Quiet Declarations

For animal lovers, this is an observational study of lemmings.  If you’re a policy wonk, this is an argument against direct democracy.  Fashion enthusiasts should read this as my protest of a flawed trend.  And if you’re a Vanderbilt alum, consider this a somber report on a tragedy that has befallen the campus since your departure.

Julian, Eric, Jacob (your name gets linked when you have a blog), and I all returned to Nashville this weekend for a little reunion, conveniently timed around Rites of Spring.  We ate real BBQ and fake Mexican (though still an improvement over DC).  We saw several good bands — I particularly liked Keller Williams, Drive-By Truckers, and Naughty by Nature (whose 5:50pm stage time was a disrespectful slot).  We accidentally invented a new version of Aerobie tossing involving beer.  We also later learned that the Aerobie must have fallen out of the public consciousness, as we attracted a group of frat guys in awe that we could toss a frisbee that far.  We also saw some old friends.  In short, a pretty good trip, except for one rather horrific realization: the muumuu is now in style.

Those who didn’t go to Arizona State or Auburn are usually unprepared for the intensity and sheer volume of attractiveness they encounter in their first visit to Vanderbilt.  When I travel back from DC, I mentally prepare myself and it still takes my eyes several days to adjust.  I visit friends who would have been a 6 of 10 when I was in college and they tell me to stop staring.  But not this time!

Rites of Spring is an outdoor concert, and it was a beautiful weekend.  Vanderbilt women, being largely of sorority persuasion, tend to use the weekend to debut the latest fashion style to the world.  I’m not always a fan of their choices — the resurrection of the tube top, bras with the clear plastic straps, capri pants — but at least none of those styles dramatically interfered with the scale of attractiveness.  In fact, the challenge of the tube top is that it stretches the scale: sure, if you have nice shoulders the tube top can lift you from a 6 to an 8, but if you don’t have nice shoulders you risk plummeting from 6 to 3.  This is the peril of pressure-induced fashion trends!  And still, the volatility of the tube top pales in comparison to the disaster that is the muumuu.

The muumuu is perhaps the worst of all worlds: it is like placing a price ceiling on attractiveness: everyone above a 5 becomes a 5 by wearing one, but no one below a 5 can become more attractive by wearing one.  (And I may be generous at a 5 — remember the eye adjust thing.)  I’m told that no one on campus wore this before Friday, and that it was some kind of spontaneous mass early adoption.  Some wore them with bows.  Some wore them with belt buckles.  Why?  WHY???  Try a google image search on muumuu: do you notice a theme?  People in muumuus look (a) very, very large, (b) very, very large and pregnant, or (c) very, very large and male.  One of the pictures even has a cow wearing a muumuu.  If you have a figure, or anything even close to resembling an approximation of a figure, why would you destroy it so thoughtlessly?  Surely there are other ways to feel comfortable on a breezy day?  What happened to the summer dress?  The bikini top?  Even a t-shirt?

No, I’m not done!  To further emphasize the point, consider that the muumuu is a Hawaiian invention.  Anybody ever seen what a native Hawaiian woman (who didn’t leave the island) looks like?  I did a google image search and this was the top result — from the Census Bureau!!  Who thinks this is attractive?  Yeah yeah, I know some critics think that sometimes women don’t seek validation in that way… but this is Vanderbilt we’re talking about, so you are wrong.

Vanderbilt ladies: the muumuu has a purpose, and you are not it.  And if you still think you are it, there are people you can call.

Okay, now I’m done.

This guy is awesome:

Big Walt, as he is known, is a 6-foot-5 defensive tackle who wears a size XXXXXXL jersey. He bench presses 475 pounds and squats 800 pounds. Weight lifters at the Galveston Health and Racquet Club stop their workouts to watch him.

Football teams everywhere are filled with big men, but many of them can barely move. Thomas has run the 40-yard dash in 4.9 seconds, faster than some N.F.L. tight ends. He is the rare tackle who can catch a running back from behind.

“The guy is a dadgum Russian gymnast,” said Randy Pippin, the head coach at Northwest Mississippi.

Thomas’s flexibility has become part of his lore. He does handstands and handsprings, broad jumps and cartwheels. When he gets excited, he will do a back flip.

The part where he bench presses his friends is great too — read the entire article.

Updates will be light this weekend, as I’m headed to Nashville with several friends for my annual spring pilgrimage, which has come not a moment too soon.  The weather is expected to be perfect for Rites of Spring, and I’m also excited about spending some quality time at my favorite coffeehouse.

Back to my DC way of life on Monday…

Louisiana state Rep. Richard Gallot is opportunistic, an idiot, or both.  Here’s why:

In reaction to the Virginia Tech shooting spree, a Louisiana state lawmaker and higher education officials plan to unveil legislation Wednesday (April 18) to make clear that the state’s public universities can ban guns in student dorm rooms.

Legislation by Louisiana state Rep. Richard Gallot (D) seeks to remove any doubt that guns are banned from college dorm rooms, despite a conflict between a state law allowing Louisiana residents to keep guns in their homes and one banning firearms at universities.

Okay, let’s say you believe America should tighten its gun laws — we can have that conversation.  But what you can not do is try to pass a law based on a completely incorrect premise.  Virginia Tech already is a gun-free zone!  If you want to argue anything about university gun-free zones using this tragedy as your evidence, the only possible case you can even argue is whether to eliminate the zones, not create them! 

Claiming that banning guns on a university’s campus is an appropriate response to this tragedy is completely illogical at best, and shamefully exploitive at worst.  Rep. Gallot, you suck.

He may not believe in the Madden Curse, but I do!  Hence, uh oh…

Dan Drezner adds to a discussion about whether or not it’s appropriate to use a tragedy as an opportunity for policy speculation.  I think it’s part of a broader question, really, about what you’re supposed to do when something mind-jarring occurs.  I’ve always been the kind of person who looks for an opportunity to help, and absent that I tend to just go goes back to what I was doing before, because — well, what else am I supposed to do?  I do my best to avoid making things worse for the people I know who are personally affected or emotionally stricken, but not to the extent that my life becomes abnormal.  So if someone moves on with normal life after natural disasters, terrorist strikes, and tragedies, I certainly don’t think it callous of them and I hope the same courtesy is extended to me.

I’ve done quite a bit of reading on the living wage as an interested party, albeit not as an economist or a sociologist.  My interest comes at least partially from watching the arguments that have played out (and continue to play out) over the past few years on the battlefield that is Vanderbilt.

Generally speaking, the main argument in favor of a living wage is that every employed worker deserves to receive a wage that is sufficient to afford basic necessities.  Opponents argue that employers would be forced to pay a wage higher than the economic value of the employee to the firm, and might have to compensate by reducing employees or raising prices.  (There is, alternatively, a moral argument against government intervention in the actions of private employers, but I’m conducting a policy thought experiment here and leaving that discussion for another day.)

So, here’s my proposed compromise: present the employed worker with a choice.  The worker can either continue to work at the original wage or accept a living wage.  However, workers who opt for the living wage agree to allow a period of open competition for their positions, or for restructured versions of their positions, advertised at the new wage (if the employer chooses to do so).  For example, let’s say an employer now has to pay his employee $10 per hour instead of $7 per hour, or 43% more.  It seems reasonable that to offset the cost, the employer should be allowed to restructure the responsibilities of the position to make it at least 43% more efficient, or to attempt to fill the position with an employee who’s at least 43% more efficient at the position.

The argument in support of my plan is simple.  Presumably the important concern for a living wage advocate is not that people have jobs they don’t deserve or can’t actually perform, but that those who do have jobs actually earn enough money to provide for basic necessities.  And presumably the important concern for the living wage opponent is making sure the employer is getting the economic value of the higher wage to offset the increase in costs.  This plan addresses both those concerns.  Naturally current employees could compete for their roles, and they’d even have a clear advantage due to experience and to the employer’s reluctance to incur turnover costs.  And, of course, the employer is still subject to all existing fair employment and anti-discrimination laws.  Basically the only person who loses is the employee who isn’t able to justify his or her wage increase in a straight-up competition against a better qualified job seeker who’s also willing to work for the new wage.

So, that’s my basic proposal, open for discussion and revision.  How respond the policy critics?

Jane Galt’s post on the subject is worth reading, I think.  It’s hard to paraphrase because the argument should be read in its entirety, but the gist is that even if CEOs are overpaid, it’s inconsequential because the money couldn’t be reallocated in a way that would really benefit the other workers who would supposedly benefit from the money.  My comments, below the break, will probably only be interseting to people who read Jane’s post.

(Continued)

But did it end in victory? You decide. From Jacob, the gist of it is:

The shop’s owner, Barry Taylor, and Montgomery County Executive Isiah Leggett (D) announced a deal yesterday to relocate the shop from Georgia Avenue to 5544 Nicholson Lane in south Rockville, near White Flint Mall.

And the money quote from the Examiner story Jacob references:

The county will provide Taylor with $260,000 over five years to help relocate the shop.

“This is what government is about, really helping small businesses like this, businesses that could fall through the cracks,” Leggett said. “For me, small businesses are the heart of a community and the heart of what folks love about Montgomery County.”

Personally, I find this to be an extremely distasteful outcome, albeit probably the best possible solution one could expect given what had already happened by the time the story broke. Montgomery County spent $987,000 of taxpayers’ money to buy the land under the shop from George Chaconas, who later claimed to have been strong-armed into the deal. They’ve now spent $260,000 to relocate Barry’s Magic Shop. They haven’t even begun to pay for the demolition of the old shop and the actual construction project. And what are the taxpayers eventually, at an unknown future date, going to get? An alley that saves Metro travelers (who probably already chose to come to Wheaton to shop) from having to walk 100 yards to the stop light to cross over to White Flint Mall.

But like I said, don’t take my opinion on this resolution as the authoritative one. Read the facts and you decide.

It’s admittedly an unconventional one, but beggars can’t be choosers.  Congratulations to the women’s bowling team!

[Hat tip: David]

And by the way, my opinion on the Imus thing is best expressed by Radley.

Because PR can make you and destroy you.  Here are two stories yesterday that in my opinion should already have died a swift death, but haven’t:

1. The Duke lacrosse case.  Yesterday the North Carolina attorney general completely exonerated the three accused players.  Read the story, because it’s really quite thorough.  (Also note the NAACP’s rather stoic response.)  The bottom line is that over a year has now passed since this became a national story, and it’s always been obvious to anyone listening that the evidence was insufficient to convict or possibly even accuse the players.  Yet in spite of the evidence — and thanks in no small part to Nancy Grace — it will be a very long time before anyone hears about the Duke lacrosse team without thinking rape.  And that’s truly sad.

2.  The Don Imus scandal.  I’ve never listened to Don Imus, and he may well be a total racist for all I know.  What I do know is he makes a completely unacceptable comment on April 4, he profusely apologizes over and over again, he’s suspended without pay for two weeks, and he’s taking a further financial hit as sponsors are canceling.  Does the Rutgers basketball team really need to go on Oprah too?  Do we really need this to be the next big talking point for Revs. Jackson and Sharpton?  Michael Wilbon says yes, and Tom Delay says no.

[Update 4/11/07: Well, Imus was fired today.  Wonder if we’ll be talking about this again next week.]

So apparently there’s something of a scandal surrounding Wyoming’s annual White House Easter egg submission:

Wyoming officials smell something rotten after an oversight let an out-of-stater design its White House Easter egg, the Cheyenne bureau of The Associated Press reports. An Illinois college student designed the Cowboy State’s egg, because the American Egg Board’s hunt for a new Wyoming egg artist turned up no one. Apparently, the search wasn’t all it was cracked up to be: The board didn’t call the governor’s office or the state’s arts council. The result? A drawing of a goggle-wearing egg on skis, standing on a mountain. (See all of the states’ entries here.)

But that’s not the best part… click the link to see all the states’ eggs and look at Wyoming’s entry.  I’m serious; you won’t be disappointed!

I eat Hamburger Helper at least twice a week, and even I think this is disgusting.

Look, DC public schools suck and everyone knows it.  They’re spending more per student than any city in the nation to have delapidated resources and poor student performance, Teach for America has practically established a colony because there aren’t enough teachers willing to teach in the worst schools, anyone with money is fleeing to the suburbs and to private schools, and the remaining parents are dragging the district kicking and screaming toward charter schools and vouchers.

Since things are so bad, I don’t know whether the power shift giving Mayor Fenty control over the school system will be better or worse than the job the Council was doing.  But read the article and how everyone expects the mayor to save the day, as though the decisions this one politician makes (in all his spare time to focus on this concern) are the difference between a sluggish overregulated underperforming union-crippled bureaucracy and a district whose performance will make parents want to come rushing back from the suburbs and charter schools.

I don’t fault the mayor for the power grab; he’s probably just trying to help, and truth be told, I don’t see how it could get any worse.  But I do fault everyone involved who really believes in the power of “the right politician” to overcome the systemic obstacles in his way to save the day.  There’s a lot less religion here than in the South, but ironically, a lot more blind faith.