Quiet Declarations

The Times has a couple of decent op-eds this morning lamenting the current incarnation of the State of the Union address. It is constitutionally mandated in some form but that form need not be a speech, and as Francis Wilkinson suggests, it certainly ought not be a speech if it’s going to become little more than an annual exercise in imperial grandstanding. The modern State of the Union is in fact far more about power, legacy, agenda setting, and poll watching than actually communicating an honest assessment to the people, and that sounds pretty far from the original purpose of keeping the president accountable to the Congress. Ted Widmer adds value in a separate column by describing how the rhetoric itself is so insulated and tawdry that it serves as little more than a thinly-veied attempt to convince us everything’s just fine that somehow always manages to bore us to tears in the process.

Regardless of the president, party, or current events, I try to watch the SOTU every year. Guess it’s a little bit of ritual combined with a lot of wanting to have my act together for the water cooler the next day. But I can’t tell you the last time I heard a single sentence I thought was even creative let alone worthwhile. I was amused once: several years ago I recall Clinton breaking from the text to make fun of Congress for see-sawing their applause on every point of his speech. But other than making fun of the event itself, tonight I’m prepping for two hours of boredom.

[Update 1/31/06: The Agitator wakes up earlier than I do and thus beat me to a SOTU diatribe, linking to Gene Healy’s take on The Speech.]

Two observations by a friend that paint a fairly accurate picture of this city:

“I’ve only met one person who was actually from DC, and I was like ‘wow, you’re from DC? How can you be from DC? That’s like being from the airport! Nobody’s from the airport; they just visit the airport at certain points in their life!’”

“I’m a huge Lord of the Rings fan, and I’ve given this a lot of thought: DC is a lot like Mordor, and everyone’s searching for the ring.”

People you haven’t seen in a while always ask what you’ve been doing lately. Well, truth be told, the month of January has been pretty uneventful.

New Year’s was pretty weird — hanging out with Ricky the Italian and his grandparents, then crashing a roof party on DuPont Circle — but that’s a much longer story than I’m prepared to tell. Work has been just slow enough that I haven’t needed to put in much overtime, the blog was down for nearly two weeks due to server issues, and nothing particularly eventful has been going on in the DC social scene.

So what’s a guy to do when things get slow?

That’s right, I grew a beard. This pic is from a pseudo-GQ photo shoot I had to take for a publication that needed my photo. I’m not bragging; quite the contrary in fact — this really is the most interesting thing that’s happened in the last four weeks. But, I’m not really the beard kind of guy, so I went a different direction instead:

Well, I went that direction for about an hour anyway, during which time I fell victim to the flatmate’s camera. They were trying desperately to get me to wear a cowboy hat and boots, but fortunately I own neither. The porn-star-mustache phase of my life ended rather quickly.

This picture was taken about ten minutes ago by my flatmates, who have recently become obsessed with taking the perfect semi-candid photo of my profile. At their request, and in honor of their brief venture into amateur photography, I’ve posted these pictures for all to ridicule. Have a nice evening.

I try to check out Wizbang’s Weekly Caption Contest when I remember. The winning entries of this week’s contest struck me as particularly hysterical. (My favorite was #3, but #5 was pretty awesome too.)

This isn’t the type of issue I normally bring up, but I got pretty incensed by this post by Radley on how police always seem to shoot the dog in any kind of raid. In particular, it reminded me of an incident in Cookeville, Tennessee, that made national headlines in 2003.

Synopsis: as a family of tourists drove away from a gas station near Cookeville, someone saw money flying from their car and reported a possible robbery. The police stopped the car, put the parents and their teenage son on the ground and handcuffed them, ignored their pleas to close the car doors so their their two dogs wouldn’t escape, and when one dog jumped out of the car an officer promptly shot it. It later turned out that the dad had merely left his wallet on the car roof at the gas station. Oh, and the entire incident was recorded on video.

Note the statement from the Cookeville Chief of Police:

I know the officer wishes that circumstances could have been different so he could have prevented shooting the dog…. It is never gratifying to have to put an animal down, especially a family pet, and the officer assures me that he never displayed any satisfaction in doing so.

So what does this mean exactly? The officer wasn’t happy that the circumstances required him to shoot the dog? Well, I don’t know this for a fact, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if some police departments had official “shoot first, ask questions later” policies regarding dogs, probably because a few criminals are training pitbulls to attack police or something. But shooting first seems like a completely ludicrous idea when you consider (a) the minimal impact the vast majority of dogs will have on the vast majority of raids, and (b) the complete public relations disaster that any dog shooting brings about.

I suspect Radley’s anecdotal evidence is dead on: enough people get killed every day, and enough of them are the real bad guys, that some people can become desensitized to loss of human life. But the media and the public never let you live it down if you shoot the dog.

I should mention that there is one small consolation in this tragedy. Radley claims that courts never reward the pet owner in these types of cases, and according to Section 39-14-205(b) of the Tennessee Cruelty to Animals Statutes this would seem correct:

39-14-205 Intentional killing of animal.

(b) A person is justified in killing the animal of another if such person acted under a reasonable belief that the animal was creating an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury to such person or another or an imminent danger of death to an animal owned by such person. A person is not justified in killing the animal of another if at the time of the killing such person is trespassing upon the property of the owner of such animal. The justification for killing the animal of another authorized by this subsection shall not apply to a person who, while engaging in or attempting to escape from criminal conduct, kills a police dog that is acting in its official capacity. In such case the provisions of subsection (a) shall apply to such person.

But maybe in this case the PR value to the City of Cookeville outweighed the city’s technical ability to win the lawsuit: the parties settled for $77,500 nearly two years later. Oh, and some officers had to attend two days of dog sensitivity training.

In perhaps the one type of instance I’m willing to overlook my self-imposed work-blog segregation, I’d like to post the descriptions of two summer internship programs sponsored by the Institute for Humane Studies. While I haven’t personally participated in either, I know many people who have and their reviews simply could not be more glowing. If anybody needs more information about these programs, feel free to email me and I can certainly get your questions answered.

Charles G. Koch Summer Fellow Program

The Koch Summer Fellow Program is an intensive eight-week paid summer internship program that offers free-market policy experience and professional training. This year’s program has added the field of nonprofit management to its lineup of Washington, D.C. opportunities, as well as positions at State Policy Network organizations for those who want to work on policy at the state! level. Stipend, career workshops, furnished housing, and travel reimbursement provided. For more information, please visit the program website at www.TheIHS.org/intern. Deadline: January 31, 2006.

IHS Journalism Internships

The 10-week paid IHS Journalism Internship Program is an excellent opportunity for students interested in a career in journalism. Interns spend the summer reporting for a daily paper (instead of making coffee and copies) and leave with a portfolio of clips. The internship program provides a general stipend, housing allowance, mentoring from successful journalists, and travel reimbursement. More information is available on the program website at www.TheIHS.org/journalism. Deadline: January 31, 2006.

“If I lived in Baltimore, and I were the kind of person I would want to meet, I would move to D.C.”

Jacob, in my response to my suggestion that he join me at a friend’s party in Baltimore to meet some new people.

So at most grocery stores now, when the computer prints your receipt at checkout it also prints out one or more coupons for you. What I can only assume is an extremely sophisticated algorithm uses the groceries purchased to compute the customer’s most likely preferences and then prints what it believes to be the optimal coupon for future use. Well, on a recent trip to Harris Teeter I made a purchase consisting largely of Dr Pepper, Coors Light, and Little Debbie snack cakes. At the register, the computer performed its calculations, using my purchases to create a profile of my personal needs, and ultimately produced this coupon:

This week 20/20 aired a special called Stupid in America: How we Cheat our Kids. The crux of John Stossel’s argument is that the problems facing American public education are systematic, and that calling insufficient funding the primary obstacle to improvement is not only wholly incorrect but in fact destructive to improvement efforts. Stossel also revised his argument for a Reason Online preview as well as a follow-up piece on the subject. Not everyone likes Stossel’s style — I for one wish you couldn’t tell his side of every issue simply by the tone of his voice — but his special did a great job of touching on nearly all the major components of this extremely complex problem.

I’ve been able to wrestle with these issues some in grad school and in my workplace, so while I’m no expert I do think I understand the basics, and what upsets me the most about this “debate” is that it’s not really a debate so much as a special interest shoutdown in which the sides were chosen before the facts were considered. The issues are “underfunded” vs. “unaccountable” more than test scores or reading levels or graduation rates or preparation for college and life. Whether or not a citizen believes “No Child Left Behind” is well designed — or even well intentioned — is more closely correlated with one’s opinion of the President than one’s opinion of the problem. Why do partisan legislators and career lobbyists get to create a world where you have to choose between improved teacher pay and improved accountability? And still worse, why do we have to make that choice exclusively at the ballot box once every two years, at best?

Many of my friends are public schoolteachers — among the best, brightest, and most dedicated by every indication I have — and I suspect they’ll agree that the problems Stossel cites definitely exist. Over the years I’ve heard them say that the public school system doesn’t pay teachers enough, makes class sizes too big, forces them into boilerplate rituals for curriculum and student development, strips them of time and resources, has no clue how to manage special education, and hamstrings their ability to do what they do best with debilitating administration or legislation at every level of the system and the government. But what my friends, and every expert I’ve ever heard, disagree on is how to actually fix the problems. It seems there’s no one person, no committee, no board, and no legislative body in the world that can figure out how to provide everything needed to educate all types of children in every way demanded by parents and society while simultaneously providing for its hard-working educators and being efficient stewards of their allocated funding.

So, if no person or team has the capability to devise a solution to such a complicated problem, can American schools ever dream of even approaching this optimal level of service to their constituents and society at large? And if not, how in the world do we prioritize? Well… I do have one suggestion: isn’t this exactly the kind of scenario in which the concept of choice is most useful? Is it possible that, when we let parents prioritize for themselves, we can look at the aggregation of their choices and get a real sense of the kinds of classrooms and schools are most important to them? And while nearly anyone willing to be a public school teacher under the current system is clearly caring, hard-working, and dedicated, wouldn’t teachers and students alike benefit if their administrators have to provide teachers with the resources necessary to compete for the parents’ satisfaction and respect?

Now, when I say choice, I should clarify that I’m not necessarily referring to a particular boilerplate solution. We’re still missing a lot of data. With few exceptions, education research can’t even find weak associations between particular variables and educational improvement, let alone correlations. As a result, I’m extremely sympathetic to the argument that we don’t have enough reliable data to make a case for a wholesale switch to vouchers, charter schools, or even private schools. But these would seem to be arguments in favor of getting the data, not stifling the debate — but for some reason that’s never an allowable compromise. (read: NEA)

Are there counter-arguments worth discussing? Sure there are — it’s extremely relevant to discuss the impact of a closing school on the local community, the financial and social costs of transition, the need to retain accountability of our tax dollars, and whether we can trust parents to make the best decisions for their children, to name a few examples. But we should wage the serious arguments — deriving an intrinsic and, heaven forbid, productive value from educating about education — and not resign ourselves exclusively to the reductio ad absurdum. I don’t have the answers, but I do resent that there are people or organizations out there who don’t even want to have the conversation.

And this brings me to what I like best about John Stossel: he’s not afraid to ask the hard questions in front of what is often a hostile national audience. He’s good enough at his job to warrant a soapbox, and he’s willing to fight the good fight without having to resort to Michael Savage-ian or Nancy Pelosi-esque tactics. If you can get ahold of Friday’s special I recommend watching it, if only to get a different perspective than the average sound byte — and in fact making 20/20 a part of your weekly TV viewing wouldn’t be such a bad idea in general.

(And now we see how many of those internet trollers will come along and prove my point with a random insult about burning in hell for abandoning teachers and minority students, or a lengthy tirade against the Bush administration that nowhere in this soliloquy did I support or defend. It’s not inevitable, but it’s certainly not unpredictable. Please, if you should happen to grace me with your internet presence I prefer attempts at sound reasoning minus the ad hominems.)

[Update 1/19/06: As an afterthought, I did a cursory Google search of the top 200 articles that mentioned the special. Most of the citations were complimentary, but to be fair, I hope you’ll check out a few of the dissenting posts: AS STOSSEL DOES! Stupid is as John Stossel does. on The Daily Howler; Looks Like Stossel Is “Stupid in America” on Tomorrow’s Media Conspiracy Today; Attention in America: Your Children Are Dumb on Daily Kos; A Nasty Title on The SLJ Blog.]

First Eminem is reunited with his ex-wife, and now I’m reunited with my blog… sounds like a week of happy and long-lasting reunions!

I don’t completely understand the details, but basically this site has been down for the past ten days due to an attack on my hosting server that triggered some kind of auto-shutdown of the server’s IP address. Fearing another attack, the internet provider then refused to assign a new IP address until some kind of mandatory waiting period had passed. In other words, weird techie stuff.

Apologies to anyone who sent an email to a cwilcox.com address, because it most likely bounced and I definitely didn’t receive it. On the bright side, though, maybe all those bouncebacks convinced a few spammers I no longer exist!

Stay tuned for ten days of catchup posting….

Maybe it’s because the state’s method for collecting the Unauthorized Substances Tax takes its “Volunteer State” motto to an untenable level. [Hat tip: Julian]

An astute colleague pointed out that this may just be a formal “set-up” so that the state can prosecute for tax evation, if necessary. (Think Al Capone.)

Girl: “I have to lose weight if I’m going to wear my two-piece on the beach!”

Guy: “You could just get a one-piece, they still sell them believe it or not.”

Girl: “No! Nobody cute actually wears those anymore!”

Guy: “But if wearing a two-piece makes you…”

Girl: “I DON’T think you want to finish that sentence.”

Guy: “Um, right. Speaking of, though, what is it with girls wearing two pieces but not changing shirts in front of guys?”

Girl: “That’s just not something you do in front of a guy.”

Guy: “But isn’t a bra the same as a bikini top?”

Girl: “No! A bra is an undergarment! Guys aren’t supposed to see women in just their bra except at certain times!”

Guy: “And yet girls are topless all the time in front of their female roommates, and this is no big deal?”

Girl: “Well yeah, that’s not a big deal at all. Girls can basically figure out what each other’s chest looks like with the clothes on anyway.”

Guy: “But can’t guys figure out the same thing? And if so, then why does it even matter who you’re topless in front of?”

Girl: “Are you just trying to convince me to take my top off for you? Cause…”

Guy: “WAIT, that’s beside the point…”

Girl: “…cause girls don’t do that, and girls who do are slutty! A lady should maintain some level of respectability after all!”

Guy: “Like making sure you are in shape enough to wear your two-piece on the beach?”

Girl: “Exactly!”

If I were bold enough to alienate 50% of my 4-person readership, this would be part I of a 93707238 part series entitled “Girls Be IRRATIONAL.” But since I’m not bold enough, I will have to settle for the fact that just being in the room for conversations like this qualifies as a guilty pleasure.