Since moving to Texas I’ve been baffled by the virtual absence of brewpubs. The environment seems perfect for them – a state of do-it-yourselfers, a regulatory environment that encourages small businesses, and a culture that prizes authentic Texasness almost above all else. Yet in my city of a million people, I’m aware of just a small handful. Austin should be absolutely teaming with small breweries.
Intuitively, I guessed the reason was government, and it turns out I’m right. The quote in the title of this post is from a brewpub owner, who points out that if he owned a brewpub in another state he could sell his beer in Texas grocery stores and restaurants, but because of the inanity of Texas’s alcohol regulation, a brewpub in Texas cannot sell beer at any other site. Another brewpub owner in the story points out that he owns other restaurants and cannot sell the beer from his brewpubs at other restaurants he owns.
The story quotes a beer distributors’ lobbyist presenting the “argument” in favor of maintaining the current regulations:
Both sides cite the Texas wine market, which allows wineries to sell both to consumers at the vineyards and to wholesalers for distribution in stores, in their arguments about HB 660.
McKinney says the wine market is “chaotic.”
Oh, the chaos!
Apollo posted this at 10:06 AM HKT on Monday, April 4th, 2011 as Deep in the Heart of Texas, Who's Your Nanny?
Why Command Economies and stimulus doesn’t work:
Jamie posted this at 10:56 AM HKT on Saturday, April 2nd, 2011 as It's Economics - Stupid!
So what’s worse: the administration refusing to seek Congressional approval for it’s Libya adventure (which, at least at the beginning of this fiasco, almost certainly would have been granted), or waiving around a March 1 Senate resolution that absolutely no one at the time thought authorized American military involvement as proof that Congress has approved this war? Is war now so mundane that Congress can be tricked into declaring it, like getting a road project for a Congressman’s district or rearranging a pet agency? And, um, anyone else notice that only one house of Congress voted on that resolution? Unlike Barry, I’ve never taught a constitutional law course, but I seem to recall there being two houses of Congress.
Apollo posted this at 10:04 PM HKT on Friday, April 1st, 2011 as CHANGE!, To the Shores of Tripoli, We don't need no stinkin' Constitution
